Jesus Christ said, “TAKE AND EAT; THIS IS MY BODY.” Matthew 26:26…
Now, do you believe what He said? He used very few words in this statement so He could not have been misunderstood. If you do not believe His exact words, then show me the symbolism, or the parable, or the metaphoric nature of this verse, and please follow the rule above. Tell me why you do not believe him. Is it a problem with the phrase, or maybe a word you do not understand? If so, which word? Is it ‘This’, or ‘Is’, or ‘My’, or ‘Body’? And please, I am not interested in personal opinions, only the facts.
I think the problem is that Bible literalists say they believe in literal interpretation of scripture, except they pick and choose. The same exact people who believe that God created the earth in 6 days, (24 literal hours times 6), believe Christ couldn’t possibly have told us to eat His flesh.
Verses from the Book of John:
53 So Jesus said to them, "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; 54 he who 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 food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56* **He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. **
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61* But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
66** After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. **67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
So, straight from the Mouth of God, and they don’t believe it. Christ repeated Himself over and over so as not to be misunderstood. The lesson is right in there, even his disciples turned away from him at that point.
I relate to what Scott Hahn wrote in his Rome Sweet Home… something like, “There between the highlighted verses in the book of John, was the Eucharist…”
Also, my very well underlined and highlighted protestant Bible, with years of sermon notes, had invariably skipped over the Bread of Life.
It would sound odd for Jesus to say that because all of them knew that it was forbidden to eat flesh and blood of a human. Plus, Jesus doesn’t spell out the way it would be done. I can not understand why he let the people who left go like that either. Why wouldn’t he say don’t worry I am not asking you to eat my arm or something. Just bread. Don’t get upset.
HI,SJ. And in fact Jesus says to them ! JN 6:43-44 Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
=onenow 1 Several times Jesus repeats He is the bread come down from heaven.
And Jesus points out a future event, in VS 62. What if you should see the Son of man ascend to where he was before ?
onenow 1 Jesus likens His flesh to a future miracle the ascension. ]! At least that’s the way I read it.
This is what Jesus said in VS. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the outset who was to betray him.
And the Coupe De Grace. When Jesus asks the twelve? What about you do you want to go away too ? V’S 67-69 Peter answers to whom shall we go you have the message of eternal life and we have come to believe you are the Holy One of God.
It’s all about how you interpret the Bible:
If you read the words symbollically, you’ll think Jesus is talking about a symbol of Himself.
If you read the words literalistically, you’ll think Jesus is talking about He Himself.
But, using logic and Scriptures, one can figure out what Jesus meant.
God is the Author of life. (Act 3:15)
Jesus Christ is God. (Luke 1:32)
Jesus promised that those who eat the Eucharist have eternal life. (John 6:54)
Symbols cannot give life. (Hebrews 9:9-10)
Hence, the Eucharist is Jesus Himself. (Luke 22:19-20)
He didn’t say that because that’d be a lie, because He was asking them to do more than eat a simple piece of bread as a mere symbol.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the outset who was to betray him.
but a lot of them left and only one betrayed him.
Is there a question you have on this passage?
I agree the Bible could be confusing if you read it on its own without fully understanding everything, which is why, as onenow1 said, He left us a Church with authority to teach. Feel free to ask for clarification on anything.
Well, I have read about what catholics believe about the eucharist, but the people in the crowd could never have jumped to that understanding just from what Jesus said. I did not mean that the eucharist is just bread, but that he did not clear up for them that it was bread he was talking about and not say, his arm. Does that make sense? It would be very confusing to the crowd.
I think its sad many left not understanding it. I wonder why Jesus didn’t go into more detail to help them understand.
Yes I believe what he stated in a symbolic fashion
He used very few words in this statement so He could not have been misunderstood.
No, rather it is that his body remained (in full sight) exactly where it was and the bread remained absolutely unchanged so that he could not have been misunderstood.
If you do not believe His exact words, then show me the symbolism, or the parable, or the metaphoric nature of this verse, and please follow the rule above.
show me the change that has you actually gnawing at the flesh of Jesus as per a literal reading of John 6
Tell me why you do not believe him. Is it a problem with the phrase, or maybe a word you do not understand? If so, which word? Is it ‘This’, or ‘Is’, or ‘My’, or ‘Body’? And please, I am not interested in personal opinions, only the facts.
a) no change occurs in the symbols of the Lord’s Supper. When Christ turned water into wine, the water actually became wine. When Christ cured the leper, the diseased flesh changed to healthy flesh. Those are examples of how God makes changes involving wine and flesh.
b) Christ was in the habit of speaking figuratively to the point that he and his disciples had this recorded exchange:
Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father." Then Jesus’ disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech.
c) Jesus’s actual body was in full sight and Jesus didn’t claim that the bread was also his body such that his one body was fully present in two locations and that when the bread was broken, that his one body was then fully present in three locations that when the bread was again broken, that his one body was then fully present in four locations…but then again, there was no need b/c all could see that it was still bread. Likewise there was no need to voice a concern about the crumbs that inevitably fell to the floor when the bread was broken and passed around, b/c it was just bread.
and you don’t pick and choose? Do you actually gnaw on the flesh of Christ as per the literal interpretation of verse 54? Do your teeth crush and grind the tissue of Christ’s body? …or is it that you eat in fashion that isn’t a literal gnawing?
