The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

[sinner06]

The payment is literal - or the fact that payment is made is literal. The point that it is pennies is literal to the parable. The story is figurative, however, to teach a lesson. This lesson regards Purgatory, btw.

I am not sure I would agree that it’s talking about purgatory, but that’s a discussion for another thread. It being literal to the parable doesn’t make sense either. Could any Protestant say that “this is my body” is literal only to the metaphor? Either it’s literal or it isn’t.

But Christ’s Sacrifice was necessary, where do you think I came up with that. The Last Supper points toward Calgary, so Calgary had to happen.

I am not saying that you said Christ’s sacrifice was not necessary, I am saying that you seemed to imply that the Eucharist could take place before, during, or after the Crucifixion, which didn’t make sense to me.

Jesus says, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, then I am in their midst”.
Now, you already agree that Jesus is everywhere, right? But why does Jesus need to point out that He is in their midst if he’s not more present when they are gathered in his name.

Alright, I’m willing to accept I was wrong about my theory, however, what then is the purpose the verse? “God does not dwell in temples made of human hands”? What is it saying?

I think you err by not realizing that God dwells in Heaven, but He can and does choose to be in various places, and no one would contend that. So then God was not specially present in the burning bush? In the apostles on the day of Pentecost? Anywhere where even 2 or 3 of us gather in His name?

Exodus 19:18? 2nd Chronicles 7:1-2 ff?

It seems obvious that the interpretation that you hold so strictly to is not supported by scripture, nor is that the point of this discussion thread.

All right, as I said, I was just putting forward a theory that has now been proven incorrect. Disregard what I said there.

This is about the fact that the New Testament teaches the Eucharistic Real Presence of Jesus. It shows that much of modern n-C theology has departed from the New Testament and the verifiable writings of the early church. A departure that cannot be justified.Then according to the New Testament and the writings of the early church you are wrong. It would be best if you abandoned the errant teachings of modern men and returned to what the New Testament specifically teaches in 1st Corinthians 11:23-30. One could not become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (as St. Paul plainly teaches) if it were not really present in the accidents of the bread and wine.\

Perhaps this has been discussed earlier in this thread, as I remember a discussion about this, but can’t find it. However, reading this in the context of the verses that come before it, it seems Paul is talking about the fact that many were partaking in the Lord’s Supper as if it were a common feast, where, “one is hungry, another drunk,”, and some were being left out while other were filling their bellies. Paul even concludes with verses 33 and 34 talking about waiting for others and and eating at home, nothing about the Real Presence.

Our Lord was not re-presenting His sacrifice. He miraculously Transubstantiated Himself at that time and made the bread and wine into His body and blood at that Passover meal. The sacrifical Passover lamb is eaten even to this day and what was the clear Testimony of John the Baptist when he saw Our Lord? “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29 & 36) It is right in line with the fullfillment of Passover.

Isn’t the Eucharist supposed to be a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice? That’s the definition I’ve always herd used, though correct me if I’m wrong.

This is not relevant to the Euchistic discussion at hand…please stay on topic.

This IS on topic. He was claiming that any statement that starts with Amen must be taken literally, such as Amen, this is my body, this is my blood, etc. I was showing that that was wrong.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sinner06

I think we need to look at the context from where this quote (and, your question) come from. Let me give it a try as we look at Acts 7. Here is small section I have reproduced below, with the quote in question appearing at verse 48. I am guessing that reading the entire chapter would be best…

The verse isn’t just talking about the fact that God dwells in heaven, it specifically says he does NOT dwell in houses made with human hands. As far as I know, every Catholic church in the world has been built with human hands.

39 "Our ancestors were unwilling to obey him; instead, they pushed him aside and in their hearts turned back to Egypt,
40
saying to Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will be our leaders. As for that Moses who led us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.’
41
So they made a calf in those days, offered sacrifice to the idol, and reveled in the works of their hands.
42
Then God turned and handed them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets: ‘Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings for forty years in the desert, O house of Israel?
43
No, you took up the tent of Moloch and the star of (your) god Rephan, the images that you made to worship. So I shall take you into exile beyond Babylon.’
44
"Our ancestors had the tent of testimony in the desert just as the One who spoke to Moses directed him to make it according to the pattern he had seen.
45
Our ancestors who inherited it brought it with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out from before our ancestors, up to the time of David,
46
who found favor in the sight of God and asked that he might find a dwelling place for the house of Jacob.
47
But Solomon built a house for him.
48
Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says:
49
‘The heavens are my throne, the earth is my footstool. What kind of house can you build for me? says the Lord, or what is to be my resting place?
50
Did not my hand make all these things?’
51
“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always oppose the holy Spirit; you are just like your ancestors.
52
Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They put to death those who foretold the coming of the righteous one, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become.
53
You received the law as transmitted by angels, but you did not observe it.”

