Wondering About Faith (Ephesians 2)

[Spockrates]

So what is the excuse now?

You see, there have been many contradictions to God's word over the years by the catholic church. Not serving the fruit of the vine is but one.

This is what caused me to leave, their contradictions. I put God's word above the teachings of men. I want the truth and nothing but.

Think about what you are saying: Is it right to set a person up for failure? If there is no wine to drink, should you condemn a person for failing to do what is impossible for her to do? What does Jesus say?

Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. 2 It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble."

(Luke 17)

​

 

[katiemygirl]

Think about what you are saying: Is it right to set a person up for failure? If there is no wine to drink, should you condemn a person for failing to do what is impossible for her to do? What does Jesus say?

Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. 2 It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble."

(Luke 17)

​

First of all I don't judge. That is God's job.

There is no good excuse for not serving the fruit of the vine TODAY. There's plenty to go around.

There are plenty of Bibles around today, so there is no excuse for not partaking of what Jesus commanded.

 

[Spockrates]

He was. I couldn't agree more. Eating the bread and drinking the fruit of the vine is spiritual food and drink. I've never doubted that. Spiritual food though comes in many forms. When I hear a good sermon, I am being spiritually fed.

Yes, we agree. Water one drinks with her mouth is spiritual drink, and manna one eats with her mouth is spiritual food.


So when Jesus says, "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." (John 6:55), he is speaking of spiritual food. In this we also agree.

Since spiritual food and drink can be literal food and drink we consume with our mouths, isn't it at least possible that the real food and drink Jesus mentions in verse 55 is something we can consume with our mouths? (I'm asking about what is possible, here, not about what is actual.)

* * *

Edit: I guess you've already answered that question: It is possible Jesus was saying his boody and blood are literal food. But it is not what the actual truth is. Is this correct, of have I misunderstood?

 

[Spockrates]

First of all I don't judge. That is God's job.

There is no good excuse for not serving the fruit of the vine TODAY. There's plenty to go around.

There are plenty of Bibles around today, so there is no excuse for not partaking of what Jesus commanded.

I asked a Catholic at work, who is an older lady if there was ever a time after her confirmation when she--even as a child--was not allowed to drink the wine at mass. She said there was not. She is a devout Catholic who seems to be extremely knowledgable about her faith. There appears to be a disagreement between you two.

I think I'd need to do some searching online to get the facts straight in my own mind one this issue. I would need to find out why some Catholic churches served wine and some did not and what the reason was why some were allowed to not serve it. I suppose I could go to forums.catholic.com and ask there.

 

[Spockrates]

John 6:55 is a further clarification of what He said in the previous 4 verses, and you could go further back.

Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."

John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.

Scripture Catholic - THE EUCHARIST

Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is completely in harmony with the foreshadowing in the Old Testament.

Hi, Kepha. Glad a Catholic has joined the discussion.


So KatieMyGirl raised a couple of good objections. I hope you might have a good response.

1. Isn't eating flesh cannibalism, which is a sin?

2. Isn't it possible Christ was using eating and drinking as a metaphor for believing in him?

 

[Spockrates]

Paul to the Corinthians in chapter 11, verses 23-28

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Did Jesus or did He not command that His disciples

1. Drink the cup in remembrance of me?
2. Examine yourselves when you eat the bread and drink the cup?
3. Show My death every time you drink the cup.

Your focus seems to be on the idea that you can get the spiritual benefits by taking only the bread. The Scriptures say no such thing. The catholic church says this, not Jesus. You base your conclusion on catholic logic. Yet, you outright ignore Jesus' command to "Drink the cup in remembrance of Me." You seem to be saying it's perfectly fine to not drink the cup even though Jesus said to do exactly that.

This is what I mean by Scriptural authority. There is NONE for not serving the cup. The catholic church contradicts Jesus when they don't serve the cup. I don't know how you can say otherwise, or accept such a practice.

Something for you to consider:

Jesus said, "Why call me Lord and not do as I say?" (Luke 6:46)

What if someone is an alcoholic? Should such a one be forced to drink the wine? I'm reminded of what Paul wrote:

20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.​

22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves.
(Romans 14)​

It seems to me that if there is a good reason to not drink, then one should not be forced one to drink. So the question to answer is what reason did the church you mentioned have for not serving wine? Were there recovering alcoholics in the parish?

I'm thinking that where two commandments of God conflict, a judgment call must be made as to which of the two will be obeyed.

 

[Spockrates]

KatieMyGirl:

My apologies is this is turning into some kind of debate. You've given me something substantial to think about--especially the possibility that Jesus' words in John 6:55 could be interpreted to mean food is a symbol for something else.

