The Eucharist

[Aloysius]

i love the Gospel according to St. John chapter 6, but everyone realizes that's not the only point in scripture right? If u wanna call that context into question, fine. But I'd like to see you try to call the context of St. Matt's, St. Luke's, St. (john) Mark, or St. Paul's last supper into question. John 6 is strong, but i'm willing to ignore it because He actually takes an object, a peice of bread, and says "This is my body" He actually takes an object, a cup of wine, and says "This is my blood" NOWHERE ELSE IN SCRIPTURES HAS GOD TAKEN AN OBJECT AND CALLED IT HIMSELF! he said 'i am the door' but never 'this door is me' Think about it, and u will know. St. Paul says anyone who eats the eucharist unworthily is in MORTAL sin (that is why some of you are dying) GUILTY of an offense against the BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD

Love of God,

of FatherSonandHolySpirit

may Mary magnify the love,

PEACE

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) The Real Presence was, sure. I affirm the Real Presence. I just reject transubstantiation.

(davejc29201) If you believe in the Real Presence, then how can you reject transubstantiation? I don't understand.

(Me) Luther taught that Christ was really, physically present within or under the bread and wine. Calvin taught that Christ is really present in a spiritual way (and eaten through union with Christ), but there is no physical change in the substance of the bread and wine.

(davejc29201 earlier) Another reason why Jesus couldn't have been speaking figuratively is because the figurative phase "to eat the flesh" or "drink the blood" was a phrase commonly used by the Jews during that time to mean "to betray and persecute" (for example, see Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Rev 17:6,16). For the listeners to understand Christ figuratively, they would have understood him to say, "He who betrays and persecutes me has eternal life." This interpretation, of course, reduces John chapter 6 to complete nonsense.

(Previous) Sure, these can be used in such a manner, but they also can in modern English. This is, then, no proof against my view, as the context (as you have well shown) makes the idiomatic interpretation you present untenable.

(davejc29201) Sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying here. It's late, and my mind isn't working so clearly. Could you please clarify? Thanks.

(Me) I have reposted what you said earlier in order to try to make my response more clear. Let's look back through the passages you cite:

Isaiah 49:26

I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh,

and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine.

Then all flesh shall know

that I am the Lord your Savior,

and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."

Micah 3:3

who eat the flesh of my people,

and flay their skin from off them,

and break their bones in pieces

and chop them up like meat in a pot,

like flesh in a cauldron.

Rev. 17:6, 16

6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.

When I saw her, I marveled greatly.

16 And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the prostitute. They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire,

What I mean is that I don't see how we can't have these kinds of "eat flesh" and "drink blood" idioms/analogies in English. We know very clearly how to tell whether or not an idiom is being used in English -- context. For instance, an annoyed "Uggh... you're driving me up the wall" is obviously different from an amazed remark to a new technological invention -- "He's driving that car right up the wall!" Likewise, because Jesus obviously doesn't have betrayal and so forth in view, there's no reason to expect that His words should be interpreted in that way.

[dUSt]

Luther taught that Christ was really, physically present within or under the bread and wine.  Calvin taught that Christ is really present in a spiritual way (and eaten through union with Christ), but there is no physical change in the substance of the bread and wine.

What's the difference if one follows the teachings of Luther or Calvin? Both are men. Both error. I don't understand why you place so much faith in Calvin's opinions. Was he granted special authority by God to speak the truth? If so, can I find this evidenced in the Bible?

What I mean is that I don't see how we can't have these kinds of "eat flesh" and "drink blood" idioms/analogies in English.  We know very clearly how to tell whether or not an idiom is being used in English -- context.  For instance, an annoyed "Uggh... you're driving me up the wall" is obviously different from an amazed remark to a new technological invention -- "He's driving that car right up the wall!"  Likewise, because Jesus obviously doesn't have betrayal and so forth in view, there's no reason to expect that His words should be interpreted in that way.

Why wouldn't we be able to have these idioms/analogies in English? I don't see your point. What does English have to do with the language Jesus spoke at the time?

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) Luther taught that Christ was really, physically present within or under the bread and wine. Calvin taught that Christ is really present in a spiritual way (and eaten through union with Christ), but there is no physical change in the substance of the bread and wine.

(dUSt) What's the difference if one follows the teachings of Luther or Calvin? Both are men. Both error. I don't understand why you place so much faith in Calvin's opinions. Was he granted special authority by God to speak the truth? If so, can I find this evidenced in the Bible?

(Me) I'm not pointing to them as an infallible rule of faith. I'm pointing to them as proof that historic Protestantism does not take a purely symbolic view of the sacraments.

