No…because Jesus told the people in John 6 : 48 - 59 …'My flesh is real food & My blood is real drink."
It is essential, however the Church of Christ does not subsist fully in all Christian particular churches or ecclessial communities. In fact, in some other Christian traditions the Eucharist is symbolic or commemorative (no transubstantiation).
Well, “communion” in every tradition outside of the CC or EO is, by its very nature, symbolic for the simple reason that there is no authority to consecrate the elements. What they have is only bread and only wine (or grape juice) so they really have no choice in the matter. So when they claim that the bread is only bread they are 100% correct.
Really? What a strange analogy for Jesus to draw. What is even stranger is that he did not correct the misunderstanding of the crowd, but let them leave in their ignorance. Does that sound like a good teacher to you? Have you ever wondered why those people thought he was speaking of his real body and blood; those people who spoke the same language and lived in the same time and culture and heard the words directly from Jesus’ mouth? If what you say is true, why did these people completely misunderstand him and why in the world did he not correct them? This was no parable. Jesus always explained his parables.
To be fair, though, Steve, there are many parables Jesus did not explain to those who did not believe even though they misunderstood him.
Jesus didnt explain every parable. And, as we know, Jesus was very much misunderstood. This is exactly why people went against him and away from him!
I will grant you that, but since this is not a parable it doesn’t apply anyway. If this was about faith, about eating and drinking his words, why did he not say so? The first part of the discourse is clearly about faith. The only question the crowd asked at that point was “how can this man say he has come down from heaven”. So he had already explained to them that faith was necessary. It was the second message that broke the camel’s back, so to speak.
So, as a Catholic, what is it that you believe?
The waters of Baptism are certainly “living water” welling up to eternal life. I think he was speaking literally.Hi Steve,
Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but I promise it is an honest one.
As you know, many Protestant traditions believe that the presence of Christ is there at holy communion although we believe the bread and wine do not turn into the actual body and blood, Nonetheless, Jesus is there in “Spirit and in truth” in our midst and we believe and thank him for his sacrifice as the ultimate Passover Lamb for us.
Question:
In the Gospel of John, chapter 4, John recounts the story of Jesus at the well with the Samaritan woman and the subject of water comes up.
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 livestock?”
13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
Why isn’t Jesus’ offer of “living water” considered to be literal, too, since his body and blood are considered to be literal?
In other words, I sometimes struggle with when a Christian should distinguish between symbolic and literal interpretations of certain verses. Do Catholics struggle with this too or is it just me?
In the story of Jesus and the woman at the well, was Christ referring to some sort of special water he had in Bota Bag somewhere nearby or was he speaking metaphorically about worshiping him in spirit and in truth (John 4;23)? If it was the latter, why couldn’t he have been doing likewise at the Last Supper?
At the Last Supper, Christ didn’t actually rip off parts of his arms or torso when he partook of the bread and wine with the disciples, just like he didn’t literally have special water in a container nearby that he was planning to give to the Samaritan woman.
I still believe holy communion is an important thing to do “in remembrance” of Christ as he requested that Christians do, but I hope you know we are not taking our relationship with Christ any less seriously than Catholics because we don’t adhere to the belief in transubstantiation, although I respect the Catholic position and can’t say with certainty that it is wrong.
After all, I have come to realize that there is a God and I’m not Him.
I agree, Steve. I just figured someone had to play devil’s advocate here lolI will grant you that, but since this is not a parable it doesn’t apply anyway. If this was about faith, about eating and drinking his words, why did he not say so? The first part of the discourse is clearly about faith. The only question the crowd asked at that point was “how can this man say he has come down from heaven”. So he had already explained to them that faith was necessary. It was the second message that broke the camel’s back, so to speak.
Why in the world, if this was the only message, did he continue on, using stronger and stronger language ending with “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you will have no life in you”? This makes no sense whatsoever. And then, to allow them to leave under a wrong impression, without a word? Why would he make a simple message, such as, “you must believe in my words and have faith in me” so convoluted by confusing them with eating his flesh and drinking his blood? It makes no rational sense at all.
Thanks for the reply, Steve. I enjoy exchanging thoughts with you and believe that you are the kind of guy I could sit down with and enjoy talking to for hours about the faith and I feel I would learn a lot in the process. I believe you are a Christian who takes I Pet 3:15 seriously. May God bless you and your family.
Not being on a website is not a bad thing. Maybe you’ll find a more fruitful way to share the hope that is within you!
Yeah, I was kinda wondering. lol
Thanks for your kind words. God bless you as well.Thanks for the reply, Steve. I enjoy exchanging thoughts with you and believe that you are the kind of guy I could sit down with and enjoy talking to for hours about the faith and I feel I would learn a lot in the process. I believe you are a Christian who takes I Pet 3:15 seriously. May God bless you and your family.
Sorry to see you go. I agree, it can get frustrating at times. There are posters here that will never accept our position, no matter how sound the argument. And that can go both ways. That’s okay. Remember that there are many, many more who view these threads than participate. We shouldn’t be here to “win the argument”, only to defend our faith as best we can. If what we say is true, I believe people will recognize that truth. Sometimes we can only plant seeds and pray for rain.
