Eucharist And Jehovah's Witnesses

[JP2Iloveyou]

Hi. I hope that this is the right place to post this. Many of you may remember me, I used to frequent this site rather regularly. Anyway, I have been engrossed in an ongoing discussion with a number of Jehovah's Witnesses from my area. They want to discuss the Eucharist with me, so I've prepared the usual Catholic defenses, borrowing some stuff from various books I have on hand, the early Church fathers, and of course Scripture. However, one thing is puzzling to me, and I am sure there is a reasonable explanation for it, but I have to admit that I'm stumped.

Quoting from their book, "We're Jesus' apostles really eating his flesh and drinking his blood? No, for that would have been cannibalism and a violation of God's law. (Genesis 9:3-4, LEviticus 17:10)."

So, any tips on how to address this point?

Also, if any of you have any suggestions for dealing with JWs, I'd love to hear them. This has been going on for months now, and I really am torn. On the one hand, I have absolutely no intention of converting, so in a way I'm lying to them; yet on the other hand, the time they're with me is time they're not out leading someone else away from the Church. My subtle hints at Catholicism fall on deaf ears with them.

[CatherineM]

I've only dealt with JW's once. I got appointed to represent a 12 year old girl who needed heart surgery, and her parents wouldn't allow it. I found them difficult to talk to. I admire your patience. I would probably base my argument on John 6. When Christ wanted to teach us about how to live or treat each other, he used parables. When he wanted to teach a truth about himself, he just repeated it over and over again, and basically said take it or leave it. I'm of a mind that what Jesus says goes. He said we would partake of his flesh. If you want to follow Jesus, you've got to believe.

[JP2Iloveyou]

Yeah, it's been a tough go. Frankly, there is a lot they bring up that I can't answer for a variety of reasons. For example, they constantly want to discuss eschatology (study of the end times) with me and I find it very hard to dialogue with them because of their poor understanding of Christology. If you don't believe that Christ is God, the belief that we will spend eternity with him makes no sense. I also have realized that I have a really poor understanding of Catholic eschatology.

The group I meet with is a family, and they usually come over two or three at a time. It's a husband, his wife, his two daughters, a son-in-law, and the man who, as far as I can tell, is the leader of the JWs in my town. Both this man and the son-in-law a fallen away Catholics.

To all those that read this, please say a short prayer today that they will be open to hear the voice of Christ in their hearts and I will be given the grace to speak only those words that Christ wishes to be spoken to them at this time, not substituting my own arrogance for Christ's humility.

[Archaeology cat]

Well, one thing I would bring up is why blood was forbidden. It was forbidden because it contains the life of the animal (or person). Jesus said that unless you drink His blood and eat His flesh, you won't have life within you.

[Aloysius]

you can always go for the typical <>quote other things in leviticus that don't apply anymore<> trick... though that is way overused.... draw upon St. Paul's letters and how Christ fulfilled the law so we are no longer bound by it, draw on Peter's revelation from God where He makes all foods clean in Acts, and then certainly go into the concept of blood containing the life force and thus we must be inebriated with the blood of Christ to receive His life from Him

[thessalonian]

The mistake in the question is that it doesn't understand the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. The Catholic Church does not say that the Eucharist is the "physical flesh" of Christ. It is the "sacramental flesh" of Christ. Nowhere in Church doctines/dogma will you see it claimed that the Eucharist is physical flesh. It is Christ's flesh but not like taking a bite out of his arm. It is food for the soul rather than the body.

[Ziggamafu]

From my blog about an experience with the JWs:

[quote]Some Jehovah's Witnesses have been coming to our place on Saturday mornings. Here is a paraphrased summary of our discussions to date:

Week 1:

JW: What does the Bible say about God? Do you think the Trinity is clear in Scripture?

US: What makes you certain the Bible is divinely inspired?

JW: What do you mean?

US: Well the Bible didn't just fall out of the sky right? So what authority do you base your faith on?

JW: Well, we base our faith on the Bible.

US: Right. I get that. But how do you know what the Bible is?

JW: Wow, look at the time! We have to go. Can we stop by next week?

US: Sure.


Week 2:

JW: Do you think your Bible translation is reliable?

US: That's jumping ahead of last week's question.

JW: What question?

US: How do you know your Bible is divinely inspired?

JW: Because it says so!

US: If I said I was divinely inspired would you believe me?

JW: Are you saying the Bible isn't inspired?

US: No. But I believe it is divinely inspired because I believe the Catholic Church who listed its books declared it so after several decades of Sacred Tradition only, several more decades of committing things to paper, and several centuries of figuring out which papers were actually Scripture. I believe the Bible because the Church tells me to.

JW: So how do you know the Church is infallible?

US: Because the Church has a living, contemporary, voice that traces back in Apostolic Succession to the historical Christ, himself. If I believe the Bible is infallible then I must believe that its collection of books is infallible. If I believe this collection of books to be infallible then I must believe that the decision of what went into this collection is also infallible. And if I believe that the decision is infallible, then I must believe that the decider is infallible. And the decider was the Church: a living voice; a succession of apostolic witnesses and shepherds of one, Catholic, flock.

JW: We don't know much about the Catholic religion. We have to go now. See you next week?

US: Sure.


Week 3:

[note: this time a new person showed up – an old man who was pretty sharp and allegedly has been a JW door-knoker for SIXTY YEARS!!!]

JW: Let's look at what the Bible says about –

US: -- sorry to interrupt, but if you want me to listen to your interpretations, I need you to answer the question I've asked for the past two weeks.

JW: How we know what the Bible is?

US: Yeah.

JW: Sure. We have an answer!

US: Great! Let's hear it.

JW: Many of the books are quoted in other books.

US: But not all of them?

JW: Most of them.

US: Oh. But how do you know that the books that quote some of the others are inspired?

JW: Well we know what most of the Old Testament is because it's quoted in the New Testament.

US: I see. So how do you know what the New Testament is?

JW: It's compatible with the Old Testament.

US: So you judge the New Testament by the Old Testament and the Old Testament by the New Testament?

JW: Yes.

US: Isn't that circular reasoning?

JW: It doesn't seem like this conversation is going anywhere. We really have to be going.[/quote]

Yes, there was much more said, but that was the gist of it. The question of authority ultimately stumped them every single time. Also, asking how God could be love if he is not an eternal communion of Persons left them stumped and with something to think about. Both issues can be really, really pressed. They will either get frustrated and leave or they will convert. Win win.