Reading the Church Fathers discussion

I was interested in hearing how non-Catholics view some of the statements regarding the Eucharist in the ANF, if any were willing to discuss it. Again, I am usually around people that have a similar upbringing, so I like to understand how others think.
Polycarp XX: "...breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying..."
Ignatius to the Philadelphians IV: "Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity go His blood....that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.
Justin LXV which describes the Catholic Mass, and a certain office essentially consecrating the bread and wine, and then in LXVI, who can partake of the Eucharist and that it "...is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
As I read this. I completely visualize and understand it as one thing, so wonder what others may visualize or conceptualize it as.

When I was still Lutheran we were taught that Christ is present while we partake in communion. And it certainly felt sacred, the teaching being that we are all part of the mystical Body of Christ.

I honestly don't remember when I became aware that for Catholics the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It never bothered me or was a hurdle. As I got to know Catholicism better I rejoiced in the fact that faith and worship had real tangible components to it. We are physical beings made in the image of God and Creation is of matter. God's fingerprints are all over it! Christ was here in the flesh and continues to be so in the Eucharist. We are not just a mystical Body, but a very physical one as well. I love that! Because it affirms our very being completely.

Thank you, Susan, for initiating the discussion on a very important topic.

If you're interested in the Protestant perspective, John Calvin devoted a long chapter in Institutes of the Christian Religion to the Lord's Supper.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/insti...

It wasn't quite clear to me when I first read it, so I'll have to re-reaad it before making any comment.

One of the difficulties I have with the Catholic idea of transubstantiation is this: how can bread and wine, which are perishable and corruptible, be the real substance of the Lord, which is incorruptible and imperishable.

Nemo wrote: "Thank you, Susan, for initiating the discussion on a very important topic.

If you're interested in the Protestant perspective, John Calvin devoted a long chapter in [book:Institutes of the Christi..."

Thank you! Will definitely check it out. How interesting.

Nemo wrote: "One of the difficulties I have with the Catholic idea of transubstantiation is this: how can bread and wine, which are perishable and corruptible, be the real substance of the Lord, which is incorr..."

"Although the *appearance* of bread and wine remain - the taste, the touch, etc.,- the *reality* is that there is no more bread and wine. There's only Jesus: his body, his blood, his soul and his divinity..."Real Presence".".
Do you have difficulty believing that Jesus took the perishable and corruptible body of say Lazarus, and brought it back to life?
The resurrected Jesus apparently went right through the closed/locked? door in the Upper Room to see his friends. Do you have difficulty believing that?
This is why it is interesting to see what others think. I believe God is not limited by anything so that aspect was not really a difficulty for me. We believe God is able to do all kinds of things! Actually, I never thought about this until now, but the incarnation is sort of the reverse of transubstantiation....where the supernatural became natural....here natural is becoming supernatural...I don't know if that is theologically correct, so sorry if not, it just popped into my head! Although, even if it is not technically correct theologically, I guess it would prove that if we all can believe that God truly became man, we should not really have difficulty believing the other...
I guess our differences in other things, comes into play also...
Our belief in the 'sacraments' includes real supernatural change, not just a declaratory issue as some protestants may believe...therefore we are already "primed" to have less difficulty with a belief like the Eucharist.
Also, it is not a mere man, being perfect or talented enough to accomplish this, but an 'ordained priest' cooperating with God who is doing everything.
That is one of the things I love the most about Catholicism and is the most confirmatory actually...everything ties together..down to the tiniest little detail, and there is always a deeper, more precise understanding available each time one delves further.

