How to explain to a Protestant that the Eucharist isn't cannabalism?

[Hat4]

I can see why you’d think and describe it in the way you do; however, I obviously would argue with the premise that Jesus ever taught imbibing in His blood in a literal sense.

I don’t have a problem with that IF taught directly by Jesus, but that isn’t what I see when looking at the whole of scripture.

I’m curious about these comments. All Christians agreed on this for the vast majority of Christianity, it wasn’t until much later that any men came along to change this.Why is it that nobody read it in a different way until recently? It’s repeated over and over again and all of the different writers use about the same language in a way that most of the other shared stories in the Bible don’t match. As if it were important. Probably the most telling sign is when half of the followers of Jesus left after this teaching. Why would half of his followers leave over a symbol?

 

[Convert2013]

This issue has been around since before Christ was crucified. There will always be people who don’t believe it, but since there are people who are looking something in the scriptures, I’ll ask this …why didn’t Jesus clarify to those who decided his teaching on eating his flesh and drinking his blood was too much to handle. Those were his own followers who left him over this. I can not find anywhere in scripture where Jesus ran after them and said - “Oh no, please don’t leave …I was only meaning as a symbol! I didn’t mean my real flesh” If there is please find this so we can all read it. Clearly he had the opportunity, did he not?

In addition, I’m going to recommend checking out this link regarding scripture and real presence…
therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

I would also add that the whole cannibalism thing is the reason the early Christians were kicked out of the Synagogues. Which is ultimately how we have the structure of our Mass …Liturgy of the Word then Liturgy of the Eucharist. They went to the Synagogues to hear scripture read, then to homes for “the breaking of the bread” which St. Paul makes very clear as to what that is. Check out St. Justin Martyr writing from around 150 AD writing to the Emperor to stop killing Christians for being cannibals and explains the Mass and what happens there.

Now if we just simply made this up recently, then how was it that even back then the talked about going to confession before receiving the body & blood of Christ? Btw, I believe this is the first time the word Eucharist is used when St. Justin Martyr wrote his apologetic letters.

 

[Hawkiz]

I believe that Transubstantiation is certainly possible, but I don’t think that it happens. Why? Well… I don’t see it explicitly laid out in Scripture. Sure, I see things that could be references to transubstantiation, but they could just as easily not be.

The Virgin Birth, the Miracles, etc. on the other hand, are laid out there in black and white to the point that you can’t get rid of them without just getting rid of a high view of Scripture altogether. You knock those out and the whole edifice of the New Testament, and indeed the whole Bible, collapses.

And, as an Evangelical Protestant, I take the “party line” that when it comes to things that are definitely there in black and white, we must have unity, but that on the things that simply might or might not be so, you’re free to believe whatever your best effort understanding is.

I don’t believe in that “party line” because I am a member of the party, btw. I am a member of the party because I believe in that “party line.” If I didn’t believe in that, I wouldn’t be an Evangelical Protestant, and ultimately that’s what Transubstantiation comes down to: You accept the councils and the Popes as authoritative and we don’t.

I’m not going to try to defend our view over yours because this ain’t my turf. This is your turf and I’m not interested in trying to tear down your faith, or for that matter, to build my own. I’m not here to “win.” I’m certainly not here to swim the Tiber nor to see you swim it over to my side. I’m just here to represent, in as straightforward a way as I can, what I believe, and by extension what people like me believe and to explain why those of us who remain divided from you continue to remain so and, perhaps, to point out that perhaps the division (at least on some points) isn’t as wide and deep as either of us think.

