Real Presence and John 6

[Truth_Faith13]

I am curious to know how those who dont believe in the real presence read John 6 which talks about Jesus losing many disciples due to the hard teaching? I cant think how it can be a hard teaching unless the real presence is true? If the words were symbolic ie purely “in spirit” then the teaching wouldnt be hard? Would it?

Thanks

 

[nhs213]

No it would not be hard, and Jesus would not have also let those listening to Him walk away without first clarifying that he was speaking " metaphorically" if that was the case. Notice also that when ever He is speaking to His disciples in parables or cryptic language, He always clarifies to them later away from the crowds what His true meaning was. However, in this case He did not; He simply turned around and asked His disciples " Will you also go?" I would also suggest going to 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 , where Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for their irreverence and abuse of the Eucharist: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself,* and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment* on himself.” He does not speak of any sacrilege against a symbol, but the very body and blood of the Lord.

 

[Col103]

My mom argues that the “hard saying” was his claim to be the Son of God and to have come from heaven. I said that this doesn’t really make sense and showed her the verses from Corinthians as well as some quotes from the early church fathers. And while she didn’t really have an explanation for what they said, she really locked down because “Jesus couldn’t have meant the real presence, because that would be cannibalism”. And I don’t really have a great response to that honestly.

 

[Kotton]

"And while she didn’t really have an explanation for what they said, she really locked down because “Jesus couldn’t have meant the real presence, because that would be cannibalism”.
He really did mean it but not in a cannibal manner and the pagans did accuse the early Christians of cannibalism.

 

[Horton]

I am curious to know how those who dont believe in the real presence read John 6 which talks about Jesus losing many disciples due to the hard teaching? I cant think how it can be a hard teaching unless the real presence is true? If the words were symbolic ie purely “in spirit” then the teaching wouldnt be hard? Would it?

Thanks

I’ll admit it was a difficult teaching for me in the beginning. Having been raised as a mainline Protestant I had a much different understanding of communion. (I had never heard the word Eucharist before) As a Protestant, communion was done 4 times a year in the church I grew up in.

Thankfully I had a patient sponsor in RCIA, good instructors in RCIA, and good faithful Catholic friends who helped me through it. I made the conscience decision to go with it until it became real for me. And as the Holy Spirit does so well, I came to believe in the Real Presence prior to actually coming into the church. When I stood and professed my acceptance of the Catholic faith I was able to truly mean every part.

 

[jane_doe]

I am curious to know how those who dont believe in the real presence read John 6 which talks about Jesus losing many disciples due to the hard teaching? I cant think how it can be a hard teaching unless the real presence is true? If the words were symbolic ie purely “in spirit” then the teaching wouldnt be hard? Would it?

Thanks

The Jewish Passover had remain the same for thousands of years. Remained the same in symbology, in commemoration of the events in Egypt, in how it was observed, etc. This was a pinnacle of Jewish life (religious, cultural, secular, etc).

Now here comes Christ, and He introduces (what appears to be) a new meaning and a new purpose of this ceremony, (apparently) shattering thousands of years of foundational traditions of what it is to be Jewish. This is HARD for people. HARD for people to embrace the fact that Jesus was the Christ. HARD to to embrace the new covenant. People really struggled with it, and many outright rejected it.

 

[MrsAngelala]

Frankly, I don’t understand it either; my husband is Protestant, and he can’t answer this question to my satisfaction. As far as I can tell, he believes that so many disciples left because they were offended by the idea of eating human flesh, even symbolically.

But to be fair, it’s very hard for me to say this for certain. Anything, including Scripture, that challenges his view of a symbolic communion results in an immediate emotional/mental lock-down on his part, and since I’m on the other side of the question, I have a hard time comprehending his stance anyway. It’s a very difficult issue for us.

 

[Horton]

The Jewish Passover had remain the same for thousands of years. Remained the same in symbology, in commemoration of the events in Egypt, in how it was observed, etc. This was a pinnacle of Jewish life (religious, cultural, secular, etc).

Now here comes Christ, and He introduces (what appears to be) a new meaning and a new purpose of this ceremony, (apparently) shattering thousands of years of foundational traditions of what it is to be Jewish. This is HARD for people. HARD for people to embrace the fact that Jesus was the Christ. HARD to to embrace the new covenant. People really struggled with it, and many outright rejected it.

It wasn’t so much a new covenant but the fulfillment of the old. The symbolism of the Jewish Passover was to remember the flight from Egypt, slavery, to the promise land. They used unleavened bread and wine. In the New Testament the coming of Jesus Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. (Yes I understand the Jewish people do not recognize Christ as the messiah)

At the Last Supper, in which Jesus Christ and the Apostles were celebrating the Jewish Passover feast, Jesus instituted the current Eucharist. It is not symbolic or a just a ceremony. We don’t use white bread cubes and grape juice or water, we use unleavened bread and wine. We believe the unleavened bread and wine truly become the body & blood, soul & divinity of Jesus Christ. When we consume received the Eucharist Christ is within us and we are sent into the community to share that with others.