I read an amazing book about the background of the Eucharist and it really helps 'tie it all together'. I highly recommend it. It is Brant Pitre's Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist. I can try to synopsize it somewhat. It's basic premise is that, it is difficult to understand unless you put on "first-century Jewish eyes" and understand Jesus' impact in his own setting-why some chose to follow him, others dismiss him, and still others to seek his death.
We can easily speak of Jesus' death as a sacrifice, but first-century Jews would have not seen anything that constituted sacrifice for them; on Calvary, there was no altar, no credentialed priest, it was not in the Temple, it was outside Jerusalem....St. Paul makes the connection, calling Christ, "our paschal lamb who has been sacrificed".
As Paul retold the story of the Last Supper, he spoke in sacrificial terms. He quotes Jesus, "the new covenant in my blood" evoking Moses' words as he made sacrifice offering an oxen, "Behold the blood of the covenant". It was the sacrificial blood that ratified the covenant, because Moses said so, and because Jesus said so in the other. Paul also calls it a "remembrance" and the book develops further why this is so significant. Also, 'All sacrifices, Paul says, bring about a communion, a fellowship. The offerings of idolatry bring about communion with demons, but the Christian sacrifice brings about a communion with the body and blood of Jesus." It is the crucified and resurrected humanity of Jesus that Christians consume in Holy Communion.
He explains how any ancient Jew would have known that the Bible absolutely forbids a Jewish person to drink the blood of an animal; the life or the soul of the animal is in the blood. Leviticus: It is the blood of the animal that makes atonement, by the power of it's life.
He explains that although some Jews were waiting for a political savior others were looking for a new Moses and a new exodus from what the OT prophets foretold. In the first exodus, God made a covenant-a sacred family bond-between himself and the people of Israel. The covenant was sealed with the blood of sacrifice and concluded with a heavenly banquet. In the new exodus, so the OT prophets foretold, God would make a new covenant with his people, one that would never be broken. The first exodus was not only about ending the slavery, it was about being freely about to worship God. The Passover set in motion the exodus of Israel. Jesus established a new Passover. Steps for an ancient Jew to keep Passover, 1) choose an unblemished male, 2) sacrifice the lamb, 3) spread the blood of the lamb; the ultimate goal was deliverance from death through the blood of the lamb. It was not just any kind of sacrifice, it was the sacrifice that had the power to save you from death. 4) eat the flesh of the lamb. The Passover sacrifice was not completed by the death of the lamb, but by eating it's flesh. Five times the Bible states that they must "eat" the lamb; five times it emphasizes the sacrificial meal. Only members of the covenant family of God were able to partake of it. 5) Keep the Passover as a "day of remembrance". This wasn't just a memory of the past but it is re-enacted, as if "made present".
Matthew: "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
Cor: "Do this in remembrance of me"
He goes into the manna, another miraculous bread from Heaven...
He ties in why the Our Father says, give us this day, our daily bread, which seems to be redundant....
He quotes our Justin in his dialogue with a Jewish rabbi named Trypho, "For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted dressed up in the form of a cross for one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb."
I didn't get to proof read, sorry! Hope any of it made sense and that it was interesting to you. Off to Mass today it is Bible Study day :)

Susan wrote: "I read an amazing book about the background of the Eucharist and it really helps 'tie it all together'. I highly recommend it. It is Brant Pitre's Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist. I can..."

I am so glad you mentioned this book! Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper I've only listened to the talk, but always thought I ought to buy the book as well. What it brought to the forefront for me, is that Catholics ask a particular question regarding the Eucharist: Why did the Apostles make the connection between the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 and the Last Supper and then "do this in memory of me" in perpetuity at every worship/Mass. It is fascinating how Pitre goes all the way back to Melchezidek (if I remember correctly) highlighting how the Eucharist is foreshadowed in the Old Testament.

What Pitre did very well here is to underscore the fact that the Eucharist is not some invention, but is rooted deeply in the Old Testament.

I think I would have had a much harder time accepting the Eucharist had I not known that the massive challenges to the Eucharist came only with the Reformation.

I've only skimmed the link Nemo posted so far. When did Calvin write this? I didn't see a date.
One thing to remember historically with the Reformation, is that the reformers painted themselves spiritually into a corner, so to speak, due to their excommunication - though I do believe only Luther was formally excommunicated, the others de facto excommunicated themselves by renouncing the Church. Once they were separated from the Church, they were no longer part of the Apostolic Succession, and thereby whoever served as pastors and bishops were no longer part of the Church's long line of ordinations through history. The link to Jesus was broken. Now I don't think Calvin was too broken up about that, but they knew they no longer had the authority to ordain priests. Only priests can perform sacrifices. So the sacrifice of the Mass, and thereby the consecration of bread and wine, was no longer an option and other theologies had to be put in its place.

Good stuff.

I would just add a few points. First, there is a long jump from the quotes in the first post, the quotes from the early church, and the doctrine of transubstantiation. Polycarp's "medicine of immortality" is not the same as what Aquinas said over 1000 years later. Transubstantiation was not defined until Aristotle was brought back and Aristotle's categories were used as the basis - so the substance of the bread and wine changed but the accidents remained the same.

It is anachronistic to see that developed doctrine in the early church. It does not mean the doctrine is wrong; I imagine you could argue the seeds of what Aquinas later explained were there and he brought the fruit. That's what tradition does, right?

On the other hand, terms like "medicine of immortality" are tough for non-Catholics who hold that taking bread and wine is nothing but remembering what Jesus did. The earliest church believed there was something mystical going on here. If anything, the teaching that communion is just a remembrance (so whatever happens is in your head) was one step towards a secular age; after all if you can't believe in God's presence then why have God at all?

I believe it was Zwingli who taught the remembrance view. Luther and Calvin both had some sort of presence of Jesus. Luther, and Lutherans, believe in the real presence of Jesus (consubstantiation) they just do not define it like Catholics do.

I have a question, but I'm not quite sure how to phrase it.

I am Protestant. So when we partake in communion, we view it as symbolic. But the way I see it, we are doing it in remembrance the same way a Catholic would? Or do Catholics think Protestants aren't actually partaking in it when they do communion?

Or if, as Catholics believe, the bread and wine are actually the body of Christ, is the belief necessary for it to be so? In other words, to a Catholic, are the bread and wine the body of Christ whether or not there is a belief that it is?

