Flip/Flop Thread #4: The Eucharist

[AlanFromWichita]

porthos11:

Surely now, wouldn’t it be possible to get into a drunk-driving accident under the influence of the “blood” of Christ?

I don’t know about how a tiny drop of God’s blood (ok so it’s 24 prrof or whatever) can even register on the relevance scale for driving. Now the priest, I’m not so sure about that – he gets a lot more than most of the others but they don’t have to drive.

Now, when they get more sensitive detection equipment as imminent, and expand the “zero tolerance” notion, I would be curious if detectable alcohol in the breath/blood would become a problem with the law, in the same way as the “religions” who use illicit substances. :banghead:

Sure I’m paranoid and overly dramatic, but don’t paranoids have enemies, too?

Alan

 

[jimmy]

Okay, I have to argue for the symbolic side. Here goes:

The bread and wine…

When Jesus said…

Paul in 1Cor says…

When the priest…

St Ignatius of Antioch was…

All the Church Fathers…

Scripture plainly tells us…

I can’t do it! I’m sorry–not even for make believe. I’m sorry guys, I can’t do it.
:crying:

Mickey, I answered the St. Ignatius of Antioch one for you. Look at my post above.

 

[trumpet152]

Unfinished:

In John 6, if Jesus was merely speaking symbolicly, when his disciples walked away, why did he not call them back?

They weren’t looking for a lecture, they wanted food (v. 26). When Jesus instead gave them a spiritual discusion, they walked away.

Many times in Scripture Jesus is speaking in a parable, and his disciples do not understand, so he goes on further to explain it to them. If Jesus meant to say that eating and drinking his flesh was just symbolism, why would he let his disciples reject him over it?

He gives us free will. They rejected him because of HIM, not a misinterpretation. They wanted him to provide for their material needs, but he didn’t. So they walked away.

Besides, “to eat the flesh and drink the blood” of someone, among the Jews, meant to inflict serious harm upon someone. Is Jesus saying “You must inflict harm upon me for eternal life”? Hardly.

Could you please back this up with some evidence? Just making this claim doesn’t make it a true statement.

And, from what I understand of the Passover, something all Jews understood at the time, is the Passover supper is not complete until you eat the sacrificed lamb.

The lamb was symbolic of the real Christ.
The Eucharist is symbolic of the real Christ.

I see no conflict here.

And of course, as ladylinguist said, Paul speaks so highly of the bread and cup. If I was just chowing down on a french roll and a glass of wine, how could I eat and drink damnnation upon myself? I must eat to survive correct?

Instead, when you partake in the bread and cup, you are partaking in our Lord Jesus, who you should always strive to be worthy to partake in.

This is just any bread or wine; these are symbols of God that are not to be taken lightly! Just because it’s symbolic, doesn’t mean that is useless. An example: Do you own a crucifix? Is it the real Christ? No, of course not. But you treat it with respect, do you not?

Good arguments, Adam. I look forward to your response.

 

[BlackKnight]

(Stolen outright from my buddy CM )
I offer as evidence the following passages of Scripture:

John 6:31-70

"31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. 35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. 38 Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. 40 And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.

41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. "

Nowhere in this passage is there ANY indication of metaphorical meaning or “spiritualization”, in fact the point is repeated several times to drive home the point. For anyone who says they are “Bible Only” Christians to say otherwise is simply not supported by the plain reading of this passage.

 

[BlackKnight]

It is also not true that the early church Fathers believed differently than we do today. Here is an excerpt from the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the church at Smyrna. He was a close friend and disciple of St. John (the last of the apostles to die in about 100 AD), so no one can say that he was taught wrong. His letter is dated about 107 AD.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils

This ties in quite beautifully with these passages from 1st Corinthians.

1st Corinthians 10:16-17

“16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

1st Corinthians 11:23-30

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep. "

So then it becomes pretty plain that neither history nor scripture supports the arguments against the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

link to letter here

 

[Unfinished]

trumpet152:

They weren’t looking for a lecture, they wanted food (v. 26). When Jesus instead gave them a spiritual discusion, they walked away.

Yes, they came to him because he had multiplied the loaves the day before, but they would of walked away as soon as Jesus said that he had no food for them and to not work for food that perishes.

(John 6:28) Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”

In turn, they were looking for a discussion from Jesus. They wanted to know how to get the bread of Life.

They did not walk away until he told them they must eat his flesh and drink his blood.

At lot of people have trouble visualizing this. It is easy not to when it is words written down. But imagine the reaction.

I watches The Passion again last night, and they give it very vividly. When Jesus is brought foward out of the garden and the witnesses start stating chargings, a man comes foward and says “This man says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood!”. The whole crowd groaned.

Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood. (John 6:53) He makes no effort to correct himself, because he meant just that.

