The Eucharist - Consubstantiation? Symbolic? I don't think so

[BrianH]

Is it really that difficult to figure out, or is there simply a vested interest in coming to a different conclusion than the Church?

There is a reason why the Eucharist was the unanimous practice of the early Church and why the watering down and rejection of it did not occur until the Reformation.

I know that many commentaries and such I have read do not think it is referring to the last supper.
Personally, I do not think it is clear. Because Methodists believe in the Real Presence, I do not think I would be predisposed either way.
I find the “really difficult to figure out” a condecending comment as well. I am sure you did not mean it as such.

 

[BrianH]

Another quick thought, considering that John 6: 22-24 talks about a crowd, yes, it would be difficult to tell exactly why they left specifically. However, knowing human nature and some history, good guesses can be made. Does that seem reasonable?

Food for thought. Imagine ourselves in the crowd, what would we have done considering that we had no knowledge of what would happen at the Last Supper and following? Or imagine ourselves with the apostles. Christ asks us a direct question…

Small footnote: Notice that Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles, using we instead of I. He is demonstrating, in a way, his authority to declare truth. John 6: 66-68

Good guesses abound

 

[Randy_Carson]

Did the apostles or Jesus evert alk about “indulgences”

Can you prove that they didn’t? And why would that matter?

What you’re really asking is, “Where is that in the Bible?”

Answering the Question, “Where is that in the Bible?”

The Evangelical starts with the assumption that scripture existed first and that tradition was slowly and incrementally added to it as time progressed. However, the original deposit of faith was given to the Apostles years before Scripture was ever penned. The Church was founded on this truth from Christ. Some of this deposit was then written in Scripture, some was scrupulously passed from bishop to bishop as oral tradition, and some was later clarified as dogma by the agreement of the bishops in the councils of the Church.

These sources, of course, should be expected not to contradict each other. If the Church teaches something as true, it is justifiable to check that it is not contradicted by Scripture. But if the Church teaches something and the Bible is silent or ambiguous, that does not mean the teaching is any less truly a part of the original deposit of faith given the Apostles. The focus must shift from what is biblical to what is true. The first is always contained in the second, but all of the second is not necessarily contained in the first.

When an Evangelical asks, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”, the correct response is “First show me from Scripture why you believe all Christian doctrines must be in the Bible.” It can be frustrating for Evangelicals to confront this issue, but it is important for them to understand the lack of biblical basis for their question. Truth is at issue here.

Adapted from Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David B. Currie, pp.61-62.

 

[IAGladfelter]

Regarding Post 202

    What was that you said?

The Catholic Church of Today is not the Catholic Church of
Martin Luther’s Day. The Church has changed since then.

               :confused: :confused: 

 What changes are you referring to?

The last time I was at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Transubstantiation hadn’t changed.

Could you be talking about cosmetic changes?

Please enlighten me. Has the Church, in its substance or whatever term is appropriate, really changed?

I await the pleasure of your reply.

Blessings,
grannymh

At the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton in the old days, that all depends on what you mean by “substance.” In Catholic theology, so much highly nuanced once you get beyond what is taught to the laity. That is neither good nor bad. It is just how it is, and it is nothing for the laity to be concerned about as they may just get confused when someone goes off into nuances.

Under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, The First and Second Vatican Councils did change the Church, and each triggered some opposition. (Vatican I’s changes led to the so-called “Old Catholics,” and Vatican II’s schizm was that of + Lefebre (sp) and his SSPX.) Look at what developed under Pope Paul VI, much of which has not been reversed, and compare the present superb Catechism of the Catholic Church with the much simpler, less nuanced Baltimore Catechism.

There is nothing in the Decrees of the Council of Trent or the series of Lateran Councils comparable to some of the Decrees and Constitutions of Vatican II. The Constitution, Gaudeum et Spes is one example, which contains developments in Soteriology beyond that promulgated by the Council of Trent. Read it in detail. There are others. And compare the Mass of Pope Paul VI with the Tridentine Mass, for instance. “Ecclesia semper reformanda,” and it does under the direction of the Holy Spirit through formal Ecumenical Councils and ex-cathedra, infalllible Papal Decrees. Indulgences remain, and should. But they are not administered as they were under Tetzel (remember that the Cathollic Church reined him in eventually) and at least arond here, not too many priests talk much about them. they are mentioned in RCIA classes, and we have indulgenced prayers (thank goodness). But it is not on the “front burner.” I tell those ordinary Lutherans who complain to me about my Church’s acceptance of indulgences and our acceptance of the underlying theology / soteriology to get over it, leave the 16th century, and move on.

