The Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter schulze43
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

schulze43

Guest
I was wondering what you say to the argument of John 6 is not literal. People always say that just as Jesus compares Himself to a vine and was not serious that He was an actual vine that He is not serious that He is actually giving us His flesh to eat. I know that John 6 is totally true taken literally but what do you say to our non-Catholic brothers and sisters who do not think so???

thanks for any help on the subject:)
 
Off the top of my head, I’d say the main thing to point out is that it is clear that when Jesus described himself as a vine (or a door, for that matter) everyone knew he was using a figure of speech. How do we know this? Because nobody questions him about it or gets riled up. They knew what he meant was figurative.

John 6, by contrast shows the opposite. The people DID get riled up (even to the point of leaving him, including his disciples). This is because they knew he was NOT speaking figuratively, but literally and they thought he was nuts.

John 6 develops this quite nicely, with Jesus getting more and more explicit and graphic about until the end, when they leave him, in John 6:66. You see nothing like this in his metaphors about the vine or the door.
 
If you read John 6, it is abundantly clear that Jesus was being literal!

First, after repeating over & over that **“I am the bread of life.” (Jn 6:35 & 48), Jesus says;

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (Jn6:51**

If this is figurative, then the Crucifixion is also symbolic & not real, as all non Christians believe.

Finally John says; **“After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.” (Jn 6:66) **This is the only time in Sacred Scripture where disciples leave Jesus! If Jesus were speaking figuratively, He surely would have clarified, but He did not. Because He is teaching they must “eat his flesh”, in Aramaic the word used is chew or gnaw, there can be no confusion on this point.

**Then read what the early Church Fathers believed, they all believed in the real presence, without exception & many died a martyr’s death for that belief!
**
Even Martin Luther never doubted the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

"Martin Luther himself confirms that the early Church unanimously taught the Real Presence: (Luther wrote) 'of all fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expression as ‘it is simply bread and wine’ or ‘Christ’s body and blood are not present.’…Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side" Luther’s Works (St Louis Mo: Concordia Publishing 1961), vol 37, 54.(Fr Frank Chacon & Jim Burnam, in their Beginning Apologetics 1, p. 9)

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
.
 
thanks for the help guys:) that makes perfect sense, well obviously its the truth:) thanks you again:)
 
Also, when using a metaphor of the vine and branches, Jesus did not point to a vine and say “this vine is me.” But at the last supper, he did refer to the bread saying, “THIS is my body,” and of the wine, “THIS is my blood.”
 
Whe eating ones flesh or drinking ones blood is used figuratively in the Bible it means to betray them, to stab them in the back. That won’t fit this context.
 
What made me decide to return to Catholicism were Jesus’ words in the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel:

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

(John 6:53-55)

Mother Teressa of Calcuta once wisely said:

Once you see truth, you can’t *unsee *it!

In my case, I could not unsee those 12 simple words of Christ: “For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink.” My reason could not fathom how real food and real drink could be symbolic.
 
This thread is well dated; obviously anything I might add would be too late to be of any assistance. Nevertheless, I’d like to air my opinion to, as it were, and test it for weakness and strengths. Please feel free to point out inconsistencies with Church doctrine and good logic. I’ll layout my opinion in some detail leaving it to you to consolidate a gloss for easier consumption if need be.

There is a reason Protestants and Evangelist want John 6 to be taken figuratively. As I see it, Protestants see Scripture as the sole and infallible rule of faith. The Church on the other hand teaches the Magisterium of the Church holds that role. Nonetheless Protestantism has Scripture becoming a holy version of a how-to-book with the focus on ‘belief’. While Catholicism also includes elements of ‘to-believe’ it goes beyond a fiduciary faith, it also includes a ‘living faith,’ real and functional. Consequently for Catholics to-believe must facilitate a real and lasting life, beyond our current existence on earth, a life beyond those of shadowy euphemistic symbols. After all, shine a light on a shadow then measure it to tell me the length, breadth and depth.

In the synagogue at Nazareth Christ lays claim to His prophecy as Messianic King, in person, in his ‘real presence,’ ”And he began to say to them: This day is fulfilled this scripture in your ears.” (Luke 4:21). If you will read your book, you’ll see that Christ claims his universal Kingship in the New Solomon. “And behold more than Solomon here. The men of Ninive shall rise in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it; Because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold more than Jonas here.” (Luke 11:31); THE KING IS HERE is the proclamation, one greater than the Temple. (Matt 12:6). Lord over the Sabbath (Luke 6:5). The personification of Elias (Mat 12:6), He requires our faith based on His Divinity (John 6:29), “Jesus answered and said to them: “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” To glorify the Father he created a in their midst, the Law and the Prophets had been, He said, but a preparation (Luke 16:16; cf. Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 13:17; 21:43; 24:14; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:2, 60; 18:17).

