Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Mar 6, '08, 5:55 am
Socrates4Jesus Socrates4Jesus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: June 4, 2004
Posts: 5,240
Religion: Sitting on the fence at the moment.
Question A Tale of Two Eucharists

It occurred to me, recently, that i'm a Eucharist agonist. For i'm agonizing over two tales of this sacrament introduced by Jesus at His last supper. There are protagonists to the left of me, antagonists to the right; here i am stuck in the middle not knowing who is true.

The protagonists of the Eucharist tell me the bread really is Christ's body and the wine really is His blood, and eating His flesh and drinking His blood is necessary for obtaining eternal life. They tell me to read my Redeemer's words and consider them carefully:
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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 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. 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."
(John 6:53-58)
"Nonsense!" the Eucharist antagonists counsel me, "Our Savior was speaking merely metaphorically." They caution me to heed Paul's words:
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
(1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
Now, i'm not asking for the sake of debate (however, i realize i'll have to play devil's advocate to learn the rebuttal to the opposing viewpoint). I really want to know the truth about Holy Communion, as the antagonists' argument is one reason why i have not returned to the faith of my youth. Please help this agonist get the genuine gist of the true tale of the Eucharist.

  #2  
Old Mar 6, '08, 6:11 am
Br. Rich SFO Br. Rich SFO is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: June 3, 2004
Posts: 11,454
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A Tale of Two Eucharists

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus View Post
It occurred to me, recently, that i'm a Eucharist agonist. For i'm agonizing over two tales of this sacrament introduced by Jesus at His last supper. There are protagonists to the left of me, antagonists to the right; here i am stuck in the middle not knowing who is true.

The protagonists of the Eucharist tell me the bread really is Christ's body and the wine really is His blood, and eating His flesh and drinking His blood is necessary for obtaining eternal life. They tell me to read my Redeemer's words and consider them carefully:
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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 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. 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."
(John 6:53-58)
"Nonsense!" the Eucharist antagonists counsel me, "Our Savior was speaking merely metaphorically." They caution me to heed Paul's words:
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
(1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
Now, i'm not asking for the sake of debate (however, i realize i'll have to play devil's advocate to learn the rebuttal to the opposing viewpoint). I really want to know the truth about Holy Communion, as the antagonists' argument is one reason why i have not returned to the faith of my youth. Please help this agonist get the genuine gist of the true tale of the Eucharist.

Keeping in mind thet the Last Supper is one year after John 6, does the timing help any? Did Jesus know exactly what He would be doing one year later, with the same apostles?
  #3  
Old Mar 6, '08, 6:19 am
NotWorthy's Avatar
NotWorthy NotWorthy is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: May 10, 2005
Posts: 13,932
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A Tale of Two Eucharists

I'm struck with the antagonist using the words of Paul's in Corinthians to bolster their position. You seemed to have cut off his words before he was finished defending the Eucharist.

28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself
How can something that is symbolic be sinful if done incorrectly? This is like telling someone the worship of idols is false, but unless you do it, that "false" god will punish you.
__________________
Follow your Dreams! Except for the ones where you're naked in Church!
  #4  
Old Mar 6, '08, 6:39 am
puzzleannie puzzleannie is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: September 7, 2004
Posts: 37,470
Religion: Catholic no adjectives
Default Re: A Tale of Two Eucharists

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus View Post
It
Now, i'm not asking for the sake of debate (however, i realize i'll have to play devil's advocate to learn the rebuttal to the opposing viewpoint). I really want to know the truth about Holy Communion, as the antagonists' argument is one reason why i have not returned to the faith of my youth. Please help this agonist get the genuine gist of the true tale of the Eucharist.

since both your quotes affirm the same truth, what is your question?
__________________
Whatever the Lord pleases He does, on heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps. Ps. 135
  #5  
Old Mar 6, '08, 6:54 am
rstegeman rstegeman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2006
Posts: 185
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A Tale of Two Eucharists

If you ever have a chance, catch Fr. Bill Casey on EWTN. He's with the Fathers of Mercy. I think he explains this very well, using that verse from John along with the several verses following the ones you quote. Basically, many of his disciples were disheartened after hearing that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood and they walked away and stopped following him from that point. Fr. Casey points out that Jesus didn't stop them, he didn't try to correct their understanding of what he said. If he was speaking symbollically, wouldn't he have brought them back to make sure they understood this? Since he was speaking literally, there could be no confusing his meaning and therefore no need to correct their understanding. They just couldn't accept it.

