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

[Kliska]

He didn’t transform himself into piece of bread, he transformed the bread into His own flesh.

That’s my point; He said I AM the bread of life; that was not literal. His flesh is not flour and water, and not even transubstantiation teaches that, it teaches the opposite; the substance of bread changes to Him, not the other way around.

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.

Again, those that got mad at Him in scripture for such things were the ones misunderstanding, and no, He did not correct them. It was a hard saying because they were misunderstanding Him; they took Him literally, and they were actually also mad because He was refusing to feed them free literal food like He did previously (see the context of John 6). They wanted a hand out, instead He gave them a lesson.

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.

He doesn’t do it elsewhere either, save to those that stick around. If people get mad and misunderstand and leave, He lets them leave.

 

[lakotak]

That’s my point; He said I AM the bread of life; that was not literal. His flesh is not flour and water, and not even transubstantiation teaches that, it teaches the opposite; the substance of bread changes to Him, not the other way around.

Again, those that got mad at Him in scripture for such things were the ones misunderstanding, and no, He did not correct them. It was a hard saying because they were misunderstanding Him; they took Him literally, and they were actually also mad because He was refusing to feed them free literal food like He did previously (see the context of John 6). They wanted a hand out, instead He gave them a lesson.

He doesn’t do it elsewhere either, save to those that stick around. If people get mad and misunderstand and leave, He lets them leave.

The base point is the bread was no longer bread, but the living flesh of Christ and not a symbol. You are not eternally saved by a piece of ordinary bread being used as a symbol.Christ was the sacrifice and according to the Jewish tradition, the sacrifice was eaten. He is the sacrifice, therefore, He gave us his flesh to eat under the appearance of bread. Maybe someone else can explain it to you in better terms that you can understand.

 

[Kliska]

The base point is the bread was no longer bread, but the living flesh of Christ and not a symbol. You are not eternally saved by a piece of ordinary bread being used as a symbol.Christ was the sacrifice and according to the Jewish tradition, the sacrifice was eaten. He is the sacrifice, therefore, He gave us his flesh to eat under the appearance of bread. Maybe someone else can explain it to you in better terms that you can understand.

I do truly understand, but that is the basic disagreement. I’m not saved by bread at all, but by Jesus. I’m not saved by consuming Him but by placing all my faith on Him; Who He is, what He has done, His perfect life, His sacrifice, the fact He rose again, and that He is the Way, Truth and the Life. And, I do know that RC doctrine backs that up too, but the detail and interpretation of scripture differs, such as how we receive grace, etc…

You’ve done a good job of explaining it! We just disagree, but that’s not on you.

 

[lakotak]

I do truly understand, but that is the basic disagreement. I’m not saved by bread at all, but by Jesus. I’m not saved by consuming Him but by placing all my faith on Him; Who He is, what He has done, His perfect life, His sacrifice, the fact He rose again, and that He is the Way, Truth and the Life. And, I do know that RC doctrine backs that up too, but the detail and interpretation of scripture differs, such as how we receive grace, etc…

You’ve done a good job of explaining it! We just disagree, but that’s not on you.

I will just leave you with the words of Christ Himself. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man you have no life within you”. This is His words, not mine. I hope one day that you will ask Jesus to open your mind and heart to the true interpretation of His Word.

 

[Convert2013]

I’m going to stop with this final post. I reference St. Paul…

1 Cor. 10…
15 I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.

16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

1 Cor. 11…
Tradition of the Institution…
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,

24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

…

29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

I just don’t see how it can be taken as a symbol. Peace of the Lord be with you!

 

[Kliska]

I will just leave you with the words of Christ Himself. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man you have no life within you”. This is His words, not mine. I hope one day that you will ask Jesus to open your mind and heart to the true interpretation of His Word.

Truly that is my prayer for you and I both. I also pray that your mind and heart are open to the true interpretation, of course I do. I think the key is actually the entire book of John, and more specifically the entirety of the 6th chapter that gives the meaning to His words, cherry picking scripture is never a good idea. I also agree that we have to “eat the flesh of the Son of Man” we just disagree on the meaning of that. Again, I also think Jesus is a vine, but not literally a vine. He is a door, but not made of wood or metal, etc…

Thank you again for your prayers and caring enough to converse.

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

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.

Yes, the substance changes. Thus Jesus is the bread of life - to be consumed. Thus not symbolic. Perhaps I have worded them inappropriately that made you misunderstood my intent.

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.

