The Lord's Supper/Eucharist > Likes and Comments

A recent comment on another thread about the Lord's Supper/Eucharist [the latter term deriving from the Greek word for "thanksgiving;" the noun form isn't used for the ordinance in the New Testament itself, but all three of the Synoptic Gospels use the verb in describing its institution at the Last Supper] prompted me to think the topic deserves a thread of its own. Instituted by Jesus himself, it obviously played an important role in the life of the New Testament church; but its observance in the life of the contemporary church is fraught with controversy as to both doctrine and practice. This thread is a venue for any comments or resource-sharing on the topic that members believe may be helpful!

Although it's not the first New Testament passage bearing on this subject to actually be written down, Jesus' oral discourse in the latter part of John 6 preceded the Last Supper, and would have been a common memory for the Twelve at the time of the latter. Soon after the feeding of the 5,000, Jesus declares himself to be the "bread of life" (John 6:35), which in the previous verses he identified as "coming down from heaven" and giving "life to the world." He goes on to identify this bread with his "flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," and promises eternal life to those who eat this bread (v. 50-51). In v. 53-55, he adds the condition of drinking his blood as well as eating his flesh; those who do both will be raised to eternal life in the resurrection, while those who do not eat and drink will not have that promise of life. Finally, he states that "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." (There are many more verses in the chapter, but they restate these essential ideas, reinforcing them by repetition for an audience that must remember and transmit them orally.)

Since this passage and those in the Synoptic Gospels describing the later institution of the Lord's Supper (which John does not record) are the only ones in Jesus' recorded teaching where the image of eating his flesh and drinking his blood is presented, it seems fair to conclude that the earlier teaching can clarify the later utterances, and was intended to. That the later statements can directly clarify the earlier ones, however, is less clear. By his own statement in Luke 8:10 and its parallels, Jesus intentionally taught in parables to mask his meaning from those who don't understand what they see and hear; but in context, he states that the meaning is intelligible to those to whom understanding is given. In the setting of John 6, an interpretation of this imagery as a direct prophetic reference to the Lord's Supper, although it was not yet an instituted thing, would not have been intelligible to either group. Not everyone agrees that biblical teaching should be interpreted, in the first instance, as having the basic meaning that the original listeners/readers would have seen in it. But if you do take that as a legitimate principle, it militates against seeing the meaning of the John 6 discourse as only explicable in the light of Jesus' words at the Last Supper, read back into the earlier ones.

If John 6 has an understandable meaning in its own context, the obvious first question is, should we understand the images of bread and drink literally or figuratively? Obviously, the language is formally literal; but that doesn't in itself close the question; by definition, all metaphorical language is formally literal, because that's how it differs from a simile, though both are comparisons. (In John 1:29, "Behold the Lamb of God" is formally literal, but we don't periodically shear Jesus for his wool.)

If the image was intended to be understood as genuinely (not just formally) literal, then Jesus' hearers were meant to accept that, in some fashion not yet explained, they would be given a way to physically consume Jesus' body and blood, and that their entry into eternal life would depend on their doing so. From what I've read, the main argument in favor of this view is that, on principle, no formally literal statement should ever be understood as a metaphor unless there are absolutely compelling arguments for doing so. (The question of whether or not those arguments are absolutely compelling here will have to be explored later.)

If Jesus intended those of his hearers who could grasp his meaning to understand it as metaphorical, then there has to a plausible metaphorical meaning that they could pick up on. IMO, the earlier Lamb of God metaphor segues into such a possible meaning. Jews who brought animal sacrifices identified with the sacrificial animal, in the sense that its death substituted for theirs. If Jesus is seen as the human sin-bearer for the sin of the world, similar identification with him would necessarily follow. The image of taking him physically into one's own body could then vividly symbolize that identification. This doesn't prove that this necessarily IS Jesus' meaning in John 6; but I'm suggesting that it is a legitimate interpretive possibility in the original context.

All three of the Synoptic Gospels describe the actual initiation by Jesus of the Lord's Supper, taking place at a Passover meal with the disciples on the night before he was crucified (Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 21:17-20). The three accounts have slight differences of detail; but they all agree that he identified the bread and the contents of the cup as his body and blood, and taken together they state that his body is "given for" and his blood "poured out for" others ("for many" or "for you"). None of the three actually record his command to do this as a continuing remembrance (Paul quotes this in his discussion of this topic in I Corinthians, which I hope to summarize in my next post), but we can infer that this was said on the same occasion.

It seems to me incontrovertibly obvious that all of the disciples would have naturally connected Jesus' language here with his earlier discourse in the Johannine passage discussed in the above comment, and would have automatically seen the latter as the interpretive key to the former. That is to say that (even though they still were apparently not clear on the meaning of the "given" and 'poured out" language as literally referring to sacrificial death), they would have seen the "body" and "blood" references here as having the same meaning as the earlier ones. If they understood Jesus to have been speaking literally in the words recorded in John 6, then they would understand him the same way here; and ditto if they understood the earlier references as metaphorical.

Given that the actual setting of this first Lord's Supper was a Passover meal, the bread on the table would have been unleavened (there were no particular rules for what kind of grain was used, as long as it was baked without yeast), and the cup would have contained kosher grape (Matthew and Mark quote Jesus as referring to it as "fruit of the vine") wine. (In that time and place, it would normally have been fermented, though there's no actual rabbinical rule that it has to be.)

A second interpretative issue in these accounts, then, is the question of how central it is to Jesus' intention that, in re-enacting the eating and drinking here, we replicate the elements exactly as they would have been on this occasion. Is our obedience to his command negated if we use leavened bread? And/or is it similarly negated if we use unfermented grape juice? If so, why? Do the Mosaic laws (and perhaps also the rabbinic rules) for Passover seders necessarily govern the observance Jesus institutes here?

The remaining New Testament texts mentioning this practice are a few brief references in Acts, and a longer passage in I Corinthians. "Breaking bread," in first-century usage, was the common way to say, "eating a meal;" but the inclusion of this action in the list in Acts 2:42 of four things the first Christian congregation "devoted themselves to" suggests that the reference is to a meal with religious significance. The same sense is probably intended by the use of the same words in v. 46. We can infer that Luke is speaking of the Lord's Supper here, and likewise in the other mentions in Acts of "breaking bread" in a Christian context (Acts 20:7 and 11). What these texts tell us is basically just that this practice was important in the common life of the early church, and that it's referred to in terms that suggest the sharing of an actual meal. Paul discusses the topic more fully in I Corinthians; but we'll need to examine that passage in another post.

