The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

[Truthstalker]

I must be missing something in your question.

Of course Jesus calls the bread his flesh…that’s what the bread has become. The wine has become his blood.

The words can be used interchangeably…Catholics know when bread and wine have been consecrated. If not, they ask.

Could you clarify?

In Matthew and Luke, AFTER the consecration, Jesus refers to the element as “the fruit of the vine.” If it His blood, literally, then why does He make this statement? If if is not wine, then it makes no sense for Him to say it.

Paul refers to bread in verses 26, 27 and 28, not to Christ’s flesh. He states twice we eat bread in the Eucharist - not that we eat flesh. If if is His flesh, then Paul would have referred to flesh, not bread, in these verses. This would have been an ideal place for Paul to have spelled out “it looks like bread, but it is transubstantiated.” Instead he refers to bread.

This is why people argue against transubstantiation - they argue that the bread and wine still exist, along with Christ. I haven’t heard the Catholic explanation for these observations. I am sure there is one.

 

[Pax]

In Matthew and Luke, AFTER the consecration, Jesus refers to the element as “the fruit of the vine.” If it His blood, literally, then why does He make this statement? If if is not wine, then it makes no sense for Him to say it.

Actually, it makes a great deal of sense for Jesus to say this. The explanation for this statement is nicely explained in a book by Scott Hahn called The Lamb’s Supper. Hahn goes into the details of the Passover meal and what transpired at the Last Supper. Jesus knew how to celebrate the Passover. The significance of Jesus statement is tied up with the details of the four cups that are consumed at the Passover meal. In the NT narrative of the Last Supper it is clear from text that Jesus and the apostles did not drink the fourth cup. This is well explained by Hahn and I suggest you read his book. The fourth cup would have closed the Passover meal but Jesus drank no more wine until the crucifixion in which he tasted it and then said, “It is finished.” The Passover and the sacrifice on the cross were then forever combined and the mass is the re-presentation thereof.

That is why the mass is the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11 which states, “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.” There is only one perfect offering and that is the sacrifice of Jesus. The sacrifice of the mass is celebrated from the rising of the sun to its setting throughout the nations. Only the mass contains the pure sacrifice of Jesus body and blood.

Paul refers to bread in verses 26, 27 and 28, not to Christ’s flesh. He states twice we eat bread in the Eucharist - not that we eat flesh. If if is His flesh, then Paul would have referred to flesh, not bread, in these verses. This would have been an ideal place for Paul to have spelled out “it looks like bread, but it is transubstantiated.” Instead he refers to bread.

This is why people argue against transubstantiation - they argue that the bread and wine still exist, along with Christ. I haven’t heard the Catholic explanation for these observations. I am sure there is one.

1 Corinthians 10:16 says, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”
This is transubstantiation.

In 1 Corinthians 11:26-27 Paul says:

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

The bread we eat and the cup we drink appear as bread and wine, they are clearly the body and blood of the Lord. If we consume them in an unworthy manner we are guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. If they are not the body and blood of the Lord as explained by transubstantion then it would be impossible to profane the body and blood of the Lord. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine how anyone can eat bread and drink wine, if that is all they are, in an unworthy manner.

 

[Truthstalker]

1 Corinthians 10:16 says, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”
This is transubstantiation.

Is it? Aren’t you using a circular argument?

In 1 Corinthians 11:26-27 Paul says:

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

The bread we eat and the cup we drink appear as bread and wine, they are clearly the body and blood of the Lord. If we consume them in an unworthy manner we are guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. If they are not the body and blood of the Lord as explained by transubstantion then it would be impossible to profane the body and blood of the Lord. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine how anyone can eat bread and drink wine, if that is all they are, in an unworthy manner.

The whole thing is difficult to imagine. I don’t see a logical connection between transubstantiation and eating them unworthily. In parallel, if I am in a military ceremony and we are raising the flag, and I do not salute, I am showing disrespect for the flag, which means symbolically, disrespect for the country, represented by the flag. Likewise disrespect for the elements is disrespect for Christ. The same holds true under any theory.

