In part one of this blogging series, it was my intent to illustrate two important facts about the Catholic interpretation of the “bread of life discourse” found in John 6: 35-58. To recap briefly:
- The Catholic interpretation is both metaphorical and literal.
- The bread of life discourse can be subdivided into two parts: verses 35-47 and verses 48-58 (see figure 1).
These tenets provide some literary underpinnings for a Eucharistic interpretation of the text.
Fig. 1
Today I wish to highlight a textual clue which supports both of the above ideas. In keeping to sola scriptura for this series, the support comes from the scriptural text alone.
We already know that in verses 35-47 of John 6, both Protestants and Catholics alike can agree that Christ is speaking metaphorically when he says “I am the bread of life.” When the Jews utter their first grumblings at Christ’s words, they are not expressing disgust at the idea of Christ being bread. Rather, they ask “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?” They express no objection to the obvious metaphor and instead call into question Christ’s claim to divinity. Up until this point, the only controversy was that Christ claimed to come down from heaven. He claimed that faith in Him was necessary for salvation; coming to Him, the bread of heaven, was a metaphorical invitation to faith. I am the bread of life. If John 6 ended here, there would be no question among Christians that Christ was speaking strictly metaphorically.
Of course, the passage continues. Verse 48 begins a second half of the naturally-divided discourse. Like the first half, it begins with “I am the bread of life.” Christ continues his series of invitations to faith, but this time we begin seeing a new word in our English translations: eat. The word appears as eat/eats/ate a total of ten times between verses 48-58. To English-speaking minds, this is not a detail of obvious significance. After all, Christ is speaking of bread – of course you eat it. What other word should we expect for unpacking a metaphor about bread?
As it turns out, the Apostle John did not record Jesus using the same word for “eat” throughout the entire passage. According to the original Koine Greek language of John’s gospel, Christ used at least two different terms:
esthio: a verb meaning to eat, to consume, to partake in a meal. This was a common verb for eating and appropriate for use in a metaphor about bread.
trogo: a verb meaning to chew, to gnaw, to crunch. This was a common verb in Greek literature used to describe the feeding of animals such as mules, pigs, and cattle.
John used the verb esthio, the common term, in verses 49, 50, 51, and 53. When does he change his vocabulary to employ the verb trogo? Only after the Jews finally object to a literal interpretation of Christ’s words. Remember, the Jews’ first objection (verse 42) was in response to Christ’s claim to divinity. Verse 52, on the other hand, is the first instance of objection from the Jews related to the specific idea that we must actually eat Christ’s flesh: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ It is only at this point that the Apostle John abandons the common form of the verb “eat” and replaces it with trogo, or chew, gnaw, for the remainder of the discourse.
Why? Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, Catholic scholars and commentary contributors for The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, explain:
The change in vocabulary marks a change of focus and emphasis, from the necessity of faith to the consumption of the Eucharist. The graphic and almost crude connotation of this verb thus adds greater force to the repetition of his words: he demands we express our faith by eating, in a real and physical way, his life-giving flesh in the sacrament.
When considering the two distinct terms used for “eat,” it becomes clear that Christ is not just merely repeating himself, as English translations might lead us to believe. Let us agree that He is repeating himself with emphasis. But emphasis on what? The Catholic Church affirms that a careful interpretation of St. John’s Koine Greek writing most logically points to a literal interpretation of Christ’s words in this passage. The purposeful Greek terms used for “eat” are considered to be one point of supporting evidence for Catholic Eucharistic doctrine.
Reconciling Christ’s strong verbiage with a strictly-metaphorical interpretation of the text is difficult. Of course, any Christian who denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is charged with not only denying the ancient Catholic interpretation, but using Christ’s words to support their own strictly-metaphorical analysis. The Protestant must insist that Christ’s gradual crescendo in meaning from “partake in a meal” to “chew like an animal” was intended to simply intensify the metaphor from verses 35-47. It makes little sense, however, to assume that Christ would counter a response of incredulity from his devout followers by making the metaphor more difficult for them to understand. ”How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” If a metaphorical interpretation was Christ’s objective, we would expect that he would either make his rhetoric more comprehensible or at the very least, repeat the teaching with synonyms very close in meaning. Esthio and trogo are not close synonyms; they are merely related in that both describe something a mouth can do to food. Regardless, Christ intensifies his teaching with word choices that could only make the teaching more burdensome for an audience that is already disconcerted. Is this a risk that Christ would take for the sake of a metaphor? The Catholic Church emphatically says no.
