Fruit of the Vine

[JohnPaul0]

What are some responses to the objection raised to the Real Presence that stem from Matthew 25:29, where Jesus says after the consecration of the wine: “I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”

The objection is that he appears to be referring to the consecrated wine as merely wine and not the Precious Blood.

 

[VociMike]

Who is the vine but Jesus? If He can refer to His flesh as bread, why can’t He refer to His blood as the fruit of the vine?

 

[Mintaka]

Well, Jesus doesn’t drink Himself again until He ascends into Heaven, by all accounts…

And remember, He is the Vine, so He’s the fruit of the Vine, too.

Seriously, there’s a lot going on in the Last Supper. Multiple levels of meaning galore.

 

[JohnPaul0]

Because of some similar threads that magically appeared at the bottom of this one (why didn’t they when I searched?), I have this:

"Some reasons why the Eucharist, the Precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, may be referred to as “bread” and “fruit of the vine” without taking away from the fact of the Real Presence are discussed in the commentary on verse 29 in Haydock’s Commentary on Matthew 26. "

One reason was as I suspected: “the Eucharistic elements still appear as bread and wine even after the consecration, so they can be referred to as bread and wine.” The link was helpful to give a couple of other examples from the Bible of how "appearances were used to describe a reality:

Exodus vii, Aaron’s rod devoured their rods, whereas they were not now rods but serpents"

 

[teachccd]

Read Exodus Chapter 7: 8-13. In verse 12 , after the staffs were changed into snakes they were referred to staffs again. It’s obvious that they were snakes while still being referred to as staffs. Staffs can’t swallow each other.

My two cents for this attempt at proof-texting…

 

[Atemi]

What are some responses to the objection raised to the Real Presence that stem from Matthew 25:29, where Jesus says after the consecration of the wine: “I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”

The objection is that he appears to be referring to the consecrated wine as merely wine and not the Precious Blood.

I guess our Lord is only taken literally when one wants.

So He says that it is His blood and He is being literal.
But when He then says that it is wine, and He is only speaking metaphorically and doesn’t mean it.

This is the only time you will here wine being called wine metaphorically.

The fact is that the Holy Spirit identified the consecrated elements as both bread and wine.

We can take Him at His Word or not, IMV.

…

…

 

[Chesster]

Remember that Eucharistic Prayer 2 says this after consecration:
In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup.

So its not a problem to call the consecrated elements bread and wine.

 

[jemfinch]

I guess our Lord is only taken literally when one wants.

It’s odd how you can type so well with no hands

Jeremy

 

[VociMike]

I guess our Lord is only taken literally when one wants.

The obvious reply to that is "I guess our Lord is only taken figuratively when one wants". There, now did that help move the discussion along?

What you don’t get, what you may never get, is that Christianity wasn’t handed the bible and told “figure this out - good luck!”, which is exactly what your approach assumes even if you would deny it. The apostles were taught the entire truth of God’s revelation, and that includes the truth as to when Christ was speaking literally, and when He was speaking figuratively. And they have passed along this correct understanding through the Church to every generation, and all Christians had access to this complete truth until the Protestant rupture, and because of that millions of Christians have been denied the complete truth which God intended them to have.

 

[Oblaidon]

Here is a quote from my.opera.com/catholicfaith/blog/index.dml/tag/scott%20hahn

I had been trained to interpret that in a figurative sense; Jesus is using a symbol. Flesh and blood really is just a symbol of His body and blood. But the more I studied, the more I realized that that interpretation makes no sense at all. Why? Because as soon as all the Jews hear what Jesus says, they depart. Up until this point, thousands were following him, and then all of a sudden the multitudes just simply are shocked that He says, “My flesh is food indeed, my blood is drink indeed” and they all depart. Thousands of disciples leave Him. If Jesus had intended that language to only be figurative, He would have been morally obligated as a teacher to say, “Stop, I only mean it figuratively.” But He doesn’t do that; instead, what does he do?