I would like for you to answer the following: Is God’s word efficacious? Meaning, does God’s word produce exactly the results that He says it does? When God said “Let there be light”, didn’t He make it so? The Sacred Scriptures do not provide us of any ‘proof’ points that explain HOW God made the light. Yet I am willing to bet that everyone on this forum, from the Rabbi to the most non-denominational to the most ardent Catholic believes without wavering that God made the light! Your assertion that you need to see the explanation laid out in black and white does not hold up past the first three verses of the first book! God said it, so God made it so. If you believe that Jesus is God, why would you, even for a split second, choose to disagree with His ability to make what He said come true?!? Do you not think that Jesus can make it happen? Do you really need Him to sit you down and explain to you HOW He goes about making His word reality? Do you really feel that you are somehow deserving of an explanation on this? How many times does Jesus explain that His flesh is real indeed, this IS my body, etc.? Whether you call it transubstantiation or not is of little to no concern to me - it is a word used to attempt to explain exactly what you are seeking - HOW could Jesus do that? And it is nothing more than a word. The ‘how’ shouldn’t block you from believing what “Is” (As in ‘this IS my body’). If you were out evangelizing to a non-believer, and they demanded that you show them ‘how’ God made the light in Genesis, how would you reply? There is no verse you can fall back and to prove that God made the light…does that make it any less true? Does it lessen God as a creator in any way? I certainly hope not. Please consider that your reason for not believing is one that even you would not follow if the argument were made about a different subject.

John 6:64 “But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who the ones were that did not believe, and who was the one who would betray Him.’ What was it that Jesus was specifically referring to when He called out the non-believers? Jesus Himself casts judgement on those who do not believe that He can give us this sacrifice across all space and time.

Out of love for someone brave enough to venture into a Catholic forum and post, I beg you to read the Sacred Scripture, specifically John 6, and 1 Corinthians10 and 11 and Revelation. Read these slowly. Examine each sentence. The Truth is right there, in black and white for you to see, just as you demand to have produced for you. Look for the symbols you have been told are there. You will find NO language that is symbolic. In John 6, the followers who were in the crowd took Jesus VERY literally - they did not take His words as symbols. When they press Jesus on this, He does not speak in a parable as He has done so many times before when He wants to clarify (see “The Kingdom of Heaven is like”) but instead He firms up His message - He uses harsher language, He clarifies by speaking clearly.

Beware of what your ‘party line’ calls you to profess.

You will be in my continued prayers.

 

[504Katrin]

No, He made the sacrifice, once and for all, He is the Perfect offering to the Father, we share in His sacrifice when we receive Him. As in the meal, we eat the sacrifice. However, we must not receive Him, share in His sacrifice, in a state of mortal sin, lest, like Paul says, “we eat and drink our own damnation.” This is why that you must confess any mortal sins before you go up to that altar to receive Him.

This is what I thought, that you can’t attone for your sins participating in the Euchrist. When you said that “He gave us His Flesh to eat as the sacrifice for our sins and our Redeemer.”, it sounded like you attone for sins eating his flesh. You receive redemption in confession, not in the Eucharist. Both are two different things.

A covenant has a curse and a blessing, if you are faithful to God you receive the Blessing, if you are not, then it is as Paul says, you receive a curse because you have not been faithful to Him.

Yes, no problem with this. This I understand.

 

[lakotak]

This is what I thought, that you can’t attone for your sins participating in the Euchrist. When you said that “He gave us His Flesh to eat as the sacrifice for our sins and our Redeemer.”, it sounded like you attone for sins eating his flesh. You receive redemption in confession, not in the Eucharist. Both are two different things.

Yes, no problem with this. This I understand.

When you receive the Eucharist, your venial sins are forgiven, but not your mortal sins. Mortal sins cut God’s grace from your soul, venial sins offend Him, but do not cut his grace from you entirely. Jesus makes the constant offering of His sacrifice on our behalf for our sins in Heaven, but we have to want to receive that forgiveness by confessing our sins with confession and a good act of contrition. You receive forgiveness, absolution for our sins in the confessional. When you receive the Eucharist, you receive the very life of the Trinity and the state of grace that will strengthen your bond, in love, with the life of God and help you to grow closer to Him.

 

[Convert2013]

When you receive the Eucharist, your venial sins are forgiven, but not your mortal sins. .

As long as you call to mind your sins (venial) and ask for forgiveness prior to receiving.

