Eucharistic Disscussion

[123]

Last week my cousin has decided to go to mass with me, and has pledeged to go until, I guess, RCIA starts, I'm hoping he wants to be Catholic. This is wonderful until I was explaining the Eucharist and the belifes of The Church when it comes to it. He seems to think that Christ's presence in the Eucharist is only "real" by a spiritual standpoint. He has trouble with the fact that Christ is wholly, trully, and substatianlly present in the Eucharist. I tried to explain that the Eucharist is when the Spiritual body of Christ meshes with the physical element of bread to create a real presence of Christ under the species of wine and bread. He seems to think that in John (6) Christ was only speaking spiritually since he said that the flesh is of no avail and that Christ's words are of spirit and life. How would I best explain this to him without getting into some fight and drawing him away. I see him as understanding about 75% of what I have tried to explain, the other 25% I think he is trying to make it out be somthing other than what the Church believes because he never had to deal with this when he went to Hillside Church of God. Everything at his previous church was a symbol (communion, baptism, etc.) so they really didn't have to put much thinking or devotion into their Eucharistic celebration (believe me, I'm not bashing, before I became Catholic I was at that church fluently and they served me communion in a styrofoam cup and you were only allowed to dip a small piece of bread into the styrophone cup and eat it, it seemed to me they weren't letting people drink from the cup, they, at least, wouldn't let me.)

Edited July 24, 2007 by GloriaIesusChristi

[Noel's angel]

Go back to Scripture. www.scripturecatholic.com has an enormous list of Scripture quotations and explanations to show what Jesus meant. I'll post a few that might be helpful:

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
(www.scripturecatholic.com)

I think that would be a good place to start. Also, check out the Defense Directory. Phatcatholic has put a lot of time and effort into making something really great, so we should all definately use it more.

[reyb]

[indent]It is written in John 6:52-59

[color="#FF0000"]52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53 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. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 [b]Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him[/b]. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. [/color]
NIV[/indent]
-------------
[indent]This is really a hard teaching.
Okay. Suppose, Jesus Christ is literally present in the Eucharist – why then do you need to eat it and drink it every mass or maybe every Sunday mass?

What I mean is, suppose you participate in the Holy Eucharist last Sunday (therefore, you remain in Jesus and Jesus in you). Why then you need to take it again next Sunday if Jesus is already in you and you in Him? [/indent]

[Noel's angel]

"The Mass is for that reason the greatest event in the history of mankind; the only Holy Act which keeps the wrath of God from a sinful world, because it holds the Cross between heaven and earth, thus renewing that decisive moment when our sad and tragic humanity journeyed suddenly forth to the fullness of supernatural life."
(From Bishop Fulton Sheen's 'Calvary and the Mass')

Receiving Christ's Body and Blood unites us initmately with Him. However, all humans sin, and these sins damage in a sense, this unique bond with Christ. It is therefore not enough merely to be united with Him in this way once, since many sins can build up over one's lifetime. Therefore it is necessary for us to seek Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as often as possible, in order to help maintain a close unity with Him.

Secondly, since the Church's beginnings, the Eucharist has been celebrated on a Sunday. The Apostles did it; so shall we. Sunday is also the Lord's Day, and not honouring it as such would be breaking the third commandment.

I see a likeness to the marial bond here. In the martial union, there is a bond which man cannot break. The two become one. Does that mean that they should never have sex once they have consumated the marriage? I think not.

Edited July 26, 2007 by Noel's angel

[reyb]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1341295' date='Jul 26 2007, 10:10 AM']"The Mass is for that reason the greatest event in the history of mankind; the only Holy Act which keeps the wrath of God from a sinful world, because it holds the Cross between heaven and earth, thus renewing that decisive moment when our sad and tragic humanity journeyed suddenly forth to the fullness of supernatural life."
(From Bishop Fulton Sheen's 'Calvary and the Mass')[/quote]

[indent]Is this for real of just a belief? Do you have biblical verses to support this? Can you please explain it to me?[/indent]
[quote]Receiving Christ's Body and Blood unites us initmately with Him. However, all humans sin, and these sins damage in a sense, this unique bond with Christ. It is therefore not enough merely to be united with Him in this way once, since many sins can build up over one's lifetime. Therefore it is necessary for us to [b][color="#0000FF"]seek Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as often as possible[/color][/b], in order to help maintain a close unity with Him.[/quote]

[indent]How about the verses I mentioned above?[/indent]
[quote]Secondly, since the Church's beginnings, the Eucharist has been celebrated on a Sunday. The Apostles did it; so shall we. Sunday is also the Lord's Day, and not honouring it as such would be breaking the third commandment.

