The Eucharist: Real Presence or symbol?

[Brian_Culliton]

Dokimas,

I think its important to understand what remembrance meant to the Jews of the time. Not just what it means today. The word translated as remembrance is the greek anamnesis. It has a similar meaning to the Hebrew word zikaron. In the Jewish understanding, zikaron meant much more than just a mental recollection. It meant a participation in a past event. When passover was celebrated it was not just a mental recollection. It made the exodus present to those celebrating it.

So when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me.” The apostle would have understood this as a zikaron. That the event would be made present to them. This is what happens in the Eucharist. Jesus’ sacrifice is made present.

This is not just a catholic interpretation of the word. With a quick google search, I was able to find this understanding of the word zikaron from the Jewish community.

Are you under the impression that the apostles knew what was about to take place? In other words, do you think they knew that Jesus was about to be crucified then resurrected and ascend into heaven?

If this is your impression, how do you explain the aposltles not believing the news that Jesus rose from the dead?

 

[twosweetgirls]

Personally, I think John 20 is almost as compelling as John 6.

Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John 20:24-25)Like the disciples who walk away in John 6:66, Thomas simply will not believe that which is not provable by the sense of sight and touch. Like so many non-Catholics who deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, upon being told that Christ has risen from the dead, Thomas demands tangible proof.

Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.” Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed. (John 20:24-29)How wonderful our Lord is! Jesus reveals himself to Thomas in a way which removes all doubt, but at the same time he confirms for all time how blessed we are if we have been given the gift of believing through the Holy Spirit. When we approach the altar to recieve the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, our human senses tell us that it is only a wafer of unleavened bread and a cup of common wine. How sad it is that like Thomas, some can only reason to be real that which can be tasted, touched, observed or measured by means of the flesh. Anyone who has heard Scott Hahn’s converstion story remembers his now famous exclamation upon attening Mass for the first time and seeing the Holy Eucharist…

***My God it’s you! It’s really you!!!" ***Wasn’t Scott Hahn like just like Thomas? Also consider Luke 24.

***While they were still speaking about this, he stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” But they were startled and terrified ***and thought that they were seeing a ghost. Then he said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do questions arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have.” And as he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While they were still incredulous for joy and were amazed, he asked them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of baked fish; he took it and ate it in front of them. (Luke 24:36-43)Jesus says to the desciples, “Peace be with you.” But instead of being at peace the disciples are startled. Far from being at peace, they are terrified. How does Jesus respond? How does Jesus put them at peace? Jesus tells the startled disciples to look at his hands and feet. Jesus tells the terrified disciples to touch his flesh and bones. Jesus asks them for food. Look and see… that it is really me. Touch my body… so that you know. Eat with me… and be at peace.

Look… Touch… Eat… for my flesh is true food… and be at peace.

How wonderful our Lord is!!!

“Do not be unbelieving, but believe.”

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aS-HcHLsBfs/THcprODoNiI/AAAAAAAAAKk/yLdb-uJPsA4/s320/thomas.jpg

-Tim-

What a beautiful post, Tim. It made my day; thank you!

 

[4thetruth]

And finally, Jesus Himself stated that the flesh profiteth nothing but it is the spirit that quickeneth.
It is not about physically consuming the Savior, but incorporating His spirit within you.

flyonthewall,

If Jesus’ flesh “profiteth nothing”, then Jesus incarnated for no reason, He died for no reason, and He rose from the dead for no reason.

The flesh in this context refers not to Christ’s flesh, but to mans inclination to think on a human level. We also see this use in John 8:15-16 “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” In this case, man’s human judgement, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable, but God’s judgement is always true. In John 6:63 we see this same use of “the flesh”. He is saying that His teaching cannot be understood by mere human thinking, but only through faith.

Jesus then goes on to say that there are some of you who don’t believe and in 6:65 he says. “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” Then many leave. They are still (correctly) taking Him literally. Jesus then says to the Twelve. 6:67 “Do you also want to leave?” and Peter says 6:68-69, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Even Peter is saying this is hard to believe, but I have faith in You so I will believe. And finally, we see that Judas did not believe.