I mean, if the statement, "Christ is the real lamb of God," means Christ is like a lamb but is not really a lamb, then the statement, "My flesh is real food," can mean Christ's body is like food, but is not literally food.

I find it fascinating that I discovered it on my own. Still, it would not have occurred to me had I not thought it through with you. Socrates would say I knew it before I was born and only now just remembered. Paul might say the Holy Spirit told me. A Catholic might caution me that the devil is trying to deceive me. Me? I'll consider it possibly true till something proves it otherwise.

Thanks again for all your patient help! May God continue to bless you with wisdom and more.

 

[atpollard]

I asked a Catholic at work, who is an older lady if there was ever a time after her confirmation when she--even as a child--was not allowed to drink the wine at mass. She said there was not. She is a devout Catholic who seems to be extremely knowledgable about her faith. There appears to be a disagreement between you two.

I think I'd need to do some searching online to get the facts straight in my own mind one this issue. I would need to find out why some Catholic churches served wine and some did not and what the reason was why some were allowed to not serve it. I suppose I could go to forums.catholic.com and ask there.

I have a bit of a Lutheran answer to the question of why ... and a practical observation.

First, from my brief study of Lutheranism (because the Church du jour that we attended when I was born happened to be Lutheran, so I was infant baptized Lutheran and had some innate sense of loyalty):
Like Catholics, they take the elements very seriously as well (the original transubstantiation vs trans-substitution debate).
Historically, if a man spilled the wine on his beard, the correct response was to shave off the beard and burn it as an offering to God ... it was sanctified by contact with the sacred 'wine'.

1 Corinthians 11:
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.​

A good pastor (shepherd) of a local body of the people of God, might want to protect his 'flock' from the danger of drinking "the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner".
Thus the sacrament of the Lord's Table is carried out as an assembled body (even my Southern Baptist friends would approve) and each person participates personally by eating the wafer and the entire body participates corporately in the drinking of the wine ... without the risk of "an unworthy manner".
[Note that these are not my personal beliefs, just an attempt to honestly present the beliefs of another without assuming a bad motive that might not be their intent.]

A more practical look at problems with using real wine for everybody.
First, there is a modern sanitation issue ... would you want to be the 53 of 125 people who was about to sip from the same cup?
Jesus broke one piece of Matzo (unleavened bread) and handed out the pieces ... the modern sharing of the 'body' is far less 'hand on' and far more 'sanitary'.
I would expect that the same modern sensibilities would apply to the drinking of the 'wine'.

[As an aside, our modern ceremony as commonly practiced in churches (including mine) has lost some of the power of the original symbolism ... 12 men ate from the same piece of 'bread', one spiritual food (Jesus) fed, indwelt and united all making them almost literally one body with Christ as its head/source ... like wise the cup of the new covenant was one literal cup that all drank from ... we have traded some of the original visual reinforcement of spiritual truths for modern convenience and hygiene.]

So why not use real wine in those little plastic cups?
In most churches it is a very practical reality that people as young as 13 can have made a public confession of faith, become members of the church, and be expected to participate in communion.
In most states the legal drinking age is 18 (21 in some states) ... making it illegal for underage church members to take communion with the rest of the body of believers.
The legal issue has two obvious solutions ...

1) only the priest/shepherd/pastor drinks real Wine (in which case, the people do not drink as commanded by Jesus).
2) everyone drinks grape juice (not wine as Jesus commanded).​

I can see men of faith following their conscience to either solution ... then 1 Corinthians 10:31 "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."

As a personal observation, the Catholic Church that I attended in the early 1980's did not serve wine to the people ... not a statement about the whole denomination, just about that 1 specific building and the people who attended services there.

 

[atpollard]

I am a Christian living in England in the Middle Ages. The Protestant Revolution has not happened, yet, and there is no Church of England, so I am Catholic. I know Christ commands me to eat the bread and drink the wine. But I'm gravely concerned, because there is no wine to drink. There is plenty of beer, ale and mead as wheat and barley grow in abundance. But the climate in England is not favorable to sustaining vineyards.

Now the kings of England could import wine, but they are at constant war with France, and cannot get the wine from there, and it is too expensive to import it from Italy or Spain. Were the kings to spent all the gold they had, they simply would not be able to obtain enough wine for every Christian to get a sip once a week.

So what do I do? I guess I ask my priest, who asks his bishop, who asks the Cardinals at Rome what to do. Their answer: It is better if you can drink wine, but if you can't, do not fear. God knows your heart and will not count that against you. So I am relieved that I am told it is not a sin to fail to follow the letter of Christ's command as long as I do my best to follow the spirit of his command. Though I am not required to drink wine, I will if it becomes available to me.