The Old Testament tells us of the coming of the Kingdom in the Messianic age. The Kingdom is meant for the sanctification of the twelve tribes as well as the Gentiles. Even kings are to serve and obey (Psalm 21:28 sq.; 2:7-12; 116:1; Zechariah 9:10). It’s clear that a universal faith and common worship is implied, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared in the top of the mountains, and high above the hills: and people shall flow to it. And many nations shall come in haste, and say: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob: and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth out of Sion, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem.” (Micah 4:1-2) A unified worship, One worship under the authority who teaches and keeps the Divine Truth for all; “And it shall come to pass in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem: half of them to the east sea, and half of them to the last sea: they shall be in summer and in winter. And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day there shall be one Lord, and his name shall be one.“ (Zechariah 14:8)

Prophecies in the Old Testament tell of a future Kingdom holding the authority in the rule of the Messiah; Psalms 2 and 71; Isaiah 9:6 sq. We see that authority in the shepherd that leads his sheep between the fields of Divine Truth (Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24-28).

The Old Testament tells us of the coming of the Kingdom in the Messianic age. The Kingdom is meant for the sanctification of the twelve tribes as well as the Gentiles. Even kings are to serve and obey (Psalm 21:28 sq.; 2:7-12; 116:1; Zechariah 9:10). It’s clear that a universal faith and common worship is implied, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared in the top of the mountains, and high above the hills: and people shall flow to it. And many nations shall come in haste, and say: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob: and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth out of Sion, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem.” (Micah 4:1-2) A unified worship, One worship under the authority who teaches and keeps the Divine Truth for all; “And it shall come to pass in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem: half of them to the east sea, and half of them to the last sea: they shall be in summer and in winter. And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day there shall be one Lord, and his name shall be one. “(Zechariah 14:8)

-------------------Continued-------------------
 
Priestly ordinances held that only the High-priest could enter into the Holy of Holies on, and then only on the Day of Atonement. He offered incense, prayers (a spiritual sacrifice) and real sacrifices in the form of a physically perfect lamb. This ritual was performed for the high-priest as well as the people (Cf. Leviticus 16). Not of interest here, but never the less interest our study of the Blessed Virgin Mary; it seems that the high-priest can only marry a virgin. I’m of the opinion that beyond the sacrificial ritual, the high-priest’s main spiritual duty was to be, as it were, ‘the voice of God’ or to give people the knowledge of God through dreams and prophecy. At other times, scholars use the Hebrew term Urim and Thummim to describe another aspect of being, as it were, an intermediary between God and man. Urim literally means “light”, or “to give light”, and Thummim means “completeness”, “perfection”, or “innocence”. The sense is that the high-priest’s duty was to receive the Divine light knowledge of judgment that of the incorrupt and the corrupt; I take it to be a form of ‘Divine truth detection’ (my words). At the time of Christ this seems to have evolved into a fetish like oracle function divining the guilt or innocence; with which the Sanhedrin and the high-priest would eventually condemn itself finding guilt in a perfect priest.

Taking the seat of Moses, Christ now becomes the High Priest of that Kingdom of God, “The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.” (Psalm 109:4) And that priesthood is institutionalized in the Kingdom, “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:11). The priesthood in this Messianic Kingdom is a continuation of the priesthood in the Old Testament with continued sacrificial offerings; “Thus saith the Lord: if my covenant, with the day can be made void, and my covenant with the night, that there should not be day and night in their season" (Jeremiah 33:20) The importance of “God’s Kingdom” is that it is a direct connection with the Divine by which we are “ruled” by our faith and love of God. Taking that seat Christ becomes the perfect high-priest sacrificing the perfect sacrifice offering it up in the Kingdom of God, i.e. his Temple, the Church, with His own blood entering Heaven. (Cf. Hebrews 9)

One of the most important observances for the observing Jew then and now is the Pasch or Passover. It too was a commemoration or a remembrance of the blood that caused death to pass over the first born. Another commemoration was commanded by God and an elaborate sacrificial Law. (See Exodus 12, 13, etc.) This is a reference to the law of sacrifices, the Old Law, the Law of Moses. In Hebrews 10, Paul tells us that the blood of the goat or oxen cleansing, but not perfectly remitting sin. Obviously had the Jews possessed a perfect sacrifice there would have been no need for Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. However the Jew did understand that there is both a real and a spiritual power in the Sacrifice of the Meat and Blood. Moses’ sacrifice can’t remove sin because it is not a perfect sacrifice; rather ritualistic or symbolic, that is a sacrifice that leaves no sense of a “conscience of sin.” This would have been an offering did not please the pharisaic Jew. Christ offered himself (a Real Sacrifice) doing the will of God, fulfilling the prophecy of the sacrificial lamb. This sacrifice produces eternal life similar to the manna from God, but more still. Not a sacrifice simply feeds the belly or the intellect by one that removes totally the stain of sin. This sacrifice is so perfect it can never be repeated nor can it ever ceases, this is one in the same sacrifice of the Passion Christ, done for remittance of our sins and eternal life. It’s done in loving obedience of that continual perfect sacrifice, “do this,” He says, “in commemoration of me.” The Sacrament of Communion is a continuation of Moses’ sacrifice with a perfect lamb; The Real Sacrifice, the Real Presence of Christ. (Cf. St. John Chrysostom,Homily 17 on Hebrews)

