1. 1. Do this in remembrance of me. Luke 22:19 Copyrighted material that appears in this article is included under the provisions of the Fair Use Clause of the National Copyright Act, which allows limited reproduction of copyrighted materials for educational and religious use when no financial charge is made for viewing. Adapted from the work of the BibleChristianSociety.com
2. 2. Literalist My Fundamentalist and Evangelical friends that tell me the Catholic Mass is just a re-enactment of the Last Supper, its just remembering what Jesus did. I dont think thats right but I dont know how to answer them. Can you help? Well your friends are incorrect the Gospel of John chapter 6 and Pauls first letter to the Corinthians offer the best explanation of the Mass and the real presence of Christ at each Mass. Here are a few points to remember. Your Fundamentalist friends no doubt have told you many times that what is written on every page of the Bible is inspired by God and what is written on the page is exactly what God told the author to write. Hold that thought we will come back to that later. Now lets look at John 6:30. The verse took place in the synagogue at Capernaum.
3. 3. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness. Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. Give us this bread always, they said. Jesus replied, I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically. As you know a metaphor is a symbol (such as in drowning in money). Jesus then repeated himself, I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, How can this man give his flesh to eat? (John 6:51-52) By asking this question the Jews clearly demonstrated that they dont think that Jesus is speaking metaphorically but literally.
4. 4. Jesus then continues and expands his statements to include drinking his blood. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. (John 6:53- 56). Notice that Jesus made no attempt to correct or soften his statements to the Jews who understood him to be speaking literally not metaphorically. They understood him just as he had intended, literally.
5. 5. Confusion When there was confusion in the past, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Mt. 16:5-12). In John 6:53-58 - Jesus speaks very clearly of the need to eat His Body and drink His Blood--not in a symbolic way, but to actually do it. He uses the Greek word trogo (to eat) four times. Trogo literally means chew. Some people say He was speaking symbolically, but those same people take Him literally when He says born again in John 3:3.
6. 6. Jn. 6:60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, This is a hard saying; who can listen to it? We see this same attitude expressed in Jn. 6:66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. It is obvious and indisputable that those former disciples were interpreting Jesus' words literally, that is they thought that Jesus was promoting cannibalism, and they could not accept that teaching. Most Protestants believe that the Eucharist is merely symbolic. Anglicans and Lutherans are the only exceptions. If Jesus did not intend His teaching on the Eucharist to be taken literally, that is, if He meant it only to be interpreted as symbolic, then why would He have allowed His disciples to leave Him if they were NOT RIGHT to accept the literal interpretation?
7. 7. The Flesh For fundamentalist writers, the Scriptural argument is capped by the appeals to John 6:63: it is the spirit the gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. They say this means eating real flesh is a waste. But does that make sense? Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? eat my flesh, but you will find that its a waste of time is that what he was saying?
8. 8. St. Paul The word Spirit is never used anywhere in Scripture to mean symbolic. John 4:24 says God is Spirit - Does that mean God is Symbolic? No. Hebrews 1:14 says that Angels are Spirits. Does that mean that Angels are symbols? No. The Greek word sarx used for flesh in John 6:63 is sometimes used to describe our fallen nature from Grace. Rom 8:1-14 - if we are in the flesh, we cannot please God. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE GRACE to look at communion as grape juice and crackers. It does require FAITH & SPIRITUAL JUDGEMENT to see and believe Christs promise that He would give us His body, blood, soul, and divinity under the appearance of bread and wine. St. Paul confirms this in his first Corinthians 10: 16
9. 9. Jimmy Swaggart The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break , is it not a participation in the body of Christ ? So when we receive Communion , we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ; we do not eat symbols of them. Television evangelist Jimmy Swaggart wrote, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the holy Mass is a sacrifice in which the Son of God is actually sacrificed anew on the cross. (from Swaggarts book, Catholicism and Christianity). Thats not correct either.
10. 10. The Last Supper At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his body and blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrusts to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace and a privilege of future Glory is given to us (Vatican II). And he took the bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, this is my body which is given up for you. Do this in Remembrance of me (Luke 22:19).
11. 11. Martin Luther The Greek here and in the parallel Gospel passages (cf. Mt. 26:26; Mark 14:22) translate as This is my body. The verb estin is the equivalent of the English is and can mean is really or is figuratively. The usual meaning of estin is the former is really (checked any Greek grammar book), just as, in English, the verb is usually is taken literally. This was the universal understanding of the early church until the mid to late 1500s. It is important to know that when the Catholic monk Martin Luther began Protestantism he never doubted the belief in the real presence of Christ in the consecrated hosts and wine. This belief was also upheld by the Anglican Church.
12. 12. Illogical The issue is clear, Christ told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood, then at the Last Supper he instituted the Eucharist and gave the authority to his apostles to carry on this Eucharistic sacrifice. The Jews present at the time, and some of Christs followers took him literally why now 2000 years after the fact do we wish to change the meaning of Christs words? It is not logical to interpret all of the Bible literally and yet reject John 6 as being a metaphor especially when the true meaning is confirmed by St. Paul in his letter to the 1 Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor. 11:27, 29