Christ’s deliberate verbiage implies a meaning that goes beyond a metaphorical truth. If eating is believing in 6:35-47, then believing leads to eating in 6:48-58. An examination of the Greek words used for eat gives us another piece of evidence for a sacramental doctrine of the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and a literal interpretation of the text.
In part three of this blog series, we will examine the reaction of the hearers of Christ and compare the reaction to other instances of controversy over a teaching. Stay tuned.
“Institution of the Eucharist” by Sassetta
Out of interest, why must the Protestant “insist that Christ’s gradual crescendo in meaning from “partake in a meal” to “chew like an animal” was intended to simply intensify the metaphor from verses 35-47″? That’s certainly not what I’ve been taught.
Hello,
First, assume that when I say “Protestant” in the sentence you quoted that I am referring to those Protestants who reject the idea of the Real Presence. In the sentence before it, I made note that I was speaking of those Protestants specifically. If Jesus’ teaching in John 6:35-58 is strictly metaphorical and we can agree that Jesus’ verbiage for “eat” intensifies at any point in the text, to what other literary purpose would Jesus’ word choice serve than to intensify his delivery of the metaphor? Perhaps there is a literary perspective that I’ve missed.
It seems as though you mean ‘Protestant’ in this case as ‘non-Christian’, as opposed to any particular denomination…would that be closer to what you were aiming for?
Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that by “Protestant,” Christina simply means any non-Catholic Christian–limited, for purposes of this discussion, to those who reject believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and instead view Communion as a merely symbolic ordinance.
Rightio. I understand it’s quite the distinction to make, but by not making it in the first place, it seemed to imply that all protestants inherently reject His presence in the Eucharist, which is inaccurate. I merely wanted clarity. Thanks for providing it.
Sorry, I didn’t see your follow-up comment from 6:17 until now! Cassie (above) is correct. As I am a Catholic blogger, I’m only attempting to defend the Catholic position on this matter. There are some Protestants who do claim to believe in the Real Presence, but they are not laying claim to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, specifically.
I suppose this may be true in some cases. I presume the Catholic doctrine utterly refutes the real presence of Christ being found via anything but its own rituals, of which I believe the method of achieving transubstanciation is one.
“Of course, any Christian who denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is charged with not only denying the ancient Catholic interpretation, but using Christ’s words to support their own strictly-metaphorical analysis. The Protestant must…”
The distinction was pretty clearly made.
I suppose the lack of clarity came from the use of a capital letter on ‘Protestant’; generally denoting a member of a non-Catholic denomination, as opposed to ‘protestant’, which would denote one who protests or holds a differing opinion. I am pleased it was evident to you.
My point is that there WAS no lack of clarity.
” I understand it’s quite the distinction to make, but by not making it in the first place, it seemed to imply that all protestants inherently reject His presence in the Eucharist, which is inaccurate.”
Nowhere does she imply that ALL protestants reject His presence. Seems tacky to copy and paste from my own comment, but:
“”Of course, any Christian who denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is charged with not only denying the ancient Catholic interpretation, but using Christ’s words to support their own strictly-metaphorical analysis. The Protestant must…””
Now, “any Christian,” when used here, clearly doesn’t refer to Catholics, as they don’t deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If it was referring to ALL Protestants, she would have written it as, “Of course, Protestants are charged with…” So, we know she’s not referring to Catholics, and not referring to all Protestants. This means she’s only referring to a specific type of Protestant, and so no complaint about broad generalizations makes any sense.”
I get that you don’t want to admit that you were wrong, but continuing the same pointless discussion when you KNOW you’re wrong is just a waste of your time.
You are very rude. Engaging with you is a waste of time.
While I concede that the use and distinction between ἐσθίω and τρώγων is indeed important, I fail to see how this in any way builds a foundation for the doctrine of transubstantiation. In fact, this particular focus on the different Greek terms seems to miss the forest for the trees. Jesus is emphasizing these aspects of eating and drinking in order to underscore the intimacy that is inherent with the believer’s mystical union with Him. Later in 15:1-8, He’s going to use the metaphor of the vine and its branches to the same effect.