 

[lakotak]

When you receive the Eucharist, your venial sins are forgiven, but not your mortal sins. Mortal sins cut God’s grace from your soul, venial sins offend Him, but do not cut his grace from you entirely. Jesus makes the constant offering of His sacrifice on our behalf for our sins in Heaven, **but we have to want to receive that forgiveness by confessing our sins with confession and a good act of contrition. **You receive forgiveness, absolution for our sins in the confessional. When you receive the Eucharist, you receive the very life of the Trinity and the state of grace that will strengthen your bond, in love, with the life of God and help you to grow closer to Him.

As long as you call to mind your sins (venial) and ask for forgiveness prior to receiving.

I think that is what I basically said, but I guess I assumed an understanding of the fact that for sins to be forgiven you must want forgiveness and be sorry for them. Thanks for spelling it out.

 

[Kliska]

Please do keep in mind the original intent of the thread; it’s not to either confirm or deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist, or transubstantiation, but rather the idea of it being literal flesh and blood and the consuming of that, and what it would be called when talking with a Protestant. I don’t think it would be respectful of me to argue the protestant position in your own house, so I’m attempting to give one protestant’s perspective without proselytizing the point.

I’m curious about these comments. All Christians agreed on this for the vast majority of Christianity, it wasn’t until much later that any men came along to change this.Why is it that nobody read it in a different way until recently? It’s repeated over and over again and all of the different writers use about the same language in a way that most of the other shared stories in the Bible don’t match. As if it were important. Probably the most telling sign is when half of the followers of Jesus left after this teaching. Why would half of his followers leave over a symbol?

The premise I have a problem with is “All Christians agreed on this for the vast majority of Christianity.” After researching this for myself I don’t believe that is true, and can be seen in scripture itself. No wish to argue the point, that’s just my finding. Will answer the last bit next.

This issue has been around since before Christ was crucified. There will always be people who don’t believe it, but since there are people who are looking something in the scriptures, I’ll ask this …why didn’t Jesus clarify to those who decided his teaching on eating his flesh and drinking his blood was too much to handle. Those were his own followers who left him over this. I can not find anywhere in scripture where Jesus ran after them and said - “Oh no, please don’t leave …I was only meaning as a symbol! I didn’t mean my real flesh” If there is please find this so we can all read it. Clearly he had the opportunity, did he not?

Jesus intentionally spoke in parables and in symbolic language for a reason. He most certainly did not run after them, but that is an indication that they didn’t understand, not that they did. Again, not to argue the point, just to clarify my position;

At the end of Jesus’ discourse in John chapter 6, in which He used symbolic language to get His point across, many of the people that had been following Him left. The ones who left Jesus when He made the Bread of Life speech were the ones that misunderstood Him. The ones that left Him took Him literally. We have scriptural evidence that when people got angry at analogies used by Jesus, they were not understanding.

*John 2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
*
They took Him at His literal word, and they were wrong to do so. He did not mean the literal physical temple, He meant His body. The listeners got upset, and sarcastic, they misunderstood Him here, just as they misunderstood Him about “flesh and blood” in John 6. He doesn’t stop people that leave or get mad over misunderstandings. He talks in parables so that faith plays a role, and so that not everyone will get it, or have it “forced” upon them;

*Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. *

Out of love for someone brave enough to venture into a Catholic forum and post, I beg you to read the Sacred Scripture, specifically John 6, and 1 Corinthians10 and 11 and Revelation. Read these slowly. Examine each sentence. The Truth is right there, in black and white for you to see, just as you demand to have produced for you. Look for the symbols you have been told are there. You will find NO language that is symbolic.

Again, for clarity on our position, the book of John is full of symbols that Jesus presents and uses to teach truth (John 15:1 for a brief example: I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. The Lord is not a plant), and those that believe as I do see John 6 rife with symbols. Thank you for your concern, it is truly appreciated. But, we read these verses to mean in a very black and white way that faith (rendered “belief” or “believe”) is what yields eternal life, and it’s proper object of faith is on Jesus Himself.

