Help: Memorialism vs. Transubstantiation

[The_Truthinator]

Shalom.

I’ve recently been considering quite seriously conversion to Catholicism. I’ve been really amazed by it–by its historic and biblical truths, by its authority, by its utter beauty … One thing, though, that has left me feeling quite unarmed before Protestants is the actual institution of the Lord’s Supper. I already believe in transubstantiation, and John 6, 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, Ignatius’ declaration of faith in the Real Presence, and the various documented Eucharistic miracles have already secured my belief in that … However, one frequently asked question I get from Protestants before they totally cut me off is this: “What does Jesus actually say at the Last Supper?” I answer,

“'This is my body, which is for you; ***do this in remembrance of me,” ***and, "'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me."

“EXACTLY,” they reply, and it seems that the conversation is done and over with.

Tell me, I know what he is really saying here. That much is clear–that Communion is more than a MERE memorial, but something much grander, but how does one relpy to this complaint?

 

[mommyof4]

Matthew may help you out:
44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

 

[mommyof4]

This may help, too.

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9002frs.asp

 

[christcnection1]

Shalom.

I’ve recently been considering quite seriously conversion to Catholicism. I’ve been really amazed by it–by its historic and biblical truths, by its authority, by its utter beauty … One thing, though, that has left me feeling quite unarmed before Protestants is the actual institution of the Lord’s Supper. I already believe in transubstantiation, and John 6, 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, Ignatius’ declaration of faith in the Real Presence, and the various documented Eucharistic miracles have already secured my belief in that … However, one frequently asked question I get from Protestants before they totally cut me off is this: “What does Jesus actually say at the Last Supper?” I answer,

“'This is my body, which is for you; ***do this in remembrance of me,” ***and, "'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me."

“EXACTLY,” they reply, and it seems that the conversation is done and over with.

Tell me, I know what he is really saying here. That much is clear–that Communion is more than a MERE memorial, but something much grander, but how does one relpy to this complaint?

Congratuations brother for coming to a strong knowledge of the faith. I am also a convert, and can certainly identify with the many wonderful points you made here.

You might find this link helpful…

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109sbs.asp

You are likely also aware that the Bible says a lot of things about the Body and Blood of our dear Lord. As I’m sure you well know, we can’t take one verse and rule out so many others. The problem isn’t with the verse itself; it’s merely with their fallible interpretation of it.

The only other option is to say that there is a contradiction here and dismiss all of Christianity. Of course, I emphatically discourage that “solution.”

I hope that helps. You may want to try asking this on the “ask an apologist” section.

May our dearest Lord bless you on the journey!

Oh yeah… don’t forget that receiving Him Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is not something you want to miss out on!! Keep moving forward! You’re almost home!

 

[teachccd]

Ask them," What exactly is the ‘this’ that Jesus speaks of?" What exactly did Jesus just do?? What must we “do” in rememberance of Him?? Then say how He took bread, said the blessing, broke the bread and said, “This is my body”. That is exactly what the “this” is when we do “this” in memory of Him…Clear enough??? …teachccd

 

[TarlsQtr]

A couple more points. Jesus was the Passover Lamb. Jews were not just required to sacrifice a lamb for the remission of sins, they were required to eat the lamb. A symbol was not sufficient (and still is not). Jesus being a pious Jew would require nothing less than fullfillment of this important aspect of Passover.

In addition, the word for “remembrance” used by Jesus is anamnesis. This is a much stronger word than we think of. It means to re-present (but not resacrifice). When Jews celebrate Passover, they do not just “remember” the Exodus, but feel that it brings them there spiritually! Likewise, when we accept the Eucharist, we are at the foot of the cross!

Protestants get to read the menu, but we get to eat the food.

 

[mommyof4]

A couple more points. Jesus was the Passover Lamb. Jews were not just required to sacrifice a lamb for the remission of sins, they were required to eat the lamb. A symbol was not sufficient (and still is not). Jesus being a pious Jew would require nothing less than fullfillment of this important aspect of Passover.

