So we’ve launched into the ‘Spring Semester’ at the Augustine Institute in Colorado where I’m doing a Masters in Theology by distance. Oh man, if any of you are toying with the idea of really engaging in academic study of the faith – GO FOR IT! Campion College, Good Shepherd College, or the plethora of distance options further abroad…seriously.
This week we’ve been walking through a ‘big picture’ of the Catholic faith. In five lectures, Dr Edward Sri managed to present the faith from Creation to the Last Days, with Covenant, Divine Sonship, the Cross, a bit of Christology, Soteriology (how we are saved), Ecclesiology (the Church), sacraments, papacy, Mary, the Saints and much more in between…including helpful charitable refutation of various Protestant positions such as Penal Substitution and Justification…
I wanted to share his discussion on the Eucharist because it floored me – and I like to think I’ve read reasonably well about the Eucharist. Like any good Catholic theological study, and like Benedict XVI has tried to do with the theological arena, the Augustine Institute really tries to give students and integrated experience of both systematic/dogmatic theology and biblical/scriptural theology…Scripture remains at the heart of everything, and many of the issues in theology today seem to come about because systematic theologians (of which Benedict is one) stray so far from Scripture. Much to the appreciation of our Protestant kinfolk, Dr Sri is constantly referring us back to scripture and demonstrating the unity and the evidence to be found in Scripture…
Anyhow, I digress (ha, what’s new?!)…
Let’s talk about the Eucharist. So, if you have a bible handy…turn to John 6:35.
If anyone ever tries to suggest that the Eucharist is just a symbol, not really Jesus Christ’s flesh and blood…walk them through this passage.
After Jesus has just fed the five thousand, arguably the greatest miracle he performs, providing bread, no less, we then have verse 35 …”Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life.”
Ok, great, still, could easily be speaking in metaphor. But check it out…
Verse 41…the Jews start complaining, or as Dr Sri explained, the better translation would be that they ‘mumble under their breath’ in the same way as the Israelites rebelled against Moses. “Like, seriously? This guy is bonkers…we know him, we know his parents…weirdo….”
A reaction like that would make much less sense if he had spoken in metaphor – metaphors and euphemisms are much easier to digest (no pun intended).
How does Jesus respond to their whinging?
Verse 43 – “Stop your whinging…” Verse 47-48 – “Very truly I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life.”
Using words like ‘very truly’ – Dr Sri talks of this as covenantal language – the sign of the strongest possible promise that he’s serious, he means this, he’s not just talking symbols.
And he goes on… verse 51 – “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread forever; and the bread that I give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
What happens next? The Jews get even more infuriated – disputing among themselves. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” If he doesn’t seriously mean his own flesh, now would be the time to cut the prank: “Ha, ah, sorry guys, just kidding…I mean, this bread is a symbol of me, here, nourishing you like any helpful teacher…”
No, instead, what does Jesus reply?
“Very truly I tell you, [there it is again! that covenantal language!] unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you.” (verse 53). In other words “Cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye…I ain’t kidding around with you…I mean exactly what I say…!”
As if that wasn’t enough to make his point, and this is where translation does us a dis-service, Jesus changes the sort of ‘eat’ that he refers to. In the Greek translation of scripture, up until and including verse 53, when it says ‘eat’ in the English translation, it refers to the Greek word ‘fogate’ (sp?) which usually means to eat in a physical sense but could perhaps be used metaphorically in some contexts.
In verse 54-57 however, Jesus starts using the word ‘trogo’ (sp?) which doesn’t really mean ‘eat’ anymore…it means gnaw, chew, masticate…in other words, “Those who gnaw/chew/masticate my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me…”
He keeps going…about the ancestors who ate manna in the desert etc…but I mean, seriously…if he was wanting to talk in metaphor and symbols, why on earth would his language get more intense, more explicit, more unbelievable?!
And that’s the point at which the disciples starting looking at him funny too. Until that point they knew they’d hit on the Messiah and realized this guy was pretty special. But once he started talking like that, they were raising their eyebrows.
“When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?….Because of this, many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.” (v60 and 66).
I don’t know about you but a metaphor or symbol is a heck of a lot easier to accept than something so darn real like the Eucharist. The former is a lot easier to present to the world, and requires a lot less faith (if any at all). Would any disciples have dropped out on the basis of metaphor or symbolism? Not likely.
And then comes this passage that I’ve always loved – and now love even more – when Jesus turns to the twelve and asks them “What about you guys? Are you going to split as well?”
