Protestants: If the Eucharist is merely a symbol, explain this!

[Radical]

I do not believe they got the Sola Fide version of Jesus’ speech. Let’s say the understood figuratively. Then , the figurative meaning offered by the linguistic environment for the Lord’s expression about eating someone’s flesh was “kill”, or “brutally exploit”. Rather unpalatable and non-sensical, isn’t it ?

It is like the “I’ll rebuild the temple in three days” passage…in retrospect one can see what he meant, but at the time it was lost on them. Now we can see that (like manna) Jesus was sent by the Father from heaven (it seems that Peter got that much). Now we can see that at the Lord’s Supper he offered bread to his disciples and that he compared the bread to his body (which he was about to offer his body for the world.) I think some got the Sola Fide version of Jesus’s speech and nobody had the information necessary to get what has become the RP version of his speech.

We should postulate that this time Jesus chose to express the concept of salvation through faith by expressions which seemingly could be only repulsive. In short, really “hard” saying.
Moreover, this should happen in spite of the fact that in other contexts the Lord expresses the same concept in plain words. Salvation through faith was not a truth to be revealed later, but one He would preach all along His public life. Shall we prefer consider that for some peculiar reason an open content of His preaching was just for once covered with the most obscure language?

Any way you cut it, his message that day was confusing and hard to accept for whoever heard it…the “How” is left unanswered. Likewise, he didn’t explain the “I’ll rebuild the temple in three days” passage even though on other occasions he talked quite clearly about his death.

First of all from a Sola Fide reading of the BOL passage, nothing can be said IMHO about the nature of the Eucharist. Do you propose that Jesus was just speaking about having faith OR was promising a NRP Eucharist ? It is essential IMHO to clarify this.

I don’t see a promise of a NRP Eucharist…verse 51 is a cryptic promise to give his body as a sacrifice for our sins. Verses 53-58 teach, in figurative language, of our need to have complete faith in him…the figures foreshadow the Lord’s Supper where the elements are the visible embodiments of these figures.

If Jesus is promising the Eucharist as what is meant in order to eat His flesh, that means this Eucharist, whether RP or NRP, is salvific, (because He is clear from our passage we have to eat His flesh, whatever it means).
Which is a blow to Sola Fide.
Augustine did consider the Eucharist salvific, and sees the BOL passage as commending a certain mystery.
So , following Augustine, the Sola Fide interpretation, ie that eating His flesh means simply believing in Him, appears ruled out. Do you agree ?

nope

Second, Augustine says they have not to (ordinarily) drink the blood that will be poured. Again , the cannibalistic way is ruled out here. The tense is crux here. You cannot change it, as if Augustine were excluding that we can drink His blood in the commended mystery.

I am not sure how you think the tense comes into play. There is no mention of “poured” or of a crucifixion in John 6. Poured is mentioned only in the context of the Lord’s Supper (Mt 26:28, Mk 14:24 and Lk 22:20) where Christ identified the wine as his blood which is poured out for many. Doesn’t the RCC teach that upon Jesus announcing that “this is my blood” that the wine was changed at that moment into the blood that would be poured out within a day at the crucifixion? Was that blood in the cup somehow less his blood than the blood that poured out of him at his crucifixion? Christ identifies it as the same blood. This, of course, is no problem for a figurative understanding, but:
a) if Augustine said that they were not to drink the blood that will pour from Christ at his crucifixion; and
b) if Christ identifies the wine in the cup as the same blood that would be poured out for many
then you’ve got a problem if you want to both follow Augustine’s prohibition and take Christ’s identification literally. Where again, is that clarification from Augustine which would specify that you don’t drink the blood in its natural form, but “drink” it in an otherworldly form? One sentence stating that a thing such as an otherworldly presence existed would have done.

Last but not least, if I got that correcly you already agreed that a figurative Lord Supper is not, as such, more spiritual than a RP Holy Eucharist.

agreed…I haven’t even managed to come up with a unit of measurement for weighing a thing’s spiritual height

 

[Radical]

IMHO the reasoning does not prove the point ( ie that 1 Cor 11:27 is perfectly compatible with mere symbolism).
The most it can show is that there must probably be sins other than profaning the real Body and Blood which have to be equated with “trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant” .
That’s too little IMHO for the mere symbolism view.

well I guess we have reached the point of impasse on these verses

Whence can we get get that profaning a mere symbol of the blood or the body of the Lord … necessarily belongs to the sins which supposedly “trample …and treat as …” ?

the wording is sure in the same ballpark…so if such dramatic wording doesn’t require a profaning of the real body/blood in one instance, then such similar wording wouldn’t necessarily require a profaning of the real body/blood in the other instance

(We are not even sure, moreover, that the expression in Hebrews is exactly equivalent to “enochos of the Body and Blood of the Lord”, since we don’t know precisely their strength. It could a priori be that I could treat the blood as unholy without necessarily being answerable for that).

well, with respect to strength it seems that we know that the offense in Hebrews 10 apparently merited eternal damnation (27) and that the offense in 1 Cor 11 merited a much milder judgment (v. 32). It seems that you might have it backwards…Hebrews (IMHO) describes the greater offense.

