Question for protestants - Real Presence

[ncgolf]

Then the question is what are the specific commandments of Christ concerning the eucharist.

53 “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. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” The meat of John 6.

The only specific command that I read is to observe it.

It seems to me the command involves chewing and swallowing. Both Matthew and Mark have Jesus telling the disciples to eat the bread and drink from the cup. What do they eat and drink, Jesus’s body and blood for that is what He said. The High Priest Jesus consecrated those 2 objects and made them into his Body and Blood. I think it is within Jesus’s power to transform those 2 objects but how could it persist generation after generation … only if Jesus gave that authority to someone else … this is another thread but it is all part of the same discussion.

Later St. Paul adds a command concerning not eating and drinking unworthily.

Only if you believe in what the Eucharist truly is. For anyone who can discern what the Eucharist is must take special care to approach and partake of this gift appropriately.

I am not sure that understanding the Eucharist is as important as observing it however.

Not observing it but believing what the “it” is. Many Catholics have trouble with some of the teachings in the Church but stay … and the reason they do … the reason they do not walk away … if you ask … is the Eucharist. You just can’t get it anywhere else.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Jesus says a number of things in John 6.
Jesus says that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have no life in us. If this is taken literally it would mean that nobody could be saved unless they partook in Communion as understood by Catholics. But He also says that everybody who beholds Him and believes in Him will have eternal life. This promise has no conditions placed on it so, according to it, the Eucharist is not required. Jesus does not contradict Himself so He cannot be speaking literally when He talks about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Also if it was literal, all anyone would have to do is go into a Catholic Church and receive Communion, even if he did not believe. I know that Catholic doctrine does not allow this participation, but if someone illicitly partook of Communion, Jesus promises that he who eats His flesh and drinks His blood will have eternal life, again without condition. For these reasons Jesus cannot be speaking literally of eating His flesh and drinking His blood in John 6. Taking the two quotes together we see that by eating and drinking His flesh and blood He is referring to believing in Him.

At this time I am just dealing with John 6, not other passages dealing with the Eucharist.

Whatever he may actually have believed about the Real Presence, Augustine would seem to agree with my reading of John 6.

Again I am just dealing with Augustine’s view of John 6, not hhs view on the Real Presence which is a different issue.

Oddly though, Carl. St. Augustine also had other writings that shows that he believe in the Real Presence. This was discuss before by other Non-Catholic Christians, who used St. Augustine, a Catholic theologian and doctor of the Church to conclude that he did not believe in the Real Presence.

Yet we have other writings of the ECF, like St. Ignatius of Antioch who clearly understood the Bread and Wine at Mass as the Body and Blood of the Lord, his writings predates St. Augustine believing the Real Presence.

St. Augustine did write materials about the Real Presence. Consider this factors.

The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ. {Sermo 227; on p.377}

Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: “this is my body.” {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}

Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it. {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}

[Referring to the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18 ff.)] The sacrifice appeared for the first time there which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world. {City of God, 16, 22; on p.403}

Christ is both the priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church. {Ibid, 10, 20; on p.99}

 

[Mannyfit75]

He took flesh from the flesh of Mary
*
. . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation . . . we do sin by not adoring. {Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p.20}

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}

What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. {Ibid., 272; on p.32}

Not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof. {Questions of the Hepateuch, 3, 57; on p.134}

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

The Blood they had previously shed they afterwards drank. {Mai 26, 2; 86, 3; on p.64*

Did St. Augustine contradicted himself? Nope. In our Eucharistic Liturgy, we also added the word spiritual drink. Does this mean it is symbolic? Nope.

Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through you goodness we have this wine of offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink. Blessed be God forever.

I also disagree that claim that Eucharist isn’t required. Well, the Early Christians disagree with Carl big time. The Early Christians view the Last Supper, Breaking of the Bread, as a sacrifice, or an offering. I also disagree with the claim that Jesus wasn’t speaking literally. He was. This is very clear in Scripture.