Ironic isn’t it, here I’m providing human reasoning and stating it’s of no avail for your understandng.

4thetruth

 

[4thetruth]

Are you under the impression that the apostles knew what was about to take place? In other words, do you think they knew that Jesus was about to be crucified then resurrected and ascend into heaven?

If this is your impression, how do you explain the aposltles not believing the news that Jesus rose from the dead?

No, I’m not saying that at that time they completely understood what was about to take place, but that they would have understood the command to “Do this in remembrance of me.” not as just a memory, but as a zikaron. That the event would be made present to them, even if at the time they did not comletely understand.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
=Nicea325;7627243]Purgatory is not Hell. I asked for the document stating people will go straight to Hell,if they miss Mass?

God and God alone determines where each and one of us will spend eternity.

Actually friend; that is an incorrect statement. By virtue of our Minds, Intellects, FREEWILLS and Souls; itie WE; YOU AND ME; who decide where we want to spend Eternity. God SIMPLY AFFIRMS OUR PERSONAL CHOICES.

Ooops1 Sorry. Yes,I did convey the message incorrect. It is our own doing where we spend eternity,God simply affirms our choices.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyonthewall

And finally, Jesus Himself stated that the flesh profiteth nothing but it is the spirit that quickeneth.It is not about physically consuming the Savior, but incorporating His spirit within you.

Sorry,but you are dead wrong. Jesus did not say: MY FLESH profiteth nothing. He is not referring to His own flesh. You are not understanding the text.

 

[CMatt25]

Hi CMatt25, I find it rather amusing that people are following you around and bringing it up everywhere you go. We Catholics are annoying in that that way!

I won’t bug you about this again, but regarding what you said about not believing that anyone’s faith can be proclaimed for certain, well, St. Augustine also had a problem with this, before his conversion. He wrote about it in his autobiography called “Confessions.” He eventually got over it, obviously, and I hope that you do, too! Anyway, this will be my last post for awhile, since I’m giving up CAF for Lent, but bless you, and I wish you a joyful and fruitful Eastertide.

Denise, you had a long ways to go yet before bugging me. Thank you for your words to me here. God bless you as well. And I wish you and all here a fruitful blessed Lent and Eastertide as well. One filled with peace. And may our unity in Him be remembered as greater than any differences we might have. :grouphug:

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas,

I think its important to understand what remembrance meant to the Jews of the time. Not just what it means today. The word translated as remembrance is the greek anamnesis. It has a similar meaning to the Hebrew word zikaron. In the Jewish understanding, zikaron meant much more than just a mental recollection. It meant a participation in a past event. When passover was celebrated it was not just a mental recollection. It made the exodus present to those celebrating it.

So when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me.” The apostle would have understood this as a zikaron. That the event would be made present to them. This is what happens in the Eucharist. Jesus’ sacrifice is made present.

This is not just a catholic interpretation of the word. With a quick google search, I was able to find this understanding of the word zikaron from the Jewish community.

Good point.

It reminds me of Paul’s comment:

Col 1:24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church,

Galatians 6:17 From now on let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.

Could it be that Paul is showing us here what Jesus meant.

All the disciples suffered martyr’s death.

We 'remember best when we are a sacrifice for others, not for their sins because only Jesus could do that. Be a sacrifice so others will see Jesus in us.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas,

I think its important to understand what remembrance meant to the Jews of the time. Not just what it means today. The word translated as remembrance is the greek anamnesis. It has a similar meaning to the Hebrew word zikaron. In the Jewish understanding, zikaron meant much more than just a mental recollection. It meant a participation in a past event. When passover was celebrated it was not just a mental recollection. It made the exodus present to those celebrating it.

So when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me.” The apostle would have understood this as a zikaron. That the event would be made present to them. This is what happens in the Eucharist. Jesus’ sacrifice is made present.

This is not just a catholic interpretation of the word. With a quick google search, I was able to find this understanding of the word zikaron from the Jewish community.