The ωστε at the beginning of verse 27 is certainly translated “therefore” as you say. No question.
My question is, instead: Why should we decide that the motivation “should be set out in verse 26 “ and just there ?

I guess one could go back past verse 26…but given the manner of delivery, I don’t think that would be the correct approach

(BTW isn’t the proclamation in verse 26 a real, done (not stated ) proclamation b/c we have real body and blood involved there ? )

I would say both, by words and deeds

Consider please that Real Presence is the RP of the Lord, not a part, or a piece, of Him. That means **He **is there.
Under each kind. “Therefore” by receiving any kind I receive Him, and if receiving in unworthy manner I am guilty of the Body as well as the Blood. That is where St. Paul leads us here in 11.27, IMHO. Away from the mere symbolic view with its a one-to-one relation: bread-body, wine(or grape juice)-blood.

I know that the RCC teaches that he is fully present under each kind, but isn’t that a position built upon the need to explain how Paul can move from the “Or” to the “And”? Paul’s verse came first. Then came attempts to explain that verse and in the process the RP adherents concluded that Jesus must be fully present in each element so as to account for Paul’s transition from “or” to “and”.

Given the same sort of latitude, I can simply conclude and assert that the Paul must have viewed the symbols as being “fully connected” such that each pointed to Christ’s death on the cross. As such, an offense against one symbol was an offense against what it pointed to (the cross) and therefore an offense against the other symbol that pointed to the very same thing. (In other words, if the RC is allowed to tailor his defintion of a RP’s nature to account for Paul’s transition I should be allowed to tailor my definition of how Paul viewed those symbols to account for Paul’s transition)

Bless you, Pneuma07

 

[pneuma07]

Please grab a coffee and enjoy my long winded response(s)

 

[pneuma07]

It is not that I don’t like it…it is that it is too broad. Anyone can claim that theirs is a sacramental Supper, notwithstanding where they stand wrt a RP. “Really” is also used in a variety of ways.

only 3 interpretations (for his audience) should be expected wrt Jesus’s words in John 6:

a)

W/o considerably more from Jesus I don’t see how any one could have possibly taken his words (that day) to be a promise of a future rite involving a real bodily presence. …
Likewise, w/o considerably more from Jesus I don’t see how any one could have possibly taken his words (that day) to be a foreshadowing of his death for us on the cross. Afterwards his disciples would have been able to look back at this speech and then realize that they could have taken it in a figurative fashion along the lines of Augustine’s interpretation (but at the time they wouldn’t have been able to reach that understanding)

Rather than provide the lengthy explanation that would have allowed his disciples to understand the full meaning of his words (in either case), Jesus provides only a “just trust me, I offer life” sort of reassurance with his words at v. 63.

.

I’d like to offer what appears IMHO a reason (not considered here yet) why the Sola Fide reading does not make sense .

Why is He speaking about future ? The bread I will give you.
If words and doctrines are what the BOL is all about, he was already giving them, and had being already giving for a while, “at this point of His ministry”. No seeming reason to say“I will give you”, about His words and teachings, as if he had not even begun His public life. ….
More in general This gives the hearers the idea that there will be/could be in an undetermined future an explanation That what is pronounced , while it IS not understandable at the moment
I fully agree verse 63 means “ Just trust me”. He does not expect IMHO them to understand His expressions. They could not then. What is expected is faith, trustfully waiting for a disclosure to come.
On the contrary, when emphatically told by the Lord “This is my body” at the last Supper accepting it at face value would not require decades of speculation and specific philosophical tools to be accepted. It is explaining (the best we can) this that can require millennia.
They could accept that b/c they had lived alongside Jesus, and later would live Ascension and Pentecost. They could accept that b/c thay had come to access He was God. The most extraordinary event in history is the scenario of this extraordinary belief entering history , IMHO.
That is the great leap. In a similar way, we believe the human being begins as such at conception, for there is no comparable cause, no leap that can tell us why he begins after 40 days , or 70 or whatever ( just a very personal example coming to mind here ).
Our lives are full with things we accept without a comprehension of them, however defined.
The boy who throws a stone accepts, “knows” it is going to fall, without any newtonian or einsteinian tool. Is it a decisive difference accepting by experience or by faith ?

Since you decided to put St. Augustine at the centre of our reflections on the Eucharist, we have to be aware the Sola Fide interpretation of the BOL speech is clearly ruled out by Him.
In Sermo 228 B , within an Eucharistic context, he states: “You eat that flesh about which He said…(quotations of John 6.51 and 6.53 follow here).
That does not leave room IMHO to doubt the BOL is a promise of the Eucharist according to Augustine, who coherenly would hold the Eucharist as salvific.

