Roman Catholic Theology:Does the Bread and Wine Become the Physical Body and Blood of Jesus?

The passage that seems to be used to support the RC view that the sacraments (bread and the wine) become the actual body and blood of Jesus is John 6:53-58. Also, I was just reading the Zenit Catholic news, and the Roman Catholic church claims to have scientific evidence to support their claims. First, we would do well to remember that Pharoah's magicians also did a number of "miracles" in challenge to Moses' acts. Were the magicians' works of God? No. Is it possible for a miracle to be performed by Satan? Clearly, yes. Therefore, it is possible to be misled by miracles and so we must test them against the Word of God. Also, we must remember that Mark 13:22 states that "false Christs and false prophets would arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead asray, if possible, the elect." Returning to John 6:53-58, we would do well to re-read the whole chapter -- here are some of my notes:

The main focus of chapter six is bread (Earthly and Heavenly). The first thing we encounter is Jesus feeding 5000 men (plus women and children) by physically multiplying 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish from a young boy's lunch. We are told that this crowd was following Jesus because of the miracles of healing which He had performed earlier on the people. We also note that Jesus was testing Phillip in the feeding of the people. Jesus asks Phillip a provoking question (hoping to evoke the right answer -- one of faith), for either way -- whether God provided the funds to buy the bread, or provided the bread itself -- a miracle would have to be performed. Phillip fails the test by merely stating the obvious, not showing any sign of faith (even after all the other miracles that Jesus performed showing that He clearly can do the impossible). Instead, Andrew steps out and shows the faith that Phillip was lacking. It is also interesting to note that after Jesus performed the miracle, He asked that the leftovers be picked up so that nothing went to waste. I think that this becomes particularly interesting later in chapter 6 when a parallel is made between bread and the Word of God.

Jesus immediately goes to be by Himself to avoid the crowd making Him king by force. Later that evening, He walks on water to the disciples who are out in the boat crossing the sea. Interestingly, after He had already demonstrated His power over demons and disease, and His ability to multiply food to feed many, they became afraid when they saw Him walking on water. Obviously, they still didn't quite get the fact that Jesus was the very author of creation and could exert full control over all of it any time He pleased. The next miracle was that they immediately were at the other side without having to row another stroke. The whole day had really been a bizarre departure from reality. Really, I can't blame the very natural reactions of the disciples.

Now we come to the scriptures in question. Jesus essentially repeats the message in various ways that it is He Himself (Jesus) who is the bread of life. First, Jesus tells the people that they are seeking Him not because of the miracles but because of the food that they ate by His hand. He admonishes them not to work for physical food, but spiritual food which will be administered to them by Jesus. Second, Jesus reminds the people that it was not Moses who gave them the bread from heaven, but it is the Father that gives the true bread out of heaven. Thirdly, He identifies Himself as the bread of life: the one who comes to Him will not hunger and he who believes in Him will not thirst. It should be crystal clear at this point that we are not talking about physical food and drink, but rather spiritual food and drink.

Note verses 47-50: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven so that one may eat of it and not die." So, if we must eat of Christ to not die, then what happened to all those who did not do so, such as John the Baptist, Moses, Elijah, Abraham, David, etc.? Are they spiritually dead because they did not eat of Jesus' flesh and blood? Obviously, Jesus is not talking about physical death here because even all the popes and cardinals who partake of the eucharist have died.

It is verses 51 onwards that make the statements about eating the flesh and blood of Jesus. But I assert that these do not speak of His physical flesh and blood. It is very clear that unless you eat of His flesh and drink of His blood you will not have eternal life. What of the criminal on the cross beside Jesus to whom Jesus said would be in paradise that day? What about all the protestants that do not believe this -- rather that these are symbols to remind us of the great penalty Jesus paid for our sins? Clearly, from the preceeding passages, it is in coming to Jesus and believing on Him that we are saved -- this is what He is referring to.

Here are some points to consider:

1. Jesus clearly makes us aware that the bread that we are to 'eat' is what came down from heaven (John 6:32, 41, 58). What came down from heaven was not the physical body of Jesus (he was born of the virgin Mary), but the spirit called the Word (John 1:1, 14).
   
2. Jesus makes it clear that eating and drinking are equated with coming to Christ and believing in Him (John 6:35, 47). Jesus then says that His words are spiritual (John 6:63). How could Jesus say that the flesh profits nothing if He is talking about eating His physical flesh?
   
3. The Jews were the ones who misunderstood Jesus thinking that He was talking about eating His physical body and drinking His physical blood (John 6:52).
   
