Looking for a specific argument against the symbolic Eucharist

[jemfinch]

So I’m up against the standard, “Jesus didn’t mean he was literally a door, or a vine, or a light…” argument.

Between six months and a year ago, someone posted an excellent analysis of the statements Christ makes (“I am the door,” “I am the vine,” etc.) and how there’s a certain pattern they follow that the John 6 discourse also follows, indicating that the former are symbolic but the latter is literal. He or she even posted this in a nice table form, if I remember correctly.

Unfortunately, I can’t find that post via the search and I fear it may have been lost in the hack attack that happened over my honeymoon (can’t blame me! ).

Does anyone have a link to this argument, or remember it well enough to re-post it here?

Thanks,
Jeremy

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

So I’m up against the standard, “Jesus didn’t mean he was literally a door, or a vine, or a light…” argument.

Between six months and a year ago, someone posted an excellent analysis of the statements Christ makes (“I am the door,” “I am the vine,” etc.) and how there’s a certain pattern they follow that the John 6 discourse also follows, indicating that the former are symbolic but the latter is literal. He or she even posted this in a nice table form, if I remember correctly.

Unfortunately, I can’t find that post via the search and I fear it may have been lost in the hack attack that happened over my honeymoon (can’t blame me! ).

Does anyone have a link to this argument, or remember it well enough to re-post it here?

Thanks,
Jeremy

At the Last Supper Christ reverses the order of His words.

In the other passages He says “I am the door…”, “I am the vine…” He doesn’t say this door is ME or this vine is ME.

At the Last Supper He does not say “I am this bread” instead He says “This (bread) is My body” This bread IS ME, not the other way around.

 

[scylla]

There is a huge difference between “I am the light” and “let there be light”

When God pronounces something, creation responds.
When God says to a leper be clean, he doesn’t just look clean the leprosy is gone.

When God pronounces the words at the last supper, creation responds.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[irishmac]

Hi jemfinch,
I think that I remember what you are talking about. It was concerning the structure of the Parables Christ used. I couldn’t find the post, but I think something like this.

Christ uses a parable to draw an image to help demonstrate a spiritual truth. Then He explains the meaning of that Truth that he is trying to convey.

Take John 15:5 - “I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me, you can do nothing.(NAB)”

The first sentence draws the image of a grapevine (Christ), with many branches (people, not churches!). The nutrients needed to bear fruit comes through the vine, just as the good works people do cannot happen without the grace that flows through Jesus Christ.

Anyway, that’s what I remember. The original post was much more in depth, but I think I at least got the gist of it.

Dominus vobsicum

 

[Della]

The whole 6th chapter of John concerns Jesus’ attempts to teach about the Eucharist.

John starts out this part of his Gospel telling us that the Passover was near at hand. Why? Because he is leading up to something related to it–Jesus’ consecration of the bread and wine at the Last Supper, which was Jesus’ last Passover celebration.

Next he tells us one of the multiplication of food miracles Jesus performed. Why? Because he is leading us to Jesus’ discussion in which he calls himself the “bread of heaven.”

From there John leads us into Jesus’ discussion with the Jews about what the expression “bread of heaven” means.

Thus, John has worked his way up to Jesus’ astounding words that his flesh is real food and his blood real drink and that those who do not partake of them will not have life within them.

The chapter ends with the Jews rejecting Jesus’ teaching about his body and blood, as well as the desertion by several of his disciples. It is at this point that Jesus asks if his core followers, the Twelve, are going to leave him too, answered by Peter’s great declaration: “To whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life.”

John clearly was bringing his readers to this point–in order to reinforce the belief in the Eucharist practiced in the Church that had existed for many years at the point in time he wrote his Gospel. He wanted to differentiate between Jesus’ use of metaphors in his other statements–not say that Jesus’ words concerning his body and blood are only metaphors.

 

[VociMike]

Was this it:

When Jesus says “I am the door” He also says that we are the sheep. But we know that humans are not literally sheep, so we understand that He is speaking figuratively.

When Jesus says “I am the vine” He also says that we are the branches, but we know that humans are not literally branches, so we understand this is also figurative.

When Jesus says He will provide the living water, He also says that this living water will well up as a spring inside those who drink it, but we know that no humans have a literal spring of water welling up inside of them, so we understand that this is also figurative.

By contrast, when Jesus says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, and when He says “This is my body” and “this is my blood” He does not say anything about humans that we know is not true. Therefore, unlike the other instances, here He gives us no clue that His words are figurative.

 

[dal11]

I always like to reply with this: If Jesus said I am a door and I said, surely you don’t mean your a door and then he replied, Amen Amen I say to you I am a door, I am a door I am a door. I then said again surely you don’t really mean your a door and he replied, Amen Amen I say to you I am a door, I am a door, I am a door. Then his followers left him because they didn’t believe he was a door. Then I heard him ask his apostles are you going to go with them and they replied why would we go, we believe you(paraphrasing). After all that you can bet I’m going to believe he’s a door.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

More important than the words of the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 is the reaction of the crowd. They were offended at the very notion that Jesus would offer them his flesh to eat. Many of them also left him at that time. Would Jesus have let people leave him over a misunderstood metaphor?

Also St. Paul confirms the Real Presence in 1 Cor. 10:16 and again in 1 Cor. 11:27-29.

An excellent article is found here:

catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

 

[VociMike]

More important than the words of the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 is the reaction of the crowd. They were offended at the very notion that Jesus would offer them his flesh to eat. Many of them also left him at that time. Would Jesus have let people leave him over a misunderstood metaphor?

It is often claimed by Protestants that Jesus was speaking in a common idiom to the crowd (the idiom being that to eat flesh and drink blood is to understand or to believe). However, their reaction shows that they most certainly did not understand His words to be idiomatic! The crowd would obviously have known their own idioms, and they did not react as though they understood Jesus as speaking anything other than quite literally.

 

[DeFide]

More important than the words of the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 is the reaction of the crowd. They were offended at the very notion that Jesus would offer them his flesh to eat. Many of them also left him at that time. Would Jesus have let people leave him over a misunderstood metaphor?

Also St. Paul confirms the Real Presence in 1 Cor. 10:16 and again in 1 Cor. 11:27-29.

An excellent article is found here:

catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

Yup.

"The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world " Jn 6:51

(Jesus wasn’t metaphorically crucified.)