He gives us free will. They rejected him because of HIM, not a misinterpretation. They wanted him to provide for their material needs, but he didn’t. So they walked away.

See above. They were seeking him.

Could you please back this up with some evidence? Just making this claim doesn’t make it a true statement.

( In the spirit of flip/flop, I cannot recall the Old Testement verse to back this up. Does anyone know/remember it? Could you help me out? )

The lamb was symbolic of the real Christ.
The Eucharist is symbolic of the real Christ.

I see no conflict here.

They ate the lamb, a sacrifice.

We eat the Lamb, a sacrifice.

This is just any bread or wine; these are symbols of God that are not to be taken lightly! Just because it’s symbolic, doesn’t mean that is useless. An example: Do you own a crucifix? Is it the real Christ? No, of course not. But you treat it with respect, do you not?

If I eat a crucifix, do I eat judgement upon myself? Of course not. I may seem a little loony, but I don’t eat judgement upon myself.

I eat and drink judgement upon myself when I eat the body and blood of our Savior, Jesus Christ, in an unworthy manner.

Good arguments, Adam. I look forward to your response.

I’m still new at this

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

( In the spirit of flip/flop, I cannot recall the Old Testement verse to back this up. Does anyone know/remember it? Could you help me out? )

Your arguments are quite good. Although I am arguing the symbolic side, I think I can legitimately give you some Old Testament verses to back it up. There’s some interpretation, too, but because I didn’t write that specifically for this thread, I don’t think it counts as arguing the side I’m supposed to be arguing against. It’s more like introducing new evidence.
At least I hope so.

In Isaiah 49:26, God promises to punish the opressors of His people by making them eat their own flesh and drink their own blood. Eating flesh and drinking blood is here a sign of punishment. To apply this meaning to John 6, we get a picture not of spiritual sustenance from Christ, but of punishment and judgment. In 2 Samuel 3:17 and 1 Chronicles 11:19, David refuses to drink water brought to him at the risk of the lives of three warriors, instead pouring it out to God. Drinking the blood of the warriors is an expression used to indicate that if David drank the water, he would be showing how little he valued the lives of the warriors. Applied to John 6, this becomes ridiculous, because for Jesus to be speaking figuratively in this sense, He would have to be saying that we will have eternal life if we hold His life to be of little value. Job 39:30 describes how the eagle lives through drinking the blood of its prey. This might be slightly more fitting with a metaphorical interpretation of John 6, saying that to eat the flesh of Christ means that by His death we gain life, but it doesn’t make sense to do this because the eagle literally lives by eating the flesh of what it kills. To make this metaphorical would imply that we will gain eternal life by killing Christ. In Ezekiel 39:17-20, eating flesh and drinking blood is a sign of the complete devastation of the ungodly because it shows that even animals will drink their blood. If Jesus was speaking metaphorically in the sense of this passage, it would mean that we gain eternal life by visiting judgment upon Christ. In Numbers 23:24, Deuteronomy 32:42, and Jeremiah 46:10, we again see eating flesh and drinking blood as a sign of punishment, which would, if applied to John 6, mean that we gain eternal life by punishing Jesus. In none of these cases does eating flesh and drinking blood mean anything like having faith or studying teachings.

 

[dlea67]

(Symbolic-only side. I actually don’t believe this, of course)

Why would you Catholics insist in the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? If you look under a microscope, you will see the molecules of bread and the molecules of wine, including the alcohol.

Surely now, wouldn’t it be possible to get into a drunk-driving accident under the influence of the “blood” of Christ?

Only goes to show that indeed, there is no change. No one gets intoxicated on blood.

The body and blood of Christ is present in the bread and wine. His body and blood transcend molecular study and mircroscopes. As free choice is alive and well, if one gorged themselves on the blood of Christ, I am quite sure they could pilot their vehicle into a tree.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

dlea67:

The body and blood of Christ is present in the bread and wine. His body and blood transcend molecular study and mircroscopes. As free choice is alive and well, if one gorged themselves on the blood of Christ, I am quite sure they could pilot their vehicle into a tree.

Not if the vehicle is the Body of Christ, in which case you would only hit the tree if that were God’s will. Since God knows that would damage the people inside we know that when we surrender to His will He, the Holy Spirit as Christ told us, then I don’t see how there is anything to worry about if we all do our part.

I’m not sure that makes sense, but sometimes it really doesn’t look all that complicated – once you figure out how the details work, the rest comes into focus.

Like they say, Keep It Simple, Silly!!! ( like a child )

Alan

 

[JaneFrances]

I’ll bite. . .

“Take, this is my body” (Mk. 14:22) and “This is my blood” (Mk. 14:24). I just don’t see how we can understand ANY offering of his Body and Blood as merely symbolic. Jesus is God. God’s word does not return to him without accomplishing that for which he sent it (Is. 55:11). When God created the world, he did it out of nothing. His word accomplished everything—He said it, it was. So it is with Christ, when he says “This is my body.” It is. Not because we can fully understand HOW, but just because he said it.