The early church fathers also buttress this interpretation. Augustine has this to say regarding the issue:
It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood. (NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustine on the Psalms, Psalm 99 (98), §8)
Putting all of that aside, I’m glad that the individual “Considerer” who commented above correctly pointed out that this understanding of the Eucharist is not ubiquitous among Protestants generally. In fact, the “strictly metaphor” interpretation of the Lord’s Supper was a minority view among the Reformers. The only major figure in the magisterial Reformation I can think of who espoused this “memorialist” view was Zwingli. The idea of a Real Presence was the normative view among Protestants and this remains true today among confessional Protestants. Lutherans and Anglicans hold to a modified view which has been called consubstantiation. The Reformed churches hold to a Real Presence as well, seeing Christ as spiritually present. An apt comparison of the various Reformed confessions (e.g., Belgic, Westminster, 1689 LBC) reveals an across-the-board agreement on this point. Regarding the Eucharist, the Belgic Confession says:
To represent to us this spiritual and heavenly bread Christ has instituted an earthly and visible bread as the sacrament of his body and wine as the sacrament of his blood. He did this to testify to us that just as truly as we take and hold the sacraments in our hands and eat and drink it in our mouths, by which our life is then sustained, so truly we receive into our souls, for our spiritual life, the true body and true blood of Christ, our only Savior. We receive these by faith, which is the hand and mouth of our souls…. Yet we do not go wrong when we say that what is eaten is Christ’s own natural body and what is drunk is his own blood–but the manner in which we eat it is not by the mouth but by the Spirit, through faith.
Forgive me, but it almost appears as though you’re attacking a straw man by asserting that what you’ve represented above as the Protestant viewpoint is actually the historic, confessional Protestant point of view. Nothing could be further from the truth. When our 1689 Confession speaks of the taking of the Lord’s Supper giving believers “spiritual nourishment,” it can’t be articulating anything less than a Real Presence. I’m not here to grapple over the issue of transubstantiation so much as I’m concerned about the accurate portrayal of the Protestant viewpoint in your posts. I have no idea the extent to which you’ve studied Reformed confessions (if at all), but have you actually studied them in any depth? Are you aware of Calvin’s view of the Eucharist?
Josh – Thanks for the comment. Not a lot of time to reply this evening, so I’ll be brief.
- The St. Augustine quote is one I’ve read before and does not contradict the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. (I think I can articulate why, but I’d prefer to fact-check my understanding before discussing it here.)
- The term “Real Presence” is one which has a vastly different meaning in our respective faith traditions. You say that the idea of the Real Presence was a normative view among Protestants historically, and of course this term can be found in the historical confessions of the various sects which claim the term. Certainly however, you understand that the Catholic Church believes in the Real Presence to a differing degree! Perhaps your issue is my use of the phrase “strictly metaphorical.” Note that I did not say “strictly symbolic.” I know that Calvin would never describe the pneumatic presence as symbolic, but is “metaphorical” really an incorrect descriptor of the literary components found in the passage? Possibly incomplete? If so, I stand corrected and will use a more proper term in the future. I’m fairly well-versed in Calvin’s view of the Eucharist in that the Holy Spirit unites the believer with Christ through Holy Communion (hence a real presence), but the elements themselves do not undergo change resulting in a substantial presence. In contrast, Catholics believe that Christ is substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine (so much so that we actually worship God by adoring Him in the sacrament, leading some Protestants to accuse us of worshiping bread). In comparing the Catholic and Reformed viewpoint, it occurs to me that use of the term “strictly metaphorical” seems to point directly to the elements themselves. For if bread and wine are not Christ (corporally speaking), yet He says “This is my body,” it appears that a metaphorical expression is indeed being utilized to support Calvin’s Eucharist.
I respectfully disagree that I’ve articulated “nothing further from the truth” regarding Protestantism, but if “metaphorical” is not a correct descriptive term for the elements used for your sacrament of the Eucharist, can you point me to a better term for future discussions? I do wish to be as clear as possible! Thanks.
If you’re going to compare the respective positions of Roman Catholics and Protestants on the issue of the Eucharist, then I would humbly suggest using terms like “transubstantiation” and the like. In your original posts, you’ve made it sound as though the phrase “Real Presence” only applies to a Roman Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. I think all of us are well aware of the fact that Roman Catholics and Protestants mean very different things when speaking of the Real Presence, but I don’t think either side can claim exclusive ownership (for lack of a better term) over the phrase as such. I’m glad that at least someone else has pointed this out as well. That’s what I meant when I said that “nothing could be further from the truth” because there are plenty of Protestants who would take umbrage at any assertion that they deny that Christ is really present within the Lord’s Supper. I would say, as well, that’s the difference between Rome and Protestantism is not a difference in degree on this issue but rather a difference in kind. I hope that makes sense.
