The Eucharist (Part 1)-Response to Russell's article

Hi Russell,

You asked me to have a look at your articles and I accepted.  Here's my response. Russell's words in blue.

The Eucharist (Part 1)

Introduction
Today we will do something different and take on a new topic, namely the Lord’s Supper, from a Catholic point of view. 

Most Protestants that I know view the Lord’s Supper (or Communion) as a solemn ritual, a symbolic yet profound commemoration, or reminder, of the saving work that Jesus Christ did on the cross.

Question:  I have met Protestants who believe in the REAL SPIRITUAL PRESENCE of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  In fact, I believe that is the most popular Protestant stance on this doctrine.  See this Wikipedia article.

Where do you stand in that regard?

But to the Catholic, it is much more. The Catholic version of the biblical communion service is the celebration of the Eucharist, and the Catholic Church celebrates it daily in its Mass (church service). To the Catholic, the Eucharist (bread and wine) is considered a sacrifice, and is the ACTUAL BODY, BLOOD, SOUL and DIVINITY of Jesus Christ 

(Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], paragraph #1374). 

They believe that when the priest consecrates these two elements, that the bread miraculously changes into Jesus’ literal, physical body, and the wine into His literal, physical blood. They call this “transubstantiation,” which means the appearance of the elements remains the same, but the actual substance or essence is (supposedly) changed. And because they believe that the bread and wine are now actually JESUS, HIMSELF, then these two elements are worthy to be worshipped (CCC #1378).

Having said that, I don’t see how anyone, Catholic or otherwise, can be indifferent, apathetic, or “neutral” on this issue. Can anyone say, “Well, I like it, but that’s just me,” or, “Yeah, it’s OK, but I can do without it,” or, “It’s no big deal,” or “It may be OK for you, but I don’t have to do it”…? If it is indeed the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ, if it is really HIM, then we should ALL be eagerly lining up to worship this bread and wine (Eucharist). But if these are NOT actually Jesus… then it is, by definition, idolatry.

I'm impressed Russell. So far, your presentation of the Catholic belief is accurate and fairly presented.  And I agree with you, the doctrine of the Eucharist is a test.  If it isn't the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, then, it is idolatry.  If it is, then you and all people of the world should be worshipping along with Catholics.

Question:  What of those people who believe it is the Spiritual presence of Jesus Christ?  Should they also be worshipping the Eucharist?  A Spiritual presence is a REAL presence after all.

Folks, we need to understand the seriousness of this contrast. I repeat, it is either Jesus Christ, Himself…or it is not Jesus at all. There is no middle ground here. The Eucharist is either a very good thing… or a very bad thing. It cannot be “kind of good,” or “kind of bad.” Either it is acceptable and wonderful worship of the Savior… or it is an abominable and disgusting act of idolatry. That’s why I say that we cannot be indifferent on this topic.

Remember, the Eucharist is one of THE central teachings in the Catholic Church, and is considered “the source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC #1324). Since it is a very extraordinary claim, Catholics need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Eucharist is what they say it is. The stakes are high, so let us examine the Catholic arguments and see if they hold water.

You said something like that with regard to the Priesthood.  And I objected to it there as well.  The fact is that the belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist was taught by the Apostles and they learned it from Christ.  The belief came about long before the Protestants denied it.  Therefore, the burden of proof is yours.  You need to prove that it is not true beyond a shadow of a doubt. 

Literal or Symbolic?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – JESUS SAID IN JOHN CHAPTER 6, “WHOEVER EATS MY FLESH AND DRINKS MY BLOOD HAS ETERNAL LIFE.” HE COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OF THE EUCHARIST, AND WAS THEREFORE SPEAKING LITERALLY.

This is your first error in the presentation of the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.  Here, I'll let the Catechism explain:

1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."

Now, if the Eucharist which Jesus established is an EFFICACIOUS SIGN, is it realistic to think that the argument is simply between whether the language of John 6 is completely figurative or completely literal.