(Incidentally, for the record, I have no problem about transubstantiation. I and my Church teach it exactly as it is taught in the Roman Catholic Church, and we do not accept consubstantiation or Lutherna sacramental union.}

Thanksgiving blessings to all.

IAGladfelter
Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church

 

[grannymh]

At the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton in the old days, that all depends on what you mean by “substance.” In Catholic theology, so much highly nuanced once you get beyond what is taught to the laity. That is neither good nor bad. It is just how it is, and it is nothing for the laity to be concerned about as they may just get confused when someone goes off into nuances.

Under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, The First and Second Vatican Councils did change the Church, and each triggered some opposition. (Vatican I’s changes led to the so-called “Old Catholics,” and Vatican II’s schizm was that of + Lefebre (sp) and his SSPX.) Look at what developed under Pope Paul VI, much of which has not been reversed, and compare the present superb Catechism of the Catholic Church with the much simpler, less nuanced Baltimore Catechism.

There is nothing in the Decrees of the Council of Trent or the series of Lateran Councils comparable to some of the Decrees and Constitutions of Vatican II. The Constitution, Gaudeum et Spes is one example, which contains developments in Soteriology beyond that promulgated by the Council of Trent. Read it in detail. There are others. And compare the Mass of Pope Paul VI with the Tridentine Mass, for instance. “Ecclesia semper reformanda,” and it does under the direction of the Holy Spirit through formal Ecumenical Councils and ex-cathedra, infalllible Papal Decrees. Indulgences remain, and should. But they are not administered as they were under Tetzel (remember that the Cathollic Church reined him in eventually) and at least arond here, not too many priests talk much about them. they are mentioned in RCIA classes, and we have indulgenced prayers (thank goodness). But it is not on the “front burner.” I tell those ordinary Lutherans who complain to me about my Church’s acceptance of indulgences and our acceptance of the underlying theology / soteriology to get over it, leave the 16th century, and move on.

(Incidentally, for the record, I have no problem about transubstantiation. I and my Church teach it exactly as it is taught in the Roman Catholic Church, and we do not accept consubstantiation or Lutherna sacramental union.}

Thanksgiving blessings to all.

IAGladfelter
Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church

Thanks for this information. Did a brief google look up on Tetzel and read some of Luther’s quotes on the matter. Yuk!

I have company so next week I would like to ask you about the “indulgenced prayers” you have. How do you indicate that a prayer is indulgenced? And what really is an indulgence these days? Perhaps the better question would be --what is your underlying theology/soteriology for indulgences which you referred to above.

Thanks again for all your work.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Grannymh,

You lost me on this one…

Another quick thought, considering that John 6: 22-24 talks about a crowd, yes, it would be difficult to tell exactly why they left specifically.

Yes, there was a crowd (composed mostly of Jews who wanted to make Jesus their ‘king’ [in a political sense to end Roman occupattion] and many of them had had a free supper of loaves and fishes the day before and were now interested in another free meal).

And, yes there was only a limited report as to why the vast majority of those present left (“This is a hard saying…” John 6:60-66). But, the issue, at least as I appreciate the text is that the Jews realized Christ was speaking in some type of metaphore (e.g., “I am the vine…” or “I am the gate…”) but was actually telling all of those assemebeled that if they did not eat His Flesh then they had no life in them. There was ample time to ‘adjust’ this statement ("“Ah, hold on… you guys misunderstood me…I’m only talking about a symbol… come on back now!”") but…as we know, Christ just reinforced the concept of people consuming His Flesh and Blood. And the Jews walked. Actually, the Apostles appear to have been shaken - Judas was certanly lost - and Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, responds in a leadership role to Christ.

So, I guess I am saying, I just don’t see how it is not clear. The Jews interpreted Christ’s statements as cannibalism and rejected Him because of it.

Have a blessed Thanksgiving.

 

[grannymh]

Hi, Grannymh,

You lost me on this one…

Yes, there was a crowd (composed mostly of Jews who wanted to make Jesus their ‘king’ [in a political sense to end Roman occupattion] and many of them had had a free supper of loaves and fishes the day before and were now interested in another free meal).

