The Eucharist and Transubstantiation (Split from "Protestants do not really believe...")

[guanophore]

If Christ had said " This is no longer bread; it is My body." I would believe it. I don’t think that how the bread looks, tastes, &c. would be that much of an issue because Jesus doesn’t lie.

This does not make sense to me. since Jesus does not lie, and He said “this is my Body”, then why should the appearance of the bread concern you at all?

 

[ncgolf]

If Christ had said " This is no longer bread; it is My body." I would believe it. I don’t think that how the bread looks, tastes, &c. would be that much of an issue because Jesus doesn’t lie.

If Jesus doesn’t lie then what’s the problem … it isn’t whether Jesus lies or not … it’s whether Ethan believes it or not.

 

[HappyRevert]

I love these discussions and I know this is in the apologetics section, but I also would like to point out for Protestants, who do have a strong tradition of personal revelation and interpretation, that Catholic testimony particularly Catholic converts testimony should carry weight in this argument. I myself have questioned and frankly completely misunderstood the truth of the Eucharist until I first submitted to the teaching of the Catholic Church and then after received a consolation from the Lord to let me see that the Eucharist is indeed Him. I won’t say that I understand it completely, or any other human, but certainly the Lord is there and it is a gift from Him for our benefit. We aren’t all stark raving mad so there must be something there that those who testify to His presence must be sensing.

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

This does not make sense to me. since Jesus does not lie, and He said “this is my Body”, then why should the appearance of the bread concern you at all?

It doesn’t. The physical evidence fits the hypotheses of transubstantiation & non-transubstantiation both equally well, because they both hold that there will be no perceptible change. Thus, what we perceive is compatible with both hypotheses.

For this reason I have not based any of my arguments on the observable characteristics of the Eucharist. They are irrelevant to the debate in a similar way to how Christ’s words “this is my Body” are irrelevant: they fit both hypotheses.

If Jesus doesn’t lie then what’s the problem … it isn’t whether Jesus lies or not … it’s whether Ethan believes it or not.

I believe everything that Jesus said in the Bible. He did not say it was not bread, and you have given me no reason to believe that it is not:

1. 
   *]You have not shown a single verse in Scripture that says it is not bread.
   
   *]You have not produced a single patristic quote that says it is not bread.
   
   *]You have not produced any scriptural or logical evidence for your assertion that it being Christ’s body precludes it from being bread.
   
   You argue that this complete lack of evidence for your position is no reason to believe that it isn’t true, but that’s only the case if we ignore all the evidence on the other side:
   
   1. 
      *]St. Paul refers to it as “bread” four times in 1 Corinthians.
      
      *]St. Ambrose confirms that it “is bread”.
      
      *]It is possible to have two completely distinct natures and be fully both of them.
      
      I think we can see what the preponderance of the evidence suggests.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I believe everything that Jesus said in the Bible. He did not say it was not bread, and you have given me no reason to believe that it is not:

In John 6, He says that HE is the Living Bread come down from Heaven. He says several times that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have eternal life. At the Last Supper He says, “This is my body” He does not say “This bread represents my body.” Jesus said it - do you believe it?

 

[justasking4]

In John 6, He says that HE is the Living Bread come down from Heaven. He says several times that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have eternal life. At the Last Supper He says, “This is my body” He does not say “This bread represents my body.” Jesus said it - do you believe it?

Where in the supper accounts does He say that by eating and drinking His supper it would lead to eternal life?

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

In John 6, He says that HE is the Living Bread come down from Heaven. He says several times that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have eternal life. At the Last Supper He says, “This is my body” He does not say “This bread represents my body.” Jesus said it - do you believe it?

Yes. I believe the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Since Jesus calls it his body it must be somehow his body. Since St. Paul calls it bread it must be somehow bread.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Yes. I believe the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Since Jesus calls it his body it must be somehow his body. Since St. Paul calls it bread it must be somehow bread.

It is the Bread of Life - Jesus Christ.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the (Gentile) nations; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the nations, saith the LORD of hosts.
This is a prophecy. At the time of Malachi, a pure offering was NOT made to the LORD among the Gentile nations. It was only after Christ that God’s name was made great among the Gentiles and among all the nations. It also says a pure offering will be made - Jesus is the ONLY pure offering. We “offer” or re-present (not re-enact or re-crucify) the offering that Jesus made on the cross to the Father in Heaven. In the world-wide Church, this offering is made perpetually in all nations at all times.

John 6:53-55 Jesus therefore said unto them, Most assuredly, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life 	in yourselves. 54 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

Mark 14:22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body. 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which 	is poured out for many. 

Luke 22:19-20 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, [even] that which is poured out for you.

In all of these accounts, Jesus uses the word “is” not “is similar to” or “is symbolic of” or “represents.”

