I Need Help Defending The Eucharist

[infinitelord1]

After showing a Protestant friend of mine the Teachings of the Early Apostles along with John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11...my Protestant friend responded with the Following...

Eucharist...1.When Jesus took bread and fruit of the vine, gave these objects to the disciples, and said, “this is my body . . .this is my blood” (Mt. 26:26-28), he quite obviously was not speaking literally, for he still possessed his literal body and blood! Moreover, at the same time, Christ specifically identified the drink as “this fruit of the vine” (v. 29). The nature of the substance had not changed.

And when He had taken some bread and 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 in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. (Luke 22:19-20)
This saying, or something similar to it, is given in three of the four gospels and in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.2 In all accounts, Jesus is quoted as saying, "this is My body" referring to the unleavened bread and "this is My blood of the covenant" referring to the cup. However, it is obvious that from the situation that these words were not meant to be taken literally. How could Jesus, still present in His own body, say that bread and wine were His body and blood? Jesus told them to commemorate His sacrifice and New Covenant by using the bread and wine as symbols of His body and blood.


I think I was able to clear up this part by explaining the following (which I found in another source)...

"Do this in remembrance (Gr. anamnasin) of me" is better translated "Offer this as my memorial sacrifice."
Anamnesis ("remembrance") has sacrificial overtones. It occurs only eight times in the NT and the Greek OT. All but once (Wisdom 16:6) it is in a sacrificial context (Hebrews 10:3, Leviticus 24:7, Numbers 10:10 and Psalm 38 [39] and 70 [70]). In these cases the term anamnesis can be translated as "memorial portion," "memorial offering," or "memorial sacrifice." Thus in the remaining two occurrences of anamnesis (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24), Christ’s words "Do this in remembrance of Me," can be translated as "Offer this for my memorial sacrifice." Given the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, there is little doubt this translation is appropriate.

--------------------------------------------------------------
This is how my Protestant Friend then responded....

Hebrews 10:10,14
And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

14For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

...once and for all...by a single offering... not repeatedly, over and over...

John 6:53-59...Jesus spoke in parables and metaphors throughout the bible...i believe this passages of scripture to be a hyperbole. Many scriptures refer to Him as the bread of life and Jesus would not ask us to drink His blood, it was against the law for one thing. Jesus wanted to cause a reaction by those scriptures and it did.

Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice, offering His body to pay for our sins...one time.

16"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16
This is what is required...believe in Him.


Even though I agree with the Catholic Teaching on The Eucharist due to much evidence...I have not been able to respond to what my Protestant friend says here.
Will you Please help? With Apologetics please.

Edited January 14, 2011 by infinitelord1

[Brother Adam]

Hebrews 10:10,14
And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

14For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

...once and for all...by a single offering... not repeatedly, over and over...

[color="#FF0000"]He seems under the impression that Catholics would disagree. We have no disagreement here. The same thing is repeated in our liturgy. If he thinks that we believe we are sacrificing Jesus over and over again, then the burden of proof is his. It would be best if he can provide a quote from the Catechism or another authoritative doctrinal teaching that Catholics re-sacrifice Christ over and over again. Jesus died once, for all, for all time. There is no other name by which we can be saved. In the Eucharist that same sacrifice is made present, eternally to us. It is best to see this passage in context, as it compares the old sacrifice of animals to the holy sacrifice of Jesus. [/color]

John 6:53-59...Jesus spoke in parables and metaphors throughout the bible...i believe this passages of scripture to be a hyperbole. Many scriptures refer to Him as the bread of life and Jesus would not ask us to drink His blood, it was against the law for one thing. Jesus wanted to cause a reaction by those scriptures and it did.

Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice, offering His body to pay for our sins...one time.

[color="#FF0000"]For what purpose did Jesus want to "cause a reaction"? Was it his purpose to drive the crowd away from him? That seems just plain mean spirited, especially if He is the Messiah. At best we could say Jesus "tricked them" following this line of thought. It is the worst kind of eisegesis (reading into scripture whatever you want to in order to prove your preconceived notions about scripture) and is common among fundamentalists. I know, I did the same thing because I had no sense of true biblical interpretive principles. There is no way, through proper exegesis that Jesus spoke in a hyperbole or symbolically only here. Even most Protestant scholars would laugh him out of their office. John 6 is deeply rich in meaning on many different levels. Jesus meant what he said, reinforcing it (Amen, Amen) over and over again. There is no question he was speaking literally that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood as a part of the new covenant which he established in the Upper Room and the Cross.[/color]

16"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16
This is what is required...believe in Him.