In I Corinthians 11:17-34, Paul addresses improper practice of the Lord's Supper (and he explicitly uses that term, in v. 20) in the church at Corinth. When they meet together, he says, they do more harm than good, because their practice displays "divisions" among them (v. 17-18). Some are eating and drinking "without waiting for anybody else," and in some cases actually getting drunk, while others "remain hungry" (v. 21). In v. 20, he says that this is not a true Lord's Supper.

Next, he asks a rhetorical question, "Don't you have homes to eat and drink in?" (v. 22). I've heard that question cited as a proof text for the position that any common meal in a church building is displeasing to God; but given that in v. 33 he presupposes that the church will "come together to eat," and commands on those occasions that they "wait for each other" rather than forbidding the eating in the first place (and given too that church buildings did not exist at this time!), that does not seem to be his meaning. Rather, his meaning seems to be reiterated in v. 34 --if you can't restrain the immediate gratification of your hunger, gratify it at home.

That entire discussion appears to be drastically inconsistent with the idea that the Lord's Supper consists only of the ritual consumption of a tiny morsel of bread and sip of wine. It appears to presuppose that these elements are partaken as part of a full meal, which would be consistent with the literal significance of the term in Acts, "break bread." The only way Paul's words make sense is if he's describing a pot-luck common meal, to which those who can contribute elements bring them --but some of those well-off enough to bring substantial food aren't sharing it with the others present.

(In this connection, a new book by Anglican clergyman and scholar Alistair C. Stewart of Sarum College, Breaking Bread: The Emergence of Eucharist and Agape in Early Christian Communities, studying both the New Testament and other early Christian primary sources, concludes that the Lord's Supper was originally coupled with a full-meal "love [Greek agape] feast," and that their separation and the reduction of the former to consumption of only a token bit of bread and wine originated in the third century A. D. I haven't read the book myself, but it's on my to-read shelf.)

To point his readers to the true spirit of the observance, Paul goes back to the Lord's commands, which he quotes, to "do this in remembrance of me" (v. 23-25). When we partake of the Lord's Supper rightly, we "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (v. 26). To partake in an "unworthy manner," "without recognizing the body of the Lord," is to "be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" and to invite judgment (and in context, the selfish behavior and drunkenness described in the earlier verses are examples of this unworthy partaking); some in Corinth have become physically sick, and some have died, as a result of this judgment (v. 27, 29-30). That reality calls for self-examination before we partake (v. 28, 31-32).

This summarizes the relevant New Testament teaching as objectively as I can. As I've indicated, there are differences of opinion about how some of this material should be understood. I'll share my interpretation on some of the disputed points in a later post.

The most central disputed point in the biblical material on the Lord's Supper, of course, is the question of whether Jesus's words, in the John 6 passage and in the Synoptic accounts of the last supper, equating his body and blood with bread and wine were meant to be understood literally or metaphorically. Based on John 6:52, it seems that some of Jesus' hearers in the Capernaum synagogue did take his words literally, because their "how" question seems to assume that. If his words are literal, then this is an intelligent question.

However, in this gospel, John quotes at least 13 other questions that Jesus' hearers in the crowds, or the disciples, asked him or each other about his sayings. The consistent commonality in every one of those quotations is that they all reveal and highlight significant misunderstandings of Jesus' meanings (usually by taking his words overly literally, and missing a spiritual meaning) on the questioners' part. This pattern is a marked feature of John's style, and serves to indicate that whatever way these people are taking Jesus' words is NOT the intended way. It seems improbable that the evangelist would use the apparently same rhetorical device here, with the opposite meaning, but with no verbal indication that here the meaning is the opposite --that is, that here it indicates the crowd's accurate understanding of Jesus' words, rather than their misunderstanding. To my mind, this should point us more towards a metaphorical than a literal understanding of the imagery.

In Genesis 9:4, right after the Flood, God laid down a strict prohibition of eating flesh with the blood still in it. Deuteronomy 12:16 and 23-25 repeat this prohibition. Consumption of blood in any form was (and still is) understood by observant Jews throughout both Old and New Testament times as unclean. As for the eating of flesh, Deuteronomy 14:6-8 specifies that to be clean, it must come from an animal that both has a split hoof and chews the cud. Human flesh is disqualified on both grounds.

To be sure, in Mark 17:18, the evangelist comments that "Jesus declared all foods clean." But that understanding came after Jesus' resurrection and after the day of Pentecost, not during Jesus' earthly ministry. Both at the time of the John 6 discourse and the last supper, we can safely assume that the disciples would have regarded deliberate consumption of human flesh and blood as highly unclean. They would also be viewing Jesus' statements through the interpretive lens of his words in Matthew 5:17-19 about the abiding authority of every command in the Mosaic Law. Given that mindset, it would seem that they would more naturally assume a metaphorical meaning for this imagery than a literal one.

In connection with the influence of the Jewish dietary laws on the early church's view of the Lord's Supper, in defense of a literal view, it might be argued that Jesus' teaching during the 40-day interval between his resurrection and his ascension (Acts 1:3) must have included the supersession of the food laws, to explain that now, at least in connection with the Supper, consumption of human flesh and blood was now permitted. However, two other passages in Acts seem to militate against that theory, and to indicate that the early Jerusalem church saw the food laws as still valid.

In Acts 10:9-16, to prepare him for his impending visit to Cornelius' household, Peter was given a vision of a multiplicity of animals, including unclean reptiles, and told to "kill and eat," even though he wasn't equipped to perform a kosher butchering that would drain the blood. The very idea scandalized him, and he replied "Surely not, Lord! I have never eaten anything impure or unclean" (v. 14). This suggests that at that point, he still views the commands against consuming unclean meat and blood as in force --and he asserts that he has never broken them. If he regarded the elements in the Lord's supper as literal flesh and blood, it's hard to square that belief with this assertion; but if he saw them as symbolic, rather than literal, there's no conflict.

At the so-called "Jerusalem Council" (though Luke doesn't use that phrase) in Acts 15, the apostles and the elders of the Jerusalem church jointly sent a letter to the Gentile believers asking them to, among other things, avoid the consumption of blood (15:29). This again reflects the continuing influence of the Mosaic dietary laws; and again, it's difficult to see it as compatible with a belief that participation in the Lord's Supper involves literal consumption of blood. We're more or less forced to conclude that all of these leaders saw the cup as symbolic of shed blood, not as literal blood.