It is a good hypothesis.
Do you have anything to suggest that the time and location work out for the start of the not-sharing the cup tradition?

 

[Spockrates]

I have a bit of a Lutheran answer to the question of why ... and a practical observation.

First, from my brief study of Lutheranism (because the Church du jour that we attended when I was born happened to be Lutheran, so I was infant baptized Lutheran and had some innate sense of loyalty):
Like Catholics, they take the elements very seriously as well (the original transubstantiation vs trans-substitution debate).
Historically, if a man spilled the wine on his beard, the correct response was to shave off the beard and burn it as an offering to God ... it was sanctified by contact with the sacred 'wine'.

1 Corinthians 11:
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.​

A good pastor (shepherd) of a local body of the people of God, might want to protect his 'flock' from the danger of drinking "the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner".
Thus the sacrament of the Lord's Table is carried out as an assembled body (even my Southern Baptist friends would approve) and each person participates personally by eating the wafer and the entire body participates corporately in the drinking of the wine ... without the risk of "an unworthy manner".
[Note that these are not my personal beliefs, just an attempt to honestly present the beliefs of another without assuming a bad motive that might not be their intent.]

A more practical look at problems with using real wine for everybody.
First, there is a modern sanitation issue ... would you want to be the 53 of 125 people who was about to sip from the same cup?
Jesus broke one piece of Matzo (unleavened bread) and handed out the pieces ... the modern sharing of the 'body' is far less 'hand on' and far more 'sanitary'.
I would expect that the same modern sensibilities would apply to the drinking of the 'wine'.

[As an aside, our modern ceremony as commonly practiced in churches (including mine) has lost some of the power of the original symbolism ... 12 men ate from the same piece of 'bread', one spiritual food (Jesus) fed, indwelt and united all making them almost literally one body with Christ as its head/source ... like wise the cup of the new covenant was one literal cup that all drank from ... we have traded some of the original visual reinforcement of spiritual truths for modern convenience and hygiene.]

So why not use real wine in those little plastic cups?
In most churches it is a very practical reality that people as young as 13 can have made a public confession of faith, become members of the church, and be expected to participate in communion.
In most states the legal drinking age is 18 (21 in some states) ... making it illegal for underage church members to take communion with the rest of the body of believers.
The legal issue has two obvious solutions ...

1) only the priest/shepherd/pastor drinks real Wine (in which case, the people do not drink as commanded by Jesus).
2) everyone drinks grape juice (not wine as Jesus commanded).​

I can see men of faith following their conscience to either solution ... then 1 Corinthians 10:31 "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."

As a personal observation, the Catholic Church that I attended in the early 1980's did not serve wine to the people ... not a statement about the whole denomination, just about that 1 specific building and the people who attended services there.

Yes, and Catholics tell me that passage is proof the bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ.

Yes, that makes sense. One might say there is a conflict of two biblical principles--one to obey those in positions of authority outside the church and one to eat bread and drink wine. The legal drinking age is a modern invention, and somewhat arbitrary.

When I was 18 I was allowed to legally drink alcohol, but I had friends who were not, because the law was changed to make the drinking age 21 in New York. It seemed odd that a person who was considered mature enough to get married, vote and fight and die for one's country was not considered mature enough to drink alcohol. Rather than reduce the amount of alcohol consumption, the law appeared to have the effect of convincing more to drink illegally, just to rebell against the injustice of it.

Young people often share a desire to be involved in some cause greater than themselves--more so today than ever before. If you don't give them something good to fight for, they sometimes choose something bad. I admire people like my wife who is today helping young people known to be drug users volunteer to help those in need. It's giving them something better than drugs to focus on, she says. It's something that hits close to home. For we have one son who is an addict.

The problem with laws like these is the lawmakers don't consider how it will affect those under the laws. So I approve when a church changes a practice as society and political climate changes. If wine becomes not available to, illegal for or harmful for people to consume, then the church practice of requiring people to drink it must cease. Even traditions of God must change with the times!

But regarding choising to drink grape juice instead of wine at church, I can understand why a church after centuries of serving wine and blessing wine and believing wine is Christ would be resistant to switching gears and using grape juice. So I suppose that Jesus, if he came for the first time, today might bless cups of various kinds of coffee drinks from Starbucks and tell his disciples to do the same! It's consumed more often than juice in many churches, today.

 

[Spockrates]

It is a good hypothesis.
Do you have anything to suggest that the time and location work out for the start of the not-sharing the cup tradition?