[color="#FF0000"]
Again, Catholics do not disagree. But believing in Jesus does not discount believing in the Eucharist. Jesus said it, we believe it. Ask him if we only have to believe in Jesus, if it is okay to reject the Father, or the Holy Spirit. If we can reject Jesus' words about the Eucharist, what else can we reject? Can we reject James when he said that faith without works is dead? Unfortunately your friends fundamentalist way of interpreting scripture has created a contradiction for him. He really should start reading texts on basic biblical interpretive principles. I can even recommend a few Protestant ones.
[/color]

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote]Hebrews 10:10,14
And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

14For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

...once and for all...by a single offering... not repeatedly, over and over...

[/quote]

Yes Christ's sacrifice was once for all. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a new sacrifice, but a perpetual offering of the One Sacrifice. Calvary is made present.

[quote]John 6:53-59...Jesus spoke in parables and metaphors throughout the bible...i believe this passages of scripture to be a hyperbole. Many scriptures refer to Him as the bread of life and Jesus would not ask us to drink His blood, it was against the law for one thing. Jesus wanted to cause a reaction by those scriptures and it did.
[/quote]

John Chapter 6 is not Jesus speaking in metaphors. Why do you think the majority of his followers couldn't understand his teaching, "how can this man give us his flesh to eat." John 6:66 they all leave him because the literal teaching is to hard for them to comprehend. They lacked faith in trusting in Jesus' word.



[quote]Jesus is quoted as saying, "this is My body" referring to the unleavened bread and "this is My blood of the covenant" referring to the cup. However, it is obvious that from the situation that these words were not meant to be taken literally.


[/quote]Jesus asks for faith in the Eucharist. Notice when they leave him in John 6:66, he doesn't say hey wait I was only meaning this in a metaphor you guys are misunderstanding me. NO. He turned to the twelve and asks "will you also go." It is very clear in John 6, Jesus is speaking literally.


Jesus is truth itself. When he said "This is my body", "This is my blood" It is exactly what he says. He is truth.

At Cana did he not change water into wine?! What makes one think he doesn't have the power to change wine into his very blood. He has power over creation he proved it in more then one occasion, "Walking on the water"...


[quote]Eucharist...1.When Jesus took bread and fruit of the vine, gave these objects to the disciples, and said, “this is my body . . .this is my blood” (Mt. 26:26-28), he quite obviously was not speaking literally, for he still possessed his literal body and blood! Moreover, at the same time, Christ specifically identified the drink as “this fruit of the vine” (v. 29). The nature of the substance had not changed.

[/quote]

Actually the substance did change once those words were spoken by Christ. And the "do this in remembrance of me" was him giving the power over to the disciples to his Church to carry on the one Sacrifice of Calvary to the end of time.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1295041273' post='2200119']
"this is my body . . .this is my blood" (Mt. 26:26-28), he quite obviously was not speaking literally, for he still possessed his literal body and blood! Moreover,
[/quote]

His physical body made from dust is rather limited in quantity, it could not provide for >2000 years of feeding all the faithful without some alteration to physics. And he did not diminish when he gave to the disciples, nor did he tear pieces off himself. Non of these things would be of any use. What he did was, he took bread and transformed it into the food of eternal life, from his real divine self, his divine body! So he was not referring to his physical substance or accidents, he is referring to his real substance of the [b]resurrected body[/b] and life giving blood which will bring us all to immortality.

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1295041273' post='2200119']
Christ specifically identified the drink as "this fruit of the vine" (v. 29). The nature of the substance had not changed.


[/quote]

The accidents or physical bread and wine remain to all physical tests! The Transubstantiation meant that the substance or what something significantly is, for example we and donkeys are both made from the same physical components, but we are substantially more than they are (I hope). A $1000 bill is substantially more than a $1 dollar bill even though they are physically made from the same things. Bread and wine is insignificant compared to the divine body and blood of Christ, therefore a substantial change has occurred. Consubstantiation is not possible, how can the significance of bread be compared to Jesus? It's like comparing infinity(Jesus) to a speck(b&w)!

Edited January 15, 2011 by Mark of the Cross

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1295056664' post='2200192']
His physical body made from dust is rather limited in quantity, it could not provide for >2000 years of feeding all the faithful without some alteration to physics. And he did not diminish when he gave to the disciples, nor did he tear pieces off himself. Non of these things would be of any use. What he did was, he took bread and transformed it into the food of eternal life, from his real divine self, his divine body! So he was not referring to his physical substance or accidents, he is referring to his real substance of the [b]resurrected body[/b] and life giving blood which will bring us all to immortality.



The accidents or physical bread and wine remain to all physical tests! The Transubstantiation meant that the substance or what something significantly is, for example we and donkeys are both made from the same physical components, but we are substantially more than they are (I hope). A $1000 bill is substantially more than a $1 dollar bill even though they are physically made from the same things. Bread and wine is insignificant compared to the divine body and blood of Christ, therefore a substantial change has occurred. Consubstantiation is not possible, how can the significance of bread be compared to Jesus? It's like comparing infinity(Jesus) to a speck(b&w)!
[/quote]

Could we relate the 2 fishes and 5 loaves of bread story to this concept?

