Often enough Catholics are challenged regarding belief in the Eucharist. One argument that the challenger may use is to cite John 6:63 and claim that Jesus was speaking only symbolically. While we certainly cannot believe in the Eucharist apart from supernatural grace and faith, following are several reasons to accept Jesus' words about actually eating His flesh and drinking His blood under the appearance of bread and wine.
* Jesus said it, emphasized it, and repeated it several times (John 6:48-57), including words with meanings equivalent to gnawing or munching,
* Everyone that heard Jesus' words understood them as literal, not symbolic (John 6:52, 60). Why would many disciples leave Him (v 66) if He had clarified everything by saying He is only speaking symbolically? The word "Spirit" is never equated to a symbol.
* The Jews already had a symbolic meaning to eat flesh and drink blood (Micah 3:3*), but it meant to assault or persecute one's enemies. It is meaningless to think Jesus meant that if you assault or persecute me you will have eternal life." (John 6:54). *[see also Ps. 27.2, Is. 9:19-20, Is. 49:26, Rev. 17:16]
* The Apostles trusted in Jesus' words (John 6:68-69), which were fulfilled at the Last Supper when the substance of the bread and wine, while maintaining it's appearance (form), was changed when Jesus blessed it; He then gave the Apostles a command and the charism to do likewise. [Notice how in Luke 3:22 the form of a dove came down from Heaven but the substance was actually the Holy Spirit.] With God all things are possible.
* At the Last Supper when Jesus said that the bread and wine are His actual body and blood, He also said that they will be shed and given for us. We know that on the cross this actually happened, not in some symbolic form. To deny the actual meaning of Jesus' words at the Last Supper is to also deny His actual giving of Himself on the cross.
* St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11 tells us that he received from Jesus the very same words of consecration regarding the bread and wine and that whoever eats or drinks unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. He goes on to say that "anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." Strong words if this is only a symbolic gesture.
* There are no early Christian writings attesting to any kind of Eucharistic symbolism. Rather, the early Church Fathers including Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD), Justin Martyr (155 AD), and Irenaeus of Lyon (180 AD), taught very specifically that the substance of the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus at a valid consecration. Two fourth century saints put it this way: "The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words [of consecration], but the power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered." (St. John Chrysostom); "Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature." (St. Ambrose).
The Council of Trent in the mid 16th century gave us the term transubstantiation to describe what takes place, but history is clear that the belief and teaching of the Eucharist comes even from the time of Jesus and the Apostles. Thus, there is no valid argument to deny the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the Eucharist. There was none centuries ago and there is none today.
No comments:
Post a Comment