There are two additional considerations which, to my mind, suggest a metaphoric meaning rather than a literal one in Jesus' "my body/my blood" references. First, at the last supper, as he spoke the words which all the Synoptic authors quote, his literal body was visibly reclining at the table, still in one piece, and his blood was still in his veins. It seems to me that the significance of that fact, in discussions of these passages, tends not to be fully appreciated.

To be sure, advocates of the literal interpretation are correct in maintaining that some ancient Greek philosophers understood all physical substances to be made up of distinct "essences," which were unaffected by "accidents" such as appearance and taste. If two things shared the same "essence," they were the same thing. In this view, Jesus was referring to this concept; God, he says, has miraculously changed the essence of the bread and wine to my essence. (From the vantage point of modern science, we could understand this in terms of supernatural manipulation of their DNA, or what was left of it after the baking and fermenting processes, but first century people would not have thought about it in those terms.)

That view, of course, starts with the assumption that Jesus' words are literally meant, and then goes on to furnish an explanation of how a literal understanding could work. The problem with that, in my opinion (and I don't know if I can explain this clearly, but I'll try), is that it's psychologically unlikely that people who saw Jesus' literal body and blood where they always had been, unbroken and unspilled, would naturally assume that literal meaning in the first place, and then try to figure out a complex explanation for it. It seems much more natural that, in the absence of any further clarification by Jesus that the physical reality they were seeing was misleading in this case, they would assume a figurative meaning. That no such clarification was offered strikes me as a telling point.

Second, in the saying of Jesus that Paul quotes in I Corinthians, the Lord says simply that they are to "do this in remembrance of me." In other words, the significance he ascribes to the Supper is "remembrance:" regular remembrance of his salvific sacrifice. For the elements to effect this, it would not be necessary that they literally be Jesus' body and blood; they could be, but symbolic stand-ins could also serve. Advocates of the literal body and blood view, however, typically regard remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice as a very inadequate and meagre view of the Supper's main function; they see it as a physically grace-imparting act in which communion/union and identification with the Savior is achieved by the physical ingestion and digestion of his body and blood, requiring these to be literally present. But if that view is correct, it seems more than a little strange that Jesus himself, in instituting the Supper and providing for his disciples the basic understanding of its purpose, expresses that purpose simply as "remembrance," with no allusion whatever to physical union with him.

No matter how they understand the exact relationship, all Christian believers connect the Lord's Supper with the idea of union between Christ and the believer; it's impossible to understand the imagery as not expressing that idea. The real, literal fact of this union is in fact a significant theme not only articulated, but stressed, in many places in the New Testament. Jesus own teaching, as recorded in the Gospel of John, presents this a real, genuine union which is of central importance, and this is echoed in the epistles.

Galatians is probably the first of the latter to be written, and this concept is set forth there; the believers have "clothed" themselves with Christ (Galatians 3:27). Other epistles similarly presuppose this union as foundational, meaning that we are "united" in Christ's death and resurrection (Romans 6:4-7), and the effect of this union is moral and spiritual --it frees us from the power of sin. Romans 8:1-10 goes on to connect this union with Christ with our shared indwelling by the Holy Spirit, who is "the Spirit of Christ" (v. 9). Jesus' own teaching had also already connected union with him to the keeping of his commands (for instance, John 14:20-21, 23-24.), and viewed it as an extension of his own union with the Father. I would also connect this with the repeated Old Testament commands to "be holy, because I am holy." This states that the believers are supposed to take on the holiness of God Himself, which requires some degree of spiritual union. I'll discuss the implications of this for the Lord's Supper in another post (since our weather here is coming up with a thunderstorm, and I need to get offline!)

The Synoptic Gospels don't record Jesus' teaching about the actual union of believers with him; and aside from the discourse in John 6 which has been discussed already, John records him teaching about it only after the Lord's Supper had been instituted. This suggests that Jesus intended, and John recognizes, this teaching as a deliberate commentary on the meaning of the Supper. What then, do these teachings (which would have formed the initial basis for the New Testament Church's understanding of the subject) tell us?

John 14:15-21 parallels Jesus' union with the Father to his union with us (v. 20; this idea is repeated in John 17:22-23); uses the same language of "in you" for the believer's reception of the gift of the promised Holy Spirit in v. 17, with the implication that our unity with Jesus Christ has its genesis in this indwelling by the Spirit; and in v. 21 expresses the result of this union as love for him, expressed in obedience to his commands. In John 15, Jesus goes on to use the metaphorical image of himself as a grape vine, and the disciples as branches; their continued fruit bearing is conditioned on being united to him (v. 1-4). From John 15:5 on through the end of his prayer in John 17, Jesus continues to build up a picture of the regenerate life in which union with him is treated as interchangeable with being indwelt with and guided by the Holy Spirit, and in which the effects of the union are all very definitely spiritual and moral.

Now, it is asserted by some that this union is effected physically, by the literal ingestion and digestion of Jesus' body and blood. But to my mind, a serious problem with this view is that nowhere in John 15-17 is any reference made to consumption of the elements in the Supper; the whole emphasis is on the Spirit. To be sure, Jesus and the disciples remember the meal they just had. Yet if the meal itself is the basis of this union, it seems strange that it's not referred to at all in this context. Moreover, this is a union parallel to that between Jesus and the Father. But the Father did not become incarnate; he has no flesh and blood to feed to Jesus, nor does he consume Jesus' flesh and blood. Rather the union between them is spiritual; they are morally "one" (John 10:30) in a union which is fundamentally deep and real --indeed, the central reality of the universe!-- but which is not conditioned on shared physical DNA or anything of that sort. This suggests that the Lord's Supper functions as an enacted metaphor for the reality of the spiritually-achieved unity Jesus is describing in these chapters.

