John 6:25-59 The Bread of Life

[davidv]

Hmmmm. So if I understand you correctly, Catholics can appeal to John 6:63 to argue that the words of “spirit and life” mean “therefore not literal cannibalism.” But when Protestants appeal to the same verse to say that “spirit and life” mean “therefore Jesus wasn’t speaking literally,” we’re accused of “spiritualizing” a text that is “obviously literal”? How is that not special pleading on your part?

Couldn’t I use that same kind of argument against you? What if you’re the one who is “still in the flesh?” Why couldn’t I cite this verse to prove that it is you who are unable to understand God’s word?

Your argument above is what is called, “ad hominem,” only you’ve dressed it up in spiritual language. But it amounts to the same thing. But instead of questioning my spiritual status, would it not be more helpful to address my arguments?

You keep saying this but you haven’t shown how a literal ascension in one verse requires us to take “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” literally.

Okay, just to set the record straight (again), I do NOT believe that Jesus was advocating cannibalism. NOR am I saying that the Catholic church teaches cannibalism. What I am saying is that a “literal” (please look up what that word means) interpretation of “eats flesh” and “drinks blood” entails cannibalism. That is why I believe that no church actually takes these words “literally.” I take them “metaphorically.” You take them “sacramentally.” But no one takes them “literally,” unless the word “literal” has lost all meaning.

If “eating flesh” and especially “drinking blood” is “bloodless,” then how is it still “literal?” You’re re-defining the word “literal,” so that it no longer has any meaning. You claim to drink bloodless blood and at the same time claim that you’re speaking “literally.” That makes no sense. (And please don’t call me “unspiritual” for saying so.)

I believe it is you who needs to look up “literal”. The Bible was assembled by Catholics, for Catholics. When interpreting the Bible, one must use Catholic definitions.

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75
110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.“77
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (”. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

 

[nuntym]

+AJPM+

Hmmmm. So if I understand you correctly, Catholics can appeal to John 6:63 to argue that the words of “spirit and life” mean “therefore not literal cannibalism.” But when Protestants appeal to the same verse to say that “spirit and life” mean “therefore Jesus wasn’t speaking literally,” we’re accused of “spiritualizing” a text that is “obviously literal”? How is that not special pleading on your part?

Couldn’t I use that same kind of argument against you? What if you’re the one who is “still in the flesh?” Why couldn’t I cite this verse to prove that it is you who are unable to understand God’s word?

Your argument above is what is called, “ad hominem,” only you’ve dressed it up in spiritual language.

Not all “ad hominem” arguments are necessarily false, especially if the personality, morality, characteristics, etc. of the people involved are legitimate and relevant in this issue.

And yes, in this issue the characteristics of the people involved are relevant. Let me explain.

Let us go to the First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians. In the passages below I am going to cite what Paul said after describing the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:26-30)

[27]Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
[30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

“Many of you are weak and ill, and some have died…” If just a few people of a church community are weak and ill, then that has little to no over-all effect on the strength of that community. However, if “many” in a church community are weak and ill, and some have died, then it can be surmised that that community is also weak and ill.

In fact, in this letter, St. Paul mentions that he received reports that there are divisions and quarrels in the church of Corinth.

He then says a very curious thing:

Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 1 Cor 10:17

He says that the source of unity in the church is the Eucharist. So what will happen to a church that neglects the Holy Eucharist?

And now I ask you, Miguel Sastre, which is more united, the Church that teaches the presence of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, or your church?

On a side note, it is interesting that the weakening of the Catholic Church in its unity and power today coincides with the lessening of reverence to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

But it amounts to the same thing. But instead of questioning my spiritual status, would it not be more helpful to address my arguments?

Which ones? I think I answered them all.

You keep saying this but you haven’t shown how a literal ascension in one verse requires us to take “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” literally.

It is all in the context. As I said:

That is what Jesus is saying: He affirmed the literal meaning of what He was saying about eating His flesh and drinking His blood by mentioning His Ascension to heaven (John 6:61-62); now (John 6:63) He wants us to **believe **in His words about eating His body and drinking His blood, **not **in our own understanding! When Jesus’ disciples saw His own Ascension later, they would have understood this.

