How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[mikeledes]

A common rebuttal of the Catholic position is John 6:35:

**35Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. **

Does this mean that we should suddenly give up our belief in the Real Presence? No. Jesus is simply saying here that He will give something to those that come to Him and believe that will satisfy their hunger and thirst. Obviously, you cannot subjectively receive something from Christ if you refuse to believe in Him. So what Christ is establishing in this verse is that in order to receive that which He offers, you must first come to Him in faith. What does Jesus give to those that believe? Well, He reveals one thing earlier in John:

John 4:10-14

10Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water."
11She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
12"You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?”
13Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;
14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”

Jesus talks about “living water” and this “living water” is a metaphor. The woman thinks He is literally talking about the water in the well. Jesus corrects her by explaing that He is not talking about the water in the well, but of figurative water. But what does the metaphor “living water” signify? Well, as I’ve stated earlier, John does not leave any key metaphor unexplained and He gives us the meaning of the metaphor “living water” in John 7:38-39. The “living water” that Jesus gives is the Holy Spirit.

Living water (metaphor) = Holy Spirit (literal meaning)

To those that come to Jesus in faith, He will give them the Holy Spirit (living water). Therefore, the believer receives an ontological and hence objective gift from Christ, since the Holy Spirit really exists … He is not a metaphor.

But is that all Christ gives to those who come to Him in faith? No! In John 6:51, Jesus reveals something else:

John 6:51

…and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

In this verse, Jesus reveals that the metaphor “bread” concretely signifies His flesh. So not only does Jesus offers us “living water” (Holy Spirit), but He also offers us “bread” (His Flesh) and both are to be subjectively appropriated by the believer. So we know of two ontological things that Jesus gives:

Living water (metaphor) = Holy Spirit (ontological/objective reality)
Bread (metaphor) = Christ’s Flesh (ontological/objective reality)

Note that Christ says flesh, highlighting that it is not the mere “spiritual” presence as understood by Protestants. In fact, Jesus picks the metaphors to convey the realities they represent. Water has no particular form and is clear, which perfectly symbolizes the spiritual nature of the Holy Spirit. Bread has form and is something concrete, which perfectly symbolizes the body of Christ. As Catholics, we would say these two ontological realities are given by Christ by means of the Sacraments of Baptism (Holy Spirit) and Holy Communion (His Body and Blood). But I don’t want to get too much into that because I don’t want to deviate from the subject of this thread.

So Jesus first talks about faith in John 6:35 to set the stage for what He will give to those that come to Him in faith (John 6:51). Obviously, a person who refuses to believe in Christ either will *not *receive what Christ offers, with all its benefits, and if He receives what Christ offers, he is only bringing condemnation upon himself (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). So it is logical that Christ would emphasize faith before discussing what He will give to those who come to Him in faith, namely, His Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[larkin31]

Mike, I don’t have time now to explain, so I will do so later. I think you have backwards the metaphorical construction of these figurative statements concerning the Eucharist.

 

[mikeledes]

Mike, I don’t have time now to explain, so I will do so later. I think you have backwards the metaphorical construction of these figurative statements concerning the Eucharist.

Hello Larkin. The modus operandi of Jesus is to move from figurative language to its literal meaning, except when He immediately identifies the meaning of the figurative language (i.e I am the Vine, etc.). I go into greater detail here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=329772

God Bless,
Michael

 

[brkn1]

So are you saying that the Law did not prohibit the eating of the consecrated bread in the case of strong hunger, despite the fact that no such exception is stated in the Law? And that performing miracles does not violate the Law, depsite the fact that the letter of the Law does not mention that exception? It seems to me that you are arguing that they are exceptions because Jesus “spoke of doing so” and Jesus performed miracles on the Sabbath. In essence, that we know these are exceptions based on what Jesus said and did. Therefore…

… Jesus commanded us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The sheer fact that He does this means that what He commands does not violate the law… just as performing miracles on the Sabbath did not violate the Law, despite the fact that the Law doesn’t make an explicit exception in the case of miracles. His command and His performance of miracles are not violations of the Law because the prohibitions of the Law did not have these acts within its purview. They were never meant to be prohibited and that’s why they are not violations. So if we go by the letter of the Law, David violated the Law and Jesus violated the Sabbath and the prohibition againts drinking blood. But the letter of the Law does not always reveal the exceptions. Jesus words and actions demonstrate that David did not violate the law eating the consecrated bread, that performing miracles did not violate the sabbath, and drinking His blood… not just any blood… is not a violation of the Law.

