The Body of Christ

[Genesis315]

Christian4life:

Hmm. Those ARE good questions. I will ask my die-hard Protestant husband that tonight. I’m afraid he will have some very good response and I will have to get back to you. I am trying to become Catholic but it is really really hard because I have so much learning to do and so many questions. And I feel like I have to convince him as well as myself, or else he tries to talk me out of it all the time, even though I’ve told him I feel this is the direction God is leading me right now, even if the purpose may be just to study more.

Good for you. It’s never a bad thing to learn about your faith. I like to think about the Eucharist like this: most Protestants accept Jesus as their savior. It’s a purely spiritual acceptance. But Jesus was not just spirit and we are not just spirit. Us Catholics accept the entire being of Jesus, body and divinity, into our own entire beings, body and soul.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Let me recommend ScriptureCatholic.com

Pertinent quote:

Instead, the Protestant took down a picture of his wife which he had pinned up in his cubicle, gave me the picture, and said, “This is my wife.” Then he asked me, “But it is not really her, is it?” He thought he had me cold.

I first congratulated him on having such a beautiful spouse. I then pretended to rip up the picture and, after it fell to the ground, pretended to stomp all over it. I made a bit of a scene. He looked at me with an expression of surprise and confusion. I then asked him, “Am I now guilty of profaning your wife’s body and blood?”

After quite a pause, he responded, “No.” I asked him, “Why not?” His mind was obviously reeling, but I don’t think he knew where I was going. I jumped in to help him by saying, “I’ll tell you why, and it’s the point you just made. Because the picture of your wife is just a symbol of her, and not actually her.” At this point, he agreed, but was still confused. I then added, “Being guilty of profaning your wife’s body and blood by ripping up a picture of her would be an absolute outrage, because you can’t profane a symbol, right?” He agreed.

I then drove my point home by leaning in close to him and slowly asking, “Then why does Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27 declare us to be guilty of profaning Christ’s body and blood if we receive the Eucharist unworthily? That would be an absolutely unjust penalty if the Eucharist were just a symbol, wouldn’t it?” After another long pause it was obvious that my Protestant brother was at a loss for words. All he could do was ask me to give back to him his wife’s picture and promised me he would read the verse in its proper context and get back to me. He never did.

 

[stevem1]

We, Catholics take our beliefs from the bible and Our Mass is considered to be both a celebration and remembrance of the suffering and death that took place on Calvary. We quite literally believe that since Jesus physically died and shed his blood on the cross that we do indeed have a solemn duty to literally put into practice these words of Jesus as taken from John 6: 53-55. Apparently, his disciples had a very difficult time with this teaching because scripture tells us that many of them broke away and would not remain in his company. They had seen him perform the miracle of the loaves and fishes and walk on water yet this seemed to be the most difficult teaching to accept.

 

[_Joshua]

Christian4life:

Well, I must really be missing something here, but I don’t understand the Catholic take on communion. Protestants view it as a symbol, and that seems to make more sense to me when I look at the verses about the last supper.

Hello, take a look at this website, some will believe it some won’t, even those that met Jesus in person rejected Him.

catholicism.org/pages/aubrey.htm

 

[Christian4life]

Genesis315:

Let me ask you this: what does it symbolize? I have heard it symbolized belief or faith. But if this were the case,why would desciples have left him after saying this? They already believed and had faith. What was so shocking? If they wrongly took him literally, why would Jesus let them go? Why wouldn’t he correct them and tell them it was symbolic?

Also check out 1 Cor. 10:16 and especially 1 Cor. 11:27-29. How could one approach bread and wine unworthily? Why would you have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord for just eating bread and wine?

Well I brought it up and this is what my husband told me. He said that if you ate the communion unworthily that would be total hypocricy because it is a symbol of Christ’s crucifixion and to sit there and eat and drink it is like saying out loud that you are a believer, and if you are not being worthy at that time that makes you a hypocrite. And as we all know, Jesus hated hypocricy.

He said that since Jesus used other figurative language saying he was the “bread of life” just as the bible is our “daily bread”, as well as other terms like “living water” then all that means is just what Jesus himself said in John chapter 6:

“I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty"

It seems pretty clear just looking at those versus that Jesus was saying it WAS a symbol, and he even explained what the symbolism meant.

 

[Christian4life]

stevem1:

We, Catholics take our beliefs from the bible and Our Mass is considered to be both a celebration and remembrance of the suffering and death that took place on Calvary. We quite literally believe that since Jesus physically died and shed his blood on the cross that we do indeed have a solemn duty to literally put into practice these words of Jesus as taken from John 6: 53-55. Apparently, his disciples had a very difficult time with this teaching because scripture tells us that many of them broke away and would not remain in his company. They had seen him perform the miracle of the loaves and fishes and walk on water yet this seemed to be the most difficult teaching to accept.