Not sure what you are getting at here. Jesus in the Eucharist is food for our souls. Life is referred to as eternal life; death as eternal damnation.

Just as the Israelites lived because of the manna (it saved then from hunger) but they nevertheless would die physically like all of us. But Jesus as the bread of life when eaten will give us life forever, eternal life. Though we die, we live.

Jesus speaks of the physical about the Israelites; and similarly with the Eucharist only that he speaks about the spiritual. Does that make sense?

Israelites - manna saved them in the liveless desert - but they died eventually. The physical world.

Christians - his body, the bread of life saves them in a lifeless spiritual world - they will die eventually (of course) - but will live forever, the eternal life. The physical world.

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.

Right. First and foremost, the fruits of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Eucharist is a Communion with God. It will produce good fruits to allow us to walk the journey; to allow us to hearing and to doing his word. It is a grace to make the journey possible, to end ultimately in life eternal.

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.

I am sure we hold lots in common but there are differences too. In the other thread, a question is asked - does it matter? Some said no, while some of us said yes. Some of your people only believe in the essential, we believe all are essentials and they are inter-related and inter-twined.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

Right. First and foremost, the fruits of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Eucharist is a Communion with God. It will produce good fruits to allow us to walk the journey; to allow us to hearing and to doing his word. It is a grace to make the journey possible, to end ultimately in life eternal.

The profound implication of John 15. “I am the vine and you are the branches; abide in me and me in you.”

Primarily we abide in Jesus - by hearing and listening to his word. We are fed by his word.

Like the branches we are, we too get the nourishment from the sap, from Jesus himself, his body and blood that we partake in the Eucharist as our spiritual food.

 

[Kliska]

Yes, the substance changes. Thus Jesus is the bread of life - to be consumed. Thus not symbolic. Perhaps I have worded them inappropriately that made you misunderstood my intent.

What I’m saying, and perhaps I’m wrong, that in the teaching of the Eucharist, the RC holds that the substance of the bread changes, not the substance of Jesus; Jesus does not become literal bread, rather in transubstantiation the bread becomes body. Hence, when Jesus says I AM the bread of life, that is not literal. He is not bread. (RC’s would say the bread transubstantiated into flesh, not flesh to bread). That means He was speaking symbolically when He called Himself bread.

Not sure what you are getting at here. Jesus in the Eucharist is food for our souls. Life is referred to as eternal life; death as eternal damnation.

Just as the Israelites lived because of the manna (it saved then from hunger) but they nevertheless would die physically like all of us. But Jesus as the bread of life when eaten will give us life forever, eternal life. Though we die, we live.

Jesus speaks of the physical about the Israelites; and similarly with the Eucharist only that he speaks about the spiritual. Does that make sense?

Israelites - manna saved them in the liveless desert - but they died eventually. The physical world.

Christians - his body, the bread of life saves them in a lifeless spiritual world - they will die eventually (of course) - but will live forever, the eternal life. The physical world.

Am going to try to connect this all together to the context I see and my view: Read this chunk all as one section, as I’m trying to provide an overview in a way that at least makes sense (not for argument to try to sway someone, but because of my pitiful lack of clarity apparently).

*John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
*
So, He is the living bread. For those of you who believe Transubstantiation is literal, do you believe that you will not literally, physically die? Of course not, it is obvious to all of us that He is talking about spiritual death. If we come to Christ, and Faith on Him, we will not die. How does He give His flesh for the life of the world? By sacrificing it, not by us literally ingesting it.

*John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
*
Notice it is NOT as their fathers did eat manna. How did they eat manna? Literally and Physically. We also have a repeat of the phrase “hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Where did we see this phrase before? In verse 40: And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day

So, we get this everlasting life by belief, or more accurately rendered; by faith in Him. This too lines up with all of Paul’s teachings. And also professing Christ (Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation) is indeed what saves, not literally eating or drinking.

Right. First and foremost, the fruits of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Eucharist is a Communion with God. It will produce good fruits to allow us to walk the journey; to allow us to hearing and to doing his word. It is a grace to make the journey possible, to end ultimately in life eternal.

But, again, Jesus is not a literal plant. Use of the symbol of the vine is not literal.

I am sure we hold lots in common but there are differences too. In the other thread, a question is asked - does it matter? Some said no, while some of us said yes. Some of your people only believe in the essential, we believe all are essentials and they are inter-related and inter-twined.

God bless.

I guess it depends on “what matters” means. lol For salvation? Yes, some issues are salvational, some are not. We can differ on the ones that are nonsalvational, but I’m sure we’d all agree we’d like to be right as a group on the questions of salvation, as we truly love one another.