364 αναμνησις anamnesis an-am’-nay-sis

from 363; TDNT-1:348,56; n f

AV-remembrance 3, remembrance again 1; 4

1. a remembering, recollection

I couldn’t find your understanding, but I thought it quite interesting and thought provoking.

 

[mississippiwild]

Hi Denise, I already know what Catholics believe so it was not the former but thanks! And I’m sorry for being unclear. But it actually was not exactly the latter either. As I know folks can be certain of what Church teachings are.

My point has always been more along the lines of we are talking about matters of faith and belief. You yourself speak of trust. You trust or have faith in the Catholic Church. I only want Catholics to admit that is what it is though. Faith and belief. Trust. Not absolute proven 100% certainty.

For starters It all begins with faith in God and then we move on to placing faith in NT writings, you for instance then have faith in Catholic Church interpretations of Scripture, in ECFs.

I myself have tons of faith. I look around and I believe in a Creator. I couldn’t live without having faith that this earth is not as good as it gets. And I personally place faith on the cross. I have faith and hope I will spend eternity with my Creator. I trust in His mercy and love. And in His undertanding of my heart. Only He knows. But I don’t go around clobbering ppl that I know for certain whatever detail or "t’ crossed or “i” dotted I might or might not believe in, is absolutely right. With a period. End of story. I hope at least I am humble enough in that regard.

But so many seem afraid to admit it is faith and instead have to think faith is somehow more than faith. Beliefs become certainty in their minds. And I know in their minds and hearts they truly believe their beliefs are the right ones. But I just want ppl to admit faith does not mean proven certainty. I might add btw it is not only Catholics who do this. I just concentrate on Catholicism here. If I were on another forum where the hosting faith thought their faith beliefs were beyond the definitions of faith and belief but 100% certainty, I’d be saying the same thing! Anyway peace on your faith walk always.

Faith… Yes, it takes Faith to be a Catholic, just like it takes faith to be a Mormon, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Hindu, or whatever. And sometimes, we do seem arrogant with our 2000 year history and our Liturgy and our Sacrements (7 - Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Holy Orders, Marriage, Annointing of Sick, Ordination) It says in Hebrews ch.11 “Faith is the Substance of things Hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” I could no more prove to a Non Catholic that a wafer of bread and a golden chalice filled with wine become the body and blood of Jesus than a Baptist Evangelist could prove to his audience that Jesus is the Messiah. It takes alot of faith to believe in anything. Thank you for pointing that out…

Tommy

P.S. By the way, the Catholic Church was not the first church to be formed, if by church you mean a congregation of believers… That honor and distinction goes to the Jewish Synagogue…

THE JEWISH SYNAGOGUE- EXISTING FOR OVER 2,600 YEARS!!!

 

[4thetruth]

364 αναμνησις anamnesis an-am’-nay-sis

from 363; TDNT-1:348,56; n f

AV-remembrance 3, remembrance again 1; 4

1. a remembering, recollection

I couldn’t find your understanding, but I thought it quite interesting and thought provoking.

Here is a link from a Jewish rabbi discussing zikaron.

webadmin.co.il/a/pop_printer_friendlyEN.asp?site=&msgid=10274

 

[Dokimas]

Here is a link from a Jewish rabbi discussing zikaron.

webadmin.co.il/a/pop_printer_friendlyEN.asp?site=&msgid=10274

Very interesting. Thank you.

“Remember to effect change” is exactly what happened with Paul. He went from persecuting Christians to being a Christian that was persecuted. Quite a change.

Remembering often one of the three most important events is human history should effect change in our lives. Wow.

 

[Defender1]

I believe the Eucharist, or Sacrament, as I call it, is very important, and yes, symbols can be sacred.
Animal Sacrifice was sacred. Not just anyone could do it and there were very specific laws governing it, yet it was a symbolic act.
Ritual cleansing was sacred, very specific laws governing it, yet it was a symbolic act.
The Passover was symbolic, yet was commanded by the Lord.

