There are times when it seems as though there is nothing sacred, that is in the sense that nothing is exempt from the tendency of Christians to argue among themselves, and the subject of the fifth and final Mystery of Light, the Institution of the Holy Eucharist is one of those.
It seems simple enough on the page:
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, [a]blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the [b]new covenant, which is shed for many for the [c]remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.
St Mark’s version, upon which St Matthew’s was most probably based is typically straightforward:
22 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, “Take, [a]eat; this is My body.”
23 Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the [b]new covenant, which is shed for many. 25 Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
We can see from this why one of the rumours spread about the early Christians in Roman society was that they were cannibals and ate the body and drank the blood of their god.
There is no Institution narrative in St John, but what he does have to say about Jesus as the Bread of Life drives hom the sense of the words we get from SS Mark and Matthew. When teaching in Capernum, Jesus told His listeners He was the Bread of Life, they queried His words and their meaning, and Jesus was clear in His response:
52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, 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 Whoever 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 [a]food indeed, and My blood is [b]drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
The result is worth noting: “ From that time many of His disciples went [f]back and walked with Him no more”.
The conventional Protestant explanation (this one from my NKJV Study Bible) is “Jesus was speaking figuratively, but the Jewish leaders took him literally.” But will this really do? We are told that many of His disciples turned away. If they had misunderstood, it would have been easy enough for Jesus to have stated that He was talking figuratively. Instead, He lets them go and even asks “the twelve” whether they, too, will leave Him. It seems a little feeble to explain all of this in terms of figurative speech.
It is St Luke’s versionof the words which seems to have given an excuse for the “figurative” explanation, as there the words of Institution are:
9 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
Hence the explanation that the Eucharist is a “memorial” of His saving passion, as though we are presented with a binary choice. But is it a binary choice? Have we fully understood what Jesus is saying if we assume so.
As usual, the Church Fathers have been here before us and are an invaluable source of wisdom here.
St John Chysostom explained it thus in Homily 47:2:
When we converse of spiritual things, let there be nothing secular in our souls, nothing earthy, let all such thoughts retire, and be banished, and let us be entirely given up to the hearing the divine oracles only.
The argument here is that we understand Christ’s words spiritually and not carnally. It is in the same vein as St Hilary of Poitier’s statement in On the Trinity:
For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ’s nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. John 6:55-56 As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us.
Orthodox theology, untouched by the scholastic method, argues that in the Eucharist we partake not simply of the physical/material, but of the deified and glorifies Body and Blood of Christ which give resurrection life. Catholic theology expresses the same thought thus:
We believe that at every Mass, bread and wine become Jesus — his body, blood, soul and divinity — even though we can’t fully understand how it happens. The miracle of the Eucharist is a mystery, something that human reason and intelligence can never fully grasp.
The Institution of the Eucharist invites us into the heart of the mystery of God’s love for us. Like the woman at the well, we discover that Jesus is the Living Water, but oh, with what blessing we reflect that in the Eucharistic Feast we receive His Body and His Blood. In the words of the Catechism:
The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods” (CCC 460)
In His Body and Blood we are saved, redeemed and will be glorified.
All Along the Watchtower 
Outstanding article; your love and devotion is so visible. Lovely, Chalcedon; simply lovely.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you so much, Audre. I had long wanted to do a series on the Luminous Mysteries, so I am glad you like it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When I read up to the NKJB interpretation that concluded ‘figuratively,’ I said to myself ‘No’. Because Jesus shortly afterwards says the words I spoke are “spirit and life”. So, I was pleased to see the same truth expressed shortly afterwards.
All that is added to that by whoever is simply speculation and should not be binding upon any Christian as the doctrine of transubstantiation has been made to be.
I remember mugging up on Catholicism prior to street preaching in Dublin in my early 20’s. A passage by a Pope teaching about transubstantiation stuck in my mind, it stated that the: host was changed into the body of Christ complete to the last fingernail and eyelash. Really does my salvation rely on swallowing that?
