Responding to a Protestant Claim about the Eucharist

[PluniaZ]

Good article on the question of “local presence”:

academia.edu/11829063/The_Thomistic_Notion_of_the_Non-Local_Presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist_Origin_and_Reception

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Hic,

Beg to differ that John 6 is “quite clear” about a literal interpretation of eating…for we still die when eating Him, though He said we would not.

Everything fits just as well under spiritual symbolism, and as St. Augustine says somewhere, “leave your teeth and bellies behind” , for we eat by faith, and that with our spirits, as in understanding.

Understand folks try to put it in or defend/explain with Jewish roots. Alas they be like protestants , where you get multiple viewpoints.

The Passover was for remembrance and thanksgiving…they eat/participate with food elements as symbols, achieving a spiritual and historical understanding by bringing the past into the present…the Lord inhabiting their praises, even being “present” in Spirit during the festivities.

They eat the lamb, but have no referencing it to the same animal that was sacrificed in the original Passover, except by symbolic representation. No miracle is needed, again and again.(yet I would say anytime the Lord gets thru our flesh and invades our spirit with understanding, even thanksgiving, that is a miracle)

Blessings

The problem with your argument is that Jesus emphasized the physical nature of the eating, and did not explain it, even when a large amount of his own disciples left him for the difficult teaching. He did not bother explaining further to the remaining disciple, either. In contrast, in other areas of John, like for example when Jesus talks about destroying the Temple, there is a clear explanation of what Jesus was referring to. The same about a man being “born again” - Jesus clearly explains what he’s talking about to Nicodemus. He doesn’t do that at all in John 6. Strikingly enough, he doesn’t give an explanation of what he’s referring to in John 8, when he calls himself the “I AM,” either. That’s because Jesus meant exactly what he said.

Also begs the question - if the language that is so so obviously clear in John 6 is enough, what kind of language would be needed to convince you that he was talking about his actual body and blood? I don’t know how you can get more explicit than this.

 

[benhur]

The problem with your argument is that Jesus emphasized the physical nature of the eating, and did not explain it, even when a large amount of his own disciples left him for the difficult teaching. He did not bother explaining further to the remaining disciple, either. In contrast, in other areas of John, like for example when Jesus talks about destroying the Temple, there is a clear explanation of what Jesus was referring to. The same about a man being “born again” - Jesus clearly explains what he’s talking about to Nicodemus. He doesn’t do that at all in John 6. Strikingly enough, he doesn’t give an explanation of what he’s referring to in John 8, when he calls himself the “I AM,” either. That’s because Jesus meant exactly what he said.

Also begs the question - if the language that is so so obviously clear in John 6 is enough, what kind of language would be needed to convince you that he was talking about his actual body and blood? I don’t know how you can get more explicit than this.

Hi…thanks for reply…if you take it explicitly, the text says you must gnaw at, like apiece of meat…I have yet to see anyone gnaw at the commu ion host…quite the contrary…the text must be taken with entire chapter, where he is the bread of life and that one must believe and be called of the father…the inference to eat is about calvary, for which many of the apostles rejected, e en to the end with Peter cut to g off the ear…blessings…sorry a out my format…using cell phone

 

[PJM]

I was reading some Protestant arguments against the Real Presence in the Eucharist (trying to find a best argument someone would have for rejecting the doctrine). Nearly all of them were pretty easily refutable.

One however I found to be a little confusing, and I’m not quite sure how to answer this. The argument essentially boils down to Christ couldn’t be physically present in the Eurcharist because that would require his physical body to in multiple places at any given moment always.

This is the exact quoted argument…

Any takers?

SURE

[1] GOD can do any GOOD thing.

We Catholics KNOW: Jesus [GOD] Really is present in the Most Holy Eucharist; that would be [AND IS] the greatest possible of all “good things”

[2] Are we to presume that GOD CANNOT do this? That God is not Omnipotent?

[3] The MIRACLES; that is a Key term in right understanding] of the multiplication of the loafs & fish, & the Loafs Mt 14: 16-210 & Mt 15: 36-39; where Jesus fed 5,000 & 4,000
in order to ADDRESS THAT very issue.

