Thoughts on the Eucharist
In my last post “Catholic Mom” presented very thoughtful dialogue I’d like to continue in a separate post. While I don’t want to attack the Catholic church or Catholics (I’m convinced Catholics go to Heaven every day!) the topic of communion is worth further exploration.
One of the links Catholic Mom provided discussed John 6:48-57…I REALLY wish the author would have included verse 58. Versus 48-57 say:
I am the the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread, will live forever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. The Jews quarreled among themselves saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.”
Why not include verse 58? Verse 58 states: “This is the bread which came down out of heaven: not as the fathers ate, and died; he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.” There’s a subtle yet important aspect to verse 58. Jesus called the bread…bread. When exploring the full context of applicable scripture you’ll discover Jesus used symbology several times in his teachings:
John 15:1 “I am the true vine”
John 10:9 “I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and go out, and shall find pasture.”
Luke 22:20 “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood”
Was Jesus saying He was a literal vine? Was Jesus saying He was a literal door? Did Jesus mean the actual cup was the new covenant?
Wayne Grudem brings up an excellent point in his book “Bible doctrine”. It’s a good read I strongly encourage. Wayne states:
“The Roman Catholic view fails to recognize the clear New Testament teaching on the finality and completeness of Christ’s sacrifice once for all time for our sins. The book of Hebrews emphasizes this many times, as when it says, ‘Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world’.”
If continued sacrafices were necessary why would Jesus say “It is finished” in John 19:30? Wayne states, “it gives great assurance to us that our sins are all paid for, and there remains no sacrifice yet to be paid. The idea of a continuation of Christ’s sacrifice destroys that assurance that the payment has been made by Christ and accepted by God the Father and that there is no condemnation now remaining for us.”
Is it wrong to practice communion? Absolutely not…in fact we do every Sunday. What’s the difference? We practice communion to remember the ultimate sacrifice Jesus paid for our sins. Additionally, communion isn’t required for salvation as that would imply a “works based” means of salvation.
August 09 2008 01:16 pm | Education and Morality and Questioner's Corner and The War Within
Timothy on 09 Aug 2008 at 5:40 pm #
Greetings! Saw your post in Google Blogseach and came to read.
>”… the topic of communion is worth further exploration.”
There’s a true statement.
>”The Roman Catholic view fails to recognize the clear New Testament teaching on the finality and completeness of Christ’s sacrifice once for all time for our sins.”
Um, no. The Catholic view is in full consonance with scripture as all catholic doctrine is found 100% in scripture, either explicitly or implicitly.
The Christ sacrifice once for all time is the exact same sacrafice of the Mass. There is not another sacrifice, nor a repeat of the sacrifice, nor any re-sacrifice. The sacrifice of the Mass is once and for all time sacrafice of Christ at Calvary.
Impossible you say? Nonesense, as nothing is impossible for God. The Bible says so. God is out of time and space and has no temporal limits. Jesus is just as easily present on the altar in a Catholic Church at the same instant that he is present on the cross at Calvary. Likewise jesus can just as easily turn bread and wine into Himself before He is crucified. Jesus is God and everything is possible for God.
>”If continued sacrafices were necessary why would Jesus say “It is finished” in John 19:30?”
First, the sacrifice of the Mass is not continuous sacrifices, but the same sacrifice at Calvary. Just because Wayne Grudem thinks so, doesn’t make it so.
Second, how do you know that Jesus words “It is finished” matches your interpretation. Jesus had just drank from the fourth todah cup (sour wine) and in doing so finished the Passover meal liturgy.
>”Wayne Grudem”
BTW, what special authority does Wayne Grudem possess? Are Catholics not allowed to read the scriptures for themselves and interpret them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the same as any Christian? Why is Wayne Grudem’s interpretation right and my Catholic interpretation wrong?
>”Is it wrong to practice communion? Absolutely not…in fact we do every Sunday.”
Why only on Sundays and not everyday? Are you aware of the prophecy of Malachi 1:11?
“For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.”
Is not God speaking through Malachi and saying that each and everyday gentiles (non-Jews / Christians) would offer God incense and a pure offering? Is not Jesus, the Lamb of God who is pure that offering?
Catholics offer the sacrifice Mass everyday, in everytime zone around the world. Which is the closer match to the prophecy of Malachi 1:11, you congregations practice or the Catholic practice? For that matter, are we to worship God as we please or are we to worship God as God wishes to be pleased?