70 Disciples left Jesus because they find this hard to believe, after Jesus insisted three times, that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. The other problem, Carl’s interpretation that if it was not symbolic. Then why did Paul consider the Corinthians who received the Body and Blood of the Lord, as as guilty of profaning the the Lord’s Body and Blood?

If it was symbolic, Paul would not make this an issue. It would not be a problem for the Corinthians to just go to the Breaking of the Bread because they were hungry and thirsty. Yet, 1 Corinthians 11:26, Paul is deeply troubled by their lack of reverence of the Body and Blood of the Lord.

Symbolic meaning of the Real Presence is absence in Scripture as well as in the Traditions, which the Church has preserved for about 2,000 yrs.

 

[SyCarl]

Oddly though, Carl. St. Augustine also had other writings that shows that he believe in the Real Presence. This was discuss before by other Non-Catholic Christians, who used St. Augustine, a Catholic theologian and doctor of the Church to conclude that he did not believe in the Real Presence.

Yet we have other writings of the ECF, like St. Ignatius of Antioch who clearly understood the Bread and Wine at Mass as the Body and Blood of the Lord, his writings predates St. Augustine believing the Real Presence.

St. Augustine did write materials about the Real Presence. Consider this factors.

The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ. {Sermo 227; on p.377}

Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: “this is my body.” {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}

Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it. {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}

[Referring to the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18 ff.)] The sacrifice appeared for the first time there which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world. {City of God, 16, 22; on p.403}

Christ is both the priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church. {Ibid, 10, 20; on p.99}

As I made clear, I was only dealing with John 6. The comments from Augustine are specific expositions by him on that chapter. I explained that I was not dealing with anything else at this point.

Whatever Augustine may have felt about the Eucharist Real Presence, he does not seem to use John 6 to support a literal transformation into flesh and blood.

 

[mercygate]

As I made clear, I was only dealing with John 6. The comments from Augustine are specific expositions by him on that chapter. I explained that I was not dealing with anything else at this point.

Whatever Augustine may have felt about the Eucharist Real Presence, he does not seem to use John 6 to support a literal transformation into flesh and blood.

The Real Presence is not a trnasformation into “literal” flesh and blood but into “substantial” flesh and blood. We are not swilling plasma and blood product nor chomping on myocytes. The Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are the Spiritual Presence of the Resurrected Lord. Often, it seems, people think that a “spiritual” presence is a “symbolic” presence. The Real Presence is a mystery of the Resurrection, a penetration into time and space of our Lord on HIS terms. We understand the Mass as a penetration into present time and space of the once-for-all Sacrifice of Calvary

Catholics look at what Jesus said: “Gnaw my flesh; drink my blood,” and take him at His word. Then, to quote our Lady, we ask: “How can this be?” We do not say, “This cannot be.” The import of the Bread of Life Discourse, following upon the feeding of the 5000 at the time of the Passover is, for Catholics, a forward-thrusting sign of the Last Supper. The Bread of Life Discourse is one of those answers that does not yet have a question. That is why Peter’s answer to the question, “Will you also leave?” is so important. Peter does NOT understand the Bread of Life Discourse but in FAITH he understands that THESE are the “words of everlasting life.”

A belief that the Eucharist was merely symbolic did not arise for many centuries in the Church. This testifies to the authenticity of belief in the Real Presence. Think about it. For 1500 years every Christian on the planet got this KEY point of faith wrong? Not likely.

 

[Mannyfit75]

As I made clear, I was only dealing with John 6. The comments from Augustine are specific expositions by him on that chapter. I explained that I was not dealing with anything else at this point.

Whatever Augustine may have felt about the Eucharist Real Presence, he does not seem to use John 6 to support a literal transformation into flesh and blood.

Same can be said during the Eucharistic Liturgy when the priest says, “it will become our spiritual drink.” You have to understand the concept of symbolic meaning of the Eucharist was unheard of in the Catholic Church in those days. When St. Augustine wrote about it, he was only interpreting the verse in John 6 and call it figurative. You can’t take certain parts of his writings and say see its symbolic. Yet, he had other writings to show that he believe in his real presence.

