I would like to learn about the eucharist, is this related to the bread and the wine symbolising body and blood?

thank you

-- Claire Brogan (doesthismatter@aol.com), April 19, 2004

Answers

The Eucharist does not "symbolize" the Body and Blood of Christ. The Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ, having been changed from bread and wine through the words of consecration. Jesus said "This IS My Body; This IS My Blood". He did not say "this is a symbol of my Body and Blood". He said "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you". He didn't say "unless you eat this symbol of my flesh". How could a mere symbol be a source of spiritual life anyway? Jesus said "my flesh is REAL food; my Blood is REAL drink". "Real" - the opposite of "symbolic". This is what the Christian Church professed from the very beginning, as shown by the writings of many early Church fathers. It was this belief which caused the Apostle Paul to write that whoever receives the Eucharist unworthily "is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor 11:27). That would be a pretty powerful statement regarding a mere symbolic gesture. How could misusing a mere symbol make a person guilty of Christ's Body and Blood? Indeed, how "worthy" does a person have to be to partake of a mere symbol?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 19, 2004.

Paul M is right (as usual on this forum :P)

This is a big difference between the Catholic notion of the Eucharist and the Protestant notion of communion. Paul M elaborated about transsubstantiation, which is the true presence as Catholics have believed since the time of the Apostles. One of the Protestant notions is consubstantiation, which is a symbol or spiritual presence in the bread and wine. Scripture and history say otherwise

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 19, 2004.

Claire,

I began writing a response to you, but it got really long so I started a new thread. Check here: John 6:63 - Does Jesus' Flesh Profit Nothing? (Refuting the Protestant argument against the Eucharist)

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 20, 2004.

It's interesting that Catholics interpret the Bible so literally when it comes to the Eucharist, but when it comes to Jesus' brothers they say the Bible is being spiritual and symbolic. When it says Mary did not have union with Joseph "until" Jesus was born, they say "until" doesn't mean the action happened afterwards!

-- Daniel Lawlis (dplawlis@iupui.edu), May 19, 2004.

Both the teaching regarding the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and the teaching regarding the brethren of Jesus were well established in the Christian (Catholic) Church long before the Bible was compiled. The Church does not "get its doctrines" from interpretation of the Bible. Rather, it PUT its doctrines INTO the Bible, and still interprets them the same way it did before the Bible existed, and the same way it would if the Bible had never been compiled. What Protestants fail to recognize is that the Bible is not a SOURCE of Christian teaching. Rather, it is a RECORD of Christian teaching that preceded it. Of course the Bible is all Protestants have, so they have to try to make it their source, a system which clearly doesn't work as their tradition continues to divide and subdivide into ever more conflicting doctrines and denominations.

As for "until", this is yet another example of trying to interpret first century writing by 21st century grammar - one of the many inherent problems with any attempt at private interpretation. It is also another example of the Protestant tendency to take one passage out of context and try to build a case out of it, while ignoring similar passages which would have provided basic information about the passage in question. For example, the Bible says "not a man of them was lost in battle UNTIL they returned home". According to your view, they must have lost men in battle AFTER the battle was over and they had returned home. However, according to the correct biblical meaning of the word "until", the passage makes perfect sense.

How many more centuries of fragmentation and contradictory beliefs do Protestants need before they realize that offering their simplistic interpretations of Catholic texts as arguments against the very Church which wrote and compiled the texts is an exercise in futility!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 19, 2004.

Hello Daniel Lawlis- If you are interested, Fr. Mitch Pacwa does a great job with this @ ewtn.com.

-- mark advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), May 19, 2004.

