A Tale of Two Eucharists (Continued)


If anyone needs to catch up, the original discussion was closed here:



The opening post was here:


It read:

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.



The progress made thus far is:

I know Distracted and some others have washed their hands of this whole dirty mess. They think that i’ll never solve this case. My hope is that they are wrong. It has remained a cold case for me for far too long, and i’m eager to solve it.

Maybe they are right. Maybe this case can never be resolved. Maybe i am a fool who does not know when to give up. Maybe all this time and talent devoted to discovering the truth really is in vain. But how will i know unless i try? I think the wise decision is to keep trying, for Paul tells me:Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.*(Galatians 6:9)*I do think, that despite to criticism of the naysayers, we’ve actually have made headway. For we have ruled out one area of investigation as having inconclusive evidence. Someone reading this might recall that there were three ways to come to the truth of the Eucharist, which are:A. -]The individual substance of the Eucharist itself/-].B. What Jesus said and did.C. What others have said and experienced.http://owll.massey.ac.nz/images/relation_b%20_venn_diagram.png

Notice that i have crossed (A) off our list. I did so because i think most (if not all) of us are satisfied that examining the substance of the Eucharist itself–with all that we know of science and reason–does not prove, nor disprove, the presence of the body and blood of Jesus within it.

That’s progress, i think, for now we can focus on examining the other two more thoroughly, which are (B) and ©. We’ve examined some of the evidence of (B) and ©, both for and against the Eucharist, and have not uncovered anything conclusive thus far (please correct me if i’m wrong) but i think we are getting closer to the truth.

Again, i do appreciate the time everyone has given to help me in my efforts to find some closure to this crime scene investigation. Does anyone have anything to add on why the evidence of (B) or © supports the truth of the Eucharist and finds the Catholic church innocent of the charges against her?


The last question we are considering is:

Question 19.

[size=2]Did Jesus mean we should literally drink the Holy Spirit? or did He use the word drink[/size] as a metaphor for receiving the Holy Spirit?

13Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” *(John 4)*37On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” 39By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. (John 7)


Unanswered post by Pax:


I haven’t changed my statements. I am trying to emphasize the connection between the sign and the hidden reality. I am not denying the metaphorical dimension of drinking the living water.

When it comes to the Eucharist we do eat the bread and wine which are the outward signs and accidents. At the same time we are consuming the hidden reality of Jesus Christ contained in the Eucharist.

The Eucharist also has a symbolic dimension in the bread and wine. The two are separated as a sign of the blood of Jesus being separated from his body. This points to the death of Jesus on the cross. This part is a symbol only. It doesn’t matter if you only receive the cup or only the host, you still receive the whole Jesus. Receiving both is the fullest measure of the sign within the Eucharist.

I hope this helps.

Pax: My wife is a teacher and a teacher of teachers. She has a name for my learning style, which escapes me at the moment. But the gist of it is that i think chronologically. That is, in this BIG forest of this discussion thread, i am only capable of taking it one tree at a time.

Right now i’m not looking at the tree of the Eucharist; i’m examining it’s little sprout, which is the seedling of drinking. I want to take a closer look at this before i return to that little one before we turn our attention back to the giant Sequoya who gave it birth.

I want to be sure you are correct in saying that Jesus did not literally mean that we were to drink the Holy Spirit when He said to the woman at the well:

Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.

I hope, then, that you will answer a few question regarding this newborn tree. The first question is this: Would you say, Pax, that a person is more likely to drink when she is thirsty, or not thirsty?


Unanswered post by jdungan7070:

yea there are about 120 of them lol

I dont know if you would consider the 700s the middle ages but I do believe that it is good evidence.

Are you looking for concrete evidence against the antagonists views on the eucharist? Or are you trying to find evidence to convince yourself?

Its really a matter of teaching and faith. You have to thoroughly read the doctrines of these teachings and what the writers of these doctrines though about about the eucharist.

I realize that you would like to debate the matter and come to a
conclusion on this forum and thats great, but you also look at the views of the early christians and the early church fathers. I’m sure the same matter has been debated many times. I’ll try to find one for you, but I would to see you look at the link I gave you and get some info on the catholic view of the eucharist. I believe in the real presence one because I respect the authority of my Church and trust that in it’s 2000 year existence they have come to a good conclusion on one of the most blessed sacrament. I have also tried to read early church fathers vews, biblical passages, and miracles on the eucharist to confirm my faith.

I also saw that you were from Indiana…I live in muncie. what part of the state are you from?

Excellent! What a great wealth of evidence for the defense attorneys of the accused lady!

Tell me then, JD, what were the results of the DNA tests? Did they all show conclusively that all these bloody lumps of flesh miraculously appearing in place of the bread and wine had exactly the same DNA?


Unanswered post by Jmcrae:

Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus forums.catholic.com/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Thank you, JD, and i like those words of Peter, too. :thumbsup: *

I think that the antagonists of the Eucharists will advise me that the Middle Ages was a particularly violent and sinful time of history. They would counsel me that someone might have replaced the Eucharist with the heart and blood of an executed man.

