How do we know the Eucharist is not Symbolic?

[Church_Militant]

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 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.”

and 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.

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of Karl Keating like this symbol here: and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol symbol…like say this:http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/flame.gif http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/blowup1.gif I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the goodman Karl Keating, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE KARL KEATING IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?
There is the the whole case for why the Eucharist really is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ…body and blood, soul and divinity.

We have the greatest miracle of all at every Mass that we participate in!

 

[Church_Militant]

BTW steve, I know what Eucharist is believed to be-

No…actually and obviously you don’t, because your next remark shows it.

Christ isn’t coming down from his thrown to be contained in a piece of bread and some wine. HE ONLY HAD TO BE SACRIFICED ONCE! And he’s sitting at his place in heaven until he comes again. In The Old Testament God makes it a point you are NOT suppose to eat a sacrificial animal, or it’s blood. Jesus=Lamb of God.

You seem to be under the common misapprehension that we believe that Jesus is re-sacrificed at each Mass which is not the case at all.

The timeless and once for all sacrifice of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ is miraculously made present again during Mass.
See Why re-crucify Christ?

Also:

• Transubstantiation for Beginners by Canon Francis J. Ripley
• The Glory of Transubstantiation by Abbot Vonier
• Real Presence (Fathers*)
• Christ in the Eucharist
• Who Can Receive Communion?
• Sacrifice of the Mass (Fathers*)
• The Institution of the Mass

I suggest that you take a look at the thread [The Eucharist IS Scriptural! (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=40172) where I go into great detail of all the New Testament passages that speak of this.

Furthermore, your assertion that Christians are “NOT suppose to eat a sacrificial animal” is also dead wrong since the OT priests who made the sacrifices took their portion from the sacrificial animals. (See 1st Samuel 2:13-14) And since we are “are a chosen race, a royal priesthood,” according 1st Peter 2:9, then there is no such prohibition.

Also, since Christ Himself tells us to "Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. " in Matthew 26, then who are you to contend against His command?

 

[maryj]

Well, He did perform the miracle at the beginning of chapter 6 of the gospel of john. Did you read the whole thing? He feeds these people by multiplying loaves and fish, then they follow him to Capernaum, and Jesus says-

“Truly, Truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of loaves”.

So, it wasn’t the Jews IN Capernaum as you said , Steve. They were people who were fed and sought Jesus out. They were going to “take him by force to make him king”. . . Jesus withdraws to the hills by himself, then the disciples go out to sea and see Jesus walking towards them on water “and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going”.
This is where the next day the ones who had their fill of loaves see a boat missing and go looking for Jesus, because they want food.

SO. Jesus is talking to people who are only there to eat. And He knows that and addresses them with the quote above. In a nutshell, Jesus tells them they are laboring for the wrong kind of bread, they need the eternal bread Jesus.

Read the chapter closely you guys. See how these rude Jews murmur at Jesus. They are there to eat, not get preached to.

They murmur when he says he’s the bread of life! They dont understand he came from heaven. Jesus explained coming to him and you wouldnt hunger, believing in him and you wouldnt thirst. It’s pretty clean cut and they still murmur.

They dispute when he says “The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh”.

Look. You can read the passage and if Jesus says anything BUT “here is some more bread”, they keep bothering him and eventually leave.

So, taking the ‘eat my flesh’ part literally isnt out of the question, but it being a metaphor does come into question. Jesus is also called the Word made Flesh.

How many of you take that literally? If you take him literally here at ‘eat my flesh’, surely you all believe he is the Word.

As Catholics you are called to believe he is the Word. The Word of God is one “utterance” of God. Therefore you all must believe he is present in your bibles. Or when John writes Jesus is the word it’s a metaphor, then I’m more inclined to believe the ‘eat my flesh’ is a metaphor- and I have a pretty good idea what it means.

The Word of God. And what happens when God says something? It Happens!!!

 

[cheezey]

How many Eucharistic miracles does one need to see before there is a beginning of some factual knowledge that this is not symbolic,………but then facts always seem to get in the way of truth!

I was raised in a ‘symbolic’ church yet it always did something rather profound for me.
Hence, my interest in converting…been bubbling under for years.

 

[matthew2435]

Now Jesus is an animal?! You’re not serious, right? And not eating the sacrificial animal? Remind me what happens to the Passover lamb again.

Actually, if you cite the reason given in scripture for not drinking the blood of animals, you will find exactly why Jesus does want us to drink his blood. So what you think is an argument against the Catholic Eucharist, is actually an argument for it.

Leviticus 17:14 For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.