It does not matter what word was used for “eat” as it was a metaphoric use of it, which is in line with How Jesus taught and instructed His followers. Even with the word for “gnaw”, it brings to mind the act of scraping every last shred of meat off the bone, accentuating the obtaining of every last word of Christ and making it part of us.

We agree that eating was Jesus actually meant right? my point of the Greek word change is that Jesus was putting more emphasis on eating his body and blood .

 

[Defender1]

Rinnie, I might not know everything about truth but I know you have said the same before somewhere and I have given a reply about Judas and why people walked. So I won’t bother again now. But just regarding the keys. Don’t forget the other Apostles were given the power to bind and loosen too. And what is the function of keys? To bind and loosen! And the greatest is the one who is humble as a child. Alrighty I am now going for a burger

It was a symbol of leadership . Jesus in Matthew 16 was appointing Peter as the leader of the church on earth as he did in John 21. He did give authority to the other apostles . They were all a part of his church he was building on earth "You are peter and upon this rock I will build my church "(Matthew 16) He gave authority to all of them to hear and forgive sins as well:“Whos sins you forgive are forgiven them and sins you retain are retained .” (John20:23)Jesus gave authority to the first bishops of the church (apostles) and the first Pope(Peter) Peter also claims t be the chosen one in his 1st letter chapter 5:13 “The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting …” Babylon is code for Rome . My blog may help you better understand this .

www.defendingthefaith-frankie.blogspot.com
And to all the other Catholics
who allegedly are following this person ,just leave him alone let the others explain the faith to him .If you come off as harassing it does not support our case of "The good Catholic"now does it?

 

[CMatt25]

Faith… Yes, it takes Faith to be a Catholic, just like it takes faith to be a Mormon, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Hindu, or whatever. And sometimes, we do seem arrogant with our 2000 year history and our Liturgy and our Sacrements (7 - Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Holy Orders, Marriage, Annointing of Sick, Ordination) It says in Hebrews ch.11 “Faith is the Substance of things Hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” I could no more prove to a Non Catholic that a wafer of bread and a golden chalice filled with wine become the body and blood of Jesus than a Baptist Evangelist could prove to his audience that Jesus is the Messiah. It takes alot of faith to believe in anything. Thank you for pointing that out…

Tommy

P.S. By the way, the Catholic Church was not the first church to be formed, if by church you mean a congregation of believers… That honor and distinction goes to the Jewish Synagogue…

THE JEWISH SYNAGOGUE- EXISTING FOR OVER 2,600 YEARS!!!

Tommy, and I thank you. Peace.

 

[elvisman]

I have problems using John 6 to support a Real Presence in the sense of transubstantiation. If we give Jesus’ words their plain meaning it would seem to result in Sola Eucharist.

In verse 51 Jesus says if anyone eats this bread he will live forever.
Now if I understand Catholic teaching the elements actually become Jesus. So if anyone receives the Eucharist in a Catholic Church, that person really eats Jesus body. If we give Jesus’ words their plain meaning, that person will live forever, whether he is Christian or not, because he has eaten Jesus’ body. Jesus puts no qualifications on His statement here such as Paul does when he writes about receiving unworthily.

Going on, Jesus then says in verse that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood we have no life in us.

And that’s precisely why my friend John NC said that John 6 is better understood with the corresponding verses regarding the Last Supper and Paul’s warning in 1 Cor. 11.
Verse 29 explicitly says:
"For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly."

Pretty harsh words if it were just a symbol, wouldn’t you say? Jesus said that whoever ate this bread would live forever. However, as we read in 1 Cor., not all are worthy of partaking in the Eucharist.

I don’t think that the Catholic Church teaches that nobody can be saved without receiving the Eucharist or else it should be given to infants.

So we have one is saved if and only if he receives the Eucharist.

I know that God can save anyone He wants, but if someone is saved without receiving the Eucharist or is lost even if he has received, then Jesus’ statements here are not true.

Sure they are. You and others have stated on several threads that “ALL have sinned” yet, we can be sure that NOT all have. Babies, the severly retarded, Jesus . . .

Jesus was using inclusive language here in the same way that Paul does in Rom. 3 about ALL having sinned. They were speaking in general terms.