The Catholic position is that some of the language is figurative and some literal.  

And that is your error.  You take the Catholic Church to have an all or nothing stance.  But it is the Protestants who do so.

There are several reasons to believe that Jesus was NOT speaking literally in John chapter 6. First, we need to ask, to whom was Jesus speaking? He was speaking to the multitudes (the people), v. 22 and 24. But whenever He spoke to the multitudes, He spoke to them in parables (figurative language). This was the NORM:

Matthew 13:10-11 - And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Matthew 13:34 - "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them"

Mark 4:11 - And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Mark 4:34 - But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

If this is true, then we have strong evidence that He was NOT speaking to this multitude literally, but metaphorically, or symbolically.

One small thing you seem to have overlooked.  He spoke to the multitude in parables.  But what did He do when speaking to His disciples?

Mark 4:34 - But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

He explained the parables to His disciples.  We'll speak of this further when we get into the meat of John 6.

Secondly, right in the middle of this very same sermon, we see symbolic language used (John 6:35):

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Are we to believe that whoever came to Jesus and believed on Him would never physically hunger or thirst again? Of course not. Jesus was simply using an analogy and comparing one's coming to Him with "hunger", and one's believing on Him with "thirst." Obviously figurative language. Starting with verse 26, Jesus is contrasting the physical with the spiritual, and He uses symbolic language to do it.

No. But has any Protestant or Catholic ever denied this language is true?  In what respect?  Spiritual or physical?  

Thirdly, notice that the author of this gospel (John) records many of the symbolic remarks of Jesus. For example, of the four gospels, only in John are these terms used by Jesus: “born again,” “living water,” “meat that ye know not of,” “destroy this temple,” and the “I am” sayings (see below). Therefore, we have good reason to believe that Jesus was speaking symbolically in John chapter 6.

That's confusing?  You think Jesus is speaking metaphorically when He says He is God?  (i.e. I AM).

Also, BORN AGAIN is a reference to Baptism.  Another efficacious sign.  We believe we are born again of Spirit and water in the Sacrament of Baptism.  

DESTROY THIS TEMPLE is also an efficacious sign, because Jesus did precisely what He signified would happen.  He raised the TEMPLE, His own Body, from the Tomb in three days.

So, there is a vast difference in how Protestants and Catholics view the SIGNS or miracles of Jesus Christ.

No Pampering for the Non-Committed
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT SINCE HIS DISCIPLES WALKED AWAY FROM HIM (John 6:66) WHEN HE SAID, “EAT MY FLESH” AND “DRINK MY BLOOD,” HE HAD TO BE SPEAKING LITERALLY. JESUS WAS A GOOD TEACHER AND ANY GOOD TEACHER, IF SPEAKING FIGURATIVELY, WOULD NOT HAVE LET THEM WALK AWAY. HE WOULD HAVE SAID, “HEY, WAIT A MINUTE, COME BACK… I WAS ONLY USING SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE!”
No, Jesus was not obligated to chase after these false "followers" and beg them to come back. 

Ok.  I said we would talk about this again.  Previously you said that Jesus spoke to the multitude in Parables.  This is true.  But Scripture says that He would explain His Parables to His disciples.  Whereas, apparently, this purported Parable needed no further explanation, because Jesus did not offer the disciples nor even the Apostles, any more explanation than He did the multitude.

Jesus indeed used this as a test of faith.  He even said:

John 6:62

 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

In other words, you don't believe me because you don't realize that I am God.

They didn't have the commitment or trust to stick with Him, thus proving that they were not true believers. His job is not to "baby" or pacify those who reject His teachings. Like we said earlier, the norm is that He would only explain things privately to His own disciples, not to the crowds publicly. If the Catholic wants to say that John 6 is NOT the norm, then the burden is on him to prove that.

The proof is there, you simply didn't see it.  Jesus explained the parables to His disciples.  That is the norm.

