Why do most Biblical literalists not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?

Question

Biblical literalists often criticize Catholics for following traditions that are not in the Bible (such as veneration of saints). When it comes to the four words "This is my Body," though, most Biblical literalists DON'T take that part literally -- that is, they don't believe in transubstantiation. I don't understand this inconsistency. Can anyone explain it to me?

Answer 1

AMEN!!!!!!!!!


You will hear them cry 'born again' 5000 times, when in all actuality, the term 'born again' is in the Bible ONE TIME, yet Jesus said FOUR times, '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."

Amazing, isn't it? Then you get, oh well, he was just speakng metaphorically when they quote His words ""It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this 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? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.
The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father.

Paul Confirms This:
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "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?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.


BTW, the 'door' metaphor cannot compare. Those who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.



EDIT AGAIN: Many left Jesus when they heard how difficult it would be. Many today do the same. Some of us drift away and come back while others come to Him late in life. The bottom line is as He told us–this is hard!

But in his simple life as a fisherman, Peter realized the real truth. Other than Jesus, where can we go? The things of this world come and go–fame and fortune tend to be very short-lived. But Jesus has a fortune for us that will never go away.

Answer 2

Since the Mass is a principal rite of the Catholic Church, one might expect the scriptures to support it. Do they? The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913 edition) explained why they, in fact, do not: “The chief source of our doctrine . . . is tradition, which from the earliest times declares the impetratory [entreating] value of the Sacrifice of the Mass.” So the Roman Catholic Mass is based on tradition, not the Bible.

What’s wrong with tradition? No matter how sincere one may be, following a tradition that contradicts the Bible is unacceptable to God. Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of his day for having done just that. At Matthew 15:6, we read his words: “You have made God’s word ineffective by means of your tradition.” Since Jesus valued God’s Word, ought we not do the same? Yes. What then do we find when we examine the teaching of transubstantiation in the light of the Holy Scriptures?

When instituting this meal, Jesus did not perform a miracle and change the emblems into his literal flesh and blood. Eating human flesh and drinking blood would be cannibalism, and a gross violation of God’s law. (See Genesis 9:3, 4; Leviticus 17:10) Jesus still had his whole physical body and all his blood. He offered it as a perfect sacrifice, and his blood was poured out the very next afternoon. Therefore, the bread and wine are symbolic - they represent Christ’s flesh and blood.

Well, how then are we to understand Luke 22:19:20? Is it “This IS my body” or “This MEANS my body? Well, when Jesus said, “I am the door” and, “I am the true vine,” no one thought that he was a literal door or a literal vine, did they? (John 10:7; 15:1) Likewise, when The New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic Bible) quotes Jesus as saying: “This cup is the new covenant,” we do not conclude that the cup itself was literally the new covenant. So, too, when he said the bread ‘was’ his body, there is no doubt that the bread symbolized his body. The Charles B. Williams translation rightly reads: “This represents my body.” Luke 22:19, 20.

Christians do not believe in transubstantiation because it is not in harmony with what the scriptures teach.

Hannah J Paul

Answer 3

Since the role of God is already taken, we can only make assumptions based on our faith and prayerful understanding of scriptures. When one reads the entire New Testament, it is very easy to see how often Jesus used illustrations as a teaching tool. If you research learning traditions of the Middle East versus the Greek method you will see that such illustrations were not uncommon. Jesus used terms such as Living Water--does this mean the water was alive? I am the vine, you are the branches--let's both agree He and His disciples were not a grape vine at that moment in time.

Protestants/Conservatives/Biblical literalists believe that Christ was simply using an illustration/metaphor, not unlike most of His teaching parables.

Answer 4

I honestly have faith that Christ presence is contained in the Eucharist. there's a writing via Scott Hahn called "The Fourth Cup" which even extra proves the actual purpose of the Eucharist.

Answer 5

It's called "cherry picking". It means taking what you like, and ignoring the rest. Most Christians do this because it's convenient. Notice how they will quote Scriptures when condemning others to hold them to an impossibly high standard of morality, but, then they will always respond with some such drivel as "Nobody's perfect", etcetc when their shortcomings are exposed? They will always say "Judge not that ye be not judged." when their sins are pointed out, but conveniently and eagerly forget this verse when condemning others. Again, cherry picking.

Edit: Well, even though I'm not a Catholic I would like to give Father Joseph a "thumbs up" for his succint and well-written response. Unfortunately, I don't seem to be able to do so. So, "thumbs up"!

Answer 6

In John 6 Jesus told the people that unless they ate His flesh and drank His blood they would not have life in them. The people took Him literally and said they could not accept a "hard saying" like that, so them left Him. He did not reply by saying, "Wait! You misunderstood. I was speaking symbolically." Instead, He reaffirmed what He had said.

Some say He was speaking figuratively, as when He said, "I am the door". However, the image in "I am the door" is obvious. We go through Jesus to the Father. What does eating His flesh and drinking His blood symbolize?

