Oklahomily - Roots of the Real Presence Doctrine Page 2

(Part 2)
The first reading was the 6th chapter of the Gospel of John, which starts with a compassionate Jesus miraculously feeding the multitudes and walking on the water, proving His abilities included repealing the laws of physics as humans understand them. The chapter continues with the proclamation of a strange new teaching that so rattles most of His followers that they reject Him outright. You should read the whole thing - here’s a LINK - but here are some excerpts, with some parenthetical observations:

“I am the Bread of Life,” Jesus told them. “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”

Then many of His disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

(If Jesus were speaking symbolically or in parables, now would have been a good time to reassure His followers, but instead He challenges them.)

“Does this shock you?”

(He does not say, “Hey, come back. I’m speaking in symbolic terms. Don’t be so literal-minded!”)

“As a result of this, many (of) His disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied Him.” (John 6:66)

It's a Major Turning Point in Jesus' Ministry

Jesus not only does not explain away His hard teaching, as He watches them leave and then challenges those who have stayed, including His closest companions, the twelve apostles:

“Do you also want to leave?” The answer, prompted by the Holy Spirit, is stunning in its implications for us today. Peter says, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You alone have the words of eternal life.”

It is clear that Jesus believes that the truth, however hard to accept, in this case must be said without disguising it in a parable or riddle. It is almost one year to the day before the Last Supper and Christ’s Passion. The next year will be an important one as He forms the team that soon enough will lead His church. It will be a year of strife with Temple authorities, and of behind-the-scenes political games among those who see in Jesus an answer to Rome’s political and military might. Jesus will disappoint His critics and His would-be handlers, and He will baffle His inner circle of apostles. His discourse on the Bread of Life will be passed along to the religious authorities in Jerusalem who will not like what they hear. It will solidify the opposition of many. Tensions will build as another Passover Feast approaches, and His enemies will prepare for a final exam of the Galilean prophet. The charge they are considering is blasphemy.

When the critics of His time saw Jesus, they did not see Him glorified and coming on clouds above. They saw only a man from Nazareth who rocked their theological boat. He made claims they could not and would not countenance. And so they made excuses and rationalizations for His signs and wonders - just as He predicted they would.

If you read the sixth chapter of John with an open heart, you cannot dismiss out of hand the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist (communion). In years of attending Protestant churches, never had I ever heard a sermon on any part of the sixth chapter except the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, and the walking on the water, and usually these were taken from one of the other three gospels. The “Bread of Life” discourse and its aftermath were not discussed.

Why? Would it raise too many questions about a meal that is only supposed to be symbolic?

My second set of readings included the three Gospel accounts of the Last Supper.

In Mark’s concise gospel, the Last Supper is relatively brief:

“While they were eating, He took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many. Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God." (Mark 14:22-25)

There is not much more detail in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Yet the early Church clearly taught that the Lord’s Supper commemoration was of highest importance. After the resurrection, Jesus is recognized by His disciples in the breaking of the bread.

The third reading was in 1st Corinthians. Saint Paul reminds the Church of Corinth, in his first letter, that the Lord’s Supper was not a trivial ceremony but required solemn and worthy participants. He warned them:

“For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

“In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.

“For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.” (1 Cor. 11: 23-30)

A communion that was merely symbolic would not sicken or kill its participants. Saint Paul wrote of specific physical maladies brought on by spiritual short-comings, all connected to the unworthy or unknowing reception of Holy Communion, a sin for which a person must be held to account!

There is much more in the writings of the early Church fathers that, added to the Biblical account, make a strong case for the fact that Jesus literally meant what He said about His Body and Blood. When one reads all the relevant material that relate to Jesus’ offering of His body and blood in communion, one cannot help but ask questions that cannot easily be brushed aside.

Any observer of Holy Communion at a Catholic Church today could easily determine that the round hosts of wafer-thin unleavened bread look no different after their consecration than they do before it. Any Catholic will tell you that there is no difference in the taste of either the host or the communion drink, the wine of the cup. The physical aspects of bread and wine remain but the substance itself has been transformed supernaturally, a process the Church calls "transubstantiation."

Just as the physical Jesus of AD 33 was misidentified and dismissed by many religious authorities, so the physical Jesus of AD 2006 is given the same treatment. Perhaps the problem is a matter of faith, of one’s willingness to let God be God and do the impossible and unthinkable for our benefit. In my exploration of the matter came the nagging question: when did later Christians begin to join those followers who left Jesus in John 6:66?