(Previous) What I mean is that I don't see how we can't have these kinds of "eat flesh" and "drink blood" idioms/analogies in English. We know very clearly how to tell whether or not an idiom is being used in English -- context. For instance, an annoyed "Uggh... you're driving me up the wall" is obviously different from an amazed remark to a new technological invention -- "He's driving that car right up the wall!" Likewise, because Jesus obviously doesn't have betrayal and so forth in view, there's no reason to expect that His words should be interpreted in that way.

(dUSt) Why wouldn't we be able to have these idioms/analogies in English? I don't see your point. What does English have to do with the language Jesus spoke at the time?

(Me) "Why wouldn't we" -- I'm saying that we do, more or less.

"What does English have to do" -- I'm explaining one feature of idiomatic language, in that context determines usage. As I showed before, we know that "driving up the wall" is an idiom in some cases and not in others. Likewise, by examining the context, we can see whether or not Jesus was using a destructive idiom in John 6. Clearly He was not.

[Dave]

(Previous) The Real Presence was, sure. I affirm the Real Presence. I just reject transubstantiation.

(davejc29201) If you believe in the Real Presence, then how can you reject transubstantiation? I don't understand.

(Me) Luther taught that Christ was really, physically present within or under the bread and wine. Calvin taught that Christ is really present in a spiritual way (and eaten through union with Christ), but there is no physical change in the substance of the bread and wine.

Who are you going to trust, Luther and Calvin, who are mere men who separated themselves from God's Church, or Our Lord Jesus Christ? You said to dUSt that you were just trying to show that historical Protestantism doesn't take a purely symbolic view of the sacraments. That's irrelevant; you're still showing you're putting more trust in what Luther and Calvin taught than what Christ taught.

(davejc29201 earlier) Another reason why Jesus couldn't have been speaking figuratively is because the figurative phase "to eat the flesh" or "drink the blood" was a phrase commonly used by the Jews during that time to mean "to betray and persecute" (for example, see Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Rev 17:6,16). For the listeners to understand Christ figuratively, they would have understood him to say, "He who betrays and persecutes me has eternal life." This interpretation, of course, reduces John chapter 6 to complete nonsense.

(Previous) Sure, these can be used in such a manner, but they also can in modern English. This is, then, no proof against my view, as the context (as you have well shown) makes the idiomatic interpretation you present untenable.

(davejc29201) Sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying here. It's late, and my mind isn't working so clearly. Could you please clarify? Thanks.

(Me) I have reposted what you said earlier in order to try to make my response more clear. Let's look back through the passages you cite:

Isaiah 49:26

I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh,

and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine.

Then all flesh shall know

that I am the Lord your Savior,

and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."

Micah 3:3

who eat the flesh of my people,

and flay their skin from off them,

and break their bones in pieces

and chop them up like meat in a pot,

like flesh in a cauldron.

Rev. 17:6, 16

6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.

When I saw her, I marveled greatly.

16 And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the prostitute. They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire,

What I mean is that I don't see how we can't have these kinds of "eat flesh" and "drink blood" idioms/analogies in English. We know very clearly how to tell whether or not an idiom is being used in English -- context. For instance, an annoyed "Uggh... you're driving me up the wall" is obviously different from an amazed remark to a new technological invention -- "He's driving that car right up the wall!" Likewise, because Jesus obviously doesn't have betrayal and so forth in view, there's no reason to expect that His words should be interpreted in that way.

Doesn't matter about English. Jesus spoke ARAMAIC. In Aramaic, to eat one's flesh and drink one's blood in a figurative sense meant to slander and betray. Of course Jesus wasn't talking about betrayal. So if He was speaking figuratively, He wouldn't have used an expression meaning betrayal -- He would have chosen another expression. Thus, Jesus had to mean it literally. I'm sorry, but all that stuff about "driving up the wall" makes absolutely no sense.

Besides, if all Jesus meant was to believe in him, why did many of his disciples leave him (John 6:66)? These are people who had accepted everything so far. In verse 67, Jesus asks the twelve, "Do you also want to leave?" Peter’s reply in verse 68 implies that they might but, "to whom shall we go?" As stated earlier, this reply suggests that they had difficulty with this teaching. If all he meant was believing in him as the Messiah, why does Peter say in the next sentence (verse 69), "We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God." Peter’s belief in Jesus as the messiah was already solid which is evident in his reply. If Jesus’ message was simply to believe in him Peter should have no problem with it. But yet, Peter makes a statement suggesting that he would almost leave.