Answer 7

The wine and bread are merely symbols REPRESENTING the body and blood of Jesus Christ. If you read in the Old Testament it is wrong to drink blood. Christ wouldn't have us breaking a commandment by making the wine turn into his literal blood upon drinking it. It is a symbol to keep us in remembrance of the sacrifice. Human beings are very forgetful of God, especially during times of prosperity. The sacrament is an ordinance that helps us remember the Atonement of Jesus Christ. It also furnishes us with gratefulness for all that the Savior has done for us.

Answer 8

Allow me to address the criticisms of Hannah J Paul of the Eucharist. First of all she makes the misleading statement that the Scriptures do not support the Mass and that the Catholic Church acknowledges this allegation. She then goes on to quote the Catholic Encyclopedia that the Church says that doctrines are based on tradition. What she fails to acknowledge is that the Bible is part of Sacred Tradition, as in the tradition St. Paul taught to the Thessalonian Church to hold fast to the traditions both oral and written that are taught. The Catholic Encyclopedia was no speaking of the traditions of the Pharisees that Jesus rebuked as she would have people to believe. Furthermore, she fails to recognize that the majority of the liturgy of the Mass is Scripture.
Secondly, she makes the statement:


“What’s wrong with tradition? No matter how sincere one may be, following a tradition that contradicts the Bible is unacceptable to God. Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of his day for having done just that. At Matthew 15:6, we read his words: “You have made God’s word ineffective by means of your tradition.””

Clearly as I previously said she is speaking of the tradition of the Pharisees which Jesus rebuked and not the Sacred Tradition handed down from Jesus and the apostles to the Church. That makes her argument an “apples and oranges” argument. Pharisaical tradition and Sacred Tradition are two different things from two different sources. The first is indeed the doctrines of men and the second, Sacred Tradition, is directly from the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. Sacred Tradition is not contradictory to the bible but the teaching of the Bible. She further says that we should value God’s Word suggesting that Catholics and Orthodox do not, while at the same time exhibiting a lack of understanding of what is God’s Word suggesting that it is only written. It is not, Jesus is the Word made flesh.

While saying that we should examine the belief in the real corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist she makes the following incongruous statements or if you will a non sequitor argument.

“When instituting this meal, Jesus did not perform a miracle and change the emblems into his literal flesh and blood. Eating human flesh and drinking blood would be cannibalism, and a gross violation of God’s law. (See Genesis 9:3, 4; Leviticus 17:10) Jesus still had his whole physical body and all his blood. He offered it as a perfect sacrifice, and his blood was poured out the very next afternoon. Therefore, the bread and wine are symbolic - they represent Christ’s flesh and blood.”

She makes the argument of the detractors and persecutors of the first and second century Church and calls our practice cannibalism but she is correct that this is the reason so many disciples left Jesus at the synagogue in Capernaum as recorded in John 6. It is the teaching that was said to be hard teaching which the apostles would not understand for a few days but it would become clear thanks to their patience and trust in Jesus. They expected him to explain to them the meaning of his words as he had all His parables in the past but this time he would explain to them with His actions on the cross of Calvary on the hill of Golgotha at the end of the Via Dolorosa. At the Lord’s Last Supper he demonstrated the miracle of the Eucharist and emphasized the miracle by stating do this in “anamnesis” of me, which means that the miracle he performed was to make the future a present reality just as he makes the past a present reality in the Eucharist at Mass. He was illustrating that His miracle was not constrained by the natural laws of time but is the greatest of all his miracles allowing him to be present with His Church not just in a spiritual sense but in a corporeal sense as well. So no, Jesus was not speaking symbolically at all but was quite literal in His words. This represents the culmination of the clearest of all of Jesus’ teaching in Scripture. St. Paul understood what Jesus taught when he said that unless one discerns the Body and Blood of our Lord when one receives then they bring condemnation on themselves.

In conclusion, while Jesus did teach using metaphors, He also was capable and did teach literally. The teaching that the bread and the wine are His true flesh is one of those teachings. Jesus said twelve times that He was the bread from heaven and four times he commanded “to eat my flesh and drink my blood”. Never did Jesus call those disciples who left at Capernaum and say “come back, you misunderstand”.

The corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the only teaching that is supported by Scriptures, and it was the sixteenth century heretic Ulrich Zwingli who threw the Corporeal Christ out of Protestant worship.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Answer 9

For the same reason that I don't believe Jesus is a literal "Door" as per John 10:7
"Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep."

He was speaking metaphorically:

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. " John 6:63

Just like He was when He was speaking to His disciples about the "Leaven (Yeast) of the Pharisees"

"The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. "Be careful," Jesus warned them. "Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod."
They discussed this with one another and said, "It is because we have no bread."
Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: "Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?"
"Twelve," they replied.
"And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?"
They answered, "Seven."
He said to them, "Do you still not understand?"

Mark 8:14-21

Answer 10

Jesus said to do what he is doing in memory of him. He broke bread and said it was his body. So he turned bread into his body, and this is done in memory of him, like He said. ( Catholics at least )