It could also be asked whether physical consumption of Jesus' body and blood actually could impart some sort of grace that would affect us spiritually, or that would alter our minds. Yes, God is all-powerful, and can therefore do anything which is a function of power. He can turn bread and wine into Jesus' body and blood (while causing it to retain the appearance and taste of bread and wine) if He wants to, and likewise cause us to digest and absorb the whole of these elements. But we would not thereby absorb Jesus' actual DNA, in such a way that our body would physically become a kind of clone of his. Most of us routinely eat the flesh of animals, but we don't thereby take on their behavioral characteristics. The DNA in flesh (or blood) that we consume would be broken down with the rest of the cellular structures in the digestion process, and reduced to more general and basic nutritional components. God's living Holy Spirit is a much more effective agent of moral and spiritual transformation than absorption of physical flesh, the cells of which are being killed and destroyed in digestion. Insofar as the Lord's Supper is a means of imparting grace (and it is), it does so by the vividness and power of the symbolism that brings home to us what God is doing for us in and through Christ. But it's not necessary to this effect that the elements be literally Christ's body and blood.

Additionally, John 6: 53 expressly says that having saving "life" from Christ is conditioned on eating his flesh and drinking his blood, in whatever sense he means those words, and is not conferred apart from doing so. If he means these verbs metaphorically, he simply means that saving "life" is conditioned on spiritual union with him. If he means them literally, then there can be no salvation for those (such as the dying thief on the cross in Luke 23:40-43) who have no physical access to the Lord's Supper. For all of the above reasons, therefore, I would maintain that the eating and drinking of Jesus' body and blood in the Supper was always intended by Jesus to be understood metaphorically, and that the first-century believers did understand it in that way.

I've been able to share my views on this topic at some length, since no one else has commented! I'll wrap my comments up with this post, and (at least for now) leave the subject for others to discuss. The most important metaphysical question has already been covered, but there are a couple of more "practical" points that I think deserve some mention.

One of these points is the question of how often the Lord's Supper should be observed. None of the New Testament texts noted above specifically address this in any explicit way. The words of Jesus that Paul quotes in I Corinthians 11:23-25, in the Greek, suggest that remembrance of him should be in mind "as often" as the believers drink from a common cup. If he meant this as specifically a Passover drink, the observance would be annual. Some Christian groups, of course, limit their observance to once a year, or not much oftener. I've heard this defended on the grounds that more frequent observance would make the rite seem "less special," or encourage people to take it for granted.

Against this interpretation, however, is the fact that in Acts 2:42 the members of the Jerusalem church "devoted themselves" to (among other things) "the breaking of bread." That's strange language if they only did it annually. The "as often" language then would seem more naturally to mean, as often as believers shared a common cup and loaf, which would be the normal practice in any meal taken together. As we've seen, the communion services of the Corinthian church (and presumably of its sister churches) took the form of full pot-luck meals. There's good reason, I think, to assume that this was a normal part of their weekly meetings.

This raises the question, of course, of whether (or to what extent) the example of the New Testament church should be prescriptive, even in the absence of an explicit command, or whether we can legitimately say, "Well, thank heavens that in our more modern times we've wised up and don't do that any more!" For my part, I don't think the greater convenience and more streamlined services that come from less frequent communion, and from reducing the elements to a nominal wafer and sip, actually shows that we've "wised up" in any real way. Rather, I think it shows our laziness, unwillingness to share food and fellowship, and lack of appreciation of the spiritual benefit that the Lord's Supper confers, and for which Jesus instituted it for our good in the first place. IMO, the New Testament church set us a good example, not a poor one, in making the Lord's Supper central to its common life, and in reminding themselves of their union with him and with each other in his death and resurrection at every opportunity. I see no good reason for abandoning their example, and every good reason for following it.

A second point of contention in present times is over who can take part in the Lord's Supper. Every New Testament reference presupposes that this is an experience for Christian believers to share, just as they share the common experience of union with Christ. Unbelievers don't share the latter; they aren't invited by any New Testament text to share the former (unless they repent and become believers!), and it makes a mockery of the Supper when they do. To be sure, Paul in I Corinthians 11:28 puts the burden of self-examination on the individual partaker. But in I Corinthians 5:11. he also commands the believers not to eat (and this includes communion meals!) with anyone who claims to be a believer but brazenly engages in unrepented sin. This puts a burden on the congregation and its leaders to bar these people from the Supper --though, otherwise, participation should be free to all of Christ's people who are washed by his blood.

Finally, a great deal of argument has revolved about the make-up of the elements themselves (I referred to this briefly, and noted some of the questions involved, in message 3). Personally, I don't see any stress in the New Testament texts on what kinds of bread or juice are used; the important thing seems to be the common experience and understanding of what they represent. (Among believers who hold a literal interpretation of the body and blood references, it's often asserted that the elements MUST be grape wine and unleavened wheat bread, or the observance is void --and having been raised as a Lutheran, I've heard this first-hand!-- but that position seems inconsistent with the assertion that the elements are not in fact bread and wine, but only appear to be.)

The denial by some tee-totaling Protestant individuals and groups that the Greek word oinos means wine is lexically untenable; but I believe they're on solider ground in noting that it's not a good idea for believers who are alcoholics to be given wine in the observance of the Supper. I don't think that God imparts any less grace to us if we drink unfermented grape juice. But on the other hand, whereas some people object to the use of the common cup in Communion (which I think is a very important part of the symbolism, which is destroyed by the individual cup-lets) on the grounds that it spreads germs, it's relevant to recognize that alcohol is a natural antiseptic. (And God, of course, was always aware of that, though even first-century intellectuals were not.) This is the kind of thing where I think individual congregations need to make prayerful decisions about their own practice, seeking and trusting in God's guidance as they consider the needs of everyone, and keeping "the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3). And may that be the aim of us all!

Werner, that is a lot :) You should write books on these subjects and not forum posts.

As a Catholic, I will assert that I do not believe it is merely a symbol, but instead the actual body and blood of our savior--but answer all of the above is quite a task.

I appreciate your passion and knowledge about all of this, but its just too much work to go finding and quoting all the bible passages that lead to this. I will think on it and maybe come back to this.

P. Pherson wrote: "I will think on it and maybe come back to this."

Fair enough, Patrick! My 11 posts sort of grew like Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin; I'd started the thread because at the time, we had a new member who'd written a book on the Eucharist, and I thought it might arouse some good discussion. (As it turns out, he's no longer even on Goodreads. :-( ) Since nobody responded, I just kept commenting to develop my thoughts (for whatever they're worth) until I had no more to say. (If I wrote it as a book, nobody would read it. Writing it this way, at least one person did! :-) )

I wonder why he flaked off...

