Flip/Flop Thread #4: The Eucharist


#1

OK, I know that these threads were started by awfulthings9, but I love them so much that I decided to start one myself.

If you are new to the “Flip/Flop” threads, please read the rules below.

Rules:

Junior and Regular Members (under 250 posts):
Argue the Catholic position. It doesn’t matter if you are Catholic or not. On this thread you will be arguing in favor of the Literal blood and body of Christ at the Mass.

Senior Member (250 posts or more):
You have the Protestant position. You will argue that the Eucharist is only symbolic.

I will begin the thread with a protestant statement.


#2

The body and blood of Christ is not present at the Mass. It is only a figurative ceremony. This is the obvious Biblical position.


#3

[left]****
[/left]
The Lord’s Supper was merely a symbol, and this shows that to be the case:

[quote=Off Site “Evangelist”][left]** 53. **** Therefore Jesus said to them, “Truly truly I say to you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves. 54. The one eating My flesh and drinking My blood has eternal life, and I will raise **** him up at the last day.”**
[/left]
** ** [left] Commentary: Jesus decides to come down to their level in an attempt to bring them up to His. He moves on with the metaphor, already firmly established, of “eating = believing”. The only way to eternal life is through union with the Son of Man. This involves a vital faith relationship with Him, symbolized here by the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood. To make the equation complete. Jesus places “eating My flesh and drinking My blood” in the exact same position as hearing His word and believing on Him who sent Jesus in John 5:24, or as being drawn by the Father in 6:44, or as looking to the Son and believing in 6:40, or simply believing in 6:47. The result is the same in each case - eternal life, or being raised up at the least day. Hence, we here have a clear indication of Jesus’ usage of the metaphor of eating His flesh and drinking His “blood” in John 6. Graphically we would have:
[/left]
** ** [left]“ALL the ones Looking icon the San and believing inHim”
Those who are “drawn” by the Father --> all = being “raised upon the Last day.”
"The One eating my flesh and drinking my blood” /
[/left]
[left] Hence, the sacramental interpretation of this passage is left with no foundation at all - Jesus is obviously not speaking of some “sacrament’ *of *the “Eucharist” established years later - His referring to His body and blood here is paralleled clearly with belief in the Son and the drawing of the Father - the same themes struck above. Consistency of interpretation must lead one to reject a sacramental interpretation of this passage.

65. And He was saying, “Because of this I said to you that no one is able to come to Me except it is given to him by the Father.” 66. Because of this many of His disciples went away to the things behind, and no longer walked with Him.
[/left]
** ** ** ** [left] Commentary: The imperfect tense here indicates a continued action (or probably an iterative action in this case) in the past- Jesus did not just once say this to them, but often - “no one is able to come to Me except it is given to him by the Father”. Some translations say “unless the Father enables him”. Coming to Christ is not something that is the result of persuasive speaking - Jesus was the greatest speaker of all time, yet many of his disciples “went away from following Him and no longer walked with Him.” If man could be convinced in this way, these men would have been. But the operative factor was missing . the enablement of the Father. Jesus’ soteriology is decidedly “God-sided”. One sees the foundation of Paul’s theology here explicitly expressed.
[/left]

[/quote]

God Bless,
RyanL
[left]
[/left]


#4

One word:

Canabalism.


#5

As per the rules I argue the Symbolic side:

Given: one of only 2 possibilities is true. Symbolism of the Lords flesh in the bread or symbolic meaning.

Given: the Eucharistic feast was established at the (so-called) Last Supper the night of Jesus’ betrayal when He said, “Take eat, this is my body.”

Given: that while on earth Jesus was both fully human and fully divine.

Jesus’ humanity would have prevented him being able to transcend time while in the flesh prior to His glorification. It would be impossible for the element of the bread to become his glorified body, soul and divinity since He at the time of the first Eucharistic Feast did not possess this glorified state. Where there is no literal possibility and we have left room for only 2 possibilities, the second therefore must be true.

Disclaimer: I don’t actually believe this.