 

[Reuben_J]

What I’m saying, and perhaps I’m wrong, that in the teaching of the Eucharist, the RC holds that the substance of the bread changes, not the substance of Jesus; Jesus does not become literal bread, rather in transubstantiation the bread becomes body. Hence, when Jesus says I AM the bread of life, that is not literal. He is not bread. (RC’s would say the bread transubstantiated into flesh, not flesh to bread). That means He was speaking symbolically when He called Himself bread.

Yes, the substance of the bread changes to the substance of Jesus. So now the bread is Jesus’ body. It could not be more explicit than this. I cannot imagine how this could be symbolic. The bread now is not a symbol of Jesus but it is the body of Jesus himself.

In my understanding, symbolism is something to symbolize a person/thing but not the person/thing itself. The bread after the consecration is not a symbol of Christ’s body but it is his body.

Am going to try to connect this all together to the context I see and my view: Read this chunk all as one section, as I’m trying to provide an overview in a way that at least makes sense (not for argument to try to sway someone, but because of my pitiful lack of clarity apparently).

*John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
*
So, He is the living bread. For those of you who believe Transubstantiation is literal, do you believe that you will not literally, physically die? Of course not, it is obvious to all of us that He is talking about spiritual death. If we come to Christ, and Faith on Him, we will not die. How does He give His flesh for the life of the world? By sacrificing it, not by us literally ingesting it.

Yes, by sacrificing it which was foreshadowed in the Passover lamb. It had to be killed and consumed.

*John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
*
Notice it is NOT as their fathers did eat manna. How did they eat manna? Literally and Physically. We also have a repeat of the phrase “hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Where did we see this phrase before? In verse 40: And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day

Briefly, the key word here is ‘believe in him’. I hope you know what I mean. How do you believe in him? Do you really believe what he says? Or do you too, turn away and leave him like the others who did so?

I had given a two-prong attributes of believing:

To abide in Jesus and he in us.
(1) by hearing and doing his word.
(2) by Communion with him.
They are both spelt out in John 6 and 15.

Thus in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (the Holy Mass), both the Word and the Eucharist are celebrated equally in the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist respectively.

How would we have eternal life? By believing. What is in that ‘believing’? It is in hearing what Jesus said and in doing it.

The partaking of the body of Jesus is a Communion with him. How does one Communion with Jesus? Yes, you can do that by having his word abides in you. But Jesus is Spirit, He is God not just mere human and therefore he can be in us even literally which is the Eucharist.

So, we get this everlasting life by belief, or more accurately rendered; by faith in Him. This too lines up with all of Paul’s teachings. And also professing Christ (Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation) is indeed what saves, not literally eating or drinking.

I say it is both. If Jesus is not in you then the believing is difficult simply because we are mere humans. We can say we believe by our mouths and in our hearts but it is the grace of God that makes that belief even more tangible. When Jesus is in us, it makes the believing easier because he is in us.

 

[Reuben_J]

But, again, Jesus is not a literal plant. Use of the symbol of the vine is not literal.

We agree that John 15 is symbolic. I said it is an analogy to demonstrate the idea of how the branches cannot survive without the vine and that they are nourished from the sap that the vine produced. The idea is that the branches live because they are connected to the vine where they get their food from.

The food then are the Word of God and Jesus, the bread of life - both physical and spiritual, both symbolic and factual.

I guess it depends on “what matters” means. lol For salvation? Yes, some issues are salvational, some are not. We can differ on the ones that are nonsalvational, but I’m sure we’d all agree we’d like to be right as a group on the questions of salvation, as we truly love one another.

All are salvational if we are really faithful to Jesus. Sacraments are graces that strengthen us to achieve salvation. Sure, you can go on it alone without the Sacraments but most of us are of lesser humans and we need God’s help to love him. We can say we love God but we cannot really do it on our human strength alone unless God gives us the strength to do so. Thus everything is essential to salvation.

 

[Kliska]

Yes, the substance of the bread changes to the substance of Jesus. So now the bread is Jesus’ body. It could not be more explicit than this. I cannot imagine how this could be symbolic. The bread now is not a symbol of Jesus but it is the body of Jesus himself.

Exactly, in RC teaching the bread becomes Jesus, Jesus doesn’t become bread. I AM the bread of life is therefore symbolic, to be literal Jesus would have to become bread and He doesn’t do that; His substance never changes (the bread changes).

Yes, by sacrificing it which was foreshadowed in the Passover lamb. It had to be killed and consumed.