Looking at what you posted above, it is my feeling that, to rebut it, if rebuttal is required at all, I ought to present an equally well argued and well cited response, which, for me, seems like a daunting task, for which I am not sure I have the energy.

I have said before (I think) that a younger me would have doven right in, and hit you up with counter interpretations, and other passages (with citations) that would present whatever case I was hoping to make. But...I am not that way anymore.

I find that 1) much smarter people than me, on both sides, have been presenting their case for their scriptural belief for 100's years, and so far, they've not been convincing enough to vanquish one side then and forever. 2) such presentations descend somewhat rapidly into the meaning of words themselves, as some words lend themselves to more than one interpretation, and that too often flows back into, 'Yeah, but if we go to the original Aramaic or Greek..., and it just spins and spins. And 3) such conversation about what amounts to a 'part of the whole' is not addressable, because first we must agree on the whole. Sometimes I say something like, 'I would like to explain that to you, but first, I must explain the whole world.'

I assert that the Eucharist and wine are in fact the body and blood of Christ. They not symbolic. They are actual. Whether that means in a physical sense, or some supernatural spiritual sense, I do not know. But Catholics treat it all with great reverence.

If you believed it was the actual body and blood of Christ, you could not leave the church. You would not separate yourself from God in that manner. For one to leave the church and remain so, they must assert the body and blood are not real, which many (if not all) of the protestants have done. To me, that is a great shame.

The Protestants also assert the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, as an assertion that all that is known, or needs to be known, can be found in he bible alone, and other sources that are not found there are thereby discounted and disregarded. Catholics do not subscribe to that. The Bible is a part of the whole, not the entirety. Without agreement on that, I could not present a tradition or revelation that points to the why of something, or belief of something, and break through the barrier of one who uses Sola Scriptura as the measure.

Further, while the Bible is presented as 'perfect' in its revelation, without an equally 'perfect' interpretation, there is no way for its perfect nature to be actualized. If you and I both read the same passage and come to a different viewpoint on what it says, who is to say who got it right, or if either of us have, or even if both of us have? Without perfect interpretation, the perfect work can be read imperfectly, and so its perfection is muddied.

The Catholic church does not rely solely on the contents of the Bible. They (we) hang our faith on the word, the traditions, and the promise of the holy spirit that the gates of hell will never prevail against it, and the promise to Peter of the keys, and the binding and letting loose. We also accept the special role of the Apostles in receiving their holy orders, and carrying on a tradition of worship that begins the in old testament and is made whole in the new. Catholic's, as I am sure many are aware, believe that they have apostolic succession from the first apostles to the priests who perform the Mass today. And through their holy orders, they are ordained to perform the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ himself.

And so...I feel to rebut or argue the points raised, I'd have to gain agreement on much more than just what we think of it all just being a symbol, or something actual.

An exercise, such as this, is great for getting down into the weeds of things, and perhaps beneficial to ourselves, and maybe others, but I don't think much can be said that will convince those who believe one way or the other that their beliefs do not hold measure. I also strongly suspect, given your studious nature, that if you were in fact of the Catholic persuasion, you could write an equally well reasoned and cited passage in support of the transubstantiation as you have in support of its symbolic nature.

I will assert that the Eucharist and the wine are in fact the body and blood Christ and not just symbols. And that this is not hidden in the Bible.


Matthew

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, gave thanks,* and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”

Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.


Mark

While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed* for many."

Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”


Luke

When the hour came, he took his place at table with the apostles. He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover* with you before I suffer, for, I tell you, I shall not eat it [again] until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you [that] from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."


St. Paul

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 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 also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.


And John:

Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

I am the bread of life.

Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true 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 have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

"This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”



None of these are using equivocating terms. None says, this represents, or this is a symbol of... It is all linking Jesus and the Bread together as being the same. Jesus is not saying, I am the bread life and the bread represents me. He is saying he is the bread, and the bread is him.

There is even discussion about those who cannot accept it, that it cannot be his flesh. I personally find the passages pointing to the interpretation that he is the flesh present in the bread. Why should I read it otherwise? Why should I believe it cannot be, or as the Jews said, 'how can this man give us flesh to eat?', I believe. With God, all things as possible, even the supernatural.

Christs sacrifice offers the body and blood of the perfect lamb, and the sacrifice is the eternal offering for our sins. God accepts the body and the blood, there is no need for a symbol of it.

IMO, of course. Cause what do I really know? I just believe. If in the end, Christ says, you know you got it wrong on the bread thing...I mean... Okay, sorry I thought it was real. But...I am as sure as I can be, I wont be having to answer for that.

Other things maybe...

P. Pherson wrote: "The Protestants also assert the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, as an assertion that all that is known, or needs to be known, can be found in the bible alone, and other sources that are not found there are thereby discounted and disregarded. Catholics do not subscribe to that. The Bible is a part of the whole, not the entirety. Without agreement on that, I could not present a tradition or revelation that points to the why of something, or belief of something, and break through the barrier of one who uses Sola Scriptura as the measure."

Patrick, here you've put your finger on the actual crux of the question; and as you indicated elsewhere in your post, it's a prior question that has to be answered before any common discussion of Scripture by itself can be very fruitful. Since this is really a distinct (and crucially important!) theological topic of its own, I've now created a separate discussion thread devoted to it, here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... .

P. Pherson wrote: "I assert that the Eucharist and wine are in fact the body and blood of Christ. They not symbolic. They are actual. Whether that means in a physical sense, or some supernatural spiritual sense, I do not know."

That statement was something of a head-scratcher for me, probably because of my own ignorance. Although I actually do have some knowledge of Catholic theology and apologetics, it comes mostly from random reading in books (not all of which I've read completely), online and in periodicals, not from systematic study.

However, insofar as I've read Catholic defenses and explanations of the Real Presence, everything I've encountered appears to me to make the case that "real" here means real "in a physical sense" (and some writers actually lay a good deal of stress on this). Jesus' body and blood, after all, ARE real in a physical sense. Nobody doubts that God could make any physical substance identical to Jesus' corporeal substance (He can do anything that's an object of physical power). But given that "A is not non-A," and that an essential aspect of Jesus' body and blood is their physicality, it's hard for me to imagine that they could genuinely exist without being real "in a physical sense." And while as I've stated above, I don't think the disciples would naturally have made the complex assumptions required to see "This is my body/blood" as literal, I find it even harder to imagine that they would naturally have concluded that the words are literal, but not meant physically. (Of course, that's just me, at this stage of my knowledge!)