God Bless,
Michael

It would seem that David did violate the Law, although God overlooks such violations when the circumstance requires an obvious violation for the benefit of man.
You take all the real power out of the Law by the manner in which you say, “They were never MEANT to be prohibited and that’s why they are not violations.”
You are effectively saying that the eating of any manner of blood was not “really” prohibited. The Law strongly and definitely says otherwise.
Your method of argument would allow all sorts of false doctrine to be explained away by the suggestion that unwritten exceptions now apply and thus make a direct command of the Law “not within its purview”.

 

[mikeledes]

It would seem that David did violate the Law, although God overlooks such violations when the circumstance requires an obvious violation for the benefit of man.
You take all the real power out of the Law by the manner in which you say, “They were never MEANT to be prohibited and that’s why they are not violations.”
You are effectively saying that the eating of any manner of blood was not “really” prohibited. The Law strongly and definitely says otherwise.
Your method of argument would allow all sorts of false doctrine to be explained away by the suggestion that unwritten exceptions now apply and thus make a direct command of the Law “not within its purview”.

Can you explain what standard you use to determine whether something is an obvious exception ot not? Where does that standard come from? And how is it that those exceptions, which are unwritten, do not take the real power out of the Law?

And if the consecrated bread is for priests alone, then that means no layman is supposed to eat it. And is David’s violation a sin?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Does the Roman priest perform, at the altar, a sacrifice with someone else’s blood?

Does the Roman priest freely confess that he presents the sacrifice to God for his own sins and for those of the people?

The One who offers the Eucharist is Christ, the priest being His representative. And through the Mass, the benefits of the Sacrifice of the Cross are applied. But this should be the subject of another thread since this is about the Real Presence.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[shawn38]

The One who offers the Eucharist is Christ, the priest being His representative. And through the Mass, the benefits of the Sacrifice of the Cross are applied. But this should be the subject of another thread since this is about the Real Presence.

God Bless,
Michael

He’s “representative” of Christ, or he (priest) becomes Christ?

I believe you’re referencing “in persona Christi (1994 Catechism , paragraph 1548)”

[parishbulletin.com/Organizations/8190/Documents/(name removed by moderator)ersonaChristie.pdf](http://parishbulletin.com/Organizations/8190/Documents/(name removed by moderator)ersonaChristie.pdf)
(Article for others to understand "in persona Christi)

 

[mikeledes]

He’s “representative” of Christ, or he (priest) becomes Christ?

I believe you’re referencing “in persona Christi (1994 Catechism , paragraph 1548)”

[parishbulletin.com/Organizations/8190/Documents/(name removed by moderator)ersonaChristie.pdf](http://parishbulletin.com/Organizations/8190/Documents/(name removed by moderator)ersonaChristie.pdf)
(Article for others to understand "in persona Christi)

The priest does not literally become Christ and the link you provided does not say that.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[shawn38]

The priest does not literally become Christ and the link you provided does not say that.

God Bless,
Michael

Neither does he (priest) become Christ spiritually, only a representative correct?

I’m trying to clarify the metaphysical state of the priest at the time of the transubstantiation. It is through faith that the faithful recognize the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist. Correct? I want to clarify that, through faith, the priest is not seen as being Christ like the bread and wine is seen to be the real body and blood through faith.

 

[shawn38]

The priest does not literally become Christ and the link you provided does not say that.

God Bless,
Michael

Could you also clarify the metaphysical state of the tabernacle where the consecrated bread is stored?

As our High Priest, Christ did not enter a man-made tabernacle (Heb 9:24), but serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man (Heb 8:2).