#6

Okay, I will also argue for the symbolic side, although in reality I believe that the Eucharist, although it is undoubtedly a symbol, as all sacraments are, it is a symbol that contains what it signifies and signifies what it contains.

Now that that’s over with, here’s my argument:

  1. Yes, Jesus did say, “I am the bread of life.” However, we have to examine this in light of the rest of Scripture. At different times, Jesus also claimed to be a door and a vine. Yet no Christian worships doors or vines. It is a mistake to think, therefore, that when Jesus says that He is bread, He actually wanted us to worship Him in the form of bread.
  2. Jesus also told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. However, He said this long before the Last Supper, and many of His listeners would not have been at the Last Supper anyway, so He clearly meant something other than what He called His body at the Last Supper. Given what He said earlier, it is clear that He means this in a symbolic way, signifying the union the soul that believes in Him shares with Him.
  3. Jesus has one body. If He were present in the Eucharist, His body would have to exist in many places at the same time. If He is contained entirely in each host (or each particle of the host), then He has multiple bodies. So belief in the Eucharist ends up with Jesus having many bodies in many places all over the world, which is clearly absurd. He ascended into Heaven with His body; He didn’t multiply it and send it all over the world.

#7

Okay, this will probably be a very weak argument, but I’ll give this a shot.
Yes, Jesus compares himself to many things figuratively in the NT, but when he speaks of himself as being the literal flesh and blood, it is often and in no uncertain terms.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56). That doesn’t seem to be very symbolic, does it?
“Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). If the Eucharist was no more than a symbol, I doubt Paul would have spoken of the ill consequences of taking it lightly in such dire terms.
I think the Bible verses make the best argument for the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Also, the argument that Christ could not be in all those pieces of the Eucharist fails to take into account the fact that he is God. As God is he omnipresent. Therefore, it is entirely possible for him to be physically present in the every piece of the Eucharist.
Also, given the number of times that Jesus uses that idea in the NT, it doesn’t seem to be a simple metaphor.
BTW, if my arguments are no good, I apologize. I’m just starting to learn about the Catholic faith. It’s hard to defend a position you’ve only recently started to consider. :slight_smile:


#8

[quote=awfulthings9]One word:

Canabalism.
[/quote]

Very true. Would Christ actually want us to be canibals? Are we pagans or Christians?


#9

(Symbolic-only side. I actually don’t believe this, of course)

Why would you Catholics insist in the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? If you look under a microscope, you will see the molecules of bread and the molecules of wine, including the alcohol.

Surely now, wouldn’t it be possible to get into a drunk-driving accident under the influence of the “blood” of Christ?

Only goes to show that indeed, there is no change. No one gets intoxicated on blood.


#10

[quote=trumpet152]OK, I know that these threads were started by awfulthings9, but I love them so much that I decided to start one myself.

If you are new to the “Flip/Flop” threads, please read the rules below.

Rules:

Junior and Regular Members (under 250 posts):
Argue the Catholic position. It doesn’t matter if you are Catholic or not. On this thread you will be arguing in favor of the Literal blood and body of Christ at the Mass.

Senior Member (250 posts or more):
You have the Protestant position. You will argue that the Eucharist is only symbolic.

I will begin the thread with a protestant statement.
[/quote]

As you can see from the quote below, Ignatius did not believe in the true presence.

the Eucharist… [is] not…the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. :wink:
Transubstantiation was created in the eleventh century by Hildebert of Tours.


#11

Okay, I don’t know if anyone else is keeping count, but the score is Protestant side - 9 posts; Catholic side - 1. We’d better get some regular and junior defenders of the faith in here pretty quick or it’ll make us look pretty sorry over all.