From my reading of this text, it would seem that Stephen is telling his judges that they can not confine or control God by trying to limit His authority.

Stephen was not addressing the Real Presence or any other aspect of the Eucharist, and I think that is the key to unerstanding this Chapter of Acts: Stephen is establishing the distinction between the new followers of Christ (and God’s New Covenant set upon the Gift of Christ to all people) and the old Jewish religion with its suffocating legalism that supplanted the love of God.

I hope this helps.

God bless

 

[NotWorthy]

I am not sure I would agree that it’s talking about purgatory, but that’s a discussion for another thread. It being literal to the parable doesn’t make sense either. Could any Protestant say that “this is my body” is literal only to the metaphor? Either it’s literal or it isn’t.

OK, we’ll drop the Purgatory theory for “lack of relevance” - agreed.
But the story is a parable of a man who owes money and is owed a much smaller amoung. This is an analogy of the debt that we owe Jesus and the wrongs that someone has done us. The man fails to forgive the debt of his servant, after receiving forgiveness from his Master. This, of course, is analogous of us forgiving those who wrong us, while being forgiven by Jesus of our sins. If we fail to forgive those who sin against us, we will not be forgiven by Jesus. Since the whole context of the parable is monetary debt, but its pointing toward our forgiving those who wrong us, the pennies are literal to the story, but figurative to the teaching on forgiveness.

Hence, in saying, “Amen, Amen, he will be thrust into prison until he has paid the last penny” Jesus is stressing that “Amen, Amen, we had better forgive our brothers and sisters or the trivial things they do to us in order to be forgiven of the immeasurable debt that we owe Jesus”.

I am not saying that you said Christ’s sacrifice was not necessary, I am saying that you seemed to imply that the Eucharist could take place before, during, or after the Crucifixion, which didn’t make sense to me.

I’m really not concerned whether it makes sense to you or not. Whether its a mystery or not, its the teaching of the Church. I believed this teaching when I didn’t understand it. And I still believe this teaching, as I only partially understand it.

My comprehension (or lack thereof) does not deter my belief in it.

Alright, I’m willing to accept I was wrong about my theory, however, what then is the purpose the verse? “God does not dwell in temples made of human hands”? What is it saying?

I’m with you on this. I don’t understand this verse at all, for God certainly did dwell amongst His People in the wilderness because He so desired to.

Maybe Stephen is adressing the Jews idea that God ONLY dwelt in the Temple in Jerusalem. Combine Stephen’s words with Jesus’ to the woman at the Well, “your people used to worship God on this mountain, soon all people will worship God everywhere” (paraphrasing). The Jews in 30AD certainly felt that God was an exclusive “property” (for lack of a better word) of theirs and had failed to take part in the Covenant of Abraham where his descendants would be a blessing to all the nations.

Perhaps this has been discussed earlier in this thread, as I remember a discussion about this, but can’t find it. However, reading this in the context of the verses that come before it, it seems Paul is talking about the fact that many were partaking in the Lord’s Supper as if it were a common feast, where, “one is hungry, another drunk,”, and some were being left out while other were filling their bellies. Paul even concludes with verses 33 and 34 talking about waiting for others and and eating at home, nothing about the Real Presence.

I think that’s a different part of Corinthians. At these words of consecration, Paul is relating them in contrast to the Jewish Sacrifices.

Isn’t the Eucharist supposed to be a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice? That’s the definition I’ve always herd used, though correct me if I’m wrong.

Yes, but go over CM’s quote one more time - he’s referring to the Last Supper which could only be a “Pre-presentation” not a “re-Presentation”, because Calgary hadn’t happened yet.

This IS on topic. He was claiming that any statement that starts with Amen must be taken literally, such as Amen, this is my body, this is my blood, etc. I was showing that that was wrong.

