How can you deny the Real Presence? [W:180]

[phattonez]

John 6

He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

Continuing on about why this is not a metaphor:

"But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3."

Another reason to take it literally:

Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?


On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

And it doesn't end there. We also have the views of the early Church and what they thought:

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).
Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or 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 nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).

Christ in the Eucharist | Catholic Answers

Face it Protestants, you are denying something that Christ obviously saw to be very important. How can you deny it when presented with all of this evidence?

 

[ecofarm]

A molecular biologist believing in transubstantiation. Now I've seen it all.

 

[phattonez]

A molecular biologist believing in transubstantiation. Now I've seen it all.

This is philosophy, not biology.

 

[Paschendale]

As an atheist, I have absolutely nothing to say about the OP, but I am glad to see the religion section actually used for a religious discussion, rather than arguments over the validity of religion in general or attacks on atheists. Rock on, Phattonez!

 

[ecofarm]

This is philosophy, not biology.

Not really. Transubstantiation claims a REAL change.

 

[Oftencold]

The older I get, the more it seems to me that most Spiritual Deniers have to spend far more mental energy convincing themselves that they are simply organic machines that ever was required to explore the possibility that they are something more. After a while it's as though they were trying to ignore a color for instance, and claim that it does not exist, even if it's the hue of their shirt.

 

[phattonez]

Not really. Transubstantiation claims a REAL change.

Yes, in the substance.

The distinction between "substance" and "accidents" - the latter term is not used in the Catholic Church's official definition of the doctrine[10] but has been used in the writings of theologians - arose from Aristotelian philosophy, but in Roman Catholic eucharistic theology is independent of that philosophy, since the distinction is a real one, as shown by the distinction between a person and that person's accidental appearances.[44] "Substance" here means what something is in itself, its essence. A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour, size, softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them.[45] While the appearances, which are also referred to, though not in the Church's official teaching, by the philosophical term 'accidents', are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

 

[ecofarm]

Yes, in the substance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

The Catholic Church teaches that once consecrated in the Eucharist, the elements cease to be bread and wine and actually become the body and blood of Christ,[32]...

The attempt by some twentieth-century Catholic theologians to present the Eucharistic change as an alteration of significance (transignification rather than transubstantiation) was rejected by Pope Paul VI in his 1965 encyclical letter Mysterium fidei In his 1968 Credo of the People of God, he reiterated that any theological explanation of the doctrine must hold to the twofold claim that, after the consecration, 1) Christ's body and blood are really present; and 2) bread and wine are really absent; and this presence and absence is real and not merely something in the mind of the believer.

Eucharist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOT merely something in the mind of the believer - not philosophy but actual magic.

 

[phattonez]

Eucharist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOT merely something in the mind of the believer - not philosophy but actual magic.

I'm assuming you're not a Christian, right? One step at a time, then, I'd like to save this argument for Protestants. You would need to be a Christian first before I get into this argument with you.

 

[ecofarm]

I'm assuming you're not a Christian, right? One step at a time, then, I'd like to save this argument for Protestants. You would need to be a Christian first before I get into this argument with you.

I'm better versed in the Bible and Christian philosophy than most Christians.

Now, how can you claim it is philosophy when the Catholic Church specifically states that it is NOT merely in the mind of the believer.

 

[phattonez]

I'm better versed in the Bible and Christian philosophy than most Christians.

Congratulations.

Now, how can you claim it is philosophy when the Catholic Church specifically states that it is NOT merely in the mind of the believer.

It is real. I said it was philosophy to make the point that it's beyond the realm of biology.

 

[ecofarm]

It is real. I said it was philosophy to make the point that it's beyond the realm of biology.

Philosophy is in ones mind. Don't you agree?

 

[phattonez]

No, I don't.

Now do any Protestants want to get in on this conversation?

 

[head of joaquin]

Jesus said that the Lord's Supper was to be done in remembrance of him. That's it. And that's sufficient. Anything else is simply commentary.

 

[phattonez]

Jesus said that the Lord's Supper was to be done in remembrance of him. That's it. And that's sufficient. Anything else is simply commentary.

Please, can we leave this discussion to Protestants and leave out those that don't even believe in the Trinity or read the OP?

 

[ecofarm]

No, I don't.

You think philosophy is a physical object?

 

[head of joaquin]

Please, can we leave this discussion to Protestants and leave out those that don't even believe in the Trinity or read the OP?

Can't respond to what Jesus actually said. I thought so. The eucharist has nothing to do with trinitarianism in any case.

By the way, I'm a Lutheran.

 

[phattonez]

Can't respond to what Jesus actually said. I thought so. The eucharist has nothing to do with trinitarianism in any case.

By the way, I'm a Lutheran.

Then read the OP and respond to it. I'll not respond to your "points" until you respond to mine.

 

[head of joaquin]

Then read the OP and respond to it. I'll not respond to your "points" until you respond to mine.

There's only one point: Jesus said the Lord's Supper is to remember him. That's it. It has no mystical meaning beyond that, and taking John out of context doesn't help your case.

That's why Protestants celebrate the Lord's Supper -- to remember Jesus and his sacrifice. What does your obscure mystical interpretation of that event (evocative as it is) have to do with what Jesus said about it?

 

[phattonez]

There's only one point: Jesus said the Lord's Supper is to remember him. That's it. It has no mystical meaning beyond that, and taking John out of context doesn't help your case.

That's why Protestants celebrate the Lord's Supper -- to remember Jesus and his sacrifice. What does your obscure mystical interpretation of that event (evocative as it is) have to do with what Jesus said about it?

Like I said, you don't respond to my points then I don't respond to yours.

 

[head of joaquin]

Like I said, you don't respond to my points then I don't respond to yours.

I did respond: they are taken out of context and have nothing to do with what Jesus said we should do vis-à-vis remembering him by the Lord's Supper.

"Do this is in remembrance of me" That's it.

John isn't talking about the Lord's Supper, so why quote him?

 

[head of joaquin]

I did respond: they are taken out of context and have nothing to do with what Jesus said we should do vis-à-vis remembering him by the Lord's Supper.

"Do this is in remembrance of me" That's it.

John isn't talking about the Lord's Supper, so why quote him?

I got waylaid and didn't have time to delete the last line. Obviously the passage is about the Lord's Supper. But its meaning is summed up in Jesus' request that we do in remembrance of him, not that it has a mystical meaning beyond that. The comments that the bread is his flesh and the wine his blood is just a metaphorical way of saying -- do this in remembrance of me.

 

[Visbek]

Just so I'm clear: Do you believe that the Eucharist literally transforms the wafer into divine flesh, and wine into divine blood?

Or do you view it instead as a critical ritual, where the material objects of wafer and wine do not change?

 

[calamity]

Of course it's metaphor. In the end, it's not body of christ or a cup of his blood, just some crappy dry bread and cheap red wine.

 

[jimbo]

This is a circular argument. We know the bible is true because the bible says so, We know all this is true because Christ said so, and we know Christ is correct because the bible says so.