CATHOLICISM: The Real Presence in the Eucharist (Gospels, hell, abominations)

[CRCarson]

THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD
A Catholic Understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
by Randy Carson

Part 1

In the sixth chapter of John, Jesus makes the following statement: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Jn 6:51 (all scripture quotations from the NIV)

Just exactly what did Jesus mean when he said, “this bread is my flesh”? Many people argue that Jesus was only speaking symbolically when He said that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Is this true?

We can discover the true meaning of Jesus’ words by examining the reactions of the crowd who heard his teaching with their own ears, from the infallible word of God contained in the New Testament, and from the writings and teachings of the early Church.

Reaction of the Eyewitnesses

Speaking before a crowd assembled at a synagogue in Capernaum, Jesus delivered a teaching that has divided the Catholic and Protestant churches since the time of the Reformation. 1500 years earlier, his words had a similarly divisive effect on the audience who heard them for the very first time.

After Jesus declared Himself to be “the living bread that came down from heaven,” the very next verse of scripture tells us: “Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” Why were they arguing? If they understood Jesus to be speaking metaphorically, then there would have been hardly an eyebrow raised. For example, on other occasions, Jesus said, “I am the gate for the sheep” (Jn 10:7) and “I am the true vine” (Jn 15:1) but on those occasions, the listeners easily discerned that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. In contrast, an argument did break out when Jesus said, “this bread is my flesh,” and this indicates that those in the crowd held different opinions about what he meant. Some said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? He’s crazy!” while others may have responded, “Of course he can’t do that…his words must have a symbolic meaning!” The one group rejected Jesus’ ability to give us his body and blood as real food and drink while the other missed his true meaning altogether. Either way, the crowd was divided.

Of course, Jesus knew what they were saying amongst themselves, and if it was merely his intent to draw a symbolic parallel between his flesh and the bread of heaven, he could have put an end to their misunderstanding immediately. Instead, Jesus reiterated and strengthened the literal meaning of his words by declaring,

“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. Our forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever. He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.” (Jn 6:53-58)

Rather than quieting the crowd which had broken out into arguments about what he had just told them, Jesus pressed his point home even more emphatically: “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” In fact, whereas he had initially said positively, ”If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever,” now he has just stated the negative result of failing to do so: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Thus, Jesus has clarified his meaning by stating what happens if we do – and do not – eat his flesh and drink his blood.

The next verse is particularly revealing: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (Jn 6:60) Notice that it was not Jesus’ typical enemies, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who rejected his teaching on this occasion but his disciples – those believers who followed him from place to place and hailed him as the Messiah. They had seen Jesus perform many miracles and heard him teach wondrous things. But this was too much even for them.

“Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said this to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” Jn 6:61-64

Not only does Jesus continue to uphold the literal meaning of his teaching, but also he presses even further by asking that if this bothers them, what will they do when they see him ascend to heaven? Protestants do not deny the ascension of the resurrected Jesus, yet here Jesus places two key truths side by side. He is saying, in effect, “If eating my flesh causes you theological problems, just wait until you see what else I have planned…you ain’t seen nothing yet!”

The gospel continues: “From this time, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Jn 6:66-69

There is a lot going on in these three verses; let’s look at them closely. After hearing Jesus declare that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink, his disciples, his followers, could not accept his words and no longer followed him. Of course, if they had understood that his body and blood were being used as symbols, they would have had no complaint. It was precisely because they understood exactly what Jesus meant that they refused to follow him any longer. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to what the eyewitnesses understood Jesus to be saying.

Now, imagine the scene: Jesus has been teaching a crowd, and many of them have gotten up to leave because they could not or would not accept his words. In rejecting his teaching, they rejected the one who gave it and turned their backs on the savior of the world. Thus, their souls were at risk of eternal separation from God. Jesus came to seek and save what was lost; therefore, if these disciples had a simple misunderstanding of the metaphorical language he had used that might cause them to spend eternity in Hell, Jesus would have corrected their error. But we do not see him chasing them down the road saying, “Wait, everyone. I think there’s been a misunderstanding … let me explain what I meant.” Jesus could not correct a misunderstanding because there had been none.

