Here's what the evangelical fundamentalists here don't get about Jesus' teaching on Holy Communion.
In John 6:53-58 the Gospel shifts its focus from the figurative "bread of life" discourse to the more concrete Holy Eucharist.
Jesus now stresses that His "flesh" and "blood" are "real food (6:55)," not figurative food.
Lest He be misunderstood as only speaking symbolically, Jesus avoids the Greek word "esthio" for "eat" in favor of "trogo," which is more literal and means "munch on." Thus, Jesus says those who participate in this sacramental act "eat me (6:57)."
More crucially, fundamentalists always duck 3 facts that reinforce this interpretation:
(1) Jesus says that those who thus eat and drink "abide in me, and I in them" and thus experience Jesus' real presence.
(2) Many of Jesus' disciples desert Him upon hearing this cannibalistic-sounding language (6:66) and all Jesus has to do to retain these offended disciples is to make it clear that He is speaking symbolically. But He does not do so because He is NOT speaking symbolically!
(3) John 13 describes the Last Supper, but unlike the other 3 Gospels, makes no mention of Jesus' institution of the sacrament of Holy Communion.
Why? Because the meaning of Communion bread and wine is already discussed in John 6:53-58 and John does not wish to be redundant.
btw, I'm a Protestant evangelical, not a Catholic.
In John 6:53-58 the Gospel shifts its focus from the figurative "bread of life" discourse to the more concrete Holy Eucharist.
Jesus now stresses that His "flesh" and "blood" are "real food (6:55)," not figurative food.
Lest He be misunderstood as only speaking symbolically, Jesus avoids the Greek word "esthio" for "eat" in favor of "trogo," which is more literal and means "munch on." Thus, Jesus says those who participate in this sacramental act "eat me (6:57)."
More crucially, fundamentalists always duck 3 facts that reinforce this interpretation:
(1) Jesus says that those who thus eat and drink "abide in me, and I in them" and thus experience Jesus' real presence.
(2) Many of Jesus' disciples desert Him upon hearing this cannibalistic-sounding language (6:66) and all Jesus has to do to retain these offended disciples is to make it clear that He is speaking symbolically. But He does not do so because He is NOT speaking symbolically!
(3) John 13 describes the Last Supper, but unlike the other 3 Gospels, makes no mention of Jesus' institution of the sacrament of Holy Communion.
Why? Because the meaning of Communion bread and wine is already discussed in John 6:53-58 and John does not wish to be redundant.
btw, I'm a Protestant evangelical, not a Catholic.