Rejection of the flesh in favor of Spirit with regards to Eucharist

[Davis_tylerj]

I’ve heard arguements against Eucharist for a long time, but this spirit question is a new one for me. Citing John 6, the author claims that Jesus’s use of spirit clearly shows the symbolic nature of the Eucharist. Please read the following article and respond back with a rebuttal. It is very distressing.

What is the Catholic sacrament of Holy Eucharist? | GotQuestions.org

Blessings,

Tyler

 

[ProdglArchitect]

He is falsly conflating separate concepts.

The flesh not giving life is an allusion to the fact that there is nothing in the world we can do to obtain salvation, only God’s free gift can save us. It is a reference to the physical vs spiritual aspects of things. We see a similar use in John 3:6.

What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.

Just because the same word is used doesn’t mean the same thing is being referenced. John is quite clear in the language Christ used that the action was literal consumption. To gnaw and chew, to physically consume.

 

[GiftofMercy]

Could you cut and paste which part of the article you mean?

 

[meltzerboy2]

Whether the literal consumption of the body and blood of Jesus is following Jesus’ command as an essential requirement for eternal life, as Catholics believe, or whether the sacrifice of Jesus has already been done once and for all and thus the act need not be re-sacrificed, re-presented, re-offered, because so long as one believes by the grace of faith, one is saved, does not, in my view, negate the fact that both positions are faith-based and, yes, can be supported by various verses found in the Bible. Perhaps Catholics lean more toward the literal re-creation of the sacrificial event because they are more influenced by the Passover re-presentation of the consumption of wine and bread, which is essential to Jewish theology.

What I do contest, however, in the attached link is the author’s interpretation of Sirach, in particular, his statement about the hunger and thirst of the people even though they had “consumed” the Law (Torah), which he equates with bread (manna): “He who eats of me will hunger still; he who drinks of me will thirst for more.” This does NOT mean that those who obey and practice the Law remain unfulfilled due to not having “grace through faith” but limited to physical means of gratification. The point of the verse is to reveal the never-ending reservoir of sanctification within the Law so that he who begins the study of the Law has undertaken a lifelong endeavor and continuously desires to “consume,” that is, learn and practice, more of it. When Jesus says those who follow Him will not hunger or thirst, He does not mean to obliterate the Law or reveal that He supersedes the Law (as is so often stated by Jews and Christians alike). Rather, what He is saying is that the meaning of the Law will be renewed and refreshed by means of His teaching, and thus one will feel a more fulfilled inner peace of mind and spirit. The link between Judaism and Christianity was never meant to be broken by Jesus, as it has often been by humans. The author of the article, on the other hand, is, at least indirectly, attempting to break that link.

 

[CRV]

“why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life?” Because we are flesh and spirit. And at the last supper when Jesus gave His disciples His flesh (bread) and His blood (wine) it was because we are physical beings with a body and to take in nourishment we have to eat and drink. Therefore we take Jesus (body, blood, soul and divinity) into ourselves in the only physical way we can. Jesus and the communicant then are united physically and spiritually.

When he quotes St Paul in Romans 12:1 " * I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship.a" - down the bottom of this page in the * notes it explains “The Mosaic code included elaborate directions on sacrifices and other cultic observances. The gospel, however, invites believers to present their bodies as a living sacrifice”.

We do this when we unite ourselves to Jesus when He is offered to the Father in the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass - when the priest raises up the Blessed Sacrament and the Chalice during Mass (he is offering these to God as well as the time when we join ourselves to Christ in this offering).

We also do this when we make our morning offering to God. “Oh Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I offer you all my prayers, works, sufferings and joys of this day for all the intentions of your Sacred Heart, in thanksgiving for your favors, in reparation for my sins” or some variation.

St Paul was counselling as to how we should live our lives because in Romans 12:2 he goes on to say “Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.” Thus when we turn away from sin (choosing the will of God and what is good and pleasing and perfect), we sacrifice our own wills. E.g. instead of looking at porn, we turn our eyes away - thus denying ourselves this sinful pleasure is a sacrifice.