I believe, although I would have to refresh my memory that the Orthodox Church does not subscribe to transubstantiation.
Besides if we were to interpret John 6 and other passages literally what of all those Catholics through the ages who never drank the blood of Jesus but only consumed the flesh?
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s always worth reading the Catechism, because it is the definitive version of what the Church teaches. C1333 states: “The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation.” The Orthodox express it as stated in the post. They do not seek to define too closely. What matters is we believe we receive Him in fact as well as spirit.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s why I like our consubstantiation. “In, under, and around”:. Close enough for me, as I said recently, the Real Presence is the thing. We have no need really to know how it works, only that it does.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think anyone who says they know how it works is fooling only themselves. I’m happy with what the Catechism says. There are those who need to define it in minute detail, and if it helps them, that’s well and good. But there are times I think Christians could argue over whether the egg should be sliced from the big end of the little end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m surprised we haven’t, at Easter, perhaps, not meaning to open that can of worms.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just stick the whole boiled egg in my mouth…
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is wisdom!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sensible man.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It makes all good logical sense that there’s the suppositum that isn’t the species and the substance changes within suppositum but in the end—even though I am being trained in that Thomistic school of thought, it never crosses my mind at the Mass.
LikeLike
As long as we remember and have faith that Christ is always really present with us. I think that is the challenge not any particular interpretation about the bread and the wine.
If a significant number of us were convinced without a shadow of a doubt that Christ is with us, alongside us and in us, day in day out, I think the world would be a different place.
Patrick’s breastplate comes to mind.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Chalcedon – well, this (of course) is where you need `the Church’ to give us Scripture and to interpret it for us.
I maintain (following argument on previous threads) that the whole message pertinent for Salvation, although hidden, is already present in the Old Testament – the `man of sorrows’ from Isaiah of particular importance. The Old Testament as we now have it was given to us by God, through the Hebrews and later the Masoretes, who don’t seem to have been guided so much by the Holy Spirit for interpreting it.
Your average Joe reading Scripture, when he reads the words `do this in remembrance of me’ assumes that Jesus is telling us (the reader) to take the communion bread and wine and to do it in remembrance of him. Yes, he does say that it is his body; this should be taken seriously when a fellowship of believers partakes of the sacrament.
Your average Joe would not assume that Jesus was instituting a priesthood, that the words `do this’ were aimed at the disciples who were being told what to do in their capacity as priests. You really do need your `church’ to tell you that, in these words, a priesthood is being established and when the priest says `this is my body’, he is in the person of Christ – and that the sacrament is only valid when distributed by a priest acting in this way.
If we take the Old Testament, things are hidden, but the second person of the Trinity is clearly there. We know of a `man of sorrows’ although we cannot (from the OT alone) identify this man as Jesus of Nazareth.
I prefer a faith where, although I may need some prompting to get there, the New Testament is a logical fulfilment of the Old and doesn’t introduce wacky new ideas that would seem completely off the wall to your `average Joe’ who had a good understanding of the Old Testament.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Whilst no disagreeing with you about the OT, I think it important to bear in mind here what Paul told the Corinthians in his second epistle:
14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. 15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. 16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
So, your “average [Jewish] Joe” hearing what Jesus said about the bread and wine being His body and blood walked away from Him – the veil was, and alas, still is there. My point here is that for most Jews Jesus is not the fulfilment of their Scripture, so to call it a “logical conclusion” is true only for those from whose eyes the veil has been lifted.
From the earliest times, Christians have taken Matthew 16:18 as the “average Joe” would take it. Jesus said He’s founding a Church, here it is. He said He was giving the Apostles the power bind and loose. In choosing a successor to Judas, the 11 were clearly not of the view that their charge was for their lifetime only.
All the Church does here is pass on what it received – that when Jesus talked about eating HIs body and drinking His blood, He meant it. He was not a philosopher speaking in riddles, had that been the case, why would He have let a large number of His followers walk away?
