Please help me understand how the Eucharist can be seen as merely symbolic?

Question

As a Catholic I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When speaking with those who do not believe in the real presence, I have heard them say that Jesus is present only symbolically, but not in a real way - real flesh and real blood - in the form of bread and wine. How is it possible, as a bible believing Christian, to believe only in a symbolic presense? After all Jesus said:

"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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 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: 53-57.

Thank you for your answers so far - but if you say it is merely symbolic, please answer to the Scripture passage from John.

To Tonya in TX's Profile - I really appreciated your answer - it was respectful and rather well put - however, it seems to be hindged on Jesus instituting it while he was still alive - could he have instituted it while he was dead? or after he was resurrected? Wasn't the point to show the disciples what to do - in rememberance of him when he was not there - thus the Eucharist would give them at all times a real presence for His followers?

To ADMG - really, really good answer, but can you add an answer to Tanya's answer?

Answer 1

They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers 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.

For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "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 fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. 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 (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

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.

Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).

Answer 2

Some people simply cannot grasp concepts that are outside of scientific reason and the limits of the sciences. Some people just don't want to. For them, "body and blood" would have to mean Jesus' DNA. Since that is obviously not what we are consuming at the Eucharist, they say it is a symbol.

And, as a Catholic theologian, they are not exactly wrong. The concept of "symbol" and "being" are both pretty heavy topics in philosophy and theology. A symbol can have a variety of meanings and levels. This is why Catholics talk more about the real presence. We aren't going to get hung up on the molecular structure of the elements (the "accidentals" if you want to go all philosophical) - we are going to consentrate on our belief and what has been passed down to us through scripture.

(One other thing you have to remember - I'd be willing to bet that a good number, if not majority, of Catholics go for more of the symbol thing than real prescense.)

Answer 3

It is a given that the Catholic Church does not have a hidden stash wherein Jesus' ACTUAL body resides and from which parts are cut and blended into wine and bread, right? If the Eucharist can be taken as Christ's actual body and blood, then there is a transfiguration through dedication going on. By this logic, ANYTHING could be the Eucharist if it is properly dedicated. Thus, any part of the Earth and Sky or Universe could be the body and blood of Christ. I could eat a strawberry out of my garden and it could conceivably be classified thus. It is the incantations that count, isn't it? And if you take the Eucharist as literally transformed body and blood, then is this not witchcraft? The transformation through ritual of a substance into another substance imbued with divine properties through the ritual? Unless it is symbolic, it is witchcraft. I have nothing against witchcraft personally, but I assume that most Christians would.

Answer 4

I say it is symbolic. Why? How? because Christ instituted the sacrament while He was still alive. I forget chapter and verse but it was in the Upper Room after Judas left and before they went to the Garden. I seriously doubt (and I mean no disrespect in this statement) that He sliced off part of His flesh and drained a little blood into a cup so they could partake of the sacrament.
Also, since it was with Him that the old way of doing things (through blood sacrifice) was done away, I just don't think that He would allow for the old way to continue in this way.
I understand this may run along a different vein of thought than what you are meaning, but canablism has always been rather abhorrant, and to think that the wafer (or whatever is used) literally turns into Christ's flesh is very much canabalistic.
As I'm sure you know, Christ spoke in nothing but parables. To me John 6:53 - 57 is just that, a parable. As Christ often said, Let him who has ears to hear and eyes to see, both hear and see.
Also, I think that it is possible that the verses you quoted could also be among those which were changed over time (either through mistranslation, or for some other reason). I'm not saying they have been mistranslated, but it's possible. My primary reasoning is that it was meant as an analogy. Christ wanted us to see the importance of the sacrament. Of associating it with Him. The scriptures, both OT and NT are riddled with symbolism, Christ's words contain very little other than symbolism/parables/allogories. When Christ teaches, He teaches through symbolism, because it's easier for us to understand if we have a visual aid.
Now I don't think in the least that my words have changed your mind, but perhaps they have shed some light into why those of us who believe in the importance of the sacrament but do not believe that it somehow turns into blood and flesh, believe what we do.

Have a great day. :)

Answer 5

I do see it as symbolic. And John 6 is proof of that, you juist have to understand WHY Jesus said what he said, and WHY those people left after he said it. He got the reaction that he was looking for. He WANTED to offend them, and they had no concept of the communion. He knew it.

So cannibalism or eating God and drinking God was not what Jesus was talking about. he escaped them in Tiberias, and then they followed the disciples to Capernaum. Jesus brought them the truth, they denied it again, and he then proceeded to shake them off. And he was very good at not lying in order to do it.

What I have a problem with the Roman Catholic understanding of that story is; They do not recognize the saying of Jesus towards the end of John 6 as figurative, they take it literal, while ignoring the reaction of a people who were intending to do something against the will of God ( by attempting to force him into being a king over them v. 15) and trating the miracles as the reason why they wanted to see him doing some more miracles-- teaching them how to do it ( v. 28) .

So Jesus purposefully offended them.

Answer 6

Jesus said:

This IS my body:

Not: This is a Representation of my body.

I agree.

But there are many fine Protestant people out there, I am NOT bashing them!

Peace and God Bless!

Answer 7

They'll tell you that of course it's symbolic... but yet will insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Go figure, huh?

Answer 8

This is NOT the only doctrinal error in the Catholic "Church." There are several others... including salvation; the MOST IMPORTANT doctrine of ALL! But, of course, the Catholics get mad, and refuse to search out the scriptures for truth.

Answer 9

Because, ancient propaganda stories from the Catholic Church aside, the Eucharist doesn't start bleeding when you eat it.

Answer 10

It's symbolic, unless you guys pass around a hunk of flesh!