Concerning the Eucharist

[porthos11]

When our Lord Jesus Christ said “Do this in memory of me”, it is a living memorial!

Ah, memory, the other favourite “symbolic” word.

Memory, remembrance, memorial (Heb. zikkaron; Gk. anamnesis) does not refer to mere mental recall as our English “memory”. These words refer to the kind of memorial where the event being remembered is actually made present. This is how the Jews celebrated the Passover, for example. The event was not merely being remembered in one’s head, but was, in a mystical way, made present; they were, as it was, re-living the event.

This is how we understand “memory”. It’s not symbolic; it’s very real.

Further, we need to also realize that the word “Do” (Gk. poieo) is the same word used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew (ta’asheh; “offer” in this context). While the same word is also used for “make” and “do” in the normal sense, it also has a sacrificial sense.

We never take words in isolation. Combine poieo, anamnesis, soma and aima in the same context, and you get the language of a Sacrifice.

 

[myway]

“The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

I’m still unsure. What does this even mean if not referencing a pure symbolism?

“the flesh is no help at all”
Also, what does this mean in any context?

The word spirit was translated from the Hebrew word Ruah. In Hebrew Ruah could mean breath, air, and wind. When Jesus refered to spirit he meant the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus calls himself the truth the way and light John 14:6, which means Jesus will live on through his followers.

 

[TheCurious0ne]

Ah, memory, the other favourite “symbolic” word.

Memory, remembrance, memorial (Heb. zikkaron; Gk. anamnesis) does not refer to mere mental recall as our English “memory”. These words refer to the kind of memorial where the event being remembered is actually made present. This is how the Jews celebrated the Passover, for example. The event was not merely being remembered in one’s head, but was, in a mystical way, made present; they were, as it was, re-living the event.

This is how we understand “memory”. It’s not symbolic; it’s very real.

Further, we need to also realize that the word “Do” (Gk. poieo) is the same word used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew (ta’asheh; “offer” in this context). While the same word is also used for “make” and “do” in the normal sense, it also has a sacrificial sense.

We never take words in isolation. Combine poieo, anamnesis, soma and aima in the same context, and you get the language of a Sacrifice.

This answers a lot of the questions I had concerning mass, thank you.

 

[TheCurious0ne]

It would help much to ask our Blessed Mother for an increase in faith.

I pray at least a decade a day for just this reason.

I haven’t really gone on CARM in a while as , but I’ve been there in the past.
It’s just comments I see EVERYWHERE about Catholics going to hell for this an that and this and that. It just strikes a nerve and many of them seem to have convincing points, points worth reading about. You know eternity is a long time to suffer, I’d like to be sure about what I believe.

 

[littlestsouls2]

I’ll be honest, I sometimes believe the Eucharist is pure Idolatry, that’s why I’m so very concerned.

The Saints were not idolaters.

Read this - even part of it - and your doubts will vanish:

archive.org/stream/theblessedeuchar00meuluoft#page/n5/mode/2up

Excerpt:
"St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who lived in the first century, wrote as follows to the faithful of Smyrna: “Because the heretics refuse to acknowledge the Holy Eucharist to be the same Flesh which suffered for our sins and was raised again to life by God the Father, they die a miserable death and perish without hope.”

 

[TheCurious0ne]

Have you read through the Catholic Answers tracts on the Eucharist? They address these questions.

Yes I have; I’ve also read the non-Catholic responses to them. I wish those tracts would go more in depth sometimes and I also find some of them unconvincing. It’d be much better if the tracts included more in depth objections with more in depth responses- kind of like a devils advocate tract. I also like conversation; I enjoy the dialogue and find it more fulfilling.

 

[TheCurious0ne]

Anyway, do you doubt that the early Church believed in the Eucharist? Do you think the Church Jesus built went astray on such a crucial point in less than a century?

Let me answer this from a purely devils advocate point of view.

Early Christians believed a lot of erroneous things, having some early Christians believe something doesn’t inherently make it true.

One last question for the night. Probably a very basic one but one I’ve never read a great answer for; why does the Eucharist still look and taste like bread and wine?

 

[TheCurious0ne]

I would also remind the OP that in case of doubt, you have the obligation to bring this up with your pastor or another trusted person to help you through the doubts, and again, to stay away from anti-Catholic material. The latter is a violation of the First Commandment.

Since you mentioned this a few times… my priest(s) are aware of some of doubts just not the depth of them. But you’re right, I should/shall make the one closest to me more aware.

Now. What defines anti-catholic? Something that challenges Catholic teaching? If Catholic teaching is true then that means that anti-catholic material is nonsense; that should erase my doubt.I do not believe in this “all outside information is of satan” mindset. That’s what the Mormon church does to control it’s mindless followers.
My strength in belief in God came from questioning, I expect faith in his Church to as well.