[ironmonk]

The Real Pressance is True, and it cannot happen without Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation to put simply the bread and wine becoming the body and blood and really being Christ's Body and Blood which is the apex of Christian life.

Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

Note it says "from the rising of the sun to its setting". There are Catholic Massess all over the world. 300,000 a day from my understanding. Each one offers that pure grain offering.

John 6:52

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (His) flesh to eat?"

65 And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."

66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

NOTHING is impossible with God.... Do you want to be counted with those that walked away.

NOTE: It is GRACE that saves us!!! "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."

I'm praying for you in my next Rosary.

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary

ironmonk

Edited August 2, 2003 by ironmonk

[dUSt]

I'm not pointing to them as an infallible rule of faith.  I'm pointing to them as proof that historic Protestantism does not take a purely symbolic view of the sacraments.

Okay... So we determined that historic Protestantism doesn't take a purely symbolic view of the sacraments. Modern day Protestantism, for the most part, does. Where has this gotten us? Why would I care about what the historic views of Protestantism are? How does this further my understanding of God?

[Anna]

How is it that when Jesus says, "Truly, truly," so many protestants claim that He is speaking figuratively?

When He took Bread and said "This is My Body." He didn't say this is My Body and also bread...That is consubstantiation. And that theory came well after transubstantiation was understood and believed.

Why would Jesus only partially convert the bread? He never partially healed the sick, partially cured the lame, gave partial sight to the blind...partially suffered on the Cross, nor partially rose from the dead...

He gives us His ALL in Holy Communion.

Pax Christi. <><

[LivinTabernacle]

y'all can figure out how i feel on this, but to explain in my friend's words...

"Well, there are two levels that make up an object, the accidents and the substance. The accidents are the appearance, taste, look and feel of an object, but the substance is what it really is.

For instance, if you take a chair it has accidents and substance. Say that you saw the chair in several places and then take those pieces of wood and reconfigure them with nails to make a coffee table. You've changed the accidents of the chair into a table, but the substance of the chair has not been changed, it's still made up of the "wood molecules". Make sense?

So, at Mass...

The accidents of the bread and wine do not change.

The substance of the bread and wine are altered into Christ's body and blood."

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) Luther taught that Christ was really, physically present within or under the bread and wine. Calvin taught that Christ is really present in a spiritual way (and eaten through union with Christ), but there is no physical change in the substance of the bread and wine.

(Dave) Who are you going to trust, Luther and Calvin, who are mere men who separated themselves from God's Church, or Our Lord Jesus Christ? You said to dUSt that you were just trying to show that historical Protestantism doesn't take a purely symbolic view of the sacraments. That's irrelevant; you're still showing you're putting more trust in what Luther and Calvin taught than what Christ taught.

(Me) I don't possibly see how I'm showing that my trust is in Luther and Calvin but not Christ. I'm responding to the claim that Protestantism affirms a purely symbolic view. Jesus did not deliver history lectures over the development of doctrine in Reformational Protestantism, so if I want to establish a claim about Reformational Protestantism, I need to point to something not explicitly taught by Jesus.

I also tend to find Paul's statements on the Real Presence much more compelling (against a purely symbolic view) than Christ's.

(Previous) I have reposted what you said earlier in order to try to make my response more clear. Let's look back through the passages you cite:

Isaiah 49:26

I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh,

and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine.

Then all flesh shall know

that I am the Lord your Savior,

and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."

Micah 3:3

who eat the flesh of my people,

and flay their skin from off them,

and break their bones in pieces

and chop them up like meat in a pot,

like flesh in a cauldron.

Rev. 17:6, 16

6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.

When I saw her, I marveled greatly.

16 And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the prostitute. They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire,

What I mean is that I don't see how we can't have these kinds of "eat flesh" and "drink blood" idioms/analogies in English. We know very clearly how to tell whether or not an idiom is being used in English -- context. For instance, an annoyed "Uggh... you're driving me up the wall" is obviously different from an amazed remark to a new technological invention -- "He's driving that car right up the wall!" Likewise, because Jesus obviously doesn't have betrayal and so forth in view, there's no reason to expect that His words should be interpreted in that way.

(Dave) Doesn't matter about English. Jesus spoke ARAMAIC.

(Me) English is a language, and Aramaic is a language. I can explain things about the Aramaic language by pointing to similarities with the English language. You are already familiar with the English language; therefore, I explain Aramaic by means of a parallel to English.