In this case, Jesus let even His disciples go without explanation of the purported parable.  Therefore, this is not a parable.  This is the literal truth. 

I'll try to anticipate your objection.  I think you'll say, "BUT YOU SAID IT WASN'T LITERAL!"  Not exactly. I said there are metaphorical elements.  And some are literal.  But both are true.  Especially the part where He says, "the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world" (John 6:51), we believe that part is absolutely true.

You see, we put Jesus in a category all by Himself.  We believe He is God and man.  And since we believe He is God, when He says, "My flesh is real food (John 6:55)", we believe it.  

Is it literal?  Yes!  God created the world with but a word.  If He says this bread is My Flesh, it is so.

Is it symbolic?  Sure.  Bread is universally considered food and sustenance for the body.  God is showing symbolically that He is our sustenance.  He it is whom we need more than food. 

Repetition
CATHOLIC CLAIM – IN CHAPTER 6 OF JOHN, WE FIND, NOT JUST ONCE, BUT SEVERAL TIMES, JESUS SAYING THAT WE MUST “EAT HIS FLESH” AND “DRINK HIS BLOOD”. THIS REPETITION INTENSIFIES HIS STATEMENT AND LETS US KNOW THAT HE MEANT IT LITERALLY.

No, not at all. THIRTY times in the New Testament, Jesus is presented as the “Lamb of God,” or “the Lamb.” If repetition proves that something is literal, then He must be a literal, physical lamb. But everyone knows that this is symbolic language. So, this Catholic argument doesn’t work, either.

Very strange conclusion which you've drawn.  Do you not realize that these two concepts are connected?  Jesus Christ is our Passover Sacrifice.   The reason He is called the Lamb of God is because we must eat His Flesh just as the Passover Lamb had to be consumed to fulfill the Passover requirement:

1 Corinthians 5:7

 7Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

This has to do with the Passover of the Lord.  Have you not read in Scripture:

Revelation 5:6

 6And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Dangerous Symbols?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – IF YOU DESTROY A STATUE OR PHOTOGRAPH OF SOMEONE, YOU WOULD NOT BE GUILTY OF HARMING THAT PERSON, SINCE STATUES AND PHOTOGRAPHS ARE ONLY SYMBOLS. I CORINTHIANS 11:27-29 SAYS THAT WE CAN BE GUILTY OF PROFANING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD DURING COMMUNION AND THUS, SUFFER CONDEMNATION. SO, HOW COULD PROFANING A MERE SYMBOL CAUSE SOMEONE TO BE CONDEMNED?
One can indeed, suffer condemnation because of a “mere symbol.” Consider this:

Genesis 17:10 - This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

17:14 - And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

What if the Old Testament Jews despised, or somehow profaned, their God-given sign of circumcision(Genesis 17:10-11)? Would they have escaped judgment for this? Circumcision was their very identity (physically) as God's people. Would God have said, "Oh, well, that's OK, since it's just a symbol"? No, God would have cut them off from the very covenant they despised. To despise the sign / symbol of the covenant (circumcision) is to despise the One with Whom the covenant is made. In the same way, to despise or profane the symbols of the bread and wine of the New Covenant is to despise the One to Whom the elements point, i.e., Jesus and His work on the cross.

But that is not what Scripture says, is it?  Here is the literal rendering of the Scripture IN THE WORDS OF A PROTESTANT BIBLE:

1 Corinthians 11:29

29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

That doesn't say that one is guilty if one does not perceive the SIGN.  That says one is guilty if one does not perceive the BODY.

Discern is tricky here.  How does a Christian DISCERN:

Hebrews 11

1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

You may indeed say by faith ALONE in this case.  It is by faith ALONE that we discern the body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Context, Context, Context
SYMBOLICALLY SPEAKING, EATING FLESH AND DRINKING BLOOD WAS ALWAYS USED IN A NEGATIVE WAY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT (PSALM 27:2; ISAIAH 9:20; 49:26; MICAH 3:3; 2 SAMUEL 23:17), AS IN DESTROYING, REVILING OR ASSAULTING AN ENEMY. SINCE THAT IS THE SYMBOLIC MEANING, WOULDN’T JESUS’ WORDS IN JOHN 6 MEAN, “HE WHO REVILES OR ASSAULTS ME HAS ETERNAL LIFE”? THIS, OF COURSE, IS ABSURD. IT MAKES FAR MORE SENSE IF LITERAL.