Why can’t this be left as a mystery? Why insist on it being transubstantiation, when it is unclear? Somehow Jesus is really present, but I am not sure what “really present” means.
What if both Jesus and the bread are fully present, neither symbolically?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Truthstalker-

It is a mystery.

“Transubstantiation” is a technical term developed to fight the heresies that sought to deny various aspects of the incarnation including the Real Presence of Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist.

If you don’t want to dig that deeply into it, that’s okay. As long as you believe Jesus is really present, you can ignore the specifics.

However, if you believe that the Eucharist is only a symbol, then we have to spend more time on the discussion - not on transubstantiation - but on Jesus’ words, the writings of Paul and the historical teaching of the early Church.

 

[Church_Militant]

Maybe I missed it, but have you dealt with

Matthew 26:28-29

Mark 14:24-25:

Here Jesus apparently calls the blood the fruit of the vine.

and 1 Cor 11:23-29

“Bread” and “flesh” seem to be used interchangeably.

These passages are used to argue against transubstantiation. Is the blood still the fruit of the vine? Is the flesh still bread? That is what Jesus and Paul seem to be saying.

This is not an argument against the bread being real food and the wine being real blood, it’s just, uh, you have to deal with what “real” really means. In John 6 where Jesus says His flesh is real food the Greek is better translated His flesh is truly food.

These points need to be covered if you wish to lock in transubstantiation. It will not surprise me when the avalanche hits…

Go back and look at thr first 4 or five posts, TS. I got 'em there.
Pax Tecum,

 

[Church_Militant]

The whole thing is difficult to imagine.

But so is the idea of the Incarnation, (God becoming man yet remaining God!) and that by the Holy Spirit within a virgin!, the Trinity, (3 Persons/one God), John 3:16, (God loves US so much that He gave His only Son to die for us on a cross to reconcile us to Himself!?).

Face it TS. All of Christianity is miraculous mystery and mystical.

I don’t see a logical connection between transubstantiation and eating them unworthily. In parallel, if I am in a military ceremony and we are raising the flag, and I do not salute, I am showing disrespect for the flag, which means symbolically, disrespect for the country, represented by the flag. Likewise disrespect for the elements is disrespect for Christ. The same holds true under any theory.

However, that analogy fails in that you do not become guilty of the body and blood of any of the troops or citizens of that nation. Yet this is precisely what St. Paul says occurs if one partakes while in grave sin. St. Ignatius of Antioch says essentailly the same thing in his letter to Smyrna (Chapter 7, and he was discipled by St. John…the author of the Gospel, so…)

Why can’t this be left as a mystery? Why insist on it being transubstantiation, when it is unclear?

But my friend, it’s not unclear.

Somehow Jesus is really present

, but I am not sure what “really present” means.
What if both Jesus and the bread are fully present, neither symbolically?but there is nothing in Catholic teaching that says that the bread is present symbolically…

Jesus is really present. That’s a given.
Pax tecum,

 

[tabcom]

**John 6:55
"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

Let’s take a look at the food that Jesus offers.

Joh 4:32
But (Jesus) said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about .”

Food = Will of God

Joh 4:34
Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.

Joh 6:27
“Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.”

Flesh = Will of God = Truth

John 6:55
"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

John goes on to define what truth is.

Joh 1:14
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Truth =Flesh = Jesus = Word =Full of Grace=Holy Spirit.

Holy Spirit only comes through Jesus

John 14:6
Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

John 14:15
If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, 17 even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you.

The algebraic equation of John 6:55 is:

Truth =Flesh = Jesus = Word =Full of Grace=Holy Spirit.**

 

[mercygate]

John 6:55
"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

Let’s take a look at the food that Jesus offers.