 

[littlestsouls2]

One last question for the night. Probably a very basic one but one I’ve never read a great answer for; why does the Eucharist still look and taste like bread and wine?

**The Eucharist is the Risen Lord. **“God is as really present in the consecrated Host as He is in the glory of Heaven.” (St. Paschal Baylon)

"By this change, then, of the substance of the bread into the body of Christ, this body, itself remaining unchanged, becomes really present under the accidents of the bread, because these accidents lose the real and containing relation they had to the substance of the bread and they acquire a new, real, and containing relation to the body of Christ. This new real relation presupposes a real foundation, which is transubstantiation…

Christ’s body is in the Eucharist, not as in a place but in the manner of substance. [913] The quantity of Christ’s body is also really present in the Eucharist, but again, in the manner of substance, that is, by its relation, not to place, but to its own substance, since it is present, not by local adduction, but only by a change exclusively substantial. Thus we see too that it is numerically the same body which, without division or distance, is simultaneously in heaven and in the Eucharist, because it is present in the Eucharist illocally, in the manner of substance, in an order superior to the order of space."

• Rev. Garrigou-Lagrange

 

[Duane1966]

Why does translating as “trogo” inherently must mean it is literal? In my experience to chew or gnaw something can be taken symbolically. (I.E bite off more than you can chew)

Phago, which can be used metaphorically, is used in the beginning of the discourse. But Jesus ramps it up when he sees the people are confused, and changes the word to trogo, which is never used metaphorically. Why would some disciples walk away if Jesus was bebeing symbolic?

The prominent Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly admits that it is quite clear that Jesus is not talking about His flesh when He says the flesh availeth nothing. If that is true, does His crucifixion availeth nothing, since that is also His flesh?

 

[Todd977]

“The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

I’m still unsure. What does this even mean if not referencing a pure symbolism?

“the flesh is no help at all”
Also, what does this mean in any context?

63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63)

I think the key to understanding what Jesus means in John 6:63 is to read something similar that St Paul wrote:
12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.
14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. (1 Corinthians 2:12-15)

“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail…”: The flesh, that is, the things of this world in themselves are not spiritually life-giving; the Spirit, that is, the gifts of the Spirit of God, are spiritually life-giving. The gifts of the Spirit of God are spiritually discerned through faith. The unspiritual person, relying solely on what he can perceive with his senses, on his flesh, cannot receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, he is not able to understand them, they are folly to him.

“…the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life”: The teaching that you must eat Jesus, eat his flesh and drink his blood, is a spiritual truth that concerns a gift of the Spirit of God, which is spiritually life-giving and spiritually discerned through faith. It concerns a gift that the unspiritual person, relying solely on what he can perceive with his senses, cannot receive or understand. Jesus was talking about a spiritual reality that can only be discerned through faith.

This is all a general description of a sacrament, “an efficacious sign of grace…by which divine life is dispensed to us through the work of the Holy Spirit.” To the unspiritual person, the sacrament of Baptism is nothing more than a quick washing with water; to the spiritual person, Baptism is also, through the work of the Spirit, a spiritual washing away of sins, a spiritual rebirth, etc. To the unspiritual person, Confirmation and the Anointing of the Sick are nothing more than the application of a little oil; to the spiritual person Confirmation is also, through the work of the Spirit, a strengthening of the spiritual gifts received at Baptism and the Anointing of the Sick is also, through the work of the Spirit, at the least a spiritual healing. To the unspiritual person Confession is simply a brief conversation; to the spiritual person Confession is also, through the work of the Spirit, an absolution of sins. To the unspiritual person the Eucharist is just a pitiful little snack, a bit of common bread and a sip of wine; to the spiritual person the Eucharist is also, through the work of the Spirit, Jesus Christ really present under the appearance of bread and wine offering himself to us in a most loving, intimate and humble way so that we might participate in his sacrifice on the cross that redeemed us, freed and continues to free us from the power of sin and death, etc.

 

[fred_conty]

Let me answer this from a purely devils advocate point of view.

Early Christians believed a lot of erroneous things, having some early Christians believe something doesn’t inherently make it true.

One last question for the night. Probably a very basic one but one I’ve never read a great answer for; why does the Eucharist still look and taste like bread and wine?

If the Eucharist looked like real flesh and real blood, wouldn’t that be too repulsive to us to be eaten? Jesus knew this, and so he let the appearance remain as normal food we are accustomed to so we could consume it without revulsion.

At the last supper, when Jesus had given his apostles his flesh and blood to eat and drink, he concluded it by saying that as often as they did this, they should do it in memory of him. And so some reasoned from this that this ceremony is just a memorial and nothing more.

But … Jesus could have said all that he said at the Last Supper and left out that the bread was his flesh and the wine was his blood and still had a memorial. He could have just passed wine and bread around to them without saying they were his flesh and blood and still say, do this in memory of me. But he went to the great length of saying those exact words … “this is my body”, “this is my blood”. And later he says, whoever eats my body and drinks my blood lives in me and I in him."