Under the old Mosaic law (Christ terminated the old law) animals were killed and sacrificed to God, as well as other foods - therefore dead sacrifices. But Jesus is Risen and so is a living sacrifice as are we ourselves when we offer our lives to God.

continued below

 

[CRV]

continuing

And as Jesus is also God and as God is outside of time, then Jesus’ Last Supper and His command to “Do this in memory of me” plus His sacrifice on the Cross - is always present, in present time, for all time until the end of time. Our priests are priest forever in the order of Melchizedek and that’s what priests do - offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

These two articles explains it much better than I can:-
Is Jesus “Re-Sacrificed” at Every Mass?, quotes Hebrews, John, Revelation, The Council of Trent, and Malachi 1:11

IS THE EUCHARIST A TRUE SACRIFICE? very good article and quotes Hebrews, Revelation, CCC, Council of Trent.

 

[Todd_Easton]

The article says:

The Eucharist can only be offered in select places: churches consecrated and blessed according to Catholic canon law.

That is not exactly what Catholic canon law says. Although the eucharistic celebration is suppose to take place at a sacred place, such as in a Catholic church, canon law does permit the celebration of the Eucharist elsewhere, if necessity requires, emphasis mine:

Canon 932

§1 The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in a sacred place, unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise; in which case the celebration must be in a fitting place.

§2 The eucharistic Sacrifice must be carried out at an altar that is dedicated or blessed. Outside a sacred place an appropriate table may be used, but always with an altar cloth and a corporal. (source)

The Mass venues, for example, for many past World Youth Days were not sacred places but rather such places as grassy fields, hills, beaches, parks, wide city avenues, airports, horse racecourses, etc. Sports stadiums have also been popular venues for papal Masses.

During wartime and times of persecution, Masses have been celebrated on battle fields, in concentration camps, in prison cells, in private homes, etc. Once in a while, my parish priest will visit a nearby senior apartment complex and celebrate Mass in one of the common rooms for the elderly residents.

Because the article is wrong about Catholic canon law, its conclusion that the Eucharist does not adequately fulfill the prophecy of Malachi 1:11 is also wrong.

Also, because of the inclusion of incense, a material offering typically offered by a ministerial priest, in the Malachi 1:11 prophecy, the accompanying “pure offering” probably also refers to a material offering offered by a ministerial priest, rather than a simple spiritual offering as suggested by the article.

 

[po18guy]

Why waste precious life moments reading such anti-Catholic hatred? The world is full of such misguided, misinformed, ignorant and even malicious bilge.

Try not to study the faith from those who hate it. Find, and focus on the uplifting writings of those who actually know what they are talking about.

Point: If Jesus’ flesh counts for nothing, his death on the cross is meaningless.

 

[Beryllos]

Please read the following article and respond back with a rebuttal. It is very distressing.

As @po18guy just implied, GotQuestions tends to be anti-Catholic. Strongly anti-Catholic. Rather than worry about it, I am inclined to dismiss it as “Oh well. Someone is wrong on the internet, … again!”

The top priority for you is not to let your faith be weakened by so-called experts on the internet. Don’t let yourself be distressed. Be at peace.

As for rebuttal, do you plan to post a rebuttal at GotQuestions? Don’t waste your time. Even if you put your heart and soul into it, you wouldn’t make a difference. Praying will be more productive. Let go and let God handle this one.

 

[Gorgias]

I found two interesting ideas in that essay:

Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord’s Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted.

So, two thoughts:

• He’s making me laugh here. There’s no mention of the Eucharist in account of the Passover in the Gospel of John. Take a look for yourself! The three synoptic Gospels tell the story of the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper; John does not. So, he’s implicitly admitting that “the Holy Eucharist / Mass” is present at the Last Supper, even though John doesn’t show it to us!
• The assertion that “since it hadn’t happened yet, we can’t read the Eucharist into anything Jesus said beforehand.” Really? What a gem that notion is! So, let’s see, then… what else did Jesus talk about before it happened? Are these, too, unwarranted?
  • Jesus talked about his upcoming passion and death to the apostles – many times!
  • Jesus talked about the destruction of the temple.
  • Jesus talked about the gift of the Holy Spirit.
  • Jesus talked about His Church which He would found.
  • Jesus talked about His Second Coming.

