"For we being many are one bread, one body, because we are all partakers of the one bread." 1 Corinthians 10:17What is this bread that the scripture is speaking of?
In the previous verse, 1 Corinthians 10:16, it tells us what this bread is: "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? "
So the source of our unity is Jesus' real body, represented to us in the form of bread. In John Chapter 6, Jesus states that He indeed is this bread:
"33: For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34: Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35: And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. "
But many did not believe him and found it repugnant to think of themselves as cannibals. John 6: 52:
"The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
But Jesus reinterated that it was true with these words in John 6:53:58:
53:"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55: For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58: This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."
But many did not believe Jesus and as the scripture says in John 6:66:
66:"From that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him."
Do we walk away from this teaching of Jesus, or do we hold fast and believe that this Jesus in holy communion is the source of unity as scripture tells us. Jesus turned to the twelve and said in John 6:67: "will ye also go away?"
Peter answered in John 6:68: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."
Which way will you follow...the way of the disciples who turned their backs on Jesus or the way of Peter who believed even though he did not understand."
For more information, see http://1bread.catholic.org
and http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/a.html
10 comments:
Hello "one bread",
Thanks for visiting my weblog.
It seems that transubstantiation is a central doctrine to you. If I understand, you take the passages about partaking of the body and blood of Jesus literally. I take them as metaphors.
There is nothing in the grammar to indicate which view is correct. Only contextual interpretation can answer that. Such interpretation inherently contains human reason, and so is fallable. It seems self-evident to me that he is speaking metaphorically. I imagine that it seems just as self-evident to you that he is speaking literally.
Yet, according to the Council of Trent, those who hold my view are anathema. That means that (1) I misunderstand what Jesus had in mind when he said these things; and (2) My misunderstanding is an unforgivable sin.
Do you agree with both of those assertions? Can you with certainty prove them both using only the scriptures? Or do you believe in transubstantiation because the Catholic church says it is true?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Alan
Alan,
To answer your question, I do believe in the real presence of Jesus in holy communion because the Church teaches me this. As I accept that the Roman Catholic Church is the church that Jesus founded because of Matthew 16:19-20 "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The first pope of the Catholic Church was St. Peter, he was martyred in Rome, which is the headquarters of the Catholic Church, and this church has been in existence since that time, with the successors of Peter as the head of the Church (the popes). And because Jesus said this church would not be defeated by Satan (the gates of hell).
But I am 51 years old, and I have had ample time to doubt and reflect upon this teaching...if I could wiggle out of this belief, I probably would. But the more research I do about it, the more I am convinced that it is true. Here are some reasons:
1. In the Book of Leviticus, it describes how the Jewish priests ate the sacrifices they made to God on behalf of the people. If Jesus is a real sacrifice for our sins at Calvary and this sacrifice was done in the same model as the Jewish sacrifice, then it makes sense that we would eat the sacrifice after it had been offered to God. Since Jesus' sacrifice is real (not metaphorical), then the eating of his sacrifice must be real (not metaphorical).
2. Jesus sacrifice was accomplished at Passover. Jesus is described as the Lamb of God that takes away our sins. He was the new covenant passover sacrifice. In the Jewish Passover sacrifice, the people ate the lambs after they were sacrificed by the priests to God. So it makes sense that we would eat the Lamb of God after Jesus sacrifice. Again, if the sacrifice was real, then the eating should be real too, not symbolic.
3. The original sin of Adam and Eve was to eat of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Now God asks us to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life, which is Christ our Savior. "I am the bread of life," said Jesus in John Chapter 6. In verse 53, Jesus said "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."
4. Jesus didn't call back the disciples who left him over this difficult teaching as stated in John 6:66 "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." If it were a metaphor, why didn't he say so, so these followers wouldn't have left.
5. The churches that have existed since early Christianity, Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic all believe in the literal meaning of Jesus words that this bread of life is really and truly Jesus. In other words, historical Christian tradition backs up the literal interpretation of this scripture and the early Christian writers like Ignatius and Justinian back it up also.
So to me all the evidence points to a literal interpretation.
As far as those who hold to a symbolic view being anathemitized by the Council of Trent, that doesn't mean the Catholic Church is saying that you will go to hell if you don't believe this. God doesn't hold a person's ignorance against him and no sin is unforgiveable except for the sin against the Holy Spirit...which I undertstand to be our total rejection of God's grace of salvation for our souls. Only Jesus knows a person's heart and Jesus is the judge of all of us. Jesus told us not to judge one another.
As a Catholic Evangelist, I have a duty to speak the truth of the gospel as the Church has taught me. I leave conversions to the Holy Spirit (that's His job!).
God bless you and Merry Christmas.
Thanks for your answers.
I find it interesting that you and I are both exactly the same age.