And if a Protestant takes communion in remembrance, not believing that it is actually the body of Christ, are there consequences or something? Hope all of that makes sense.

Good question,

First I'd say that there is no one "Protestant" view on communion. Do people in America even identify as Protestant?

Basically:
Transubstantiation - bread and wine remain bread and wine in their accidents (sight, touch, taste) but substance changes to body and blood.

Consubstantiation - Luther - thought Aquinas was too scholastic; believed that Jesus is present in the elements (in, with and under). Basically he rejects the Catholic attempt to explain the mystery.

Calvin - Jesus is not present literally, in the way Lutherans/Catholics say, but Jesus is spiritually present.

Zwingli - nothing happens, JEsus is in heaven, it is remembrance.

I'd assume that most evangelicals in America, which is my background, do the Zwingli view.

I would assume that Catholics (maybe not everyday Catholics, but Catholic priests and theologians) would say that what we non-Catholics do is not actually communion since Jesus is not present.

For Catholics, belief is not necessary. This really came up in the early church when some priests avoided persecution by denying faith. When persecution ended they wanted to come back. There was a huge debate about whether they could. There were also debates about whether baptisms by priests who had turned away (or if you were baptized by a priest who had been baptized by a priest who denied) were valid. Basically they decided that the Holy Spirit working in sacraments does not depend on the morality/belief of the priest. Nor does it rely on the morality of the person. Personally, I think this is good. None of us are perfect and I see this as emphasizing grace. Perhaps a bit too formulaic, as if just going through the motions automatically makes the Spirit show up. But a good reminder that my doubt/sin cannot stop the Spirit from working.

I guess a Catholic who doubts would still be told by her priest that the body and blood are there. Her doubt does not change the exchange that happens when the priest prays over the elements. If a Protestant sneaks in I...I have no idea. I know people who have done it and lightning bolts did not strike them down.

For the theology, this website is helpful:
http://christianityinview.com/euchari...

I leanred the Orthodox view appears closer to the Lutheran then the Catholic.

Genni, Hahaha. It is hard to express these things, isn't it?
As I had said in an earlier post, or tried to say, rushing as I was, in Brad Pitre's book, he explains well about the remembrance thing. I had always been taught as a Catholic, that we were not merely remembering, but "making present" the sacrifice of Jesus. They make, or try to make clear, that Jesus is not being sacrificed, over and over again all over the world, he offered Himself as a sacrifice for us once. It is being re-presented in a non-bloody way at the Mass. It is however not all that perfectly clear to me. I am able personally to hold on to what I was taught (Real Presence and being re-presented) without completely understanding it, like the Trinity.
Brad's analogy is helpful, I don't know if you know much about Judaism, but apparently when they celebrated Passover, it was not just a 'remember the past thing', I believe they spoke in present tense as if they were making it present again and again, so it sort of sets up the concept somewhat. So yes, I would say our Communion and remembering aspect would be different than Protestants. No, the Catholic communicant does not have to believe in order for the Real Presence to be present, as that occurs during the Catholic Mass only, by a Catholic priest, however one should not be receiving Catholic communion if they do not believe in the Real Presence. You would have no consequences regarding belief as there is no Real Presence at a Protestant service, it is merely a symbolic remembrance.
However, there may be consequences for a Catholic who receives our Communion without believing. I would think it is merely ineffectual if not purposeful, just out of ignorance, and possibly worse if intentional disregard.
Possibly the others have more insight, more eloquently expressed than mine! :)

David, so how do you, and maybe others, explain to themselves the multiple times Jesus seems to stress the contrary? Such as, "Amen, Amen (when he doubles up like this, it is usually something big! :) ), 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." (John 6: 53-54)
Do you think he just really didn't mean it? If I learned anything from Bible Study over all these years, it is that pretty much every word means something or was specifically put there to express a certain point. There is not a lot of wasteful, unimportant writing. It is an amazing book.
And then you see that after He explained what He was saying, He lost many followers who could not accept that....He let them go.....
He did not go after them and explain that they misunderstood....He let them go....
And then when you see the connection with the OT and the covenants, down to the same time He was crucified was the time of the lambs are slaughtered for Passover (I only quickly got through half the book last night to review, but throughout the whole thing the similarities and the precise details of everything gives one chills), to eating the sacrificial lamb to complete the covenant...
It just seems to fit, but I guess it is just growing up that way...

David wrote: "First I'd say that there is no one "Protestant" view on communion. Do people in America even identify as Protestant? ."

I used Protestant and symbolism because they are broad terms. I was not implying that there is a unified view among them. Catholics, as far as I know, are the only ones who think the blood and wine are actually the blood and body of Christ. I was using those terms to contrast Catholicism, but I suppose it was too simplistic.

Susan wrote: "They make, or try to make clear, that Jesus is not being sacrificed, over and over again all over the world, he offered Himself as a sacrifice for us once. It is being re-presented in a non-bloody way at the Mass."