Well, I think KatieMyGirl's premise was that the practice of withholding wine from parishioners began around AD 1470. So I guessed at what the reason might be for that date triggering the change. England being at war with France resulting in a shortage of wine seemed a logical inference, based on my limited understanding of the history of the 15th and 16th centuries.

 

[kepha31]

Hi, Kepha. Glad a Catholic has joined the discussion.


So KatieMyGirl raised a couple of good objections. I hope you might have a good response.

1. Isn't eating flesh cannibalism, which is a sin?

Cannibalism is people eating other people or parts thereof. Showing respect for a dead body is practically universal. People eating other people violates the dignity of persons, dead or alive. Arguing over exceptions misses the point. Cannibalism is repugnant to MOST people because it violates the natural law, which is written on every human heart regardless of what they believe or don't believe. So yes to the question as it stands by itself. But those who wish to charge Catholics of cannibalism are saying, not in so many words, that Jesus Body is dead. No. He is the Bread come down from heaven. He said it FOUR TIMES but some people still don't get it. We eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood because He told us to. Jesus did not say "I am a dead corpse that you must eat." The charge of cannibalism is just plain stupid.

The question unnecessarily posits a conflict between a supernatural presence and a substantial one. Jesus is both substantially present (bread and wine really become his body and blood) and supernaturally present (transubstantiation occurs by the supernatural action of God; the accidents of bread and wine remain without the substances of bread and wine).

In consuming the eucharistic elements, the physical mechanisms of eating injure only the accidents of bread and wine. The process of consuming the host doesn't involve ripping and tearing Christ's body, despite its substantial presence. This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work.

This has been explained repeatedly but certain people (not mentioning any names) think they have an argument (cannibalism) that trumps the command of Jesus Himself. We do what Jesus told us to do. It requires supernatural faith and approaching the mystery of the Real Substantial presence of Jesus in the Eucharist without supernatural faith will never make sense to those who are thinking "in the flesh".

2. Isn't it possible Christ was using eating and drinking as a metaphor for believing in him?

Isn't it possible Christ had no actual human body but just the appearance of one, and therefore he didn't really die on the cross, and didn't really resurrect? The argument is the same.

To some, baptism is also a metaphor, and doesn't regenerate anything, contrary to Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Pet 3:21 (cf. Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-4), 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5. The argument is the same.

Paul's "handkerchiefs" healed the sick (Acts 19:12) or were they metaphorical handkerchiefs?

Jesus' garment (Mt 9:20-22) and saliva mixed with dirt (Jn 9:5 ff., Mk 8:22-25), as well as water from the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7); are these actual physical things or are they metaphors? Anointing with oil for healing is encouraged (Jas 5:14) or did the priests of the church use metaphorical oil?

Even under the Old Covenant, a dead man was raised simply by coming in contact with the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21)

All this and yet so many Protestants reject sacramentalism in principle! ...
...Sacramentalism is merely the Incarnation extended, just as the Church is. Not a priori biblical or logical case can be made against a literal Eucharist on the grounds that matter is inferior to spirit and/or indicative of a stunted, primitive, "pagan" spirituality or some such similar negative judgment (i.e. cannibalism). If Christ could become Man, He can surely will to become actually and truly present in every sense in bread and wine, once consecrated.

So I challenge "low church" Protestants to go ahead and make their case against the Real Presence, but to do it on scriptural, exegetical grounds, not Docetic, philosophical ones. I submit that oftentimes, the bias against matter is what creates a prior bias in favor of pure symbolism, thus leading to eisegesis of John 6, Lk 22:19-20, 1 Cor 10:16 and 11:27-30.
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Sacramentalism​

 

[kepha31]

Where I go to Mass, reception of Our Lord's Body and Blood under both species of consecrated Bread and Wine is the norm. It may not be the norm in every parish, but receiving one or the other is the same as receiving both. You don't get "more Jesus" if you just receive the bread or the wine.

There have been times throughout history where the distribution of Communion has been limited to one form for reasons of practicality or to combat heresy. In the early Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received generally under both kinds on Sundays, Communion under the form of bread alone allowed for daily reception where Mass was not possible. Likewise, beginning in the late 1200s, distribution of Communion under one form only was required in order to combat the heretical teaching of some that reception under both kinds was necessary in order to receive the whole Christ.

By the time of Vatican II, the Council saw no reason not to begin restoring the reception of Communion under both kinds. This was done in stages. In 1970 the Holy See approved for the United States the bishops’ Appendix to the General Instruction for the Dioceses of the United States, which gave permission for Communion under both kinds at weekday Masses (AGI 242:19).