The Jewish Sacred tradition of Passover celebrates the first born of every family who ceremoniously eats the flesh of the sacrificial lamb; a commemoration when death passed over the firstborn of Israel. Don’t you watch movies? Good grieve Charlie Brown, everybody our age has seen Charlton Heston’s, ‘The Ten Commandments’ – you should’ve seen it a dozen times since its’ release in 1956. What Got Yul Brynner, aka Rameses, so mad that he went chasing after Moses in a rage? Rameses’ son was killed by the curse he himself uttered. Moses saw it coming and the ‘BLOOD’ of the sacrificial lamb was ordered to be placed over the door header so the curse would ‘PASS OVER’. And I get this part of the story right without the use of a BOOK – who’d a thunk it! Since then, (no, not since 1956 -, since Moses) part of the commemoration of Passover was to sacrifice the lamb in a special feasts and customs. At the home, there was the custom of ‘Pesachim’ which included a search the house for leaven bread. The household was cleared of common bread (leavened) which represented a blotted, vainglorious and arrogant sinful nature. It was hung over a lamp to burn out the leaven (corruption). You might recall Paul’s words “Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened.” (1Cor 5: Judaism was steeped with metaphoric visions of leavened and unleavened bread that was culturally ingrained in the Jewish psyche, as it was Christ’s and the Twelve.

-------------------Continued-------------------
 
One of the many ecclesiastic feasts and ceremonies that take place over the many days of festival was on the Saturday before the day of the Pasch (fifteenth of the Jewish month). On day 14 day, the male members of the family met in the synagogue or in the Temple and a sacrifice a lamb, part of which, accompanied with the blood was carried home. The first born eat the flesh of the Lamb and the blood was ceremonially placed on the door jambs. This is a real sacrifice, as opposed to a spiritual sacrifice, signified by the presence of ‘blood’. We know this because in Jewish sacrificial costom the presence of blood related to the meat. The point being that this would have been much better understood, along with all the nuances of a multiple of images this would represent to a Jew; especially to the Pharisees. Now, re-read John 5 and 6 keeping these images in mind.

Most of John 5 regards other cleansing spiritual rituals however there is a sense of getting ready for Pesach (Passover) This period on Judaism yearly cycles is called Shalosh R’glim. The man in the pool that was told to get up and walk, efforts to get in the cleansing water are of particular importance in Judaism and Catholicism. But, what’s important to us is when Christ says to his Twelve; “If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me.” Notice that Christ appealed to the intellect of the Jews, not to their passions or heart (at least not here in Chapter 5). Maybe we can discuss it later. The question at the end of this chapter is pivotal for Christians, “But if you do not believe his writings (Moses), how will you believe my words?”

It’s a good question isn’t it? But much of that Jewish tradition in Catholicism has been lost over the past two millennia. Or, at the best, most of Moses’ tradition clouded in the passage of time. It’s important here because it’s this tradition that John 6 speaks to. S
The Kingdom, the Church; she feeds the belly, the intellect, the heart and the soul. The miracle of 5,000 isn’t as much about the souls saved that day, as it was the millions saved from a people made unleavened. Pasch was at hand, a Time of Atonement, a sacrificial lamb was required. This was to be a perfect sacrifice bleed then burnt on the God’s altar for atonement of sins. Later to be consumed by the first born of the Kingdom – among these 5,000 new adopted sons of God were a very special Twelve. Notice it is the men that are told to sit, notice that it is bread that is feed them – we’re not told but likely it was the commoner’s unleavened bread. Right out of the Jewish tradition of Seder.

What then are we to make of the Christ saying he was the ‘meat’? Why would Christ feed his bothers bread when we all know that man doesn’t live by bread alone? Why would he feed us a manna, especially one that had a 24 hour shelf life? – you may recall that when the manna fell from heaven, it needed to be collected, processed and cooked in short order, or it would spoil. What value is a food like that? Sounds like Twinkie food to me – a worthless cake surrounding a sweet pasty center, but of no real nutritional value. How long can such sustenance last? Christ reminds us that our “fathers ate manna in the desert, and are dead. (John 6:49). Sounds like all bun to me; can shortbread take a man through an eternity without a filling meat? The bread of a Divine knowledge is a worthless burger without the meat.