God has merged His Divinity with human beings, this indeed was probably, a sacrifice many of us overlook; to be Divine and lower oneself to our status of humanity with human temptations that had to be overcome.
Now I wonder, which was harder to accomplish 9 months in Mary’s womb,or becoming bread and wine through the power of the Trinity at Mass ?
But with God all things are possible, I believe through the Eucharistic Miracle, that you get only in the Catholic, and Orthodox Liturgies we are absorbed into the body of Christ.
Bill, I believe every word of it, as you know.
I also believe the next part, where Christ says, “Drink from it, all of you”.
Now, I understand concomitance, but I don’t understand the necessity of not fulfilling His command to “Eat **and **drink”. So, my question is why did, and in some cases still, not offer the cup to the laity. It seems in direct contradiction to, “drink from it, all of you”.
Sorry to Jump in on Bill, but thought I’d give this one a try, It is my understanding that giveing under both speices stopped due to all drinking from the same cup and spread of infectus dieses. Also as within the body contains the blood and the blood makes up the body if you recieve just the bread or just the cup you receive both. Me personaly see this as the warning ST Paul gave about receiving and not being correly disposed to do so they were getting sciking and Dieing. I never even thing about who has drank from the cup of priesous Blood prior to me as it is the Blood of My Lord and AS long as I am in a state of grace There is nothing but more of God’s grace that can touch me from It.
Anyway I hope that answered your question as to why It was stopped and In some parts of the world Is still not given. Also if the Mas Is a EF Mass ( old Latin Mass) scence the Cup was not offered when that Form was Promugated and It does not lead itself to change it is still not offed under that Rite.
Hi Scott. Hope you are well.
The link here is to an Anglican site about the very issue of infection resulting from Eucharist. anglican.ca/faith/ministry/euc-practice-infection.htm
And while one can’t trust those Anglicans ( just kidding), it is very informative. Intinction, properly done, is another safe alternative that follows the command of Christ to eat and drink.
But actually, Scott, I was really responding to the way Bill, who is clearly a good Catholic Christian who loves his Church and his Lord, worded his OP. He said, in part:
Is it a problem with the phrase, or maybe a word you do not understand? If so, which word? Is it ‘This’, or ‘Is’, or ‘My’, or ‘Body’?
And I just wanted to point out to him that all of us can find a way to criticize the other, based on practices or even belief. How we do it can make a big difference.
And to finish, while I support distribution in both kinds, I believe that HIs sanctifying grace is made available to those who receive under one. If, for example, I were unable to receive wine, I would receive under the bread only and know His body was sufficient for me to receive sanctifying grace.
As it is, Celiac disease sufferers, or those with a gluten intolerance, are told to abstain from the “bread” species of communion, and alcoholics are told to abstain from the “wine” species of communion. And it is precisely because of what you said: you can receive under one of the species and still receive the full body and blood of Jesus Christ and his full grace.
Personally, I wish more Latin Rite churches would offer both species of communion. I found myself at a Lifeteen Mass last night, (did not know it was one and will never go again), and while they offered both species (and I received both), my regular parish only has the bread species. But I’d rather receive “only” bread at my regular parish because 1) we kneel before our Lord at communion(there’s a communion rail), and 2) it is far more reverent and respectful there.
At times I’ll attend a local Byzantine church. There they have bread in wine and it is scooped out and poured into your open mouth. Man! I wish Latin Rite did this! We’d receive BOTH species of communion AND it would remove the whole “in the hand” or not debate. It’s something that is having me seriously consider “switching” Rites to Eastern rite.
Not at all…do you? Do you think that God cannot grant eternal life w/o being “ingested”? It is not about any limit in his power, it is about what he meant and what he did. The Real Presence crowd crow as if theirs is the only possible coherent understanding of John 6 and the Lord’s Supper accounts (as if the millions of believers that hold to a symbolic understanding must all be too dense to require any coherence for their interpretation). The Real Presence crowd crow as if they somehow are more faithful by taking Jesus’s words literally (when they actually pick and choose what it is that they take literally). The Real Presence crowd crow about how their understanding is “straight from the Mouth of God” (yet, when Jesus still refers to the wine as “fruit of the vine” after it has been supposedly transformed into his actual blood, straightness is suddenly abandoned). If you or the others holding to a RP view want a coherent explanation of the symbolic view or a discussion about the problems with an RP view, I’ll gladly participate…but if all that is desired is shallow crowing, I’ll gladly step aside and avoid the cacophony. Peace.