[4] This was NOT the original human body of Jesus; NO! It is the NOW GLORIED Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus [See John 20:1923]

[5] Five different Holy Spirit Inspired [2 Tim 3:16-17] authors + Jesus Himself give testimony to THIS REALITY

Mt 26
Mk 14
Lk 22
John 6
Paul in 1st Cor, 11

[6] Google “the Real Presence” and check out Eucharist Miracles:thumbsup:

[7] Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.

GBY

Patrick

 

[Contarini]

I was reading some Protestant arguments against the Real Presence in the Eucharist (trying to find a best argument someone would have for rejecting the doctrine). Nearly all of them were pretty easily refutable.

One however I found to be a little confusing, and I’m not quite sure how to answer this. The argument essentially boils down to Christ couldn’t be physically present in the Eurcharist because that would require his physical body to in multiple places at any given moment always.

This is the exact quoted argument…

Any takers?

First of all,l “physically present” is not Catholic teaching and is, I think, a misleading term. The Real Presence is better described as “metaphysical,” i think–“substance” is not what we would think of today as a “physical” thing. Aquinas says that Christ is not present “as in a place” or “under his natural dimensions” and agrees with the Reformed that Christ is in heaven in a local sense.

But in the second place, the Reformed view you cite misstates the orthodox doctrine of the hypostatic union. The traditional view of communicatio idiomatum is that the natures do share their properties with each other. Jesus the man forgave sins, albeit through his divine nature. God the Son died on the Cross. Calvin and other Reformed theologians had a defective Christology, leaning toward Nestorianism. This is one reason why, as Newman pointed out, “Unitarianism” of one sort or another keeps cropping up in the Reformed tradition.

Edwin

 

[PluniaZ]

The Roman Catechism on the question of “local presence”:

“The pastor should next teach that our Lord is not in the Sacrament as in a place. Place regards things only inasmuch as they have magnitude. Now we do not say that Christ is in the Sacrament inasmuch as He is great or small, terms which belong to quantity, but inasmuch as He is a substance. The substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christ, not into magnitude or quantity; and substance, it will be acknowledged by all, is contained in a small as well as in a large space. The substance of air, for instance, and its entire nature must be present under a small as well as a large quantity, and likewise the entire nature of water must be present no less in a glass than in a river. **Since, then, the body of our Lord succeeds to the substance of the bread, we must confess it to be in the Sacrament after the same manner as the substance of the bread was before consecration; whether the substance of the bread was present in greater or less quantity is a matter of entire indifference.
**”

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-e.htm

 

[benhur]

Also begs the question - if the language that is so so obviously clear in John 6 is enough, what kind of language would be needed to convince you that he was talking about his actual body and blood? I don’t know how you can get more explicit than this.

Hi FM,

For starters, not saying believing grants you the same exact things He later says gnawing on His flesh would (eternal life, resurrection). He equates believing with eating at least three times.So believing that the bread and wine represent the body and blood that was His on Calvary is enough to “eat Him”. Of what benefit is there spiritually to have to eat His man/divine nature ?

If you look at your question, you are stressing He spoke of cannibalism, strictly forbidden for Jews (but not other religions, where indeed they believed in eating “heroes”, gods, to acquire their essence, or powers, or virtues.

If He didn’t mean this, why didn’t Jesus explain it ?

The problem with your argument is that Jesus emphasized the physical nature of the eating, and did not explain it, even when a large amount of his own disciples left him for the difficult teaching He did not bother explaining further to the remaining disciple, either…

The whole pivot point is believing in Christ and Calvary, not too mention His ascension, and that this can only be done when one is born, drawn, of the Father. All others are false disciples (not believing from the beginning, way before John 6). He knew the cannibalism, this gnawing on His flesh,even His death, would turn away mislead disciples. Why would He explain any further then about their misconception about eating when they did not believe to begin with ? Mission accomplished. False followers departed (perhaps to return someday under divine inspiration, and not carnal or Satanic inspiration).

He gave the same test to the apostles, who also struggled with His death, and any sort of eating. Yet they believed, even said He was the Messiah, and had the words of eternal life. No need to explain any further, for that is how they ate Him for now (no knowledge yet of LS ordinance). They stayed. Mission accomplished.