Out of fairness to the Catholic viewpoint, I will definitely spend some time researching and pondering the response given to my first comment, which pertained to the "symbolic" interpretation of Matthew 13:53-58 (When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him.) on part of the Catholics and the literal interpretation by the Protestants. We believe that naturally the Bible meant what it said: Jesus had half-brothers, the result of the sexual union between Mary and Joseph after Jesus' birth (specifically mentioned in Matthew 2:25 "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."). Catholics say the verse speaks figuratively of Jesus' "spiritual" brothers. It's very interesting the intensity of scorn and derision Catholics apply to Protestants when they take figuratively the words "this is my body, this is my blood" etc, but yet they interpret a specific mention of Christ's siblings as being symbolic. The bottom line is Catholics choose what to take figuratively and what to take literally, depending on which best suits their theological needs. As for the statement "Rather, it PUT its doctrines INTO the Bible, and still interprets them the same way it did before the Bible existed, and the same way it would if the Bible had never been compiled. What Protestants fail to recognize is that the Bible is not a SOURCE of Christian teaching. Rather, it is a RECORD of Christian teaching that preceded it. Of course the Bible is all Protestants have, so they have to try to make it their source, a system which clearly doesn't work as their tradition continues to divide and subdivide into ever more conflicting doctrines and denominations," this simply is not true. Catholics did not write the Bible. After all, Peter ("the first pope") was married; this would not be allowed of a pope. As far as conflicting doctrines are concerned, I concede that the great division among the protestant church is rather disappointing. However, anyone looking for confliction and inconsistency of doctrine in the Catholic Church will certainly not leave empty handed. Priests, bishops, and popes were allowed to marry up until 1123, after which time marriage was strictly forbidden and would result in excommunication. Fornication, carousing, and whoring, however, were tolerated, so long as the horrible crime of marriage was not committed by a priest, bishop, or pope--a "crime" which the "first pope" committed. Of course, it's very interesting that since the "Catholic Church predates the Bible and never changes," marriage was okay for the first thousand plus years of the Catholic Church's existence. Oh well, I suppose I'm being too picky. After all, even a perfect church can be absolutely wrong about something for a thousand years, right! How about abortion? Abortion was never officially banned entirely until 1869, by Pope Pius IX. Up until that time, it was not considered murder if it took place within 40 days of conception. Another fact is that the Catholic Church will anull a marriage on the grounds that a partner refuses himself/herself sexually to the other partner or simply shows an unwillingness to allow children to be born (birth control, condom); however, they say that Mary ("ever sinless, ever virgin") was married, but yet never had sexual union with Joseph! So Joseph and Mary's marriage apparently should be anulled by the Catholic Church! After all, the pope is infallible, and is above the scriptures, not subject to them, so he should have no trouble doing an anullment of their marriage. The fact that Mary and Joseph are dead should be of no problem. The Catholic Church has burned thousands of "heretics" who were already dead. Pope Honorius (625-38) was dug up from the grave, a trial was given to his corpse, and he was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (678-87) after his three fingers of benediction were sliced off and his body dragged throughout the streets of Rome! For centuries each new pope taking office was required to swear by an oath that Pope Honorius had been a heretic and that the council had acted properly in condemning him. Yet he too remains on the official list of Peter’s successors! Some further inconstencies and changes in the Catholic Church include the Latin Mass. For centuries worship or Bible study in a language other than Latin meant automatic burning at the stake. No debate! This was declared by "infallible" popes who lead an "unchanging, Bible-predating" religion, and yet nowadays, Catholic Bibles are put into the vernacular as is the mass. What amazing changes have taken place in the "unchanging religion!" As for the Protestand division being proof of the erroneousness of Protestantism and the correctness of Catholicism, all I have to say is this: the unity of the Catholic Church, and the division of the Protestant Church is almost entirely specious. Up to 90% of Catholics, for example, report that they do not believe that birth control is wrong, and close to half of the clergy have claimed the same in anonymous surveys (investigate before dismissing, please). Catholicism is an easy ritual--mass takes less than an hour, the priest never discusses anything relating to sin in everyday life, and then it's over. A protestant service usually lasts over an hour and a half, and the preacher talks about practical, daily application of the Bible, and most importantly, about sin. I've been to many masses, and I've never heard the bishop really talk about daily application of Christianity. While there might be 3,000 protestant names of churches, this is hardly the number of major theological differences. All protestants believe in salvation through faith alone, and they believe the Bible to be the ultimate authority, because popes, as history has taught us, are prone to corruption and greed, and not to be trusted (indulgences for St. Peter's, the Donation of Constantine, etc.). To the shame to the handful of genuine Catholics out there, to the majority being Catholic is mostly a cultural ritual--most Catholics come from groups of people that were at one point in time forced under threat of the flame and faggots to convert to Catholicism (aka Central America and South America). The number of people that are genuinely converted into Catholicism, unless brainwashed from a very young and undiscerning age, is microscopic. It is for this reason alone that the Catholic Church fears above all else the pill and the condom--Catholicism depends on people being born into it. It's the only way a person can be so brainwashed as to believe they belong to the unchanging religion passed down from St. Peter, in spite of the fact that Catholicism contradicts the Bible ruthlessly. Furthermore, most Catholics do not even believe that communion really is the blood and body of Christ--there is some hope for Catholics! Another argument against the mass is the simple fact that Jesus said "I did not come to break the law." Jews were stricly forbidden from drinking blood, so why would Jesus command them to sin?! Jesus sits at the right hand of God, according to the Bible; he is not cut up into tiny little bits and served on dishes throughout the world. The very thought is abominable! The Bible says that the resurrected Christ's body shall not be defiled, but many a wafer has had to have been disposed of because it was beginning to mold. Can Christ's body mold!? The bottom line is Catholics believe the Eucharist to be part of their salvation because they refuse to accept the simplicity of Jesus' message in John 3:16--belief alone saves. And of course James 2 teaches us that genuine belief will result in good works. Catholics believe they are sacrificing Christ again and again and again on their altars. However, Hebrews says Christ made a sacrifice once and for all (Hebrews 10:10--"And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all"). I'll seriously ponder the reply you gave me, but in the mean time, please consider my viewpoint. Thank you and God bless.

