Eucharist scripture challenge

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dcana

Guest
I have a challenge for anyone who’d like to try it. Well, not really a challenge but an exercise. For anyone who believes that Jesus was speaking “symbolically” when he talked of the Eucharist (or the Lord’s Supper, if you wish), what words would he have to have said to totally convince you that he was in fact not “speaking symbolically,” both at the Lord’s Supper and in John 6? What would the Scripture look like? Write some scripture and please try to sound a little “scriptural” when you do it if possible - as if somebody unfamiliar with the Bible would not immediately recognize it as an insertion from another author. In other words, try to “sound” like Jesus.
 
Jesus tells Peter to feed his lambs and his sheep. Why exactly is he telling St. Peter, our first Pope, to feed us? To me, it is as clear a reference to the Eucharist being instituted within our church as you can get.

usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john21.htm
Verse 15-17

The bottom line is, Protestants lose their connection to the Jewish faith; they don’t believe in “tradition” so they don’t get what is going on.

Jews used to sacrifice the passover lamb in atonement/sacrifice for their sins. Then the high priest would eat the flesh of the lamb, drink the blood of the lamb and burn the bones of the lamb. What exactly do you think John the Baptist means when he goes, “Behold the Lamb of God?”
 
I think some Protestants would believe Jesus to have been speaking literally if it was said in a sentence like this: “This bread is My body, unless you eat it you won’t have eternal life, and by the way, there is no such thing as a Pope, Mary was a sinner, there’s no Purgatory, the Bible is all you need, and forget about good works.” :rolleyes:
 
This won’t solve the problem. A lot more Protestants are finally starting to “get it” that everything Jesus said was relevant. Many are starting to see that receiving the bread and wine as Body and Blood of Christ (Eucharist) are filling the empty spot in their “worship” services of songs, prayers, preaching and bible reading. So many of the non-liturgical Protestants are now starting to have grape-juice and crackers every so often so they can feel like they are not ignoring any thing Jesus said. Some will continue to believe that it is just symbolic but others will genuinely believe that Christ will become present since “where two or more are gathered in my name there am I”. They will not worry about understanding the mystery or the details but will accept that somehow Jesus just “does it”. The problem now is getting them to accept that Jesus is NOT present in any offering that is not conducted by an apostolically ordained bishop or priest and to accept the spiritual authority of the priesthood. The Anglicans, Episcopalians and Lutherans already pretty much believe in real-presence (of sorts) due to the fact that they came out of the Catholic Church and try to emulate our priesthood to some degree.

So the problem here is two fold: 1) Getting all to believe that Jesus meant what He said about the reality of it being truly His Body and Blood; and also 2) Getting all to believe that only a consecrated priest selected by God and ordained by an apostolic bishop has the spiritual authority to convert the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Jesus could have said: “This is my real body and blood. This is not a metaphor or a symbol but is under the outward appearances of bread and wine my real divine body, blood, soul and divinity. It is a mystery as to how this can be but if you are my disciple you must believe this and partake of me or else you will have no part or share in eternal life since you doubted me and the generosity and the value of the gift I give you.”

If the above were said there would be no room to debate. But knowing the rebellious nature of humans - the next thing would be to presume just anyone could effect the bread and wine. So there would need to be another statement that reads something like this:
“Only my selected and appointed priests who are ordained through the apostolic succession who remain in communion with My Church are permitted to make this offering available to you. All others are pretenders and are committing sacrilege by offering up bread and wine as if my Divinity and are liable to eternal punishment.”

BF
 
great quotes. unfortunately no matter how clear it would be, some one would say it didn’t really mean that…

I’m glad we know. Amen.
 
The words you will find inscribed on many protestant altars that believe in a symbolic only approach is this: “This do in rememberance of me.”

They believe that the bread and wine (believed non-alcoholic by some) was meant to be done ONLY in remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice.
 
I wouldn’t change a word.

I was listening to an old Catholic Forum podcast and a guest on the show said that the passage uses two different words for eating. I don’t know the Greek, but one part of the passage said “eat” and it could be taken symbolically; however, when Jesus says to take the bread and eat it in remembrance of Him, the Greek word changes to the one that means “nibble or gnaw.” There isn’t really a symbolic interpretation of gnaw.
 
bnbkaine said:
I wouldn’t change a word.