Hopefully, I’ve addressed that at the beginning of this post.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sinner06,

Maybe this is a matter of interpretation, but…

This IS on topic. He was claiming that any statement that starts with Amen must be taken literally, such as Amen, this is my body, this is my blood, etc. I was showing that that was wrong.

I understood it to mean that statements made by Christ that had “Amen” in it were to be taken very seriously. There may be an anology in this - but, the meaning is serious. To the best of my knowledge, there is no money changing hands (and in pennies, at that! ) about paying our debt to God for sin (the point of the story to begin with).

John 6 is the foundation for our understading of the Eurhcarist. The critical issue, in my opinon, is that the Jews DID understand the staements of Christ - and THEN rejected Him as the Son of God and as one requiring them to eat His Flesh. They walked away with their “Hard saying” statement - even after witnessing other miracles. For some reason, you just don’t hear them saying someting like, “This mela of loaves and fishes - is a hard meal - who can digest it?!!” Nope - they ate their fill … and then show up the next day looking for another free meal.

If, in John 6, Christ had only said ONCE that we must eat His Flesh - I can udnerstand a problem with an analogy being misunderstood. But, you just don’t see Christ keep on repeating that He is the Vine - over and over and over again. You don’t see Christ repeating that He is the Gate - over and over again - and that your salvation hinges (forgive the pun) on this Gate analogy. Nope. There is a real difference between the teaching in John 6 and every other teaching of Christ. This difference just can not be ignored.

God bless

 

[NotWorthy]

If, in John 6, Christ had only said ONCE that we must eat His Flesh - I can udnerstand a problem with an analogy being misunderstood. But, you just don’t see Christ keep on repeating that He is the Vine - over and over and over again. You don’t see Christ repeating that He is the Gate - over and over again - and that your salvation hinges (forgive the pun) on this Gate analogy. Nope. There is a real difference between the teaching in John 6 and every other teaching of Christ. This difference just can not be ignored.

God bless

Exactly!! And why did he not repeat the vine and the gatekeeper over and over again? Because His words were clear to all listening. I mean, how many times has someone stopped and asked you, “What did Jesus mean by the vine or the gatekeeper?”

The Vine is clear, because all the leaves of a plant get their nourishment from the vine. Cut a flower from the vine and it wilts and dies. This is clear to an agrarian society such as the ancient Jews.

The gateway is the only entrance into a building or livestock area. One must go through it to enter the pen. Again, very clear.

With John 6, the Jews knew that Jesus couldn’t be saying what they thought he was saying. So Jesus says it again, in an attempt to let them know He is serious. Then he repeats it again with an “Amen, Amen”. Then He even gets more graphic with his language, using a more feral meaning of “eat My Flesh” - one in which it indicates chomping on His bones and such. Jesus was trying to make the Jews understand that there was no wiggle room in His words.

 

[Mickey]

Alright, I’m willing to accept I was wrong about my theory, however, what then is the purpose the verse? “God does not dwell in temples made of human hands”? What is it saying?

I’ll take a crack at it.

God dwells in the heart–or as the Eastern Church says–the nous (mind in the heart). This is not something made of human hands.

 

[sinner06]

I think that’s a different part of Corinthians. At these words of consecration, Paul is relating them in contrast to the Jewish Sacrifices.

No, it’s the same chapter. The whole lord’s supper talk begins with Paul talking about one going hungry, another being drunk, and the whole discussion ends with Paul telling people to eat before they get there.

On a separate note, I think that John 6 is the key to this whole discussion. The only way I think we can proceed is to go through John 6 line by line (omitting, obviously, the loaves and the fish and the walking on water) and discuss why you believe it to be literal and why I believe it to be metaphorical. I think that, for me at least, its going to be much harder to articulate something this specific over the internet than if we were meeting in person, and that this is going to require much patience on both sides, but I think by the end of this discussion we will have gotten to the root of this once and for all. This conversation seems like it may single handedly determine whether or not I remain Catholic.

The first thing I would like to point out is that the bread of life discourse appears only once in the Bible, in the book of John. If it was as key to Christian teaching as the Church teaches, you would think it would be mentioned in all the of the Gospels. The does not prove anything, I simply find it interesting. Instead, it is only mentioned in John, the most abstract, symbolic, and metaphorical of the Gospels. Any thoughts?