The Holy See extended this permission in 1984 to Sunday Masses in the U.S., when it approved the bishops’ directory, This Holy and Living Sacrifice: Directory for the Celebration and Reception of Communion under Both Kinds. The directory stated that, in addition to weekday Masses, "Communion under both kinds is also permitted at parish and community Masses celebrated on Sundays and holy days of obligation in the dioceses of the United States" (HLS 21).

The only exceptions are in those cases where the size or circumstance of the congregation would not permit reverent reception of the precious blood or when the congregation is so diverse that the priest cannot tell if its members have been sufficiently instructed about receiving Communion under both kinds.
When should Communion be distributed under both forms? | Catholic Answers
​

This should put a stop to the same LIE that has been repeated on this thread and others about the alleged with-holding Wine. I doubt it will. This same explanation has already been given to the same person(s) who continue repeating the same lie. And the same lie will be repeated again someplace else.

 

[atpollard]

Cannibalism is people eating other people or parts thereof. Showing respect for a dead body is practically universal. People eating other people violates the dignity of persons, dead or alive. Arguing over exceptions misses the point. Cannibalism is repugnant to MOST people because it violates the natural law, which is written on every human heart regardless of what they believe or don't believe. So yes to the question as it stands by itself. But those who wish to charge Catholics of cannibalism are saying, not in so many words, that Jesus Body is dead. No. He is the Bread come down from heaven. He said it FOUR TIMES but some people still don't get it. We eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood because He told us to. Jesus did not say "I am a dead corpse that you must eat." The charge of cannibalism is just plain stupid.

The question unnecessarily posits a conflict between a supernatural presence and a substantial one. Jesus is both substantially present (bread and wine really become his body and blood) and supernaturally present (transubstantiation occurs by the supernatural action of God; the accidents of bread and wine remain without the substances of bread and wine).

In consuming the eucharistic elements, the physical mechanisms of eating injure only the accidents of bread and wine. The process of consuming the host doesn't involve ripping and tearing Christ's body, despite its substantial presence. This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work.

This has been explained repeatedly but certain people (not mentioning any names) think they have an argument (cannibalism) that trumps the command of Jesus Himself. We do what Jesus told us to do. It requires supernatural faith and approaching the mystery of the Real Substantial presence of Jesus in the Eucharist without supernatural faith will never make sense to those who are thinking "in the flesh".



Isn't it possible Christ had no actual human body but just the appearance of one, and therefore he didn't really die on the cross, and didn't really resurrect? The argument is the same.

To some, baptism is also a metaphor, and doesn't regenerate anything, contrary to Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Pet 3:21 (cf. Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-4), 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5. The argument is the same.

Paul's "handkerchiefs" healed the sick (Acts 19:12) or were they metaphorical handkerchiefs?

Jesus' garment (Mt 9:20-22) and saliva mixed with dirt (Jn 9:5 ff., Mk 8:22-25), as well as water from the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7); are these actual physical things or are they metaphors? Anointing with oil for healing is encouraged (Jas 5:14) or did the priests of the church use metaphorical oil?

Even under the Old Covenant, a dead man was raised simply by coming in contact with the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21)

All this and yet so many Protestants reject sacramentalism in principle! ...
...Sacramentalism is merely the Incarnation extended, just as the Church is. Not a priori biblical or logical case can be made against a literal Eucharist on the grounds that matter is inferior to spirit and/or indicative of a stunted, primitive, "pagan" spirituality or some such similar negative judgment (i.e. cannibalism). If Christ could become Man, He can surely will to become actually and truly present in every sense in bread and wine, once consecrated.

So I challenge "low church" Protestants to go ahead and make their case against the Real Presence, but to do it on scriptural, exegetical grounds, not Docetic, philosophical ones. I submit that oftentimes, the bias against matter is what creates a prior bias in favor of pure symbolism, thus leading to eisegesis of John 6, Lk 22:19-20, 1 Cor 10:16 and 11:27-30.

That was awesome.
A well articulated case.

With respect to the charge of canibalism, it is a bit of a 'dishonest' semantic. Even if the wafer and wine literally and physically became the actual body and blood of Jesus of Nazareth, the act of transforming them makes them more than 'just' the meat of a man. I admit to not personally believing in any physical presence other than a cracker and some grape juice (we don't serve wine in my church), but I would not argue that it is 'only symbolic' ...

