The Eucharist: Symbolic, Real Presence, Transubstantiation

[MrPolo]

They understood Him to say that the bread and wine undergo a transubstantiation when the word "is" is used, leaving behind Aristotelian accidents?

No. Nor did they think it meant "in with and under" or the Aristotelean concept of "substance" that Luther (who, [cough], took the Scripture at face value) used. But rather in this text, the skeptics thought he meant cannibalism (6:52) and Peter & co. didn't yet know what he meant but they stuck it out on faith (6:68-69). And no one understood him symbolically.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

No. Nor did they think it meant "in with and under" or the Aristotelean concept of "substance" that Luther (who, [cough], took the Scripture at face value) used. But rather in this text, the skeptics thought he meant cannibalism (6:52) and Peter & co. didn't yet know what he meant but they stuck it out on faith (6:68-69). And no one understood him symbolically.

Thanks and well said!

 

[Standing Up]

Jn. 6:35 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.

But some don't come and believe.

v41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

v53 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.

How? Come to Him and believe on Him.

v57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Like Jesus.

v64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

But some believe not.

v69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

And some believe and are quickened by the Spirit, not flesh.

v63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

 

[Erose]

"...But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”..."
Matthew 16:23 (NRSV)
​

I suppose you would also argue that the body of Peter was transubstantiated into Satan in this verse? Either Peter is literally Satan, or Jesus is lying... right?

I think that this comes from a misunderstanding. There are two ways I interpret this passage and I display them below:

1) At that point in time Peter was placing a temptation before Jesus was he not? What is Satan? What does this term mean? It is a Hebrew term that means adversary. Was or was not Peter acting like an adversary to the will of God in this passage? Was he or was he not tempting Jesus to defy the will of God?

I say in this passage that Peter was satan. He may not have been the fallen angel we now call Satan, but he was to Jesus satan because he was telling Jesus to defy the will of His Father in heaven.

2) The other way you can translate this passage is that the thought was given to him by Satan and Peter said it. Thus Satan tempted Peter to tempt Jesus and as such Jesus rebuked Satan that was tempting Peter to tempt him.

For Jesus to call Peter satan or rebukes Satan who may be behind the rebuke by Peter via temptation, does not require Peter's body being transformed into the body of Satan, which Satan doesn't possess a body that is.

So the question I still propose to you was Jesus lying or not?

So here is two interpretations of this passage that

 

[Erose]

He is telling the truth by way of metaphor.

What part of any of these Eucharistic passages that would make one think that Jesus is using a metaphor? Jesus establishes a solemn ritual where He says take and eat this is my Body. I just don't see anything in any of these passages that would lead one to think that He was not speaking literally. Especially in the passage by Paul in 1 Cor: [26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

I just don't see anywhere in this passage that makes me think that Paul thought the Eucharist just symbolized the Body and Blood of Christ. I mean Paul even states that those not receiving the Eucharist worthily, by not discerning the Body, are guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. I mean you can't get much more straight forward than that.

The only argument that I have seen for the Symbolic believers have is "How can this happen?" Your argument is the same as the Jews in John chapter 6. The exact same argument.

Either He didn't know the difference between blood & wine or He was using metaphor. Which is it?

Neither. He knew what His blood is and what wine is and He knew that through the Power of God all things are possible even turning bread and wine into His own Body and Blood and yet allow the substance to keep the properties of the original substance.

That was a pretty good "cornering manuever". How'd you like it being used on yourself?

I think mine was better.

 

[Erose]

Jn. 6:35 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.

But some don't come and believe.

v41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

v53 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.

How? Come to Him and believe on Him.

v57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Like Jesus.

v64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

But some believe not.

v69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

And some believe and are quickened by the Spirit, not flesh.

v63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

So what is your point?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

They understood Him to say that the bread and wine undergo a transubstantiation when the word "is" is used, leaving behind Aristotelian accidents?



.

No. Nor did they think it meant "in with and under" or the Aristotelean concept of "substance" that Luther (who took the Scripture at face value) used. But rather in this text, the skeptics thought he meant cannibalism (6:52) and Peter & co. didn't yet know what he meant but they stuck it out on faith (6:68-69). And no one understood him symbolically.

Okay.

1. So, how does your "interpretation" of John 6 support the new Eucharistic Dogma of the RCC of "transubstantiation?" How does it support the RCC and Zwinglian Protestant hermeneutic that the words of Jesus should be taken in a split, arbitrary "half literal, half symbolic" manner, that Jesus frequently did not mean what He said?


2. And how does your admission that no one could have understood Jesus to be speaking about the Eucharist (it didn't exist yet) substantiate that He was?


3. Luther did not use the "Aristotelian concept" of anything. You are confusing Luther with your denomination.


4. Luther's use of the word "with" a very few times was his personal, non dogmatic manner of not denying what Jesus specifically and literally said and Paul by inspiration penned. Lutherans embrace Real Presence but not - as dogma - any limitations on such or medieval "scholastic" attempts to submit the view to long abandoned pagan theories and pre-science concepts. Lutherans accept what Jesus said and Paul penned - nothing more, nothing less. We find no reason to dogmatically deny what Jesus said or Paul penned, and no reason to do so by embracing such pagan theories.