It seems that we come to different conclusions precisely because we hold different premises. If I could take it as a given that the interpretations of the Catholic Church were by definition correct, then of course I would agree with you about transubstatiation. I am sure many who have been raised Catholic find it natural to accept whatever that church says about doctrine. For the rest of us it sounds like a circular argument. But that argument has a glaring flaw: Even the Catholic Church acknowledges that it has been wrong in the past. So even its pronouncements are subject to fallability, and cannot be relied on as the standard for doctrine. I am left only with the Bible to settle matters about the doctrine of God.
In my mind, the sacrifices of the Old Testament were a metaphor about Jesus. The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins. Instead they represented the atoning sacrifice metaphorically. Every other aspect of the temple worship was a metaphor for the actual spiritual event. We would be mistaken to take one part of that metaphor as though it were a literal pattern.
Jesus spoke in parables to the crowds:
Mar 4:33-34 With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.
To me it is clear that Jesus was speaking metaphorically (in parables) in John 6. He said "I am the bread of life." But he is not literally bread. He also clarified later to his disciples: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." When he spoke of flesh, he was speaking metaphorically because "the flesh counts for nothing". The reality behind the metaphor was that we are to partake of his Spirit. The Spirit gives life. The flesh counts for nothing.
It is interesting that you say that the Catholic Church's anathema does not mean one will go to hell. I have always understood otherwise. Is that your view or the church's view? What does it mean if not that?
Thanks again, and Merry Christmas to you also.
Alan
Alan,
I find your interpretations of the bible interesting but are these interpretations your own thoughts? Who is your teacher on the subject? I would say most would agree that interpreting the bible is not easy. Before the scriptures were compiled into the Holy Bible, and before the scriptures were made available for people to read, through the printing press, were the teachings of the scriptures passed on from one generation to the next by word of mouth?
Just something to think about.
One Bread member
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your respectful way of pointing out our differences.
Yes, we do have a question of authority here, but the things that the Catholic Church has been wrong about have not been doctrinal...such as believing that the world was flat and giving Galileo a hard time when he said otherwise. On matters of doctrine, I do believe that the Pope in union with the bishops is an infallible teacher. Otherwise, how do you explain Jesus words to St. Peter in Matthew 16:19 "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
In this passage, Jesus is giving Peter and the church the authority to decide these matters. Otherwise, this passage has no meaning and Jesus is wasting his breath. Apparently Jesus knew that there would be matters that his followers in the future would need decisions on and he gave them the authority to do it.
I realize this is a sticking point to unity as well.
But my main point is that the Church was teaching this doctrine (both East and West) of the real presence of Jesus in holy communion prior to the bible as we know it today coming into existence. The reason is that this belief pre-existed the scriptures being written and compiled...it is based on the oral teaching of the church. As you are aware, it took a while for the scripture to be written and compiled. The canon was not decided upon until the Synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (393, 397, and 419.) The catalogues of Books from Hippo and Carthage are identical with the Catholic Canon today.
So we have the oral tradition of the Church which pre-dates the scripture validating the literal interpretation of John 6.
Anyway, the reality is, this is a tenet of faith so important to the life of Catholic and Orthodox Christians that it cannot be denied for the sake of unity. As you can understand, to deny that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist (if indeed this is true), would be to deny Christ Himself. You can't expect that this is going to happen, and since 61% or 1.3 billion of the world's 2.1 billion Christians (according to the Website http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) are Catholic or Orthodox, true unity is not likely unless those outside these traditions come to believe in this doctrine.
So this "one bread" that the Scripture speaks of in 1 Corinthians 10:17 is both a source of unity and a stumbling block.
Hello One Bread,
The thoughts / interpretations I post are my own understandings about what the Bible teaches. That understanding is the result of hearing and reading many things taught by many other people, and examining the scripture to see whether those things are true.
I really do think the differences are the logical result of our different premises. My view is that the scriptures are the only standard given to us to answer such questions. The beliefs and practices of second and third century Christians are quite interesting but they carry no conclusive weight (in my mind) in deciding what God has instructed.
In 1 Cor 13 Paul wrote "We know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the (complete, mature, perfect) comes the partial will pass away." During that era, the truth from God was taught through prophets, and that was the only available standard for knowing the truth from God. But the average Christian did not have access to the complete revealed will of God. He just had the bits and pieces that he had heard from the prophets. When the message had been completely delivered and written down, the prophecies ceased. He indicates that the era of prophecies is a childish / immature phase in comparison to the maturity of having the whole revealed message.
So, now that we have the whole revealed message, we rely on that as our standard. I have complete faith that our God, who loved us enough to give his Son, is both sufficiently concerned about us and also sufficiently powerful to provide us with all the information necessary so we can receive the gift he has made available.