(Dave) In Aramaic, to eat one's flesh and drink one's blood in a figurative sense meant to slander and betray. Of course Jesus wasn't talking about betrayal. So if He was speaking figuratively, He wouldn't have used an expression meaning betrayal -- He would have chosen another expression. Thus, Jesus had to mean it literally.

(Me) Now, none of the OT cites you listed even came close to establishing your claim about Jewish idioms (also, keep in mind that if you have a problem with language shifts, you cannot use these OT examples, because you say that Jesus spoke Aramaic, while these parts of the OT were not written in Aramaic; therefore, by your standard, they would be irrelevant!). However, let's suppose that I grant that sometimes this can be a Jewish idiom for betrayal, etc. However, that does not mean that every time it is used figuratively, it must be used to refer to betrayal!! For, one phrase or term may have an entirely different meaning when placed in a different context. Likewise, even if it sometimes is an idiom for betrayal (which you have not effectively demonstrated), there may also be other times in which it can be used metaphorically for something else! Therefore, your argument does not follow.

(Dave) Besides, if all Jesus meant was to believe in him, why did many of his disciples leave him (John 6:66)?

(Me) Because He taught such a high Christology -- they needed Him for their salvation. They could not understand their dependence upon Him, His primacy, the requirement of the Father's granting, etc.

(Dave) If Jesus’ message was simply to believe in him Peter should have no problem with it. But yet, Peter makes a statement suggesting that he would almost leave.

(Me) Jesus' message requires us to partake of the redemption He accomplished through faith. I would imagine that the Roman Catholic Church agrees with that. His message was not just "have faith" (I have never claimed as much). Rather, His message was that we must follow Him, and feed on the redemption found in the Lamb who was slain.

[mustbenothing]

(ironmonk) The Real Pressance is True, and it cannot happen without Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation to put simply the bread and wine becoming the body and blood and really being Christ's Body and Blood which is the apex of Christian life.

(Me) Please don't just assert your point. How is it that Christ cannot be really present if transubstantiation is false?

(ironmonk) Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

Note it says "from the rising of the sun to its setting". There are Catholic Massess all over the world. 300,000 a day from my understanding. Each one offers that pure grain offering.

(Me) The New Testament seems to paint Communion as more of a receiving of God's blessings than an offering or sacrifice we make.

(ironmonk) I'm praying for you in my next Rosary.

(Me) Thanks.

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) I'm not pointing to them as an infallible rule of faith. I'm pointing to them as proof that historic Protestantism does not take a purely symbolic view of the sacraments.

(dUSt) Okay... So we determined that historic Protestantism doesn't take a purely symbolic view of the sacraments. Modern day Protestantism, for the most part, does. Where has this gotten us? Why would I care about what the historic views of Protestantism are? How does this further my understanding of God?

(Me) I'm mostly defending myself from an attack made upon me, so don't ask me where this gets us -- ask the person who made the statements to which I responded

The most immediately obvious point would be that, if transubstantiation is false, Adoration is idolatry.

(Anna) When He took Bread and said "This is My Body." He didn't say this is My Body and also bread...

(Me) But He did call it wine (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18)

(Anna) That is consubstantiation. And that theory came well after transubstantiation was understood and believed.

(Me) True, Luther's view was formalized a few centuries after the definition of transubstantiation.

(Anna) Why would Jesus only partially convert the bread? He never partially healed the sick, partially cured the lame, gave partial sight to the blind...partially suffered on the Cross, nor partially rose from the dead...

(Me) I think this is a misrepresentiation of Luther's view, because he never really claimed that Jesus converted half of the bread, or something like that. He said that Christ's body and blood are present with or under the elements.

(Anna) He gives us His ALL in Holy Communion.

(Me) Yes -- through faith, He spiritually feeds us (as Calvin rightly emphasized).

(LivingTabernacle) "Well, there are two levels that make up an object, the accidents and the substance. The accidents are the appearance, taste, look and feel of an object, but the substance is what it really is.

For instance, if you take a chair it has accidents and substance. Say that you saw the chair in several places and then take those pieces of wood and reconfigure them with nails to make a coffee table. You've changed the accidents of the chair into a table, but the substance of the chair has not been changed, it's still made up of the "wood molecules". Make sense?

So, at Mass...

The accidents of the bread and wine do not change.

The substance of the bread and wine are altered into Christ's body and blood."

(Me) Yes, I agree that this accurately describes the Catholic Church position (although I don't see why someone would want to tie themselves down to Aristotle's metaphysics).