In addition, the word for “remembrance” used by Jesus is anamnesis. This is a much stronger word than we think of. It means to re-present (but not resacrifice). When Jews celebrate Passover, they do not just “remember” the Exodus, but feel that it brings them there spiritually! Likewise, when we accept the Eucharist, we are at the foot of the cross!

Protestants get to read the menu, but we get to eat the food.

I’ve never heard this argument before - thank you for sharing!

 

[teachccd]

A couple more points. Jesus was the Passover Lamb. Jews were not just required to sacrifice a lamb for the remission of sins, they were required to eat the lamb. A symbol was not sufficient (and still is not). Jesus being a pious Jew would require nothing less than fullfillment of this important aspect of Passover.

In addition, the word for “remembrance” used by Jesus is anamnesis. This is a much stronger word than we think of. It means to re-present (but not resacrifice). When Jews celebrate Passover, they do not just “remember” the Exodus, but feel that it brings them there spiritually! Likewise, when we accept the Eucharist, we are at the foot of the cross!

Protestants get to read the menu, but we get to eat the food.

Extremely well said.

 

[Montgomeryatty]

In addition, the word for “remembrance” used by Jesus is anamnesis. This is a much stronger word than we think of. It means to re-present (but not resacrifice). When Jews celebrate Passover, they do not just “remember” the Exodus, but feel that it brings them there spiritually! Likewise, when we accept the Eucharist, we are at the foot of the cross!

I heard a very interesting point the other day, can’t absolutely verify its veracity, but it certainly SOUNDS compelling: Apparently some people suffer from certain allergies, in a way that when they are, say, stung by a bee in one place on their body, and then stung again within a few weeks or so at a different place on their body, the original bee sting welps up again. The label for this condition: an anamnetic reaction. From the same word as anamnesis. So we see that they don’t just say, “ouch, I just got stung, . . . again.” They can look at the first sting and it is literally made real to them all over again.

 

[TarlsQtr]

Wow! I’ll look into that.

A couple of things I never understood about our Protestant brothers and sisters.

First, John 6. How do they answer Jesus letting disciples leave regarding a misunderstanding? I have never received a coherent answer.

Second, if we do not eat the flesh of the Passover lamb (as Jews believe), our sins are not remitted by it. Thus, NO ONE is saved.

Either eat the flesh…

I will look into that anamnetic reaction as well.

 

[christcnection1]

Wow! I’ll look into that.

A couple of things I never understood about our Protestant brothers and sisters.

First, John 6. How do they answer Jesus letting disciples leave regarding a misunderstanding? I have never received a coherent answer.

It’s ironic that the verse is John 6:66. I’m not sure if there is any significance to that, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

 

[VociMike]

Ask them if Jesus is or is not present at their own worship service. He said wherever two or three gather in his name, he is with them. So if their understanding of “memorial” were true, it would mean that Jesus was not present when two or three gathered in his name, in contradiction to scripture, or at least that he “leaves” when they get around to the Lord’s Supper. This is just silly, of course, and no Protestant would ever say that Jesus was not present at their worship service, including their Lord’s Supper.

So often where Protestantism insists a thing is either/or, Catholicism says it is both/and.

 

[scylla]

I think it really does boil down to the “do this” in that statement.

Maybe an example would be this…

Shake hands with your neighbor and do this in rememberance of me.

Now are each time you shake hands is it, do you pretend to shake hands or do you actually shake hands if Jesus says who ever doesn’t do it will not have eternal life.

Then the next thing to look at is this, do the words of Jesus have power? When God says let there be light what happens? When God tells the blind man to see what happens? Then what happens when God says the words “this is my Body”
Does He just say it or does something happen?

In Christ
Scylla

 

[christcnection1]

So often where Protestantism insists a thing is either/or, Catholicism says it is both/and.

Yes, it surprises me how many of our separated brethren can only see the “either/or” way of looking at something. It’s as if they almost instinctely see contradictions where they do not necessarily exist. (Maybe they choose to see them, when in reality there are no contradictions?) I will stop here or I run the risk of being uncharitable.

You’re absolutely right. It’s like that with many issues.