• First, because there is nothing 'only' about symbolism (a flag is a symbol and men have literally died protecting a flag, so how much more important is even a symbol of who Christ is and what he has done).
• Second, because the Spiritual presence of Jesus within the gathering of His Body (the believers) is as real as any physical object or force ... in some ways more real ... so how much more so when we gather to take his sacrament and remember that WE are his body.

I am a little confused by your challenge in the last paragraph (and as someone who doesn't use the word 'exegesis' more than once every decade or two, a little intimidated) ... but as someone who was never afraid to "open his mouth and remove all doubt" ... I'll offer a response more in the form of a question.

In any/all accounts of the Last Supper, Jesus is standing there holding up a hunk of matzo, breaking it, handing out chunks and saying "This is my body" ... but how can that be literally and physically true? Jesus is standing right there with his real, actual, fully intact physical and very human body ... with no reported pieces missing.
So is it pure symbolism? ... I don't think so. Something real and serious is going on.
Is it 100% non-symbolic and literal? ... I don't think so. This is a Seder, how can something so innately rich in symbolism as a Passover meal not be intended to convey some symbolism?

So I would be interested in your thoughts about what was going on at the first communion.

 

[kepha31]

That was awesome.
A well articulated case.

Thank you.

With respect to the charge of canibalism, it is a bit of a 'dishonest' semantic. Even if the wafer and wine literally and physically became the actual body and blood of Jesus of Nazareth, the act of transforming them makes them more than 'just' the meat of a man. I admit to not personally believing in any physical presence other than a cracker and some grape juice (we don't serve wine in my church), but I would not argue that it is 'only symbolic' ...

• First, because there is nothing 'only' about symbolism (a flag is a symbol and men have literally died protecting a flag, so how much more important is even a symbol of who Christ is and what he has done).
• Second, because the Spiritual presence of Jesus within the gathering of His Body (the believers) is as real as any physical object or force ... in some ways more real ... so how much more so when we gather to take his sacrament and remember that WE are his body.

I am a little confused by your challenge in the last paragraph (and as someone who doesn't use the word 'exegesis' more than once every decade or two, a little intimidated) ... but as someone who was never afraid to "open his mouth and remove all doubt" ... I'll offer a response more in the form of a question.

In any/all accounts of the Last Supper, Jesus is standing there holding up a hunk of matzo, breaking it, handing out chunks and saying "This is my body" ... but how can that be literally and physically true? Jesus is standing right there with his real, actual, fully intact physical and very human body ... with no reported pieces missing.
So is it pure symbolism? ... I don't think so. Something real and serious is going on.
Is it 100% non-symbolic and literal? ... I don't think so. This is a Seder, how can something so innately rich in symbolism as a Passover meal not be intended to convey some symbolism?

Without the Passover meal, His sacrifice on the cross is merely an execution. The offering at the Passover is the same sacrifice as the Crucifixion, which is the same perpetual sacrifice that Jesus offers to the Father on our behalf. What does Jesus offer to the Father? Bread and Wine, which is Himself. The Mass is not a separate sacrifice. Jesus died once, yet the Mass on earth is one and the same sacrifice, on earth as it is in heaven. It's hard to wrap your head around. It took me some 60 years to connect the dots.

So I would be interested in your thoughts about what was going on at the first communion.

Where did Jesus drink the Fourth Cup of the Passover meal?

 

[katiemygirl]

I asked a Catholic at work, who is an older lady if there was ever a time after her confirmation when she--even as a child--was not allowed to drink the wine at mass. She said there was not. She is a devout Catholic who seems to be extremely knowledgable about her faith. There appears to be a disagreement between you two.

I think I'd need to do some searching online to get the facts straight in my own mind one this issue. I would need to find out why some Catholic churches served wine and some did not and what the reason was why some were allowed to not serve it. I suppose I could go to forums.catholic.com and ask there.

Read Kepha's post.

Prior to 1970, no catholic church could serve the cup in the USA.

Maybe your catholic co-worker has a short memory?

 

[katiemygirl]

Where I go to Mass, reception of Our Lord's Body and Blood under both species of consecrated Bread and Wine is the norm. It may not be the norm in every parish, but receiving one or the other is the same as receiving both. You don't get "more Jesus" if you just receive the bread or the wine.

There have been times throughout history where the distribution of Communion has been limited to one form for reasons of practicality or to combat heresy. In the early Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received generally under both kinds on Sundays, Communion under the form of bread alone allowed for daily reception where Mass was not possible. Likewise, beginning in the late 1200s, distribution of Communion under one form only was required in order to combat the heretical teaching of some that reception under both kinds was necessary in order to receive the whole Christ.