.

 

[Standing Up]

So what is your point?

Jn. 6:35 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.

The point was to contrast how Jesus defined in the beginning of the discourse what it means to eat and drink His flesh and blood with the carnal/literal understanding of those apart from that belief.

 

[Erose]

Jn. 6:35 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.

The point was to contrast how Jesus defined in the beginning of the discourse what it means to eat and drink His flesh and blood with the carnal/literal understanding of those apart from that belief.

What Jesus was defining His discourse was answering the Jews who where looking for Him to provide them with Manna. There is alot going on in Chapter 6. Alot. To shake it down to just a few verses out of context without a background of what the Jews where expecting out of their Messiah won't help. Regretfully this discussion is way outside the limits of this forum so all I can do is recommend a book:

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper by Brant Pitre. One of the best books on the subject that I have read. Below is a link to the book at Amazon:

Amazon.com: Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper (9780385531849): Brant Pitre, Scott Hahn: Books

 

[Erose]

3. Luther did not use the "Aristotelian concept" of anything. You are confusing Luther with your denomination.


4. Luther's use of the word "with" a very few times was his personal, non dogmatic manner of not denying what Jesus specifically and literally said and Paul by inspiration penned. Lutherans embrace Real Presence but not - as dogma - any limitations on such or medieval "scholastic" attempts to submit the view to long abandoned pagan theories and pre-science concepts. Lutherans accept what Jesus said and Paul penned - nothing more, nothing less. We find no reason to dogmatically deny what Jesus said or Paul penned, and no reason to do so by embracing such pagan theories.

CJ, what about his usage of "under" and "in" in his catechisms?

In the large catechism when discussing "What the Eucharist is", Luther states that : It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink.

In his small catechism he says that it is: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

Obviously he is not using these words in their natural form since after the consecration in a Lutheran church I am assuming that you don't see bits of flesh in the bread or meat underneath the bread do you? Also I do not think one can say that he is using the words in a biblical sense. If so you will have to provide examples. So this must mean that Luther was using these words "in" and "under" in a metaphysical sense or ahem a philosophical sense.

So my point here CJ is if you don't believe that philosophical terms should be used in relation to the Eucharist maybe you should at first debate your own church's standpoint first. As scripture says, before removing the splinter out of your brother's eye, you must first remove the log out of your own eye.

The second point that should be made is that neither "under" or "in" are used in Scripture in relation to the Eucharist. Jesus only states that this is My Body and this is My Blood. No where in Scripture will you find Luther's terminology in Scripture.

 

[MrPolo]

Luther did not use the "Aristotelian concept" of anything.

Yes, he did. Luther described the Eucharist in terms of "substance" more than once (such as in his Babylonian Captivity or Confession Concerning the Lord's Supper), which is a term defined philosophically by Aristotle in his work Metaphysics, book VII.

 

[Standing Up]

What Jesus was defining His discourse was answering the Jews who where looking for Him to provide them with Manna. There is alot going on in Chapter 6. Alot. To shake it down to just a few verses out of context without a background of what the Jews where expecting out of their Messiah won't help. Regretfully this discussion is way outside the limits of this forum so all I can do is recommend a book:

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper by Brant Pitre. One of the best books on the subject that I have read. Below is a link to the book at Amazon:

Amazon.com: Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper (9780385531849): Brant Pitre, Scott Hahn: Books

Thanks for the suggestion. Yes we should keep in mind the context. For example, when Jesus says this,

v56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

We should look for the context He provides only 19 verses earlier. What is it to eat and to drink?

v35 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.

Come to Him and believe on Him.

That unique idea was foreign, new to them. Hey, it's foreign to every religion on earth. They were used to temples, priests, sacrifices, work for salvation; for Jews, observing the law as righteousness (Deut. 5). Pagans too were used to temples, sacrifices, priests, knowledge that saves. Here comes some apparently random man who works miracles and says come to me and believe God sent me in the flesh and you'll live forever.

And then He goes a step further. To the contrary, your flesh, your works, your priests/sacrifices/temples mean nothing. It is the Spirit of God that quickens. The words of Jesus is what matters.

Anyway, that was the point. Context, at the time John wrote.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=MrPolo; The reason this line of thinking does not work against Catholicism is because we know that people are capable of speaking symbolically sometimes and literally in other times. (Although in your example, I believe there are exegetes who believe Jesus was literally addressing Satan influencing Peter's speech, but I digress since there are other examples that you could have used such as Jesus saying "I am the door" (Jn 10:9). It's hardly sensible to say that if Catholics believe Jesus to have been speaking literally in John 6 that they therefore cannot think Jesus is capable of speaking symbolically somewhere else. That makes no sense to impose that rule on the Catholic.

He wasn't imposing a rule, he was exposing by example the convenience of your selective process between the literal & figurative.

There are a variety of reasons why John 6 should be understood literally. Let me touch on one or two. In Catholic theology, we relate the New Testament in light of the Old Testament. This is called typology.