In The Spirit of the Liturgy Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI wrote about that all liturgy is cosmic liturgy. What is spiritually and mystically happening at Mass is that eternity intersects with our linear time and reality. This is why we are singing the "Holy, Holy, Holy" straight out of Revelation, because our earthly liturgy is united with the heavenly liturgy.
Christ's sacrifice only happened once in time, but viewed from eternity, where there is no past or future but only the present, it is happening now. So at the moment of consecration the priest's sacrifice is united with Christ's.

Susan wrote: "David, so how do you, and maybe others, explain to themselves the multiple times Jesus seems to stress the contrary? Such as, "Amen, Amen (when he doubles up like this, it is usually something big!..."

Susan, I personally read those passages the same way I read the passages in Matthew where he talks about cutting off your right arm if it causes you to sin. I don't approach them literally. It is not that Jesus doesn't mean what he says. For me, he is using this to illustrate something.

Susan wrote: "David, so how do you, and maybe others, explain to themselves the multiple times Jesus seems to stress the contrary? Such as, "Amen, Amen (when he doubles up like this, it is usually something big!..."

Beautiful :)

Here is a clip from Bishop Robert Barron going a bit deeper:
https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/...

Susan wrote: "Do you have difficulty believing that Jesus took the perishable and corruptible body of say Lazarus, and brought it back to life? ..."

Lazarus died on earth and was buried, according to tradition, just like other believers. So his flesh was still corruptible after Jesus raised him from the dead, unlike the body of the resurrected Christ, which is incorruptible.

Similarly, I think, because bread and wine are perishable, they are not the real substance of Christ. On one level, they might represent the Body of Christ, i.e., the assembly of believers, with perishable bodies and "treasure in the earthen vessels ".

P.S. Did Brant Pitre explain why Christians drink the blood of Christ, whereas in the OT the Israelites were forbidden to eat blood?

Kerstin wrote: " ..Christ's sacrifice only happened once in time, but viewed from eternity, where there is no past or future but only the present, it is happening now. So at the moment of consecration the priest's sacrifice is united with Christ's.

Jesus suffered on earth, even on the Cross, where eternity intersects with time. The priest's sacrifice of His body and blood on earth would mean that He is suffering again and again on earth, even though He is in Heaven. This seems to contradict the following passage in Hebrews:

not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another--He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
Hebrews 9:25-26(NKJV)

This is one of Calvin's criticisms of the Catholics' Mass: that they not only sacrifice Christ over and over again, but also making void His perfect sacrifice for the remissions of our sins.

How does Pope Benedict XVI explain that?

Hey Susan,

I would say I think there is more going on at communion than just remembrance. So I think when Jesus spoke of eating his body, well, there is something to that. In some way, Jesus is truly present. Admittedly, I mostly believe that because I want to believe in mystical things...seeing it as just some bread and us remembering is too enlightenment influenced skepticism to me.

That said, it is a far cry from seeing Jesus as present to the doctrine of transubstantiation. This doctrine was most clearly defined by Aquinas relying on Aristotle's categories. If you're Catholic and understand it that way, fine (Aquinas is great!). But I don't think you only have two options - remembrance or transubstantiation.

I like Benedict too, I've read lots of his books. I think non-Catholics need a dose of Catholic mysticism.

Kerstin wrote: "Susan wrote: "They make, or try to make clear, that Jesus is not being sacrificed, over and over again all over the world, he offered Himself as a sacrifice for us once. It is being re-presented in..."

Love this Kerstin. You say things so much better than me.
At the time of writing my post, I was going to say that since the original sin against God is an eternal sin I thought, since God is eternal, the correction for the sin had to be greater than anything we temporal people could accomplish, hence our dear Jesus, and thus although he died once, it is really more of an eternal issue...
we are so not used to conceptualizing things outside time and space...but I thought it would make no sense at all so I erased it. You did the trick!
I think they call that, the "eternal now".
I once heard that sacraments are where Heaven and Earth kiss. I thought it was very beautiful.

Genni wrote: "Susan wrote: "David, so how do you, and maybe others, explain to themselves the multiple times Jesus seems to stress the contrary? Such as, "Amen, Amen (when he doubles up like this, it is usually ..."

Yes, I see your point about the literal-ness. But in this situation, it is emphasized so many times, in so many places, and explained as such seemingly by the temporal writers also of the time, that it seems as if one almost has to go out of their way to disagree with Jesus on this one. And then there is still the fact that he did not correct the followers who left Him when they had the idea that He meant what He said. Do you think He would have wanted or allowed a misconception of it being real food and eating His flesh, if He had not intended to mean what He had said? And I still found it very consistent to conform both covenants in the same manner. It all seems to flow and make sense.

Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "Do you have difficulty believing that Jesus took the perishable and corruptible body of say Lazarus, and brought it back to life? ..."

Lazarus died on earth and was buried, according..."