I haven’t read much of your blog, but I’m assuming that you’re intending to speak to a mixed audience which includes Protestants. If that’s the case, then I would certainly labor to ensure that I accurately represented the viewpoints I’m trying to counter. I understand that you didn’t call the Reformed position strictly symbolic, but calling our position strictly metaphorical doesn’t do it justice either. We see the Eucharist as something much broader than the elements themselves, looking at the practice itself as a part of biblically-regulated worship. We believe that we are indeed feasting upon the Lord and that this is not metaphorically speaking. We imbibe Christ, albeit spiritually.
Coming full circle here regarding your post, I’ve wondered about a few other things this morning as I’m writing this. You say that you can defend the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation using Scripture alone. First, have you considered whether the mechanism of transubstantiation can be defended as such? In other words, where do we find in Scripture the mechanism by which the priest stands before the congregation in the Mass and is able to declare that the bread and wine have been transformed as such? I see that absolutely nowhere in Scripture and certainly not in this aforementioned passage we’ve been discussing here. At this point, I would say you have to rely upon the Magesterial teaching of Rome. Even if you believe that Jesus is articulating the doctrine in some form, I would say it’s an even further stretch to show how the mechanism of transubstantiation is being expounded upon.
Finally, I’m not sure whether your readers realize this, but there is not a unified opinion among Roman Catholics themselves about whether this passage in John 6 is actually teaching transubstantiation. Have you looked at other Roman Catholic sources outside Scott Hahn, et al? I’m somewhat familiar with Ott’s systematic theology, but I’m not sure where he stood on this. I think it would be helpful for your readers if you include their quotes on this subject as well. Had I not known any better, I would assume that Hahn’s position is held universally throughout the Roman Catholic Church. Also, I noted with interest in passing that you used the expression “your sacrament of the Eucharist.” Are you affirming here that Protestants do not in fact participate in the actual Eucharist (by distinguishing it from your own) or are you saying that what we participate in is indeed the Eucharist, just not in some complete form? I appreciate your response.
Hello again,
Thanks for the prompt reply. I’m about to set up eight drum sets and teach lessons for awhile followed by a busy family day. I’ll ponder your questions and respond later this evening if my neurons are still firing. Looking forward to continuing the conversation!
Thanks,
Christina
Real Presence means that a person should be willing to bow down before the consecrated host. Protestants do not do that. So no matter how “real” they may consider Christ’s presence in communion, they do not believe that Christ should be adored in the Eucharist.
So Devin, are you affirming that the Roman Catholic position is that we ought to bow down before the Eucharist as an act of worship? I take issue with your statement that Christ is not glorified in Protestant worship as it pertains to the taking of the Lord’s Supper, but I’ll let you answer that question first.
As a side note, I’ll only add that there are some Protestants who do indeed bow before the Eucharist. High church Anglicans and Lutherans do that. In fact, that was one of the major Puritan objections with respect to the liturgy in the Church of England.
We should bow down before Jesus Christ who is present in the Eucharist. Protestant consecrations of the bread are invalid, in the sense that transubstantiation does not occur, as Protestants do not have valid Holy Orders. This includes Anglicans.
I’ve never met the Protestant who will bow down, but I don’t doubt that some Protestant somewhere would do it.
I appreciate your response, Devin. So if I hear you correctly, you’re saying that Protestants do not in any sense participate in the Eucharist. Is that correct?
Aaaand we have yet another person with either reading comprehension issues, or whose sole purpose in commenting isn’t to have a discussion, but to pick an argument and score ‘points.’ If what you’re taking issue with is, as you’ve claimed, generalizations about Protestants, re-read the post again, please.
““Of course, any Christian who denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is charged with not only denying the ancient Catholic interpretation, but using Christ’s words to support their own strictly-metaphorical analysis. The Protestant must…””
Now, “any Christian,” when used here, clearly doesn’t refer to Catholics, as they don’t deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If it was referring to ALL Protestants, she would have written it as, “Of course, Protestants are charged with…” So, we know she’s not referring to Catholics, and not referring to all Protestants. This means she’s only referring to a specific type of Protestant, and so no complaint about broad generalizations makes any sense.