4. The disciples had already had many experiences with Christ using physical references to represent spiritual matters (i.e. plucking out your eye if your eye causes you to sin, Jesus being described as a door, etc.). It would have been unheard of for Jesus' disciples to misunderstand Jesus as talking about the physical here since it was against the written word of God for the Jews to drink blood. Jesus could not have been telling them to break God's law by drinking blood.
   
5. The offense to some of the disciples from the words of Jesus was not about eating the flesh (see point 4) but that Jesus claimed to come down from heaven (John 6:41, 42) and that a person must come through Jesus for eternal life (John 6:33-40, 50).
   
6. The only way that we can know what the disciples took offence at would be by Jesus' words because Jesus knew their thoughts (John 6:61). This is an important point. Jesus answered their objections not by talking about the eating of the flesh but states the fact that if they were offended by His saying that he came down from heaven, would they not take further offense when He returns to heaven (John 6:62, 63)? This clearly points to the fact that the offense was that Jesus was more than just a man and that He came down from heaven and he was able to give eternal life to whoever comes to Him. Some of the disciples of Jesus followed Jesus for one reason or another, but they had a self-righteousness and did not believe that Jesus was necessary for eternal life (John 6:64).
   
7. Jesus did not go after the disciples that left, not because they did not understand Him and needed Jesus to explain Himself, but because they lacked belief in Him and that is the reason they left Him (John 6:64). Jesus does not chase after those who refuse to believe. He let them go because you cannot force someone to believe against their own will.

In Summary, while I confess that there are many things I do not know and certainly that I could be wrong here, I firmly believe that if we study the Word in order to seek the truth that we will find it. While agreement with the Catholic view on these matters does not necessarily mean you are unsaved (salvation has to do with coming to Christ and believing on Him -- such faith produces works in accordance with repentance), why would you want to believe an error? Should we not desire to seek the truth? If we allow ourselves to believe what we know are errors or doubtful, then we are entering into dangerous territory. For instance, believing that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus has led to idolatry (the worship of the elements).

Roman Catholic Theology:Is Peter the Rock Upon Which Jesus was Building His Church?

The claim from the RC church that Peter is the rock on which the Church is built is from Matthew 16:18. After Peter confesses: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," Jesus says to him: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (NASB). On this verse the RC church bases her whole doctrine. How do we know if they are correct or in error? As good Bereans, we should do at least the following 2 things whenever we are offered an interpretation of scripture:

1. First and foremost, we must establish the local context in which the verse in question lies. Who is the speaker? Who is the audience and what understanding did they have of the things being spoken of? For the latter, reading relevant parts of the Talmud (or Jewish oral traditions) would help to understand the mindset of those Jews who joined the early church. What was being done or said before and after the verse? If it is a letter, re-read the entire letter in one sitting to get the greater context as well as tone.
2. Secondly, carefully examine key words within the verse in question. Then search the entire Bible for these key words to find out how the Bible uses these terms in the rest of scripture. Anyone is capable of doing this, and with modern computer technology and freely available Bible software (ie. http://www.e-sword.net/), it is quite easy. Without these, a concordance will help. In this case, we want to look at the term "Rock" and any variants, such as "stone," etc.

Of course, whenever approaching scripture, we must do so in prayer and in submission to the Holy Spirit's leading. It is very easy and natural for us to look for support for our current understanding. If scripture disagrees with our current understanding, we must be open to allow the Holy Spirit to teach us and to renew our minds and to correct us. One of the keys to reading the Bible is to never read a verse. Never ever read a verse in isolation; always read it in its contexts (both local and within the general context of scripture).

Local Context:

In the local context of Matt 16:18, we immediately see the following. Prior to the discussion in question, we read in verses 8-11 that Jesus is rebuking His disciples for their lack of comprehension. Jesus clarifies that He was not speaking about physical bread when warning them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Matthew then writes that they then realized that Jesus was not speaking literally of the leaven of bread but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. [NOTE: make a mental note of this, as it will come into play when dealing with the physical properties of the bread and the wine].

Next, Jesus asks His disciples firstly who others think He is, and secondly who they think He is. When Peter replies correctly, that Jesus is the Christ - the Son of the living God, Jesus blesses him indicating the this information was revealed to him by the Father above. Jesus tells Peter his name and that upon "this" rock He will build His church. Then Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose on earth.

The following context is often missed by those supporting the RC interpretation. First, Jesus charges His disciples to tell no one that He was the Christ. Second, He begins to show them how he must suffer and be killed to which Peter rebukes Jesus, telling Him that this shall never happen to Him. What is Jesus' response now? "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man" (Mat 16:23, ESV). And this man, Peter, is the "rock" that the RC church leans so heavily upon? Not to mention that Peter was also the disciple who outright denied even knowing Christ three times -- and in fact, this specific example seems to serve precisely to demonstrate that Peter is not
THE rock. You should be asking yourself, "is Peter the rock being spoken of by Jesus, or am I missing something?". Next, let\'s look at the broad context of scripture in the word "rock."