My research showed me that he turns to the twelve, and he says to them, what? “We better hire a public relations (P.R.) agent; I really blew it guys.” No! He says, “Are you going to leave me too?” He doesn’t say, “Do you understand I only meant it as a symbol?” No! He says that the truth is what sets us free, I have taught the truth. What are you going to do about it?

Peter stands up and speaks out; he says, “To whom shall we go? You alone have the words of eternal life and we’ve come to believe.” Peter’s statement, “To whom shall we go?” implies that, “You know, Jesus, we don’t understand what you mean either, but do you have another Rabbi on the scene you can recommend? You know, to whom shall we go? It’s too late for us; we believe whatever you say even if we don’t understand it fully, and if you say we have to eat your flesh and drink your blood, then somehow you’ll give us the grace we need to accept your words at face value.” He didn’t mean it figuratively.

As I began to study this, I began to realized it’s one thing to convince Presbyterians that being born again means being baptized, but how in the world could I possibly convince them that we actually have to eat His flesh and drink His blood? I focused then a little bit more on the Lord’s supper and communion. I discovered that Jesus had never used the word “covenant” in His public ministry. He saved the one time for when He instituted the Eucharist and he said, “This cup is the blood of the new covenant.” If covenant means family, what is it that makes us family? Sharing flesh and blood. So if Christ forms a new covenant, that is a new family, what is He going to have to provide us with? New flesh and new blood. I began to see why in the early Church for over 700 years, nobody any place disputed the meaning of Jesus’ words. All of the early Church fathers without exception took Jesus’ words at face value and believed and taught the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I was scared; I didn’t know who to turn to.

All non Catholics should listen to Scott Hahn unless they are afraid of actually becoming Catholic.

 

[teachccd]

The obvious reply to that is "I guess our Lord is only taken figuratively when one wants". There, now did that help move the discussion along?

What you don’t get, what you may never get, is that Christianity wasn’t handed the bible and told “figure this out - good luck!”, which is exactly what your approach assumes even if you would deny it. The apostles were taught the entire truth of God’s revelation, and that includes the truth as to when Christ was speaking literally, and when He was speaking figuratively. And they have passed along this correct understanding through the Church to every generation, and all Christians had access to this complete truth until the Protestant rupture, and because of that millions of Christians have been denied the complete truth which God intended them to have.

 

[Atemi]

The obvious reply to that is "I guess our Lord is only taken figuratively when one wants". There, now did that help move the discussion along?

What you don’t get, what you may never get, is that Christianity wasn’t handed the bible and told “figure this out - good luck!”, which is exactly what your approach assumes even if you would deny it. The apostles were taught the entire truth of God’s revelation, and that includes the truth as to when Christ was speaking literally, and when He was speaking figuratively. And they have passed along this correct understanding through the Church to every generation, and all Christians had access to this complete truth until the Protestant rupture, and because of that millions of Christians have been denied the complete truth which God intended them to have.

And what you do not get is that not all early Christians were literalists in regard to the Eucharist. You speak as if your point is a perfectly unassailable conclusion.

It is not.

If one wants to make arguments that something is true merely because “my church says so,” that is fine.

But let us not confuse that with making any kind of argument from God’s Word.

…

 

[Atemi]

All non Catholics should listen to Scott Hahn unless they are afraid of actually becoming Catholic.

LOL.

I was a Catholic for most of my life, so I have no fear of becoming Catholic. I am actually more Catholic than most Catholics I know.

I have read Rome Sweet Home and many other segments of Hahn’s works. He is quite disappointing, really.

He is a horrendous apologist, IMO, but a great salesman.

…

 

[El_camino]

LOL.

I was a Catholic for most of my life, so I have no fear of becoming Catholic. I am actually more Catholic than most Catholics I know.

I have read Rome Sweet Home and many other segments of Hahn’s works. He is quite disappointing, really.