They were also not yet “out of the woods” with accepting Calvary, and talk of His death. As I noted they all scattered, save John. Peter also said Christ would not die, being rebuked for it (“get behind me Satan”). Even to the last Peter cut off an ear to prevent it. Do you really think they were ready for a description of the Last Supper at this point ??Don’t think so. They certainly were ready for an immediate Davidic kingdom to begin reigning again, not “seeing” any death,resurrection, ascension etc…

Those are some thoughts as to just why Jesus did not explain further.

PS- What would you do if thousands were following you (even many disciples) for the wrong reason ? He only needed one false follower to betray him.

In ch 2 or 3 it says Jesus was not taken or moved by such followers and knew what was in their hearts…the problem only got worse by Ch 6.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Hi…thanks for reply…if you take it explicitly, the text says you must gnaw at, like apiece of meat…I have yet to see anyone gnaw at the commu ion host…quite the contrary…the text must be taken with entire chapter, where he is the bread of life and that one must believe and be called of the father…the inference to eat is about calvary, for which many of the apostles rejected, e en to the end with Peter cut to g off the ear…blessings…sorry a out my format…using cell phone

The term “gnaw” was used to emphasize the point of eating. Why would he emphasize something like “gnawing” if his point wasn’t that people should physically eat? There is no way you can conclude that he is talking about calvary when referring to eating. The people there were disgusted and horrified, and yet no explanation was offered. Jesus never went and said “you got me wrong” and John never clarified anything even though he has done it multiple times in other instances.

For starters, not saying believing grants you the same exact things He later says gnawing on His flesh would (eternal life, resurrection). He equates believing with eating at least three times.So believing that the bread and wine represent the body and blood that was His on Calvary is enough to “eat Him”. Of what benefit is there spiritually to have to eat His man/divine nature ?

This is not what the text says. Indeed, the Jews were all aboard in believing he was speaking symbolically up until he said “I am the bread that comes from heaven.” And this is where he begins emphasizing the eating nature.

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 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 like the bread[c] the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (John 6:52-58)

So the Jews asked Jesus “how can you give us your flesh?” and he responds “my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” He is explicitly refuting a symbolic argument.

The whole pivot point is believing in Christ and Calvary, not too mention His ascension, and that this can only be done when one is born, drawn, of the Father. All others are false disciples (not believing from the beginning, way before John 6). He knew the cannibalism, this gnawing on His flesh,even His death, would turn away mislead disciples. Why would He explain any further then about their misconception about eating when they did not believe to begin with ? Mission accomplished. False followers departed (perhaps to return someday under divine inspiration, and not carnal or Satanic inspiration).

What pivot point, exactly? There is no way you can read him making a symbolic description of his death and resurrection without having evangelical lenses on. The text talks about eating his body and drinking his blood, very explicitly, and this is repeated over and over again. And if he is talking about Calvary - then why is he talking about food? What logical sense does this make?

Did Jesus come symbolically to be crucified? Because that’s the conclusion you have to make from what you’re saying.

There are several instances in which there are difficult teachings in John - and Jesus specifically explains them. When he’s talking about destroying the Temple or about being reborn. Indeed, the part about being reborn is as confusing as the discourse on his body and blood, but he makes it really clear to Nicodemus that he’s not talking about being physically reborn. He does the opposite in John 6. And the history of the Church is consistent with an interpretation of the real presence, because it overwhelmingly adhered to that doctrine, and was not really disputed until John Calvin and Zwingli.

 

[benhur]

The term “gnaw” was used to emphasize the point of eating. Why would he emphasize something like “gnawing” if his point wasn’t that people should physically eat? There is no way you can conclude that he is talking about calvary when referring to eating. The people there were disgusted and horrified, and yet no explanation was offered. Jesus never went and said “you got me wrong” and John never clarified anything even though he has done it multiple times in other instances.

This is not what the text says. Indeed, the Jews were all aboard in believing he was speaking symbolically up until he said “I am the bread that comes from heaven.” And this is where he begins emphasizing the eating nature.

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 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 like the bread[c] the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” (John 6:52-58)

So the Jews asked Jesus “how can you give us your flesh?” and he responds “my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” He is explicitly refuting a symbolic argument.

What pivot point, exactly? There is no way you can read him making a symbolic description of his death and resurrection without having evangelical lenses on. The text talks about eating his body and drinking his blood, very explicitly, and this is repeated over and over again. And if he is talking about Calvary - then why is he talking about food? What logical sense does this make?