P. Pherson wrote: "None of these are using equivocating terms. None says, this represents, or this is a symbol of... It is all linking Jesus and the Bread together as being the same. Jesus is not saying, I am the bread life and the bread represents me. He is saying he is the bread, and the bread is him."

When Jesus says, "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life" (John 3:14-15), he's using a simile rather than a metaphor. But he's not thereby being equivocal; the comparison reinforces the meaning that, just as looking on the uplifted bronze serpent in faith saved people from (temporal) death, looking at the uplifted Savior in faith saves from eternal death. Whether they're expressed as similes or metaphors (or as narrated parables), comparisons of tangible things with spiritual realities may have a very straightforward meaning.

P. Pherson wrote: "Christs sacrifice offers the body and blood of the perfect lamb, and the sacrifice is the eternal offering for our sins. God accepts the body and the blood, there is no need for a symbol of it."

True; Christ is the perfect "Lamb of God [which is a good example of a metaphor, but that doesn't mean that what this "lamb" does isn't real] who takes away the sin of the world," and he has "once and for all" (Hebrews7:27) offered himself as the one and only eternal sacrifice for our sins, which God has already accepted. God needs no symbol to remind Himself of this. But like the descendants of the Israelites who came out of Egypt in the Exodus, and were commanded to observe the Passover as a "lasting ordinance" (Exodus 12:14), we can benefit from symbolic reminders of God's saving action. The Lord's Supper is given to us for our instruction, not for God's.

One thing which I think needs to be kept very much in mind in any discussion of the Lord's Supper is that all Christian believers really ARE incorporated, in a sense that's spiritual but still literal, into the actual body of Christ, which is his church. On a purely physical level, Jesus' resurrected body is whole, in heaven, and we here on earth each retain our own physical DNA; it's not changed miraculously into his. But in salvation from the guilt of sin, we are joined into a true extension of his body through the miraculous action of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 12:12-27). Even though this is not effected physically in a way that's tangible to the senses, it is still real.

To my mind, this is significant for our discussion here, because the reason that's usually presented for the literal identity of Christ's body/blood with the Communion elements is to allow us to be physically joined to him. Given that (if we're genuinely justified in him) we already are part of his body at the spiritual level, I don't see how being physically "joined" to him by literally consuming and digesting his body and blood would confer more benefit. Even if we assume the elements actually to be his flesh and blood, his DNA would be chemically destroyed by the digestive process, and the elements transformed into glucose and other compounds indistinguishable from those produced from other food and drink, well before their substance was absorbed into ours.

I don't say any of this to be in any way sarcastic or flippant! On the contrary, that's an honest question in my mind, and I'd genuinely like to understand, from a fellow believer who believes that he/she derives real benefit from actually consuming Jesus' body and blood, how that benefit is thought to work. And I say this as a birthright Lutheran; I was taught all through my childhood that the bread and wine were literally the Savior's body and blood (and that anybody who denied that was a heretic). But as far as I can remember, I was never told by anybody --not in Sunday school, church services, parochial school, or confirmation class-- just what physically consuming them was supposed to effect for me, over and above what salvation itself effects.

P. Pherson wrote: "IMO, of course. Cause what do I really know? I just believe. If in the end, Christ says, you know you got it wrong on the bread thing...I mean... Okay, sorry I thought it was real. But...I am as sure as I can be, I wont be having to answer for that.

Other things maybe..."

That's where I am too, though in my case I'd have to say "Sorry, I really thought it was a symbol!" We may all find out we were mistaken, about more things than one; but I trust that God, who loves us and knows our hearts, will be mostly concerned with whether or not we were doing our honest best to understand.

P. Pherson wrote: "The Protestants also assert the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, as an assertion that all that is known, or needs to be known, can be found in the bible alone, and other sources that are not found there are thereby discounted and disregarded. Catholics do not subscribe to that. The Bible is a part of the whole, not the entirety. Without agreement on that, I could not present a tradition or revelation that points to the why of something, or belief of something, and break through the barrier of one who uses Sola Scriptura as the measure."

Not all Protestants assert the Latin slogan "Sola Scriptura," since so-called "liberal Protestants" view the Bible as a purely human writing that's no more authoritative than any other; and not all Christian believers who do assert it would define themselves as "Protestants." That said, the actual doctrine behind that slogan does not hold that anything not found in the Bible is to be "discounted and disregarded." The 16th-century Reformers who formulated the doctrine valued classical Christian tradition, and historical and contemporary theological reflection and preaching/moral exhortation. They also recognized the great value to mankind of extra-biblical knowledge in every area.

But they did not elevate any of those things to the same plane of authority as Scripture. Any of them can contain truth and be profitable for edification; but they are not the authoritative touchstone by which we recognize the authentic counsel of God which all of us are obliged to accept. "Sola" in the Latin phrase means "sole" only in that sense. Anything the Bible actually teaches is automatically to be accepted as true. Not everything a denomination or a prelate says is automatically to be accepted as true (particularly if it appears inconsistent with the Bible). That's the distinction the Latin phrase insists on preserving; and to my mind it's a valid one; and consistent with the Bible's claims for itself. (To elevate the words of denominations and prelates to a status equal to the words of Scripture necessarily means, in practice, that the former always trumps the latter, since anytime there seems to be a discrepancy, the default explanation automatically becomes that it's because the Scripture is just being "misinterpreted.")

P. Pherson wrote: " If the eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, why would any leave it? If its not, then its all make believe anyway."

Baptism by immersion is an enacted metaphor of the death and resurrection of Christ, appropriated as our own through our identification and union with him in salvation; but we don't literally die of drowning in the water, nor rise from the water with glorified and immortal bodies. Despite that, baptism is not worthless make believe; we do it by the command of Christ because it testifies, both for us and for the world, to a spiritual reality, and in so testifying gives grace in a genuine sense.

Similarly, I don't think that it's necessary to conclude that a Lord's Supper in which the elements are metaphorically, rather than literally, Christ's body and blood is necessarily just meaningless make believe, any more than the reenactment of the original Passover meal was/is meaningless make believe. Both meals are symbolically enacting a reality that's true, and that's eternally true; and the purpose is not recreational make believe, but divinely mandated testimony to truth, for the good of the believers and of the surrounding world.