It’s an awfully good resemblance to the Host and Chalice, then.

That being said, i think that what would silence these critics might be more evidence. For example, are there any other instances in history of the same miracle occurring a second time?
There are rumors of it occurring in the present day, I believe in South Korea. There is a woman who claims that every time she receives the Eucharist, it changes to flesh and blood on her tongue. I have seen photographs of this woman standing in a Communion line-up with what appears to be raw bloody meat on her tongue. The meat is reported to be human flesh of the heart, and the blood type of the meat is reported to be the same as that found on the Shroud of Turin and in the Miracle of Lanciano - AB. I don’t know if any DNA testing has been done, to see whether the subject is male.

There are of course other miracles as well, but not as well documented, I don’t think. The miracle in Korea is currently under investigation.


If i missed the post of anyone else, please post it again.



So what conclusions have you come to after 1000 posts on the subject?

BTW, I saw on the last page you asked if this was literal or figurative:

Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”
…Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

The answer to this, and to questions about Christ being a door and a vine, is simple. These analogies also make claims about human beings that we can test. Do human beings have a literal spring of water welling up within them? No. Are human beings literal sheep? No. Are human beings literal branches? No. So we can be certain that the truths contained in these words are figurative, not literal.

In contrast, nothing in the Eucharistic texts makes any such claim about human beings that is not literally true.


Yes, if it was a deliberate hoax, it took an extremely sharp blade and steady hand to carve the flesh of the victim into the correct size and shape.

Regarding rumors, i cannot consider them, JM. Remember, i’m taking on the role of a crime lab investigator. I need irrefutable evidence, not innuendo, to clear the name of the accused Lady we call the Catholic church. No rumor would stand up in court as proving her not guilty, beyond a doubt, of murdering the Truth.


Hey, Voci, long time no read! Welcome to the crime scene investigation.

We have ruled out (A) as inconclusive evidence to either prove or disprove the Catholic concept of the Eucharist. We are now focusing our investigation on (B) and ©.




I take it, then, you agree with Pax that a Catholic does not literally drink the Holy Spirit. Please answer the question i asked Pax: Are people more likely to drink when they are thirsty, or not thirsty?




Voci (or anyone): Are people more likely to drink when they are thirsty, or not thirsty?



Thirsty, obviously.


Yeah, I don’t do megathreads. Short attention span, I guess.


Yes, and they are more likely to eat when they are hungry.

So when Jesus said the following, was He speaking of filling our stomachs or of satisfying some other need?

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.

(Matthew 5:6)


LOL! Me, too! That’s why i’m taking this one, one step at a time. Baby steps!

Would you care to take a few steps with me, Voci, or should we go back to crawling? Crawling is certainly easier, but it makes it much harder to get where we want to go!


It’s OK if you say, “No.” I’ll try not to cry.



One cannot put righteousness in the stomach. Unless, of course, that righteousness is Christ.

I’ll reply when I’m around. Can’t promise anything more.

BTW, do you consider your inquiries here to be unbiased? Or are you working towards some answer you have already settled on?


I’m a megathread dropper too. Seem to have about a 4 page limit - as long as it takes more than one day to get there!

But, regarding the Eucharist topic:

There is another incident in Scripture where the apostles don’t understand Jesus’ words.
Mark 9:31-32 for He was teaching His disciples, saying to them, “The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He is killed, after three days He will rise.” But they did not understand the saying, and they were afraid to ask Him."

Now, if Jesus had not literally been killed at some later point in time (eg. died from a heart attack while asleep!) and had not literally risen from the dead, the disciples would have had to take all Our Lord’s words about His death and resurrection and interpret them in a symbolic way.
Eg. “killed” Him - try to destroy His teaching;
“mocked”, “spit upon” - His teaching and disciples ridiculed;
“rise from the dead” - teachings after seeming to have disappeared would have reappeared or even after death, Jesus would remain alive in hearts of all who believe (does that one sound familiar??)

Either way, when a literal event happens that matches up with a teaching of Jesus - if teaching taken literally - then we can be pretty sure the teaching was meant literally. And this is what happened with the Eucharist. The prior teaching concerning the Eucharist occurred in John 6. The disciples did not understand. At the Last Supper, what Jesus taught in John 6 literally occurred. Thus, John 6 should be understood literally, as the Church teaches.

From a post I made on another thread:
In John 6 Jesus first calls Himself “bread” (vs 32-51a)
(true bread from heaven; bread of God; bread of life; living bread)
At the Last Supper Jesus first takes real “bread” in His hands.

Next in John 6 He tells them the “bread…is My flesh” (vs 51b)
Next at the Last Supper, holding the bread, Jesus says “This is My body”.

Finally in John 6 Jesus tells them they must “…eat the flesh of the Son of Man” (vs 53-58)
And finally at the Last Supper, Jesus says “Take and eat”.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.