So wouldn’t something have to happen to the earthly church, at least spiritually, where through faith, it’s seen as the heavenly (true) tabernacle by the faithful?

 

[mikeledes]

Neither does he (priest) become Christ spiritually, only a representative correct?

I’m trying to clarify the metaphysical state of the priest at the time of the transubstantiation. It is through faith that the faithful recognize the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist. Correct? I want to clarify that, through faith, the priest is not seen as being Christ like the bread and wine is seen to be the real body and blood through faith.

No, the priest is not “transubstantiated.” As a passage from the part of the Catechism that you cited states:

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents.

We recognize through faith that the Christ is really and substantially present in the Eucharist because that reality is not visible. So the Eucharist does not “represent” Christ as a priest represents Christ.’

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Could you also clarify the metaphysical state of the tabernacle where the consecrated bread is stored?

As our High Priest, Christ did not enter a man-made tabernacle (Heb 9:24), but serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man (Heb 8:2).

So wouldn’t something have to happen to the earthly church, at least spiritually, where through faith, it’s seen as the heavenly (true) tabernacle by the faithful?

Let me give you the Catholic Encyclopedia’s definition of a tabernacle:

That is, at the present time in ecclesiastical usage it is only the name for the receptacle or case placed upon the table of the high altar or of another altar in which the vessels containing the Blessed Sacrament, as the ciborium, monstrance, custodia, are kept.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by a “metaphysical state.” It is simply where the Blessed Sacrament is stored. I’m not aware of any metaphysical significance attached to the tabernacle per se.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Radical]

1** WHEN JESUS MAKES A STATEMENT THAT SPARKS A QUESTION** OR CAUSES CONTROVERSY OR CONFUSION, HIS IMMEDIATE RESPONSE CLARIFIES WHAT HE MEANT.

This is often true, but it isn’t always the case.

A) When Jesus speaks figuratively and those listening take Him literally, He immediately responds with a correction - within the first couple of sentences of His response - and clearly reveals that He was speaking figuratively. I provided several examples from the Gospel of John. Jesus does this either with believers (ex. John 11:11-14) or unbelievers (ex. John 8:31-34).

You are stretching too much with this claim. Two obvious exceptions are John 2:19-22:

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20 The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. (John explained, but Jesus never did); and

John 4: 7-16

7 When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8 (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) 9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans. ) 10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” 11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?” 13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” 15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.” 16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
At two places (vs 11 & 15) the woman demonstrated that she didn’t understand that Jesus was speaking figuratively…but Christ never clarified that he was speaking figuratively…and, of course, he never explained the figure either.

When Jesus reveals a truth and is not speaking figuratively, He emphatically reaffirms it and generally uses a solemn “Amen, Amen” or “Truly, Truly.” For example:

John 8:56-58
Here again you are stretching too far. An exception is John 12:30-35:

• 30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. 34 The crowd spoke up, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this ‘Son of Man’?” 35 Then Jesus told them, “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. 36 Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light.” When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid himself from them. *

Another exception is found in John 16 where the disciples couldn’t understand what Jesus meant by, “In a little while you will see me no more and then after a little while you will see me”…particularly “the little while” part. Jesus doesn’t reaffirm “the little while” or specify that he will be killed.

 

[Radical]

Continuing:

What we see in John 6 is similar to what we see in John 10. In John 10 Christ started by describing himself using a figure of speech. (The Watchman who is known by the sheep [a figure]. The shepherd can identify the sheep by name and they follow him.[Christ can actually name his followers and we follow him]). When this is not understood, Christ expands on the figure of speech and adds to it. In the expansion, Jesus is both the gate (another figure) and the Good Shepherd (yet another figure) who lays down his life for the sheep. (lying down his life being something that Jesus actually does.) At the end, the audience is divided.

Similarly, in John 6 Jesus started by describing himself using a figure of speech. Jesus is the Bread of Life (a figure) that came down from heaven ( something that Jesus actually did). This is not understood and so Jesus expands on it. In the expansion, Jesus adds that the bread (a figure) is actually his flesh which he gives for the world (giving his flesh for the world as a sacrifice on the cross is something that Christ actually did) The expansion is also misunderstood and so Jesus adds further to it by referencing his blood (which must be drunk for eternal life…yet another figure). At the end, the audience is divided.
Giving a figure of speech and then expanding upon it, is something that we see Christ do at John 6, 10 and 15.

