The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

[mercygate]

i want to commend you for insights. We may not agree on a number of issues but you are one of the few that has helped me learn. Its refreshing and challenging.

Thank you. I remain perplexed that even if you choose not to accept the scriptural support for the doctrine of the Real Presence, you do not SEE it. Oh well, as another poster once wrote: say lah vee.

By the way, I agree with you that the “Mormon technique” is not likely to do much for you – although, when the Lord DOES grant you one of those whomp upside the knot experiences of His Presence in the Eucharist, it kind of clinches the case in a way that might be compared to what Evangelicals sometimes try to communicate about just “KNOWING” they’ve been born again because, um, because EVERYTHING is DIFFERENT!

That happens to us with the Eucharist. I was bawling rivers for one whole year after coming to the Church. Every time the Priest took up the Host and whispered: "This is my Body . . . " I could almost see the cherubim escorting the King of Angels to his throne on the altar . . .

 

[rstegeman]

tm30;3106335]
No doubt God can do almost anything. The question is: did He in this instance of the eucharist? So far the evidence is lacking that He did.

What do you mean that God can do ALMOST anything??? What exactly are His limitations?

 

[porthos11]

The problem with this is that even though the passover is mentioned its not the focus of the passage. Its not about literally eating bread but how we inherit eternal life (v47) and how we are to get the life. When Jesus is speaking of eating and drinking He is speaking figuratively not literally.

Wrong. In Semitic cultures, the phrases to “eat flesh” and “drink blood” are metaphorical meanings to inflict great bodily injury on someone. This was true then (Micah 3:3; Psalm 27:2) and even today, among the Arabs. While “eat” by itself allows a metaphorical meaning of “believe” (and there is such usage in the Old Testament), to “eat flesh” and “drink blood” are not. Even today, no culture equates believing one’s words with the eating of one’s flesh. On the contrary, the closest English analogue, to “eat alive” means that one is viciously attacked verbally, which is much milder than the ancient Jewish meaning.

This is even made more evident starting at verse 54 (which PatienceAndLove had already indicated, but in your great tradition, you deliberately ignore) when Jesus switches from the Greek verb phago to trogo, which means the gnaw or chew, and when combined with sarx (flesh) makes for a very graphic picture. To trogo one’s flesh is no metaphor for “belief”.

Combine this verb with his insistence that his flesh is “real” (alethes) food and his blood “real” drink, and there is no room of anything metaphorical.

In other words, if you insist on a metaphorical interpretation, Jesus is essentially saying, “Unless you viciously assault me, you have no life in you.”

That simply renders Jesus’ words utter nonsense, and that’s not acceptable. That’s why his disciples left him because they CORRECTLY understood him. And because they CORRECTLY understood him, Jesus never called them back.

 

[mercygate]

The problem with this is that even though the passover is mentioned its not the focus of the passage. Its not about literally eating bread but how we inherit eternal life (v47) and how we are to get the life. When Jesus is speaking of eating and drinking He is speaking figuratively not literally.

But the Bread of Life discourse is juxtaposed with the feeding of the 5000. Jesus feeds the crowd – using the Apostles as his ministers – then there is the walking on water passage, which to my mind sets up the Bread of Life Discourse for us to understand that the flesh Jesus says we must eat – His flesh – has properties we do not normally associate with flesh. THIS flesh takes a stroll on the lake. In Genesis “the spirit of God moved upon the face of the water” – Christ: the creator of the world.

John 6 is PACKED with referemces to Jesus’ divinity. That is (to my thinking) why the shift from “my flesh” to “the flesh” is a slam-dunk for reading the BOL Discourse as a Eucharistic passage.

 

[revelations]

By the way, I agree with you that the “Mormon technique” is not likely to do much for you – although, when the Lord DOES grant you one of those whomp upside the knot experiences of His Presence in the Eucharist, it kind of clinches the case in a way that might be compared to what Evangelicals sometimes try to communicate about just “KNOWING” they’ve been born again because, um, because EVERYTHING is DIFFERENT!

That happens to us with the Eucharist. I was bawling rivers for one whole year after coming to the Church. Every time the Priest took up the Host and whispered: "This is my Body . . . " I could almost see the cherubim escorting the King of Angels to his throne on the altar . . .

Yup…yes yes to all of that. My gf always finds it funny watching me bite my lip the whole mass, lol.

It was worth a shot,i knew the offer would be shot down. You never know…

But, man o man what an experience! I can divide my life into two sections: before that night, and after that night

 

[mercygate]

Yup…yes yes to all of that. My gf always finds it funny watching me bite my lip the whole mass, lol.

It was worth a shot,i knew the offer would be shot down. You never know…

But, man o man what an experience! I can divide my life into two sections: before that night, and after that night

Yeah. My “before” and “after” were the day I made my general confession before being received into the Church. I had been a blubbering fool longing for the Eucharist at Mass for 7 months before I made my confession, but THIS was the first Sacrament I would receive AS A CATHOLIC. Man! I had made sacramental confessions for many years as an Episcopalian, but THIS was the mother of all confessions. When I finished, the priest sucked in his breath, slowly let it out, leaned back in his chair and said, “That was beautiful. HOW did you DOOOOO that?” I told him that I asked “Him” to do it FOR me.

