The Catholic Church teaches that, in Communion, the bread and wine literally become Christ's body and blood. This docrine is called transubstantiation.
CCC #1376 ~ 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 this holy Council now declares again, that by the 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 of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.
This belief may seem ridiculous, but its concept is actually Biblical. One of the biggest passages that supports the Real Presence is in John chapter 6:
v. 32 ~ Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
v. 33 ~ For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
v. 34 ~ Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
v. 35 ~ And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
v. 41 ~ The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
v. 42 ~ And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
v. 48 ~ I am that bread of life.
v. 49 ~ Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
v. 50 ~ This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
The Jews were already confused that Jesus was calling himself the "bread of life". But, then, he took it a step further and said that they had to eat the bread of life, just like the Israelites ate the manna in the wilderness.
v. 51 ~ I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
v. 52 ~ The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
v. 53 ~ Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
When the Jews questioned Jesus about eating his flesh, he didn't correct their thinking by saying, "You don't have to literally eat my flesh -- it's just a symbol". He reinforced what he had been saying all along -- "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."
v. 54 ~ Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
v. 55 ~ For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
v. 56 ~ He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
v. 57 ~ As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
v. 58 ~ This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever.
Some people try to refute this teaching by saying that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. He makes reference to himself as a door, a cornerstone, a vine, and many other things. Why should bread be any different? Let me keep typing some more verses from John chapter 6:
v. 60 ~ Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
v. 61 ~ When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
v. 66 ~ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
If Jesus were speaking symbolically, why did the Jews call it a "hard saying"? Perhaps they misunderstood Jesus, but then, why did he not correct them? Why would he let "many of his disciples" leave him over something that wasn't even true? He knew that what he said would offend many of them. If you go back up and count how many times Jesus specifically called himself "the bread of life", you'll find that he says it four times. He also refers to eating the bread of life six times. Just a symbol? I don't think so.
v. 55 ~ For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
John 6 isn't the only passage in the Bible that supports the Real Presence. Paul also writes about it in his first letter to the Corinthians:
1 Cor 27-29 ~ 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. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinket ****ation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
If the bread and wine were only symbolic, why would someone who unworthily consumed it be ****ed? That's pretty serious! Also, notice that Paul doesn't say at the end of verse 29, "not discerning the symbol of the Lord's body". He says, "discerning the Lord's body." The Lord's body!
Matthew 26:26-28 ~ And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament [covenant], which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Jesus didn't say, "Take, eat; this is a representation my body", he said, "Take, eat; this is my body." Neither did he say, "This is a representation of my blood", he said, "This is my blood."
Jesus is our paschal lamb. He paid the final sacrifice for our sins on the cross. In the Old Testament, we see a foreshadowing of Jesus' sacrifice when the Israelites were required to slaughter lambs without blemish in order to reconcile to God. But, there was another catch. They not only had to sacrifice the lambs, they also had to eat them.
Exodus 12:8 ~ And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
This idea of transubstantiation is nothing new. It wasn't made up by the Catholic Church centuries after the life of Christ. The early Christians believed and practiced it as well:
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God...They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, out of his goodness, raised up again." ~ Ignatius of Antioch from his Letter to Smyrnaeans (6:2-7:1) 110 AD
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" ~ Irenaeus from his Against Heresies (4:33-32) 189 AD
Pax Christi,
~the Catholic apologist
Comments
Posted by Clarissa 
Posted by babysquirrel *~babysquirrel~*
Posted by arwengirl ~arwengirl
Posted by Allison However, I have yet to hear a compelling reason to prefer a literal interpretation of these passages.
You said: "If Jesus were speaking symbolically, why did the Jews call it a "hard saying"?"
Maybe they said this because it was a symbolic. I don't have a Greek New Testament in front of me (you didn't either) but "hard" does not merely mean "concrete." It can mean difficult to understand, as parables and symbolic ways of speaking usually are.
You said: "If the bread and wine were only symbolic, why would someone who unworthily consumed it be ****ed? That's pretty serious! Also, notice that Paul doesn't say at the end of verse 29, "not discerning the symbol of the Lord's body". He says, "discerning the Lord's body." The Lord's body!"
I don't see how this would be any different if the refrences were symbolic.
Furthermore, the latter part could be a methapor [explained below].
You said: "Jesus didn't say, "Take, eate; this is a representation my body", he said, "Take, eat; this is my body." Neither did he say, "This is a representation of my blood", he said, "This is my blood.""