Edited August 29, 2003 by mustbenothing

[Dave]

(Dave) Who are you going to trust, Luther and Calvin, who are mere men who separated themselves from God's Church, or Our Lord Jesus Christ? You said to dUSt that you were just trying to show that historical Protestantism doesn't take a purely symbolic view of the sacraments. That's irrelevant; you're still showing you're putting more trust in what Luther and Calvin taught than what Christ taught.

(Me) I don't possibly see how I'm showing that my trust is in Luther and Calvin but not Christ. I'm responding to the claim that Protestantism affirms a purely symbolic view. Jesus did not deliver history lectures over the development of doctrine in Reformational Protestantism, so if I want to establish a claim about Reformational Protestantism, I need to point to something not explicitly taught by Jesus.

I also tend to find Paul's statements on the Real Presence much more compelling (against a purely symbolic view) than Christ's.

Christ and Paul taught the same thing -- that the Eucharist is TRULY Jesus -- Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

(Dave) Doesn't matter about English. Jesus spoke ARAMAIC.

(Me) English is a language, and Aramaic is a language. I can explain things about the Aramaic language by pointing to similarities with the English language. You are already familiar with the English language; therefore, I explain Aramaic by means of a parallel to English.

(Dave) In Aramaic, to eat one's flesh and drink one's blood in a figurative sense meant to slander and betray. Of course Jesus wasn't talking about betrayal. So if He was speaking figuratively, He wouldn't have used an expression meaning betrayal -- He would have chosen another expression. Thus, Jesus had to mean it literally.

(Me) Now, none of the OT cites you listed even came close to establishing your claim about Jewish idioms (also, keep in mind that if you have a problem with language shifts, you cannot use these OT examples, because you say that Jesus spoke Aramaic, while these parts of the OT were not written in Aramaic; therefore, by your standard, they would be irrelevant!). However, let's suppose that I grant that sometimes this can be a Jewish idiom for betrayal, etc. However, that does not mean that every time it is used figuratively, it must be used to refer to betrayal!! For, one phrase or term may have an entirely different meaning when placed in a different context. Likewise, even if it sometimes is an idiom for betrayal (which you have not effectively demonstrated), there may also be other times in which it can be used metaphorically for something else! Therefore, your argument does not follow.

Ummmm . . . excuse me, but the passages I provided were perfectly clear; it seems you're just trying to grasp at straws to try and prove yourself right by making conjectures. Actually, now that I think about it, regardless of the language it was written in, to "eat one's body" and "drink one's blood" figuratively means to slander and betray among the Jews during that time, and it still means that among many Middle Easterners today. It's a fact that I've effectively demonstrated but that you refuse to admit is true. Tell me, how many idioms do you know of are there that can mean something different figuratively in the English language? Let me think of some . . .

"Rain on one's parade" -- means to upset someone who's in a good mood; no other figurative meaning for it.

"See eye to eye" -- means to agree entirely; no other figurative meaning for it.

"Blow your own horn" -- means to brag; no other figurative meaning for it.

I could think of many other idioms as well. Not one of them can mean something different figuratively from their normal figurative meanings. Thus, your claim is reduced to pure absurdity.

(Dave) Besides, if all Jesus meant was to believe in him, why did many of his disciples leave him (John 6:66)?

(Me) Because He taught such a high Christology -- they needed Him for their salvation. They could not understand their dependence upon Him, His primacy, the requirement of the Father's granting, etc.

You conveniently ignored my statement that the disciples who left ALREADY believed in Him and that He was their Savior. They had understood everything UNTIL Jesus told Him they needed to eat His Body and drink His blood.

(Dave) If Jesus’ message was simply to believe in him Peter should have no problem with it. But yet, Peter makes a statement suggesting that he would almost leave.

(Me) Jesus' message requires us to partake of the redemption He accomplished through faith. I would imagine that the Roman Catholic Church agrees with that. His message was not just "have faith" (I have never claimed as much). Rather, His message was that we must follow Him, and feed on the redemption found in the Lamb who was slain.

You're not even addressing what I wrote. They were already following Him -- both the disciples who eventually left and the disciples who stayed. Peter's response indicates that it was hard to understand Jesus' presence in the Holy Eucharist, but He, along with the rest, already knew that in Jesus they were to find their redemption, so despite the fact they were confused by His statement, they knew there was no place else for them to go. Besides, why didn't Jesus call those who left back and say, "Hey, I was just speaking figuratively!"?

[cmotherofpirl]

THe words Jesus used mean to much, chew and naw on something. Hardly symbolic.

[Aloysius]

i have come to a conclusion.

MustBeNothing must be thinking nothing when he reads John 6.

Thank you, that is all.