And, yes there was only a limited report as to why the vast majority of those present left (“This is a hard saying…” John 6:60-66). But, the issue, at least as I appreciate the text is that the Jews realized Christ was speaking in some type of metaphore (e.g., “I am the vine…” or “I am the gate…”) but was actually telling all of those assemebeled that if they did not eat His Flesh then they had no life in them. There was ample time to ‘adjust’ this statement ("“Ah, hold on… you guys misunderstood me…I’m only talking about a symbol… come on back now!”") but…as we know, Christ just reinforced the concept of people consuming His Flesh and Blood. And the Jews walked. Actually, the Apostles appear to have been shaken - Judas was certanly lost - and Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, responds in a leadership role to Christ.

So, I guess I am saying, I just don’t see how it is not clear. The Jews interpreted Christ’s statements as cannibalism and rejected Him because of it.

Have a blessed Thanksgiving.

Good morning, Tom,

What a great summary of Chapter 6 to start the day with. I liked including the “free meal” as a start.

Clarifications

My quote refers back to post 216.

My son the computer expert taught me what “both/and” meant.
Applied to discussions like we are having, I prefer the “both/and”
way over “either/or”. This is the presupposition that I work from.
Therefore, I am very comfortable with more than one conclusion.

While not exactly a crowd, my six kids cannot be counted on to come up with the same reaction or conclusion to just about everything. I don’t always take a poll of their opinions because I’ve known them long enough that I can make an educated guess how they would respond. (note: I don’t always do what the majority says.)

I was agreeing with Post 216, that it would be diffucult to check
specific reasons of the inviduals present to find out the exact reason they left. Given human nature, there had to be a variety of motives for the Jews to leave.

Would it be possible for you and I to use the “both/and” principle?

Also, may I get back to you after the holidays with other comments? We are traveling for Thanksgiving and I have to get my … in gear.

May you have a wonderful day today. Even with the rotten things happening around us, there are many things to be thankful for-- like Jesus not giving up on us.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[Teflon93]

I know that many commentaries and such I have read do not think it is referring to the last supper.
Personally, I do not think it is clear. Because Methodists believe in the Real Presence, I do not think I would be predisposed either way.
I find the “really difficult to figure out” a condecending comment as well. I am sure you did not mean it as such.

Quite the contrary, I think that basic literacy is all it takes to understand Christ’s teaching of the Eucharist.

It is not until one begins with what they wish to be true and torture Scripture until it confesses that favored narrative that the modern Bible commentariat feels the need to spill volumes of ink on a simple passage.

Why the Jews left is not much of a mystery; read what Christ said before they did.

 

[tqualey]

And a beautiful good morning this Thanksgiving day to you, too, Grannymh.

Glad you liked the summary…

Yes, I would enjoy hearing back from you at a more convenient time…

Just trying to understand how more then two interpretations are possible from the actual words used in the text is my question:

1.) Christ’s claim to the Son of God and statement that unless we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood we have no life in us … or…

2.) Chirst’s Diety claims were false and His exortation to cannibalism were the ravings of a mad man and should be ignored - or, simply re-interpretated as one of His metaphors.

Anyone wishing to supply a thrid… or fourth or … nth interpretation of John 6 is welcomed to add to my understanding.

But, honestly, for groups that see no other way that the earth could be created in more then six 24-hour days (not counting the Day or Rest) because it is “,in the Bible…” yet come up various intellectual ‘work arounds’ for discounting the Synoptics eye-witness account of Christ’s Words at the Last Supper and John’s account (Ch 6) of Christ preparing the World for the Eucharist…well… I’m at a loss.

Have a blessed Thanksgiving.

Tom

 

[Katrina5]

The Trinity consists of God the Father, Creator,
God the Son, both human and divine, still present in the Eucharist, body, blood, soul, and divinity. HE IS STILL HERE, passed own by his Apostles, through the Church. John, Chapter 6
God the Holy Spirit, who lives today and guides the Church through the centuries.

If you read the Gospel of John, you will see that the people who were listening to Jesus didn’t understand how he would continue to live on Earth in a PHYSICAL way. When he said, “Do this in memory of me”, he was passing himself down to US, through the Apostles, not just in spirit, but in the flesh.
I don’t understand why there are Christians who reject this teaching. They take most of the Bible literally, but when it comes to this part of the Scripture, suddenly it is all “symbolic”!

 

[BrianH]

Quite the contrary, I think that basic literacy is all it takes to understand Christ’s teaching of the Eucharist.