Okay, just to set the record straight (again), I do NOT believe that Jesus was advocating cannibalism. NOR am I saying that the Catholic church teaches cannibalism. What I am saying is that a “literal” (please look up what that word means) interpretation of “eats flesh” and “drinks blood” entails cannibalism. That is why I believe that no church actually takes these words “literally.” I take them “metaphorically.” You take them “sacramentally.” But no one takes them “literally,” unless the word “literal” has lost all meaning.

[C]annibalism only gives nourishment to the physical body of the eater. In contrast, the Holy Eucharist nourishes the souls of those who partake in It.

If “eating flesh” and especially “drinking blood” is “bloodless,” then how is it still “literal?” You’re re-defining the word “literal,” so that it no longer has any meaning. You claim to drink bloodless blood and at the same time claim that you’re speaking “literally.” That makes no sense. (And please don’t call me “unspiritual” for saying so.)

I am sorry, I meant “not bloody.” Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[nuntym]

Finally, an answer to this question. Thank you. So it sounds as if you believe the teaching of the ordinary magisterium is that John 6 is to be taken “literally,” even though there is no formal definition of what exegetes call the “literal sense” (the meaning the human author intended) for John 6.

Ordinary and universal Magisterium, Miguel. There is a great difference in leaving out the “universal.”

And why, are not the citations from the Catechism not clear enough for you?

 

[nuntym]

+AJPM+

Finally, an answer to this question. Thank you. So it sounds as if you believe the teaching of the ordinary magisterium is that John 6 is to be taken “literally,” even though there is no formal definition of what exegetes call the “literal sense” (the meaning the human author intended) for John 6.

Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, Miguel. There is a great difference in leaving out the “universal.”

And why, are not the citations from the Catechism not clear enough for you?

Besides, there is the Council of Trent already. To interpret any part of the Bible in order to deny the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist risks heresy.

 

[nuntym]

+AJPM+

Okay, just to set the record straight (again), I do NOT believe that Jesus was advocating cannibalism. NOR am I saying that the Catholic church teaches cannibalism. What I am saying is that a “literal” (please look up what that word means) interpretation of “eats flesh” and “drinks blood” entails cannibalism. That is why I believe that no church actually takes these words “literally.” I take them “metaphorically.” You take them “sacramentally.” But no one takes them “literally,” unless the word “literal” has lost all meaning.

A better explanation would be using the doctrine of transubstantiation. I will first ask a hypothetical question. Suppose a shark that has killed and eaten a number of people was caught, prepared, and cooked to make shark’s fin soup, and it was given to you. If you eat that soup, does it make you a cannibal?

Of course not. Although yes, the components of meat of people are present in the meat of the shark, they are in a different form: the meat of the shark. That change in form of the meat of people automatically makes you not a cannibal.

Now, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

In other words, during consecration, the bread and wine becomes in substance the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, but the species or forms are still bread and wine.

Therefore, since the Flesh and Blood of Jesus are in the form of bread and wine, those who partake in the Holy Eucharist are not guilty of cannibalism.

Besides, the only physical nourishment that one will receive from the Eucharist is that from the form of bread and/or wine only; therefore it is even more remote from cannibalism than eating the meat of a man-eating animal.

 

[kepha1]

Docetism was an error with several variations concerning the nature of Christ. Generally, it taught that Jesus only appeared to have a body, that he was not really incarnate, (Greek, “dokeo” = “to seem”). This error developed out of the dualistic philosophy which viewed matter as inherently evil, that God could not be associated with matter, and that God, being perfect and infinite, could not suffer. Therefore, God as the word, could not have become flesh per John 1:1,14, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us… " This denial of a true incarnation meant that Jesus did not truly suffer on the cross and that He did not rise from the dead.

The basic principle of Docetism was refuted by the Apostle John in 1 John 4:2-3. “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.” Also, 2 John 7, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.”