Did Jesus come symbolically to be crucified? Because that’s the conclusion you have to make from what you’re saying.

There are several instances in which there are difficult teachings in John - and Jesus specifically explains them. When he’s talking about destroying the Temple or about being reborn. Indeed, the part about being reborn is as confusing as the discourse on his body and blood, but he makes it really clear to Nicodemus that he’s not talking about being physically reborn. He does the opposite in John 6. And the history of the Church is consistent with an interpretation of the real presence, because it overwhelmingly adhered to that doctrine, and was not really disputed until John Calvin and Zwingli.

 

[benhur]

The term “gnaw” was used to emphasize the point of eating.

Hi FM,

Agree, that gnawing is very descriptive type of eating, just as coming to faith is nothing dainty, but quite a battle with a miraculous end.

I have yet to see a Catholic or others say they "gnaw " on the host.

Why would he emphasize something like “gnawing” if his point wasn’t that people should physically eat?

Yes, why would He suggests cannibalism ? I already explained my thoughts…to make the disbelieving followers and disciples depart, to have them stop following under false pretenses (setting up immediate Davidic Kingdom)

There is no way you can conclude that he is talking about calvary when referring to eating.

How can we eat/believe in any fashion without Calvary ? He certainly explicitly then mentions His Ascension.

The people there were disgusted and horrified, and yet no explanation was offered.

That is right. Why didn’t Jesus just explain the upcoming Last Supper and Calvary, and some form of transubstantiation, thereby avoiding thoughts of cannibalism ?

Furthermore, they would have left Him at the thought of His death, smashing all thoughts of immediate Davidic Kingdom. No mention of eating was needed for them to leave.(they did not believe from the beginning of John 6:1)

Jesus never went and said “you got me wrong” and John never clarified anything even though he has done it multiple times in other instances.

They did get Him wrong on the eating, and Jesus knew it, and let them depart. Why ? Why didn’t He say it would be thru Passover symbols of bread and wine yet being His body and blood ? Why didn’t He say they would eat in an unbloody manner ?

Yes, John shows Christ at times explaining parables and “mysteries”, but they often are things that should be known in any testament, such as born again, and not something like the futuristic, unique, Last Supper

This is not what the text says. Indeed, the Jews were all aboard in believing he was speaking symbolically up until he said “I am the bread that comes from heaven.” And this is where he begins emphasizing the eating nature.

Thank you for at least admitting that speaking symbolically is part of linguistic tools.

The Jews were never on board in believing the nature of His messiahship. They did not get any of it.

So the Jews asked Jesus “how can you give us your flesh?” and he responds “my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” He is explicitly refuting a symbolic argument.

I disagree…Calvary is the ultimate spiritual food. Your view of communion or mine does not change this.

His words do not refute cannibalism either.

What pivot point, exactly?

The point where He uses symbolism and truth that can be only understood properly in hindsight yet spoken knowing it would be misunderstood in the present. Veiled pearls before swine (what would swine do with a pearl…but walk away?)

There is no way you can read him making a symbolic description of his death and resurrection without having evangelical lenses on.

No, His death is explicit (most can’t eat and drink blood of a live human), but the nourishing from it is by faith (and later we learn remembered and thanked for by eating bread and wine)…so death and eating are all in this text.

The text talks about eating his body and drinking his blood, very explicitly, and this is repeated over and over again

Yep, even hyperbole. The only “present moment” context is cannibalism or pure symbolism/metaphor (which we have seen already in the chapter).

And if he is talking about Calvary - then why is he talking about food? What logical sense does this make?

Ummm, the whole chapter started with food, and miracles. You don’t think Calvary is the ultimate spiritual food, eternal medicine etc etc?

Did Jesus come symbolically to be crucified? Because that’s the conclusion you have to make from what you’re saying.

Straw man conclusion. It is not the only conclusion.He was literally crucified , and we remember and give thanks thru symbols/elements…just as Jews remember the literal first Passover thru ceremony and eating symbols…they are not transformed into the actual first food elements eaten in Egypt…and as I asked , what would be the benefit, physically or spiritually ?