Exodus 12- You got me! I looked into it and was mistaken! thanks for the clarity my friend. It does mention:

5 Your *lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 [j]You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it [k]at twilight. 7 Moreover, they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel [l]of the houses in which they eat it. 8 They shall eat the flesh that same night, roasted with fire, and they shall eat it with unleavened bread [m]and bitter herbs. 9 Do not eat any of it raw or boiled at all with water, but rather roasted with fire, both its head and its legs along with its entrails. 10 And you shall not leave any of it over until morning, but whatever is left of it until morning, you shall burn with fire.

So, though you eat it, you aren’t suppose to drink the blood, leaving me even more baffled. So if the eucharist is really flesh AND BLOOD of the Lamb of God we are half-correct???

Whether I have faith in the Catholic Eucharist or not doesn’t mean I don’t know what it is.

I’m am not by any means arguing. I am not too sure. I like Catholic Church and such, they way they do communion is great! I just am not sure of myself that it IS what catholics say it IS. I have the God’s Word. John says Jesus is the Word, in John 6 Jesus says he is the bread of life, and ‘eat my flesh’, which catholics believe it’s literal. If you think this is literal, do you literally believe Jesus is the Word???*

 

[brb3]

Well, He did perform the miracle at the beginning of chapter 6 of the gospel of john. Did you read the whole thing? He feeds these people by multiplying loaves and fish, then they follow him to Capernaum, and Jesus says-

“Truly, Truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of loaves”.

So, it wasn’t the Jews IN Capernaum as you said , Steve. They were people who were fed and sought Jesus out. They were going to “take him by force to make him king”. . . Jesus withdraws to the hills by himself, then the disciples go out to sea and see Jesus walking towards them on water “and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going”.
This is where the next day the ones who had their fill of loaves see a boat missing and go looking for Jesus, because they want food.

SO. Jesus is talking to people who are only there to eat. And He knows that and addresses them with the quote above. In a nutshell, Jesus tells them they are laboring for the wrong kind of bread, they need the eternal bread Jesus.

Read the chapter closely you guys. See how these rude Jews murmur at Jesus. They are there to eat, not get preached to.

They murmur when he says he’s the bread of life! They dont understand he came from heaven. Jesus explained coming to him and you wouldnt hunger, believing in him and you wouldnt thirst. It’s pretty clean cut and they still murmur.

They dispute when he says “The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh”.

Look. You can read the passage and if Jesus says anything BUT “here is some more bread”, they keep bothering him and eventually leave.

So, taking the ‘eat my flesh’ part literally isnt out of the question, but it being a metaphor does come into question. Jesus is also called the Word made Flesh.

How many of you take that literally? If you take him literally here at ‘eat my flesh’, surely you all believe he is the Word.

As Catholics you are called to believe he is the Word. The Word of God is one “utterance” of God. Therefore you all must believe he is present in your bibles. Or when John writes Jesus is the word it’s a metaphor, then I’m more inclined to believe the ‘eat my flesh’ is a metaphor- and I have a pretty good idea what it means.

And…what is your pretty good idea ?

Christ is clearly talking literally. But, how will he accomplish it, and when ?
And, how do u/I obtain today ?

 

[brb3]

Leviticus 17:14 For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.

Exodus 12- You got me! I looked into it and was mistaken! thanks for the clarity my friend. It does mention:

5 Your *lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 [j]You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it [k]at twilight. 7 Moreover, they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel [l]of the houses in which they eat it. 8 They shall eat the flesh that same night, roasted with fire, and they shall eat it with unleavened bread [m]and bitter herbs. 9 Do not eat any of it raw or boiled at all with water, but rather roasted with fire, both its head and its legs along with its entrails. 10 And you shall not leave any of it over until morning, but whatever is left of it until morning, you shall burn with fire.

So, though you eat it, you aren’t suppose to drink the blood, leaving me even more baffled. So if the eucharist is really flesh AND BLOOD of the Lamb of God we are half-correct???

Whether I have faith in the Catholic Eucharist or not doesn’t mean I don’t know what it is.

I’m am not by any means arguing. I am not too sure. I like Catholic Church and such, they way they do communion is great! I just am not sure of myself that it IS what catholics say it IS. I have the God’s Word. John says Jesus is the Word, in John 6 Jesus says he is the bread of life, and ‘eat my flesh’, which catholics believe it’s literal. If you think this is literal, do you literally believe Jesus is the Word???*

We believe Christ is sitting on the Throne in Heaven …at the Rt. Hand of Father. But, actively working, ever working still, tending the flock …and able to bring his Real Presence to us via the Eucharist, …as often as we believe & receive. Obviously, we receive the INVISIBLE, RESURRECTED Christ. The glorified Christ, that can be anywhere he desires, and especially, where he has promised he will be, to extend his saving grace to us, his redeemed.

 

[Heliotropium]

Leviticus 17:14 For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.