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117) and Irenaeus (115-190), and Hippolatus (170-235) wrote against the error in the early part of the second century.

Docetism was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
http://www.carm.org/docetism

“They (Docetae) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…”
*Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200). *

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…”
*Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200). *

 

[kepha1]

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” 1

Acts 9:4-5; 22:8; 26:14-15 – Jesus asks Saul, “Why are you persecuting me?” when Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus and the Church are one body (Bridegroom and Bride), and we are one with Jesus through His flesh and blood (the Eucharist). 2

Matt. 19:6 - Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ’s union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ’s body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union). 3

1. Protestantism tends to oppose matter and spirit, favoring the latter, and is somewhat Gnostic or Docetic in this regard.
2. Catholicism upholds the “incarnational principle,” wherein Jesus became flesh and thus raised flesh and matter to new spiritual heights.
3. Protestantism greatly limits or disbelieves in sacramentalism, which is simply the extension of the incarnational principle and the belief that matter can convey grace. Some sects (e.g., Baptists, many Pentecostals) reject all sacraments.
4. Most Protestants regard the Eucharist symbolically, which is contrary to universal Christian Tradition up to 1517, and the Bible (Mt 26:26-28; Jn 6:47-63; 1 Cor 10:14-22; 1 Cor 11:23-30), which hold to the Real Presence (another instance of the antipathy to matter).
5. Protestantism has virtually ceased to regard marriage as a sacrament, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mt 19:4-5; 1 Cor 7:14; 1 Cor 7:39; Eph 5:25-33).

Beware of Docetic arguments against the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. It’s not always obvious, but there more often than not.

References:

http://www.carm.org/docetism
1, 2, 3 THE EUCHARIST

37, 38, 39, 43, 44 One Hundred Fifty Reasons I’m Catholic

 

[Marc_Anthony]

+AJPM+

A better explanation would be using the doctrine of transubstantiation. I will first ask a hypothetical question. Suppose a shark that has killed and eaten a number of people was caught, prepared, and cooked to make shark’s fin soup, and it was given to you. If you eat that soup, does it make you a cannibal?

Of course not. Although yes, the components of meat of people are present in the meat of the shark, they are in a different form: the meat of the shark. That change in form of the meat of people automatically makes you not a cannibal.

Now, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

In other words, during consecration, the bread and wine becomes in substance the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, but the species or forms are still bread and wine.

Therefore, since the Flesh and Blood of Jesus are in the form of bread and wine, those who partake in the Holy Eucharist are not guilty of cannibalism.

Besides, the only physical nourishment that one will receive from the Eucharist is that from the form of bread and/or wine only; therefore it is even more remote from cannibalism than eating the meat of a man-eating animal.

 

[Pitcharan]

Are you saying that because he didn’t “clear the air” that he wasn’t speaking figuratively? …

Perhaps because no one can come to belief in Jesus unless the Father ordains it (cf, 6:65). In other words, for those whom the Father has not predestined to salvation, Jesus simply doesn’t bother to give additional explanations. The function of Jesus’ preaching was twofold: It saves those destined to believe, and it condemns those who refuse. “It is for judgment that I have come into this world, so that those without sight may see and those with sight may become blind” (John 9:39). We can therefore probably conclude that Jesus didn’t explain anything to those who forsook him because they were among those who “preferred the darkness because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).

According to John, Jesus preferred to speak figuratively (John 16:25). So unless there is good reason to take “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” in some other way, then the default should be “figurative language.”

Cheers

Salvation has many definitions and all of them are simultaneously right. Some examples:

*Salvation is separating darkness from light

Salvation is being united with God

Salvation is the process of divinising human beings to enable them live with God in His heavenly abode

Salvation is being saved by God from slavery to sin

Salvation is being redeemed from Satan’s clutches by shedding of Jesus’ blood as the price

Salvation is the synergy of God’s love and human contrition*

 

[spockrates]

Yes, to read the writings of the Early Church Fathers is to cease to find Protestant theology in the early Church. I’ve yet to find anyone mentioning crackers and grape juice when referencing the Eucharist. Nor have I found the ECF’s to believe that the Eucharist is a symbolic gesture of some past event…

The Early Church Fathers are the best kept secret that we Catholics have. As you said, we just cannot make them out to be Protestant… teachccd

Well, I have to say, Teach that the historical argument is a strong one. When I was Evangelical, it was one I largely avoided. I thought that there must be a good Evangelical response, and good historical evidence contrary to the Catholic view of which I was unaware.