If your problem, however, is with her use of the phrase, “Real Presence,” because you have a different interpretation of that phrase than Catholics do, I can only say…too bad. This is a personal Catholic blog, and while others (myself included) may read and comment on it, she is in no way obligated to adjust her language to suite your, or anyone’s, tastes. Sorry, there’s something a bit arrogant about coming to HER blog and insisting she debate these matters on YOUR terms. That doesn’t work well with anybody. If a Catholic agreed with you on all the particulars, they wouldn’t BE Catholic.
” I’m not here to grapple over the issue of transubstantiation so much as I’m concerned about the accurate portrayal of the Protestant viewpoint in your posts. I have no idea the extent to which you’ve studied Reformed confessions (if at all), but have you actually studied them in any depth? Are you aware of Calvin’s view of the Eucharist?”
This reminds me of the pretentious grad student in the bar scene in Good Will Hunting. If Recovered Catholic wrote a post on the evolution of Protestant thought on the Eucharist, the question would have been relevant. But in this thread, it is just a poor attempt at condescension.
Another comment makes me wonder just how well read VirginiaNative is on Catholic theology himself. He asks Devin: “…are you affirming that the Roman Catholic position is that we ought to bow down before the Eucharist as an act of worship?”
But why ask Devin? If you want to know the Church’s position, ask the Church. From the Catholic Catechism:
1379 “Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.”
Anyone who does not understand the basis for Catholics bowing before the Eucharist, doesn’t get the meaning of “real presence.”
“Forgive me, but it almost appears as though you’re attacking a straw man by asserting that what you’ve represented above as the Protestant viewpoint is actually the historic, confessional Protestant point of view. ”
This is of course a straw man argument itself, because Recovered Catholic, as noted by other commenters, never wrote about “the Protestant view,” let alone the “historic, confessional point of view.” The post is a clearly written, easily understood description of the scriptural basis for the Roman Catholic doctrine regarding real presence in the Eucharist.
I like a good discussion/debate on theology as much as the next guy. But I find when people feel the need to “paraphrase” the arguments of their opponents rather than meeting them head on, it is a waste of time. The problem is everything becomes a debate over the semantics of the comments, rather than semantics in interpreting the Bible, which I find much more interesting.
Oh, and just saw this….
“A genuine unity among Christians is indeed something for which all believers must strive. Indeed, the Scriptures exhort us to avoid fruitless disputes and unnecessary division.”
“I wholeheartedly believe that this unity transcends secondary issues…”
http://reformedvirginian1689.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/the-gospel-our-foundation-of-christian-unity/
So, how much of your time DO you spend on the blogs of folks from other denominations starting pointless semantic arguments?
No irony at all in posting that, then coming here and intentionally misunderstanding something for the sake of starting an argument. No, none at all…
Hi again Josh,
I’ve considered your complaint regarding my use of the term “real presence” in this post. If I was to edit anything in my original text, I’d have stuck to the term transubstantiation or simply “substantial” when referring to this Catholic doctrine. To be frank, my objective in doing so would be to avoid having somewhat inane conversations like this one. As a few other sympathetic visitors here have pointed out, it would seem you’re suggesting that I should assume your definitions of theological terms when assessing the doctrines of other traditions. Simply put, that’s unreasonable. While believers of other faiths may claim to also affirm a real presence of Christ in their Eucharistic rites, their affirmation alone does not necessarily make it true. It is neither logical nor sensible to expect a person of Catholic faith to grant equal legitimacy to both their own doctrines and the doctrines of other Christian traditions.
To illustrate this further, imagine how you might take similar liberties on your own blog. Though I’m unsure if this is a topic you’ve ever blogged about, you could conceivably make the remark that “all Christians will reject the authority of the Pope.” A Catholic visitor would read your remark and say in protest, “Hey now – I’m a Christian and I profess a belief in papal authority!” I presume you’d make that a very brief conversation by pointing out that Catholics are not actually Christians at all! Naturally, your own presuppositions would lead you to use the term “Christian” in the way you personally believe it should be applied. I also presume that you would rightly scoff at any suggestion of using more “inclusive language” to make everyone feel like they are equally correct. As a Reformed Christian, you may write freely about other faiths on your blog and evaluate their doctrines through the lens of your own systematic belief structures. Please afford other writers the same courtesy.