Exodus 12- You got me! I looked into it and was mistaken! thanks for the clarity my friend. It does mention:

5 Your lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 [j]You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it [k]at twilight. 7 Moreover, they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel [l]of the houses in which they eat it. 8 They shall eat the flesh that same night, roasted with fire, and they shall eat it with unleavened bread [m]and bitter herbs. 9 Do not eat any of it raw or boiled at all with water, but rather roasted with fire, both its head and its legs along with its entrails. 10 And you shall not leave any of it over until morning, but whatever is left of it until morning, you shall burn with fire.

So, though you eat it, you aren’t suppose to drink the blood, leaving me even more baffled. So if the eucharist is really flesh AND BLOOD of the Lamb of God we are half-correct???

No the Eucharist is fully correct, and is the re-presenting of the True Sacrifice. The old law did not allow the drinking of flesh blood; however, it did not forbid the consuming of blood under the appearance of wine. This is why Christ instituted the Eucharist, so we may have the ENTIRE Sacrifice.

Whether I have faith in the Catholic Eucharist or not doesn’t mean I don’t know what it is.

*Sure, one can know something and not believe it. Heck someone can know something and ignore it too. We have free will. *

I’m am not by any means arguing. I am not too sure. I like Catholic Church and such, they way they do communion is great! I just am not sure of myself that it IS what catholics say it IS. I have the God’s Word. John says Jesus is the Word, in John 6 Jesus says he is the bread of life, and ‘eat my flesh’, which catholics believe it’s literal. If you think this is literal, do you literally believe Jesus is the Word???

*I’ll let Saint John answer this for us. *

IN the beginning was the** Word**, and the Word was with God, and the **Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

 

[brb3]

Didn’t Christ say " wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, I AM there" ?

So, clearly Christ doesn’t confine himself to the Heavenly realm only. Being omnipresent…with his Supernatural, Resurrected body …he knows no limitations. He transcends our science & its laws.

 

[RollTide1987]

I take the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch very seriously. This guy was a disciple of St. John, who probably knew both Peter and Paul personally, since Peter and Paul were in Antioch for a time before they went to Rome. Writing not long after the death of his master (St. John), St. Ignatius had this to say about the Eucharist.

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]).

Those are pretty strong words from an Apostolic Father who was writing and ministering in the earliest days of Christianity.

 

[snarflemike]

Leviticus 17:14 For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.

Right, the life is in the blood. And what does God, Jesus Christ, desire to give us? His eternal life. He desires that we partake in his divine nature. So as I said, the prohibition against the blood (that is, the life) of lower creatures is actually an argument FOR the Eucharist, where we receive the divine life of Jesus Christ.

I’m am not by any means arguing. I am not too sure. I like Catholic Church and such, they way they do communion is great! I just am not sure of myself that it IS what catholics say it IS. I have the God’s Word. John says Jesus is the Word, in John 6 Jesus says he is the bread of life, and ‘eat my flesh’, which catholics believe it’s literal. If you think this is literal, do you literally believe Jesus is the Word???

Understood, and forgive me if my answer was harsh. Yes, Jesus Christ IS literally the Logos. But is he e.g. literally the vine? Is he e.g. literally a door? The difference with these statements is that Christ also declares that WE are something too. He is the vine, we are the branches. But we KNOW that we are not literally branches. He is the door, we are the sheep. But we KNOW we are not literally sheep. So thus it follows that he is not literally a vine, or literally a door.

But there is no similar statement in John 6. He does not say, e.g., “I am the bread of life, and you are the teeth that will chew it” - then we would know that since we are not literally teeth, he is using a metaphor. But as I say, there is no such statement in John 6. So Jesus is actually making clear in John 6 that, unlike the metaphors he uses, here he is speaking quite literally.

Keep in mind too that Jesus’ body is now part of his nature. It is not just a man-suit. He is no longer pure spirit. Therefore, for him to be present among us, his body must also be present. And so it is, in the Eucharist. It all makes perfect sense, my brother.

 

[fred_conty]

I can think of 3 ways …

We generally save the best for last…wishing to confer our most cherished reality/wisdom/blessing to those we love.

The Patriarchs did this …waiting til their last days to give out their blessing to sons, their tribe, etc. Examples: Moses, Isaac, etc.

Christ’s First miracle, turned water to wine …and the Steward saying that ‘last’ wine was the best !!
Christ’s Last miracle, turned bread & wine into his Real Presence, the Shewbread & Manna from Heaven !
Then, at the Cross …he gave us his Perfect Mother… as our own.

To use a common phrase, “where does it say it in the bible that it is symbolic?” And the usual response to that is, “if it isn’t in the bible then it isn’t.”