I was listening to an old Catholic Forum podcast and a guest on the show said that the passage uses two different words for eating. I don’t know the Greek, but one part of the passage said “eat” and it could be taken symbolically; however, when Jesus says to take the bread and eat it in remembrance of Him, the Greek word changes to the one that means “nibble or gnaw.” There isn’t really a symbolic interpretation of gnaw.
Click to expand...
Yes. The word is “trogo”, which is translated to gnaw. So Jesus was telling us we must “gnaw” His flesh. In John 6, Jesus also had ample opportunity to say to those disciples who were quickly turning away that he was only speaking symbolically, but He did not. He did not because He was not speaking symbolically. He was speaking literally. They knew it, too. That’s why so many were walking away.
 
I know people have left our parish for a protestant denomination because they weren’t being “fed.” in the Catholic Church. To use feed my lambs, feed my sheep might backfire as it would appear that “bible preaching” is what they hunger for. In don’t think they get it that every Mass is loaded with scripture beyond the readings of the day.
 
MarcoPolo said:
I think some Protestants would believe Jesus to have been speaking literally if it was said in a sentence like this: “This bread is My body, unless you eat it you won’t have eternal life, and by the way, there is no such thing as a Pope, Mary was a sinner, there’s no Purgatory, the Bible is all you need, and forget about good works.” :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
First of all, that’s exactly what he said … “and taking the bread he said this is my body.” The second part is nonsensical, arguing that since Scripture does not mention these things in such an explicit fashion, ie, “the Pope is my vicar on earth, Mary was not born with original sin, nor did she ever commit personal sin, there is a place of purification after death called Purgatory, etc” then they *necessarily *must not be true. It’s like a Catholic “proving” the truth of the Papacy, Mary’s sinlessness, the existence of Purgatory, etc. by saying that since there isn’t any passage of the Bible like the hypothetical one (“there is no such thing as a Pope, etc”) then those things must be true. And that is not the way the “God-breathed” Scriptures are written. The Bible says neither “there exists a place called Purgatory” nor does it say, “there is no place called Purgatory.”
 
bona_fides said:
This won’t solve the problem. A lot more Protestants are finally starting to “get it” that everything Jesus said was relevant. Many are starting to see that receiving the bread and wine as Body and Blood of Christ (Eucharist) are filling the empty spot in their “worship” services of songs, prayers, preaching and bible reading. So many of the non-liturgical Protestants are now starting to have grape-juice and crackers every so often so they can feel like they are not ignoring any thing Jesus said.
Click to expand...
Hey, I’m trying my best 🙂

I certainly hope you are correct in your observations, with all my heart. I do believe without a doubt that one day it will be revealed to all that Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament. I hope you’re right in saying that it’s already beginning to happen among our separated brethren. I think you are. I also believe that God will make this known, along with other things, in some extraordinary way that only he knows (with the possible exception of a few other people), such as the world has never before witnessed. Since we as humankind have gone off the deep end in sin and disbelief, that’s probably what it will take to get us back to reality. Maybe not tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, or next year, but maybe indeed tomorrow. Certainly, within a “short” period of time relative to the time span of human history.

There is not a single verse in Scripture that we as Christians should “skip over.” Why would we? It is all “God-breathed,” as many do well to remind us all.
bona_fides said:
Jesus could have said: “This is my real body and blood. This is not a metaphor or a symbol but is under the outward appearances of bread and wine my real divine body, blood, soul and divinity. It is a mystery as to how this can be but if you are my disciple you must believe this and partake of me or else you will have no part or share in eternal life since you doubted me and the generosity and the value of the gift I give you.”
Click to expand...
This is not at all how Scripture is written - (“this is not a metaphor or a symbol” - neither would we expect Jesus to say “This is my body, you know, guys, just like the one you see with your eyes and the hands of which are holding this body before you”) The Bible is not a catechism or a theological treatise, it is Holy Scripture. This was to be elucidated in the time of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who guided it “into all truth.” “This” being the answer to the question “just how exactly is it that Jesus gives us his Flesh to eat and his Blood to drink? We believe it, because he said it, but it is hard to understand.” However, I would argue that Jesus did in fact say those very things in essence at the Last Supper and in John 6. What is the difference between “this is my body” and “this is my real body?” As opposed to what - his “fake” or “symbolic” body? There is no room in the meaning of the words “is” or “my body” to allow for an interpretation of a “fake” or “symbolic” body. It says “this is my body.” And Jesus adds that this body “will be given up for you.” Did he give up for us his “fake” or “symbolic” body? Obviously not. He gave up his real body, that is, his body.