Instead, he watched sadly as they departed and then turned to the Twelve, the closest of his disciples, and put the question directly to them: “What about you? Are you leaving too?” In doing so, Jesus was risking everything he had been working for since he had first called Simon and Andrew to follow him by the shore of the Sea of Galilee. If the Twelve had abandoned him at this crucial moment, Jesus would have had to begin again with a new group of Apostles to whom he would entrust his teachings and upon whom he would build his church. By God’s grace, Simon Peter, the first among the Apostles, responded in faith acknowledging that Jesus is the Holy One of God and accepting this difficult teaching.

[CRCarson]

Part 2

Was Peter’s response simply the result of being put on the spot unexpectedly – or was he prompted by the Holy Spirit to foreshadow the Church’s teaching of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist that would come after the Last Supper and Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension? For an answer, we should examine what the New Testament writers had to say after reflecting on the words of Jesus for several decades.

Grasping at Straws: John 6:63

But first, let’s examine another common misunderstanding that arises from the text we just read. In verse 63, Jesus said:

"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life." (John 6:63)

Some people claim that these words prove that Jesus was speaking metaphorically because he said “the words I have spoken are spirit”. They take this to mean that Jesus was not speaking literally when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said, "the flesh counts for nothing."

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said "my flesh" or "the flesh of the Son of Man". Here are the examples:

"This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:51)

"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." (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, 'This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?' Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, 'Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.'" (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase "the flesh" instead of "my flesh" or "the flesh of the Son of Man" because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to man's natural, unenlightened rational intellect.

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can't understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of "the flesh" to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh "counts for nothing"; otherwise, his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to "flesh" other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many non-Catholics cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their "proof text" points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their own flesh or human reasoning instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh "counts for nothing".

[CRCarson]

Part 3

The Problem of John

We have already looked extensively at the Gospel of John’s teaching on the body and blood of Jesus. However, there is one other powerful observation that we can make concerning this book. The author, commonly considered to be John, the beloved disciple of Jesus, was the last of the original Twelve to die and the only one who did not suffer martyrdom. At the time of this writing, John had known the martyrdoms of the first four leaders of the Church: Peter, Linus, Cletus and Clement. John died around the year 100 A.D. while Evaristus, the fifth bishop of Rome, was leading the Church.

Given his longevity and his special relationship to Jesus, it would be understandable if the early believers gave a special place of honor to the Apostle John; no one alive would have had more authority to speak about the life and teaching of Jesus than he. Therefore, if John had felt that the Church had strayed from the true teaching of Jesus (or in its election of Church leaders), his objections would have been heard and heeded. Instead, his gospel account of Jesus’ teaching regarding his body and blood reinforced the plain meaning of our Lord’s words, “this is my body, this is my blood.” The fact that John, after more than half a century of reflection upon all that Jesus said and did, steadfastly held to the teaching of the early Church regarding the literal meaning of Jesus’ words, “this is my body; this is my blood” creates a problem for Protestants that cannot be explained away.

The Apostle Paul

One of the greatest Jewish theologians, Saul of Tarsus, converted to Christianity after encountering Jesus on the road to Damascus. Known to us as the Apostle Paul, he became the most prolific of the New Testament writers and a tireless evangelist. In his first letter to the Church at Corinth, Paul wrote:

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 of my blood; do this, whenever you drink of it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in and unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” 1 Co 11:23-29

Paul was not one of the original Apostles nor was he an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus (as far as we know). But we are certain that he was not present in the upper room when Jesus shared his last supper with the Twelve. As he states in the passage above, he received the words, “this is my body, etc” directly from the Lord himself. Elsewhere he states, “To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.” Paul acknowledges that he had received “great revelations” from the Lord, and, of course, the Church discerned that his writings are the infallible word of God. As a result, we should be pay close heed when Paul warns “anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” Would there be need for any admonishment of this type if the bread and wine were mere symbols?

After considering the verses discussed above, it seems clear what the New Testament authors understood Jesus to be saying when he spoke of his flesh and blood as real food and drink. However, some Protestants argue that Jesus frequently spoke in parables and that this was one of those occasions. Does this argument hold up to scrutiny in the light of scripture?

The Bible tells us that Jesus did speak in parables to the crowds that followed him and that he later clarified the true meaning of his words privately for his disciples. For example, in Lk 8:9-10 we read, “His disciples asked him what this parable meant. He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables…” and Mark 4:10 tells us, “When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables” and again in Mark 4:34 we find “when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.”