Man. Before, and After. EVERYTHING is different.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Nope. That about covers it.

And speaking of incense… I was just reading today about the conception of John the Baptist. Guess where his father was when the angel announced the conception of his son? In the Temple, at the hour of incense, and the angel was on the right side of the altar of incense. (Luke 1:10-11).

Also, the verse he used to explain the eternal condemnation of incense is from the first chapter of Isaiah. Guess what happens in the sixth chapter??? Isaiah 6:6-7:

Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar. He touched my mouth with it. “See,” he said, “now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged.”

Now what do you suppose Isaiah could have been doing with a burning coal at an altar??? Hmmm… What possible use could that lit coal have been used for??? I KNOW…burning incense and for the whole burnt offerings. I guess Isaiah and the angel of God understood it wasn’t a complete ban.

 

[JMJ_coder]

We may tend to think of a “mystery” as something so far beyond our understanding that we can dismiss the whole idea of trying to understand. But my priest last weekend gave a different definition of “mystery.” He said that a mystery is an unending invitation to deeper understanding. So when we approach the mystery of the Eucharist, we can be like Mary who asks, “How can this be?” In faith, we will be drawn towards a deeper understanding.

I think the anti-real-presence crew needs to look again at the old adage: Credo ut intelligam. I believe that I might understand.

One day Saint Augustine was walking along the seashore pondering the Mystery of the Trinity (he was currently writing his treatise On The Trinity). He just couldn’t comprehend it - “Father, Son, Holy Spirit; three in one!” he muttered, shaking his head.

Saint Augustine came upon a child running back and forth from the sea to a hole carrying water with a seashell. Saint Augustine asked the child “What are you doing?”.

The child replied “Can’t you see, I am emptying the sea into this hole”

“You can’t do that!”, Saint Augustine countered.

The child smiled and answered, “I’ll sooner empty the sea into this hole than you’ll fathom the depths of the Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity”. And with that the child transformed into an Angel and disappeared.

Thus did Augustine understand that man would never penetrate to the depths of the Mystery of God.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Specifically in the suuper accounts do we see anything promise that eating the bread and wine would lead to eternal life?

As I said before, Catholics don’t take a single verse completely out of context and develop our entire theology out of it.

But, from the Gospel according to Matthew…

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Here Christ mentions the new and eternal covenant and the forgiveness of sins wrought on the Cross, which leads unto eternal life.

But, since it isn’t uber-explicit, I doubt you’ll accept it. Shocker…

i don’t know how well you know the OT. One of the warnings about false gods is that they could not speak, smell or hear and yet those that worshipped them believed that they were god.
This is what the claims about the eucharist leads to this kind of thing.

I know the OT pretty well, and these are completely different things - look at the account of Elijah on Mount Carmel, and also the words of Christ on the Our Father … for starters.

 

[zerocrossing]

tm30;3106335]No doubt God can do almost anything.

God has limits? I don’t even know any Protestants who believe that!

 

[zerocrossing]

Hello,

Also, the verse he used to explain the eternal condemnation of incense is from the first chapter of Isaiah. Guess what happens in the sixth chapter??? Isaiah 6:6-7:

Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar. He touched my mouth with it. “See,” he said, “now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged.”

Now what do you suppose Isaiah could have been doing with a burning coal at an altar??? Hmmm… What possible use could that lit coal have been used for??? I KNOW…burning incense and for the whole burnt offerings. I guess Isaiah and the angel of God understood it wasn’t a complete ban.

Oh, that’s fabulous! BTW, thanks for those great Greek studies yesterday. I learned some things I didn’t know.

(Actually I’ve learned a lot of cool stuff reading this thread, but the Greek references you gave really stood out).

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Before i respond to your answers i’d like other catholics response to these questions and see if they agree with yours.

Have you seen enough replies - care to respond now.

Is there any indication in the passages that refer to the last supper that gives you any indication that they thought of Jesus was also to be known as a piece of bread and wine?

If not there, any other places in the NT?

Like I said, I don’t know. There is a lot that the Apostles did not know until after the Resurrection and Pentecost.

We can see them, at a minimum, starting to understand this in the account of the Meeting on the Road to Emmaus.

If your literal interpretation is correct then the answers you gave above would be supported not only by the scriptures i.e. others also understood Jesus to now also have the nature of bread and wine combined with His nature being God and man.
I’m curious to see if other catholics see it your way to.

THE BREAD AND WINE CEASE TO EXIST!!! Jesus does NOT have a bread nature or a wine nature!!! The bread and wine cease to exist and only the accidents remain. Read Saint Thomas Aquinas if you are interested in the Church’s understanding of this (i.e., the use of Aristotelian philosophy and terminology).