Joh 4:32
But (Jesus) said to them, "I have food to eat that you do not know about ."

Food = Will of God

Joh 4:34
Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.

Joh 6:27
"Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal."

Flesh = Will of God = Truth

John 6:55
"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

John goes on to define what truth is.

Joh 1:14
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Truth =Flesh = Jesus = Word =Full of Grace=Holy Spirit.

Holy Spirit only comes through Jesus

John 14:6
*Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

John 14:15
If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, 17 even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you.

The algebraic equation of John 6:55 is:

Truth =Flesh = Jesus = Word =Full of Grace=Holy Spirit.

Tab – this is a GREAT post! Any Catholic would give you a big high five for this one. But we would also take it back to the Eucharistic import of Matt & Lk – coincidentally chapter 4, verse 4 in each – where Jesus, quoting Deuteronomy, reminds the devil, who tells him he could make bread from the stones, that “man does not live by bread alone but by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God.”

The Greek word for “word” used here is “rhemata.” This is the same word as the Septuagint uses for that passage in Deuteronomy, translating the Hebrew word, “dabar” = commandment. Aside from the crucial points in John 6 about 'gnaw(ing) my flesh, which completely takes this out of the realm of the figurative, we have the importance of the word “commandment” – which you picked up on beautifully in your post. The new commandment is to “gnaw” the flesh and drink the blood (which is not accounted for in the quotes on “word”). When a Catholic receives the Eucharist, he does not receive muscle tissue and sinew mingled with physical blood, he receives the Resurrection Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

The key words here are: “Not by bread alone.” We receive the “Word” by keeping his commandment to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The Eucharist cannot be “bread alone” in a figurative sense; it MUST be the Body of Christ if we are to take Jesus at his Word.

 

[Truthstalker]

but there is nothing in Catholic teaching that says that the bread is present symbolically

Of course not. But in transubstantiation the bread itself is annihilated, and only its accidents (appearance, smell, weight,etc,) remain. The bread itself is no longer there.

 

[tabcom]

When a Catholic receives the Eucharist, he does not receive muscle tissue and sinew mingled with physical blood, he receives the Resurrection Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

The Eucharist cannot be “bread alone” in a figurative sense; it MUST be the Body of Christ if we are to take Jesus at his Word.

**Should Amos 8:11 not be taken figuratively?

Am 8:11 -
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord GOD, "When I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine for bread or a thirst for water, But rather for hearing the words of the LORD.

Jewish Idioms "eat flesh and drink blood’, ‘Drinking of the Cup’:

Mat 26:26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,
28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

* body-Greek: soma - the body (as a sound whole); from sozo the word saved; Jesus will save his body the church (bride);

Eph 5:23 -
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself {being} the Savior of the body.

Col 1:18 -
He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

Col 1:24 -
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.

* cup - Greek: poterion; figuratively a lot or fate.

II Corinthians 4:10,11 – Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

John 6:54 – Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.

* To "eat flesh and drink blood" was a Jewish idiom that meant to be satiated (satisfy with more than enough; to glut, saturated with suffering) with a slaughter.

Eze 39:17
As for you, son of man, says the Lord GOD, say to birds of every kind and to all the wild beasts: Come together, from all sides gather for the slaughter I am about to provide for you, a great slaughter on the mountains of Israel: you shall have flesh to eat and blood to drink.

* The blade of the sword was called "the mouth" that did "eat flesh and drink blood as one army would slaughter another.

* To "drink of a cup (of blood)" had a related meaning in that it meant to undergo violent death or to "taste death." To drink "all" of a cup (drink ye all of it) meant to completely finish the ordeal.

**

 

[Pax]

The whole thing is difficult to imagine. …
…
…
Why can’t this be left as a mystery? Why insist on it being transubstantiation, when it is unclear? Somehow Jesus is really present, but I am not sure what “really present” means.
What if both Jesus and the bread are fully present, neither symbolically?