 

[Reuben_J]

When you receive the Eucharist, your venial sins are forgiven, but not your mortal sins. Mortal sins cut God’s grace from your soul, venial sins offend Him, but do not cut his grace from you entirely. Jesus makes the constant offering of His sacrifice on our behalf for our sins in Heaven, but we have to want to receive that forgiveness by confessing our sins with confession and a good act of contrition. You receive forgiveness, absolution for our sins in the confessional. When you receive the Eucharist, you receive the very life of the Trinity and the state of grace that will strengthen your bond, in love, with the life of God and help you to grow closer to Him.

The highlighted sentence perhaps describes the purpose of receiving of the body and blood of Christ. Translated simply, Christ body is food for our spiritual life. No food, no spiritual life. The most intimate communion one can get with God is by having himself literally eaten, assimilated and become part of our own body and soul. The implication is awesome and hard to believe but that is what the Eucharist is. I think we cannot sell this idea to a Protestant strongly intrenched in a belief that the communion of the Eucharist is symbolic.

The Eucharist is not a Sacrament for the forgiveness of sin. It is a grace of Communion with God and where God is, no sin should be. Protestants often quote the verse, where God is, there is joy. Just imagine when God is actually becoming part of you, it is not just joy but one that brings about the fulness of God’s redeeming power - healing and deliverance. That is why it must be received only when we are in a state of grace, normally after Confession of mortal sins. Ideally after Confession, in honoring the graceful presence of God.

 

[Reuben_J]

*Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. *

John 6 is not a parable. Jesus cannot be ‘very truly’ the bread of life if it is a parable.

47 Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (John 6)

Again, for clarity on our position, the book of John is full of symbols that Jesus presents and uses to teach truth (John 15:1 for a brief example: I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. The Lord is not a plant), and those that believe as I do see John 6 rife with symbols. Thank you for your concern, it is truly appreciated. But, we read these verses to mean in a very black and white way that faith (rendered “belief” or “believe”) is what yields eternal life, and it’s proper object of faith is on Jesus Himself.

Yes, Jesus speaks in symbolism in John 6. He is using an analogy of the vine and the branches. … Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me.

• “1I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine grower. 2 He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit. 3 You have already been cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. (John 15)*

 

[Kliska]

John 6 is not a parable.

I agree, John 6 is not a parable as defined. The language, however, is indeed symbolic. Again, not going into an argument here.

 

[Reuben_J]

I agree, John 6 is not a parable as defined. The language, however, is indeed symbolic. Again, not going into an argument here.

Hi. It is also not symbolic. Everything that Jesus said in John 6 is factual. He also speaks of manna from heaven. It was factual. The manna indeed fell from the sky during Moses’ time.

In John 15 (correction in my last post - it was meant for John 15 not 6), he is using analogy of the vine and the branches. He introduced a new analogy unlike in John 6 where he mentioned about the manna, something that had actually happened before. There is no symbolism here. He did not qualify what he said.

I appreciate you do not want to argue on this and appreciate the fact that you may understand how sacred and important is the Eucharist to Catholics. Otoh, I am not imposing our understanding of John 6 on you either. I just thought that it is good to make clear the Catholic position on this passage.

God bless you.

 

[Reuben_J]

When Jesus said about him being the bread from heaven on John 6, it was the foreshadow of what he did during the passover meal before the crucifixion. It became clearer then because he actually took the bread, blessed it and said it is his body.

This is what happened in the Eucharist. That during the consecration when the bread is blessed, it will become the body of Christ.

 

[Hawkiz]