1 Corinthians 11:23-29 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me, 25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this 	bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord`s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. 	29 For he that eateth and drinketh in an unowrthy manner, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.

We can see in all of these passages that Jesus was speaking literally, not symbolically. How can you be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if it’s only a symbol of the body and blood of the Lord? How can you discern the Lord’s body if it’s not really there, but only symbolic?

John 6:63 It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and they are life.

This is often the proof-text that Jesus was speaking symbolically. The words “spirit” and “symbolic” are NOT interchangeable. It’s not the ‘Father, Son and Holy Symbolic.’ Nowhere in Scripture does the word spirit ever mean symbolic. The spirit is as real as it gets. If John 6:63 is taken symbolically, why did many disciples leave Him over it, in v66? (Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.) They understood him literally, as did the Jews in v52 (The Jews therefore strove one with another, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?)

John 6:67 Jesus said therefore unto the twelve, Would ye also go away? 68 Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God.

Peter did not reply, “Oh, no Lord! We know you’re only speaking symbolically!” If Jesus was not speaking literally, why did he let so many disciples walk away?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

…continued

Matthew 13:10-11, 18 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 And he answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. v18 Hear then ye the parable of the sower.

Matthew 13:24, 33, 36 24 Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that sowed good seed in his field: …33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all leavened.
36 Then he left the multitudes, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Explain unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

Matthew 15:15 And Peter answered and said unto him, Declare unto us the parable

Matthew 17:10, 19 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come? 
19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast it out?

Whenever the disciples did not understand something, they either asked for an explanation or Jesus volunteered the explanation. We do not see that happening in John 6. Jesus was speaking literally and they knew it!

If we give John 6 a symbolic meaning we encounter some problems:

Problem #1 - How do we symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood? If we symbolically eat his body and drink his blood by eating bread and grape juice will we have eternal life? Are we guaranteed heaven by eating bread and drinking grape juice?

Problem #2 - In v 60, why is this a hard saying if it is symbolic? If Jesus was explaining in v63 that his words were symbolic, why did they leave him in v66? Why would they consider it such a hard saying that they walked away from Jesus over it if it is symbolic? How many people today leave a church over the idea of having to eat a small piece of bread and drink some grape juice?? It is not a “hard saying” to assent to symbolism. These disciples who walked away in v66 SAW the feeding of the multitudes just the day before Jesus said this! They also had just seen Him walk on the water! Do you think after they had seen these miracles that they would walk away over having to symbolically eat His Body and Blood? They had also seen Jesus turn water to wine, heal the sick, cast out demons - they had even healed the sick and cast out demons themselves - and they walked away from Jesus because they had to symbolically eat His flesh and drink His blood???
Why didn’t Jesus clear up the misunderstanding if he was speaking symbolically like he had at other times? If all the people who heard Jesus speak these words took Him literally, why don’t people today, 2000 years later, believe that His words were symbolic? Because it IS a hard teaching! They reject the real meaning of Jesus’ words just like the Jews and many disciples rejected the real meaning of His words 2000 years ago - because is IS a hard teaching.

John 6:61-62 But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble? 62 [What] then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before?
Here Jesus tells us that the miracle of whatever he means by eating his flesh and drinking his blood is something GREATER than the manna from Heaven and more miraculous than His ascension into Heaven! Is eating a piece of bread and drinking some grape juice more miraculous than Jesus ascending into Heaven on a cloud? Is the bread and wine of the Eucharist actually being changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ a greater miracle than the manna in the desert, or His ascension? Yes!

An interpretation which renders Jesus’ words symbolic just doesn’t make any sense. Everyone took Jesus literally because He was speaking literally.
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
John 6:58b he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

Was the flesh that Jesus gave for the world real or symbolic? Was Jesus’ death on the cross real or symbolic? Was the flesh on the cross real or symbolic? Was the blood He poured out for us on the cross real or symbolic? If you believe Jesus is speaking symbolically in John 6 or at the Last Supper, then the conclusion you MUST come to is that Jesus did not REALLY die on the cross, but it was a symbolic representation of it. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[justasking4]

Pixie Dust;4213676]…continued

Matthew 13:10-11, 18 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 And he answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. v18 Hear then ye the parable of the sower.

Matthew 13:24, 33, 36 24 Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that sowed good seed in his field: …33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all leavened.
36 Then he left the multitudes, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Explain unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

Matthew 15:15 And Peter answered and said unto him, Declare unto us the parable

Matthew 17:10, 19 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?
19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast it out?
Whenever the disciples did not understand something, they either asked for an explanation or Jesus volunteered the explanation. We do not see that happening in John 6. Jesus was speaking literally and they knew it!

If we give John 6 a symbolic meaning we encounter some problems:

Problem #1 - How do we symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood? If we symbolically eat his body and drink his blood by eating bread and grape juice will we have eternal life? Are we guaranteed heaven by eating bread and drinking grape juice?