It may be hard for some to accept this but it is what Jesus Christ said in John 6. This is the truth of the true church. I’m curious to know how others came to the conclusion that bread cubes and grape juice/water was sufficient to according to the word of God? The faith of my childhood also did communion symbolically with bread cubes and grape juice. I didn’t understand it then and I don’t understand it now. Prior to receiving the Eucharist I hadn’t taken communion in any church for a very long time.

 

[Memaw]

My mom argues that the “hard saying” was his claim to be the Son of God and to have come from heaven. I said that this doesn’t really make sense and showed her the verses from Corinthians as well as some quotes from the early church fathers. And while she didn’t really have an explanation for what they said, she really locked down because “Jesus couldn’t have meant the real presence, because that would be cannibalism”. And I don’t really have a great response to that honestly.

Maybe you could get a copy of the book Eucharistic Miracles, and share it with your Mom. I have never ever heard of a Eucharistic Miracle in the Protestant version of communion.
If Jesus said it, it’s TRUE. God can do whatever HE chooses even if we don’t understand the beautiful Mystery of it. Does she honestly think Jesus would make cannibals of us. I have no idea how and when this notion got started but I imagine it is an insult to Our Blessed Lord. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Peebo]

Just as many rejected Jesus in those days because they would not accept the words he said…nor he did chase after them or try to explain he didn’t mean what he said…he let them go…so sadly…that’s what we should do to those who will not accept his words today…just pray for them that the Holy Spirit will open their eyes to the truth

 

[Horton]

Just as many rejected Jesus in those days because they would not accept the words he said…nor he did chase after them or try to explain he didn’t mean what he said…he let them go…so sadly…that’s what we should do to those who will not accept his words today…just pray for them that the Holy Spirit will open their eyes to the truth

There are many who do reject what Jesus Christ meant in John 6. You’re right we can only pray the Holy Spirit will show them the truth.

 

[adf417]

Any reading of the early church fathers and you will come to the conclusion of the real presence.

NOTE: many of these fathers are the same ones who cleared up any confusion in the NT canon.

…just connecting dots.

Peace!!!

 

[Col103]

But what would be the Catholic reasoned rebuttal to the cannibalism argument?

 

[MichaelP3]

Maybe you could get a copy of the book Eucharistic Miracles, and share it with your Mom. I have never ever heard of a Eucharistic Miracle in the Protestant version of communion.
If Jesus said it, it’s TRUE. God can do whatever HE chooses even if we don’t understand the beautiful Mystery of it. Does she honestly think Jesus would make cannibals of us. I have no idea how and when this notion got started but I imagine it is an insult to Our Blessed Lord. God Bless, Memaw

I have also never heard of a Saint outside Catholic circles?

(Yea, maybe Orthodox but that is separately determined without any (name removed by moderator)ut from Catholics as you should know)

 

[Col103]

I have also never heard of a Saint outside Catholic circles?

(Yea, maybe Orthodox but that is separately determined without any (name removed by moderator)ut from Catholics as you should know)

Off the top of my head- Anglican/Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, and of course The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).

Though of course, they all have different ideas of what constitutes a saint. I’m just a bit of a smart Alec I’m afraid. Really, I think you make a good point about the Eucharistic miracles.

 

[gazelam]

I am curious to know how those who dont believe in the real presence read John 6 which talks about Jesus losing many disciples due to the hard teaching? I cant think how it can be a hard teaching unless the real presence is true? If the words were symbolic ie purely “in spirit” then the teaching wouldnt be hard? Would it?

Thanks

J.G. Davies explains how the Hebrew mind would have assimilated such statements:

“The Hebrew, unlike the Greek, was not interested in things in themselves but only in things as they are called to be. He was not concerned with an object as such but with what it becomes in relation to its final reference according to the divine purpose. The meaning of an object therefore does not lie in its analytical and empirical reality but in the will that is expressed by it. Hence Jesus could say of a piece of bread: ‘This is my body.’ The bread does not cease to be bread, but it becomes what it is not, namely the instrument and organ of his presence, because through his sovereign word he has given it a new dimension.” (Davies, J.G., The Early Christian Church, (New York: Anchor Books, 1965,) p. 54.)

Justin Martyr said…

Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat,** in remembrance** of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks. (Dialogue with Trypho, 70)

Clement of Alexandria said…

The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood (The Paedagogus 2.2)

Origen said…

We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).

Eusebius of Caesarea said…

For with the wine which was indeed** the symbol** of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.” . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth are white as milk,” show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that “Real Presence” wasn’t unanimously accepted in the Early Church.

 

[rcwitness]

J.G. Davies explains how the Hebrew mind would have assimilated such statements:

“The Hebrew, unlike the Greek, was not interested in things in themselves but only in things as they are called to be. He was not concerned with an object as such but with what it becomes in relation to its final reference according to the divine purpose. The meaning of an object therefore does not lie in its analytical and empirical reality but in the will that is expressed by it. Hence Jesus could say of a piece of bread: ‘This is my body.’ The bread does not cease to be bread, but it becomes what it is not, namely the instrument and organ of his presence, because through his sovereign word he has given it a new dimension.” (Davies, J.G., The Early Christian Church, (New York: Anchor Books, 1965,) p. 54.)