The first Christians, and ALL Christians for the first 1500 years after Christ, believed so fervently in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is evidenced by thousands of martyrs for the faith in Roman times who actually chose death rather than deny the real presence. They were murdered as cannibals by the secular authorities for what they professed to believe about the Eucharist. This is history. Even Martin Luther believed in his own version of the Real Presence (though he had many other problems with the Mass). The testimony of the early Church fathers is virtually unanimous. In the great scope of Christianity, the understanding of a “symbolic” communion is truly a new doctrine protesting the traditional Christian teaching on the Real Presence.

Modern Protestant writers teach that when Christ said “This is my body. . .This is my blood” (Mk. 14:22-24), he actually was saying “This symbolizes my body. . .This symbolizes my blood.” They teach that the Greek word used in Scripture “estin” can translate to mean “is really” OR “is figuratively.” So, because they can not comprehend how Jesus could physically give his Body and Blood for his Apostles to really eat, they teach that it is impossible to accept it any other way but symbolically. Actually, they are right in that Scripture holds both senses of the word “estin” to mean “really is” or “signifies.” Greek scholars, Catholic and Protestant, all agree on this. But, to understand what Jesus is saying in this specific passage, we must look to other parts of Scripture and what the early Christians believed and taught.

The gospel of St. John, was most likey the last gospel to be written. In it, we find strong testimony for what the early Church believed and taught. John Chapter 6 is the first introduction the disciples are given to what Jesus means in the Last Supper. Jesus just got finished performing the miracle of the Loaves. With just five loaves and a couple of dried fish, the almighty God worked a miracle beyond comprehension in feeding thousands of men, women and children. Through this miracle, the people’s eyes were opened to begin to understand that with Jesus anything is possible. . .

Then, Jesus used this glorious miracle as the platform from which he would begin to teach about the Bread of Life. The Jewish followers asked for more signs of his power that they might put their faith in Him. They reminded him of the miracle of the manna from heaven. Then Jesus reveals to them: “I myself am the bread of life. No one who comes to me shall ever be hungry, no one who believes in me shall ever thirst” (Jn. 6:35). Now, certainly the people could have understood this as a symbolic bread. Even with this symbolic understanding, however, they begin to be scandalized. . . “At this the Jews started to murmur in protest because he claimed, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven’” (Jn. 6:41). They just couldn’t understand how this Jesus who they knew to be the son of their neighbors could possibly have come down from heaven. This was just too hard. Certainly they were hoping for some clarification.

(to be continued)

 

[JaneFrances]

(continued)

Then Jesus stops their murmuring. . .He goes on: “I myself am the living bread come down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread he shall live forever; the bread I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (Jn. 6:51). So, instead of having things cleared up for them so that they could accept this teaching, Jesus again confuses them. “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” (Jn. 6:52). The idea of “eating” another human being’s flesh was not new to the Jews. It is found all through the Old Testament to figuratively mean doing some grievous injury to another person (see Job 19:22, Ps. 27:2, Eccles. 4:5, Isa. 9:20, Mic. 3:1-3). You can imagine the confusion of the Jews when Jesus tells them that “If anyone eats this bread [my flesh] he shall live forever.” In the traditional Jewish symbolic language this would mean “If any one does injury to me he shall live forever.” Understanding Jesus’ words symbolically just didn’t make any sense to these Jews.

This is where we realize, through Scripture, that Jesus is not speaking figuratively. The words in the Greek change here to take on an undeniable REAL meaning. Where there may have been ambiguity at first, the words in the original text now change to leave no room for confusion. The words are so descriptive. Where before the word “eat” could be misunderstood to have a figurative meaning—thus totally confusing the Jews, the Scripture changes Jesus’ word to “feed”. Jesus says: “He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up on the last day” (Jn. 6:54). This change of verb in the Greek text gives Jesus’ words a very real and literal meaning. The word used here to mean “feed” translates in a very crude way to mean munch or gnaw. This is St. John’s emphasis on how it is that Jesus could say: “For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. The man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. . .so the man who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. . .the man who feeds on this bread shall live forever” (Jn. 6:55-58). No question is left in the minds of Jesus’ disciples, nor in the minds of the hearers of St. John’s gospel.

How does Jesus respond to this? He knew their hearts. He knew the difficulty of his teaching. He knew that it would take faith for them to accept it because it was beyond human comprehension. So he goes on to explain: “Does it shake your faith?. . .What then, if you were to see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before. . .? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. Yet among you there are some who do not believe” (Jn. 6:61-64).