It is not until one begins with what they wish to be true and torture Scripture until it confesses that favored narrative that the modern Bible commentariat feels the need to spill volumes of ink on a simple passage.

Why the Jews left is not much of a mystery; read what Christ said before they did.

A true conversation killer…

 

[Teflon93]

A true conversation killer…

Only if one esteems talk over truth, I suppose.

You’ll excuse Catholics for not splitting the difference when it comes to the Eucharist—we say “transubstantiation”, some say “merely symbolic”; let’s meet at “consubstantiation” or somesuch.

There is simply no Third Way—one can’t water down Christ.

 

[BrianH]

=Teflon93;4480528]Only if one esteems talk over truth, I suppose.

I think I tried to have a conversation with you before…but this will for sure jog my memory!
People start the tone and insults on the internet…computer tough guys.

Later Teflon.

 

[Teflon93]

I think I tried to have a conversation with you before…but this will for sure jog my memory!
People start the tone and insults on the internet…computer tough guys.

Later Teflon.

I don’t recall.

“Computer tough guys” has a 9th grade ring to it—perhaps it was back then?

In any case, in apologetics, the conversation typically follows the form of an argument.

To whit:

1. The Eucharist has been the practice of Christians since the earliest days. It was instituted, as were all of the seven sacraments, by Christ during his earthly ministry as reflected in the New Testament.
2. Claiming a “misreading” of John 6 fails to explain the early date of this tradition (you find St Paul teaching it in the NT; it is also referenced in The Didache (mid-to-late 1st century A.D.), as well as the anti-Christian slurs found among the Romans based on misunderstanding the receipt of the Eucharist as a type of cannibalism.
3. Moreover, the Eucharist continued right through the Reformation. One claiming that it is the result of a “misreading” must explain why no one—including the greatest theologians of any day—realized this “error” before the 16th century and corrected it.
4. Those who claim “misreading” in the 16th century through to this very day have an important vested interest in so doing—they are Protestants and use this as one of many pretexts for disobeying the Church. As has been noted, this puts some of these communities in the odd position of interpreting virtually everything in Scripture literally except for the 6th chapter of John.

We have fried any number of pixels on this subject; perhaps the conversation died a natural death as some simply will not embrace the Eucharist no matter how weak the historical, Scriptural, and theological rationales are for their anti-Eucharist position.

But John 6 quite predicted such resistance, didn’t it?

 

[NotWorthy]

In an effort to bring this topic back on track (Hey, welcome back BrianH!!),

The question was raised, “Why did the Jews leave… who knows?”.

Well, let’s look at the evidence.

Verse 41 says, ***The Jews murmured *about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” Hmmm…, it looks like the Jews don’t like this saying.

The next time we look in on the Jews conversation, they are beginning to try and parse almost exactly what we are in verse 52 …The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?".

So, after Jesus once again repeats that you must eat His Flesh, the Jews are complaining again, in verse 60, Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

Notice, these aren’t just the Jews that followed Jesus wanting more of that fresh bread. This group has been joined by some of Jesus’ followers. And they specifically are complaining about this command to Eat His Flesh. There’s no questioning the motive of their dis-belief at this point, IMO. It would seem they are having a hard time, shall we say “swallowing His Words”?.. Sorry, bad pun (can I have a rim-shot, Smitty?).

So, Jesus raises the ante even further, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." … And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

And this is the breaking point. For verse 66 tells us, As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

As a result of this, many disciples left him… As a result of what?

His talk on eating His Flesh, as I showed, could have caused the disciples to leave.

But his demand at the end, “no one can come to me…” could have caused them, for Jesus is implying that He is the Son of God.

So which is it? Well, this is not the first time Jesus has talked of being the Son of the Father and the like, which means if the disciples would have left Him, they would have left a lot earlier.

So, it seems logical to me, that they left over Jesus’ talk of eating His Flesh. Especially when you look at the Jewish Laws on blood and such (not to mention cannibalism).

 

[BrianH]

In an effort to bring this topic back on track (Hey, welcome back BrianH!!),

The question was raised, “Why did the Jews leave… who knows?”.

Well, let’s look at the evidence.

Verse 41 says, ***The Jews murmured ***about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” Hmmm…, it looks like the Jews don’t like this saying.

The next time we look in on the Jews conversation, they are beginning to try and parse almost exactly what we are in verse 52 …The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?".