Of course Fr. Casey explains it much more eloquently and fervently. I just wish I could remember the name of the show in which he preaches this message.
  #6  
Old Mar 6, '08, 6:58 am
agangbern agangbern is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2007
Posts: 1,502
Religion: You will know it from my posts
Default Re: A Tale of Two Eucharists

Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzleannie View Post
since both your quotes affirm the same truth, what is your question?
Amen! Praise the Lord!
__________________
"And surely I will be with you always, to the very end of the age."
  #7  
Old Mar 6, '08, 7:06 am
JustaServant's Avatar
JustaServant JustaServant is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2007
Posts: 6,549
Religion: Catholic (revert)
Default Re: A Tale of Two Eucharists

"Our Savior was speaking merely metaphorically."
My question to them is always two-fold:
1. Logically, when Jesus spoke of Himself as 'the Door', and 'the Vine', those descriptions make metaphorical sense. However, in what metaphorical sense could Jesus logically refer to Himself as 'Bread'? The two simply do not go together (as a metaphor).
2. Did Jesus tell us to consume the Door and the Vine?

I have yet to have any non-Catholic give me a satisfactory answer to these two questions.
  #8  
Old Mar 6, '08, 7:56 am
Aaron I. Aaron I. is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2005
Posts: 406
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A Tale of Two Eucharists

Socrates, your problem comes from misunderstanding the use of the word "remembrance". Do a study on the Hebrew word "zikkaron". During their celebrations such as passover, which of course directly correlates to the Eucharist, the Jews believe the past truly becomes present. That is what Jesus meant by remembrance, and that's what his apostles (Jews themselves) understood him to mean.

Here's an excerpt from a website http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p39.htm I just found, but you could find several more by googling "zikkaron".
Quote:
It is this liturgical remembrance (zikkaron) that enables the Jewish people throughout time to experience the foundational events of the covenant with the Lord; and to do so in such a way that they become real witnesses to and participants in the Sacred Acts which formed the Jewish nation and made them the Lord's chosen people. However, this focus of the liturgy on the actions of God in the past does not mean that the events of the present moment are unimportant; instead, the events of Sacred History give meaning to the experiences of the Jewish community of today. In some sense the events of today are assimilated to, and are included in, the remembrance of the foundational events of the covenant [cf. Weiser, 50]. The whole purpose of the liturgy is to bring the mighty works of God in Sacred History into contact with each successive generation of the People of God. For if the actions of God in forming His people were only a reality of the distant past it would, as a consequence, empty modern life of any real value, and God would appear to have become silent and inactive.

But Judaism has always seen God as the Lord of history, and not just of the history of biblical times, but of the history of all times; and so through the liturgy the People of Israel are able to re-live God's redemptive actions in all times and in all places.
So the point is that the Eucharist is a zikkaron event. The past is made present and we are brought to cavalry. That's why we celebrate mass over and over again. Not to recrucify Jesus or because his sacrifice needs to be performed repeatedly, but because we ourselves are able to participate in the same sacrifice and receive its grace repeatedly.
  #9  
Old Mar 6, '08, 8:08 am
sandusky sandusky is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: August 9, 2005
Posts: 4,380
Religion: Reformed (Former Catholic)
Default Re: A Tale of Two Eucharists

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustaServant
"Our Savior was speaking merely metaphorically."

My question to them is always two-fold:

Logically, when Jesus spoke of Himself as 'the Door', and 'the Vine', those descriptions make metaphorical sense. However, in what metaphorical sense could Jesus logically refer to Himself as 'Bread'? The two simply do not go together (as a metaphor).
How does one identify a metaphor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustaServant
2. Did Jesus tell us to consume the Door and the Vine?
ISTM that you're saying that one of the identifying “marks,” of a metaphor, if you will, is that one is not told to eat something?

How does one identify a metaphor?
  #10  
Old Mar 6, '08, 9:45 am
NotWorthy's Avatar
NotWorthy NotWorthy is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: May 10, 2005
Posts: 13,932
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A Tale of Two Eucharists

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandusky View Post
How does one identify a metaphor?ISTM that you're saying that one of the identifying “marks,” of a metaphor, if you will, is that one is not told to eat something?

How does one identify a metaphor?
Is the analogy derived from a metaphor easily identified.

I am the gatekeeper. The gatekeeper decides who comes in and who leaves. The Kingdom of God has a Gatekeeper, Jesus Christ.

The symbolic meaning of "eat my flesh" - the grinding of the bones that the last 2 'eat my fleshes' that Jesus commands in John 6 - seems to indicate loathing and reviling, as is evidence by one of the psalms (maybe 110 or 114?).