I see a likeness to the marial bond here. In the martial union, there is a bond which man cannot break. The two become one. Does that mean that they should never have sex once they have consumated the marriage? I think not.[/quote]

[indent]What is your exegesis about this?[/indent]
[indent]Because if the above conviction is true. Then, John 6:60
[color="#FF0000"]60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" [/color][/indent]
[indent]is not hard teaching but an easy one.[/indent]

Edited July 26, 2007 by reyb

[Noel's angel]

Please bear in mind this is not the debate table. If you wish to start a debate on the Eucharist, please make a thread there.

The teaching on the Eucharist is most certainly not easy to believe. Christ saying that bread and wine were somewhow His Body and Blood? If we look at this teaching from a human, faithless perspective, it is indeed impossible to believe. But all things are possible in God.

I should probably link you to the full text I referred to, so that you get a better understanding of it's context:
[url="http://www.pacifier.com/~belisle/holymass/masssacrifice.htm"]http://www.pacifier.com/~belisle/holymass/masssacrifice.htm[/url]

(I don't have time to respond more fully, sorry)

Edited July 26, 2007 by Noel's angel

[holyspirit1985]

[quote name='GloriaIesusChristi' post='1339525' date='Jul 24 2007, 07:32 AM']He seems to think that in John (6) Christ was only speaking spiritually since he said that the flesh is of no avail and that Christ's words are of spirit and life.[/quote]

In the particular verse that you mention, Jesus did mean flesh is of no avail. What He said in this passage was flesh, as meaning worldly. (This is my understanding, anyways, as I learning in class.) So He said that what is important is not what is of the world, but God, the Spirit. HE is what (Who) brings life. I don't know if I expressed myself very clearly there. I have neither a bible or my notes in front of me, so I can't remember exactly how it goes.

[Noel's angel]

Jesus is saying that faith, not logic is what is needed to understand and believe what He is saying. The wisdom of the cross is folly to those who rely on mere human, worldly intellect.

[reyb]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1341325' date='Jul 26 2007, 10:55 AM']Please bear in mind this is not the debate table. If you wish to start a debate on the Eucharist, please make a thread there.

The teaching on the Eucharist is most certainly not easy to believe. Christ saying that bread and wine were somewhow His Body and Blood? If we look at this teaching from a human, faithless perspective, it is indeed impossible to believe. But all things are possible in God.

I should probably link you to the full text I referred to, so that you get a better understanding of it's context:
[url="http://www.pacifier.com/~belisle/holymass/masssacrifice.htm"]http://www.pacifier.com/~belisle/holymass/masssacrifice.htm[/url]

(I don't have time to respond more fully, sorry)[/quote]
Okay. Wrong forum. I will just listen.

[Katholikos]

Jesus didn't say "MY flesh is of no avail." He said "the" flesh, meaning the flesh of carnal man. The
word "spiritual" is never used to mean symbolic in the Scriptures.

Jesus said the Eucharist was His flesh offered on the Cross: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread he will live forever; and the [u]bread [/u] which I shall give for the life of the world is my [u]flesh[/u]" John 6:51 RSV. If the bread is symbolic, so was the Crucifixion.

It should be remembered that the Church had been celebrating the Mass and confecting the Eucharist for several years before St. Paul wrote the first scriptural reference to the Eucharist in 1 Cor 10 and 11 and for even more years before St. John wrote his Gospel. The Church did not read the Scriptures and [i]then [/i]decide what they meant. The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was taught by the Apostles and their disciples long before anything was written about it.

The Church didn't come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church. The Church is several years older than any of the NT writings and about 400 years older than the Bible as we know it.