And so it was more than just the memorial of the old Passover of eating an unblemished lamb, but the new Passover of eating the unblemished lamb, the Son of God. And just as the old Passover was a memorial of being spared death because of the lamb, the new Passover was a memorial of being spared death eternal because of the lamb, “which will be given up for you”, meaning the slaughter of the lamb on the cross. In both Passovers,the unblemished lamb is to be eaten.

 

[Wesrock]

That which the host ultimately is in essence changes, but it remains under the appearance of bread and wine, and by appearance I would include all of the human senses, not just sight.

I doubt it would be palatable, otherwise, but is such a mystery so beyond God? While the Passover element of the Eucharist is pretty obvious, the sacrament is demonstrated in many other acts involving bread in the Old Testament, from Melchizedek’s offering of bread and wine, to the holy bread, the manna, the Israelites ate in the desert and expected the Messiah to bring back in abundance, to the “shewbread,” or the bread of the presence (of God), which was, in a way, a presentation of the face God to the Jews at three major feats during the year.

The idea that it’s just a symbol and not something more just seems absurd to me. It is so central to the faith and the apostolically passed down beliefs, present in all of the oldest churches, such as Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

I don’t think of the sacrament is terms of simply eating. This is a representation (a making present) of and participation in Jesus’ offering on the cross. In the Eucharist, Jesus gives himself totally, not just a little sliver of flesh or a drop of blood, but his entire self: body, blood, soul, and divinity, to each of us who receive, eternally. And we become partakers of the divine nature. God took on our humanity so that way share in his divinity. And he left us real signs and participatory actions so that we may do so.

 

[TheCurious0ne]

Ah, memory, the other favourite “symbolic” word.

Memory, remembrance, memorial (Heb. zikkaron; Gk. anamnesis) does not refer to mere mental recall as our English “memory”. These words refer to the kind of memorial where the event being remembered is actually made present. This is how the Jews celebrated the Passover, for example. The event was not merely being remembered in one’s head, but was, in a mystical way, made present; they were, as it was, re-living the event.

This is how we understand “memory”. It’s not symbolic; it’s very real.

Further, we need to also realize that the word “Do” (Gk. poieo) is the same word used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew (ta’asheh; “offer” in this context). While the same word is also used for “make” and “do” in the normal sense, it also has a sacrificial sense.

We never take words in isolation. Combine poieo, anamnesis, soma and aima in the same context, and you get the language of a Sacrifice.

Iff this is true I no longer have any questions surrounding the Eucharist. Most doubt I had is pretty well erased with that paragraph.

 

[TheCurious0ne]

And so it was more than just the memorial of the old Passover of eating an unblemished lamb, but the new Passover of eating the unblemished lamb, the Son of God. And just as the old Passover was a memorial of being spared death because of the lamb, the new Passover was a memorial of being spared death eternal because of the lamb, “which will be given up for you”, meaning the slaughter of the lamb on the cross. In both Passovers,the unblemished lamb is to be eaten.

I never knew they ate the lamb.

I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming for the Eucharist at this point. I’m content.

 

[Wesrock]

Iff this is true I no longer have any questions surrounding the Eucharist. Most doubt I had is pretty well erased with that paragraph.

That is how I was taught, too, and that’s what the Church says goes on in the mass today.

Here is the Koine Greek of Luke 22:19.
19 καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου [o]τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

 

[porthos11]

Iff this is true I no longer have any questions surrounding the Eucharist. Most doubt I had is pretty well erased with that paragraph.

Then blessed be the Lord, who enlightens by his grace all who seek him in faith.

Prayers.

 

[Dorothy]

Then blessed be the Lord, who enlightens by his grace all who seek him in faith.

Prayers.

Alleluia!

 

[adamhovey1988]

I apologize. I feel like I’ve been uncharitably defensive in how I’ve written.

There is a lot written attesting to the Real Presence, not just modern day but back to the oldest documents of the Church. Please, please read some Catholic writings on this, not just Protestant.

A lot of Orthodox have good writings on this too. Also, the apostolic fathers attest to the real presence. I feel like you are intentionally convincing yourself that the Eucharist is idolatry. No. But an invalid Eucharist can be. If a Catholic received communion in a Protestant community, said Catholic WOULD be guilty of idolatry. If the Eucharist is just a symbol, then guess what? It would be an idol! The following from one my favourite writers, Flannery O’Connor

“Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. Mrs. Broadwater said when she was a child and received the host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the most portable person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. Mrs. Broadwater said when she was a child and received the host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the most portable person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.”. which is how I feel.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Iff this is true I no longer have any questions surrounding the Eucharist. Most doubt I had is pretty well erased with that paragraph.