Gee, I guess we have to consider these references ‘unwarranted’, too, then?

 

[Vico]

I’ve heard arguements against Eucharist for a long time, but this spirit question is a new one for me. Citing John 6, the author claims that Jesus’s use of spirit clearly shows the symbolic nature of the Eucharist. Please read the following article and respond back with a rebuttal. It is very distressing.

…

Blessings,

Tyler

There are some errors in there about what the Catholic Church teaches.

One is in mentioning re-sacrifice. Per Catholic teaching that bloody sacrifice was accomplished only once. The Mass or Divine Liturgy is a sacrifice of praise, an un-bloody sacrifice.

Catechism

1409 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, that is, of the work of salvation accomplished by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, a work made present by the liturgical action.

1322 The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord’s own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist.

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.’"135

It is certainly not only symbolic.

Catechism

1336 The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"160 The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. “Will you also go away?”:161 the Lord’s question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life"162 and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.

160 Jn 6:60.
161 Jn 6:67.
162 Jn 6:68

 

[Dovekin]

The central misrepresentation is that the Catholic Eucharist is only the Body and Blood of Christ, while we believe that the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity are present in the Eucharist. The presence of the Holy Spirit ensures that our feast is not just physical, but spiritual as well.

What is included in this is that the physical Body and Blood is united with the Soul of Christ in an indissoluble unity, just as every human is both body and soul. We approach someone like us in every way (except sin).

But as it is Jesus, his humanity is inextricably joined with his Divinity. So in the Eucharist, we receive not just the “flesh” of Jesus, we receive the whole Christ, human and divine. The spiritual gifts that the answer envisions we receive because the body of Christ cannot be separated from his humanity or his divinity. Joined with Christ by his body and blood, we are joined with him in his humanity and divinity.

 

[Cathoholic]

Let’s look at one point from the article for starters.

Davis_tylerj . . .

Citing John 6, the author claims that Jesus’s use of spirit clearly shows the symbolic nature of the Eucharist.

The author/article that Davis_tylerj cited . . .

. . . So, if “the flesh is of no avail,” why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are “spirit.” Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. . . .

Do you REALLY think that Jesus is saying HIS flesh is of “no avail” here in John 6:63 Davis_tylerj?

Do you REALLY think Jesus’ work on Calvary (verse 51) was/is “of no avail” Davis_tylerj??
After all. If “the flesh” includes Jesus’ flesh . . . contextually, this SHOULD BE the logical conclusion.

Was Jesus’ work on Calvary MERELY “spiritual”?
Did He not REALLY DIE and RISE FROM THE DEAD for our sins? (Or DID He, but it was NOT salvific?? Because after all, “the flesh” . . . “is of no avail”.)

JOHN 6:50-66 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 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.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 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; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats 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 he who eats me will live because of me. 58 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.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um.
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 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. 64 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 should betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Bold mine for emphasis.

.

JOHN 6:63a 63 It is the spirit that gives life, THE FLESH is of no avail . . .

NOT JOHN 6:63a 63 It is the spirit that gives life, MY FLESH is of no avail . . .

What do you think the Jewish Biblical meaning of “the flesh” is?

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Wesrock]

Jesus is simply telling them that understanding “how this man can give them his flesh to eat” is above human reasoning and must be taken on faith. It’s about the weakness of the body without spirit (in a vein similar to how Saint Paul often contrasts flesh and spirit). The flesh that is “of no avail” in Jesus’s response isn’t a reference to the bread of life, it’s a reference to the flesh/bodies of his followers.

 

[Wesrock]

It’s about the weakness of the body without spirit (in a vein similar to how Saint Paul often contrasts flesh and spirit).