I do agree that Jesus gave Peter authority and a unique role among the apostles. I don't see any indication that this authority and role would be passed on to the next generation. As Jude 1:3 says, the message of the faith was "once for all" (NASB) delivered to the sants. That message was delivered by the apostles during the first century. There is no need for subsequent additions and extensions.
I don't expect to find common ground on every topic. And I do not intend to try to convince all believers to see things my way on every point. There is a better way to unity. Romans 14-15, Phil 3:15, 2 Tim 2:15 all speak of tolerance for differing views, allowing God to work. We are not to judge one another on disputable matters (of which there are many!)
Ok I've used enough of your blog space for now. Thanks for your hospitality and your respectful way of discussing these things.
Alan
Hey,
I am another One Bread Member and
as for passing on the authority of Peter, you only have to go to the secular Almanac - Book of Facts to see the unbroken lists of popes. Linus became the second pope in 67 A.D.
Alan,
I appreciate your comments. The idea of scripture being the sole authority for Christian doctrine originated with Martin Luther. As soon as Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church, the division in Christiandom flourished. This is because it places the interpretation of scripture on the individual, instead of the teaching authority of the Church. The scripture itself says that this is not wise. Read 2 Peter Chapter 1:20: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
The scripture also says to beware of false teachers. In 2 Peter Chapter 2:1: "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
Conversely, the scripture says to hold onto tradition in 2 Thessolonians 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." This scripture states that teachers have to teach the gospel, that it is not just privately discerned. In the Protestant tradition, this is why you have preachers isn't it, to teach the people what the gospel means? So it is not really by private interpretation but the interpretation of the teacher, or whatever preacher is teaching a particular congregation.
The difference between the Catholic and Protestant traditions then is really who are the official teachers?
Again, thank you for your respectful dialogue. Truly, I count you as my brother in Christ.
Hello, good folks. I hope I may add to the discussion a bit.
- There was an existing Jewish metaphor concerning the eating of one's flesh (used several times in the OT, e.g., Lev 26:27-29), but it was a metaphor for reviling someone.
- In all his parables, Jesus revealed the meaning behind his metaphors to his disciples. In this particular discourse, he does not. Instead he basically dares them to take it or leave it.
- The Eucharist has the same significance as the Incarnation. The parallels are so striking, for as man and God are united in Jesus Christ (true God and true man), so does the Church proclaim what is plain in the text of Scriptures: "this is my body.. this is .. my blood."
- There is a danger in objecting to sacramentalism (physical objects or acts are or impart holiness): mistakenly thinking that what is physical is either evil or too "low" for God. When God made the physical world, he declared that it was good. In the Incarnation is confirmation, for he did not disdain his humanity. In the Resurrection is another confirmation, because our bodies will be raised up, because our beings are not complete without our bodies.
- The words used in John 6 are actually very precise: the word used to eat is literally "to chew," (in Greek, trogo) not the general term to simply eat or consume. There does not appear to be any other instance in the Greek texts of the Bible (NT and Septuagint OT) where trogo is used for eating. Only here.
What makes the interpretation, that the words are metaphor, obvious? I dearly hope that it does not go along the rationalistic lines of "because it's supernatural nonsense." This logic is entirely objectionable because we are, after all, talking about God here. As I noted above, there is a striking parallel between the Incarnation of God made man and the Eucharist of God in the bread. Incredulity to one is consistent with incredulity to the other, if reason is the basis, hence the danger in being overly skeptical.
In the early centuries of persecutions by the Roman emperors against Christians, one of the primary accusations made upon them was that they practiced cannibalism in the Eucharist. St. Justin did not defend the Church by stating that they were merely symbolic memorial rituals. He instead says: "In the same way that through the power of the Word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour took flesh and blood for our salvation, so the nourishment consecrated by the prayer formed of the words of Christ . . . is the flesh and blood of this incarnate Jesus." (First Apology, AD 153-155) Even earlier, St. Ignatius warned of those who refused to participate in the Eucharist because " they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110])
Christ is a stumbling block, and here, too, in the bread and wine consecrated into his body and blood, he continues to ask: "will you also go away?" (John 6:67) Yes, the Real Presence is incredible, but even more so is the Incarnation, the Son of God, born of a woman, true God and true Man.
This was an interesting discussion to read. I've just been writing an assignment on church unity, looking at how we can say we are one Church, when there are so many different denominations. And one of the possible responses is that we are one body for we all partake of the one loaf. However, as mentioned, communion is a source of unity, but it is also a cause of division. And I think maybe that's just one of those things that we have to trust God about. From where we stand, it seems like such a decisive issue. From where God stands, maybe He can see that it really is a source of unity.
Liz
Post a Comment