Well...You can add Baptism as another we don't share the same understanding of. Baptism may be a metaphor, but it is more importantly the first sacrament of initiation. It washes away our sins, and imbues us with initial, sanctifying and regenerative grace. It joins us to the body or Christ and his church. And transforms us and brings us into the life of the Holy Spirit. If it was just a metaphor, it too would be little more than something we do symbolically to get ourselves wet just because someone said we should. I dont need to take a plunge if all it is is to check a box.

God is not symbolic. He is real, and we are his temple. He lives in us, and us in him. He wants us to be one in his body.

The Eucharist is not a symbol. It is communion with God the Father through the body and blood of his son. It is the fullness of Christ and his promise. To reduce him to just a symbol or a metaphor is to weaken his place in our salvation, and keep ourselves away from the completeness of his love for us.

One can look on these things as symbols, and maybe they have meaning, but there is far greater meaning in them than can be completed in looking at them as only symbols and words to be deciphered.

If Christ is just a symbol, why does he not love me enough to be real? Why would he leave us as sheep without a shepherd, seeking and never finding? I want the completeness of God. I want to be part of what he left behind. It must be actual, or there is no reason to follow it, or even show up on Sunday. I can carry symbols on my own.

I know we will not agree. But I will not separate myself from it.

And so, to reduce the sacraments to symbols, which I know is one of the strong direction many protestant faiths have gone, to me is a great sadness. I wish it were not that way. But, I cannot fix it. Any friend of Christ is a friend of mine. I will pray for them. I know that we all mean well. I hope it will be taken in that light at our judgement.

P. Pherson wrote: "Any friend of Christ is a friend of mine. I will pray for them. I know that we all mean well. I hope it will be taken in that light at our judgement."

That's definitely the right attitude, and one that the Apostle Paul exhorts us all to emulate (Romans 14:1-15:7). At the judgment seat of Christ, what will count will not be our theological acumen, but our sincere love of God and neighbor, working through our faith.

P. Pherson wrote: "Well...You can add Baptism as another we don't share the same understanding of."

Yes, sadly, it's true that baptism is yet another subject about which Christians have a vast array of serious differences! Your post made me realize that we could use a thread dedicated to that topic as well, so I've just posted one, here:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... .

The Old and New Testaments, and the routine practices of many Christian people since the Bible was written, furnish many examples of symbols, or as the Apostle John might describe them, "signs." These include the Passover lamb, the layout of the Tabernacle, the features of the sacrificial system, olive oil used in anointing persons, a rainbow in the sky, the dove, the cross worn on a necklace, Advent candles, Easter eggs, wedding rings, foot-washing as a ceremonial action, etc. Some of these are Divinely ordained, others grow out of Christian custom. What they all have in common is that they represent a spiritual reality. To represent the reality by a symbol serves to remind us that it IS a reality, which needs to be remembered. It does NOT express the idea that whatever is symbolized is really nonexistent and unreal; and the assertion that it does express that is a bit of a head-scratcher.

P. Pherson wrote: "If it was just a metaphor, it too would be little more than something we do symbolically to get ourselves wet just because someone said we should. I dont need to take a plunge if all it is is to check a box.... It must be actual, or there is no reason to follow it, or even show up on Sunday. I can carry symbols on my own."

When that "someone" is the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given" (Matthew 28:18), then yes, we genuinely DO need to do as he says, not to "check a box," but because we love him. (John 14:15 and 21.) No matter how, for instance, you understand his reference to "body" and "blood," the words "Do this" are a command. Faith in God includes faith both that He has authority to tell you what to do, and that His command to do it has a good and legitimate reason, whether you see what that reason is or not. We can legitimately try to understand what He's commanding, and to hypothesize why He might have done so. But we can't legitimately set ourselves up to second-guess Him.

What that means, in part, is that even though I personally find the idea of eating bits of raw human flesh and drinking blood physically repellant (even if they're masked by a supernatural "glamour" in the Old English sense, that makes them still appear to be bread and wine), and see no way that such physical consumption and digestion of substances that share Jesus' DNA could do anything for me spiritually, if I would become convinced that the elements of the Lord's Supper are indeed Christ's literal body and blood, then my obligation to God is to eat and drink them, trust that He knows what He's doing, and refrain from complaining about it. Similarly, if a person who sees zero value in symbolic actions, and finds them ridiculous, nevertheless becomes convinced that the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper are God-ordained symbols, then his/her obligation to God is likewise to eat and drink them, in similar trust that God knows what he's doing, even if it seems pointless from a human perspective.

Having now had a chance to mull over the ideas shared in messages 14 and 20 for a while, I have some additional thoughts on this topic. But I'll save those for another post, since this is already a fairly long one!

I've always found the idea of transformation into His actual flesh and blood to be strange at best. Even the most liberal interpretation of the Last Supper does not cross into the irrational. It takes a decision by the reader (and those who agree with him or her) to accept that.

Then again, we have people who take the breath of God to create Adam as justification for abortion.

Portion removed... relevant part still below.

I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”

Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, 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 food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

Speaking for myself, the question is not whether or not God has the ability to transform (or delegate to someone the power to transform, as the theology of transubstantiation holds --we haven't had much discussion of that complication in "real presence" theory so far, but we need to) bread and wine/juice into an extension of Jesus' body and blood. The God who can create matter can literally do anything with it. He does not, of course, do everything He could do (for instance, He doesn't turn elephants pink and cause them to dance ballets.) So the question is, not could He do this particular thing, but did/does He?

Our only objective data for answering that question is in the New Testament. Yes, the New Testament writers' statements (like our statements on this thread, or any statements made in a language) require interpretation. But human language (which I would contend was given to humans by God) is not so hopelessly ambiguous that any interpretation of any spoken or written statement is as good as another. Particularly as Christians guided by the Holy Spirit, humans can use sanctified reason to comprehend the meaning of statements made by Jesus or the apostles, and to differentiate between plausible and implausible interpretations.

In the case of the John 6 passage and the Synoptic accounts of the Last Supper, as I noted above, the reasons for seeing Jesus' language as metaphorical appears to me to be overwhelming. The attempted counterargument based on the unbelieving Jews' literal interpretation (also as noted above) turns out to be a boomerang, in the light of the fact that everywhere else in his gospel John uses his quotes from the unbelieving bystanders to illustrate their total misinterpretation of whatever Jesus was trying to tell them.

