Is there a possibility, regarding the Eucharist and Paul's warnings

[JDGaney]

Saint Paul wrote that whenever we eat the bread and drink the wine, we proclaim Jesus’ Death until He comes again. Many symbol-thinking Protestants will say this is the final assertion that the Eucharist is just a symbol… Then he goes on to say:

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

I’ve often argued with Protestants in that camp that this is a definite answer to the real presence debate, that eating mere bread and wine could not incur spiritual trouble. But I had one guy say that Nadab and Abihu were killed for their incense, which did not have any really salvation at all, as it was just a symbol. Being, Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord…

Also, another Bible study group I found referenced Hebrews 6:6- since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

I know we have to eat the Flesh of Jesus for salvation, as the Hebrews needed to eat the flesh of their passover lamb, and such, and Jesus says we are really going to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, but it doesn’t say anything about the bread turning into the Flesh of the Lord? Doesn’t it mean we symbolically eat and drink?

 

[NHeath]

The bread and wine turns into the fleshy and blood during mass

 

[JRKH]

Saint Paul wrote that whenever we eat the bread and drink the wine, we proclaim Jesus’ Death until He comes again. Many symbol-thinking Protestants will say this is the final assertion that the Eucharist is just a symbol… Then he goes on to say:

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

I’ve often argued with Protestants in that camp that this is a definite answer to the real presence debate, that eating mere bread and wine could not incur spiritual trouble. But I had one guy say that Nadab and Abihu were killed for their incense, which did not have any really salvation at all, as it was just a symbol. Being, Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord…

Is seems to me that It was not the “matter” (incense) that cause their demise, but their lack of obedience.

Also, another Bible study group I found referenced Hebrews 6:6- since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

I know we have to eat the Flesh of Jesus for salvation, as the Hebrews needed to eat the flesh of their passover lamb, and such, and Jesus says we are really going to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, but it doesn’t say anything about the bread turning into the Flesh of the Lord? Doesn’t it mean we symbolically eat and drink?

Consider - -
Can you describe for me what the flesh and blood of God looks like and tastes like?

Those who argue this make the assumption that we must be talking about human flesh and human blood…but why??? Why would we think that God is thus limited???
God has come to us as a burning bush, a pillar of fire by night and smoke by day, cloud, wind - and human.

If Jesus, who is God, says that the bread and wine ARE - I repeat - ARE His body and blood, who are we to dispute this and declare them only symbols.

I just don’t understand it…

Peace
James

 

[johnnyc176]

I know we have to eat the Flesh of Jesus for salvation, as the Hebrews needed to eat the flesh of their passover lamb, and such, and Jesus says we are really going to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, but it doesn’t say anything about the bread turning into the Flesh of the Lord? Doesn’t it mean we symbolically eat and drink?

catholiccompany.com/catholicism-dummies-i3837/

From Catholicism for Dummies…

In the Synoptic Gospels each writer uses the same phrase to describe the Last Supper on Holy Thursday. Jesus took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples and said, This is My Body. The verb ‘to be’ is used such that an equality exists between ‘This’ (which refers to the bread) and ‘My Body’. So the bread becomes the body of Christ. Because all three Gospels (MT 26:26, MK 14:22 and LK 22:19) meticulously repeat the exact same phrase, as does St. Paul (1 Cor 11:24) these sacred words must be taken literally

The words of the Last Supper spoken by Christ over the bread and wine are consistent with the New Testament: Jesus explicitly and graphically commanded, “Eat My flesh and drink My blood” more than a few times. The Church reasons that if Jesus had meant this to be symbolic He wouldn’t have allowed so many of His followers to leave with such a serious misunderstanding. For Catholics the Holy Eucharist is the Last Supper, His death on the cross and His Resurrection all rolled into one. That is why we say the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith.

As a previous comment alluded to…Jesus said it. That is why we as Catholics believe it.

I recommend also that you read this…

ignatius.com/Products/HM2-P/the-hidden-manna.aspx

 

[Petaro]

Why, if the Eucharist is symbolic, when Jesus taught this many following Him said 'This is a hard saying and walked no more with Him." Why did He not explain that this was as symbolic as His parables.
John 6,51
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.”
Again in
“60
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?*
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh* is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66
As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”

Why, if His words were purely symbolic, did He not call them back and explain the symbolism as he so often did with the Parables? The Jews obviously understood Him to mean eat His very flesh.
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
68
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”.
This was obviously a game changer for many of the Jews and it was Peter as Leader of the Church that made the affirmation of Faith that his so weak leadership, supported as it was by The Holy Spirit, relied upon until his own death on the cross In Rome.
Jesus had the word wit to outdo any Pharisee. He would not let mere word usage mar the Message He gave His life for.