But the Bible tells us why the disciples walked away.

38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

So then, and this is apparent later on as well, the reason the disciples left was not because what Jesus was saying about eating his flesh and blood, but because he claimed to have come down from heaven, something that was hard for them to believe.

 

[OhioBob]

Christian4life:

But the Bible tells us why the disciples walked away.

38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

So then, and this is apparent later on as well, the reason the disciples left was not because what Jesus was saying about eating his flesh and blood, but because he claimed to have come down from heaven, something that was hard for them to believe.

Actually, after the passages you reference, all the disciples did was “grumble”. You have to look a bit further to find the reason they were so shocked that they couldn’t accept the teaching and walked away:

53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever 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 real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

** 60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”** (NIV, emphasis mine)

The teaching that was so troubling was the teaching about his “flesh being real food and his blood being real drink”. Doesn’t sound very symbolic to me.

Protestants never seem to read far enough…

 

[Genesis315]

Christian4life:

Well I brought it up and this is what my husband told me. He said that if you ate the communion unworthily that would be total hypocricy because it is a symbol of Christ’s crucifixion and to sit there and eat and drink it is like saying out loud that you are a believer, and if you are not being worthy at that time that makes you a hypocrite. And as we all know, Jesus hated hypocricy.

He said that since Jesus used other figurative language saying he was the “bread of life” just as the bible is our “daily bread”, as well as other terms like “living water” then all that means is just what Jesus himself said in John chapter 6:

“I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty"

It seems pretty clear just looking at those versus that Jesus was saying it WAS a symbol, and he even explained what the symbolism meant.

You still didn’t answer why His disciples left Him? What did those symbols signify that was so shocking to people who were already His desciples? Why was this a hard saying?

Where does the Bible say that the Bible is our daily bread? (I just don’t recall seeing it, this is not really a part of my main discussion).

 

[Christian4life]

OhioBob:

Actually, after the passages you reference, all the disciples did was “grumble”. You have to look a bit further to find the reason they were so shocked that they couldn’t accept the teaching and walked away:

53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever 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 real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (NIV, emphasis mine)

The teaching that was so troubling was the teaching about his “flesh being real food and his blood being real drink”. Doesn’t sound very symbolic to me.

Protestants never seem to read far enough…

I noticed that, but we just see it differently I guess. I certainly read the chapter several times.

If I ask my husband, he will probably say that they had a problem with the idea of being raised from the dead. There were 2 groups of Jews, the Pharisees and Sagucees (sp?) and one believed in resurrection of the dead, the other didn’t. I don’t know for sure but I think the disciples came from both groups, I’d be surprised if they all came from only one.

Well I have more questions but I gotta go my baby woke up from her nap. I will be on again another day.

 

[Didi]

I think it’s important to take Jesus at His word.

He didn’t say “This is like my body,” or “This symbolizes my body,” He said “This is my body.”

Many followers left because this was a hard saying. If it was truly just symbolic, why didn’t Jesus set them straight instead of losing disciples?

Also, God’s word doesn’t just say something, God’s word does something.

When God said “Let there be light,” there was light.

When Jesus, Son of God, said “This is my body,” the bread and wine became His body and blood, soul and divinity.

 

[as-a-child]

He is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.

Remember the slain lamb must be eaten, and the new covenent must be celebrated until the end of time.

Jesus also said that all words that come from his mouth are as the Word of God. He said, this is my body, so it is his body.

Faith as a child my friends, faith as a child.

And if the eye offends you thing, would God want you to hurt yourself ? No. Does he want you to have everlasting life with him ?
Yes. An he tells you how.

54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

 

[jimmy]

Christian4life:

Well, I must really be missing something here, but I don’t understand the Catholic take on communion. Protestants view it as a symbol, and that seems to make more sense to me when I look at the verses about the last supper.

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

Well how can it literally be Jesus’s body when he was sitting right there? It seems it HAD to have been just a symbol from the beginning. If I am wrong can someone please explain this to me?

How did Jesus heal the blind man with mudd? How did he raise Lazarus if he was dead? How did he come back from the dead? The Eucharist is a mystery just like each of these different things.

 

[jimmy]

Christian4life:

No, I believe in all those things because they obviously were not symbolic.

However, when Jesus says he IS the bread that came down from heaven, he has to be talking symbolically, because he obviously isn’t literally a piece of bread. Just like when he was talking about sinner’s gauging out their own eyes and such.