This could very well be a metaphor. An author could also say that the curves of his lover's smile are a rose blossoming. He, of course, wouldn't literally mean that she had a plant in the middle of her face.
Ignatius said: "...They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, out of his goodness, raised up again."
I see the real harm in this quote that people are abstaining from communion and prayer. I would definately agree that communion and prayer are vital to the believer.
Furthermore, flesh could be symbolic.
Irenaeus said: "If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?"
I don't understand how this supports your point.
Posted by thecatholicapologist Thank you so much for coming to my blog and leaving a comment!
----------
Allison: I have yet to hear a compelling reason to prefer a literal interpretation of these passages.
----------
I have yet to hear a compelling reason to prefer an interpretation that is NOT literal. All of these verses that I pointed out don’t prove beyond an absolute shadow of a doubt that Jesus was speaking literally about His body and blood. But, they give very strong implication that He is.
----------
Allison: Maybe they said [“this is a hard saying”] because it was a symbolic. I don't have a Greek New Testament in front of me (you didn't either) but "hard" does not merely mean "concrete." It can mean difficult to understand, as parables and symbolic ways of speaking usually are.
----------
The Greek word used in this passage is skleros, which means hard or tough. This teaching was so hard to accept, that “many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” (John 6:66). Why would they leave Him simply because He said that bread “symbolized His body”? Is that such a hard saying? Would that be something worth leaving Him over? Let me type out verses 52-53 again:
“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus aid unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”
The word used in the Greek text is trogo which is translated munch, gnaw, or chew.
And I’ll type out verse 55 again:
“For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”
Does that sound symbolic to you?
As for the passage in First Corinthians, had Paul been speaking about communion figuratively, that would mean that anyone who ate the bread unworthily would go to hell. Why would someone go to hell if they just ate a piece of bread unworthily? It’s just a piece of bread. But, Paul calls it “the Lord’s body”. That really IS something to discern.
----------
Allison: This could very well be a metaphor. An author could also say that the curves of his lover's smile are a rose blossoming. He, of course, wouldn't literally mean that she had a plant in the middle of her face.
----------
The passage in John 6 seems much stronger than a simple metaphor. Jesus called Himself the Bread of Life 4 times. He said that “my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” He referred to eating the Bread of Life 6 times. He said the “He that eateth me, even he shall live by me”. He said “he that eateth of this bread shall live forever”.
Here are some more quotes from the Early Church Fathers:
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" ~ Justin Martyr (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151])
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" ~ Irenaeus (ibid., 5:2)
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" ~ Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor of the Children) 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191])
I think the real question is not, “Why do you take these passages literally”, but “Why WOULD’T you take these passages literally?”
Thanks again for your comment!
In Christ’s peace,
~the Catholic apologist
Posted by Allison You: "I have yet to hear a compelling reason to prefer an interpretation that is NOT literal. All of these verses that I pointed out don’t prove beyond an absolute shadow of a doubt that Jesus was speaking literally about His body and blood. But, they give very strong implication that He is."
The default for incredible statements that sound metaphorical is not to interpret them literally. You don't assume that when a lover says his beloved's lips are roses that he actually meant they were plants. Perhaps you could prove that the lover did mean that, but you would assume otherwise without bulletproof linguistic, contextual, and other evidences.
Posted by thecatholicapologist You said: “The default for incredible statements that sound metaphorical is not to interpret them literally. You don't assume that when a lover says his beloved's lips are roses that he actually meant they were plants.”
I think that this passage in John is very different from the example you’re giving. First of all, Jesus said that He was the “Bread of Life” 4 times. He didn’t just say it once. Secondly, I find it very hard to believe that so many of Jesus’ disciples would leave Him over the teaching that His body was symbolized by bread. If He were making a metaphorical statement, why would Jesus ask, “Doth this offend you?”
The doctrine of transubstantiation, when you put it in context of the whole Bible, makes a lot of sense. In the Old Covenant, the Israelites actually ate the flesh of the lamb sacrificed for remission of sins (Exodus 12:8). In the New Covenant, Jesus is the Paschal Lamb. The New Covenant is the fulfillment and finalization of the Old Covenant. Since Christ is the final and perfect sacrifice for remission of sins, we really should be eating His flesh. His statements in John 6 aren’t as “incredible” as they might seem. You can't compare it to "I am the vine" or "I am a door". Nowhere in the OT do we see instances of rituals such as growing vine branches or walking through doors. ;-) But, we do see the Israelites eating the flesh of the paschal sacrifice.
Thanks again for your comment!
Lenten blessings,
~the Catholic apologist