He is a horrendous apologist, IMO, but a great salesman.

…

I think Scott Hahn is so so as an apologist, but he is excellent as professor.

If you want to talk about apologist that would shut up any protestant apologist, then to me the best is Jimmy Akin.

Supposely the best Protestant apologist is James White, but he is not objective at all. I think Jimmy Akin can take him any day.

However, most debates with White are with Tim Staples, who is very knowledgeable, but he lacks eloquence.

The funny thing is that there are NOT many protestant apologists are most of those who started being protestant apologists have now become Catholics.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

And what you do not get is that not all early Christians were literalists in regard to the Eucharist. You speak as if your point is a perfectly unassailable conclusion.

If you want to consider the heretics in the Early Church as Christians, then, I agree not all the Early “Christians” were literalists. If you don’t consider the heretics are Christians, then what you say is NOT true!

Just to show you what the orthodox belief was, read from the Apostolic fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch:

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Ignatius, had been a disciple of Paul and John themselves, thus he received this teaching from the very mouth of these apostles. He was kept in very high ESTEEM in the early Church by all the Churches. That just SHOWS you what the ORTHODOX belief was as HE himself tells you what the HETERODOX heretic belief was!

I WOULD LIKE to see ONE EARLY CHURCH FATHER, who was not excommunicated (some ECFs were excommunicated such as Tertullian and Origen), who was not a “literalist” on the Eucharist as you call it.

Also, please do not cite any ECF calling the Eucharist bread and wine, as we Catholics TODAY still call the Eucharist as such and that does not mean we consider it simply bread and wine.

You would have to cite something similar to what Ignatius said but saying the contrary, such as: “Those who believe that the Eucharist is literally the body and blood of Christ are heretics” or something of the sort.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[jamannor]

Read John 15

 

[VociMike]

And what you do not get is that not all early Christians were literalists in regard to the Eucharist. You speak as if your point is a perfectly unassailable conclusion.

I hear this claim all the time. Show us where the Real Presence was explicitly denied in the Early Church. Offer your proof of your statement. Don’t show us statements about the symbolism of the Eucharist, because we know that the Eucharist is symbolic as well. No, show us explicit denial of the Real Presence. It should be easy if what you claim is true.

 

[Randy_Carson]

LOL.

I was a Catholic for most of my life, so I have no fear of becoming Catholic. I am actually more Catholic than most Catholics I know.

I have read Rome Sweet Home and many other segments of Hahn’s works. He is quite disappointing, really.

He is a horrendous apologist, IMO, but a great salesman.

…

I’m sure he’s a big disappointment to you and many other anti-Cathlics, but God seems pleased with him.

Call him what you will, Atemi, but people are coming into the Church in droves on the basis of his testimony, his writings and his talks.

In Protestant parlance, he’s what you might call “powerfully used of God.”

But I don’t think he considers himself and apologist at all. His ministry seems bigger than that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Show us where the Real Presence was explicitly denied in the Early Church. Offer your proof of your statement. Don’t show us statements about the symbolism of the Eucharist, because we know that the Eucharist is symbolic as well. No, show us explicit denial of the Real Presence. It should be easy if what you claim is true.

Don’t hold your breath…after making an assertion and being asked for documentation, the next step in the Atemi playbook is to say that it’s not his responsibility to “teach you things you should already know.”

 

[VociMike]

Don’t hold your breath…after making an assertion and being asked for documentation, the next step in the Atemi playbook is to say that it’s not his responsibility to “teach you things you should already know.”

No, they never show the Early Church denying the Real Presence, because of course it didn’t happen. So they try to pass off comments about the symbolism of the Eucharist as being denial of the Real Presence, as if the Church has not always understood that the Eucharist is also symbolic. It’s another example of the Protestant insistence that all is Either-Or, never Both-And, and of the poverty of the Either-Or view of God’s revelation.