56"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
57So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

Here Jesus reveals the truth of His preexistence. The Jews challenge Him and Jesus emphatically reaffirms it in verse 58. So I am not arguing that if Jesus repeats something that automatically means He is speaking literally. What I am saying is that when Jesus makes a statement, is challenged, and emphatically repeats it again, that clearly indicates that He is speaking literally. Otherwise, He would have responded with a correction.

You should note that in this passage Jesus also provided a “how” explanation. Christ explained how it was that Abraham had rejoiced…it was b/c of Jesus’s preexistence that Abraham could know of Christ. This, of course is a problem for your next claim which went:

2) WHEN JESUS REVEALS A TRUTH, HE DOES NOT GO INTO HOW THAT TRUTH IS POSSIBLE

In other words, Jesus simply reveals a truth without going into theological detail on how the truth He has revealed is possible.

Jesus also explained the “how” in response to Nicodemus’s question as to how one can be born again. He explained that it was a spiritual birth and that the “how” is by belief in Jesus. This, of course, is the recurring message of the gospel of John and that message (of belief in Christ) appears repeatedly in John 6.

For example, when He is challenged after He reveals the truth of His preexistence, He doesn’t start explaining that He is the Second Person of the Trinity, eternally begotten by the Father, that He incarnated in the womb of a virgin, etc. When He tells the Jews that He came down from heaven, He doesn’t start explaining that He is God and that He was born of a virgin. He simply emphatically repeats what He said earlier.

as mentioned, the claim of preexistence actually explained how it was that Abraham could have rejoiced. I am not saying that a full blown theological explanation must be provided in John 6 if a RP understanding is valid, but I am saying that:

1. your effort to establish an absolute pattern of action for Jesus has holes in it…your sample size is too small and even then there are exceptions to the rules that you hope to establish.
2. Christ did not make an effort to eliminate the misunderstanding (be it misunderstanding figurative as literal; or misunderstanding transubstantial as cannibalistic; or taking either as being just too offensive); and
3. one has no better reason to expect a correction of the “misunderstanding figurative as literal” mistake than one has to expect a correction of “misunderstanding transubstantial as cannibalistic” mistake.

 

[Radical]

and still continuing

mikeledes:

My point here is that you argue that because an explanation of transubstantiation is lacking, that my argument suffers the same flaw I claim the figurative argument suffers.

No, my argument doesn’t rest on the absence of an explanation of transubstantiation. My argument rests on the fact there is not even a hint given that a) cannibalism isn’t involved and/or b) a miraculous eating is involved. I am not suggesting that Christ should have presented a lecture on greek philosophy.

So if an explanation of transubstantiation is lacking in John 6, it is* not unusual*. Jesus doesn’t generally give those kinds of explanations.

agreed, but explanations of the complexity of “a) cannibalism isn’t involved and/or b) a miraculous eating is involved” are provided elsewhere. A sentence or two such as, “By this he meant the Lord’s Supper that he would later provide. Up to then he had not told them that he would miraculously change bread into his actual (but invisible) flesh”. This sort of explanation would be on par with what he provided at 7:37.

Jesus presents truths in a very basic way and those listening either accept it on faith or reject it. If He is taken literally when He was speaking figuratively, He* corrects it *by indicating that He was speaking figuratively, as several passages consistently demonstrate.

…and as a couple of other passages demonstrate that such wasn’t always the case

Outside of that, when He literally meant what He said, He just emphatically reaffirms it without going into too much theological detail. He doesn’t engage in any theological explanations on how that truth is possible.

well, as shown that isn’t always the case

My argument is simply that Jesus provides a correction if something He meant figuratively is taken literally and reaffirms a statement after being challenged when He is not speaking figuratively. The latter and not the former is the case in John 6.