In both cases the “eating” is not in a cannibalistic manner. In one instance it is figurative eating and in the other instance it is otherworldly eating…and I would suggest that the disciples really didn’t know what to make of his words that day. Until the idea of an otherworldly eating is developed, “eating” would be a stumbling block b/c they wouldn’t know how it could be possible w/o a cannibalistic act (if they were inclined to treat his words in a non-figurative fashion)

“Eating” was a stumbling block.
And, if I may I repeat my point : in the Sola Fide reading, all Jesus’ words about having to eat Him would be a false stumbling block. ( and even in the NRP-Supper-promise reading, since there you do not really eat Him) . In the RP they are not.

the recorded reaction is: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat.”
It seems they understand the What (they must do), but can’t envision the How (either figuratively or otherworldly)…I can’t fault them on that. Where they err is by not taking the next step (as Peter did) and simply acknowledge that although these words are hard to understand and accept, they are (somehow) the words of eternal life.

Agreed

Christ started by pointing out that although they had seen him, they still didn’t believe…their faith wasn’t sufficient for them to believe that Jesus came from the Father

if it was pointed to, it was done in such an incomplete fashion that no one could have possibly understood that Jesus was talking about changing the Passover meal to focus on the elements of bread and wine and to use those elements to proclaim his upcoming death by crucifixion…and where the elements of bread and wine are transubstantiated into his flesh and blood. One can’t fail to accept what hasn’t been offered and not one of these details was offered. No one was given the chance to decide whether an otherworldly eating was an unpalatable thing or not

Nobody says He explained the Eucharist in John 6. He promised it.
The chance was then whether accepting or not, by faith, that He would be able to give His body to eat, in a non repulsive or sinful way ( and that it is so important).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

1 Cor 11:27 (Vulgate):

Literal translation (the words in brackets either do not exist in Latin or are implied):

Saint Paul combines the reception of the consecrated bread and wine (“Therefore, anyone who chews the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord”) with the law (“the defendant will be guilty of murdering the flesh and blood of the Lord”). “Defendant” implies the person is being tried, and the court sentence (“guilty of murdering”) is left out, because Paul assumes the Corinthians are familiar with what the law says.

But if the Eucharist is just a symbol, than Paul cannot charge anyone who eats or drinks it guilty of murder. So the Eucharist must be a person. Paul gives very strong evidence that he believes the Eucharist is indeed a person: the Lord Jesus Christ. He uses the words “manducaverit” (to chew) and “biberit” (to drink), the same words which Jesus used when He spoke to the crowd about His Body and Blood (“he who eats (manducaverit) my flesh and drinks (biberit) my blood has eternal life”). The word “manducaverit” implies flesh - to chew on human flesh - and the word “biberit” implies wine - to drink wine. This is why the Jews were very offended by Jesus’ words. They considered Him a mere human being, not God, and so they thought He was telling them to commit cannibalism: to chew on his flesh and to drink his blood. Paul must have learned these words from the other Apostles, who had been with Jesus throughout His ministry, and so, he decided to use them in his letter to the Corithians, to emphasis on the truth that Jesus is present in the Eucharist and that whoever eats or drinks His Body or Blood unworthily is guilty of murder.

Yet some believe this is impossible. “Jesus is risen, how then can He die again?” They believe the person literally kills Jesus by receving Him unworthily. But this is not what Paul says. Paul doesn’t say the person will actually kill Jesus - rather, the person will be found guilty of killing Jesus. There is a difference. The former presupposes that Jesus can die, which is not possible: He is risen. The latter presupposes that Jesus has died, which is true: He died on the Cross. Hence, those who receive Jesus unworthily are guilty of crucifying Jesus.

Nothing in the Greek supports your “murder theory” This looks TM like a case of eisegesis: finding an idea in a text, because one has read it into that text. ​

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

AS A FORMER LUTHERAN I CAN TELL YOU THAT CONSUBSTANTIATION IS NOT A LUTHERAN TERM or Doctrine, its exact origin I am not sure of but it is erroniously applied to Lutheran teachings

I’ve heard Lutherans refer to it as such though. Even Roland Bainton, the author of “Here I Stand: A life of Martin Luther,” the famous biography of Luther, uses the term. The fact that Lutherans believe the bread to coexist with the presence of Jesus makes consubstantiation a valid term IMO for the Lutheran view…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This is true. However, absolutely no Protestant denomination has the actual Eucharist. No Protestant tradition, not even Lutheran or Anglican/Episcopalian has valid apostolic succession and therefore they cannot have the actual valid Eucharist.

Great answer Nick! Of course God can be murdered. Jesus is God and He was murdered!

Yes, some Protestant denominations do hold to the real presence. However, not a single Protestant denomination (that I know of) has valid apostolic succession and therefore cannot have the true and valid Eucharist.