Indeed, the part about being reborn is as confusing as the discourse on his body and blood, but he makes it really clear to Nicodemus that he’s not talking about being physically reborn.

Again, this is something a true leader was to know, regeneration, was not NT, but OT also. While the sufferings of Christ are prophesied , very little is said of the Last Supper in OT prophecy.

And the history of the Church is consistent with an interpretation of the real presence, because it overwhelmingly adhered to that doctrine, and was not really disputed until John Calvin and Zwingli

Transubstantiation and its practices is an evolving matter. I will grant you it’s ultimate acceptance and longevity . I will not grant you that it is apostolic, or even seen in writings within first hundred years of church. At best it is like writ, where we both read the earliest father writings but come away with different understanding.

Blessings

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I have yet to see a Catholic or others say they "gnaw " on the host.

That’s a silly point, honestly. There is nothing in the text that is suggesting that it’s about a “coming to faith” or a reference to his crucifixion. But some translations of the Greek also say that it’s “to chew,” and plenty of Christians - Catholics or otherwise - chew on the Eucharist.

Yes, why would He suggests cannibalism ? I already explained my thoughts…to make the disbelieving followers and disciples depart, to have them stop following under false pretenses (setting up immediate Davidic Kingdom

There are plenty of times in scripture where, if Jesus was trying to act cryptically, that the text specifically state that he was speaking metaphorically. There is no indication of the sort here. Not once did Jesus say “hey guys I actually mean this.” This teaching is heavy, why wouldn’t John at the very least explain it to us?

That is right. Why didn’t Jesus just explain the upcoming Last Supper and Calvary, and some form of transubstantiation, thereby avoiding thoughts of cannibalism ?

He did explain it to the disciples - at the Last Supper, and it’s a part of Sacred Tradition from the beginning of the Church. But not once does he say that he’s speaking symbolically or metaphorically. Indeed, he reiterates it by saying “this is my body,” and “this is my blood” at the Last Supper. And the Apostle Paul reiterates this point in 1 Corinthians when he states that people who eat and drink unworthily are guilty of not discerning the body and blood.

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died." (1 Cor. 11:27-30)

Thank you for at least admitting that speaking symbolically is part of linguistic tools.

In the Catholic tradition, things tend to be “both/and” and not “either/or.” No one denies that there is some element of symbolism involved, but the Eucharist is not a symbol, and there is nothing in the entire New Testament that suggests there is. It’s irrelevant whether the Jews were on board or not with his Messiaship. The Jews were not on board with it in John 8:58 either when Jesus declared himself the “I AM” but they perfectly understood what claim he was making when he made it.

I disagree…Calvary is the ultimate spiritual food. Your view of communion or mine does not change this.

His words do not refute cannibalism either.

But where does it say in the text that “Calvary” is the ultimate spiritual food? And what does that mean, anyway? All I am looking for is one instance in the four gospels where either John or one of the other apostles explains this as being symbolic only. At the institution of the Lord’s Supper that would have been a perfect place to do so, and yet, Jesus again is confusing by stating “this is my body” and “this is my blood.” Again, no indication that there is anything symbolic.

Yep, even hyperbole. The only “present moment” context is cannibalism or pure symbolism/metaphor (which we have seen already in the chapter).

That’s not what hyperbole is. A hyperbole is me saying “I’ve been in this waiting room forever,” or “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse.” I’m intentionally exaggerating to make a point about how long I’ve waited or how hungry I feel. Jesus has done this, for example in Matthew 19 when he’s talking about a rich man entering the Kingdom of God. But in John 6 there is no hyperbole. One minute he’s talking about manna, and then about his body and blood. Well the Jews literally ate the manna that came down from heaven, and now Jesus is talking about eating his body and blood. The Jews didn’t get “the hyperbole” because it’s not a hyperbole. The Jews literally ate manna, so when Jesus spoke, they believed he meant eating his body and blood. He emphasizes eating his flesh at least three times. The funny part is that the Jews were not confused about the “eating part” when he said “I am the manna come down from heaven” - they became confused when he begins to talk about it more forcefully in verse 51.