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Thirdly, do the fathers speak for the entire church of time?
If so who appointed them?

Are there not fathers who did not believe as Rome teaches on various doctrines including this Pope Gelasius?
Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius:

The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.

This answer from this site is probably better than I could respond at the moment.

Did Pope Gelasius deny the doctrine of transubstantiation?

Here is the relevant passage often foisted by critics of the Catholic faith:

"Sacred Scripture, testifying that this Mystery[ie. The Incarnation] began at the start of the blessed Conception, says; 'Wisdom has built a house for itself'(Prov 9:1), rooted in the solidity of the sevenfold Spirit. This Wisdom ministers to us the food of the Incarnation of Christ through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we 'are made sharers of the divine nature'(1 Pt 1:4). Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the carrying out the Mysteries."

Pope Gelasius I[regn A.D. 492-496],Tract on the two natures against Eutchyes & Nestorius.

First, Pope Gelasius categorically affirms the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is denied by White. Second, Pope Gelasius was concerned in defending the nature of Christ not the Eucharist. So he was not so concerned in giving his understanding of the Eucharist as he was in explaining the mystery of the Incarnation. Remember, the Church was concerned with various Christological heresies at this time which denied the two natures, the two wills, and the one [divine]personhood of Christ. At this point in time, the mystery of the Eucharist had not so developed in the mind of the Church to force upon the mind of Pope Gelasius an expression of the Eucharist in the terms of transubstantiation. The Church had to develop a theological language to express the mind of the Church on various matters of faith. The Church was just beginning to express its thoughts to describe the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. There was no question regarding a Real Presence in the Eucharist; however, it is another matter regarding the type of change(consubstantiation, transubstantiation etc.). At best, Pope Gelasius was simply saying that the appearance[accidents] of bread/wine remain alongside the Real Presence in an attempt to explain the mystery of the Incarnation, since Christ humanity remains alongside His divinity. Some scholars interpret the above passage to refer to the accidents of the bread and wine. Even this analogy has some holes in it. At worst, Pope Gelasius was simply incorrect in his Eucharistic theology. I tend to believe the Pope was somewhere in the middle. That is, Pope Gelasius was not so concerned with explaining the doctrine of the Eucharist, but wanted to explain the Incarnation via an analogy. As with most analogies, they are imperfect. In addition, his theological vocabulary did not allow him to express the mystery of the Eucharist with any more precision.

Therefore, do not base your understanding of the Eucharist during this time on one single passage from Pope Gelasius. Instead cull the passages from contemporaries of Pope Gelasius which speak directly on the Eucharist. Here you will find a clear and broad witness on behalf of Transubstantiation.

For more info see:

James T. O’Connor’s “The Hidden Manna” pgs 71-73
Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” p. 382

You wonder why critics of the Faith don’t downplay the divinity of Christ by citing Fathers prior to Nicea that seemingly subordinate the nature of Christ. Prior to definition, the Fathers are developing a theological vocabulary as they reflect on the mystery of the Incarnation, so it is no surprise to see some Fathers prior to Nicea seemingly downplay the divinity of Christ. This is the nature of development. Prior to definition, the Fathers are all over the theological landscape as they attempt to explain a divine mystery, and as time goes on the mystery becomes a little more clearer and more defined.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Oh, that’s fabulous! BTW, thanks for those great Greek studies yesterday. I learned some things I didn’t know.

(Actually I’ve learned a lot of cool stuff reading this thread, but the Greek references you gave really stood out).

Aww…shucks.

 

[zerocrossing]

Hello,
Aww…shucks.

Wow. I didn’t know I could make you blush!

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Again go back to the supper accounts and see if there is any promise of eternal life. A quick read will answer this question in the negative.

Trying to combine John 6 with the supper accounts won’t work since in context it has nothing to do with the Lord’s supper. Jesus is teaching something far different in John 6 than the eucharist.

You have to look at them together because they exist together. No Biblical passage exists in a vacuum.

 

[HailMary]

Again go back to the supper accounts and see if there is any promise of eternal life. A quick read will answer this question in the negative

Its there, clearly. Maybe you should slow down your reading?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

You have to look at them together because they exist together. No Biblical passage exists in a vacuum.

If every single verse must contain explicitly the whole of Christian doctrine, otherwise it gets thrown out - you’ll end up with a very empty Bible.

 

[teachccd]

Hahahaha, yes we still have protestants. I’m thinking it’s about time to close this thread, we’ve exhausted almost every avenue of argument right down to asking God himself…

No Kidding!!!

 

[teachccd]

No necessarily. Think of the miracles Jesus did. When He healed a blind man or cripple and we sent them to a doctor to examine them would the doctor expect to see a real phyical change in these people? Of course. There would be evidence of a real physical change in their bodies.
This would also apply to the claims of the eucharist.

Wrong. If we examined the blood of Jesus under a microscope and could not see God then your theory goes bye-bye…teachccd