Responding to Protestants take on the "Eucharist"

[hoser]

This is what he says:

"Jesus refers to himself as the ‘bread of life’, ‘the good shepherd’, ‘the way the truth and the life’ and several other ‘I am the…’ examples. These were/are instructional as to how Jesus is capable of meeting our needs. We humans sure need a lot of explanations and examples.

John 4:13 (Jesus and the Samaritan woman) “Jesus answered, ‘Everyone who drinks this water will be thristy again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a sping of water welling up to eternal life.’”
John 6:35 “Then Jesus declared, ‘I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believed in me will never be thirsty.’”

Here Jesus is giving us spiritual bread, a relationship with him feed and nourishes our spiritual hunger. You have to take the body and blood of the last supper (which was actually Passover) in context. You have to understand what Passover represented. To demand an either or answer is really missing the entire point, by choice.

As to “God could change the bread and juice/wine if he wanted to” is silly. Of course he could. What you have to ask yourself is what would be the point? Would that action be in keeping with the nature of God. Personally, I say no, communion is not the actual body and blood of Christ. Leviticus prohibits eating/drinking blood because it contains life. A better question is ‘what is the purpose of communion?’ It it a time of rememberance of what Christ did for us. He willingly submitted himself to death on a cross. His blood had to be shed (as in the Jewish sacrificial passover lamb) in atonement for our sins."

I am gathering information myself to respond to this, but if you have anything to add, please do.

Thankyou.

 

[mayra_hart]

The Eucharist Makes Present Jesus’ One Eternal Sacrifice; it’s Not Just a Symbolic Memorial

Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek’s bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus’ offering.

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

Lev. 24:7 - the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is “azkarah” which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus’ instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 - in this verse, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus’ command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied. Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.

 

[JimG]

Let me just add this from 1 Corinthians 11:23ff: (Paul’s instructions about the Eucharist)

I received from the Lord what I handed on to you, namely, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread, and after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

In the same way, after the supper, he took the cup, saying,
“This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Every time, then, you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

**This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lod unworthily sins agains the body and blood of the Lord. **
A man should examine himself first. Only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself.

It would be hard to sin against the body and blood of the Lord by receiving unworthily, if the body and blood is not present. Paul even goes on to say that because they receive without believing in the real presence of the body and blood, some of the Corinthians are sick or dying. It continues to surprise me that people argue against the real presence. It is the most scripturally attested doctrine ever; and was never doubted for hundreds of years.

 

[Church_Militant]

One of the best resources that I’ve found is Beginning Apologetics #1 and 3 from San Juan Catholic Seminars. CA also sells them, but you can get 'em here too. catholicapologetics.com/
inexpensive too.

 

[Darrel]

JimG:
It is the most scripturally attested doctrine ever; and was never doubted for hundreds of years.

As a former protestant I used to believe it was false also. What I recall being told is that to say that the true presence exist in an object is wrong.

It was taught to me that you are not partaking of literal body and blood and that you are only partaking of a symbol of it that will cause the Holy Spirit to enter into the equation according to Gods promise.

It was assumed that to believe it literally would be idolatrous. I know now that it is literally the body and blood of Christ. The deceptive side of this is that all non Catholic Christians are saying that the Eucharist is invalid out of loyalty to God in not wanting to worship objects or statues or saints or believe in intercession when you have a direct line to God.

I know now through him thank you Lord that the Eucharist is in fact literal. It’s also nice to finally be able to make sense of that verse where the Lord says whatsoever you shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven. Along with the part about giving the power to forgive or retain sins. This was something I always questioned deep down and needed to be told excuses and mistranslations to dismiss.

What he said to Peter can not be denied as the foundation of the Church. I don’t pretend to be an expert or master theologian but I feel that the Eucharist might be a great means and advantage in Catholic evangelization. If people in the other churches see him there the rest will have to be accepted and no longer questioned. It’s the only thing that could have ever changed my mind.

The new and everlasting covenant has a literal presence over it just like the original arc of the covenant. And come to think of it …. Why wouldn’t it?