The bread becomes the body of Christ, there is no bread left.

If you look at the passage from John 6 you will see that many people walked away because it was too hard for them to believe that Christ wanted them to eat his body. He did not say he was being symbolic or anything.

The eye guaging thing was an idea that we must do what we have to follow God. Christ was taking it to the extreme.

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

I don’t know if this helps, but the Church also doesn’t think Jesus is literally a piece of bread. Jesus is only present in the Eucharist when the bread ceases to be present. The Church says Christ is sacramentally present in the Eucharist, which is not the same as saying symbolically present. Transubstantiation is what happens to the Eucharist. The substance of the bread and wine, that is, what makes bread and wine bread and wine, is transformed into the substance of Christ. The accidents, or appearances, remain. So when Jesus held up what appeared to be bread and said, “This is my body”, He was speaking literally, although it might have appeared that the bread was still bread.

Another thought. It would make sense for a person to have a picture of his wife and say, “This is my wife” without meaning that the picture was literally his wife. Why in the world would Christ hold up bread and say, “This is my body” if it wasn’t really His body? A picture is obviously intended to represent the person in it. Why would Christ want His followers to see a piece of bread as a representation of Him? When He said he was the vine, the gate, etc., he was speaking symbolically. His listeners understood it. No one said, “How can this man be a vine?” But they did say, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” As far as I know, Jesus never walked by a gate or a vine and said, “This is my body.” He only said that about the “bread” at the Last Supper. Why?

 

[mtr01]

jimmy:

The bread becomes the body of Christ, there is no bread left.

If you look at the passage from John 6 you will see that many people walked away because it was too hard for them to believe that Christ wanted them to eat his body. He did not say he was being symbolic or anything.

The eye guaging thing was an idea that we must do what we have to follow God. Christ was taking it to the extreme.

I find a couple of common mistakes in reference to John 6. First many who would argue agains the Real Presence seem to confuse “spiritually” (the words I speak are of spirit) and “symbolically”. They are not synonyms. The fact is, Christ was speaking literally (not symbolically) and spiritually (not carnally).

The other mistake people make when they argue for the symbolic interpretation is that they fail to recognize that “to eat the body” and “to drink the blood” were already well known metaphors In Jesus’ language and culture. However, they did not mean to believe, or “come to” or “have one’s thirst satisfied” or whatever symbolic interpretation one would like to place on them. The actually meant to do serious (often physical) harm to someone. There are many examples of this in the Bible (I’ll post them here…the 4th thread so far):

When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell. (Psalm 27:2, KJV).

Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused399, 7170 the Jews. (Dan 3:8, KJV) [Strong’s definition of 399: accuse, devour, eat; of word 7170: to eat the morsels of any one, to chew him up]

And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused399, 7170 Daniel (Dan 6:24, KJV) [see note above]

Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones; Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron. (Mic 3:2-3, KJV)

And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. (Rev 17:16, KJV)

This is why the crowd took Jesus literally, because using this language in this culture, it couldn’t have been a metaphor. They rightly assumed Jesus was speaking literally (to eat), because in their language, interpreting it as a metaphor (harm/attack) makes no sense. It would change the meaning of John 6:53 to something like “Verily, verily I say unto you, except you attack the Son of man and harm him, ye have no life in you. Whoso reviles me and curses me hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day”.

 

[TamaraS]

I am not going to try to even bring up any other arguments here to try and convince you about the Eucharist. Everyone here has done a great job and yet you probably still aren’t convinced.This is something you just have to take a great leap of faith on and believe- Jesus said it so plainly. I will say that I have absolutely have no problem with Jesus being present at the last supper and still turning the bread and wine into his body and blood while he is still there. There is NOTHING that is impossible with God! Just think about some of the other miracles he performed! I don’t know if you would be open to this, but will you think about it at least? Call a few Catholic churches in your area and see if any of them have Eucharistic Adoration. Go there and spend quiet time, maybe once a week (or as often as you can or want). Pray to the Lord. It’s okay if you don’t believe yet. Tell the Lord your concerns and about your disbelief and pray that if you do not have the fullness of His Truth that you want that. Ask him for the wisdom and the Grace to accept his full truth, whatever it is. I hope I don’t sound pushy, please don’t think I’m trying to tell you what to do or anything. Sometimes nothing convincing can be said, it just takes a lot of prayer and reflection to be open to what God is telling us. God Bless!

 

[teresas1979]

For a laugh I want to post a poem I was sent by a Protestant friend of mine which “disproves” the Real Presence

A pretty girl, a Protestant, was to a Catholic wed,
To love all Bible truths and tales quite early she’d been bred.
It sorely grieved her husband’s heart that she would not comply, And join the Mother Church of Rome and heretics deny.