The criminal on the cross next to Jesus didn’t eat his flesh, yet he was saved. He came to the Truth in his final hours on the cross. He WOULD have been baptized and WOULD have received the Holy Eucharist. He wasn’t faking it on the cross or Jesus would have seen right through him.

 

[elvisman]

Let me ask you. Do you think v. 35 should be taken literally?

Jn.6
35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

Context, Richard . . . CONTEXT.

Jesus hadn’t spelled it out yet in verse 35.
**It wasn’t until verse 50 that he begins to speak more explicitly. **

The usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”, however, this is not the word used in these later passages. St. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, to munch or to gnaw - like an animal. Jesus was again using hyperbole as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was not speaking metaphorically. He** meant** what he said.**
Just as the Paschal Lamb was to be eaten, it is also true for the Lamb of God.

**In verse 60, his disciples said, *“This saying is hard; who can accept it?” ***
Did Jesus explain what he "really" meant? NO - he said: “Does this shock you?” He knew that some would not believe because they didn’t have true faith from the Father he spoke of in verse 65.

Vers 66 marks the only time in ALL of Scripture where Jesus followers left him for doctrinal reasons. Tell me - why didn’t Jesus explain this as a symbol - if it really WAS a symbol?

 

[joe370]

Hey Fly, from a purely sola scriptura perspective, can you give one reason why anyone should believe that the Apostles believed that the bread and wine only represented the body and blood of Christ?

They ate an actual tangible lamb that represented the savior. Just like the Apostles ate actual tangible bread and wine that represent the body and blood of Christ.
When Jesus handed the Apostles the bread and said: “this is my body”, that is the assignment of meaning. If it was literal, why did He give bread and not a literal piece of His flesh?
As I said before, the Jews were no strangers to symbolic representations and metaphoric language, so Jesus had no need to explicitly state: “I’m using metaphoric language now”

 

[joe370]

Fly, I was just wondering: how do you reconcile the once for all sacrifice of Christ on the cross (which all catholics believe) - with the prophecy of Jeremiah 33:18, that says the levitical priests shall offer sacrifice forever? The Catholic Church teaching that Jesus’ sacrifice is made present (not repeated) in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church seems the only way to reconcile them.

They ate an actual tangible lamb that represented the savior. Just like the Apostles ate actual tangible bread and wine that represent the body and blood of Christ.
When Jesus handed the Apostles the bread and said: “this is my body”, that is the assignment of meaning. If it was literal, why did He give bread and not a literal piece of His flesh?
As I said before, the Jews were no strangers to symbolic representations and metaphoric language, so Jesus had no need to explicitly state: “I’m using metaphoric language now”

 

[rinnie]

Faith… Yes, it takes Faith to be a Catholic, just like it takes faith to be a Mormon, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Hindu, or whatever. And sometimes, we do seem arrogant with our 2000 year history and our Liturgy and our Sacrements (7 - Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Holy Orders, Marriage, Annointing of Sick, Ordination) It says in Hebrews ch.11 “Faith is the Substance of things Hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” I could no more prove to a Non Catholic that a wafer of bread and a golden chalice filled with wine become the body and blood of Jesus than a Baptist Evangelist could prove to his audience that Jesus is the Messiah. It takes alot of faith to believe in anything. Thank you for pointing that out…

Tommy

P.S. By the way, the Catholic Church was not the first church to be formed, if by church you mean a congregation of believers… That honor and distinction goes to the Jewish Synagogue…

THE JEWISH SYNAGOGUE- EXISTING FOR OVER 2,600 YEARS!!!

Hold on there, if the Jewish Synagogue was the first Church it would have the O.T and the N.T correct? The first Church was started by Christ because it is through Christ that gives the CC life. The CC is the living Church being led by the Holy Spirit and saving us by the gift of God’s grace through the sacraments. Now my question is how could the Jewish synagogue save you without the Sacraments? So I have to say that the honor of the First Church that was started by Christ being built on the faith of St Peter was for sure not a Jewish Synagogue but for sure the CC.