Dan Lawlis

-- Daniel Lawlis (dplawlis@iupui.edu), May 20, 2004.

I said I'd ponder your response. My question is this: what is the reference for the verse you gave that uses "until" in a sense where "until" would not mean the action occurred subsequently? If you can't even provide a reference to prove that it's in the Bible, then there's no point even taking your argument seriously. It sounds like it's from the Old Testament, if it is in fact in the Bible at all. Then, we'd be dealing with Hebrew, not Greek. In Greek, "until" was used in the same sense as in modern English; I don't know about in Hebrew. However, given that most of the arguments between Catholics and Protestants come from the New Testament, not the Old, then it seems that the Greek is more relavent for addressing those arguments. Have you thought about what I wrote?

-- Daniel Lawlis (dplawlis@iupui.edu), June 04, 2004.

Daniel, you must know that 90% of what you wrote is pure lies invented by vicous anti-catholics, which I presume you have dumped here just to "jerk our chains". Have you ever asked yourself WHY the people who make up these calumnies hate the Catholic Church so much?

If you are genuinely interested, you will find excellent answers to most if not all of your questions in previous threads on this site if you bother to look.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 04, 2004.

I might take that to heart if as many as one of the claims I made were refuted based on logic, history, or the Bible! Every claim I made regarding previous popes was based on historical documents. Have you really done the research to see whether or not Pope Honorius (625-38) was dug up from the grave, a trial given to his corpse, and then condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (678-87) after his three fingers of benediction were sliced off and his body dragged throughout the streets of Rome? Or whether or not for centuries each new pope taking office was required to swear by an oath that Pope Honorius had been a heretic and that the council had acted properly in condemning him? Have you really looked at statistics from surveys done which show a high support within the Catholic Church for birth control, among the laity as well as within the clergy? Are you denying that priests were allowed to marry, with the full blessing of the Catholic Church, up until 1123? Have you even investigated it? And does that not even seem noteworthy to you, given that the Catholic Church claims to be unchanging?! The forbidding of priests to marry is one of the things that separates Catholics from other churches, and even though the Catholic Church claims to be unwavering and infallible, it has allowed priests to marry longer than it has denied them the right. Does that mean nothing to you!? Do you deny that reading a Bible or worshipping in a church service in the vernacular would bring an automatic death sentence for hundreds and hundreds of years in Catholic countries? Now, Catholics are allowed to read the Bible in the vernacular and worship in the vernacular--praise the Lord!--; however, this is yet one more example of an "unchanging" church doing some serious changing. If you're going to charge me with writing hateful lies, it would help if you had at your disposal the ability or the evidence to refute one single thing I said. Plus, the only reason I had to take the gloves off, so to speak, was because when I made one simple question about the Catholic tendency to be overly literal in the eucharistic passages of the Bible, yet wholly symbolic in their interpretations of verses pertaining to verses mentioning Jesus' brothers, and Mary's relations with Joseph, I was met with a torrent of criticism about the "ever-conflicting doctrines of Protestantism" compared to the "unchanging, infallible, one true Catholic Church," along with the accusation that Protestant attempts at interpreting the Bible for themselves were and are "an exercise in futility." I've noticed that most of the arguments that people place in the forum that are in favor of symbolically interpreting eucharistic verses are cut to shreds by Catholics; in my case, however, the response was more of an attack on Protestantism in general. This is because the real issues when it comes to interpreting the Eucharist, which no one on this site has seemed to have been knowledgeable or experienced enough to point out and thus enlighten the Catholics are these: God clearly condemned the drinking of blood for the Jews. Jesus said he did not come to break the law, but yet Catholics claim that he was demanding his fellow Jews to drink blood! That is preposterous. Second of all, God doesn't do miracles that take miracles of faith to believe that they really are miracles. For example, when Jesus turned water into wine, it tasted, looked, and smelled like wine! "That" is a miracle. Can you imagine if the people at the party were confronted with a drink that remained water and Jesus said, "Well, it lookes like water, and it tastes like water, but it is actually wine, drink, drink!"