Not even if the celebrant is a former Catholic priest ? There are quite a few of them.​

This idea that the Eucharistic presence is contingent upon the actions & qualities of the celebrant is too much like magic - it reduces God to an object to that can be stowed away or brought into being at the whim of the priest, who is reduced to a shaman. Does it really count for nothing that the People of God are priests ? That after all is the teaching of the Bible.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Augie1530;5240137:

They had valid apostolic succession at one time. But then they changed the ordination rite and so the Anglicans and Episcopalians at least no longer have valid apostolic succession.

Due to the “Dutch Touch” laying on of hands by Old Catholic Dutch priests from Utrecht, the majority of Anglican priests have succession through this line. Most priests and bishops in the U.S. have lines of consecrations from the Old Catholics of the 1800’s and early 1900’s. The Apostolicae Curae invalidity proclamation by Leo XIII wouldn’t apply to those priests theoretically.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This is as the Catholic Church teaches, no doubt. Yet, here is a quote from a German Cardinal named Ratzinger, written to a German Lutheran Bishop:

usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml

Jon

Thanks for the quotation. To pin everything on validity alone is to hamstring faith ​

 

[MatthewCrossman]

(Joh 6:48 RSV) I am the bread of life.
(Joh 6:49 RSV) Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
(Joh 6:50 RSV) This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
(Joh 6:51 RSV) I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
(Joh 6:52 RSV) The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
(Joh 6:53 RSV) So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
(Joh 6:54 RSV) he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
(Joh 6:55 RSV) For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
(Joh 6:56 RSV) He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
(Joh 6:57 RSV) As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
(Joh 6:58 RSV) This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
(Joh 6:59 RSV) This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caperna-um.
(Joh 6:60 RSV) Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
(Joh 6:61 RSV) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
(Joh 6:62 RSV) Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
(Joh 6:63 RSV) It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
(Joh 6:64 RSV) But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
(Joh 6:65 RSV) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
(Joh 6:66 RSV) After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
(Joh 6:67 RSV) Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
(Joh 6:68 RSV) Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
(Joh 6:69 RSV) and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
(Joh 6:70 RSV) Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
(Joh 6:71 RSV) He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

Look at how Jesus responds when many of His disciples turned away and left. He did not say “Now wait a moment. You were taking me too literally. What I meant was this…” No, he said to the twelve disciples “Do you also wish to go away?” and Peter, speaking for the group as he was the leader of the group spoke up and said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus responds and says, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” He was of course referring to Judas Iscariot who was to betray him as we learn in John 6:71. But notice in particular how he does not tell the many disciples who left him to come back and that he meant something else! *** No, he does not clarify what he means because they understood him properly!*** To me, this is Biblical proof that the Eucharist is Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity.

(1Co 11:23 RSV) For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
(1Co 11:24 RSV) and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
(1Co 11:25 RSV) 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.”
(1Co 11:26 RSV) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
(1Co 11:27 RSV) 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.

Again, tell me, how can one be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord by receiving the Eucharist unworthily if it is not truly His body, blood, soul, and divinity?

Also, tell me, how could it not be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ, when all of the early Church fathers believed it to be so?! (See the following web pages for sources:

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#tradition-I

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#tradition-II

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

Catholics, feel free to respond with further insight in to these verses and this post.

Protestants, feel free to respond with any doubts you may have. I, or my more knowledgeable Catholic brethren would be happy to assist you in clearing this doubts up.

As a protestant thinking very seriously about converting this is all, if you’ll pardon the terrible pun, food for much thought. Thanks Holly.

 

[pneuma07]

If one focuses on the words provided concerning bread and flesh, then it has to be a matter of wording b/c in neither case were they given enough words to be able to begin to understand what you and I now read back into the passage. You look back and see a promise of a mysterious Eucharist. There is absolutely no way that the disciples could have even began to derive that meaning at that time. They didn’t have the information (unless John left that detail out). Jesus makes no attempt to provide an answer as to how he will give them his flesh to eat…so even if you are right, it would be a matter of words as no one was given the chance to decide whether an otherworldly eating was a hard teaching or not…b/c that aspect wasn’t taught.

.

I guess this part has already been in essence dealt with above

On the other hand, if we focus on what Jesus revealed about his audience, then it is not about the words at all. When Jesus starts the BOL teaching he includes the message (vs 36-39) that “You have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives to me will come to me…” In answer to their grumbling about how he could claim that he came down from heaven, Jesus (at vs. 43-46) again declares that no one comes to him unless drawn by the Father. When they refuse to accept his words of life he repeats that message again (v. 64-65). Three times inside of 31 verses we are told that what happened (who came to Christ and who wouldn’t believe) was as a result of the Father either drawing that person or not drawing that person.