 

[mozart-250]

53 “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. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” The meat of John 6.

Assuming for the moment that John 6 refers to the Eucharist, then this command is only to observe it.

It seems to me the command involves chewing and swallowing.
Both Matthew and Mark have Jesus telling the disciples to eat the bread and drink from the cup.

Yup…in other words observe the eucharist.

What do they eat and drink, Jesus’s body and blood for that is what He said. The High Priest Jesus consecrated those 2 objects and made them into his Body and Blood.

Wait a minute. You are making a certainty out of an ambiguity.

All that we know is

• Jesus said “This is my body…This is my blood”
• The objects which Jesus referred were at one time bread and wine and still appeared to the disciples as bread and wine. Outside of Jesus’s words there is no reason for the disciples to believe any differently.

The ambiguity is this:

In the English language it is not uncommon to use “This is…” in relationship to an object that physically “is not This”. In such usage we normally do not assume the object under discussion is not transformed into “this”. For example I might point to a dollar bill and say this is George Washington. The listener should not assume from such a statement that my dollar bill bill is transformed into George Washington.

Now the difference in the Eucharist is that God is well able to transform the elements into something else. But from the text in the Gospels, I do not know whether God is doing that or not. He just might be using language in the same sense as me pointing to my dollar bill.

I think it is within Jesus’s power to transform those 2 objects but how could it persist generation after generation … only if Jesus gave that authority to someone else … this is another thread but it is all part of the same discussion.

Oh it is definitely within Jesus’s power to transform the 2 objects here…

Assuming that He does for the minute, it does not follow that the only way it can persist through the generations is through a human priesthood. It could just as easily be something that He does himself without any human help.

Only if you believe in what the Eucharist truly is. For anyone who can discern what the Eucharist is must take special care to approach and partake of this gift appropriately.

But again, I have not come upon any commands to believe what the Eucharist truly is. The only command I have come upon is to observe it and not observe it unworthily,

What I personally do with the Eucharist is to approach it as though it is the body and blood of Christ even though by all appearances it is bread and wine. In other words mentally I am thinking “this is my body…this is my blood” and am not dumbing this down at all. At the same time I am not worrying about whether the elements are transformed and if so how it is all accomplished. I’ll leave the chemistry and physics up to God.

That seems to be what God has shown me how to approach the Eucharist thus far in my walk with Christ.

 

[mozart-250]

Same can be said during the Eucharistic Liturgy when the priest says, “it will become our spiritual drink.” You have to understand the concept of symbolic meaning of the Eucharist was unheard of in the Catholic Church in those days. When St. Augustine wrote about it, he was only interpreting the verse in John 6 and call it figurative. You can’t take certain parts of his writings and say see its symbolic. Yet, he had other writings to show that he believe in his real presence.

Manny:
I think the point is that it is possible to believe in the real presence and at the same time believe that John 6 does not support it.

It just means that you have come to your belief in the real presence through sources other than John 6.

 

[mercygate]

All that we know is

• Jesus said “This is my body…This is my blood”
• The objects which Jesus referred were at one time bread and wine and still appeared to the disciples as bread and wine. Outside of Jesus’s words there is no reason for the disciples to believe any differently.

As Catholics, we consider Jesus’ words to carry definitive weight, particularly when reading the rest of the NT references – including the Bread of Life Discourse – under the illumination of those words. For us there is no “outside of Jesus; words.”

The ambiguity is this:

In the English language it is not uncommon to use “This is…” in relationship to an object that physically “is not This”. In such usage we normally do not assume the object under discussion is not transformed into “this”. For example I might point to a dollar bill and say this is George Washington. The listener should not assume from such a statement that my dollar bill bill is transformed into George Washington.

A common explanation but it does find corroboration in the belief of the early Church.

Now the difference in the Eucharist is that God is well able to transform the elements into something else. But from the text in the Gospels, I do not know whether God is doing that or not. He just might be using language in the same sense as me pointing to my dollar bill.