Christ tells these first-born of his Kingdom, ‘eat meat’. He’s definitely not playing to the chick Pharisee’s cows who want moo miracles. You can almost hear, ‘Punt the burger, and pass the Chikin”! [Sorry, I’m a sucker for corny jokes] Not, at all. Christ says Moses bread didn’t save; why? The bread of the intellect isn’t meat enough to last an eternity; intellectual word of God is only good for this world. Christ, however is telling us He’ll provide the beef, he says “I am that bread of life”. I am the meat that an eternal death will pass over, I am the meat of everlasting life, a flesh for the life of the world; a meat for the first-born of His Kingdom. The simple fact of the matter is that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” A sacrificial meat for the first born is given us all; death will pass over.

As Christ said, why labor “for the meat which perishes;” why not work for “that which endures unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you.” So where’s the beef? Christ tells us where, and flat out too, and it ain’t in Wonder bread, “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (Cf. John 6:26, 55). And how do we know this is a ‘real sacrifice’ and not a spiritual one of symbolic prayers?

Christ tells us, “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” The blood signifies a ‘real’ sacrifice, for the first born on Pasch. This is why we know it’s literal or a real meat and not symbolic; it’s the only food that consumes, bite by bite.

JoeT
 
I was wondering what you say to the argument of John 6 is not literal. People always say that just as Jesus compares Himself to a vine and was not serious that He was an actual vine that He is not serious that He is actually giving us His flesh to eat. I know that John 6 is totally true taken literally but what do you say to our non-Catholic brothers and sisters who do not think so???

thanks for any help on the subject:)
If you will notice Jesus compares Himself to the manna that the Jews forefathers ate in the dessert. This was bread from heaven literally and the Jews understood Jesus literally. But the OT manna was material and the Jews knew this also. Now it is clear that what Jesus had to say was hard for the people to accept, not only the Jews but Jesus’ own disciples. And many left Him. Now Jesus was a teacher and a teacher has the responsibility to ensure that his teaching is understood correctly. A math teacher will correct a student if they say 2+2=5. An English teacher will correct a student who uses bad grammer or mispells words. Jesus, as a teacher, has a greater responsibility for He is teachiing man’s salvation. If He allows the people to walk away knowing that they do not understand him correctly then He has a duty to stop them and to correct their misunderstanding. Now Jesus spoke in parables at times and at times He had to explain the parables to his disciples. But here as even His own disciples walk away He offers no explanation … other than to say, “My words are spirit…” And that is the explanation. You see Jesus was speaking literally but not materially as the Jews thought. He was speaking literally but spiritually. Protestants like to say that when Jesus says , “My words are spirit…” He is speaking figuratively. Since when is something spiritual figurative? Now, if Jesus was speaking figuratively as the protestants claim then forget about your salvation because Jesus just sinned by failing to correct the misunderstanding of the people. He violated His responsibilities as a teacher. As such He sinned. BUT… If Jesus did explain His teaching by saying his words were spiritual and, therefore, not material, then He did not sin. Jesus did not have to correctwhat He said was literal. The people understood Him correctly on that but the only correction needed was that He was speaking literally and spiritually not literally and materially.
 
Whe eating ones flesh or drinking ones blood is used figuratively in the Bible it means to betray them, to stab them in the back. That won’t fit this context.
that gets to the heart of the matter.

A non-literal interpretation of Jesus’ words would only confuse His audience even further.
 
Great thread!

I like semantics. I have noticed that Jesus prefaces some statements with “Truly, truly, I say to you…” Whenever He does this, He seems to be very direct and not speaking in parables. All of them are “dead serious.”

The only time a “truly, truly” statement contains a possible metaphor, it is one that we all recognize immediately: the sheep and the sheepfold.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…”
John 6:53-54 (RSV)
I think I’ll take Him seriously.

God bless us all,

Ruthie
 
I was wondering what you say to the argument of John 6 is not literal. People always say that just as Jesus compares Himself to a vine and was not serious that He was an actual vine that He is not serious that He is actually giving us His flesh to eat. I know that John 6 is totally true taken literally but what do you say to our non-Catholic brothers and sisters who do not think so???

thanks for any help on the subject:)
Fidelis is right, when Jesus compares Himself to a vine, that makes sense as a metaphor. It makes sense symbolically. But does giving his flesh to eat make any sense at all as a metaphor? No. His flesh? How can that be a metaphor? Since it makes no sense as a metaphor or symbol, it must be literal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top