? Can you imagine if Jesus said to a crippled man, "Go and walk you are healed," and the man replied, "Lord, I cannot, for I am still crippled," and Jesus replied, "Well, you appear to be crippled, but you are actually walking and well; have faith; this is the mystery of the healing sacrament"?! Jesus would have never have had any followers, and we wouldn't be having this discussion! Jesus does not institute "pretend" miracles. If Jesus had really instituted a sacrament of transubstantiating bread and wine into blood and flesh, it would taste like blood, and taste like flesh. The purpose of a miracle is to bring glory, honor, and reverence to God. A make- believe, highly imaginative circus act like the Eucharist only brings scorn upon God and any rational person who might be a potential believer. Plus, given that Catholics most certainly cannot prove the Eucharist (any chemical test would reveal that no change whatsoever occurs after the "blessing" of the "priest"), they simply must revert to their claim that they are interpreting the Bible literally. Of course, they certainly don't like literalism when the Bible says, "And Joseph did not have union with Mary 'until' after Jesus was born," or when it refers to Mary's children. The one last "lie" I told that I want to further insist that no Catholic can deny is this: The Catholic Church without question will consider "null and void" any marriage where one of partners has no intention of having sexual union or children as a byproduct of that marriage. Yet Catholics claim that Mary had taken a vow of virginity before she "married" Joseph. To do this, she would have poured contempt on one of the "sacraments" of the Catholic Church. So, why doesn't the Catholic Church anull Joseph and Mary's marriage!? Please, knowledgeable and unhateful Catholics, enlighten me and show me how the questions and statements I have made are based on "hateful lies" that are intended to "jerk the chains" of Catholics. I stand ready to receive Catholic correction on my gross error, ignorance, and hatred. Which, by the way, I say that out of sarcasm. I do not hate Catholics at all. I am not writing on this site to "jerk chains" or to cause trouble. I realize that as a non-Catholic, I am simply a guest here, but I do feel like if I am going to be called a hateful liar, that accuser should be kind and patient enough to at least point out of few of my errors.

-- Daniel Lawlis (dplawlis@iupui.edu), June 12, 2004.

Daniel, I'm sure you have good intentions but I believe you're going about this the wrong way.

For a start, it's best if you break up your points into separated paragraphs. It's awfully difficult to read your posts because they comprise of a single huge lump of text.

Secondly, I think it's best to deal with one or two points at a time, wait for a response then respond. That way you can get a good flow of dialogue addressing key issues.

Finally, it is better to address the people here in a more courteous manner. We are guests after all. You probably be taken more seriously too.

God bless you.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), June 18, 2004.

Thanks, Oliver. I agree with you on this.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 18, 2004.

"Have you really done the research to see whether or not Pope Honorius (625-38) was dug up from the grave, a trial given to his corpse, and then condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (678-87) after his three fingers of benediction were sliced off and his body dragged throughout the streets of Rome?"

A: Yes, I have. I took a number of courses in Church history enroute to my theology degree. Did you? I have done extensive reading in Church history, including all of the major Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Have you? (Hint - reading Chick Publications does not qualify as "research".)

"Or whether or not for centuries each new pope taking office was required to swear by an oath that Pope Honorius had been a heretic and that the council had acted properly in condemning him?"

A: That is pure fantasy, and further evidence that Chick is your source. No-one else would publish such absurdities.

"Have you really looked at statistics from surveys done which show a high support within the Catholic Church for birth control, among the laity as well as within the clergy?"

A: Yes, I have. Catholics are sinners just like anyone else, and are not immune to the influences of secularism. So?

"Are you denying that priests were allowed to marry, with the full blessing of the Catholic Church, up until 1123? Have you even investigated it?"