Christ begins and ends the BOL passage by pointing out that there are some that don’t believe. The passage is about belief. Christ points out that they “still do not believe” before he (allegedly) delivered the promise of the Eucharist in verse 51. After verse 51 Christ does not declare that they have failed to believe a new thing…at the end (as at the beginning) it is still that some do not believe that he is the Holy one of God

Let’s reconsider what comes before any of the group of verses you mention
*1) 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
34"Sir," they said, “from now on give us this bread.”
35Then 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.

1. the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. ùùJust as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life*

They have to believe. OK.
Who believes or does not believe is a result of the Father drawing. OK

So we know faith is necessary and it comes from the Father. OK.
The other thing is: what are they specifically called to believe in the BOL passage ?
Didn’t we see in the above pericopes what they refuse to believe , considering it too hard. ?

Jesus is not saying “I am the Holy of God”, and just this, so that this is His extraordinarily hard saying. We see what the focus is about, in every and each case before the verses you mention.

In each and every case you have the Christ-as-Bread-of-Life message, which is proposed in a crescendo. That is what is unbearably disturbing most of the audience.

 

[pneuma07]

It is like the “I’ll rebuild the temple in three days” passage…in retrospect one can see what he meant, but at the time it was lost on them. Now we can see that (like manna) Jesus was sent by the Father from heaven (it seems that Peter got that much). Now we can see that at the Lord’s Supper he offered bread to his disciples and that he compared the bread to his body (which he was about to offer his body for the world.) I think some got the Sola Fide version of Jesus’s speech and nobody had the information necessary to get what has become the RP version of his speech.

Any way you cut it, his message that day was confusing and hard to accept for whoever heard it…the “How” is left unanswered. Likewise, he didn’t explain the “I’ll rebuild the temple in three days” passage even though on other occasions he talked quite clearly about his death.

I cannot really see why He should use here ( and only here) such a “confusing”, obscure, abrasive language, only to pass the concept which is the leit motiv of John’s Gospel: salvific faith.
While we can concur on the fact you underline that those who deserted Jesus had to desert anyway, it is no less than puzzling that when this happens, it is just for a choice of words.
And because of the future “I will give” ( where an “I am giving” would rather be required for the Sola Fide reading ) in verse 51 , we know, and they could note too, that the speech on the Bread of Life does contain a promise , and does not deal just with the ministry and the teaching on salvific faith which Jesus was already offering and had been offering for some time. Therefore we have not IMHO a Sola Fide-like speech.
The new manna sent from Heaven is not just to be believed, He is also ( if believed ) to be eaten.

I don’t see a promise of a NRP Eucharist…verse 51 is a cryptic promise to give his body as a sacrifice for our sins. Verses 53-58 teach, in figurative language, of our need to have complete faith in him…the figures foreshadow the Lord’s Supper where the elements are the visible embodiments of these figures.

So you do see a foreshadowing of a NRP Lord’s Supper, if a get. “To present an indication or a suggestion of beforehand “, I guess you mean by “foreshadowing”. ( you’ve have always been so kind as to forgive my poor English , but from time to time I do have to check if I get and use words correctly). And a cryptic promise to “give His body as a sacrifice for our sins”.
We’re really dancing around the promise of the Eucharist.

Now, if the concept of “sacrifice” is let go here, the promise in verse 51 becomes much less cryptic, IMHO.
The promise is to give us “bread”. And that this bread will be His flesh (body). And this precisely after teaching that we do have to eat His flesh. This does look as a promise of what will be the Eucharistic bread. Doesn’t it. ?
So, if the expression “promise of the Eucharist” sounds too** tranchant to you, we can settle for:
“promise of the Eucharistic bread” and foreshadowing of the Eucharist.

I am not sure how you think the tense comes into play. There is no mention of “poured” or of a crucifixion in John 6. Poured is mentioned only in the context of the Lord’s Supper (Mt 26:28, Mk 14:24 and Lk 22:20) where Christ identified the wine as his blood which is poured out for many. Doesn’t the RCC teach that upon Jesus announcing that “this is my blood” that the wine was changed at that moment into the blood that would be poured out within a day at the crucifixion? Was that blood in the cup somehow less his blood than the blood that poured out of him at his crucifixion? Christ identifies it as the same blood. This, of course, is no problem for a figurative understanding, but:
a) if Augustine said that they were not to drink the blood that will pour from Christ at his crucifixion; and
b) if Christ identifies the wine in the cup as the same blood that would be poured out for many
then you’ve got a problem if you want to both follow Augustine’s prohibition and take Christ’s identification literally. Where again, is that clarification from Augustine which would specify that you don’t drink the blood in its natural form, but “drink” it in an otherworldly form? One sentence stating that a thing such as an otherworldly presence existed would have done.