Problem #2 - In v 60, why is this a hard saying if it is symbolic? If Jesus was explaining in v63 that his words were symbolic, why did they leave him in v66? Why would they consider it such a hard saying that they walked away from Jesus over it if it is symbolic? How many people today leave a church over the idea of having to eat a small piece of bread and drink some grape juice?? It is not a “hard saying” to assent to symbolism. These disciples who walked away in v66 SAW the feeding of the multitudes just the day before Jesus said this! They also had just seen Him walk on the water! Do you think after they had seen these miracles that they would walk away over having to symbolically eat His Body and Blood? They had also seen Jesus turn water to wine, heal the sick, cast out demons - they had even healed the sick and cast out demons themselves - and they walked away from Jesus because they had to symbolically eat His flesh and drink His blood???
Why didn’t Jesus clear up the misunderstanding if he was speaking symbolically like he had at other times?

There were many times Jesus did not clear up their misunderstandings. Here are a few examples"
John 2:18-21:3:3-4;9:39;12:40

If all the people who heard Jesus speak these words took Him literally, why don’t people today, 2000 years later, believe that His words were symbolic? Because it IS a hard teaching! They reject the real meaning of Jesus’ words just like the Jews and many disciples rejected the real meaning of His words 2000 years ago - because is IS a hard teaching.

Taking His words literally leads to some serious problems. One would be canabalism and the other would mean Jesus has a new nature of a physical substance we call bread.

John 6:61-62 But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble? 62 [What] then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before?
Here Jesus tells us that the miracle of whatever he means by eating his flesh and drinking his blood is something GREATER than the manna from Heaven and more miraculous than His ascension into Heaven! Is eating a piece of bread and drinking some grape juice more miraculous than Jesus ascending into Heaven on a cloud? Is the bread and wine of the Eucharist actually being changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ a greater miracle than the manna in the desert, or His ascension? Yes!

No its not. If you look carefully at the bread that supposedly changed in Christ you will see no physical difference before or after.

An interpretation which renders Jesus’ words symbolic just doesn’t make any sense. Everyone took Jesus literally because He was speaking literally.

If they were to take Him literally they would have asked to eat Him right then and there.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
John 6:58b he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

Was the flesh that Jesus gave for the world real or symbolic?

What He gave on the cross was His real physical body.

Was Jesus’ death on the cross real or symbolic?

Real.

Was the flesh on the cross real or symbolic?

Real. If we were there we would see His phyiscal body hanging on the cross. If we got close enough we would its flesh.

Was the blood He poured out for us on the cross real or symbolic?

Real.

If you believe Jesus is speaking symbolically in John 6 or at the Last Supper, then the conclusion you MUST come to is that Jesus did not REALLY die on the cross, but it was a symbolic representation of it. You cannot have it both ways.

Not so. It actually makes best sense that Jesus was speaking metaphorically than literal since metaphorically avoids many of the problems with the literal understanding.

 

[ncgolf]

…For this reason I have not based any of my arguments on the observable characteristics of the Eucharist. They are irrelevant to the debate in a similar way to how Christ’s words “this is my Body” are irrelevant: they fit both hypotheses. …

If I hold something up and say “This is mine” and then someone else in the crowd comes up and takes it. A police officer sees this grabs the man and asks him, “Why did you take that”. The man responds, “He didn’t say this is not yours”. This is why Christ’s words are not irrelevant, for this discussion that is all that is relevant. Christ saying “This is my body” makes all the difference … all the relevance … it is that statement this argument hinges since he is the center of all things. Any explanation has to fit within the framework of Christ’s words.

What is the full effect and impact of Christ’s words is what this discussion is.

I submit also that gravity existed in Jesus’s time. I do not know whether anything was known substantially about the properties of gravity, about what it really was but they knew it’s effect. Whether a word for gravity existed in ancient Greek or Aramaic I do not know but the study of gravity was not yet begun. All they knew was … you drop something from a roof and everytime it will head down.

Over time this changed, words, concepts, formulas were devised that could explain this age old phenomenon and its impact on how the cosmos worked … gravity gained significance not lost it.

Why not here … early Christians knew this transformation for what it was, they knew its effect but not the how. We always want to know how … how can this happen … even Mary asked this about her pregnancy when the angel told her what was going to happen.

The early Christians believed and we didnt even have a Bible yet … they did not argue missing Scripture … they learned from the Apostles themselves or from men who were taught by the Apostles. This is what "T"radition is … the
passing of teaching and meaning from the teaching authority of the Church.

If you dare … read Catholic writers over the centuries on the Eucharist … Aquinas to John Paul II. You would think no more could be written on this yet none of these rehash the same old stuff. The significance of the Eucharist increases not decreases. The belief has not changed for 2000 years. The same belief held by St. Paul is now held by Pope Benedict.