When pressed by Catholics like yourself, the only answer I had for it was to say the leadership of the Catholic Church had become corrupt (but how widespread it had become so early in the history of the Church surprised me)! I had to either argue that there was a faithful remnant of “Protestants” centuries before the Protestant Reformation, or take the view that Latter Day Saints today take, that the Church had ceased to exist for centuries. The former position was too difficult to defend, and the lack of extant ancient manuscripts by these pre-Reformation Protestants forced me to take the fallacious and illogical stand of making an argument from ignorance. The latter view seemed more defensible, but was not one that I’d ever seen other Evangelicals take.

I began to wonder why the Evangelical pastors I so respected spoke so little of the history of the Church outside the pages of the Bible, and wondered if they were intentionally, or unintentionally, avoiding the historical facts. I began to wonder about myself as well, with great uneasiness. Socrates’ words applied to me:

I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief, and I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, “What am I saying?” For, there is nothing worse than self-deception, where the deceiver is always at home and always with you. It is quite terrible, and therefore I ought often to retrace my steps and endeavor to “look fore and aft” in the words of aforesaid Homer.

(Cratylus, 428)

 

[spockrates]

He said that He did. It has been the teaching since the apostolic era that He did. It has been the teachings of the patristic era that He did. Two thousand years later the Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to proclaim that He did. So did He? Yes, He absolutely did…

Teach:

Yes, but when reasoning with an old Evangelical-at-heart like myself, I think it best to consider Saint Paul’s words:

I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.

(1 Corinthians 9:22)

You have to ask each person what evidence he or she would find most convincing, and then start there. Even now, after all I’ve learned from Catholics like yourself, I still find the premise, “Because He said that He did,” most authoritative and the best measure of truth. To reach someone like me, you might have to focus most on the words of Sacred Scripture.

So, if you are up to it, let’s together consider two statements of Jesus:

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

(John 8:12)

and

Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”

(John 6:35)

Perhaps we can find the truth about whether Jesus is speaking of symbolic bread or actual bread by way of comparison and contrast. Please tell me, based on the words of the Bible alone, are you able to explain why Jesus is actual bread but merely symbolic light?

 

[spockrates]

No, I wouldnt say that at all, but I would say that my own fallible opinion regarding the soundness or goodness of those arguments can not ultimately be what reveals the truth to me. That was my point. I happen to believe that the Scriptural Real Presence arguments combined with the unanimous witness of the ECFs (as well as the Orthodox Church) form the soundest, most logical approach to unifying John 6 with the doctrine of transubstantiation and the Real Presence…

I agree! And I suppose that if you were to read each of these Early Church Fathers, they’d all use the same method to one degree or another: They’d consider the word of Sacred Scripture. So my thought is this: Since they reason with others using the words of the Bible, shouldn’t we?

 

[spockrates]

After He said the words “This is my body”, Yes, what He held in His hands was His own flesh, even tho it still had the appearance of bread.
It was just bread before He declared it to be His body. But once He declared “This is my body”, it was His body. Likewise with the wine/blood. God’s word has the power to effect what it proclaims.

Yes, I see. I suppose for His words to be grammatically correct, the bread would have to have already transformed by the time He pronounced the letter y!



So how do you answer the Evangelical argument that we are misunderstanding Him? They say that we think He meant,

“This is my [actual] body.”

when in fact He meant this,

“This is [like] my body.”

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

He then says a very curious thing: Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 1 Cor 10:17

He says that the source of unity in the church is the Eucharist. So what will happen to a church that neglects the Holy Eucharist?