 

[Nita]

Understood, and forgive me if my answer was harsh. Yes, Jesus Christ IS literally the Logos. But is he e.g. literally the vine? Is he e.g. literally a door? The difference with these statements is that Christ also declares that WE are something too. He is the vine, we are the branches. But we KNOW that we are not literally branches. He is the door, we are the sheep. But we KNOW we are not literally sheep. So thus it follows that he is not literally a vine, or literally a door.

Also, Jesus never took a literal “door”, held it before them and said “This (door) is Me; Take it and enter by it so you can be saved”.
And, He never took a literal “vine” and said “This (vine) is Me; abide in it so you can produce much fruit”.
If Jesus had done either of the above, and then told the apostles to also do it, we would probably be using literal doors and literal vines according to any instructions Jesus would have given. But, He never, at any time, did that.

However, Jesus , after saying that He was the bread of life that must be eaten to have eternal life in oneself, did take literal “bread” into His hand and say “Take, eat; this is My Body” (Mt. 26:26) “which is given for you”. (Lk 22:19)
Jesus demonstrated how the bread and wine were to be used and the words to be spoken over them, and then said “Do this”.

 

[catholictiger]

It is a symbol but more then a symbol at the same time it takes on what it symbolizes

Simply but not really it is an efficacious symbol

 

[Dorothy]

And, it is good to remember that even if we receive just a crumb of the consecrated Host, or a drop of the consecrated wine, we receive the Risen Lord, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

The more faith and love we can receive Him with, the more He can change us!

 

[thecone137]

Also, Jesus never took a literal “door”, held it before them and said “This (door) is Me; Take it and enter by it so you can be saved”.
And, He never took a literal “vine” and said “This (vine) is Me; abide in it so you can produce much fruit”.
If Jesus had done either of the above, and then told the apostles to also do it, we would probably be using literal doors and literal vines according to any instructions Jesus would have given. But, He never, at any time, did that.

**However, Jesus , after saying that He was the bread of life that must be eaten to have eternal life in oneself, did take **literal “bread” into His hand and say “Take, eat; this is My Body” (Mt. 26:26) “which is given for you”. (Lk 22:19)
Jesus demonstrated how the bread and wine were to be used and the words to be spoken over them, and then said “Do this”.

If The Body of Christ is to be taken literally, how are we to understand John 6:63? :

**
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” **

On the surface, it would seem as if this passage is the “clarification” everyone was waiting for about the (flesh-eating ) passages.

 

[snarflemike]

If The Body of Christ is to be taken literally, how are we to understand John 6:63? :

**
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” **

On the surface, it would seem as if this passage is the “clarification” everyone was waiting for about the (flesh-eating ) passages.

Before, he spoke of “my flesh” and “my blood”. Here he speaks of “the flesh”. This is something totally different - it means, human reasoning alone, without benefit of revelation. See for example Mat 16:17

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Again, here, flesh (and blood) were of no help at all.

No Christian, Protestant or Catholic, believes that Christ’s flesh was of no help at all. Without his flesh, his incarnation, there would be no redemption.

 

[brb3]

Before, he spoke of “my flesh” and “my blood”. Here he speaks of “the flesh”. This is something totally different - it means, human reasoning alone, without benefit of revelation. See for example Mat 16:17

Again, here, flesh (and blood) were of no help at all.

No Christian, Protestant or Catholic, believes that Christ’s flesh was of no help at all. Without his flesh, his incarnation, there would be no redemption.

Beautifully, understood…with key scripture regarding Peter, that unlocks the Rosetta Stone !!!

U get perfect A on test question !!!

 

[Nita]

If The Body of Christ is to be taken literally, how are we to understand John 6:63? :

**
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” **

On the surface, it would seem as if this passage is the “clarification” everyone was waiting for about the (flesh-eating ) passages.

It is a “clarification”, but not one that makes Our Lord’s flesh and blood symbolic.
First, it’s important to remember that the life Jesus had talked about in the preceding verses was “eternal life”. Jesus is clarifying that He is not giving His body and blood as food to feed their flesh. Well fed flesh is of no avail in attaining the* eternal life *in heaven that Jesus had talked about. It is His Spirit, present and united to the flesh of His human nature, that will give eternal life.

His words are spirit and life; we need to believe and act on them. His words tell us how to receive His spirit and life. We do it by consuming His flesh and blood to which is united His spirit and life - united to His human soul/spirit and His Divine nature.

He calls Himself the “Bread of Life”, the "bread which comes down from heaven, the “bread which I shall give”, "living bread, … Jesus did not provide a way for the crowd to eat His flesh and drink His blood at the time of the discourse in John 6. But all the talk about “bread” would be a preparation that would help connect His words here with what He would do at the Last Supper where the literal bread became “living bread”, became the “Bread of Life”, … became His flesh and blood.

 

[brb3]

Which way did Christ wish his Apostles and we today to understand ? And, is the present day Eucharist at Mass any different than that first Lord’s Supper with the Apostles ?