 

[NotWorthy]

The first thing I would like to point out is that the bread of life discourse appears only once in the Bible, in the book of John. If it was as key to Christian teaching as the Church teaches, you would think it would be mentioned in all the of the Gospels. The does not prove anything, I simply find it interesting. Instead, it is only mentioned in John, the most abstract, symbolic, and metaphorical of the Gospels. Any thoughts?

I"ve heard some talks about this before. John’s Gospel, written several decades after the synoptics, meant to deal with things the Church was having to address - one of which was gnostics. That’s why you see all the “I AM” statements in John that you don’t find elsewhere. I mean, he didn’t have to simply give another synoptic Gospel, now did he?

But in any event, the Bread of Life discourse addresses certain issues on what exactly is the Eucharist. I’ll see if I can find my notes on this topic.

BTW, I’ll address the rest of your post later when I have more time.

 

[Th0t]

First, a little background on the Passover meal. During the meal, four cups of wine are passed around and everyone in attendance drinks from each of these four cups. So, keep that in mind…four cups of wine.
…
Now, let’s look at Luke 22:17-20, “And He took a cup, and when He had given thanks He said, ‘Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.’ And He took bread, and when He had given thanks He broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is My body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.’ And likewise the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’”

What do we see from Luke? We have a better picture of the order in which things were said and done at the Last Supper than we have in either Mark or Matthew, don’t we? We actually see that Jesus said, “I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine,” after the second cup of wine. (We know it was the 2nd cup because in the Passover Meal, you drink the 2nd cup before the bread is eaten, and then you drink the 3rd cup at the end of the meal - which is exactly how Luke describes it.)

Then, after supper, the third cup of wine, the Cup of Blessing it is called, was the cup that Jesus said was being poured out as a new covenant in His blood. So, it wasn’t the cup of wine that had been turned into His blood that Jesus spoke of when He said He will not drink again of the fruit of the vine, it was the 2nd cup that he said those words about. So, your interpretation of this passage is an uninformed interpretation, and it is an interpretation that causes Scripture to contradict itself. Which we know can’t happen, therefore, your interpretation must be wrong.
…
And doesn’t Jesus refer to Himself as the TRUE vine at the Last Supper (John 15:1)? So, when He said the words “this” fruit of the vine, would He not then be referring to His blood, if He indeed is the true vine? In other words, your fallible interpretation of this verse is just that…a fallible interpretation.
…
Now, regarding Paul and the passage from 1 Cor 11:26-28. His use of the word “bread,” you claim, makes Catholic teaching null and void. But, what about His use of the term “body” and the term “blood”? Does that not then make your claim null and void? How can someone be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord, if it isn’t the body and blood of the Lord? And, furthermore, how can one discern the body of the Lord, if it isn’t the body of the Lord? How can you discern something that isn’t there?

The fact of the matter is, that after the consecration of the bread and the wine, they still appear to be bread and wine. Therefore, it is not stretching the bounds of reason to believe that Paul would refer to them as such while also then referring to them as the body and blood of the Lord, to reiterate to folks that what they see as bread and wine, are actually the body and blood of the Lord.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that when Jesus says, “This is My body,” I say, “Yes, Lord, I believe you.” You say, “No, Lord, it’s not.”

And, when you throw in the passages from John 6:51 and following, where Jesus repeats Himself as He does like nowhere else in the Gospels, that we must eat His Body and drink His blood, and that His body and blood are real food and real drink…well, that is pretty much Katy barred the door, from a scriptural perspective. And that isn’t even getting into the witness of the early Church regarding this.

Sorry, but, again, yours is merely a fallible interpretation which is not supported by Scripture when looked at as a whole, and which is not supported by the witness of the early Christians, and which is not supported by the witness of the Church.

One question: Look at John 6:51. The bread which Jesus is talking about giving us to eat, is the flesh that He will give for the life of the world, right? When did He give His flesh for the life of the world? On the cross, right? So, if Jesus is speaking symbolically in John 6 - He wants us to eat His symbolic flesh and drink His symbolic blood, then it seems He must have given us only symbolic flesh on the cross, and it must have only been symbolic blood shed on the cross, right? I mean, He’s talking about giving us to eat His flesh that He will give for the life of the world. If, therefore, He’s talking about giving us His symbolic flesh to eat, then it must have only been His symbolic flesh hanging on the cross, not the real thing…right?