A: Yes, I have. So?? Priests may be allowed to marry again at some time in the future, though certainly not in the foreseeable future. This is a discipline of the Church and therefore subject to change by the Church, as the Church's needs dictate. Does the Church not have the right to make rules regarding its own priesthood??

"And does that not even seem noteworthy to you, given that the Catholic Church claims to be unchanging?!"

A: The Church makes no such claim. It is obvious that any organization must make changes as the world in which it exists changes. What does not change is the DOCTRINAL TRUTH which the Church teaches - not the external structures of the Church.

"The forbidding of priests to marry is one of the things that separates Catholics from other churches"

A: No, HAVING priests is what separates the true Church from manmade denominational churches.

"and even though the Catholic Church claims to be unwavering and infallible, it has allowed priests to marry longer than it has denied them the right."

A: The marital status of priests has absolutely nothing to do with infallibility, since it merely a discipline, not a doctrinal issue.

Do you deny that reading a Bible or worshipping in a church service in the vernacular would bring an automatic death sentence for hundreds and hundreds of years in Catholic countries?"

A: That is too ridiculous to merit a serious response. Chick, Chick, Chick

"Catholic tendency to be overly literal in the eucharistic passages of the Bible, yet wholly symbolic in their interpretations of verses pertaining to verses mentioning Jesus' brothers, and Mary's relations with Joseph"

A: I'm sorry if you think the Apostles were overly literal, but the Catholic interpretation of these passages is the belief of the Christian Church from Apostolic times to the present day. YOU need to explain the authority under which your human founders deviated from 1,500 year old Christian truth in forming their new doctrines.

"the accusation that Protestant attempts at interpreting the Bible for themselves were and are "an exercise in futility."

A: OK, so give me a more suitable term to describe 20,000 manmade sects, all conflicting with and contradicting one another in their thousands of bilical interpretations, yet each claiming to be teaching the truth. Sounds pretty futile to me - if their intent is to know the truth.

"God clearly condemned the drinking of blood for the Jews. Jesus said he did not come to break the law, but yet Catholics claim that he was demanding his fellow Jews to drink blood! That is preposterous".

A: I'm sorry if Jesus was preposterous when He said "This is the cup of My Blood", but He did say it, so I believe it. I'm sorry if "My Blood is real drink" is preposterous, but it's also the Word of God, so I believe it. I'm sorry if Paul was preposterous when He wrote "he who drinks of this cup unworthily is guilty of the Blood of the Lord", but He wrote it, so I believe it. The Jews were forbidden to drink the blood of animals because of the pagan custom of the time whereby the drinking of an animal's blood supposedly bestowed the qualities of that animal on a person. This symbolism was not lost on Jesus, who used this terminolgy to express exactly the same idea - that by drinking His blood, we take on the characteristics of Him - we become more like Him.

"Second of all, God doesn't do miracles that take miracles of faith to believe that they really are miracles"

A: You think that each of the billions of Christians who have recognized the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist over the past 20 centuries (all Christians on earth until a few hundred years ago) have each done so miraculously?? No, it doesn't take a miracle to believe what Christ taught - just faith. It does however take the fullness of faith which Christ pours out through His own Church, not the watered down faith required to accept watered down Christianity.

"Catholics most certainly cannot prove the Eucharist (any chemical test would reveal that no change whatsoever occurs after the "blessing" of the "priest"), they simply must revert to their claim that they are interpreting the Bible literally."

A: That's right. No chemical test can prove a spiritual reality. That's where faith comes in.

"Of course, they certainly don't like literalism when the Bible says, "And Joseph did not have union with Mary 'until' after Jesus was born," or when it refers to Mary's children."

A: Both of those issues have already been thoroughly addressed. Some have ears but hear not.

"The Catholic Church without question will consider "null and void" any marriage where one of partners has no intention of having sexual union or children as a byproduct of that marriage. Yet Catholics claim that Mary had taken a vow of virginity before she "married" Joseph. To do this, she would have poured contempt on one of the "sacraments" of the Catholic Church."

A: Not so. The Church would nullify any marriage where one spouse had no intention of granting the "marital rights" of the other spouse. That would violate the essential character of the self-giving relationship. But a mutual agreement to forgo sexual union as a means of spiritual growth could very well be acceptable, and was not infrequently the case in Apostolic times, as well as in other periods of history even to the present day.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 18, 2004.