So, after Jesus once again repeats that you must eat His Flesh, the Jews are complaining again, in verse 60, Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

Notice, these aren’t just the Jews that followed Jesus wanting more of that fresh bread. This group has been joined by some of Jesus’ followers. And they specifically are complaining about this command to Eat His Flesh. There’s no questioning the motive of their dis-belief at this point, IMO. It would seem they are having a hard time, shall we say “swallowing His Words”?.. Sorry, bad pun (can I have a rim-shot, Smitty?).

So, Jesus raises the ante even further, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." … And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

And this is the breaking point. For verse 66 tells us, As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

As a result of this, many disciples left him… As a result of what?

His talk on eating His Flesh, as I showed, could have caused the disciples to leave.

But his demand at the end, “no one can come to me…” could have caused them, for Jesus is implying that He is the Son of God.

So which is it? Well, this is not the first time Jesus has talked of being the Son of the Father and the like, which means if the disciples would have left Him, they would have left a lot earlier.

So, it seems logical to me, that they left over Jesus’ talk of eating His Flesh. Especially when you look at the Jewish Laws on blood and such (not to mention cannibalism).

Here is the crux of it:

I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
Jhn 6:36 "But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.
Jhn 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
Jhn 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
Jhn 6:39 "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
Jhn 6:40 “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Jhn 6:41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.”
Jhn 6:42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
Jhn 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves.
Jhn 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:45 "It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’[fn5] Therefore everyone who has heard and learned[fn6] from the Father comes to Me.
Jhn 6:46 "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
Jhn 6:47 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me[fn7] has everlasting life.

“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.
Jhn 6:65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

Believe what? I say believe in him. I do not know what the final straw was. Regardless, the key differences between those who believe in the Real Presence and those who believe in transubstantiation goes way beyond John 6.
Good to be back. Thank you.

 

[Holly3278]

To any Christians who wish to return to the early Apostolic Church, one needs to look at the how the Early Church treated the Eucharist. Two early incidents, in my opinion debunk several teachings on the Eucharist.

The first is the Eucharist is symbolic - To see how much the Eucharist was reverenced, just look to St. Tarsicius “At Rome, on the Appian Way, the passion of St. Tarsicius the acolyte, whom the heathen met bearing the sacrament of the Body of Christ and asked him what it was he carried. He judged it a shameful thing to cast pearls before swine, and so was attacked by them for a long time with sticks and stones, until he gave up the ghost. When they turned over his body, the sacrilegious assailants could find no trace of Christ’s sacrament, either in his hands or among his clothing.” Why would one die willingly simply for a symbolic piece of bread.

The second is Consubstantiation, or more specifically as a result of consubstantiation, the reasoning that Christ is only present in the bread and wine during the Church Service, but not afterwards - bread and wine and water are brought, and the presider in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 1, 67).

If the Church thought that the Eucharist was only symbolic, why would people die rather than hand it over to non-believers, and why would the Church revere those who thought this way?

And, if the presence of Christ in the Eucharist occurred only during the Mass, why would a portion be sent out to the sick and elderly?

Good post! The Eucharist is neither symbolic nor is consubstantiation true. The Eucharist is symbolic in a way but it is not solely symbolic.

 

[NotWorthy]

Here is the crux of it:

Believe what? I say believe in him. I do not know what the final straw was. Regardless, the key differences between those who believe in the Real Presence and those who believe in transubstantiation goes way beyond John 6.
Good to be back. Thank you.

You are absolutely right!! Whoever doesn’t believe in Him is lost.

But, and this is truly the Crux of the matter, what does “Believe in Him” mean? Does it mean believing Jesus when He says, “Whoever eats my Flesh and Drinks my Blood has Eternal Life”. Catholics say, “yes, this is a part of belief”.

If you think Jesus is talking symbolically when He makes this statement, then you’ve got to ask yourself, “What does Eating His Flesh” in a symbolic way mean? I seem to recall it meant to revile and loathe someone.

 

[Teflon93]

The crowd having witnessed the miracle of the loaves and fishes just prior, it is hardly a question of “believing in” Jesus.

NotWorthy has demonstrated why they left.

Christ demanded that they eat his flesh and blood, for he is the Son of God. They took their leave posthaste.

 

[BrianH]

The crowd having witnessed the miracle of the loaves and fishes just prior, it is hardly a question of “believing in” Jesus.

Then why does this exchange occur AFTER the loaves and fishes in the same chapter?

Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
Jhn 6:30 Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?