So day by day he flattered her but still she saw no good
Would ever come from bowing down to idols made of wood.
The Mass, the host, the miracles were made but to deceive,
And transubstantiation too she’d never dare believe,

He went to see his parish priest and told him his sad tale,
“My wife’s an unbeliever, sir, perhaps you can prevail.
For all your Romish miracles my wife has strong aversion,
To really work a miracle may lead to her conversion.”

The priest went with the gentleman, he thought to gain a prize,
He said, “I will convert her, sir, and open both her eyes.”
So when they came into the house, the husband loudly cried, “The priest has come to dine with us!” “He’s welcome,” she replied.

When at last the meal was over the priest at once began
To teach his hostess all about the sinful state of man.
The greatness of our Savior’s love, which Christians can’t deny,
To give Himself as sacrifice and for our sins to die.

“I will return tomorrow, lass, prepare some bread and wine:
The sacramental miracle will stop your soul’s decline.”
“I’ll bake the bread,” the lady said. “You may,” he did reply.
“And when you’ve seen the miracle, convinced you’ll be say I.”

The priest did come accordingly, the bread and wine did bless. The lady asked, “Sir, is it changed?” The priest he answered "Yes.
It’s changed from common bread and wine to truly flesh and blood, Begorra, lass! This power of mine has changed it into God!

So having blessed the bread and wine to eat they did prepare,
The lady said unto the priest, "I warn you to take care.
For half an ounce of arsenic was baked into the batter,
But since you have its nature changed, it cannot really matter.

The priest he was struck dumb and looked as pale as death.
The bread and wine fell from his hands and he did gasp for breath. “Bring me my horse!” the priest cried. “This is a cursed home!” “Be gone,” the lady replied, “tis you who’s cursed of Rome.”

The husband too he sat surprised and not a word did say.
At last he spoke, “My dear,” he said, “the priest has run away,
To gulp such foolishness and tripe, I’m not for sure quite able,
I’ll go with you and will renounce the Roman Catholic fable.”
Author unknown

Although I disagree with the poem, it is the idea that the priest has the power to call Jesus down from Heaven into the host that I have an issue with. It is Jesus who has the power to be present in the Eucharist and I do not doubt His presence in Communion. But for the bread and wine to “become” Jesus’ body and blood, but only if you are a Catholic priest is surely to put limitations on God?

The inference is that the priest has the power to put Jesus in the host (this is why it must be a Catholic priest because no other priest has that power). But the power is God’s, not man’s, so why couldn’t Jesus be present there because He wills it? Why the need for a Priest to “put Him there?” That is what I fail to understand…

 

[Donna_P]

Please take a look at a great apologetics books in this website. Understanding the Eucharist. It’s part of the Beginning Apologetics series (about 9 books in all and they are only about 40 pages long and only cost about $7.00 or so) I knew it was the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus but it didn’t quite connect with the logic part of my brain. This book will help with that.

God Bless!
Donna

 

[Christian4life]

That poem is pretty twisted.

 

[ppcpilot]

C4L, it all makes sense when you look at it from a covenant. Jesus states that his flesh and blood is the flesh and blood of the everlasting covenant.

Before Jesus, the convenant of God was renewed with the slaying of a perfect creature, an unblemished lamb. The flesh of the lamb had to be consumed in order for the convenant to be renewed. Covenant is a kinship bond. How do we celebrate our family relationships? With a meal, of course. This is what God likes us to do to bring us into kinship with him.

Jesus is the Lamb. The Lamb of God. He is the new passover sacrifice. A perfect lamb withouth flaw. To renew this convenant, we have to eat the flesh of the lamb. If we don’t, we don’t renew the covenant, we don’t share a meal, and we don’t have God’s life in us. The key word is flesh, here. It’s flesh in a Glorified fashion, not cannabalistic flesh eating! The other convenants that required sacrafices always had the eating of a sacrificed un-blemished creature together as belivers. They didn’t sacrafice an oxen and then eat roasted potatoes. You had to consume the flesh. God’s rules. This carries over to the new convenant. Why would God change this requirement? Where in the bible does our Lord or God say that no longer does man need to eat the flesh of the sacrifice? In John 6, it says just the opposite! What does Jesus do when he appears after his ressurection? He performs the last supper (breaking of the bread) again with his diciples. This is the new covenant!

How can this be just ‘symbolic?’ Our Catholic icons are symbolic, but our Eucharist is the risen Christ! Praise be to Jesus for leaving us the sacraments to help us keep our covenant bond!