It seems to me that Jesus meant what He said, and to claim it is only a memorial on the basis on one of the narratives is unsustainable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chalcedon – would you say that the body and blood of Christ were present in the Old Testament Passover meal?
I deliberately worded my comment to avoid the issue of `the real presence’ or `purely symbolic’ – that is not the issue.
The main point is that when Jesus said `do this’, the position of the CC seems to be that he established the disciples as priests and by `do this’ he meant `stand in my person and distribute my body and blood’.
The natural meaning of `do this’ would, at least to me, be `eat the bread and drink the wine as I am doing’.
This is a different issue from the question of what is going on with the bread and wine, whether or not it is the body and blood.
The blindness, the veil, is (of course) a moral blindness and not an intellectual blindness.
So, with the original question about what was going on in the Passover meal instituted by Moses and whether or not the body and blood of Christ were present there, I’m wondering about how you see the relation between Old Testament and New.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I don’t think that the Body and Blood of Christ were present in the passover meal, any more than any Jew then, or since, believed it.
When He says “this is my body” He means it, He does not, I think, mean anything else, such a “this is only in memory of me”. That’s why the John 6 “bread” passage is critical. A whole lot of people who had been following Jesus left at that point. The only explanation is they took HIs words literally and that was “too hard a saying” for them.
The passover meal is a figure of what was to come, but at no point do we get Jesus saying He is present in it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chalcedon – OK – then a very clear difference (where we have to agree to disagree).
Everything of the New Testament (I believe) should have a firm grounding in the Old Testament, so if your reading (where Jesus establishes a priesthood – and the `do this’ does not mean eating and drinking as he is doing – but instead means handing out hte sacrament in his person) then there should be something in the OT which points towards this. There should be something in the OT that points towards this meaning of the sacrament.
For John 6: my view is that he is clearly claiming to be the Messiah here – it is quite explicit. He has just performed the loaves-and-fishes miracle and the parallels between the loaves to feed the 5000 and the manna in Exodus are clear. In the narrative that follows, he is declaring that he is the God who brought down the manna from heaven. He is telling them that he is not simply a prophet; he is God incarnate.
That would have been way more than enough to do the trick – to cause those following him to leave him and turn against him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We shall have to agree to disagree. It’s clear what caused the followers to leave – otherwise what does He mean by telling them to eat His Body? I agree it means He’s the Messiah, but why would He ask the 12 if they, too, wanted to leave?
I agree that the Passover points to this, but no wine or blood is involved there.
Thanks for another good example of how we can discuss things well.
LikeLike
It is clear what caused Christ disciples to leave in John 6 but it is not obvious why Christ did not try to retain them. Another explanation is what had been dubbed the ‘Messianic Secret’. That, Jesus being destined for the cross di not want the crowd to try and prevent this salvation event.
There were only 120 disciples at Pentecost the 1000’s, were subsequently converted.
This explanation is support by Christ’s frequent use of parable to hide his meaning during His teaching.
So, I do not think, the argument that Christ should be taken literally in John 6 should not be accepted as a knockdown proof.
LikeLike
Thanks Rob. At this stage there are no knock down proofs, I am sure. As usual I am content with tradition and treating the consecrated bread and wine with veneration.
LikeLike
Rob – for what it’s worth – I take the `falling away’ In John 6 to mean that, following the loaves and fishes (with the clear allusion to the manna from heaven) and the discourse of Jesus, they finally understood what the Heavenly kingdom was all about – and decided that they didn’t want it.
The heavenly kingdom is for people who hate the `old man’, their sinful nature and will be happy and relieved to be shot of it. There are many who are not like that. As I said on a previous thread, I think that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is very much to the point. The rich man hated the torment of hell, but at no stage in that discourse did he show that he had any positive interest in the heavenly life – he only wanted to escape the torment of where he was. There is no hint that the friends, whom he wanted to warn, had any interest in the heavenly life.
I think we’re looking at people (which – sadly – characterises the overwhelming majority of the world) who might have wanted to escape the other place, but when they discovered what the heavenly life really meant, they declined to follow.
LikeLike