Straw man conclusion. It is not the only conclusion.He was literally crucified , and we remember and give thanks thru symbols/elements…

It’s not a straw man - verse 51 clearly says the following: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

And Jesus when he’s instituting Holy Communion in the gospels isn’t figuratively talking about his body being crucified. Jesus Christ was truly crucified - and that’s what the Eucharist proclaims. If you take the opinion that this is all metaphorical and symbolic, then the only conclusion you must come to is that the crucifixion is also symbolic. “this is the same flesh that is given for the world” - “this is my body, broken for you.” The benefits of the Eucharist are several - knowing the Jesus us physically present in the church, receiving supernatural grace from eating his body and blood, and receiving supernatural grace from obeying his commandments.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Again, this is something a true leader was to know, regeneration, was not NT, but OT also. While the sufferings of Christ are prophesied , very little is said of the Last Supper in OT prophecy.

That’s not the point, the point is to demonstrating John’s writing style. John 6 isn’t the only difficult teaching in the gospel where people got confused. The point is that when these difficult teachings are raised, John explains it - either with Jesus specifically giving a clarification (like with Nicodemus) or with destroying the Temple and raising it in three days, which John himself explains to the reader. It’s John’s modus operandi to explain himself. So him not doing so in John 6 means that he’s not considering it a symbolic interpretation

Transubstantiation and its practices is an evolving matter. I will grant you it’s ultimate acceptance and longevity . I will not grant you that it is apostolic, or even seen in writings within first hundred years of church. At best it is like writ, where we both read the earliest father writings but come away with different understanding.

Transubstantiation is a term coined by Thomas Aquinas to explain the real presence. But the real presence has been believed in Church history for centuries. Lutherans and Orthodox might disagree on the term transubstantiation, but they’ll agree with Catholics that the real presence has been a long-held teaching in the Church. It’s also incorrect that it wasn’t believed in the earliest period of the Church:

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” (St Ignatius’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 80-110 AD)

 

[benhur]

That’s not the point, the point is to demonstrating John’s writing style. John 6 isn’t the only difficult teaching in the gospel where people got confused. The point is that when these difficult teachings are raised, John explains it - either with Jesus specifically giving a clarification (like with Nicodemus) or with destroying the Temple and raising it in three days, which John himself explains to the reader. It’s John’s modus operandi to explain himself. So him not doing so in John 6 means that he’s not considering it a symbolic interpretation

Hi FM,

Again, not sure born again is a difficult teaching. It was an old idea. Eating the Messiah was certainly a new idea in John 6.

It is your assumption that John did not clarify anything because it was understood plainly as literal. Maybe it was clearly understood symbolically. Writers certainly don’t explain that Christ is the Lamb, or a Door , or a Shepherd, Gate, Light, Star, etc…

Again, Johns silence (not saying symbolic, or not saying the eating would be in an unbloody fashion or something along transubstantiation terminology/explanation) cuts both ways.

Transubstantiation is a term coined by Thomas Aquinas to explain the real presence. But the real presence has been believed in Church history for centuries. Lutherans and Orthodox might disagree on the term transubstantiation, but they’ll agree with Catholics that the real presence has been a long-held teaching in the Church. It’s also incorrect that it wasn’t believed in the earliest period of the Church:

Yes, agree but "real presence’’ may have meant different things at the beginning. I believe symbolic was also from the beginning. It was not one uniform understanding. Some historians say 3or4 views were represented in early writings. What was uniform was the eucharisting, in a non sacrificial way.

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." (St Ignatius’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 80-110 AD)

Understand how in hindsight some folks would take it literally as John 6. Also understand how some take it symbolically, like in John 6.

As you know Ignatius is arguing against Dosetists, who did not believe Christ came,died or resurrected in the flesh (but only “seemed to”). The Dostists would object to any Eucharisting, even symbolic. Both our Eucharisting is for the bodily death of our Lord as our propitiation.Ignatius message is not directed to either of us.

Tertullian argued against same Dosetists, and says same thing as Ignatius, but with this statement also,

““This is my body”, that is, the figure of my body. A figure there could not have been, unless at first there were a veritable body”. (Against Marcion, bk 4)…(literal and symbolic both purport a bodily death of our Savior, rejected by Dosetists)

Blessings

 

[CathBoy1]

Quote:
“What does all of this mean? Christ’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass. In this sense, I believe that any real physical presence view denies the definition of Chalcedon and the principles therein.”