Yet, in the partaking of the last supper the symbol put forth by Jesus wasn’t the Lamb (because Jesus was literally going to be killed), but rather the Matzoh bread, a specific piece of matzoh bread with a specific Jewish blessing said over it and broken. A specific cup of wine in the Passover feast was blessed with a specific Jewish blessing. We can’t remove those elements from the Jewish context and understand fully what Jesus was showing forth.

Briefly, the key word here is ‘believe in him’. I hope you know what I mean. How do you believe in him? Do you really believe what he says? Or do you too, turn away and leave him like the others who did so?

lol Neither of us have left Him yet, let’s pray never. The Greek word for believe or belief is always based on the word pisits, meaning trusting with great confidence. When He says believe on Me; literally trust I AM Who I say I AM. Trust that I AM the sacrifice to end all sacrifice. I AM that I AM. When He says to believe in Him, He is the literal object of trust. I AM God come in the flesh, I AM the Messiah. Trust on Me.

I had given a two-prong attributes of believing:

To abide in Jesus and he in us.
(1) by hearing and doing his word.
(2) by Communion with him.
They are both spelt out in John 6 and 15.

Thus in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (the Holy Mass), both the Word and the Eucharist are celebrated equally in the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist respectively.

How would we have eternal life? By believing. What is in that ‘believing’? It is in hearing what Jesus said and in doing it.

We see this differently; Faithing on Jesus is very specific. We have to trust all those things I laid out above. When He says that to do the work of God is to believe on Him Whom He hath sent, that is a command to 1) recognize precisely Who He is, and 2) Trust Him and all He does. “I AM the Messiah, I AM the Lamb, I AM the Sacrifice, I AM the bread of Life, I AM God, trust me.” In this context of John 6, the people wanted literal bread to eat (as He gave them previously), He makes the profound point of; no, you don’t get that, and it profits you nothing, what you get is Me. Our focus is on His doing, not ours. How to we partake of Him? By trusting Him, His very being and actions, with great confidence.

He has the words of life, as Peter pointed out, spoken in spirit and in truth, they should have kept following Him, but got mad and left.

The partaking of the body of Jesus is a Communion with him. How does one Communion with Jesus? Yes, you can do that by having his word abides in you. But Jesus is Spirit, He is God not just mere human and therefore he can be in us even literally which is the Eucharist.

He never leaves us or forsakes us. He’s always with us, literally.

I say it is both. If Jesus is not in you then the believing is difficult simply because we are mere humans. We can say we believe by our mouths and in our hearts but it is the grace of God that makes that belief even more tangible. When Jesus is in us, it makes the believing easier because he is in us.

I agree, we disagree about how Jesus comes to be really in us and abides with us. In Paul’s discourse I quoted on salvation, it didn’t include literally eating Jesus. Faith is the key.

All are salvational if we are really faithful to Jesus.

I’m being literal; there are things we can disagree about that doesn’t effect either your or my salvation.

Sacraments are graces that strengthen us to achieve salvation.

We don’t achieve salvation, it is achieved for us by Grace. Jesus achieved it, and we get to participate in it. Praise God for that, or none of us would make it.

Sure, you can go on it alone without the Sacraments but most of us are of lesser humans and we need God’s help to love him. We can say we love God but we cannot really do it on our human strength alone unless God gives us the strength to do so.

I agree, we need unmerited favor (grace), but I see we tap into it by faith (trust), not sacraments/physical works. So, Abraham faithed and it was counted for righteousness, did he also get up and move? Sure. But it was the faith that tapped into the grace. We are indeed continually sanctified, but salvation in the age of grace (from my protestant perspective) isn’t an ongoing process, it is an event.

 

[Nicea325]

“Thank you for your kind replies” …Your welcome 504Katrin!

Which argument specifically? As a former Protestant (no fault of my own ) I did at least believe in the Virgin birth, Jesus walking on the water, turning water into wine, the loaves and the fishes, etc. etc. etc. …Jesus’ resurrection!! . But this is what I take issue with Protestant theology in general and as I already mentioned …there seems to be a pick and choose to fit whatever picture that is desired. (Thanks Martin Luther)

Can you explain as a Protestant why you can’t believe in Transubstatiation but believe in certain other aspects of Christianity? I’m asking that genuinely as I have never gotten a straight logical answer from any protestants including my own family.

Because there are no logical answers. As I once told a Protestant:

If the Real Presence is heretical and false,where are the scores of protests from orthodox Christians?