Kliska - I do appreciate the discussion and thank you for sharing your point of view on the subject of what Jesus taught, specifically in the Book of St. John the Apostle. You pointed out that at other spots in John, such as John 15, Jesus was clearly speaking symbolically; a point which the Catholic Church would fully agree with you about and has since its inception. One glaring difference between John 6 and John 15 that I would ask you to consider: In John 15, nobody questions Jesus about being a vine - nobody steps forward and says “How can this man be a plant?” - could it be because everyone who heard that understood exactly what Jesus meant? (that without Him we can not survive and in fact are nothing). However, in John 6, the author goes to great lengths to show us that people who heard Jesus not only questioned Him about what He said and what He meant, but went a step further to declare that they could not accept (or even hear, or listen to depending on the translation) what Jesus was saying about eating His flesh and combining that with eternal life. It causes scandal to the Hebrew people who heard the words, they understand Him to be speaking about cannibalism and blood drinking - strictly forbidden for thousands of years as it was laid down as law by God Himself. Some, after hearing Jesus explain exactly what He was saying again and again and again (9 times I think?) they decide to walk away from Him. Further in this passage, Jesus is clearly able to read their hearts and thoughts - they don’t have to verbally express their doubts to have Him be aware that they don’t believe what He says. I am dense, but I fail to see how saying something over and over and over again ends up being symbolic? Please explain how and where you see symbolism in John 6 specifically. This is a matter of utmost importance - Jesus promises eternal life to those who believe this and do what He says about it! It isn’t a matter that any of us want to get wrong.
In all of Scripture, who are the people who Jesus allows to walk away from Him? The Pharisees?, the rich young man?, those who were out to get Him from the beginning?.. and who else? Those who did not believe THIS teaching. Our Lord is not the god of tricks and lies - nor is Jesus the god of misunderstanding. You and I share this belief do we not? So if our God, the God of love, is also the God of Truth (and understanding), then He could not, repeat, could not, allow any of us to hear the message and walk away from Him in confusion. He can only let any of us walk away if we understand clearly what He means and what the consequences of walking away are!
I am long-winded, and I apologize for that. I will ask you again to show me in John 6 specifically where you read symbolism. Chapter and verse please. I know you are not looking for a fight - I am not seeking to pick one I promise - it is because I believe fully what this passage teaches that I want to share it with you and others. I would not be living the gospel that we have received if I did not want to show you the Truth that I see.
Jesus wanted us to all be one flock under Him, the one shepherd - I pray that we can both see the one Truth that is Him, follow and obey. Amen

 

[Kliska]

Hi. It is also not symbolic. Everything that Jesus said in John 6 is factual. He also speaks of manna from heaven. It was factual. The manna indeed fell from the sky during Moses’ time.

It is factual, but is also symbolic (and I do agree that manna fell literally). Jesus did not become flour and water when He said I AM the bread of life. I don’t think our disagreement is over if John used symbols (in the book of John), just when, where, how, and what they mean.

In John 6 I read that we are to eat of Christ not how the manna was eaten. How was manna eaten? Physically and literally. John 6 is in the context of Jesus having physically fed those following Him, and the majority are following in John 6 to get a free food handout again not because He has the words of eternal life. He is basically saying they are not going to get a free food handout again, instead they need to be ingesting Him. How do they do that is the question; physically and literally? Or spiritually and by faithing on Him and His words that bring eternal life?

I appreciate you do not want to argue on this and appreciate the fact that you may understand how sacred and important is the Eucharist to Catholics. Otoh, I am not imposing our understanding of John 6 on you either. I just thought that it is good to make clear the Catholic position on this passage.

I agree, I don’t think either of us are trying to change the other’s mind, but clarification is always important. Many Protestants don’t have an understanding of the importance of the Eucharist in RC teaching. I think knowledge of others’ beliefs is extremely valuable. Thank you for dialoging with me!

God bless you.

And you as well!

 

[lakotak]

It is factual, but is also symbolic (and I do agree that manna fell literally). ** Jesus did not become flour and water when He said I AM the bread of life**. I don’t think our disagreement is over if John used symbols (in the book of John), just when, where, how, and what they mean.

In John 6 I read that we are to eat of Christ not how the manna was eaten. How was manna eaten? Physically and literally. John 6 is in the context of Jesus having physically fed those following Him, and the majority are following in John 6 to get a free food handout again not because He has the words of eternal life. He is basically saying they are not going to get a free food handout again, instead they need to be ingesting Him. How do they do that is the question; physically and literally? Or spiritually and by faithing on Him and His words that bring eternal life?