Didn’t Jesus say in John that we must partake of him or else have no part or share in eternal life, and not only once but several times? Is there any teaching of Christ that we can choose not to believe or are we only supposed to believe him if he says “you must believe this?” He never said the words, “You must believe this.” It’s a given. And who are his disciples, the ones who walked away or the ones who remained, the leader of whom declared, “Lord, to whom shall we go?”
bona_fides said:
“Only my selected and appointed priests who are ordained through the apostolic succession who remain in communion with My Church are permitted to make this offering available to you. All others are pretenders…”
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s true, but the problem is that Lutherans, Anglicans, and Episcopalians believe that their priests **are **validly ordained. Naturally, they do not believe Leo XIII’s late-19th century bull stating that these orders are null and void. The Lutheran’s founder repeatedly called the Pope the “anti-Christ,” as everyone knows. Why would his followers put any credence in what “the Pope of Rome” has to say about matters pertaining to their church? As far as I know, other Protestant denominations do not even attempt to consecrate the bread and the wine. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
 
rwoehmke said:
I know people have left our parish for a protestant denomination because they weren’t being “fed.” in the Catholic Church. To use feed my lambs, feed my sheep might backfire as it would appear that “bible preaching” is what they hunger for. In don’t think they get it that every Mass is loaded with scripture beyond the readings of the day.
Click to expand...
Jesus feeds us with his Word during the first part of Mass and, in an even more intimate way - in fact, the most intimate way possible because that’s the way he designed it - with his Body and Blood during the second part of Mass. Why should “feed my lambs” backfire? Although, I myself see it having to do more with the authoritative preaching and teaching of the Pope than with the Eucharist, because Jesus gave this command to Peter alone. He would have said it to all eleven otherwise. His command to preach and teach is recorded at the end of the Gospel of Matthew: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations … teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
 
Our Protestant brothers and sisters have been taught from early on that the Catholic Church teaches error. On one end of the spectrum (Jack Chic, The Death Cookie) those that are rabid anti Catholics are taught that the Church engages in worship of Egyptian gods and practices magic to deceive the people with the Eucharist. On the other hand, some denominations do believe in the real presence in their communion rites at least as long as the congregation is present. The real challenge is to get our Protestant friends to read the sixth chapter of John with the same passion and desire for understanding that they read the rest of John. I fear many of them limit their understanding to John 3:16. There is a short signtedness in Protestant interpretation of the Scripture. In effect, if it bolsters the Catholic view, it can be glossed over. This myopia needs to be cured so that they can see that the Church that Christ founded has been given this great gift simply because Jesus loves us.

What would help a lot I think is if we as Catholics could show that the Eucharist really made a difference in our lives. Perhaps our myopia about what it is we receive is a greater impediment than theirs. Talk and even Scriptural proof can be glossed over but if our lives showed that the Eucharist changed us, then perhaps they would start to listen more closely. A Catholic armed with an understanding of the Eucharist born out by a life lived in response to the Great Gift received would be unstopable.
 
Explain to me what Jesus meant in John 6:48-51 . Was he talking spiritually or physically? And if Physically, then why is it many of catholics that partake of communion dies?
 
mike52ad said:
Our Protestant brothers and sisters have been taught from early on that the Catholic Church teaches error. On one end of the spectrum (Jack Chic, The Death Cookie) those that are rabid anti Catholics are taught that the Church engages in worship of Egyptian gods and practices magic to deceive the people with the Eucharist. On the other hand, some denominations do believe in the real presence in their communion rites at least as long as the congregation is present. The real challenge is to get our Protestant friends to read the sixth chapter of John with the same passion and desire for understanding that they read the rest of John. I fear many of them limit their understanding to John 3:16. There is a short signtedness in Protestant interpretation of the Scripture. In effect, if it bolsters the Catholic view, it can be glossed over. This myopia needs to be cured so that they can see that the Church that Christ founded has been given this great gift simply because Jesus loves us.

What would help a lot I think is if we as Catholics could show that the Eucharist really made a difference in our lives. Perhaps our myopia about what it is we receive is a greater impediment than theirs. Talk and even Scriptural proof can be glossed over but if our lives showed that the Eucharist changed us, then perhaps they would start to listen more closely. A Catholic armed with an understanding of the Eucharist born out by a life lived in response to the Great Gift received would be unstopable.
Click to expand...
The eucharist does not change you. Read Roman 10:17. It is the word of God that changes and instructs and gives guidance. There is a whole lot of taking scripture out of context with your teachings.
 
MarcoPolo said:
I think some Protestants would believe Jesus to have been speaking literally if it was said in a sentence like this: “This bread is My body, unless you eat it you won’t have eternal life, and by the way, there is no such thing as a Pope, Mary was a sinner, there’s no Purgatory, the Bible is all you need, and forget about good works.” :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I think you need to study the bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top