I believe a good explanation of what happens at each and every Mass said around the world,every day is:
The sacrifice of Christ our Lord and God, on the cross was so important, that it transcends time and space.
I believe every time the priest says the words of institution and raises the Host and Chalice, I believe at that moment when the priest reaches up, he reaches through time and space to our Crucified Lord, and when he lowers his arms, what once was bread and wine are now TRULY HIS BODY AND BLOOD.

This is just my thoughts on this, but to tell the truth, it isn’t called a mystery for nothing, the “how” it happens isn’t as important as that it does happen.

Hope this helps, peace in Christ.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Tertullian argued against same Dosetists, and says same thing as Ignatius, but with this statement also,

““This is my body”, that is, the figure of my body. A figure there could not have been, unless at first there were a veritable body”. (Against Marcion, bk 4)…(literal and symbolic both purport a bodily death of our Savior, rejected by Dosetists)

Blessings

Indeed, both Tertullian and St. Augustine are emphasizing the fact that the Lord’s body and blood are communicated under the “appearances,” “signs,” or “symbols” of bread and wine. “Figure” is another synonym for “sign.” Even today the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the terms “sign” and “symbol” to describe the Eucharist in paragraphs 1148 and 1412.

---

Tertullian’s point here is that Marcion’s “theory of a phantom body” fits with Christ “pretend[ing] the bread was His body,” because Marcion denied Jesus had a body in the first place. But the Christian believes Christ “made it His own body, by saying, This is my body.” The transformation does not take away the symbolic value of bread and wine, it confirms it.

Tertullian makes clear in multiple places that he believed that Jesus communicated his true body and blood under the “figures” or appearances of bread and wine:

On the Resurrection of the Flesh (ca. AD 200), chapter 8:

The flesh, indeed, is washed, in order that the soul be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God. They cannot then be separated in their recompense, when they are united in their service.

On Prayer, Of Stations (Fasting), chapter 19:

Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station (fast) must be dissolved by reception of the Lord’s Body. Does, then the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God?

On Modesty, chapter 9:

He (the prodigal who comes back to Christ) receives again the pristine garment,–the condition, to wit, which Adam by transgression had lost. The ring also he is then wont to receive for the first time, wherewith, after being interrogated, he publicly seals the agreement of faith, and thus thenceforward **feeds upon the fatness of the Lord’s body—the Eucharist, to wit.
**
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-tertullian-and-st-augustine-deny-the-real-presence

 

[benhur]

Lenten_ashes:
Hi La,

Not sure that you can have it both ways , that figure is now the reality also in Tertullian texts.

He says John 6 is about desiring the Incarnate Word," to devour Him with the ear, to ruminate with understanding, and to digest Him with faith"

Never the less, the writings can be taken both ways. It is in the eyes of the beholder, meaning the knife can cut both ways.

Blessings

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

omgriley;14495505]I was reading some Protestant arguments against the Real Presence in the Eucharist (trying to find a best argument someone would have for rejecting the doctrine). Nearly all of them were pretty easily refutable.

One however I found to be a little confusing, and I’m not quite sure how to answer this. The argument essentially boils down to Christ couldn’t be physically present in the Eurcharist because that would require his physical body to in multiple places at any given moment always.

This is the exact quoted argument…Quote:
Orthodox Christianity (not Eastern Orthodox) holds to the “Hypostatic Union” of Christ. This means that we believe that Christ is fully God and fully man. This was most acutely defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Important for our conversation is that Christ had to be fully man to fully redeem us. Christ could not be a mixture of God and man, or he could only represent other mixtures of God and man. He is/was one person with two complete natures. These nature do not intermingle (they are “without confusion”). In other words, his human nature does not infect or corrupt his divine nature. And his divine nature does not infect or corrupt his human nature. This is called the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties or attributes). The attributes of one nature cannot communicate (transfer/share) with another nature. Christ’s humanity did not become divinitized. It remained complete and perfect humanity (with all its limitations). The natures can communicate with the Person, but not with each other. Therefore, the attribute of omnipresence (present everywhere) cannot communicate to his humanity to make his humanity omnipresent. If it did, we lose our representative High Priest, since we don’t have this attribute communicated to our nature. Christ must always remain as we are in order to be the Priest and Pioneer of our faith. What does all of this mean? **Christ’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, **much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass. In this sense, I believe that **any real physical presence view denies the definition of Chalcedon and the principles therein. **

Any takers?