I guess my point there was, I had never thought of that before again, but I was trying to express, that if we believe God has the power and ability and desire at times to have natural elements, 'overcome themselves or their nature' as they had to have done in order to even be brought back to their original natural nature in the case of Lazarus, and He obviously was able to create out of nothing, everything, and Jesus' human nature, why would it be so different to think that if He so desired, that He could take these beautiful natural gifts that He gave us (bread and wine), and have this be the route that He offered to us to have Himself present to us, to be a part of us, to be that close to us, for all time? Beautiful!! He had as Brant explained, already given miraculous bread from Heaven once..do we all believe that? And again, that is another amazing consistency to me that brings everything together. My daughter is dating an agnostic, very bright, very scientific and I think often about how Catholicism can seem really "out there" when one is just being exposed to the whole thing, without all the background and the reason/context of everything, but once you know it, and the more you know....it is just like wow......
And yes, Brant speaks about the OT restriction about blood, again, I only re-read the first half of the book real quick; the book is amazing. I don't like wasting money on books, but that is one I am so grateful that I spent the money on.

Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: " ..Christ's sacrifice only happened once in time, but viewed from eternity, where there is no past or future but only the present, it is happening now. So at the moment of consecrat..."

Did my response to Kerstin after you posted help at all with this Nemo? In my rambling, disjointed type of way I speak? :)

Hello all - my first post as I am new to the group :) and just catching up on all the readings and discussions. Full transparency... I am a practicing Catholic, so my knowledge comes from a lifetime of that...

David:
"I guess a Catholic who doubts would still be told by her priest that the body and blood are there. Her doubt does not change the exchange that happens when the priest prays over the elements. If a Protestant sneaks in I...I have no idea. I know people who have done it and lightning bolts did not strike them down."

lol :)
Catholics view "sin" as a separation from God. With regard to non-Catholics or non-believing Catholics receiving Catholic communion - sin would be present in this sense, and the Catholic would need to go to confession as his/her non-belief or non-reverence to Christ present in the Eucharist has separated him/her from God. Catholics believe that sin is present in all of us, Catholic or not. Catholics just make attempts to confess/receive absolution from our sins through a Priest through the Sacrament of Penance.

Nemo:
"P.S. Did Brant Pitre explain why Christians drink the blood of Christ, whereas in the OT the Israelites were forbidden to eat blood?"

Catholics receive the "blood" precisely because it is eternal life-giving once consecrated. We believe Christ is fully present in the wine and/or bread, you can receive either/both. We believe that there is transformation in us in that moment (as well as eternally) when we receive, that gives grace/strength and that receiving often - is beneficial to us.

Just some insight into what Catholics believe. Looking foward to all of the discussions! Thank you!

David wrote: "Hey Susan,

I would say I think there is more going on at communion than just remembrance. So I think when Jesus spoke of eating his body, well, there is something to that. In some way, Jesus is tr..."

One probably doesn't have only two options, true.
But there is also a depth to viewing the whole thing, besides individual singular varying vantage points, such as the Aquinas/Aristotle angle. But again, we do speak of the New Covenant....that must mean there is a background there...what is the old covenant and in what ways does the new compare/contrast with the old. As much as we isolate all these things, I think we lose something...again the connection, the depth, the richness, the big picture, the point of the whole thing.... I don't how mystical this book is, although it certainly ties everything together historically and theologically...hopefully the mystery of how it is exactly accomplished, is enough mysticism for you. :)

Nemo wrote: "This is one of Calvin's criticisms of the Catholics' Mass: that they not only sacrifice Christ over and over again, but also making void His perfect sacrifice for the remissions of our sins.

How does Pope Benedict XVI explain that?"

I think the answer hinges on how we understand time. In The Spirit of the Liturgy there is a chapter on 'Sacred Time.' Benedict writes:

All time is God's time. When the eternal Word assumed human existence at his Incarnation, he also assumed temporality. He drew time into the sphere of eternity. Christ is himself the bridge between time and eternity. At first it seems as if there can be no connection between the "always" of eternity and the "flowing away" of time. But now the Eternal One himself had taken time to himself. In the Son, time co-exists with eternity. God's eternity is not mere time-lessness, the negation of time, but a power over time that is really present with time and in time. In the Word incarnate, who remains man forever, the presence of eternity with time becomes bodily and concrete.

Susan wrote: "...He could take these beautiful natural gifts that He gave us (bread and wine), and have this be the route that He offered to us to have Himself present to us, to be a part of us, to be that close to us, for all time? ..."

But to my mind, Presence is not the same as Transubstantiation. Christ is spiritually (and therefore literally) present in every Christian, but they are not of the same incorrupted substance as the resurrected Christ.

Kerstin wrote: "Nemo wrote: "This is one of Calvin's criticisms of the Catholics' Mass: that they not only sacrifice Christ over and over again, but also making void His perfect sacrifice for the remissions of our..."

wow, again....that is good, thanks....

Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "...He could take these beautiful natural gifts that He gave us (bread and wine), and have this be the route that He offered to us to have Himself present to us, to be a part of us, to..."

interesting.....but no one is still answering why He seems to stress that His flesh is food....why would He ever say things like that, and why would the understanding at the time seem to be consistent with that, and why would He let the followers leave that seemed to think that and wanted no part of it, if that is not truly what He meant?
And what you wrote made me think....I guess I believed the Holy Spirit instills grace at the Catholic baptism at least, although the non-Catholic Baptism is honored by the Catholic Church I thought, but now I'm realizing I haven't really thought about it enough...hmmm...so I'm now thinking about the Holy Spirit vs. grace...but would Christ be present in every Christian? I'm not sure about that....

Kerstin wrote: "..I think the answer hinges on how we understand time. In The Spirit of the Liturgy there is a chapter on 'Sacred Time.' Benedict writes: ...."

Being an armchair Augustinian, I can appreciate what Pope Benedict XVI writes about time. There is a reason St. Augustine is venerated by both Protestants and Catholics. :) But I don't think it addresses the issue I raised.

Susan wrote: "...but no one is still answering why He seems to stress that His flesh is food....why would He ever say things like that..."

Christ is spiritual food, literally. I believe that just as I believe Christ is spiritually and literally present in every Christian. But again, this is different from transubstantiation.

To put it crudely, if I may, Jesus is teaching the people, not to eat human flesh, but to eat God. Of course it was incomprehensible to them, let alone acceptable.

Susan wrote: "wow, again....that is good, thanks...."

Nemo is putting us through a workout ;)

...and you're welcome! You've been spot on too. This is hard stuff to explain.

Another thing that occurred to me about John 6 - you have all these "I am" statements. If I understand the typology correctly, every time in the Bible when God or Jesus says "I am" he reveals who he is. These "I am" statements are to be taken literally. So when he says in John 6:35 "I am the bread of life" or in verse 51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the flesh that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world" (NABRE) the disciples who knew the Scriptures understood immediately that these were not just symbolic statements.

Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "..I think the answer hinges on how we understand time. In The Spirit of the Liturgy there is a chapter on 'Sacred Time.' Benedict writes: ...."

Being an armchair Augustinian, I can..."

This is sooo awesome! I actually enjoy this all immensely, I have to say....so thanks all....I don't know more than a handful of people who ever speak about such things..
We are a family of Villanova grads, does that count Augustinian-wise? :)
I think you were still referring to Him dying once, and us not re-sacrificing Him at every Mass....so if you do not seem to agree that the intersection of Jesus with time/eternity seems to apply, how about my poorly stated point about the sin against God having to be an eternal issue as God is eternal...therefore since the penalty of sin is death, death had to be overcome, and although actual temporal death can be overcome but once (as it is temporal), the sin is eternal, so the actual effect of the overcoming is eternal, therefore we are able to re-present, or be made "present" in a "mystical" (there you go David! :) ) way at the Mass....something along that line if any one knows any thing that I am trying to express!

Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "...but no one is still answering why He seems to stress that His flesh is food....why would He ever say things like that..."

Christ is spiritual food, literally. I believe that just ..."

Oh! I get what you are saying (I think!), not merely that he is represented spiritually, but by Jesus discussing it like He did, that He was equating HIs spiritual presence with food, that it will sustain us, nourish us...hmmm. I can see that...but that does not really explain why He let the people go when they thought He was saying to eat God, He did not explain that what they were thinking was wrong...which, don't you think He would have, because He would not want such a misrepresentation to be continued? He let them go....and then asked very pointedly, in that very context, if His closest friends would leave too...so He knew exactly what they were thinking and how it was portrayed and He seems to be doubling down on it...and His closest stayed with Him, with that very understanding it seems.....

Kerstin wrote: "Susan wrote: "wow, again....that is good, thanks...."

Nemo is putting us through a workout ;)

...and you're welcome! You've been spot on too. This is hard stuff to explain.

Another thing that ..."

Hmmmm. very good points.....We are doing John in Bible Study right now, but didn't get that far :)
Just like with the Pitre book, it is important to try to see how the contemporary people at the time took things...it is so easy to look at things as we would now...
And I can't fathom why Jesus would keep using "flesh" if He didn't mean actual flesh; if it was more a spiritual issue you would think He would just stick to Me or something. Although He does not always make it the easiest to understand things, to allow for those that "have eyes to see and ears to hear", I don't think He would purposefully want to risk putting people down the wrong track....

Susan wrote: " that does not really explain why He let the people go when they thought He was saying to eat God, He did not explain that what they were thinking was wrong....."

To the Jews of Jesus time, eating human flesh was abominable, but the idea of eating God would be blasphemy, deserving the death penalty. There was no way for them to understand Jesus' saying, unless they believed Jesus was the Son of God, which they rejected. Only Peter and a few disciples believed Jesus was the Son of God, and didn't leave Him, because of that.