You are correct on the bolded. He did not become flour and water, He transformed the substance of flour and water into His own flesh, only the appearance of the bread remain. If Jesus said that even though they ate manna in the desert, they still died, why would he be referring to just bread and saying if you eat of this bread you will have eternal life. Ordinary bread cannot give eternal life.

I agree, I don’t think either of us are trying to change the other’s mind, but clarification is always important. Many Protestants don’t have an understanding of the importance of the Eucharist in RC teaching. I think knowledge of others’ beliefs is extremely valuable. Thank you for dialoging with me!

And you as well!

 

[lakotak]

It is factual, but is also symbolic (and I do agree that manna fell literally). Jesus did not become flour and water when He said I AM the bread of life. I don’t think our disagreement is over if John used symbols (in the book of John), just when, where, how, and what they mean.

In John 6 I read that we are to eat of Christ not how the manna was eaten. How was manna eaten? Physically and literally. John 6 is in the context of Jesus having physically fed those following Him, and the majority are following in John 6 to get a free food handout again not because He has the words of eternal life. He is basically saying they are not going to get a free food handout again, instead they need to be ingesting Him. How do they do that is the question; physically and literally? Or spiritually and by faithing on Him and His words that bring eternal life?

I agree, I don’t think either of us are trying to change the other’s mind, but clarification is always important. Many Protestants don’t have an understanding of the importance of the Eucharist in RC teaching. I think knowledge of others’ beliefs is extremely valuable. Thank you for dialoging with me!

And you as well!

You are correct on the bolded. He did not become flour and water, He transformed the substance of flour and water into His own flesh, only the appearance of the bread remain. If Jesus said that even though they ate manna in the desert, they still died, why would he be referring to just bread and saying if you eat of this bread you will have eternal life. Ordinary bread cannot give eternal life.

 

[Reuben_J]

It is factual, but is also symbolic (and I do agree that manna fell literally). Jesus did not become flour and water when He said I AM the bread of life. I don’t think our disagreement is over if John used symbols (in the book of John), just when, where, how, and what they mean.

John 6 is the foreshadow of the Passover meal before his crucifixion. Of course he did not turn into bread in John 6 because it had not happened yet. A lot of what he foretold before his death and resurrection did not happened until then, leaving his apostles puzzled too.
Let see the said passages.

John 6:47 Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. … factual, not symbolic

*v.48 I am the bread of life. * … Not known yet but getting clearer in the Passover meal (MK 14:22-24)

*v.49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died
v.50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die *. … factual, not symbolic

*v.51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” *. … Jesus indeed comes from heaven. Him being the bread not known yet at this moment but getting clearer in the Passover meal (MK 14:22-24)

Then let’s look at Mark 14 (or Mt 26:26-28, Lk 22:19-20, 1 Cor 11:23-25)

It is very clear here. He took the bread, he touched it with his hand and fingers and said, “This …” It could not be symbolic unless we think that Jesus could not do it (to change the bread to his body).

*Mark 14:22-24
22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
*

In John 6 I read that we are to eat of Christ not how the manna was eaten. How was manna eaten? Physically and literally. John 6 is in the context of Jesus having physically fed those following Him, and the majority are following in John 6 to get a free food handout again not because He has the words of eternal life. He is basically saying they are not going to get a free food handout again, instead they need to be ingesting Him. How do they do that is the question; physically and literally?

As I explained, it would be physically and literally.
This would be clear in the context of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

Or spiritually and by faithing on Him and His words that bring eternal life?

And this too – hearing his word and doing it.

Christ broken and partaken in the Eucharist is an act of Communion with God. We have to have God in us in order that it is possible to really ‘hearing and doing’ his word.

We can have both; it is not either/or.

I agree, I don’t think either of us are trying to change the other’s mind, but clarification is always important. Many Protestants don’t have an understanding of the importance of the Eucharist in RC teaching. I think knowledge of others’ beliefs is extremely valuable. Thank you for dialoging with me!

I believe that is a right attitude. Thanks.