How does one gain eternal life by reviling Jesus?
__________________
Follow your Dreams! Except for the ones where you're naked in Church!
  #11  
Old Mar 6, '08, 9:53 am
YADA YADA is offline
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: October 21, 2004
Posts: 3,684
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A Tale of Two Eucharists

Exactly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron I. View Post
Socrates, your problem comes from misunderstanding the use of the word "remembrance". Do a study on the Hebrew word "zikkaron". During their celebrations such as passover, which of course directly correlates to the Eucharist, the Jews believe the past truly becomes present. That is what Jesus meant by remembrance, and that's what his apostles (Jews themselves) understood him to mean.

Here's an excerpt from a website http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p39.htm I just found, but you could find several more by googling "zikkaron".


So the point is that the Eucharist is a zikkaron event. The past is made present and we are brought to cavalry. That's why we celebrate mass over and over again. Not to recrucify Jesus or because his sacrifice needs to be performed repeatedly, but because we ourselves are able to participate in the same sacrifice and receive its grace repeatedly.
__________________
Living the Journey,

YADA
Respect Christ - Vote Life
  #12  
Old Mar 7, '08, 5:10 am
Socrates4Jesus Socrates4Jesus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: June 4, 2004
Posts: 5,240
Religion: Sitting on the fence at the moment.
Question Re: A Tale of Two Eucharists

Quote:
Originally Posted by Br. Rich SFO View Post
Keeping in mind thet the Last Supper is one year after John 6, does the timing help any? Did Jesus know exactly what He would be doing one year later, with the same apostles?
Good question! What do you propose as the probable answer, Br?
  #13  
Old Mar 7, '08, 5:19 am
Socrates4Jesus Socrates4Jesus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: June 4, 2004
Posts: 5,240
Religion: Sitting on the fence at the moment.
Question Re: A Tale of Two Eucharists

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotWorthy View Post
I'm struck with the antagonist using the words of Paul's in Corinthians to bolster their position. You seemed to have cut off his words before he was finished defending the Eucharist.

28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself
How can something that is symbolic be sinful if done incorrectly? This is like telling someone the worship of idols is false, but unless you do it, that "false" god will punish you.
Good question. I suppose the answer might be found by considering the answer to this question:

In the United States, one might see two symbolic rituals take place:
  1. Reciting the pledge of allegiance to the United States flag
  2. Taking a leak on, dragging through the mud, and burning the United States flag
Do you think either of these acts are offensive to some? If so, which one offends and why?

  #14  
Old Mar 7, '08, 5:20 am
Socrates4Jesus Socrates4Jesus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: June 4, 2004
Posts: 5,240
Religion: Sitting on the fence at the moment.
Question Re: A Tale of Two Eucharists

Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzleannie View Post
since both your quotes affirm the same truth, what is your question?
Hi, Puzzel! Long time no post.

My question: What truth do both affirm?

  #15  
Old Mar 7, '08, 5:26 am
Socrates4Jesus Socrates4Jesus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: June 4, 2004
Posts: 5,240
Religion: Sitting on the fence at the moment.
Question Re: A Tale of Two Eucharists

Quote:
Originally Posted by rstegeman View Post
If you ever have a chance, catch Fr. Bill Casey on EWTN. He's with the Fathers of Mercy. I think he explains this very well, using that verse from John along with the several verses following the ones you quote. Basically, many of his disciples were disheartened after hearing that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood and they walked away and stopped following him from that point. Fr. Casey points out that Jesus didn't stop them, he didn't try to correct their understanding of what he said. If he was speaking symbollically, wouldn't he have brought them back to make sure they understood this? Since he was speaking literally, there could be no confusing his meaning and therefore no need to correct their understanding. They just couldn't accept it.

Of course Fr. Casey explains it much more eloquently and fervently. I just wish I could remember the name of the show in which he preaches this message.
RST:

Regarding the honorable friars, i doubt they'd take the time to honor me with answers to my questions!

Regarding your assertion that Jesus was speaking literally in John, chapter 6, i hope you will be kind enough to answer these two questions:
Should Catholics worship the sun or the moon?

and

Do you believe the wisest people always have the darkest tans?
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Hospital Window: A Tale of Two Men. Sir Knight Back Fence 2 Apr 19, '08 2:43 am
tale of the old road reborn_pagan Non-Catholic Religions 26 Jan 13, '07 4:58 pm



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8458Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
5146CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: mountee
4424Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3863SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3738Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3322Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3284Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3224Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3110For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 9:00 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.