You’re substituting “Holy Eucharist” for “body,” but in the very verse you quote he identifies the church with the “body.” In deed, what does happen when we neglect “the body”? Paul seems most focused on not being divided before we partake of the “Lord’s supper” (1 Cor. 11:20). He does not say that failing to hold to transubstantiation is what divides us. The divisions were already present. What kinds of division? Context suggests that there may have been divisions based on social class, as some were going hungry and others getting drunk. “Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?” (1 Corinthians 11:22). It is very important to “discern the body” (v. 28). Here, I suspect, there is a double referent to both Jesus in the Eucharist and the “body” of believers. Notice that Paul doesn’t talk about discerning the blood, in this verse. I suspect “body,” primarily refers to the church that gathers. (Please do not hear me as saying that “body” only refers to the church and not the Eucharist. I think it probably refers to both.)

And now I ask you, Miguel Sastre, which is more united, the Church that teaches the presence of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, or your church?

Mine. Your church is divided internally between liberals and conservatives and is populated by a mass of baptized unbelievers who arguably make up the vast majority of your church. Using Paul’s criteria of unity of hearts and minds, rather than uniformity, I’d say there’s more unity in my church in the areas that count. But that’s another topic.

 

[AliciaCL]

Summary of the debate so far…

It seems to me that the few of us continuing this thread have pretty much “fleshed out” (yes, that was bad, sorry) the major interpretative issues in John 6. Here’s my take of the Catholic perspective:

The Catholic argument as I understand it:

1. Keep the big picture in mind: Passover. Passover sheds light on what it means to “eat flesh,” since in order to escape God’s wrath, one had to “eat” the Passover lamb. Thus the “flesh” we eat is actually the flesh of the “lamb.”
2. The multiplication of the loaves is a “type” of the Eucharist.
3. Jesus is the bread of life, which is identified as his flesh, which we literally eat. So when we “eat of this bread,” we’re actually eating Jesus.
   4a. When the Jews objected and asked, “how can he give us his flesh to eat,” Jesus does not correct their misunderstanding because they didn’t misunderstand.
   4b. If they had misunderstand, then Jesus would have corrected them. But since he did not, we can be sure that they in fact understood him correctly.
4. Jesus was speaking literally and they took him literally. The problem is that they didn’t believe him. They didn’t believe that he was requiring his followers to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life.
5. Catholics claim to be taking Jesus at his word (i.e., literally). But they categorically reject the notion that this entails cannibalism.
6. So even though eating flesh/drinking blood isn’t cannibalism, they nevertheless insist that they are literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood in the Eucharist.
7. Catholics believe that the only legitimate interpretation of “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” requires a belief in the real presence (and specifically, the theory of transubstantiation) of Jesus in the Eucharist.
8. The “unbelief” of those in John 6 lies in their rejection of the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
9. Those who decided not to follow Jesus any longer did so because they didn’t believe in Jesus’ theology of the Eucharist.

Am I leaving anything out?

YEs, You’ve got it. Except, remember that Jesus wasn’t just a person. He was divine, not just a regular guy. That alone dispells the cannibalism idea. I have often found it easier to understand the references to His body if you think of the word body as essence. The Eucharist in a sense virtually transends language; human words are inadequate. The physical world as we know it is surpassed in the Eucharist in a way that human beings have not known and will never know elsewhere. We have to transend our own belief in the flesh world. Think about explaining prayer to a true atheist; he’ll say that’s just thinking. It means nothing. One must leave the understanding of the flesh world to understand it. This is the Eucharist. Of course all of this ultimately ends up back at the question of believing and trusting in Peter and Christ’s church.

Although this is not the best way to think of it, if you were God, who spent thousands of years preparing your people and then delivered your Son to mankind, would you leave a single church to lead people for the rest of time? Or, would you just say, oh whatever. It’s fine that my people have a fundamental belief in me, as long as the people get my basics of Christianity, I don’t mind if they disagree on other religious doctrines? In my view, non-Catholics are burdened with justifying why the specific interpretations, which contradict Catholic teaching are correct. That discussion has been going on for 500 + years. The trouble with the break away churches is that they ultimately rely on man to decide things and they continue to morph into other beliefs because they lack the guidance of the Church which Christ himself left – all very, well-intentioned, of course.