These terms were indeed used in that way in some Old Testament passages. But this argument is assuming that there can only be one symbolic interpretation possible for phrases that are similar. Jesus sets the context for us in John 6 and it is certainly not the same context as those Old Testament verses mentioned. Those contexts were about war, mistreatment, judgment and punishment, NONE of which have to do with Jesus’ meaning here. To limit the meaning of Jesus’ words to “destroying, reviling, or assaulting” as the only possible symbolism, is to utterly ignore the overall context, as well as to ignore the very symbolism used within it.

So, what DID Jesus really mean when He said to “eat My flesh” and “drink My blood” if He wasn’t referring to the Eucharist? He was referring to His work on the cross, where His body would be “broken” (like bread) and His blood would be “poured out” (like wine). In this context, to “eat” and “drink” (spiritually and symbolically) means to PARTAKE OF, to ACCEPT, to BELIEVE, to TRUST IN His work at Calvary.

I can't disagree with most of that.  I simply carry it further.  He means to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood in order to participate in the Christian Passover.

He Didn’t Say…
CATHOLIC CLAIM – DURING THE LORD’S SUPPER, JESUS NEVER SAID, “PRETEND THAT THIS IS MY BODY AND BLOOD,” AND HE DIDN’T SAY, “THIS IS LIKE MY BODY AND BLOOD.” HE SAID, “THIS IS MY BODY AND BLOOD.” THIS PROVES HE WAS BEING LITERAL.

He also said, "I AM the vine..." (John 15:5), "I AM the light of the world..." (John 8:12), "I AM the good Shepherd..." (John 10:11), and "I AM the door..." (John 10:7). Does anyone think that any of these statements were meant physically and literally? Hardly. He didn't say, "PRETEND that I am the vine," etc., in these contexts either. But how are any of these statements any different from, "I AM the Bread of Life..." (John 6:35)? The point is, they’re not any different…they’re all symbolic.

So far, you've been debating with a "symbolic" Catholic and you've been doing a good job of destroying the arguments you put in his mouth.  But now, I'll be anxious to see what you say in response to the real Catholic which is responding to your words.

Anyway, in this case, we again see those words very differently than you.  You are right, they are symbolic in one sense.  But they are very much true and literal in another.

1st.  Jesus is God.  His use of the term "I AM", we believe, is a subtle and literal way of informing the multitude with WHOM they were speaking.  It is a reference to the I AM WHO AM statement which God addressed to Moses (Gen 3:14).

2nd.  To say, "I AM the vine and you are the branches…" is a parabolic way of saying, "I am the body and you are my limbs", a teaching which we consider LITERAL.  Yes Virginia, we do consider ourselves the LITERAL body of Christ.  Please see the Merriam Webster definition #5 of the word "body":

5: a group of persons or things: as

a : a fighting unit : ...

b : a group of individuals organized for some purpose <a legislative body>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/body?show=0&t=1322081613

3rd.  For Him to say, "I AM the door…" is another literal truth.  It is through Christ that we go to the Father, is it not?  Therefore, He is the door.  A door doesn't have to be made of wood, Russell.  Didn't you know?  See definition number 3 of the Merriam Webster dictionary:

3 : a means of access or participation : ...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/door

By the way, if Catholics want to be specific about which words were NOT used at the Last Supper, it can be pointed out that neither did He use the words “miracle,” “changed,” “soul and divinity,” “real presence,” “to make present,” “RE-presented,” or “merits grace.” He doesn’t call the bread or wine a “propitiation” or a “sacrament,” much less a “sacrament of redemption.” And He mentions nothing of a “priesthood.” The Catholic Church connects ALL of these with the Eucharistic Mass, but the biblical accounts of the Last Supper mention NONE of these. Many extraordinary claims, but no proof.