Removed by Author, as having no content worthy to the discussion.

Patrick, I didn't mean to imply in any way that your belief in the real presence and transubstantiation is irrational (and I apologize if I gave that impression!). I actually agree with you in believing that, for all of us, our "filters" (our prior paradigms of assumptions, experiences and beliefs that influence how we see things) does have a lot to do with shaping our views. So do our emotions (and our experience of union with Christ is bound to arouse emotion). That's not "irrational;" it's just an aspect of our limitation as finite humans. As you say, we're on a search for truth, in which we all use our reason as one tool; in my case, it's a tool that's at times helped me to change a prior belief, but that's always a process.

As you pointed out, discussion and reasoning about the Eucharist has been going on for 2,000 years. This thread is intended as part of that ongoing process, which necessarily involves different voices, but the ultimate intended result isn't necessarily conversion; as you also wisely noted, "We may not come to the same place, or in the same way."

Patrick,

Please accept my apology. I did not intend to offend you or any of my Catholic brothers and sisters. I've discussed this with many laypersons, pastors and priests over the years and I simply find the transformation into actual flesh and blood to not be in line with the teachings and interpretation of the Scriptures with which I grew up.

Is it possible I'm wrong? Yes, but I don't believe so. Again, please accept my apology.

Kevin

I accept your apology, Kevin. Thank you very much. I know none of us see eye to eye on things, and I know Catholics who think the same way for many of our protestant brothers. I want to give you all the respect for being wise enough to be followers of Christ. Thank you so much brother.


Answering Werner:

I am sure we agree that God could do anything, and so it would not be irrational to think that something 'seemingly' impossible, would not be impossible for him.

So the question does become, what did he mean by it?

In counter to the claim that Jesus' presentation of being the bread of life being a boomerang, and that Jesus often spoke in ways that were metaphorical (I am the door, I am the light), and not understood, I will say that in the passage presented we have a different pattern which is broken, and that is, whenever Jesus was asked to clarify, he did. But in this instance, when asked to clarify, he did not. Instead, he doubled down and ramped up his intensity. Later when the apostles still question it, he does not correct them then either. Jesus never recants his words or explains them differently. And these words are very much in line with other statements, like "This 'is' my body.'

But, I bring up the example only because it seemed impossible then too, which is similar to why many would find that hard to accept.

When you say 'Our only objective data for answering that question is in the New Testament,' I would have to ask, where did the New Testament come from if not from the early Catholics and their judgement as to what belonged and what did not. In fact, in the early period of the church there were many letters and many gospels, and it was only through the early bishops and the early councils that the books were formally decided. And so, to assert that the Bible is the only objective source, you must be implicitly trusting already the objective judgment and authority of the early catholic church on that matter. And from that, must be by inference asserting that the Holy Spirit guided these men, and then abandoned their church, which is counter to what the bible says about the Holy Spirit's role in regard to the church, and against the language of Jesus when he prays for our unity, and prays for it specifically for Peter.

It is your claim this is the only objective data, but that was not true when the church was forming, and not the position of Catholics today. At the time this was happening, some of these early authors were still walking around. So, did they miss this? That the belief that the Eucharist was in fact the body and blood, and not symbolically, was spreading, and never spoke up. That seems unlikely.

The position of 'sanctified reason' being sufficient is sticky. If this were true, how can we answer that every protestant who broke away, claims they read the bible and are guided by the Holy Spirit and can with sanctified reason assert that their belief is the right one, when those ones who have used the same process have gotten it differently? Protestants do not even agree that the Eucharist is symbolic. Some of them think that is the actual body and blood, and they are the ones who can present it. There is not unity there, and they all point to the same source. Would Christ pray for unity, and then oversee different conclusions? What would be the use of being asked for unity, and then splitting over equally reasoned interpretations? While 'Sanctified' Reason would be sufficient, how can any know they possess it?

Sanctified Reason for many protestants is individual, and that can only lead to disunity. Catholic's view of sanctified reason is communal, and in the historical context of what has been passed down. Jesus did not pray for an invisible and disparate church, but a visible and unified one.

If it is in fact that this is the Body and Blood of Jesus, and not symbolic, by what grounds should we deny it? There are many things in the Bible that seem beyond reason. If you, through your reason, find that you just do not think the Eucharist could be what Catholics (and others) say it is, I understand. I know you have arrived where your heart, reason and conscience has taken you. You are a friend in Christ, and I pray that whatever divides is still enough for our salvation. I trust you will find your way to Christ (though maybe after a little purgatory ;) <--new thread I suppose).

/irrationality


In all honestly, I know that coming here and reading is something that steals my energy, because the conversation never ends and goes in lots of rebbit-hole like directions. So...I only follow it when I have the energy to spend. I am trying to write a book. This is not good that ;)

Patrick and Kevin, I owe both of you an apology, and sincerely extend it. I failed to pick up the potential problem at the outset and take steps to prevent misunderstanding, so if anybody's to blame for the recent distress, I am. Hopefully you both can and will forgive me.

Patrick, as usual, you've written a very gracious post, which has a great deal of serious content. It's also (like all the preceding comments, including mine) freighted with assumptions that make it hard for a person who doesn't share them to engage with the reasoning. So if either of us tries to explain why we think the other one's reasoning is fallacious, we wind up talking past each other. That has something to do with why the conversation never ends, and tends to go in circles or down rabbit-holes. :-)

I'm not going to try, at this time, to offer a thorough response to everything you wrote in the above message (though I did read it, take it seriously, and appreciate it). But I think it would be fair to say that to a very large extent, the Roman Catholic position on the real presence rests on a particular view of the authority of the church, and on the implicit assumption that the church is an organization. However, I'm approaching the subject with the contrary assumption that the church is an organism (the organic Body of Christ).

An example of what the difference means can be drawn from the fact that, as you correctly pointed out, we recognize our New Testament canon on the authority of the early Christians; we recognize it because they recognized it. If I understand you correctly, I think you believe that the prelates at the Council of Nicaea voted these 27 books in on their own authority, and then everybody else fell in line. But the Council's own statement was simply an affirmation that these books were already "everywhere recognized;" God's people had come to a consensus.

There's much more that could be said (and much of it relates to other threads, like "Church tradition" and "Christian unity"). But for tonight, I've shared all the thoughts I have time to share!