If you believe that Jesus is really present then you do so by grace and faith, and because the Church and Scripture tell you that this is the case. Scripture says so, but not everyone reading scripture believes that Jesus is truly present. Catholics get the belief from both the Church and Scripture. Assuming that you have the best of intentions then whom should you believe? Should you believe what the Church says or should you believe what you want to believe because the latter seems to be easier or more perhaps more comfortable?

IMHO we need to believe what the Church teaches. The Church is, as 1 Tim 3:15 says, “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” Moreover, the Church is giving us what has been believed since Pentecost. The term “transubstantiation” is obviously a later theological term, but it is a term used to describe the facts that the Church has always believed about the Eucharist. The term is necessary in order to dispel the objections put forth by those who attempted to raise doubts and arguments against the “real presence.” It is the only term consistent with Jesus’s words of institution…"this** is **my body…this is my blood.

 

[Truthstalker]

If you believe that Jesus is really present then you do so by grace and faith, and because the Church and Scripture tell you that this is the case. Scripture says so, but not everyone reading scripture believes that Jesus is truly present. Catholics get the belief from both the Church and Scripture. Assuming that you have the best of intentions then whom should you believe? Should you believe what the Church says or should you believe what you want to believe because the latter seems to be easier or more perhaps more comfortable?

IMHO we need to believe what the Church teaches. The Church is, as 1 Tim 3:15 says, “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” Moreover, the Church is giving us what has been believed since Pentecost. The term “transubstantiation” is obviously a later theological term, but it is a term used to describe the facts that the Church has always believed about the Eucharist. The term is necessary in order to dispel the objections put forth by those who attempted to raise doubts and arguments against the “real presence.” It is the only term consistent with Jesus’s words of institution…"this** is **my body…this is my blood.

On a hot cloudless August day you can stand outside and know where the sun is in the sky, even with your eyes closed, without tasting or hearing or smelling. Maybe it’s what you call grace, or a gift of grace, but sometimes I know He is there in a way that He wasn’t, in a way I can’t explain, any more than I can explain how I know where the sun is in the sky on a hot cloudless August day. Likewise I know the sanctuary of a Catholic Church is not empty, but I walk inside and there is a fullness there that is absent from the foyar.

My search for theology is more of a search for what I know about the universe in terms of coherent explanation than it is a search for what the universe is in terms of theology. Theology chasing reality rather than theology first in order to reveal reality. The Eucharist is Scriptural, but ponder that this is a descriptive proposition, not a limiting one: Scripture describes but does not circumscribe the Eucharist, which is a thing that passes human comprehension readily and soars to regions where our words are brittle things, too little things to hold the Word, too small to contain the language of heaven in its depth and power and reality. When He said, “This is My body,” He meant it, but we tend, I think, to look at it in oppostion to a little thing, the symbolic, and not consider what we actually are facing. It is not the one thing, but what it is is actually beyond our ability to grasp. So we eat it instead.

 

[Karianne]

Matthew 26:26-28

"26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. "

Mark 14:22-24

“22 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. 23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.”

Luke 22:17-20

“17 And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: 18 For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. 19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. 20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.”

Luke 24:30-35

"30 And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them.

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight. 32 And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in this way, and opened to us the scriptures? 33 And rising up, the same hour, they went back to Jerusalem: and they found the eleven gathered together, and those that were staying with them, 34 Saying: The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
35 And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of the bread. "

I don’t mean to blow smoke at your post, but YEAH…and I was taught this BEFORE I made my First Holy Communion.
Are you just discovering this?

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t mean to blow smoke at your post, but YEAH…and I was taught this BEFORE I made my First Holy Communion.
Are you just discovering this?

Okay…and so you have no concept of making an apologetic case using scripture? Read through the thread and see what you could add that would perhaps convince people like Tabcom and some of those who do not share your assurance of faith.

Been here only a day or so over 2 weeks and suddenly you’re a critic?
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[mercygate]

Should Amos 8:11 not be taken figuratively?