 

[Kliska]

You are correct on the bolded. He did not become flour and water, He transformed the substance of flour and water into His own flesh, only the appearance of the bread remain. If Jesus said that even though they ate manna in the desert, they still died, why would he be referring to just bread and saying if you eat of this bread you will have eternal life. Ordinary bread cannot give eternal life.

That’s my point; it was symbolic language He didn’t transform Himself into bread, even though He said clearly “I AM the bread of life.” It was symbolic. Again read the chapter; we are to eat of Jesus in a different manner than they ate of manna. They ate of manna physically and literally.

John 6 is the foreshadow of the Passover meal before his crucifixion. Of course he did not turn into bread in John 6 because it had not happened yet. A lot of what he foretold before his death and resurrection did not happened until then, leaving his apostles puzzled too.

If I understand correctly there is never a teaching that Jesus turns into bread, it would be the opposite, the substance of the bread changes, not the substance of Jesus, making His words “I AM the Bread of Life” symbolic.

*v.49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died
v.50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die *. … factual, not symbolic

People who eat the Eucharist still die physically, it is a true but symbolic teaching. It is teaching Spiritual Life and Spiritual truth. Again, they ate manna literally and physically we are to eat of Jesus differently.

Then let’s look at Mark 14 (or Mt 26:26-28, Lk 22:19-20, 1 Cor 11:23-25)

It is very clear here. He took the bread, he touched it with his hand and fingers and said, “This …” It could not be symbolic unless we think that Jesus could not do it (to change the bread to his body).

Mark 14:22-24
22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Note that we don’t doubt He could do it (as He did with water to wine) but if He did do it. Note the end verse there; after the change is said to have taken place, He calls it fruit of the vine. This is a pattern repeated by Him and St. Paul as well.

And this too – hearing his word and doing it.

Christ broken and partaken in the Eucharist is an act of Communion with God. We have to have God in us in order that it is possible to really ‘hearing and doing’ his word.

We can have both; it is not either/or.

I’m in total agreement here. It’s just how or in what way or form that happens.

I believe that is a right attitude. Thanks.

If all the misunderstanding between people (in general, not me and you lol) could be cleared away, I think we’d all be surprised as to what we hold in common. I believe it would be a lot, though not all, for sure. Knowledge shared between believers is always important. Thank you as well.

 

[lakotak]

T**hat’s my point; it was symbolic language He didn’t transform Himself into bread, even though He said clearly “I AM the bread of life.” ** It was symbolic. Again read the chapter; we are to eat of Jesus in a different manner than they ate of manna. They ate of manna physically and literally.

If I understand correctly there is never a teaching that Jesus turns into bread, it would be the opposite, the substance of the bread changes, not the substance of Jesus, making His words “I AM the Bread of Life” symbolic.

People who eat the Eucharist still die physically, it is a true but symbolic teaching. It is teaching Spiritual Life and Spiritual truth. Again, they ate manna literally and physically we are to eat of Jesus differently.

Note that we don’t doubt He could do it (as He did with water to wine) but if He did do it. Note the end verse there; after the change is said to have taken place, He calls it fruit of the vine. This is a pattern repeated by Him and St. Paul as well.

I’m in total agreement here. It’s just how or in what way or form that happens.

If all the misunderstanding between people (in general, not me and you lol) could be cleared away, I think we’d all be surprised as to what we hold in common. I believe it would be a lot, though not all, for sure. Knowledge shared between believers is always important. Thank you as well.

See bolded,
He didn’t transform himself into piece of bread, he transformed the bread into His own flesh. I don’t think He could have spelled it out more plainly that He was talking literally about the bread being transformed into His flesh. Even the Jews understood that He was not talking in a symbolic way when they walked away from Him. They stated that, “this is a hard saying”. Why would it have been a hard saying if He was only speaking in symbolic language. Also, Jesus would have known that they misunderstood, and as in other places in the Gospels, He did not hesitate to explain further when He was misunderstood. He did not do this here. He let them walk away because He and the disciples both know that he was speaking literally. Otherwise their reaction does not make any sense.