First of all, your poster has misinterpreted and confused his/her understanding from the content defined, by the council of Chalcedon 451,that deals with the nature’s of Christ.
The council mentioned never teaches on the subject of Christ real and substantial presence in the Eucharist, as your poster wrongly interprets.

1. NO member of this council never denied the true presence in the Eucharist
2. ALL these Early Church Fathers were unanimous in the apostolic faith of the True Presence in the Eucharist
3. During 451a.d the real presence in the Eucharist was never contested or ever denied by these council members, who practiced and taught on the real presence
4. “any physical presence view” in the Eucharist, was never heard of, never believed by nor ever taught, by the council members.
   5 Had the council heard your posters comment of “any physical presence view” your poster would of been condemned as a Heretic and excommunicated.

Your poster’s argument, never reaches or contest’s the Apostolic Catholic faith in the real presence in the Eucharist. Thus, the argument being perceived by the poster does not address the Catholic faith in the real presence.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi La,

Not sure that you can have it both ways , that figure is now the reality also in Tertullian texts.

He says John 6 is about desiring the Incarnate Word," to devour Him with the ear, to ruminate with understanding, and to digest Him with faith"

Never the less, the writings can be taken both ways. It is in the eyes of the beholder, meaning the knife can cut both ways.

Blessings

Fact; **Some **of Tertullian’s writings border lined on heresy. Fact; Tertullian’s apostolic faith in the real presence in the Eucharist remained apostolic unchanged until his death.

Fact; Had Tertullian taught on a symbolic presence in the Eucharist. He would of easily been condemned a heretic and excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

Fact; Tertullian died in full communion with the Catholic Church

Some scholars comment; Tertullian may have been proclaimed a Saint by the Catholic Church, the reason he never reached such a status was due to his border lined heretical writings.

Peace be with you

 

[benhur]

Fact; **Some **of Tertullian’s writings border lined on heresy. Fact; Tertullian’s apostolic faith in the real presence in the Eucharist remained apostolic unchanged until his death.

Fact; Had Tertullian taught on a symbolic presence in the Eucharist. He would of easily been condemned a heretic and excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

Peace be with you

Hi G12,

Well yes Tertullian did stray into heresy later on.

Don’t think condemnation came in first church over just what was real presence , even if pure symbolism. Christology was more the problem , rather than “real presence”.

We don’t agree on Last Supper words meaning or John 6 or Paul’s Corinthian words about eucharisting, so we certainly won’t agree on father writings (and they were not unanimous). So you may have "facts’’ where I can only have evidences for my faith on their statements. So, I see Tertullian explicitly speaking of symbolic, figurative , presence.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

This teaching is heavy, why wouldn’t John at the very least explain it to us?

Hi FM,

I gave my explanation . What is your explanation of why Jesus let "disciples"walk away because they understood His words literally, of a bloody eating ? Why doesn’t John explain it, that it is an unbloody eating ?

He did explain it to the disciples - at the Last Supper,

Again but why not in John 6, where disciples walked away in misunderstanding ?

But not once does he say that he’s speaking symbolically or metaphorically.

Well, correct. But He also does not say He was speaking literally. If at the Last Supper I certainly would not be taking it literally (unless I had St Aquinas at the table to explain it). I mean it was the Passover , where you are surrounded by elements of food, all symbolizing something real to be remembered. So now you have a redefining of two of those elements, with Jesus still present and quite healthy before you, and the wine looking and tasting like wine , and the bread also. There is no Greek like or Aquinas like explanation from John.

he reiterates it by saying “this is my body,” and “this is my blood” at the Last Supper.

Not sure He reiterates, but states it once (i think) , and then shortly after calls the "cup’’ the "fruit if the vine’’…wine. Again, no explanation that it is both wine and Blood, leaving open the inference of figurative. That The wine was still wine ,and the blood was still in His body, not shed yet.

And the Apostle Paul reiterates this point in 1 Corinthians when he states that people who eat and drink unworthily are guilty of not discerning the body and blood.

Paul’s teaching applies to either type of eucharisting/real presence/symbolism.

Blessings