John 6 question

[LadyRachelLynn]

Hey, I don't post much.  But I have a question and I don't really know where to turn.  Its not an urgent matter, so I don't want to bother my pastors about it.  They are always so busy!!

My mother has officially left the SDA church.  She hasn't attended much in the last several years anyway.  She's very bitter against the SDA church, and in some ways G-d, because of some past history where the church didn't disfellowship my stepfather when he divorced her and treated her horribly, so she took it as a slight against her.  Anyway, my goal is asking this question is NOT to bring her back to the SDA church but rather have something to answer a question she posed to me recently.  While I would LOVE to have her come back and to the church, this isn't my goal.  My goal is to keep her from getting swept up into something all together different and opposite, and for her to return her heart to G-d.

She has been studying with some European Catholics.  Joys!  Anyway, the priest is trying to convince her of Transubstantiation.  Based on the verses in John 6:47-65.

47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me[g] has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

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 food indeed,[h] and My blood is 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.”

59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Turn Away

60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

She asked me to look it over and see what I thought.  I did.  And told her what I thought.  She said, "that's just because you were taught that by the SDA's."  

She has continued to try to discuss this at times.  There will be other issues in the future I know.  Can anyone give me something biblical to help me explain how transubstantiation isn't really what happens?  It sounds crazy, but the less SDA it sounds the better.  Thank you!

[JoeMo]

Hi Rebecca,

What you have posted from John 6:47-59 was a parable of sorts - left as a mystery to all but Jesus' inner circle.  Jesus clarified this mystery at the last supper:

 ^"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”  Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:26-28)

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”  Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.  “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them."  (Mark 14:22-24)

"And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”  In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." (Luke 22:19-20)

These 3 passages explain the symbols Jesus was talking about in John 6.

[pierrepaul]

It depends on what the definition of "is" is. Catholics understand "This is my body" literally. Luther also understood it literally. Catholics emphasize transubstantiation because they are heavily invested in a professional clergy, only members of which may correctly administer the sacraments. No transubstantiation, then no sacrament. If there is no difference between consecrated wafers and non-consecrated wafers, then who needs the priest? We can break bread in our own homes with our friends and family.

1 Peter 2:5 "you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." The NT does not teach a separate priesthood with special powers (such as the power to transubstantiate wafers and wine). We are all called to different roles, but there is no priest - apostles, pastors, teachers, yes - but no separate priests. The Catholic understanding of the sacraments, including the Eucharist, is tied up with their understanding of the priesthood and hierarchical clergy.

SdAs (IMO) haven't really made up our minds on the Lord's supper. We teach that Christ is present at the communion table (Desire of Ages 653, 656 - cited in the Church Manual p 124), but we teach that the bread and wine are only symbols. However, we then teach that only an ordained pastor, or in his absence, an ordained elder, may consecrate the bread and wine and conduct the communion service (Church Manual p 127). And then the Church Manual further states that one must "respectfully dispose of any remaining emblems. In no case should these emblems be consumed or returned to common use." (Church Manual p 126). If the elements (emblems) are merely symbolic and do not include the body and blood of Christ, then why must one ceremoniously dispose of the elements? It's almost as if we're not really sure that nothing happens to the elements upon consecration and its almost as if it takes an ordained pastor or elder (priest??) to properly consecrate the elements. I never really understood the whole transubstantiation vs real presence vs symbolism (Catholics vs Lutherans vs Reformed) arguments that tore the church apart at the beginning of the 16th century, but although this would be heresy to a traditional SdA, it almost seems to me that SdAs and Catholics are not that far apart (Protestants used to accuse Catholics of crucifying Christ over and over through the mass and the Eucharist; I understand that this is a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching).

You don't mention your mother's age or state of mind. In my opinion, if she is of sound mind, I would let her continue her spiritual discovery. As we know, there is much error in the Catholic teachings and traditions, but at the same time, the Catholic message is centered on Christ and Christ crucified. Keep your relationship with your mother. Approach discussions on spirituality and doctrine as an opportunity for mutual sharing and learning - let the Spirit lead. Encourage her to continue to study. You are correct (IMO) not to regurgitate standard SdA talking points - she knows them already.

[JoeMo]

I agree with pierrepaul.  Putting an SDA twist on it will do you no good.  Using the Bible only (no EGW), you can show her how the bread and wine represents Christ's  body and blood.  "Winning the battle" over transubstantiation does not mean you will win the war.  One doesn't need to be an SDA to have a relationship with the Lord of Hosts and gaining eternal life.  As a former Catholic, I respect their viewpoint and the respect that it brings to Holy Communion.  But I don't believe it.  I don't know that it's a salvational issue (except the possibility of idol worship if one worships the host).

[LadyRachelLynn]

This is European Catholic, which is similar but yet very different than Roman Catholic.  I'd like to look more into this Catholic view (Transubstantiation) to see what they are actually teaching.  However, I have not been invited to these studies and it would be a difficult thing even if I was as the town they are held in is an about 45 min drive away.  Single mom, 4 kids = hardship in attending that far away.

My mother is of reasonable sound mind.  However, European Catholic clergys do not abstain from marriage and such, and I know my mother is romantically close with this Priest.  It complicates the issue.

I never use EGW when I deal with my mother or anyone else, unless they bring it up first, as I am not sure where I fall on how to use her writings anyway.  As far as letting her discovery and search go further, I have no say in that.  She lives on her own, and I have no influence.  I am the last SDA in my family and as such, do not hold much credibility, though I am also Jewish, and therefore have some credibility.  Its an odd combo to be sure.  Its more of, I want to be able to arm myself with info before she comes back to me again with her questions.

[8thdaypriest]

Catholicism (even European Catholicism) is basically salvation by sacrament.  And the 7 sacraments can only be administered by priests. 

Concerning transubstantiation:  Jesus said, "It is finished."  He does not need to be offered over and over.  When we eat the bread we "show" our belief in what Christ did. 

Besides,  how could any man create his Creator.  

Anciently pagans believed that the god whose image they were worshiping, actually came into that image, to be present with the worshiper.  Transubstantiation is a version of this old belief. 

[8thdaypriest]

A good resource:  "Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics" by Ron Rhodes (not SDA).