Broad Context: scriptural references to "rock" --

In the scripture, there are more than 100 references with the word "rock." The following is a highlight of my findings:


• Rock is a term often used to refer to God as the author's salvation, refuge and deliverer (ie. 1 Sam 2:2-3; 2 Sam 22:1-4; 22:29-37; 22:47; Psalms 18:2-3; 18:46; 19:14; 31:2-3; 62:2; 71:3; 78:35; 89:26; Isaiah 26:4; etc.)
  
• Several times the statement "There is no other Rock; I know not one" is made of God (ie. Isaiah 44:8; Psalms 18:31).
  
• One of the few times rock is used to describe something other than God is in Isaiah 31:5-9 where the Assyrian's rock will pass away because of panic. Here, a different Hebrew word for rock is used (strong's H5553).
  
• One interesting verse that stuck out to me was Psalms 61:2b where David, the great Psalmist and a man after God's own heart says "Lead me to the rock that is higher than I".
  
• Isaiah 51:1-2 is a very interesting and powerful set of verses. Here, Isaiah refers to the people of God as pieces hewn from the rock. He reminds them to look to their father Abraham and Sarah who gave birth to them in pain. When he was but one, God called him, blessed him and multiplied him. This is very much an image forshadowing Christ, the only righteous one whom the Father blessed and multiplied in the church (us).
  
• Earlier in Matthew, (7:24-25), we get a clear picture of the imagery Jesus is calling upon in 16:18: "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock." So it is the wise man who builds his house on the rock.
  
• In Romans 9:30-33, Paul clarifies for us that the stumbling stone, the rock of offense is Christ -- that those who believe in Him will not be disappointed.
  
• In Ephesians 4:15, Paul identifies the head of the church as Christ.
  
• In 1 Cor 10:1-4, Paul identifies clearly who the rock is: "...and the rock was Christ."
  
• Peter himself explains that he was not "the unique cornerstone of the church" in 1 Peter 2:4-10:
  

  1 Peter 2:4-10 (NASB, capitalization used for OT quotations):
  (4) And coming to Him as to a living stone (G3037) which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, (5) you also, as living stones (G3037), are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (6) For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE (G3037), A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." (7) This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "THE STONE (G3037) WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone," (8) and, "A STONE (G3037) OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK (G4073) OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. (9) But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; (10) for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY."

Clearly then, all of scripture contradicts the view that Peter would be "The Rock" upon which the church is built. The scripture states that all believers are like little living stones hewn from the Rock, that is Christ. In fact, another scripture that seems to confirm this understanding further is Rev 2:17 where Jesus declares to those who overcome, "...I will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it." Why give a stone? Because it reminds us that we are new creatures in Christ, that we are now in fact a piece of Christ and receive a our new identity in Him.

Finally, John 21:15-17 is often used to support the statement that Peter is the chief leader of the church. However, these verses do not state this! Jesus knows things about Peter that we don't and He knows His heart. He asks if Peter is more committed to Him than the fish. Then He commands him to "Tend My lambs," "Feed My sheep" and "Tend My sheep." Peter, in addition to being a fisher of men, was to be a shepherd -- a tender and feeder of the flock -- but nowhere does it state that Peter should be the chief shepherd of the flock. If Jesus was inferring that he was the chief shepherd, there would be much more said about Peter such as the prophecies about David or Abraham and their decendents. But nothing of the sort is said about Peter. In light of other scripture, we can clearly see that Peter being the chief shepherd/leader is an incorrect interpretation of this passage.

Our Christian Roots - Are They Roman Catholic?

A good friend at church has been studying our Christian roots lately and came to the conclusion that "since the Catholic church was all there was for a long time, then this is where our true roots lie." It is commendable to seek to know our roots. History is important, and remembering it is important and we are also instructed to do so in the scripture. George Santayana once said that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." We also want to remember the good things from the past so that we can repeat them! When speaking of the roots of the Christian church, we are ultimately speaking of the church of Acts. We must be careful to base our theology upon an intimate knowledge of it, and not of churches proceeding it, many of which had become corrupted in various ways, the errors of which Paul was already addressing in his letters.

I want to point out the difference between the terms "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic." Catholic refers to something universal, and "Roman Catholic" refers to the Roman Catholic church which was after the apostles and was not the church of the apostles. The term "Catholic," when applied to the church, refers to the "universal Christian church" --or more specificaly in the context of which we are speaking, "the ancient undivided Christian church" (see http://dictionary.com).