I was speaking about Augustine’s words : you ( ie the hearers ) have not to drink this blood which will be poured, (ie the blood then flowing within Jesus’ human body). I mean Augustine, as if addressing those guys hearing Jesus, is clearly ruling out the cannibalistic view, about drinking His blood in the natural form, and NOT telling us we have not to drink His blood.

I have no problem of contradiction here, IMHO, because at the Institution the Lord presents His sacrifice, and does not give to drink the natural form of His blood. Yet, the blood in the cup was no less His blood than the one to be poured out of Him at the crucifixion, of course, from the point of view of the Apostolic Churches.
It was the blood of the new Covenant.

 

[pneuma07]

well I guess we have reached the point of impasse on these verses

the wording is sure in the same ballpark…so if such dramatic wording doesn’t require a profaning of the real body/blood in one instance, then such similar wording wouldn’t necessarily require a profaning of the real body/blood in the other instance

well, with respect to strength it seems that we know that the offense in Hebrews 10 apparently merited eternal damnation (27) and that the offense in 1 Cor 11 merited a much milder judgment (v. 32). It seems that you might have it backwards…Hebrews (IMHO) describes the greater offense.

I guess one could go back past verse 26…but given the manner of delivery, I don’t think that would be the correct approach

I would say both, by words and deeds

I’ll be short here. Wrt the “enochos of “ in 1 Cor 11:27 the RP vision is solidly scriptural. Whether the NRP too is scriptural wrt that, is just a guess. (IMHO)
( As a note . It is plausible that in Hebrews 10 the author points to the gravest sins, even a radical refusal of Redemption. Let us also suppose they have nothing to do with the Eucharist. How can this help the case of a confident NRP reading of 1 Cor 11:27 ? )

I know that the RCC teaches that he is fully present under each kind, but isn’t that a position built upon the need to explain how Paul can move from the “Or” to the “And”? Paul’s verse came first. Then came attempts to explain that verse and in the process the RP adherents concluded that Jesus must be fully present in each element so as to account for Paul’s transition from “or” to “and”.

Given the same sort of latitude, I can simply conclude and assert that the Paul must have viewed the symbols as being “fully connected” such that each pointed to Christ’s death on the cross. As such, an offense against one symbol was an offense against what it pointed to (the cross) and therefore an offense against the other symbol that pointed to the very same thing. (In other words, if the RC is allowed to tailor his defintion of a RP’s nature to account for Paul’s transition I should be allowed to tailor my definition of how Paul viewed those symbols to account for Paul’s transition)

Short again: . Wrt the move from “OR” to AND” in 1 Cor 11:27 the RP vision is solidly scriptural. You seem somehow to confirm this yourself .
Whether the NRP too is scriptural wrt that ( even after tailoring it), it just remains a guess. (IMHO).

In both the cases above IMHO we simply do not know whether in a NRP view what happens in 1 Cor 11 is beyond the threshold of gravity that is supposed by Paul’s words.

With this, I guess I can look forward to enjoying your summary/final observations.

 

[pneuma07]

Chemo and radiation are not useful/available in this case and so it is an attempt to find the least disruptive hormone therapy (with artificially induced menopause ) Survival rates are decent and once we decide on a treatment our lives should return to normal…and we are very thankful for the 10 years that we have enjoyed since it first became a part of our lives.

Your great words here are really an example for people experiencing similar situations.

Have you already decided on the treatment ?

You might want to post on the Prayer Intentions subforum.

May God bless you and your family.

 

[jpaul1953]

Indeed, some Protestant faiths hold firmly that Christ is well and truly present at the Eucharist, but that the substance of the bread and wine does not change. I believe “consubstantiation” is the term (happy to be corrected on that).

I must confess that I find the idea of Eucharistic transubstantiation to be utterly bizarre. I guess that’s why I haven’t taken communion these many years and therefore can never call myself a “real” Catholic.

Hansard,

Then don’t call yourself a pratical Catholic, because you’re not. And to be quite honest who cares what you believe. It’s about Jesus and what the Church, St Peter, St.Paul, and the early Church Fathers believe. And, us knowing that we, as the Church, are following the way it’s been taught since the beginning.

Respect that and you will become a practical Catholic once again. If not, become a totally lost sheep and hope that Jesus brings you home again, before you die while being against Christ’s teachings.

Your opinion has absolutely nothing to do with the major scheme of things, I hope you know.

Hoping your ears are open to the Lord,

jpaul1953

 

[Radical]

Well, here’s the summary: The title of this thread issues a challenge for us of the symbolic view to “explain this” (with “this” being a portion of John 6 and a portion of 1 Corinthians 11). It seems that wrt John 6 the RC/RP argument takes this form:

a) Jesus uses very graphic words to describe the requirement of eating his flesh and drinking his blood in order to gain eternal life.
b) When many of his disciples find the teaching hard to accept and decide to turn away from Christ, Christ does not clarify that he was only speaking figuratively about the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood.
c) If Jesus was only speaking figuratively, it is reasonable to assume that he would have explained as much when the disciples turned away.
d) Since Jesus did not give that explanation, the reasonable conclusion is that he wasn’t speaking figuratively and that he actually required his flesh to be eaten and his blood to be drank.
e) The consistency between the references to his flesh and to his blood (in the Bread of Life/BOL passage) and the references to his body and blood (in Lord’s Supper passages) make it clear that the actual eating is to be done through the Lord’s Supper. To achieve an actual eating, a RP is required.