Catholics, of course, hold the Eucharist in the context not only of Scripture but of the Church that produced the Scripture.

Oh it is definitely within Jesus’s power to transform the 2 objects here…

Assuming that He does for the minute, it does not follow that the only way it can persist through the generations is through a human priesthood.

Even if it were not the ONLY way, it is certainly the only way Christianity ever thought of for 1500 years.

It could just as easily be something that He does himself without any human help.

Here you lose me. Celebrating the Eucharist, even if you don’t believe in the real presence, requires human effort, human participation, human production of the bread and wine.

But again, I have not come upon any commands to believe what the Eucharist truly is. The only command I have come upon is to observe it and not observe it unworthily,

What I personally do with the Eucharist is to approach it as though it is the body and blood of Christ even though by all appearances it is bread and wine. In other words mentally I am thinking “this is my body…this is my blood” and am not dumbing this down at all. At the same time I am not worrying about whether the elements are transformed and if so how it is all accomplished. I’ll leave the chemistry and physics up to God.

That seems to be what God has shown me how to approach the Eucharist thus far in my walk with Christ.

We leave the chemistry and physics up to God, too. We take this on faith. Catholics can admire your reverence and the faith by which you think, “this is my body.” Even though we cannot affirm that it IS the Body and Blood of Christ because of the particular circumstances we understand to be essential for Communion, we certainly recognize the respect and reverence you bring to the Lord’s Supper as you understand it.

 

[mozart-250]

As Catholics, we consider Jesus’ words to carry definitive weight, particularly when reading the rest of the NT references – including the Bread of Life Discourse – under the illumination of those words. For us there is no “outside of Jesus; words.”

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say. But I probably did not express myself all that well and it was a minor point so I will not belabor it.

A common explanation but it does find corroboration in the belief of the early Church.

I think you meant “does it”

Which goes back to the point that imho the historical argument is stronger than the Biblical one.

In any discipline that deals with historical documents, it would seem to me a wise policy to defer to the understanding of the original audience of the text whenever an ambiguity is found in the text. Why should the Bible be different?

In other words what should one believe (A or B) on any given subject if the Bible reads ambiguous on A versus B to the 20th century audience but the original audience of the Bible all believed B.

Catholics, of course, hold the Eucharist in the context not only of Scripture but of the Church that produced the Scripture.

The origin of Scripture is a separate issue

Even if it were not the ONLY way, it is certainly the only way Christianity ever thought of for 1500 years.

Here you lose me. Celebrating the Eucharist, even if you don’t believe in the real presence, requires human effort, human participation, human production of the bread and wine.

Here we get into the idea that you need a valid priesthood (whatever that is) to have a valid Eucharist.

I have no idea where that one comes from to be honest. Certainly from reading the Scriptures I just can’t get it (as opposed to the Real Presence where at a minimum I can understand and the case at the least seems credible).

Yes certainly observing the eucharist requires some human activity. But any transformation of the elements is something that God does. If that is indeed something that God does, I see no need for human dependencies in Scripture or any need for human dependencies logically.

We leave the chemistry and physics up to God, too. We take this on faith. Catholics can admire your reverence and the faith by which you think, “this is my body.” Even though we cannot affirm that it IS the Body and Blood of Christ because of the particular circumstances we understand to be essential for Communion, we certainly recognize the respect and reverence you bring to the Lord’s Supper as you understand it.

Well thank you…

But then if “this is not my body” for us Protestants, then if I am to adopt your interpretation of John 6, we do not have the life of Christ in us and we are not saved. That just does not seem credible.

 

[byoby]

John 6:61 Aware 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. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

If his words are spirit then how can we physically eat them?

 

[Rightlydivide]

They left because they understood what was said, but they did not understand how.

How do you know? It does not say that.