The stumbling block for the people, is not the eating of the flesh, but the Divinity of Jesus.

To turn the question around, if Jesus really meant for the disciples to eat His flesh, you would expect them to break His body and share it among them, before and after His resurrection, just like they break the Bread after His Ascension, wouldn't you?

I think the people knew very well that's not what he meant, and the only alternative left for them was to accept His Divinity, that He came down from Heaven, and is the true Bread of God, and they couldn't accept it.

They were arguing, not about eating flesh, but Who Jesus was, "How can this MAN" do and say such thing.

The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (Jonh 6:41-42)

And again,

"The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52)

Susan wrote: "Just like with the Pitre book, it is important to try to see how the contemporary people at the time took things...it is so easy to look at things as we would now...

Absolutely. It is crucial to understand how a first century Jew would have understood these things. These people were Christ's audience, and he depended upon the Apostles especially to faithfully carry on the message after the Ascension.

Later this month we'll begin a new class in our parish that will focus on exactly that. I can't wait to delve into the course material :)
The World of Jesus: Making Sense Of The People And Places Of Jesus' Day
The World Jesus Knew

Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: " that does not really explain why He let the people go when they thought He was saying to eat God, He did not explain that what they were thinking was wrong....."

To the Jews of Jesu..."

I don't really think that answers why they left, "The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, how can this man give us his flesh to eat?" And then the whole discourse is about flesh and eating, so it doesn't seem thorough or accurate to just chalk it up to Jesus' divinity, and that still doesn't explain why Jesus would not have corrected the misconception regardless of where the people where coming from.

Nemo wrote: "To turn the question around, if Jesus really meant for the disciples to eat His flesh, you would expect them to break His body and share it among them, before and after His resurrection, just like ..."

I''m not sure about your question exactly....it is the resurrected body that is involved during Communion apparently, so it would never be before the resurrection....didn't they "break bread" that made them recognize Him after His resurrection? But I don't that was maybe the same; the Last Supper was a new Passover for the new covenant, that Jesus requested we do in remembrance ( as the initial Passover was (in a way making present)), of Him and if He is still present until Ascension, would He need to be remembered?

Nemo wrote: "To turn the question around, if Jesus really meant for the disciples to eat His flesh, you would expect them to break His body and share it among them, before and after His resurrection, just like ..."

I sent a note to Fr. Barnabas asking him if he could help us get "unstuck."
He is an interesting person. He grew up Church of Nazarene. Now I don't know his exact conversion story, but today he is not only a priest, but a Capuchin monk.

Nemo wrote: "To turn the question around, if Jesus really meant for the disciples to eat His flesh, you would expect them to break His body and share it among them, before and after His resurrection, just like ..."

Did you alter your answer after I started answering? :) I am on my phone and can't see very well...I get your point about the Divinty with their comments about his parents...but I still don't think it answers it completely but will await Kerstin's friend's response.

I think you are correct - the Divinity of Christ was the stumbling block. Jesus knew that the people would leave - except for his Apostles who stayed because, as they said, "where will we go?" They believed in him. Jesus knew he had to finish his ministry and we needed also the help of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost) before we could understand fully anyway.

Kerstin wrote: "Later this month we'll begin a new class in our parish that will focus on exactly that. I can't wait to delve into the course material :)
The World of Jesus: Making Sense Of The People And Places Of Jesus' Day
The World Jesus Knew ."

Kerstin, the class that you are about to start sounds very interesting. Thank you for referencing the books you will use. I haved ordered "The World Jesus Knew". It has good reviews.

Susan wrote: "I don't really think that answers why they left, "The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, how can this man give us his flesh to eat?" And then the whole discourse is about flesh and eating, so it doesn't seem thorough or accurate to just chalk it up to Jesus' divinity, and that still doesn't explain why Jesus would not have corrected the misconception regardless of where the people where coming from."

I think the answer here is free will. God gave us free will to accept him or reject him. Later, with Thomas we have the famous line, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." This is pointing to faith, faith in the sense of trust. Faith in the sense you - the apostles and his other followers - have been my intimates for three years, you know me. Back to John 6, after all they had seen already, the miracles, the healings, etc. and they still didn't believe he could command the heavens and earth, then what more could he do? God doesn't force himself on anyone, he wants us to love him.

Kerstin wrote: "... Nemo is putting us through a workout ;) ..."

Just for the record, Susan started this, not me. :)

Thank you, Susan, for challenging us to articulate our spiritual understanding. The Eucharist is a difficult topic for me personally, and I've been thinking out loud when posting --that's why you found me expanding and revising my posts, trying to answer questions while you're asking them at the same time. :) I've enjoyed the discussion immensely, and we are only scratching the surface of the mystery.

Susan wrote: "how about my poorly stated point about the sin against God having to be an eternal issue as God is eternal.."

Rebecca said, "Catholics view "sin" as a separation from God." I'll take this as our common ground.