And Peter, who I’ve now discovered thanks to Dr Sri, is clearly the leader of the pack and there’s overwhelming scriptural evidence for this, says “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”
Peter, like us all, probably felt a bit dumbfounded too. I can’t explain it at all…it is a mystery…but I know there’s no other way to the fullness of the Truth.
Thanks for this. Most interesting. I am always left wondering though why Jesus, or the Holy Spirit inspiring John did not clearly state exactly what he meant. That he did not is a very good argument against scripture alone, but not a very good argument for divine inspiration
Of scripture!
W
what could he have said that would have made it clearer?
Pray for the Church!
That is a powerful reading Tuppence…it is clear and concise. I did point this reading out to an anti-Catholic woman who I had interesting discussions with….she was of a Pentecostal persuasion but in an Anglican parish. Her response was that I was taking it too literally (!!!). The Holy Spirit of course was giving her direct revelations and instructions!
Its brilliant that you are pursuing higher study and I’m sure it will be valuable for you and others. I hope to as well.
Dr Edward Sri is an excellent author and no doubt a stimulating teacher…
The word symbol is a great word to study. I do think there are different meanings for it. Symbols can be relative – metaphors we read our own experiences and cultural meanings into…they are not lasting as religious symbols, but merely express our own experiences. The modern debate over marriage makes it an empty symbol we impose a meaning on, whatever the culture thinks is good, …and so it can be changeable. On the other hadn Catholic Christian symbols are received and truly communicate the reality they contain. We come to know the truth of them and they change us toward the absolute reality that is. These symbols are absolute and lasting – like the Eucharist which is the symbol the Church teaches is the source of her unity. Radical feminism, like modern reinterpreters of marriage, want to do away with and remodel symbols that don’t reflect the feminist or cultural experience.
“I will, after my death, become physically present in the form of bread and wine, changing not the appearance, but the substance of the elements. By eating this bread and/or wine you will eat my bread and drink my blood. I mean this literally, and not metaphorically, and am able to do this because I am one person of a three-personed God, the same G-d you have until this point in history identified as Y-. The effect of eating by bread and drinking my blood will be to allow graces (see elsewhere my description of what grace is, exactly) to come to you, allowing you to do more good than otherwise, and more easily avoid sin than otherwise”. Or words to that effect.
I am still perplexed that a God would provide scripture which is unclear and open to interpretation. The response (that is why he created a Church) is fine, but then, why divinely inspire unclear words? And if you do not believe they are unclear, as any protestant what they mean!
I think scripture is for the most part quite clear…but we don’t necessarily like what it says. That is why scripture and tradition together are give rise to the fullest meaning and not merely a subjective reading which always gives us wriggle room to favour our self interest.
I think God was pretty clear in what was said on Mt Sinai but the response was still short of the mark. So rather than send law God turned up in person and did what was necessary to redeem us.
Benedicta I disagree about the clarity of scripture. If one accepts Church teaching, you must accept that scripture is unclear, since the Church is needed to interpret it. For example, would it not have been more clear had not the authors of the first three Gospels mentioned just once that Jesus was God? And would a clear exposition on grace have not helped? And what about a clear prohibition of abortion? And what about the things that are clear, but wrong, such as Paul’s clear expectation of an imminent return of Jesus? Scripture is clear only when back-interpreted in the light of Church teaching. But then it would be, wouldn’t it? For so is the Koran and the Hindu scriptures, and the Book of Mormon, once interpreted.
W #4
He did. John 6 66
Pray for the Church!
Werahiko,
I found this explanation very helpful…
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist
Our Blessed Lord promised His apostles, before He ascended into Heaven, that he would send the Holy Spirit to enlighten and help them to understand all that He had taught them during the three years that He had been with them ….
After Pentecost,having lost their fear of any possible persecution, the apostles went about preaching all that they had been taught about Christ and His message … this included the truth of the reality of Christ’s presence in the Blessed Eucharist .If we have difficulties then surely we can seek the help of the same Holy Spirit and from the Holy Church founded by Christ on the apostles and with which He promised to be until the end of time.
I am not too sure that this might be of any help ….I know well enough that I am not as adept at expressing myself as are many on B F .but this is my understanding of the miracle of Christ’s Eucharistic presence with us…. how much He loves us.
Thank you Tupence for this post which has gven so much food for thought and prayer,
Shalom,
Mrs Mac