 

[Jamie_Patton]

My Church (non-denom) teaches that communion is symbolic and we should partake in it but not every sunday. They say by taking communion too much it can loose it’s effect. They say it can become routine. I’m a fairly new Christian (almost 2 yrs) and from the begining I would always pray before taking the bread and wine, “Jesus come into my body and dwell in me”. Kind of weird I would pray that because now I am deep into studying Catholicism and find myself defending it. And I’m not even Catholic, yet. I disagree with the Protestant view as communion as symbolic. When I read the scriptures I see communion as a real presence. I never see the words “symbolic” or “symbol”. It seems pretty clear to me that Jesus says “this is my body and this is my blood” and “my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink”. People at my Church don’t believe it is a real presence. It would be safe to say I’m the only one. They think it’s clearly ment to honor our Lord. Taking communion in remembrance of the Last Supper. Sound like a “Protestant Tradition” to me.

Searching and Finding the Truth,
JPatton

 

[mercygate]

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say. But I probably did not express myself all that well and it was a minor point so I will not belabor it.

I think you meant “does it”

Which goes back to the point that imho the historical argument is stronger than the Biblical one.

In any discipline that deals with historical documents, it would seem to me a wise policy to defer to the understanding of the original audience of the text whenever an ambiguity is found in the text. Why should the Bible be different?

In other words what should one believe (A or B) on any given subject if the Bible reads ambiguous on A versus B to the 20th century audience but the original audience of the Bible all believed B.

The origin of Scripture is a separate issue

Here we get into the idea that you need a valid priesthood (whatever that is) to have a valid Eucharist.

I have no idea where that one comes from to be honest. Certainly from reading the Scriptures I just can’t get it (as opposed to the Real Presence where at a minimum I can understand and the case at the least seems credible).

Yes certainly observing the eucharist requires some human activity. But any transformation of the elements is something that God does. If that is indeed something that God does, I see no need for human dependencies in Scripture or any need for human dependencies logically.

Well thank you…

But then if “this is not my body” for us Protestants, then if I am to adopt your interpretation of John 6, we do not have the life of Christ in us and we are not saved. That just does not seem credible.

This entire dialogue between you and me has brought out how Catholic theology is all one thing. The Eucharist depends on the priesthood, the priesthood on Apostolic Succession (you can find THAT in the Bible, can’t you?), the authenticity of Scripture is assured by the Church, whose unity Christ prayed for and promised on His last night on earth.

Might I tamely suggest that you really do believe that the Eucharistic Presence relies on human agency? It is God that effects the change in the Elements, of course. But how could it happen except through human agency?

For us, there is only One Priest. The Priest at the altar is but a spark off the flint of Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest. It is He, who through His minister speaks the words, “this is my Body” and, as foreshadowed by the feeding of the 5000, gives his Flesh and Blood to us down through 2000 years of personal hand-to-hand and mouth-to-ear transmission: a flesh and blood tissue of men, enlivened by the Holy Spirit, who breathes Christ into the world every minute of every day.

 

[mercygate]

John 6:61 Aware 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. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

If his words are spirit then how can we physically eat them?

The “words” in question were about eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood. In the Resurrection, His body is (as you can see by the post-Resurrection appearances) a physical body that is no longer limited by the mortality of its physical component. God is “spirit” and incorporeal, but Jesus’ two natures are forever united, and therefore corporeal, albeit in a way we do not understand.

Note that the phrase “the flesh counts for nothing” is a change of wording from the rest of the Bread of Life discourse. Throughout the discourse he uses the term “my flesh.” Only here does he say “the” flesh, thus changing the reference from His life-giving flesh to the flesh-bound heart that refuses to believe. “The flesh counts for nothing.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny:
I think the point is that it is possible to believe in the real presence and at the same time believe that John 6 does not support it.

It just means that you have come to your belief in the real presence through sources other than John 6.

John 6 does support it. I think that many Non-Catholic Christians who would not accept this is because of your own upbringing. Before the Reformation, all Christians believed in the Real Presence. The two Apostolic Churches which have its foundation on the Apostles and Jesus all affirm that Real Presence is very real.

They also believe that the Liturgy of the Eucharist is a sacrifice. A pure sacrifice offered to the Father. John 6, the 3 Gospels which depicts the Last Supper, as well as Paul’s 1 Corinthians 11:30 are all connected.