Very good. So do I.

You see Paul speak of this in Romans 5 when he identifies Jesus as the superior antetype of Adam.

Sorry, I think you have mis-spoken. If I may interject, antetype means prototype or earlier form. I think what Paul identifies is the correlation of types in the narrow sense that all who were in Adam (all humanity) were affected consequentialy by his behavior, and the ones of those God elected to save (Eph1:4) He placed "in" Christ so those were likewise affected consequentialy by His behavior (Self-sacrifice).

You see the author of Hebrews (ch 8) speak of this when he compared the sacrifices of the OT to the corresponding superior sacrifice of Christ.

Sorry to interrupt, but if you mean Hebrews 8 speaks of Adam being an antetype of Jesus, I have to tell you it isn't anywhere mentioned in Hebrews 8 in the KJV. I haven't checked the Douay-Rheims.

You also see Jesus speak of this earlier in the John 6 discourse when he spoke of the bread that fell from heaven. One thing you will always see in the order of typology is that the New Testament antitypes are superior to their Old Testament types. Jesus is superior to Adam. Christ's sacrifice is superior to the OT sacrifices. And the bread of life in the NT is superior to the bread that fell from heaven in the form of manna.

Antitypes are opposite of type.
Anyway, superiority does not abridge or augment the rules of speech or the form & definition of metaphor, the figure of speech Jesus used to describe the spiritual significance of the choice of eucharist elements.

Now, if we apply this "it's just a symbol" rationale to John 6, we cause a fatal problem in the order of theology.

Sorry to interrupt, but "just a" symbol is a marginalization I particularly avoid. First of all it is metaphor, not symbol, and the life-changing meaning of it is transformative. The loss of "superiority" is not percieved from my point of view since it is an addition as far as I can tell.

The NT "bread" suddenly becomes inferior to the OT manna. After all, the OT manna was 1) of supernatural origin and 2) of benefit for temporal life. When we insist the bread in John 6 is "just a symbol" we make it worse than the OT manna because we say its origin is less-than-supernatural and we deny that it is of benefit for eternal life. In other words, a symbol-only interpretation of the John 6 bread renders it the inferior type to the OT manna, which Christ made the typological comparison to in verses 49-51.

"Just a symbol" is "superior" because it's origin doesn't matter & it feeds us spiritualy where manna did not.

Secondly, the audience themselves understood Jesus literally. They walked away thinking he wanted them to eat his flesh.

So do you.

If, as the "symbol-only" folks argue, Jesus was speaking symbolically as he often did, then of course the reaction of the audience would have been: "Oh! He is speaking symbolically as he often does!" It makes zero sense for the audience to suddenly take him literally if he were speaking symbolically as he often did, and as his followers heard him speak before.

That's just a guess. Unbelief was the reason they walked away. Unbelief literaly & unbelief figuratively.

 

[Rick Otto]

So the question I still propose to you was Jesus lying or not?

It is no lie, He used metaphor.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

Sorry to interrupt, but "just a" symbol is a marginalization I particularly avoid. First of all it is metaphor, not symbol, and the life-changing meaning of it is transformative. The loss of "superiority" is not percieved from my point of view since it is an addition as far as I can tell.-snip-

The disciples, even the inner 3 (James, Peter, John) had trouble believing the prophecies about God Tabernacling, God-in-the-flesh, with us, who would die, be buried, and resurrected for us.

Some 1900 years of marginalizing the miraculous.

 

[Rick Otto]

Well, marginalizing the one while promoting an inexplicably unevidenced other.
The real miracle of Christ is anticlimacticaly upstaged by the undetectable other.
I grew up RC so I realy tried to believe it, but found I could do so only at the expense of my intellectual integrity... & I don't have enough of that to be gambling with LOL!

 

[Standing Up]

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper by Brant Pitre. One of the best books on the subject that I have read. Below is a link to the book at Amazon:

Amazon.com: Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper (9780385531849): Brant Pitre, Scott Hahn: Books

Reviewed a couple of reviews on it. How honest do we want to be? Truth in love. Let's see; from where did the idea arise that it takes a duly ordained priest (laity can't do it) to make the change in the bread/wine?

 

[Rick Otto]

Reviewed a couple of reviews on it. How honest do we want to be? Truth in love. Let's see; from where did the idea arise that it takes a duly ordained priest (laity can't do it) to make the change in the bread/wine?

Succession.
Pedigree vs tradition handed down.

 

[Erose]

Reviewed a couple of reviews on it. How honest do we want to be? Truth in love. Let's see; from where did the idea arise that it takes a duly ordained priest (laity can't do it) to make the change in the bread/wine?

From Christ and His Apostles.

 

[Standing Up]

From Christ and His Apostles.

Melchizedek (all-spiritual succession) or Levite (physical succession)?

Of course we know it's the first choice. Jesus was of Judah, not Levi; Jesus of the Melchizedek priesthood.

So, from where did the idea that only Levite-type priests (duly ordained) could change the bread/wine?