If your view held … the Eucharist would have lost meaning or impact so 2000 years later it should have been a relic … a vestige to some practice by ancient peoples that one could only chuckle at.

These postings do show that multiple interpretations exist … that one can go from the Catholic perspective … to the nothing happens perspective or be something in-between.
Read justaksing4’s response in post 149. He denies anything happens … 3 differing views. Try convincing him that the bread is both Christ and bread let alone Christ alone. I doubt your evidence will convince him.

You have not presented evidence … interpretations of Paul and others but not evidence. I do not deny that the interpretation you maintain is outside the realm of possibility … it is one that may be … so … Who do you trust … how can you be certain … these are really the questions you need to answer … not Scriptural proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If you really want to be sure … ask God … seek and ye shall find, but be an honest seeker.

Like the X-files … the Truth is out there.

 

[guanophore]

Where in the supper accounts does He say that by eating and drinking His supper it would lead to eternal life?

This question represents a problematic way of understanding the Word of God. The Word of God is not to be understood by slicing it into slivers then trying to build doctrine out of the slivers as if a house of toothpicks. The Word of God is best understood as a unified whole. That Word was first given to the Church, and the Church committed some of that Word to writing. The Bible cannot be properly understood apart from the teaching of the church that produced the Bible.

Furthermore, the understanding of what Jesus taught cannot be grasped by separating parts of the scripture from one another. If yiou are looking only in the “supper accounts” and you exclude other passages on the same topic, you will be led into misunderstanding.

 

[guanophore]

There were many times Jesus did not clear up their misunderstandings. Here are a few examples"
John 2:18-21:3:3-4;9:39;12:40

This is also why He sent the Spirit to guide the Church into all Truth. They were not able to understand everything immediately.

Taking His words literally leads to some serious problems. One would be canabalism and the other would mean Jesus has a new nature of a physical substance we call bread.

No, cannabilism is eating the dead bodies of other people, not eating the life Body of our Lord. You are very close, though. The early Pagans accused Christians of cannabilism, and charge them with “eating their god”, so this is not the first time Eucharist has been misunderstood that way.

No its not. If you look carefully at the bread that supposedly changed in Christ you will see no physical difference before or after.

Your inability to “see” in the spiritual realm, ja4, does not make the Truth cease to exist.

If they were to take Him literally they would have asked to eat Him right then and there.

Exactly! That is why they were so scandalized.

It did not become clear how this was to be done until the Last Supper.

What He gave on the cross was His real physical body.

Indeed! It was not a “symbolic” body.

Not so. It actually makes best sense that Jesus was speaking metaphorically than literal since metaphorically avoids many of the problems with the literal understanding.

As you can see, you are right there with many of the disciples who had so much difficulty understanding that they no longer followed Him.

Eucharist makes us present at the cross where He gave his actual body and blood. This is a mystical and divine reality that defies the senses.

 

[timothyclark197]

But clearly this was believed from the beginning, because there are many documented instances of the Romans accusing Christians of “cannibalism”. How would they come up with that accusation without misunderstanding a Christian belief in the Real Presence?

I am really amused at how some fail to believe in the real and true presence of Jesus in the sacrament of the Eucharist. The Catholic Church does not say it understands all but that it is following the teaching of Jesus himself who clearly states it is a real and true conversion in the Eucharist. He says and points and does everything to say it actually is his body and blood that is present when he does this. Why do we believe in God and Jesus but draw the line that he might have the ability to make this most deep connection in the mass. God can turn Bread and Wine into whatever he wants. I think a child like understanding that God can do anything is all we need to believe this simple truth. Of course the fact that the apostles say this is so in the early days of the church seems to imply they understood it was the literal presence of Jesus at the altar in the Eucharist. The reaction by some to doubt this and the clarification made is more than a symbolic action by Jesus. That is just my read on it.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I never have beeb able to understand how some Protestants have no problem believing that their own soul which can not be seen is in their own bodies but Jesus’ soul cannot be in the bread and wine.

And if His soul can be in the bread and wine and you can’t see it–what’s so hard to believe about the substance of the bread and wine which you also can’t see–changing into the substance of Our Lord Jesus?

What’s so hard about that?

And why would Jesus allow His Church to falsely teach such a thing for 1500 years?

The fact is he wouldn’t allow such a thing to falsely be taught for 1500 years–He would allow such a thing to be taught for 1500 years in his Church if it were indeed true!

I believe that it is not just coincidence that the people who quit following Jesus quit following him in John 6:66!

The mark of the beast is 666 and the people who didn’t believe in the Eucharist and quit following Jesus left Jesus in John 6:66!

If you truly believe Jesus you must believe in eating his body which is “true food” and drinking his blood which is “true drink”.

You must “discern the body” according to St. Paul.

If you don’t eat Jesus’ body and drink his blood then “you have no life in you” according to Jesus Himself!