The problem with the Protestant exegesis on the passage it falls to connect the full context of the entire NT text as well as OT.

I have already pointed out how Jesus being born in Bethalem, which in Hebrew means “House of Bread.” Of course the Messiah had to be born in Bethalem because David is from that region and it was fortold.

You can’t interpret Scripture particularly John 6 in a vacuum. You have to read the context as it was written.

There are 4 senses of Scripture. The Literal Sense, the Spiritual Sense, allegorial Sense, and moral sense.

In this case, John 6 can be interpret in the Literal Sense. Jesus three times said to the Jews that they must Eat his flesh. We see they objected. Each time Jesus said they must eat his flesh.

 

[Mannyfit75]

POINT ONE: The First Objection.

41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven?

Jesus responded:

No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am** the living bread which came down from heaven**. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

POINT TWO: SECOND OBJECTION:

53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Jesus answered:

Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

THIRD POINT: THIRD OBJECTION

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?

Jesus answered,

Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

FOURTH POINT: The disciples left him.

66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

ANALYSIS: DR commentary: The flesh profiteth nothing"… Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacarament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.

We see those disciples left him because they understand fully that Jesus was speaking literally. In other parable Jesus made, he explain their meaning like. For example, when Nicodemus ask Jesus, how can a man be born again? Jesus answer, he must be born of water and spirit.

When Jesus explain his parable, the disciples understand better. Yet, in accounts where Jews seem to object is the authority of Jesus to forgive sins, which they claim only God can forgive us, (Jesus is God so he can), and the second time is John 6. They find so hard because many of these Jews know at Mosaic Law forbids eating the flesh of another man. So they left.

It is strange though, lately some Protestants have start to realized that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6. Jesus in this passage does support Real Presence. I see nothing that it is.

You might quote “The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.” which may seem to support symbolicism (Protestants have used this quote). It doesn’t.

Jesus is speaking that his words are spirit and life. Jesus did say unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." So that doesn’t prove symbolism of the Eucharist.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I’m a fairly new Christian (almost 2 yrs) and from the begining I would always pray before taking the bread and wine, “Jesus come into my body and dwell in me”.

Jamie,

I’m a bit off topic here but I wanted to mention something to you that sort of relates to what you said above. You might not have run across it yet, but there is a long-standing tradition in the Church of something known as a “spiritual communion”. It describes those, who for one reason or another cannot receive the Eucharist (e.g. not properly disposed, in a state of sin, not in full communion with the Church, unable to attend Mass, or on a mountaintop in the artic ) Although they are unable to receive the sacrament and thus the substantial real presence of Christ they are able to receive Christ in a spiritual manner. One traditional prayer of spiritual communion is:

My Jesus, I believe that You are present in the Blessed Sacrament. I love You above all things and I desire You in my soul. Since I cannot now receive You sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart. As though You were already there, I embrace You and unite myself wholly to You; permit not that I should ever be separated from You.

I think that what you expressed has some similarities to this. I encourage you to keep seeking the Truth, and I commend you for wanting to learn about the Catholic Church.

God bless you,
VC

 

[Jamie_Patton]

Jamie,

I’m a bit off topic here but I wanted to mention something to you that sort of relates to what you said above. You might not have run across it yet, but there is a long-standing tradition in the Church of something known as a “spiritual communion”. It describes those, who for one reason or another cannot receive the Eucharist (e.g. not properly disposed, in a state of sin, not in full communion with the Church, unable to attend Mass, or on a mountaintop in the artic ) Although they are unable to receive the sacrament and thus the substantial real presence of Christ they are able to receive Christ in a spiritual manner. One traditional prayer of spiritual communion is:

I think that what you expressed has some similarities to this. I encourage you to keep seeking the Truth, and I commend you for wanting to learn about the Catholic Church.

God bless you,
VC

Thanks for the encouragement. The more I learn about the Catholic Church the more I feel drawn to it.

God Bless,
JPatton

 

[ralphinal]

How do you know? It does not say that.