I’ll address the John 6 before I move on to 1 Cor 11.

1. Regarding (a) and the use of graphic words, I believe that I detect an attitude amongst RPers that such graphic words must point to a more significant meaning than a merely figurative understanding. Graphic words, however, are the common tool of those prone to use figures. Christ, of course, was prone to use figures as acknowledged in John 16 where it reads: “Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father…”. Then Jesus’ disciples said, “Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.” “You believe at last!” Jesus answered. As of the time of John 16, Jesus’s time to speak plainly w/o figures of speech was still in the future.

Further, the RPer also encounters a bit of a problem with such graphic wording. In this regard, I also believe that I detect an attitude amongst RPers that they, and they alone, take Christ’s words at face value and that therefore, theirs would be the preferred understanding (and that strong evidence of another intention must be provided to displace the RP understanding). The graphic wording, however, is not taken at face value by the RP understanding in that, if pressed on the matter of cannibalism, the RPer will clarify that no gnawing actually takes place. As such, the RP claim is that they “eat”, but they don’t actually gnaw. They perform the physical act of “eating”, but they don’t actually interact with any physical aspect of the body. These “buts” take the understanding outside of a “face value interpretation.”……and this is something that the typical RPer seems loath to acknowledge. There seems to be an effort to salvage the “face value” claim by pointing out that the RP view requires “eating” and “eating” is what Christ said was required……so it is still the same thing. The problem is that it isn’t the same thing at all. One eating (with the words taken at face value) is a natural thing and a cannibalistic act. The other eating involves a supernatural thing and is not a cannibalistic act. The two acts are as much alike as the supernatural is like the natural.

 

[Radical]

Continuing:

1. Regarding (b) and Christ’s failure to clarify that he was only speaking figuratively, this point suffers from being a bad assumption (expressed at (c)) followed by a poor argument from silence (expressed at (d)). Two wrongs don’t make a right. One of the reasons that the assumption is bad is that it presumes that there is no answer to the question: “If Christ was speaking in figures, why wouldn’t he try to avoid the departure of his many disciples by offering that simple explanation?” John seems to have been aware that some might wonder why Christ made no effort to try and win the crowd back and so the text provides the answer in that it stresses that those who left were not true believers and that Jesus was, in fact, “culling” the herd. As such, the picture painted by John is that Jesus was inviting the nonbelievers to leave and, as such, there would be no reason for Jesus to offer an explanation in hope of averting their departure.

For those (of the RP crowd) that recognize that situation, they might still want to ask: “If Christ was speaking in figures, why wouldn’t he offer that simple explanation so that the unfaithful left for the right reason and not b/c of a misunderstanding?” A corresponding question, however, must also be answered by the RP crowd: “If Christ was speaking of an RP/otherworldly eating, why wouldn’t he offer that simple explanation so that the unfaithful left for the right reason and not b/c of a misunderstanding?” For the reasons set out in my post (# 198 in this thread) I am convinced that nobody (there that day) could have possibly understood that he was talking about some otherworldly (non-cannibalistic) form of eating. This brings me to (what I see) as a common error amongst those of the RP persuasion. That error is equating the “hard teaching” spoken of by the crowd in John 6 with the Eucharistic mystery of the RP view….in that they refer to the RP as the “hard teaching” Nowhere does the text specify how the teaching was understood by those that left, but it can’t have been understood as a RP eating (b/c such a concept was absolutely unknown at the time). I suspect (again for the reasons set out in posts #198, 199 and 200) that they did not think Jesus actually expected them to eat his flesh. (In this regard, they could have been familiar with the imagery of blood drinking and flesh eating as used in Ezekiel 39…but since that shouldn’t be taken literally it would not have caused them to take Jesus literally in John 6 and it also wouldn’t help them to discern Christ’s actual meaning.) Instead I believe that they were confused and offended by his use of the revolting imagery of a grossly sinful act and that they left b/c they did not believe that he could be the Holy one of God and still teach as he did. Please note that this is in line with Christ’s description of them as being those who refused to believe in him and since Jesus knew who would believe and who wouldn’t believe (v. 64) there would be no reason for him to try and avert their desertion.