True.  But those are all doctrinal explanations by the agency which Christ established to teach His doctrines.  You won't find the word "Trinity" (a word which most Protestants accept) nor "consubstantiation" (a Protestant explanation of the Eucharist) nor even "Sola Scriptura" in the Scriptures.  These are all words used by certain Christians to explain what they believe about the Christian faith.  So, if you are saying that the Church is not permitted to use any words except the ones used by Scripture, you will have to learn Hebrew and begin to worship in Hebrew. 

Unanimous Consent?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE WHAT PROTESTANTS SAY WHEN ALL THE CHURCH FATHERS WERE UNANIMOUS IN THEIR BELIEF ABOUT THE EUCHARIST? EVERY SINGLE CHURCH FATHER BELIEVED AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BELIEVES IT TODAY. NONE OF THEM, BEFORE THE REFORMATION, EVER BELIEVED THAT THE EUCHARIST WAS ONLY SYMBOLIC.
This is certainly debatable, 

One thing Protestants have proven is that they can and will debate ANYTHING.

and a number of Protestant apologists have dealt with this topic already (quite successfully, I believe). 

Of course, I disagree.

I will leave the specific views of each church father to those more qualified to debate that. However, my point here is simply this: Depending on the church fathers to prove the truth of a particular doctrine is risky and it raises more questions than it answers.

The fact is that the church fathers, however wise and respected, were not infallible. Their writings are useful and informative, but they had faults just like you and me. They too, needed to “study to show themselves approved.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

This is simply another misunderstanding of a Church Teaching.  It is impossible that anyone can prove that the Church Fathers were unanimous on any number of topics.  Some Church Fathers were even heretical on certain points.  So, what does that mean, the "unanimous consent of the Fathers"?  

It is the Church which is infallible.  And history is very clear on the manner in which the Church arrives at truth:

1 Thessalonians 5:21

King James Version (KJV)

 21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Throughout the centuries, the Church Fathers have gathered to decide which matters are true and which are false.  It is in these gatherings that the unanimity of the Church Fathers is found.  When they speak with one mind and one mouth in their capacity as ambassadors of Christ.

But even if they WOULD HAVE unanimously agreed on the Eucharist (and I certainly do not believe this is the case), this still would not prove the argument. Majority vote does not prove truth. As the Scripture says, “…let God be true, but every man a liar…” (Romans 3:4) 

This is another Protestant teaching which disagrees with Scripture.  Scripture tells us to follow the faith of those who went before us:

Hebrews 6:12

King James Version (KJV)

 ¹²That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Scripture does not tell us to make it up as we go along.

The question is, can this Catholic doctrine be found within the pages of the ultimate Standard, God’s Word? 

Yes.  Given that God's Word is contained in Scripture AND Tradition.  And yes, it is found in both.

If no, then why WOULD it not be found in the Bible, since the Eucharist is such an IMPORTANT teaching of the Catholic Church? If yes, then please show it to us. So far, this extraordinary claim has not been proven at all.

The answer is "yes".  We have been discussing the verses which prove that it is yes.  John 6 and the Last Supper discourses.

The extraordinary claim is yours.  We believe Jesus is God and everything is possible with Him.  We also see that this teaching comes to us from the Apostles.  It is only in the 15th century, that certain Protestant reformers began to introduce this novelty.  Because even Luther and Calvin believed in the Real Presence.  But Zwingli did not.  And, as far as I can tell, Protestants who deny the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist remain in the minority.

P.S.  For some strange reason, everything is showing up in caps on the published blog.  But it is not that way in my edit screen.  In my edit screen, only the first letter is capitalized as it should be.

See also part 2

Sincerely,

De Maria