-D

 

[philipmarus]

mayra hart:

The Eucharist Makes Present Jesus’ One Eternal Sacrifice; it’s Not Just a Symbolic Memorial

Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek’s bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus’ offering.

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

Lev. 24:7 - the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is “azkarah” which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus’ instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 - in this verse, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus’ command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied. Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.

I was wondering if there was book that most of these arguments are from? I had not heard some of these before.

 

[FCEGM]

An article by Msgr. Robert Sokolowski in an issue of “Homiletics and Pastoral Review” (Winter, 1997) makes some cogent points on Transubstantiation:

“. . .to say that in the Eucharist the bread and wine remain what they are but acquire a new signification would contradict the logic of the Incarnation. Christ was not simply a prophet who pointed out the way to the Father; he was the way to the Father. He did not just communicate the truth about God, he was the Word of God. The believer comes to the Father not by the way and the truth that are signified by Christ, but through Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and the life. Analogously, if the bread and wine were to remain bread and wine, they would point us toward the Death and Resurrection of Christ and toward the Son of God, they would signify him and what he did, but they would not be his presence and the presence of his action among us. The Eucharist would fail to continue, sacramentally, the form of the Incarnation, and we would be deprived of the presence, the bodily presence, of the way, the truth, and the life. The Incarnation would have been withdrawn from the world. . .”

 

[martino]

hoser:

This is what he says:

"Jesus refers to himself as the ‘bread of life’, ‘the good shepherd’, ‘the way the truth and the life’ and several other ‘I am the…’ examples. These were/are instructional as to how Jesus is capable of meeting our needs. We humans sure need a lot of explanations and examples.

John 4:13 (Jesus and the Samaritan woman) “Jesus answered, ‘Everyone who drinks this water will be thristy again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a sping of water welling up to eternal life.’”
John 6:35 “Then Jesus declared, ‘I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believed in me will never be thirsty.’”

Here Jesus is giving us spiritual bread, a relationship with him feed and nourishes our spiritual hunger. You have to take the body and blood of the last supper (which was actually Passover) in context. You have to understand what Passover represented. To demand an either or answer is really missing the entire point, by choice.

As to “God could change the bread and juice/wine if he wanted to” is silly. Of course he could. What you have to ask yourself is what would be the point? Would that action be in keeping with the nature of God. Personally, I say no, communion is not the actual body and blood of Christ. Leviticus prohibits eating/drinking blood because it contains life. A better question is ‘what is the purpose of communion?’ It it a time of rememberance of what Christ did for us. He willingly submitted himself to death on a cross. His blood had to be shed (as in the Jewish sacrificial passover lamb) in atonement for our sins."

I am gathering information myself to respond to this, but if you have anything to add, please do.

Thankyou.

Hoser- I apologize for not reading through all the previous posts before posting myself, so my question to you may have already been asked. Here it is:

If the “eating the body” and “drinking the blood” of Christ is only symbolic the same as the “living water” from John 4:13; why do we (you and me both) actually eat and drink anything? To symbolically eat something doesn’t require that you go out and actually eat it, that would spoil the symbolism!! Isn’t your claim that to eat and drink is actually “coming to” and “believing in” Jesus? If that is what it means to eat and drink the Body and Blood, then what is the purpose of Communion?

Furthermore what is the purpose of John 6:36-71? You quoted vs. 35 only but Jesus doesn’t stop at verse 35, he goes on to explain in great detail what he means by saying “I am the bread of life”. It is impossible to reconcile these verses with a symbolic interpretation because Jesus’ own words tell us different. “My flesh is real food indeed and my blood is real drink indeed…”.

 

[JimO]

These posts give some great information. I started a thread that is in the Scripture forum entitled “I Cor. 11:23” in which I discuss the significance of Paul stating “I received from the Lord…”. One of the responses did a great job of quoting from Galatians where Paul explains how he received direct revelation from the Lord.

Also, look at this link from the CA website that lists numerous quotes from the Church Fathers on what they believed. catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

Give your friend this information and then leave it to the Holy Spirit. Sadly, many Protestants act just like the disciples in John 6 who said, “this is a hard saying, how can anyone take it seriously.”