Some Protestant teachers say that because Jesus says “the flesh is useless” that it must mean that he is not talking about really eating his flesh in a literal sense. If “the flesh is useless” then it must be a symbol. However, this would not have been the understanding of the early Church and certainly not the meaning of St. John. Here Jesus is contrasting “the flesh” versus “the spirit” to emphasize the faith with which the apostles must accept his teaching. “The flesh” he is speaking of is our human weakness. “The spirit” is God’s grace. We can never understand Christ and his teachings if we depend on our weak human nature. It is only through the Spirit that we are even capable of having faith. We see this teaching elsewhere in the contrast of flesh and spirit: “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” (Matt. 26:41), “When we were in the flesh. . .we bore fruit for death. . .Now we have been released. . .we serve in the new spirit” (Rom.7:5-6), “I hand him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:5), read also 2 Cor. 3:3, 2 Cor. 4:29, 1 Peter 3:18. Whenever we read in the New Testament “the flesh” is opposed to the “spirit” it ALWAYS refers to our fallen human nature versus God’s grace. When Jesus says “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless,” he is simply saying only grace (spirit) can bring one to true faith, our weak, sinful human inclinations (flesh) will never be enough on their own. He did not say the “the flesh is useless” about his own Flesh because we know that his Flesh, beaten and bruised, broken and shared is the source of our very salvation—not useless at all, absolutely NECESSSARY!

 

[arieh0310]

JaneFrances:

Whenever we read in the New Testament “the flesh” is opposed to the “spirit” it ALWAYS refers to our fallen human nature versus God’s grace. When Jesus says “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless,” he is simply saying only grace (spirit) can bring one to true faith, our weak, sinful human inclinations (flesh) will never be enough on their own. He did not say the “the flesh is useless” about his own Flesh because we know that his Flesh, beaten and bruised, broken and shared is the source of our very salvation—not useless at all, absolutely NECESSSARY!

Wow Jane, both of your posts were great. But these last few sentences were awesome!!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Do you think that the bread actually becomes the real presence at the exact time the priest says one of the words in the Eucharistic prayer?

If not, is there some uncertainty in that time and if not, then was the bread, in a way, a “potential” part of the Body and Blood of Christ before it changed – if not maybe “potential” isn’t precisely the right word, but the question is still out there.

The reason I wondered, was is it possible that since yeast spreads through dough, could the unleavened bread in the spiritual realm share an opposite quality of some sort, to that which we normally are used to thinking with leavened bread?

This is all just kind of sketchy, but I’m trying to fill in a whole lot of pieces here in such a way that they can not contradict each other – this is just how far I got so far – I wish sometimes I could just understand this so I give it a rest and not have to rely on my weak faith.

Alan

 

[JaneFrances]

AlanFromWichita:

Do you think that the bread actually becomes the real presence at the exact time the priest says one of the words in the Eucharistic prayer?

If not, is there some uncertainty in that time and if not, then was the bread, in a way, a “potential” part of the Body and Blood of Christ before it changed – if not maybe “potential” isn’t precisely the right word, but the question is still out there.

The reason I wondered, was is it possible that since yeast spreads through dough, could the unleavened bread in the spiritual realm share an opposite quality of some sort, to that which we normally are used to thinking with leavened bread?

This is all just kind of sketchy, but I’m trying to fill in a whole lot of pieces here in such a way that they can not contradict each other – this is just how far I got so far – I wish sometimes I could just understand this so I give it a rest and not have to rely on my weak faith.

Alan

Hey Alan. . .

May I suggest, first of all, that your thoughts and questions may not be so much a funciton of a weak faith as they are a function of an inquisitive intellect? Theologians have pondered the great mysteries for centuries. Our only real answers are those pronounced by our holy Church and those we experience by faith.

The very nature of faith is to believe something that is unseen, unknown, and untouched (as our Lord tells St. Thomas). There are certain things that, according to Divine Providence, we will never know this side of heaven. This is not for us to become distracted. This is not for us to be so concerned with our human understanding that we lose the mysterious beauty and simple child-like faith it takes for us come to our Lord empty that HE would fill us with everything He desires for us.

Your question regarding the moment of consecration: Consecration is not incantation. It is not a spell. One word does not cause anything. The Eucharistic prayer, including the words of consecration, is a prayer. The words are communication. They are words of thanksgiving and worship. Together they are part of our total offering before the Lord that he accepts through Jesus Christ as our same Lord and God becomes present for us body, blood, soul and divinity.

To demand that we understand fully the mode and minutia of this great sacrament is to take away those elements of faith that make the Eucharist a mystery.

Not that it is wrong to think of these things. Your question about the leavening and the yeast may indeed be a way in which you can ponder deeper this great mystery. But, be on guard against the evil one as he, if possbile, will surely use your thoughtful enterprise as a distraction from the truth and reality our loving God has already placed before you.