I am not at all convinced that many (if any) in his audience took him literally that day. A literal understanding could only have envisioned cannibalism…a thing which was so contrary to Jewish law and so contrary to the pure morality of Jesus. Rather, I suspect that the reluctant disciples would have believed that he was being excessively vulgar and inappropriate and merely spewing nonsense…(and not speaking about a literal gnawing of his flesh).

How is it that John comments on less controversial statements and yet in one of the most controversial passages in the gospel… the only instance in the Bible that explicitly states many of Jesus’s disciples left because of something He said… and one of the most controversial topics since the Reformation, John does not say one iota about this statement?

Two things. First, if one approaches the matter from a figurative understanding, then things take on a different significance. In the situation where Christ was speaking figuratively, the claim of a RP is a novelty that would have been introduced at a later date. As such, when writing the gospel, John would have no need to clarify that Jesus was not referring to some sort of RP consumption b/c such an idea would not have been even contemplated. The options would have been restricted to a) Jesus was speaking figuratively; or b) Jesus was speaking literally (cannibalism). I really don’t think that John would have felt a great need to explain that Jesus wasn’t requiring cannibalism. That idea would have been a non-starter.

Second, what John did feel a need to explain was why Jesus made no effort to win back those that found his teaching to be unacceptable. That explanation has been provided at John 6:37-40, 44-45 and at 64-65. It is not the case that he didn’t try to dissuade them b/c they were right in taking his words literally. Instead, it is explained that they could not come to Christ and he knew it.

 

[larkin31]

Hello Larkin. The modus operandi of Jesus is to move from figurative language to its literal meaning, except when He immediately identifies the meaning of the figurative language (i.e I am the Vine, etc.). I go into greater detail here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=329772

God Bless,
Michael

Thanks

This, to me, says much more about John than about Jesus.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Radical,

Quick question: those two exceptions you mention regarding explanations. When you say “Jesus didn’t” do you mean that that He absolutely did not, or that the text we have doesn’t say one way or another? Is it possible given what we do know from the text that Christ could have explained it, but it was not recorded?

VC

 

[larkin31]

And in John 6, there is a changing pattern of what is literal and what is non-literal from sentence to sentence. When Jesus states “I am the living bread that came down from heaven,” the “bread” is the non-literal term in the metaphorical comparison. The literal “I” comes first and the non-literal “bread” comes second.

In John 6:27, Jesus states this: 27"Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." In this case the “food” is non-literal in both uses and is in comparison with another non-literal term “Son of Man.” Contrary to your claim, non-literal terms can certainly be compared to other non-literal terms.

In all of John 6:53-58, Jesus is speaking of his “bread” in non-literal terms; Jesus is the “bread” here.

Earlier, however, in the miracle scene, the “bread” is literal and not fed to the people as a metaphorical embodiment of the spirit of God. It is simply material of plenty.

The references to blood and meat are very literal in tone, but with every reference to “bread” around them as non-literal, and since we know that Jesus was not advocating cannibalism (the most literal interpretation possible), we know that he is in metaphorical mode, which continues with the references to his “meat” and “blood.” ALL of it is a metaphor for the imbibing of the spirit of God.

 

[Radical]

Radical,

Quick question: those two exceptions you mention regarding explanations. When you say “Jesus didn’t” do you mean that that He absolutely did not, or that the text we have doesn’t say one way or another?

the latter

Is it possible given what we do know from the text that Christ could have explained it, but it was not recorded?

VC

It is possible that Christ could have explained himself more in all the exceptions that I gave, but if one is to make that allowance, then one has to make that allowance in those instances that Michael is using to set a pattern of saying and doing by Jesus…that allowance destroys the hope of a pattern (which also works for me). It should be noted that the Bread of Life passage starts at the side of a lake and continues to a synagogue at Capernaum…a lot more would have been said. One might also argue that the applicable explanation can be found elsewhere in the gospel, but one could make the same argument for the figurative interpretation of John 6…so if one is to make that allowance, that too, works for me.

Cheers.

 

[mikeledes]

Hello Radical. You have written A LOT so it will take time for me to respond.

God Bless,
Michael