Regarding (e), after referring to John 6:51 and Luke 22: 19 Pneuma07 has asked, “Can’t we see the fulfilment of a promise ? … Isn’t the correspondence a little too precise to be just a chance ?” I agree that it is no coincidence. Christ often utilized what was happening around him as a figure for what he was or what he would do. He makes fishermen, fishers of men. He raises the temple in three days after destruction. He is the true vine and the gate. He is living water when the Samaritan woman wants water from the well. In John 6, when the Jews wanted bread and Manna from heaven he was the living bread that came from heaven. He then announces that the bread that he will give is his flesh. In the symbolic understanding this giving of his flesh is done when he sacrifices his body on the cross for us. (I would have to think that the RP understanding would recognize that giving of his flesh at the cross in addition to the Eucharistic one that it supports). The cross is what I see promised and not a RP Eucharist. The future cross is the reason for the “will give”. Likewise the blood he poured out for us was poured out at the cross. In the BOL passage Jesus points to the cross. In the Lord’s Supper, Jesus again points to the cross through some of the elements in the Passover meal. As such, it is no coincidence that blood is mentioned on both occasions b/c blood is central to the cross. Likewise it is no coincidence that body and flesh is mentioned on both occasions b/c body/flesh is central to the cross. Bread is mentioned in both passages b/c bread was raised by the Jews in one instance and was an element of the meal in the other instance. In contrast, wine is only mentioned in one passage b/c it wasn’t raised by the Jews in the one instance and it was an element of the meal in the other instance.

For those reasons I find the RCC argument (re John 6) unconvincing and I find the passage fully compatible with a symbolic view.

 

[Radical]

And finally:

It seems that wrt 1 Corinthians 11:27 which reads, * “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.”* the RC/RP argument takes this form:

a) One can not be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord if a mere symbol is involved. For such guilt a RP is required.
b) It does not make sense for Paul to declare that someone is guilty of profaning both the body and the blood when one acts in an unworthy manner towards only the bread or only the wine unless Christ is fully present in both.

Regarding (a), I am satisfied that Hebrews 10 (which does not require the involvement of a RP) uses language that is on par with the language of 1 Cor 11:27 in describing an offense against the body and blood of Christ (for more detail see post #201). As such, if such dramatic wording doesn’t require a profaning of the real body/blood in one instance, then such similar wording wouldn’t necessarily require a profaning of the RP body/blood in the other instance. Further, as I have explained (in post # 189 ) the “therefore” of verse 27 means that the reason why the action amounts to a profaning of the body and blood is set out before verse 27. What is set out before that verse is the fact that the Lord’s Supper amounts to a proclamation of Christ’s death. The reason then, is that it is a proclamation….no indication of any RP involved (unless one wants to go back further and then adhere to this circular reasoning: Christ’s words of institution indicate a RP, therefore a RP is the reason that it amounts to a profaning; b/c a RP is why it is a profaning, Christ’s words of institution must indicate a RP.)

Regarding (b), a RP is not the only explanation for Paul’s switch from “or” to “and” and in fact that explanation is a contrived explanation. You have commented that wrt *“the “enochos of “ in 1 Cor 11:27 the RP vision is solidly scriptural. Whether the NRP too is scriptural wrt that, is just a guess. (IMHO).” * In response I would say that the NRP is also scriptural and no guess is needed. The RCC has simply asserted that the nature of the real presence must be of a sort that would account for why Paul could switch from “or” to “and”….and that is how “scriptural” is achieved. (This has led to the claim of a full presence in both elements). The NRP view can simply explain that the nature of the symbols must be of a sort that would account for why Paul could switch from “or” to “and”….and that is how “scriptural” is achieved. (This has led to my assertion that b/c both point to Christ’s crucifixion, an offense against one symbol is an offense against Christ’s ultimate sacrifice and is therefore an offense against all symbols of that ultimate sacrifice.) In both cases “scriptural” is achieved by design.

For those reasons I find the RCC argument (re 1 Cor 11) unconvincing and I find the passage fully compatible with a symbolic view.

 

[Radical]

Your great words here are really an example for people experiencing similar situations.

You give me too much credit…it is easy to “put one’s best foot forward” when one has to time to craft a statement. Btw, at one time in my past I marked university history papers…and I can say that your command of english exceeds the typical university student here. (I had actually thought you were an american overseas…if you don’t mind the question, what is your nationality?)

Have you already decided on the treatment ?

not yet…some sort of hormone treatment

As always it has been a great pleasure discussing theology with you…may God bless you and your family greatly!

 

[mmmcounts]

Look at how Jesus responds when many of His disciples turned away and left. He did not say “Now wait a moment. You were taking me too literally. What I meant was this…” But notice in particular how he does not tell the many disciples who left him to come back and that he meant something else! *** No, he does not clarify what he means because they understood him properly!***

You’re missing something very important in this passage. You made no mention of it, but Jesus does take a stab at explaining himself. His only attempt at clarification hangs on this verse:

(Joh 6:63 RSV) It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

You ignored it. Why? Don’t you know this is the verse Protestants use to make sense of all this?