If you wish to claim that your communion is symbolic, Catholics will agree with you 100%. But, just because your bread and juice is not Jesus, it does not logically follow that the Eucharist is also not Jesus.
Catholics have Biblical, historical, and scientific proof of the Eucharist.
Matthew 26:26 says Jesus, the second person of Go, held bread in His hands and SAID “This is My body”. Isaiah 55:11 says that the voice of God does not go forth and return void. According to Matthew 26:26 the voice of God went forth, hit the bread, echoed, and returned to God’s ears. According to Isaiah 55:11, what happened? Did God’s voice return void? Did almighty God who created light from darknes by voice alone (Genesis 1:3) turn bread into a symbol? Or, did almighty God turn bread into His own flesh?
What did the Christians in the first few centuries after the NT believe. Justin, who was martyred for his Christian faith, wrote “”And this food is called among us Euxaristi [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
Finally, Catholics have physical scientific proof of the Eucharist. Ever heard of the Miracle of Lanciano? How do you explain the scienctific analysis that the bread is a complete heart and the wine is AB universal blood type?
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
Again, if you’re content to munch on a symbol of the Lamb, don’t begrudge Catholics because they’re at a wedding feast and eating real Lamb.
As you have probably never seen the Eucharist or been in its presence, I invite you to visit your nearest Catholic CHurch and investigate the Truth for yourself.
God bless…
-Timothy
CatholicMom on 10 Aug 2008 at 6:40 pm #
OOC,
I guess I don’t see the same disconnect between John 6: 48-57 and verse 58 that you do. Jesus just finished saying, “I am the bread of life…This is the bread…” which is the same terminology and way of speaking He uses in verse 48. I see verse 58 as continuing the same thoughts Jesus began when He declared Himself to be the bread of life, the bread we all must have to live forever.
I’m also a little confused about the jump from the discussion of living bread, Jesus’ own words as recorded in the Gospel of John, and Wayne Grudem’s arguments against Catholic teachings on the sacrifice of Jesus. Surely we can all agree that Jesus died on the Cross for our sins and rose from the dead to open the gates of Heaven. I don’t see how Grudem’s opinion that “there is no condemnation now remaining for us” matches up with, say, Matthew 7:16-20, or 2 Corinthians 5:10 (”For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body..”). Sounds like condemnation is possible, at least according to St. Paul.
Catholics don’t believe receiving Holy Communion is a “‘works based’ means of salvation.” Jesus gave us the Eucharist at the Last Supper as a way of uniting us to Him, as He taught when He declared Himself to be the bread of life, the way to salvation.
James M. Seghers’ excellent article on this topic articulates this more clearly than I ever could. You can find it here:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea2.asp
For more about justification, faith and works, may I refer you to
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909chap.asp and http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/faith_vs_works.htm?
One more thought…shouldn’t we, as Christians united in our faith in Jesus Christ, be working together to further His commandments in the world? That’s what I thought this blog was about…there are plenty of apologetics blogs out there, written by people way more educated and articulate than I.
OOC on 10 Aug 2008 at 11:03 pm #
Timothy and CatholicMom,
Thank you both for your posts! You’ve left me lots of reading to do over the next few days. There are two quick points I’d like to make:
1. I don’t want to attack the Catholic Church or Catholics (I’m convinced Catholics go to Heaven every day!). There are simply differences in our beliefs that deserve discussion.
2. There’s a rift between Catholics and Protestants. Maybe we can use this site to delve deeper into each other’s beliefs and, if nothing else, spend time in the Word bolstering our understanding.
CatholicMom, you make an excellent point…we are Christians united in our faith in Jesus Christ. That being said, I’m looking forward to digging into the Word and exploring our differences!
OOC on 13 Aug 2008 at 12:56 am #
Timothy,
Thanks for your detailed post. I’ve been spending a lot of time reading material from your recommended links and have more questions. My first question is regarding the article that describes scientific analysis that the bread is a complete heart and the wine is AB universal blood type. Why was this event in the 8th century significant and called “the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church” if it becomes real flesh at every communion?
I’m finding there are more doctrinal differences than I ever expected. I have been praying about this post a lot and hope this continues to be a productive exchange. I would like to ask more questions but should probably wrap this post up with a basic question. Do non-Catholics go to heaven? OOC