Now, let us move beyond housekeeping requests and examine another issue that must be resolved immediately. In your latest comment to me, you said:
Finally, I’m not sure whether your readers realize this, but there is not a unified opinion among Roman Catholics themselves about whether this passage in John 6 is actually teaching transubstantiation.
You go on to suggest that there is no universal belief among Roman Catholics that John 6 is supporting biblical evidence for the Eucharist (and by extension, transubstantiation). Josh, I can hardly decide where to begin. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1336 The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. “Will you also go away?”: the Lord’s question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has “the words of eternal life” and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.
1338 The three synoptic Gospels and St. Paul have handed on to us the account of the institution of the Eucharist; St. John, for his part, reports the words of Jesus in the synagogue of Capernaum that prepare for the institution of the Eucharist: Christ calls himself the bread of life, come down from heaven.
1355 In the communion, preceded by the Lord’s prayer and the breaking of the bread, the faithful receive “the bread of heaven” and “the cup of salvation,” the body and blood of Christ who offered himself “for the life of the world.”
1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.”
1406 Jesus said: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; . . . he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and . . . abides in me, and I in him” (Jn 6:51, 54, 56). (Used here in support of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.)
Now what, pray tell, might give you the impression that there is “no unity among Roman Catholics” regarding the application of John 6 to the Eucharist? While there are undoubtedly those ignorant Catholics who possess their own renegade ideas of what the passage implies, the Catechism is clear – and the Catechism is the final authority on matters of Catholic faith. Surely you understand the purpose of a catechism, correct? It is designed to make a clear distinction between truth and heresy. Those self-proclaimed Catholics who deny what is professed in the Catechism are, quite simply, wrong. You suggest that I include quotes from other-minded Catholics on this purported inconsistency, but that’s not how it works in the Catholic world. Where the Catechism is clear, “personal interpretations” cease to have validity. Now you are welcome to disagree with the Catechism, and surely you do. As I explained in my first two paragraphs of this comment, you are free to assess our Catholic Catechism through your Reformed lens accordingly and draw whatever conclusions you like. What you may not do, however, is come here to “warn” my blog audience about Catholicism’s alleged doctrinal schisms when they do not exist. The primary method by which anti-Catholic Christians refute Catholicism is by attempting to dismantle the Church’s authority and consistency on matters of faith. There is no opportunity for you to do so in the context of the Eucharistic doctrine of John 6, as the Catechism undeniably demonstrates.
I find it not a little outrageous that you would come to my blog to repeatedly quiz the depths of my Protestant reading accomplishments while simultaneously demonstrating your own failure to reference the Church’s most authoritative teaching resource, the Catechism, in any manner whatsoever. Another reader here evidently also noticed your seeming aversion to Catholic referencing. Instead of pestering a Catholic with doctrinal questions (and certainly before making absolutely unbelievable statements about whether we’re “united” on our most precious doctrine of the Eucharist), please exercise prudence by referencing the Catholic Church directly. The Catechism can be purchased for an inexpensive price or viewed online in several languages. It is organized topically and is helpfully indexed for ease of use. A seminary student like yourself should find it to be an easy read.
In short, please refrain from coming here to play petty games of semantics with me. This seems to be a new trend as of late and I find it wearisome. If you continue to insist on arguing about semantics, at least don’t follow up your argument with a scandalous misrepresentation of basic Catholic teaching (of which the Church has made unmistakably clear for you). Please do your best to understand my reluctance in responding to each of your questions from previous postings here, as I find it difficult to assume you have the best of intentions in asking me to begin with. Thanks.
Oh come on now. We can’t really expect some intellectual honesty on the interwebs. And anyways, what’s the point of having an international network designed for the dissemination of information if we can’t annonomously pass along false information or flame those who disagree with us?
You know who didn’t allow flaming of those who disagreed with him? Hitler, thats who…
Unfortunately it appears we can expect rudeness. What a pity. It’s always a shame when polite discussion gets jumped by the antagonistic rent-a-mob mentality which turns it into point-scoring. How Christian.
Thankfully, I don’t see any anonymous comments here – do you?
No, no – apparently we all are prepared to own our ire and varying degrees of contempt/upset.