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1295059696' post='2200200']
Could we relate the 2 fishes and 5 loaves of bread story to this concept?
[/quote]

sorry shouldnt have called it a concept

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1295059696' post='2200200']
Could we relate the 2 fishes and 5 loaves of bread story to this concept?
[/quote]
I'd think so. Doesn't the discussion of the Eucharist in John 6 come right after the multiplication of the loaves & fishes? Or am I misremembering?

I think others have given good answers here, so I won't add to it. I'll pray for you in your discussion, and for your friend, that his heart may be opened. God bless

[tinytherese]

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103sbs.asp


http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='tinytherese' timestamp='1295105282' post='2200336']
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103sbs.asp


http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
[/quote]

I really like the 2nd source you provided. Thanks for that.

[Socrates]

"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." ~ John 6:55

Nothing in there about "symbols" or "metaphors." All the talk about the Eucharist being a symbol is un-Biblical traditions of men.


Here's another good article answering protestant arguments against the Real Presence: "[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp"]Christ in the Eucharist[/url]"

Here's a couple lists of quotes from the Church Fathers and other early Christians on the topic:
"[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp"]The Real Presence[/url]"
"[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9002frs.asp"]The Eucharist is No Mere Symbol[/url]"

[infinitelord1]

I just wanted to say that after showing my Protestant friend all this stuff we have mentioned in this thread....it had no effect on the person and that person seems to want to stop talking about it. I can't think of any reason as to why someone would just ignore these truths. Other than Pride maybe. Or maybe just a poor comprehension of it all.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1295502764' post='2202088']
I just wanted to say that after showing my Protestant friend all this stuff we have mentioned in this thread....it had no effect on the person and that person seems to want to stop talking about it. I can't think of any reason as to why someone would just ignore these truths. Other than Pride maybe. Or maybe just a poor comprehension of it all.
[/quote]
Yes, I think it's pride, or at least it was for me. Well, and fear. Who wants to admit to being wrong? Who isn't a bit afraid that a "truth" they've held so dear might not be true? I know when I was a freshman in college, and I had a friend down the hall who was Catholic, I'd try coming up with arguments to disprove the Eucharist instead of admitting that I could be wrong. I was trying to convince myself that I was right, but it stayed in the back of my head, and I converted 4 years later. Ironically I started considering that I could be wrong after a Methodist minister spoke about that in a sermon, that we should be ready to admit that we could be wrong (I don't think he was speaking about theology, but it was still something that helped break through my pride).

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1295502764' post='2202088']
I just wanted to say that after showing my Protestant friend all this stuff we have mentioned in this thread....it had no effect on the person and that person seems to want to stop talking about it. I can't think of any reason as to why someone would just ignore these truths. Other than Pride maybe. Or maybe just a poor comprehension of it all.
[/quote]

People often go quiet when the facts against them are so strong that they realise that they must be wrong. It's happened to me!

[Papist]

We can look to the Old Testament for a prefiguring of the Eucharist.

Begin with the very first Passover meal. This meal was the key to the deliverance of the chosen people from their bondage. As the story goes, an un-blemished male lamb was chosen to be slaughtered for the Passover meal. The blood of the lamb was applied to the doorpost. All who participated in the Passover meal were required to eat the flesh of the lamb. Only this way would the firstborn of the family be spared from the angel of death.

Now come to the New Testament. The key reference to begin with is at John 6:48. Before He is done at verse 71, Christ mentions not once but four times that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to obtain eternal life. Many disciples decide to leave Christ at this point because they could not accept His teaching. Does our Lord call them all back and say to them that He really didn't mean what He said and He was only talking symbolically? No! He lets them go their way.

Jesus then goes on to challenge the Apostles. Simon Peter is the only one to speak saying "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." Did the Apostles understand the discourse that Jesus just finished giving? Probably not; but they accepted the teaching and believed in Him.

The fulfillment of Christ's command in John 6 to eat His body and drink His blood comes at the last supper (Passover) when He institutes the Eucharist with the words "this IS my body ..." and "this IS my blood ...". Here is where the first imperfect Passover from the Old Testament is perfectly fulfilled in the New Testament. The spotless male lamb is to be offered as a sacrifice to obtain our redemption from the bondage of sin. The flesh and blood of the lamb is consumed.

The words of our Lord are clear and the parallels with the Old Testament are undeniable. The Eucharist is truly the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. I'd ask your friend which will he do, walk away from Christ's teaching as many did in John's Gospel or accept as the Apostles did.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Papist