 

[Nita]

Yes, I see. I suppose for His words to be grammatically correct, the bread would have to have already transformed by the time He pronounced the letter y!



So how do you answer the Evangelical argument that we are misunderstanding Him? They say that we think He meant,

“This is my [actual] body.”

when in fact He meant this,

“This is [like] my body.”

I would say to them, Jesus didn’t say either “This is my actual body” or “This is like my body”. He said, “This is my body”. Then I would ask them what they think the word “is” means. What do you think it means?

I realize that the word “is” can be used in ways that at first seem symbolic. Eg. In a game where kids might say that grassy spot over there “is” the jail. It’s literally a grassy spot and not a jail building. But in the context of the pretend game, it is also literally the jail.
Jesus of course wasn’t playing games. He was shortly to be crucified and was establishing the memorial sacrificial rite for the New Covenant before His departure. Like the OT prefigurements, there is an intimate connection and relationship between the sacrifice itself and the rites. Where there were many sacrifices and rites in the Old Covenant, there would be only one sacrifice and one memorial rite of it in the New Covenant.

If they still think the word “is” is ambiguous, then I would ask them whom they think has the authority to determine which of the various understandings is correct one. Then I would ask them to show Scriptural support for that authority. As Catholics, we provide such support for our belief in where the authority lies.

You are evangelical. Who do you look to for an authoritative decision about the correct understanding of an important doctrine – when there are opposing views. Why do you accept that particular authority – that is, what is the Scriptural basis for accepting the authority of that person/s?

 

[Nita]

I would say to them, Jesus didn’t say either “This is my actual body” or “This is like my body”. He said, “This is my body”. Then I would ask them what they think the word “is” means. What do you think it means?

I realize that the word “is” can be used in ways that at first seem symbolic. Eg. In a game where kids might say that grassy spot over there “is” the jail. It’s literally a grassy spot and not a jail building. But in the context of the game, it is also literally the jail.
Jesus of course wasn’t playing games. He was shortly to be crucified and was establishing the memorial sacrificial rite for the New Covenant before His departure. In that one rite, all the OT sacrificial rites are fulfilled – just as in Our Lord’s one sacrifice on the cross, all the OT sacrifices are fulfilled. The sacrifices are intimately connected to the rites established in connection with them.

If they still think the word “is” is ambiguous, then I would ask them whom they think has the authority to determine which of the understandings is correct. Then I would ask them to show Scriptural support for that authority. As Catholics, we provide such support for our belief in where the authority lies.

You are evangelical. Who do you look to for an authoritative decision about the correct understanding of an important doctrine – when there are opposing views. Why do you accept that particular authority – that is, what is the Scriptural basis for accepting the authority of that person/s?

 

[nuntym]

+AJPM+

You’re substituting “Holy Eucharist” for “body,” but in the very verse you quote he identifies the church with the “body.”

Uhm, no. What I was saying was, St. Paul teaches that the Church is One Body because it partakes in the One Bread.

In deed, what does happen when we neglect “the body”?

Like not feeding “the body” with the nourishment it needs, i.e. the Holy Eucharist?

Paul seems most focused on not being divided before we partake of the “Lord’s supper” (1 Cor. 11:20). He does not say that failing to hold to transubstantiation is what divides us.

No, St. Paul is saying we must respect the Holy Eucharist. One kind of disrespect in front of the Holy Eucharist is disrespecting fellow Catholics during the Holy Mass by depriving those that are eligible of the Eucharist.

Do you think one respects the Body and Blood of Christ by saying and believing it to be what it is not?

The divisions were already present. What kinds of division? Context suggests that there may have been divisions based on social class, as some were going hungry and others getting drunk. “Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?” (1 Corinthians 11:22).

