(Continued…)
(4) Christ spoke in metaphorical language and in parables all the time. I am the gate. I am the vine. I am the Good Shepherd, etc. How literal are we supposed to get?
First of all, just because Jesus
sometimes spoke metaphorically doesn’t mean he
always did. Obviously, the crowd in John 6 did not think Jesus was using the language of a metaphor, nor did Jesus indicate that his words were meant to be understood as anything but literal.
Secondly, consider what St. Paul says about the Eucharist:
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,
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.”
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.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
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.
Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. (1Cor 11:24-30, RSV)
Does this honestly sound like St. Paul is describing the power of a metaphor? How many metaphors make someone weak, ill and even dead if one does not properly discern them?
Thirdly,
every church which has directly grown out of the original Apostolic Sees has historically taught the Real Presence of Christ within the Eucharist. It is a teaching in the Catholic Church, all of the various Eastern Orthodox Churches, and all of the various Oriental Orthodox Churches. Even some Protestant denominations (including Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists) believe in the Real Presence. Among these groups there is, I admit, doctrinal disagreement over
how the Eucharist is the Real Presence, but not over the belief in the Real Presence itself. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that
some Christians started rejecting this belief.
(5) Pagans, such as those who followed Mithraism, had this notion that if you consumed god you somehow took on his strength and virtues. This was a common concept among cannibals, also.
Pagans also believe that a god could die and be resurrected (for example, the legend of Osiris predates the birth of Christ). Does this destroy the credibility of Christianity? No, because one can simply point out that pagans, by virtue of their God-given intellect, were able to discern certain truths about reality. For example, pagans were able to imagine the following hypothesis: if a divine being is able to experience death and then rise again from the dead, then such a deity has power over death itself, and death is not the insurmountable end of existence. The human intellect was designed to be predisposed to such an idea in preparation for the passion, death and resurrection of Christ. The pre-Christian pagans (being naturally concerned about the reality of death) used their imaginations to simply create a mythological god, Osiris, to ascribe this concept to. The same sort of thing can be going on concerning pagan ideas about being supernaturally empowered from what is eaten.
(6) As suggested already, I have no essential problem with those who believe it, as I have no problem with Jews who reject the Messiah or Hindus who worship Krishna or Muslims who throw stones at the devil when they are on pilgrimage in Mecca, as I believe we need to respect different beliefs. However, I am ready to admit that God is well behind my human understanding. His creation is magnificent, miraculous, mammoth and mysterious. Yet, I find myself reluctant to place him in a piece of bread and a chalice of wine.
And God is beyond my understanding also. The only reason I place him in what seems to be a piece of bread and a chalice of wine is because he revealed to his Church that he’s there. “This is my Body…This is my Blood.”
Also, consider the event concerning the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). Notice that they initially received a Bible study class from Christ himself, and yet they did not recognize him. But later we read…
When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.
And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. (Luke 24:30-31, RSV)
Why did Jesus leave at this point? According to the doctrine of the Real Presence, he didn’t. More specifically, he vanished from their sight, but he did not leave because he was still there in the Eucharist. At this point in the gospel, Jesus was soon to bodily and spiritually ascend to heaven, so this event teaches that future generations of Christians would need to turn to the Eucharist to have an bodily and spiritual encounter with Christ.
In light of this, consider the way in which Luke ends his retelling of this event:
Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. (Luke 24:35, RSV, emphasis added)
This knowledge of Christ in the breaking of the bread has been passed down from apostolic times in the doctrine of the Real Presence.
(Continued in my next post)
