Holy Eucharist, and dealing with objections

[adrift]

The subject of the Eucharist should be approached from a holistic point.

1. In Matt26: 26 - 28; Luke 22: 19 - 20, we see Jesus breaking the bread, blessing it and giving it to the apostles to eat as a symbol of his body that is given for them. 'Do it in remembrance of me [Jesus].

Did you read the scripture you posted? There is no language in either Scripture that says it was symbolic but rather Jesus says " This IS" Hardly the language of symbolism.

1. He also takes the cup and says, “take this and drink all of you, it is the blood of the New and everlasting covenant which is shed for you”.

No symbol mentioned it IS.

The bread and wine were symbolic of the body and the blood; there-before, the high priest used to go to the ‘Holy of holies’ once every year to offer a sacrifice for atonement of the sins of all Israelites. Jesus came symbolically as the sacrificial Lamb of God for a NEW COVENANT.

The bread and wine were not symbolic but as Jesus said Is.
1Co 11:27 says to eat the bread and drink the wine unworthily will be guilty of the Blood of Jesus. If it is only symbolic, why would this be?

 

[Desertsilver]

I’m glad D_Martin started this thread, it was a very good refresher for me.

His/her above post- a cluster of unsubstantiated claims- is the same ending point these conversations always seem to end in.

Have any of you ever gotten a logical answer ( from those who don’t believe in the real presence ), with something substantial to back it up, to the question of : How could Christ have allowed his followers to misunderstand him on such an important point? Could God be such a terrible teacher that He would allow so many to erroneously believe that he was speaking literally when he was just speaking figuratively?

Or do they just derail into personal opinion as D_ Martin does in the above?

 

[UbiCaritas15]

I have never heard a logical or biblical defense of symbolism of the “Lord’s Supper.”

I have found it interesting that John directly ties disbelief in the Real Presence to desertion.

“‘But there are some of you that do not believe.’ For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. And he said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.’ After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him.” John 6:64-66

 

[Philthy]

I have never heard a logical or biblical defense of symbolism of the “Lord’s Supper.”

There is neither a strong logical or biblical defense of the “symbolic only” position of the Lord’s Supper. There is, however, a reasonable defense of a symbolic component to it.
Just as a loaf of bread is broken and becomes a source of nourishment for all who partake of it, Christ’s body was broken and has become a source of spiritual nourishment for all who partake of it. Likewise with wine, which results from the crushing of a grape. That symbolic understanding alone, however, is relatively weak and entirely inconsistent with:

• Christ being a priest of the order of Melchizedek in Genesis/Hebrews
• the entirety of the Bread of Life discourse in John 6
• the “recognition of” Jesus in the breaking of the bread in Acts
• the “devotion to” the breaking of the bread in Acts as well as the placing it on par with the Apostles’ teaching, prayer and the communal life
• St Paul’s “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” and “eats and drinks judgement on himself”
• the overwhelming testimony of the ECFs
• the testimony of all the ancient churches
• the testimony of the first 1500 years of Christianity

But as I said, some do not wish to see it and are neither prepared to truly discuss it nor defend positions opposed to it.

blessings

 

[Cathoholic]

I used to argue with Protestants about all the Sacraments being real and actual versus a symbolic concept.

Scott Hahn really changed my mind on this. He basically said it is a yes/and instead of an either/or paradigm (always emphasizing the real though and of course never affirming MERE symbolism–and that’s what we would expect if it is a New Covenant FULFILLMENT of an Old Testament concept).

Dr. Hahn’s expounding on the Old Testament really opened up new Catholic territory for me. When I went back and re-read much of the Old Testament I saw things I had never seen before . . . Catholic things.

“Catholic things” in the Old Testament all made sense, since Catholicism is authentic FULFILLED Judaism.

These Old Testament Catholic items gave me new insights into the New Testament teachings I had been reading much more frequently. Others came along later like an old book from last century (How Christ Said the First Mass or the Lord’s Last Supper by the late Fr. James L. Meagher). Dr. Brant Pitre audios and books (here and here) helped me to build even more upon these.

Every time I see something quite Catholic in the Old Testament that I had glossed over the times I had read it before, I can’t help but think . . . .

. . . "I wonder if this was something that our Lord Jesus told the two disciples on the Road To Emmaus when He unpacked the Old Testament Scriptures for them?? . . .

LUKE 24:27 27 And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

About this same time I saw the Catechism and St. Thomas Aquinas discuss this yes/and concept too.

This notion has also made discussions a lot easier with people trying to attack the Catholic Faith (I don’t feel the need to engage their misconceptions so much as to fill them out).

Catechism quotes and some more expounding on this issue here if interested.

 

[Cathoholic]

St. John in John 6:4 tells us the background in the Hebrew liturgical calendar at the time of this “Bread of Life Discourse.”

This discourse took place during the Jewish Passover season. They were possibly even reading about the Passover in the Book of Exodus here in the Synagogue at the time.

If we back up a few verses we can readily see this.

JOHN 6:4 4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.

The bread of life discourse took place during the Jewish Passover season. The Passover was at hand.

This may be the most important background feature concerning “The Bread of Life Discourse.”

Any reasons WHY the Passover might be so important to seeing the Eucharist?

Jesus is the unblemished Lamb of God Sacrificed to deliver us from what?

Deliver us from the bondage of mere slavery to the Egyptians? No!

To deliver us from the bondage of slavery to sin!

And the Lamb really and actually needed to be sacrificed. This was a real sacrificial offering.

And with the Passover in Exodus, you REALLY actually had to partake of the lamb.

You had to really and actually partake of the lamb, not just symbolically, but really and actually. Truly truly (“Amen. Amen.”).

If you didn’t really and actually partake of the lamb, you’d awaken the next morning to your first born dead.

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, St. John the Baptist in this same Gospel of John, that the Bread of Life Discourse is in, refers to Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

JOHN 1:29 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

This is Passover imagery.

St. Paul in 1st Corinthians 5:7 calls Jesus our Passover lamb as well.

1st CORINTHIANS 5:7b-8 . . . For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

So when reading the Bread of Life Discourse keep in mind the Jewish Liturgical season.

JOHN 6:4 4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.

“The doorposts” in Exodus, are likely a prefigurement of the Cross. The “roasting” imagery is used in Scripture (such as incense) as an offering wafting up to God as an acceptable sacrifice.

Incidentally, only ministerial Priests were allowed to offer this incense sacrifice. Korah’s rebellion was all about this issue. Korah (who was even a Levite but apparently not a Levitical ministerial Priest) said, “We are ALL holy here,” thinking presumptuously he was allowed to offer the incense in the Liturgy, when he was not authorized to do so. Jude reminds us (as Jimmy Akin has pointed out in this audio series) Korah’s rebellion CAN occur in the New Covenant era too.

Moses corrected Korah and his associates on this but sadly to no avail. Korah et. al. were swallowed up by the earth as punishment and as a warning to the people!

EXODUS 12:5a, 7-8, 11b, 46 5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, . . . 7 Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them. 8 They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. . . . . 11b It is the LORD’s passover. . . . . 46 In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry forth any of the flesh outside the house; and you shall not break a bone of it.

St. John the Evangelist intimates the same thing later in his Gospel (that Jesus is the Passover Lamb).

JOHN 19:36 36 For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, “Not a bone of him shall be broken.”

This occurred right after Jesus’ death on Calvary (and should unite in our minds, the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass).

CCC 1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood: “Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers.”