Those are not the only divisions and quarrels. There are also divisions based on pride and theology (‘What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”’ 1 Cor 1:12), morality (1 Cor 5:1ff), lawsuits (1 Cor 6:1ff), and possibly others.

Now, as you said, these divisions are already there when St Paul wrote this letter. Well then, why would St. Paul mention the unitive power of the Holy Eucharist given its proper dignity if not to give it as the cure for their divisions?

It is very important to “discern the body” (v. 28). Here, I suspect, there is a double referent to both Jesus in the Eucharist and the “body” of believers. Notice that Paul doesn’t talk about discerning the blood, in this verse. I suspect “body,” primarily refers to the church that gathers. (Please do not hear me as saying that “body” only refers to the church and not the Eucharist. I think it probably refers to both.)

You are correct. But also note that St. Paul said that “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

Mine.

Why? Is there one Evangelical Church, as you put it in your “religion” field?

Your church is divided internally between liberals and conservatives and is populated by a mass of baptized unbelievers who arguably make up the vast majority of your church.

Indeed! So is it not miraculous that the Catholic Church is still united, uniform in doctrine, and has existed for 2000 years despite all the scandals that it has went through?



And as I said before, it is quite interesting to note that the weakening of the Catholic Church in its unity and power since the 1970’s coincides with the lessening of reverence by its members, sadly including the presiders themselves, the priests, to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Using Paul’s criteria of unity of hearts and minds, rather than uniformity, I’d say there’s more unity in my church in the areas that count. But that’s another topic.

Show me that there is one Evangelical Church and I will believe you.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

In my view, non-Catholics are burdened with justifying why the specific interpretations, which contradict Catholic teaching are correct. That discussion has been going on for 500 + years. The trouble with the break away churches is that they ultimately rely on man to decide things and they continue to morph into other beliefs because they lack the guidance of the Church which Christ himself left – all very, well-intentioned, of course.

This is a variation of a claim I’ve been seeing in one form or another all over these forums. It amounts to, “I believe it because the Catholic Church teaches it.” Underneath this, I think, is the assumption that the Catholic Church is infallible. It amazes me how often, when pushed into a corner, this argument comes out. It comes across to me as, “while I have no Biblical grounds for X [insert controversial belief], I believe in it anyway because the Catholic Church tells me to.”

Imagine the following variation of a popular children’s song: “Mary loves me, yes I know, because the Catholic Church tells me so.” I suspect most Catholic around here would say, “yes, that’s about right.” But if I sing, “Jesus loves me, yes I know, because the Bible tells me so,” I’m told, "not so fast–you’re basing that claim on sola scriptura.

But what do you base your claim on for believing the Catholic Church is infallible? Certainly you can’t base it on the Church itself–i.e., “The Catholic Church is infallible, yes I know, because the Catholic Church tells me so.” Right?

 

[Philthy]

I agree! And I suppose that if you were to read each of these Early Church Fathers, they’d all use the same method to one degree or another: They’d consider the word of Sacred Scripture.So my thought is this: Since they reason with others using the words of the Bible, shouldn’t we?

Your Protestant roots are showing threw here. Of course they would “consider” Sacred Scripture, but - unlike us - several of them had the opportunity to speak directly with Apostles and many of them were taught be those who spoke directly to an Apostle. St Ignatius of Antioch, for example, one of the ECFs who speaks so forcefully on the Eucharist was a contemporary of St John who wrote the Bread of Life discourse. So for those individuals, they viewed and interpreted Sacred Scripture in light of the Truth directly handed to them (aka Tradition) - and not the other way around as we are limited to do. In fact, thats a big part of how they determined what the NT canon was in the first place. So it is not quite the same to project what they did as something we can, or should do.
The historical arguments - both materially and logically - are overwhelmingly in favor of the Catholic perspective. So yes, we should reason with Scripture, but some issues are not open to “reason”. The Eucharist, the Divinity of Christ, the necessity of Baptism, etc etc are simply not “open to discussion” in the way that non-Catholics intend the term.

Blessings!