**Am 8:11 - **
"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord GOD, "When I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine for bread or a thirst for water, But rather for hearing the words of the LORD.

Jewish Idioms "eat flesh and drink blood’, ‘Drinking of the Cup’:

Mat 26:26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,
28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

*** body-Greek: soma - the body (as a sound whole); from sozo the word saved; Jesus will save his body the church (bride);**

Eph 5:23 -
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself {being} the Savior of the body.

**Col 1:18 - **
He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

**Col 1:24 - **
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.

*** cup - Greek: poterion; figuratively a lot or fate.**

II Corinthians 4:10,11 – Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

John 6:54 – Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.

*** To “eat flesh and drink blood” was a Jewish idiom that meant to be satiated (satisfy with more than enough; to glut, saturated with suffering) with a slaughter.**

Eze 39:17
As for you, son of man, says the Lord GOD, say to birds of every kind and to all the wild beasts: Come together, from all sides gather for the slaughter I am about to provide for you, a great slaughter on the mountains of Israel: you shall have flesh to eat and blood to drink.

*** The blade of the sword was called “the mouth” that did "eat flesh and drink blood as one army would slaughter another.**

*** To “drink of a cup (of blood)” had a related meaning in that it meant to undergo violent death or to “taste death.” To drink “all” of a cup (drink ye all of it) meant to completely finish the ordeal. **

Huh?

Jesus specifically refuses to correct those who object to all this eating-my-flesh rhetoric when they say, “this is a hard saying. Who can receive it?” Nor does Jesus give the post-game wrap up to the 12 afterwards, as he does elsewhere. His only question to them is: “Do you also wish to go away?”

Often when people use the word “spiritual” presence for the Eucharist, what they are thinking is “figurative.” But God is Spirit. He is Real. And he is really present, although not to sense perception, in the Eucharist. I mean: he SAID it. Catholics believe he MEANT it.

 

[mercygate]

Scripture describes but does not circumscribe the Eucharist, which is a thing that passes human comprehension readily and soars to regions where our words are brittle things, too little things to hold the Word, too small to contain the language of heaven in its depth and power and reality.

What a GREAT way to say this!

I think you’ve hit on the reason that a lot of “Bible” Christians have trouble with the Catholic view of Scripture, particularly with respect to concepts like the Real Presence. They want the **words **to contain THE Word, which, of course, they do not and cannot.

 

[seek]

B4 the Flood, God would destroy the world with a flood. After the Flood
he would no longer destroy the world with a flood.

 

[Pax]

…
…

When He said, “This is My body,” He meant it, but we tend, I think, to look at it in oppostion to a little thing, the symbolic, and not consider what we actually are facing. It is not the one thing, but what it is is actually beyond our ability to grasp. So we eat it instead.

Catholics do not automatically look at the words of institution in opposition to the symbolic. Those that do not believe in the real presence have argued for the symbolic in opposition to the fullness of Catholic teaching. Catholics believe that the Eucharist has more than one dimension. We believe in the true presence and explain the true presence in terms of “transubstantiation” because of it’s congruency with the words of Jesus.

We also believe in the symbolic dimension in the Eucharist as explained so well by Augustine and others. A sacrament has an outward sign. It is the outward sign that symbolizes what is transpiring by way of God’s power and grace. In the Eucharist the outward signs are bread and wine. The signs of bread and wine represent the food which is Jesus’s body and blood. Moreover, the separating of the bread and wine represents the separation of the body and blood which are truly present. This separation assists us in recognizing the
re-presentation of the death and sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

Catholics only negatively address the issue of the symbolic when the symbolic is presented as the sole explanation of the Eucharist.

I hope this helps.

 

[seek]

That’s either or thinking. Not both and thinking.

 

[Pax]

That’s either or thinking. Not both and thinking.

I’m not sure I get your drift…could you explain?