Justin Martyr said…

Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat,** in remembrance** of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks. (Dialogue with Trypho, 70)

Clement of Alexandria said…

The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood (The Paedagogus 2.2)

Origen said…

We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).

Eusebius of Caesarea said…

For with the wine which was indeed** the symbol** of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.” . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth are white as milk,” show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that “Real Presence” wasn’t unanimously accepted in the Early Church.

I think the use of “symbol” by these men has a different meaning than we might conclude today. It’s true, the Eucharist Bread is the symbol of Jesus. It represents Jesus. But not apart from Jesus. It is an actual “form” of Jesus being present with us, and for us. It is His sacrifice being represented to us. Two things are “thrown together” to re-present Jesus “with us”: The Word and the gifts of bread and wine. When the Word (the Logos), and the gifts are joined, the Sacrifice of Jesus (His own body and blood) is made present. The Spirit is called “down” in order to give life to the Sacrament.

Even His true body and blood, which died and rose, is a symbol of the love of the Father. It does not diminish the reality of His union with His flesh and blood. He truly bound Himself to flesh and blood, so that His flesh and blood was made subject to the Spirit which guided Him perfectly.

 

[rcwitness]

Frankly, I don’t understand it either; my husband is Protestant, and he can’t answer this question to my satisfaction. As far as I can tell, he believes that so many disciples left because they were offended by the idea of eating human flesh, even symbolically.

But to be fair, it’s very hard for me to say this for certain. Anything, including Scripture, that challenges his view of a symbolic communion results in an immediate emotional/mental lock-down on his part, and since I’m on the other side of the question, I have a hard time comprehending his stance anyway. It’s a very difficult issue for us.

Yes, truly difficult. Try to harmonize the meaning of “symbol” and the “true presence”.

Did the Tabernacle of the Temple actually contain God? Or was it a symbol only of God?

The symbolism, in the bread and wine, is “food” and “nourishment”. And the food and nourishment of God, is His life and Spirit. His Body and blood contained the Spirit and life of God bodily.

 

[Porknpie]

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that “Real Presence” wasn’t unanimously accepted in the Early Church.

ALL the sacraments are “Symbol’s”, just not symbol’s only.

Saint Justin Martyr ALSO said:

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

Saint Clement of Alexandria ALSO said:

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

Origen ALSO said:

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

One also need to read of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a DISCIPLE of St. John:

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

And St. Irenaeus who was speaking against heretics:

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

And Saint Cyrpian:

“For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ…Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united.” Cyprian, To Caeilius, Epistle 62(63):13 (A.D. 253).

Interesting this too:

ALL those Catholic Bishops who affirmed, infallibly, the Canon of the NT (27 books, no more, no less), ALL professed believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

They were after all, Catholic Priests.

That is an inconsistency Gazelam: how could a Church in a great apostasy, infallibly discern and affirm the NT canon in the late 4th century?

How can you trust those Catholic Bishops on the Canon of the NT…but distrust them on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

 

[Porknpie]

I am curious to know how those who dont believe in the real presence read John 6 which talks about Jesus losing many disciples due to the hard teaching? I cant think how it can be a hard teaching unless the real presence is true? If the words were symbolic ie purely “in spirit” then the teaching wouldnt be hard? Would it?

Thanks

Truth, it WAS a hard saying. No good Jew would have drank blood.

The Disciples left him because of this, after just witnessing him feed 5,000 people on a few fish and loaves of bread. Yet Jesus did not correct them, he let them go. WHY? Because he meant what he said. And the Jews then wanted to kill him (1st para Ch 7) due to what he said. They also took him … literally.

In looking at the original Old Testament Passover, one had to not only Sacrifice the Lamb, one had to EAT the lamb, or your first born would have been dead in the morning. Jesus is the Lamb of God. We have to EAT him as well… his Resurrected Body, blood, soul and divinity.

And, while Moses took the Israelites into the desert for 40 years, God gave them TRUE Heavenly food: The Manna. And the Manna was taken away when they entered the promised land. This also prefigures the NT: we are in the desert and God is giving us again, true heavenly food, but one that is much greater. This is to sustain us while we are on earth, until we enter the promised land, heaven.

“Remembrance”

YES we do this in remembrance of him. Remembrance ALSO describes the OT Passover’s that came after the original Passover. It means to make the past, present… NOW. Those Jews celebrating the later Passover meals ate it in remembrance…standing, eating, ready to flee from Egypt. It’s as if they were present at the first Passover. We do the same at the Eucharistic meal. We do it in remembrance, we participate in that Original Sacrifice. It is present NOW but in an unbloody manner as we receive his resurrected Body, blood, soul and divinity.

From Catholic.com

catholic.com/tracts/the-institution-of-the-mass

And perhaps my very favorite youtube videos on this subject. Well worth watching… or your money back** From Dr. Brandt Pitre.**