#12

Okay, I have to argue for the symbolic side. Here goes:

The bread and wine…

When Jesus said…

Paul in 1Cor says…

When the priest…

St Ignatius of Antioch was…

All the Church Fathers…

Scripture plainly tells us…

I can’t do it! I’m sorry–not even for make believe. I’m sorry guys, I can’t do it.
:crying:


#13

[quote=Mickey]Okay, I have to argue for the symbolic side. Here goes:

The bread and wine…

When Jesus said…

Paul in 1Cor says…

When the priest…

St Ignatius of Antioch was…

All the Church Fathers…

Scripture plainly tells us…

I can’t do it! I’m sorry–not even for make believe. I’m sorry guys, I can’t do it.
:crying:
[/quote]

:rotfl:


#14

[quote=awfulthings9]Okay, I don’t know if anyone else is keeping count, but the score is Protestant side - 9 posts; Catholic side - 1. We’d better get some regular and junior defenders of the faith in here pretty quick or it’ll make us look pretty sorry over all.
[/quote]

Very true. Perhaps the rules need adjusting?


#15

[quote=ladylinguist]Okay, this will probably be a very weak argument, but I’ll give this a shot.
Yes, Jesus compares himself to many things figuratively in the NT, but when he speaks of himself as being the literal flesh and blood, it is often and in no uncertain terms.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56). That doesn’t seem to be very symbolic, does it?
“Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). If the Eucharist was no more than a symbol, I doubt Paul would have spoken of the ill consequences of taking it lightly in such dire terms.
I think the Bible verses make the best argument for the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Also, the argument that Christ could not be in all those pieces of the Eucharist fails to take into account the fact that he is God. As God is he omnipresent. Therefore, it is entirely possible for him to be physically present in the every piece of the Eucharist.
Also, given the number of times that Jesus uses that idea in the NT, it doesn’t seem to be a simple metaphor.
BTW, if my arguments are no good, I apologize. I’m just starting to learn about the Catholic faith. It’s hard to defend a position you’ve only recently started to consider. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

looks pretty good to me… when you are making a point to a
protestant (( i was one ))… use lots of scripture, just as you
did…

:slight_smile:


#16

In John 6, if Jesus was merely speaking symbolicly, when his disciples walked away, why did he not call them back?

Many times in Scripture Jesus is speaking in a parable, and his disciples do not understand, so he goes on further to explain it to them. If Jesus meant to say that eating and drinking his flesh was just symbolism, why would he let his disciples reject him over it?

Besides, “to eat the flesh and drink the blood” of someone, among the Jews, meant to inflict serious harm upon someone. Is Jesus saying “You must inflict harm upon me for eternal life”? Hardly.

And, from what I understand of the Passover, something all Jews understood at the time, is the Passover supper is not complete until you eat the sacrificed lamb.

Truely, His disciples understood when he said “This is my body, which is broken for you.” He is the Lamb of God!

And of course, as ladylinguist said, Paul speaks so highly of the bread and cup. If I was just chowing down on a french roll and a glass of wine, how could I eat and drink damnnation upon myself? I must eat to survive correct?

Instead, when you partake in the bread and cup, you are partaking in our Lord Jesus, who you should always strive to be worthy to partake in.

Adam


#17

I read in a book by James White the following argument:

In John 6:34 we read: They said to him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” 35: Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

And in John 6:47: *Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. *

Then in John 6:51: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

So if you harmonize these verses you will see that eat=believe.

I was able to see through Mr White’s arguments, what say ye junior posters?


#18

[quote=arieh0310]I read in a book by James White the following argument:

In John 6:34 we read: They said to him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” 35: Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

And in John 6:47: *Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. *

Then in John 6:51: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

So if you harmonize these verses you will see that eat=believe.

I was able to see through Mr White’s arguments, what say ye junior posters?
[/quote]

Could you explain that James White arguement to me? I do not understand. What is he trying to say? I don’t see how those harmonize at all, maybe I am still seeing through Catholic eyes.


#19

[quote=Unfinished]Could you explain that James White arguement to me? I do not understand. What is he trying to say? I don’t see how those harmonize at all, maybe I am still seeing through Catholic eyes.
[/quote]

Put on your Protestant spectacles.

When Jesus says “he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.” Mr White is saying that when you come to Him you are eating and when you believe in Him you are drinking.


#20

[quote=awfulthings9]One word:

Canabalism.
[/quote]

What about Annunciation?


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.