If sin is a separation from God, then it cannot be eternal, for what is separated can be joined together again.

Pauls writes that God the Father made Christ "who knew no sin to be sin for us" (2 Corinthians 5:20-21). In other words, Jesus, who was one with the Father, suffered separation from God, when he died for us on the Cross. that we, who were dead in sins, may be reconciled to God and made alive again. If we re-enact His sacrifice over and over again, it would mean that He suffers separation from God over and over again. It seems to me that cannot be true, in light of Hebrews 9:25-26. His perfect sacrifice accomplished God's eternal purpose, once for all.

Hmmmm. Good comment Nemo, that gives me something to think about....
Overnight I was thinking about our prior discussion. Although I can see in many places where a spiritual interpretation can be made, I still feel there is a reason for the emphasis on the flesh and blood. If it was truly all spiritual, this, honestly, does not make sense. There would be no point, and I think Jesus always has a point.. I realized that I do not think we may be taking the fact that it is the resurrected body that is involved in Communion. I think that is the link, the key, to making it more understandable. There is a difference between the resurrected body (which we all hope to have back eventually as we are not meant to be without our bodies I thought, but 'that' body will not need food, or get disease etc., it is not the same body..)
So I re-read the Bread of Life discourse. The part where they speak of His parents is actually prior to when they leave. They even say specifically, "This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?" Then, "After this, many of His disciples drew back and no longer walked with Him."
He compares Himself to the manna, that is key too, not from a bread vs. flesh issue, but from a leads to death, leads to life issue; but without the resurrected Jesus, it would not be possible. He says, "...and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." There has to be a reason why He uses the word flesh....otherwise again, it just seems sensationalistic, which I do not think Jesus would be.
The Ignatius Bible notes say, 6:52 The crowd is thinking of cannibalism, (i.e. the sin of eating a human corpse, an idea thoroughly repugnant to them (Due 28:53). This is a misunderstanding Jesus gives us, not his mortal flesh as it was during his earthly ministry, but his glorified humanity as it was after rising from the dead. This is why he calls himself, the "living bread". 6:53 Jesus is speaking literally and sacramentally. If he were speaking metaphorically or figuratively, his words would echo a Hebrew idiom where consuming flesh and blood refers to the brutalities of war (Deut 32:42; Ezek 39:17-18). When he says "no life in you", the notes say, i.e., divine life. Drinking the blood of animals is forbidden under the Old Covenant. To do so is to consume "life" that is merely natural and of a lower order than human life. Jesus' injunction does not fall under these prohibitions. The "life" he imparts is not natural but supernatural. It does not pull down to the level of the animals; it elevates us to become sharers in his divine nature."
The Navarre Bible says, "In this second part of the discourse, Christ reveals the mystery of the Eucharist. His words have such a declarative realism that they cannot be interpreted in a figurative way. His hearers knew exactly what he meant, and they could not accept it. If they had taken Jesus' language as figurative or symbolic, it would not have shocked them as it did, and no argument would have ensued. What Jesus says here is the root of the Church's belief that, by transformation of bread and wine into his Body and Blood. Christ becomes present in the Eucharist:"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring:'Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and his holy Council now declares again, that by consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation....6:60-71 "What he is revealing is not to be understood according to the flesh, that is, in terms perceptible to the senses, or from an earthbound point of view: it needs to be accepted as revelation from God, who is "spirit and life". It says, this causes people in Capernaum to dispute among themselves, scandalizes and alienates many of Jesus' followers. He has revealed to them a wonderful, salvific truth , but those disciples reject divine grace, because they are not prepared to accept something that goes far beyond their limited horizons. The mystery of the Eucharist calls for a special act of faith. St John Chrysostom therefore advised Christians: "Let us in everything believe God, and gainsay him in nothing, though what is said be contrary to our thoughts and senses...Let us act likewise in respect to the Eucharistic mysteries, not looking at the things set before us, but keeping in mind his words. For his word cannot deceive."

Susan wrote: "...it is the resurrected body that is involved in Communion. I think that is the link, the key, to making it more understandable...."

I don't think the body represented in Communion is the resurrected body of Christ, for the former is a broken sin offering (1 Cor, 11:24, Matt. 26:27-28), whereas the latter is incorruptible divine life.

There is a related passage in John 7,

On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
John 7:37-39

How do Catholics interpret "rivers of living water"? If you accept the annotation given in the Scripture, Jesus is saying that Holy Spirit is our drink, as Apostle Paul confirms in 1 Cor. 12:13.

In summary, I think Communion is not a mere symbol, as a picture is a symbol of something else. Christ is spiritually and literally present in the Communion, but the perishable bread and wine is not the resurrected body of Christ, which is incorruptible.

We participate in the Communion not only in remembrance of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, which is a historical event in the past, but we also bring to mind that His Spirit is present with us and in us. This second "remembrance" is similar to some passages in the Old Testament where it is written that "God remembered" His people,