By the time of Vatican II, the Council saw no reason not to begin restoring the reception of Communion under both kinds. This was done in stages. In 1970 the Holy See approved for the United States the bishops’ Appendix to the General Instruction for the Dioceses of the United States, which gave permission for Communion under both kinds at weekday Masses (AGI 242:19).

The Holy See extended this permission in 1984 to Sunday Masses in the U.S., when it approved the bishops’ directory, This Holy and Living Sacrifice: Directory for the Celebration and Reception of Communion under Both Kinds. The directory stated that, in addition to weekday Masses, "Communion under both kinds is also permitted at parish and community Masses celebrated on Sundays and holy days of obligation in the dioceses of the United States" (HLS 21).

The only exceptions are in those cases where the size or circumstance of the congregation would not permit reverent reception of the precious blood or when the congregation is so diverse that the priest cannot tell if its members have been sufficiently instructed about receiving Communion under both kinds.
When should Communion be distributed under both forms? | Catholic Answers
​

This should put a stop to the same LIE that has been repeated on this thread and others about the alleged with-holding Wine. I doubt it will. This same explanation has already been given to the same person(s) who continue repeating the same lie. And the same lie will be repeated again someplace else.

It's not a matter of getting "more Jesus." It's a matter of what Jesus commanded. You can choose to obey Jesus or the Vatican. Up to you.

 

[katiemygirl]

Where I go to Mass, reception of Our Lord's Body and Blood under both species of consecrated Bread and Wine is the norm. It may not be the norm in every parish, but receiving one or the other is the same as receiving both. You don't get "more Jesus" if you just receive the bread or the wine.

There have been times throughout history where the distribution of Communion has been limited to one form for reasons of practicality or to combat heresy. In the early Church, for example, where the Eucharist was received generally under both kinds on Sundays, Communion under the form of bread alone allowed for daily reception where Mass was not possible. Likewise, beginning in the late 1200s, distribution of Communion under one form only was required in order to combat the heretical teaching of some that reception under both kinds was necessary in order to receive the whole Christ.

By the time of Vatican II, the Council saw no reason not to begin restoring the reception of Communion under both kinds. This was done in stages. In 1970 the Holy See approved for the United States the bishops’ Appendix to the General Instruction for the Dioceses of the United States, which gave permission for Communion under both kinds at weekday Masses (AGI 242:19).

The Holy See extended this permission in 1984 to Sunday Masses in the U.S., when it approved the bishops’ directory, This Holy and Living Sacrifice: Directory for the Celebration and Reception of Communion under Both Kinds. The directory stated that, in addition to weekday Masses, "Communion under both kinds is also permitted at parish and community Masses celebrated on Sundays and holy days of obligation in the dioceses of the United States" (HLS 21).

The only exceptions are in those cases where the size or circumstance of the congregation would not permit reverent reception of the precious blood or when the congregation is so diverse that the priest cannot tell if its members have been sufficiently instructed about receiving Communion under both kinds.
When should Communion be distributed under both forms? | Catholic Answers
​

This should put a stop to the same LIE that has been repeated on this thread and others about the alleged with-holding Wine. I doubt it will. This same explanation has already been given to the same person(s) who continue repeating the same lie. And the same lie will be repeated again someplace else.

How is my saying the cup was witheld prior to 1970 a lie?

You just posted the evidence that it was witheld.

In 1970 the Holy See approved for the United States the bishops’ Appendix to the General Instruction for the Dioceses of the United States, which gave permission for Communion under both kinds at weekday Masses (AGI 242:19).

 

[katiemygirl]

Thank you.


Without the Passover meal, His sacrifice on the cross is merely an execution. The offering at the Passover is the same sacrifice as the Crucifixion, which is the same perpetual sacrifice that Jesus offers to the Father on our behalf. What does Jesus offer to the Father? Bread and Wine, which is Himself. The Mass is not a separate sacrifice. Jesus died once, yet the Mass on earth is one and the same sacrifice, on earth as it is in heaven. It's hard to wrap your head around. It took me some 60 years to connect the dots.


Where did Jesus drink the Fourth Cup of the Passover meal?

Where is a fourth cup at Passover mentioned in Scriptures? Is this just a Jewish tradition established after Jesus?

 

[Spockrates]

Cannibalism is people eating other people or parts thereof. Showing respect for a dead body is practically universal. People eating other people violates the dignity of persons, dead or alive. Arguing over exceptions misses the point. Cannibalism is repugnant to MOST people because it violates the natural law, which is written on every human heart regardless of what they believe or don't believe. So yes to the question as it stands by itself. But those who wish to charge Catholics of cannibalism are saying, not in so many words, that Jesus Body is dead. No. He is the Bread come down from heaven. He said it FOUR TIMES but some people still don't get it. We eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood because He told us to. Jesus did not say "I am a dead corpse that you must eat." The charge of cannibalism is just plain stupid.