~ John Martignoni

"Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord." ~ C.S. Lewis

 

[Cinette]

I came across this thread and wanted to subscribe but am having problems with the mechanism of the different functions. So I am posting to ensure that I am subscribed. I have yet to read all the postings.

Cinette

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cinette,

Looks like you are on…

I came across this thread and wanted to subscribe but am having problems with the mechanism of the different functions. So I am posting to ensure that I am subscribed. I have yet to read all the postings.

Cinette

Looking forward to reading your posts.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Th0t,

I must confess … I am really quite ignorant of the actual rituals of Passover and how they are sequenced. Is there a link where I can read about Passover specifically how it realates to the Institution of the Holy Eucharist?

First, a little background on the Passover meal. During the meal, four cups of wine are passed around and everyone in attendance drinks from each of these four cups. So, keep that in mind…four cups of wine.

To be honest, I have never really given it much thought… whatever the number of cups of wine - Christ consecrated it and He held His Own Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity in His Own Hands - and then passed it around to the Apostles.

It is now time for me to expand my Faith and find out more about what Christ did and to have a better understanding of the context in which He did It. So, any link that can be provided will be deeply appreciated.

God bless,

 

[sinner06]

emphasis added

So, your interpretation of this passage is an uninformed interpretation, and it is an interpretation that causes Scripture to contradict itself. Which we know can’t happen, therefore, your interpretation must be wrong…

In other words, your fallible interpretation of this verse is just that…a fallible interpretation…
…
Now, regarding Paul and the passage from 1 Cor 11:26-28. His use of the word “bread,” you claim, makes Catholic teaching null and void. But, what about His use of the term “body” and the term “blood”? Does that not then make your claim null and void? …

Sorry, but, again, yours is merely a fallible interpretation which is not supported by Scripture when looked at as a whole, and which is not supported by the witness of the early Christians, and which is not supported by the witness of the Church.

~ John Martignoni

"Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord." ~ C.S. Lewis

I don’t have much time, I’m waiting to get back into this discussion until I know I have a lot of time on my hands, but I was just wondering if you were saying I was actually claiming these things? You keep talking about my interpretation and what I said. I don’t remember saying anything about the fruit of the vine or any if the other things you said. If you were talking to someone else, my apologies.

 

[Th0t]

Ralphy, I copied and pasted something from www.biblechristiansociety.com from John Martignoni regarding the Eucharist.
Didn’t really think about changing the YOUR INTERPRETATION part. My apologies. Wasn’t referred to you. But was something to read and ponder from the fruit of the vine to what Jesus said at the Last Supper in the upper room.

Tqualey,
I too am sometimes ignorant of my faith, which is why I want to learn more about it and defend my faith and my mother Church. You are not alone in this. I read this from John Martignoni’s apologetics website and haven’t really looked myself the tradition of the Passover. If I find a website I will link you to it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Th0t,

Thanks!

Tqualey, I too am sometimes ignorant of my faith, which is why I want to learn more about it and defend my faith and my mother Church. You are not alone in this. I read this from John Martignoni’s apologetics website and haven’t really looked myself the tradition of the Passover. If I find a website I will link you to it.

 

[Th0t]

newadvent.org/cathen/11512b.htm

catholic.org/diocese/diocese_story.php?id=19145 - little example, doesn’t really explain much though

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sinner06,

When you get more time … just what was it you were saying? Please explain in some detail - I am having a hard time reading between the lines in some of the other posts. Guess I am just getting old!

Thanks

God bless

emphasis added I don’t have much time, I’m waiting to get back into this discussion until I know I have a lot of time on my hands, but I was just wondering if you were saying I was actually claiming these things? You keep talking about my interpretation and what I said. I don’t remember saying anything about the fruit of the vine or any if the other things you said. If you were talking to someone else, my apologies.

 

[sinner06]

Hi, Sinner06,

When you get more time … just what was it you were saying? Please explain in some detail - I am having a hard time reading between the lines in some of the other posts. Guess I am just getting old!

Thanks

God bless

Sorry, I got into some other threads and this one got shoved off to the side. I only have a minute right now, but I’ll post more on this soon, I promise. Thanks in advance for your patience.