His answer: How can people protest something not yet taught or believed?

My rebuttal:

Which logically proves it was invented at one point in time,hence where are the protests of this new belief?

As usual…no concrete evidence to debunk my rebuttal.

 

[Nicea325]

Kliska:

Exactly, in RC teaching the bread becomes Jesus, Jesus doesn’t become bread. I AM the bread of life is therefore symbolic, to be literal Jesus would have to become bread and He doesn’t do that; His substance never changes (the bread changes).

Nope! Your understanding is bogus. Now you are stating what God needs to become: bread. God has no limits and your lack of understanding makes no difference.

 

[Nicea325]

Truly that is my prayer for you and I both. I also pray that your mind and heart are open to the true interpretation, of course I do. I think the key is actually the entire book of John, and more specifically the entirety of the 6th chapter that gives the meaning to His words, cherry picking scripture is never a good idea. I also agree that we have to “eat the flesh of the Son of Man” we just disagree on the meaning of that. Again, I also think Jesus is a vine, but not literally a vine. He is a door, but not made of wood or metal, etc…

Thank you again for your prayers and caring enough to converse.

True interpretation? The whole symbolic argument is a result of Protestanism. Name one early church father defending the symbolic Eucharist and attacking the Catholic/Orthodox teaching?

 

[JonNC]

For picking and choosing what he wanted to fit in his picture of theology. It wasn’t meant as a slam on Lutherans specifically.

Here you ascribe a motive, which I suspect you have no evidence for. Not the topic of the thread, however.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Kliska;11393198]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.

Then one must understand His words outside the obvious meaning.

The RC understanding is what I was referring to in my reply. The idea of consubstantiation (I know many Lutherans don’t like that label, but for the sake of talking about it short hand, I feel it stands) is closer to the way Jesus taught it, but obviously in my opinion, still teaches too much of a Real Presence in a categorically different sense then I believe scripture teaches.

We don’t like the label because we don’t like the teaching. What we teach is that when we receive, we receive His body and blood. How this happens is a mystery.
As for cannibalism, from the Formula of Concord.

For in view of the circumstances this command evidently cannot be understood otherwise than of oral eating and drinking, however, not in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, incomprehensible way; 65] to which afterwards the other command adds still another and spiritual eating, when the Lord Christ says further: This do in remembrance of Me, where He requires faith [which is the spiritual partaking of Christ’s body).

[/quote]

Again, not to argue the point, but rather to answer the OP’s question. IF described using the philosophy of transubstantiation, then cannibalism is taught

. 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.
By this, then, if a Catholic is guilty of cannibalism, then so am I.

Jon*

 

[JonNC]

True interpretation? The whole symbolic argument is a result of Protestanism. Name one early church father defending the symbolic Eucharist and attacking the Catholic/Orthodox teaching?

The Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran/Anglican teaching.

Good to see you again, btw, Nicea.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

Nope! Your understanding is bogus. Now you are stating what God needs to become: bread. God has no limits and your lack of understanding makes no difference.

You miss the point. Jesus said, “I AM the bread of life.” That is symbolic language because He has never been bread, wasn’t bread at the time, nor will ever be bread. That is also Catholic teaching. Bread becomes flesh according to transubstantiation not the other way around, hence “I AM the bread of life” is symbolic language.

True interpretation? The whole symbolic argument is a result of Protestanism. Name one early church father defending the symbolic Eucharist and attacking the Catholic/Orthodox teaching?

I took the time to look up conversations on this on the forum. There are many and they obviously never end in agreement. I can indeed name them and their works, but it will do absolutely no good.

Grace and Peace to you.

 

[JonNC]

=Kliska;11401389]You miss the point. Jesus said, “I AM the bread of life.” That is symbolic language because He has never been bread, wasn’t bread at the time, nor will ever be bread. That is also Catholic teaching. Bread becomes flesh according to transubstantiation not the other way around, hence “I AM the bread of life” is symbolic language.

The mistake I believe that Catholics make is to use John 6 as proof of the real presence, for the very reason you state. I am the bread of life, I am the door, etc are indeed metaphorical.
The Last Supper accounts, and St. Paul’s reiteration of them use a different language, however, and it is here we find proof of Christ’s intent. In them, Christ does not say, I am this or that, the metaphorical language of John 6. Instead, He hold the bread in his hands and say, “This [bread] is my body.”
This is literal language. The direction and intention are completely different. John 6, in light of the Words of Institution, makes sense.

Grace and Peace to you.

And also with you.

Jon