I'm a fan of science fiction as you might have guessed from my user name. One sci-fi movie I watched was called Snow Piercer. It isn't a movie I'd recommend, but once I started watching it, it was like a train wreck. In the film was a living one-armed man. The protagonist of the film learned the reason the man was missing an arm: He cut it off and gave it to cannibals to save the life of an infant they were threatening to eat.

So it seems cannibalism does not require the one eaten has to be deceased. Isn't it the type of food eaten, not the state of the one eaten, which makes it cannibalism?

The question unnecessarily posits a conflict between a supernatural presence and a substantial one. Jesus is both substantially present (bread and wine really become his body and blood) and supernaturally present (transubstantiation occurs by the supernatural action of God; the accidents of bread and wine remain without the substances of bread and wine).

In consuming the eucharistic elements, the physical mechanisms of eating injure only the accidents of bread and wine. The process of consuming the host doesn't involve ripping and tearing Christ's body, despite its substantial presence. This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work.

Yes that seems a more logical reason than the previous one. It's not cannibalism, because what is eaten does not look, feel, sound, smell or taste like human flesh. It's not what the food eaten is that makes it cannibslism, it's how the food eaten appears to the senses. As Plato would say, it's not the form, it's the accidents that make eating real flesh cannablism. Is this correct?

This has been explained repeatedly but certain people (not mentioning any names) think they have an argument (cannibalism) that trumps the command of Jesus Himself. We do what Jesus told us to do. It requires supernatural faith and approaching the mystery of the Real Substantial presence of Jesus in the Eucharist without supernatural faith will never make sense to those who are thinking "in the flesh".

Yes, people do think this, but not without good reason, perhaps? In the Old Testament God appears to make it clear eating human flesh is forbidden. Our natural aversion to the practice seems to show our conscience agrees. But then Jesus turns that on its head in John 6 by saying we must eat him! I can understand the gut reaction of so many of his followers who walked away.

So I'm trying to figure out how eating him is either (1) actually not the same as eating human flesh, or (2) is the same as eating human flesh but is in this case not a sin.

Isn't it possible Christ had no actual human body but just the appearance of one, and therefore he didn't really die on the cross, and didn't really resurrect? The argument is the same.

To some, baptism is also a metaphor, and doesn't regenerate anything, contrary to Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Pet 3:21 (cf. Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-4), 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5. The argument is the same.

Paul's "handkerchiefs" healed the sick (Acts 19:12) or were they metaphorical handkerchiefs?

Jesus' garment (Mt 9:20-22) and saliva mixed with dirt (Jn 9:5 ff., Mk 8:22-25), as well as water from the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7); are these actual physical things or are they metaphors? Anointing with oil for healing is encouraged (Jas 5:14) or did the priests of the church use metaphorical oil?

Yes, but I think that whether it is the person praying or the object used, the healing is done merely through--rather than by--the person or object. The actual healing is done by--and only by--God. Don't you agree?

Even under the Old Covenant, a dead man was raised simply by coming in contact with the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21)

All this and yet so many Protestants reject sacramentalism in principle! ...
...Sacramentalism is merely the Incarnation extended, just as the Church is. Not a priori biblical or logical case can be made against a literal Eucharist on the grounds that matter is inferior to spirit and/or indicative of a stunted, primitive, "pagan" spirituality or some such similar negative judgment (i.e. cannibalism). If Christ could become Man, He can surely will to become actually and truly present in every sense in bread and wine, once consecrated.

So I challenge "low church" Protestants to go ahead and make their case against the Real Presence, but to do it on scriptural, exegetical grounds, not Docetic, philosophical ones. I submit that oftentimes, the bias against matter is what creates a prior bias in favor of pure symbolism, thus leading to eisegesis of John 6, Lk 22:19-20, 1 Cor 10:16 and 11:27-30.
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Sacramentalism​

Yes, but rather than kick them back, shouldn't you instead try on their shoes and try to see things from their point of view? At a Catholic forum I once asked if they really believed Christ was a loaf of bread. I had no idea what I was saying was offensive. I was simply ignorant.

So it is likely not all Christians who ask if consuming the Eucharist makes a Catholic a cannable are trying to be offensive. Many of them likely are sincerely wondering how the practice can possibly be unlike cannibalism. I think it is a question worth seriously considering and answering without becoming easily offended. I'm sure you agree.