 

[sinner06]

All right I’m back, sorry everyone and thanks for your patience, I’ve been putting this off because I posted on some other threads when I wasn’t feeling well and made a complete idiot out of myself, pretty much destroyed any credibility I may have had, and this particular subject is important to me, so I’ve been trying to wait till I my mind was 100% ready to tackle this.

First off, in verses 26-50, Jesus talks about the manna, which was a huge deal for the Jews, seeing as it was the only thing keeping their ancestors alive in the desert. He then talks about working for food that doesn’t perish, spiritual bread. Nothing about eating His body here, so far the Protestant interpretation seems to be good.

Then in verse 51, the whole thing about eating His body starts, and continues through verse 59. He talks about eating His flesh, and drinking His blood. In verse 55, He says, “for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink”. I think He is comparing this spiritual food with the food that the Israelites ate in the desert, which is what He wraps up with in verse 58, “This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” However, I don’t see anything that indicates He was not talking metaphorically. Another thing I think is important is that this happens shortly after the multiplication of the loaves, and in fact, from verses 22-24, this seems to be the same crowd, them having looked for Him and found Him in Capernaum. He started this whole thing off in verses 26 by saying, "Jesus answered them and said, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 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.’ " I think this sums up the whole point of this discussion. They didn’t come looking for Him because He performed a miracle, they came looking for Him because He gave them food! He then talks about not working for food that perishes, but working for food He will give them. I think the reason He uses this metaphor is because they were obsessed with filling their bellies, and He wanted them to be thinking about spiritual matters. Eating spiritual food, not physical food. That’s my take on it anyway.

There is, however, one very important thing I want to mention. Verse 53 says, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you” You must eat the body and drink the blood in order to have life. However, the Catholic Church says to only partake in the Eucharist if you are in a state of grace, i.e. you already have life within you. This is for me, the biggest problem with the Catholic interpretation. You must have life within you in order to partake in the Eucharist, but you won’t have life within you until you partake in the Eucharist. This seems flawed, though point out my error if you see it. Thanks and God bless!

 

[NotWorthy]

All right I’m back, sorry everyone and thanks for your patience, I’ve been putting this off because I posted on some other threads when I wasn’t feeling well and made a complete idiot out of myself, pretty much destroyed any credibility I may have had, and this particular subject is important to me, so I’ve been trying to wait till I my mind was 100% ready to tackle this.

First off, in verses 26-50, Jesus talks about the manna, which was a huge deal for the Jews, seeing as it was the only thing keeping their ancestors alive in the desert. He then talks about working for food that doesn’t perish, spiritual bread. Nothing about eating His body here, so far the Protestant interpretation seems to be good.

Then in verse 51, the whole thing about eating His body starts, and continues through verse 59. He talks about eating His flesh, and drinking His blood. In verse 55, He says, “for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink”. I think He is comparing this spiritual food with the food that the Israelites ate in the desert, which is what He wraps up with in verse 58, “This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” However, I don’t see anything that indicates He was not talking metaphorically. Another thing I think is important is that this happens shortly after the multiplication of the loaves, and in fact, from verses 22-24, this seems to be the same crowd, them having looked for Him and found Him in Capernaum. He started this whole thing off in verses 26 by saying, "Jesus answered them and said, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 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.’ " I think this sums up the whole point of this discussion. They didn’t come looking for Him because He performed a miracle, they came looking for Him because He gave them food! He then talks about not working for food that perishes, but working for food He will give them. I think the reason He uses this metaphor is because they were obsessed with filling their bellies, and He wanted them to be thinking about spiritual matters. Eating spiritual food, not physical food. That’s my take on it anyway.

There is, however, one very important thing I want to mention. Verse 53 says, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you” You must eat the body and drink the blood in order to have life. However, the Catholic Church says to only partake in the Eucharist if you are in a state of grace, i.e. you already have life within you. This is for me, the biggest problem with the Catholic interpretation. You must have life within you in order to partake in the Eucharist, but you won’t have life within you until you partake in the Eucharist. This seems flawed, though point out my error if you see it. Thanks and God bless!

You’ll have to ask St. Paul about that, for in 1 Corinthians, chapter 11, is where we learn that.

The way it works is, you are full of Grace during your first communion. But if you fall into mortal sin, then you need to return to this state of Grace before you can receive it again (i.e. through the Sacrament of Penance).