Without a doubt, if Jesus had meant for his words on his body and blood to be understood symbolically, he would have explained this to the Twelve when they were alone – especially after what must have been the demoralizing departure of so many who were his followers and their friends. Further, had Jesus given the Twelve private instruction on the symbolic meaning of his flesh and blood later that evening or the next day, then surely the authors of the gospels would have revealed this fact just as they provided explanations of other parables. But this did not happen. Jesus did not clarify this teaching privately for his closest disciples because he had not been using a parable when he spoke.

[denverian]

Having been Catholic in the past, I can honestly say I never believed this. Ever.

I always knew that if I took the host and the wine to a lab and had them tested, no human DNA would be in there. I just can't believe something that isn't true. You can twist words and quote the Bible all you want, but I'll never belive somehing that contradicts science and reality. A priest can no more turn wine into blood than he can turn a piece of pizza into a squirrel.

But if people want to believe it, it's certainly of no consequence to me.

[Gabriel A. Pettinicchio]

Originally Posted by denverian

Having been Catholic in the past, I can honestly say I never believed this. Ever.

I always knew that if I took the host and the wine to a lab and had them tested, no human DNA would be in there. I just can't believe something that isn't true. You can twist words and quote the Bible all you want, but I'll never belive somehing that contradicts science and reality. A priest can no more turn wine into blood than he can turn a piece of pizza into a squirrel.

But if people want to believe it, it's certainly of no consequence to me.

Please think about what you are saying.

I posed the following question last week and no one responded with an answer.

If Jesus were to walk into a modern day science lab, and have his DNA analyzed with the most recent technology, by the most brilliant of scientists ... would they be able to establish the fact that he is God?

Please answer the question and if not ... DO think about what I have just asked you.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by Gabriel A. Pettinicchio

Please think about what you are saying.

I posed the following question last week and no one responded with an answer.

If Jesus were to walk into a modern day science lab, and have his DNA analyzed with the most recent technology, by the most brilliant of scientists ... would they be able to establish the fact that he is God?

Please answer the question and if not ... DO think about what I have just asked you.

No, they wouldn't. They would be able to confirm that he was a human being, flesh and blood. But your question has nothing to do with magically turning food/drink into flesh/blood.

[Gabriel A. Pettinicchio]

I thought I would add this for those that deny the Early Church celebrated the Eucharist, and understood CLEARLY, what it was & meant.

Tacitus, was one of a couple of non-Christian historians from the 1st Century. I add this because it offers an alternative to historical info from the Early Church Father's on the Eucharist. Again, proof that the One True (Catholic) Church, was then and IS now!

Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Excerpt -

His characterization of "Christian abominations" may have been based on the rumors in Rome that during the Eucharist rituals Christians ate the body and drank the blood of their God, interpreting the ritual as cannibalism by Christians.[SIZE=4][44][/SIZE][SIZE=4][45[/SIZE]

[Gabriel A. Pettinicchio]

You said, " I always knew that if I took the host and the wine to a lab and had them tested, no human DNA would be in there. I just can't believe something that isn't true. You can twist words and quote the Bible all you want, but I'll never belive somehing that contradicts science and reality. A priest can no more turn wine into blood than he can turn a piece of pizza into a squirrel."

I use the example of Jesus defying science & reality, as you do the Host & wine. Both would contradict science, reality, logic, & the senses. So why believe one and not the other?

[CRCarson]

Originally Posted by denverian

Having been Catholic in the past, I can honestly say I never believed this. Ever.

I always knew that if I took the host and the wine to a lab and had them tested, no human DNA would be in there. I just can't believe something that isn't true. You can twist words and quote the Bible all you want, but I'll never belive somehing that contradicts science and reality. A priest can no more turn wine into blood than he can turn a piece of pizza into a squirrel.

But if people want to believe it, it's certainly of no consequence to me.

Can Jesus walk on water or turn water into wine at a wedding feast? Can He heal the blind or raise the dead?

What are the limits to what God can and can't do?

And to expand a bit on what Gabe said, if you had walked along the shore of the Sea of Galilee with Jesus, how would you have been able to discern that He is God through science and testing?

So, if God can be present in a man (Jesus) without your instruments picking it up, why can He not be present in a host without your measurements discerning it?

Thanks!

[CRCarson]

Originally Posted by denverian

No, they wouldn't. They would be able to confirm that he was a human being, flesh and blood. But your question has nothing to do with magically turning food/drink into flesh/blood.

Neither does my mine.