From Galatians:

3 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh ; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would.

24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

From Roman’s

8 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God really dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells in you.

12 So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13 for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

And I could go on, from Romans and other epistles. But I’ll stop there.

 

[Todd_Easton]

I think the article too easily dismisses the possible connection between John 6 and the Lord’s Supper (the Eucharist). I do not think it is a mere coincidence that John 6 shares some of the same themes, even the same words, as the descriptions of the Lord’s Supper (the Eucharist) found elsewhere in Sacred Scripture, in Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and 1 Corinthians 10:16-21; 11:23-29.

I suppose the most obvious of these shared themes is that of eating Jesus’ flesh or body and drinking his blood and the association of bread with his flesh or body that is or will be given for us. For example, compare these two similarly-themed passages that discuss eating Jesus’ flesh or body and drinking his blood:

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. (John 6:53)

… Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood … (Matthew 25:26-28)

Or, these two similarly-themed verses that associate bread with Jesus’ flesh or body:

… and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. (John 6:51)

And he took bread, … saying, “This is my body which is given for you." (Luke 22:19)

Perhaps a less obvious similarity, at least to those reading an English translation, is that forms of the word “Eucharist” appear in the Greek in the descriptions of the Lord’s Supper (the Eucharist) mentioned earlier (Matthew 26:27, Mark 14:23, Luke 22:19, and 1 Corinthians 11:24) and they also appear in John 6, verses 11 and 23, and nowhere else in John:

Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks (Greek eucharistesas)… (John 6:11)

However, boats from Tiberias came near the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks (Greek eucharistesantos). (John 6:23)

 

[Gorgias]

Perhaps a less obvious similarity, at least to those reading an English translation, is that forms of the word “Eucharist” appear in the Greek in the descriptions of the Lord’s Supper (the Eucharist) mentioned earlier (Matthew, Mark, Luke and 1 Corinthians) and they also appear in John 6, verses 11 and 23, and nowhere else in John

I think this is an important point. After all, the intended audience of the Gospel of John is Christians who had already heard the synoptic Gospels in the liturgies they attended. So, for these Christians who have already participated regularly in the Liturgy and the Eucharist, we have to ask ourselves what they would have understood the Evangelist to mean when he wrote, “the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had eucharisted [it]”…

Was it the Eucharist? No, not yet. However, there’s a distinct link that seems to be being drawn between the Eucharist of the Church and the teaching of Jesus in John 6…

 

[Todd_Easton]

I’ve heard arguements against Eucharist for a long time, but this spirit question is a new one for me. Citing John 6, the author claims that Jesus’s use of spirit clearly shows …

When, in John 6:63, Jesus said, “The words that I spoke to you are spirit…,” I don’t think he meant his words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were symbolic or a metaphor for something else but rather that his words were spiritual. They were spiritual in that they were inspired by the Spirit of God, of course, but also because they concerned a gift of the Spirit of God, namely, the Eucharist, Jesus’ body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine, a spiritual reality that would only be understandable and profitable unto eternal life to spiritual men because the reality of his body and blood in the Eucharist can only be discerned spiritually; it cannot be recognized for what it truly is by the eyes of the flesh but only by the eyes of faith. This gift of Jesus’ body and blood really present in the Eucharist is not understandable to and would be regarded as folly by unspiritual men, men of the flesh, who lack spiritual discernment, seeing only with the eyes of the flesh and not with the eyes of faith, seeing only the appearance of bread and wine and profiting nothing from it. The Eucharist is not alone in this regard; all the sacraments have a spiritual component that can only be discerned spiritually. See 1 Corinthians 2:14–3:1 regarding spiritual men and unspiritual or natural men, men of the flesh.

Concerning the sacrificial nature of the Lord’s Supper, you might want to check out Catholic Answers apologist Karlo Broussard’s article, “Evidence Christ Offered the Last Supper as a Sacrifice,” and Catholic Answers apologist Jason Evert’s article, “Is the Mass a Sacrifice?”