Convince me about the Eucharist

[Miriam1947]

They also thought the Earth was at the center of the universe, that the Earth was flat, that women were forbidden from speaking in church, that it was OK for priests to be married, etc.

Just because a belief or interpretation has survived since the early days doesn’t necessarily mean it’s correct, or that it won’t change in the future.

And Protestants don’t doubt Jesus’ sacrifice. We just think the one sacrifice was enough. No need to relive it over and over again in cracker form.

What a nasty little comment. Sounds like something from a Chick tract.

We do not re-sacrifice Christ. Perhaps some reading of actual Catholic literature or the catechism would help you understand better.

I see that I came into this thread late and the cracker issue has been remarked upon. Hopefully Quasi, you have found more reading to be helpful to you.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

As Flannery O’Conner famously quipped back to alienated ex-catholic Mary McCarthy’s condesending remark that the Eucharist was a “pretty good symbol”, Miss O’Conner replied “if it’s just a symbol, the hell with it!”

“*Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever *
*spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if *
*they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many *
*writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”–*Martin Luther, Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7, p.391

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

About mid-way through his 3 year ministry, Jesus gives his “Bread of Life Discourse” in John 6. This strait-out sermon (NOT a parable and flat out NOT a metaphor or simile) so upsets his listeners that MOST of his followers abandon him at this point
in his career (6:66)

*"‘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 bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living *
*bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to *
*eat?’ So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, youhave no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For *
my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed’" (John 6:47-55).

religion.wikia.com/wiki/Catholic_Exegesis_of_John_6,_%22Bread_of_Life_Discourse%22

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’” (Luke 22:19).

The Lucan greek and the other synoptic Gospel passages (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22) is: “Touto estin to soma mou”.

Paul differs slightly: “Touto mou estin to soma” (1 Cor. 11:24).

All four passages translate as “This is my body.” The verb “estin” is the equivalent of the English “is” and can mean either “is really” or “is figuratively.” The usual meaning of estin is the first (check any Greek lexicon), just as, in English, the
verb “is” usually is taken literally unless there is some clear indication it is not literal.

Many fundamentalists claim Jesus must have been speaking figuratively because there is no word in aramaic (the language Christ spoke) for “represents” so the greek “estin” must mean the non-literal sense. This is truly faulty linguistic
scholarship because Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman demonstrated 100+ years ago that 1st century aramaic had over 30 words meaning “represents”, “stands for”, symbolizes", etc…

Jesus, as he did in John 6:51, equates the body he will sacrifice at Calvary and the blood he will shed there with the Eucharistic sacrifice he is presenting to the apostles:

“This is my body,which is given for you” (Lk 22:19)
“This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28)

By Christ’s own declaration this equating of the Eucharist to His sacrfice on the cross makes BOTH conveyers of sin-forgiving salvific grace (the most direct reading and understanding) OR BOTH are equelly symbolic (of what???) and non literal (and
this strained, tenuous and inconsistent interpretation is clearly brought in to avoid the clear and direct reading of the text).

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

*"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which 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 of 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 Lord’s death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:23-26).

The koine greek word “remembrance” is “anamnesis”; Every time (without exception) it occurs in greek of the New Testament or Septuagint (Old Testament), it occurs in actual sacrificial context (the word in the Hebrew text is “zikuron” which has the
same essential meaning and context as anamnesis).“Anamnesis” also has the concurrent meaning of “to make the past present”, as in Jews celebrating the Passover dinner (of Jesus’ day and ours as well), literaly eating a literal lamb, are participating in the SAME sacrificial dinner their ancestors did prior to their escape from Egypt. Multiple times Jesus is identified as the “lamb of God” and as the Baptist
proclaimed “who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). It was the blood of the lamb on the Hebrews’ lintels that allowed the Angel of Death to pass over their houses sparing them from physical death (Ex 12); it is the blood of Jesus shed
at Cavalry that spares us from eternal spiritual death. In John 6 as well as all 3 synoptic accounts, Jesus equates the sacrifice of his body, the blood shed at Calvary with “body” one must eat and the “blood” one must drink to have eternal
life. Paul calls Jesus “our paschal lamb…who has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7). Recall also that Jesus is explicitly identified with the “lamb slain” (sacrificed) “but still standing” (Rev 5:6).

The explicit understanding of the Eucharist being “sacrifice”, the SAME (one and ONLY one sarifice for all people and for all time) sacrifice Christ offered at Cavalry occurs explicitly in the Church’s first years. When Jesus said ", “Do this in
remembrance of me” (Touto poieite tan eman anamnasin; Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24–25) these first Christians were FAR better versed in the context and language of their time and place to know it meant “Offer this as my memorial offering.”

 

[Ohana]

Hi Quasi,

Thanks for coming here seeking answers - it shows a lot of courage, and even though you cannot buy in to our way of believing in the Eucharist, a lot of faith.

I am not a good arguer (is that a word?). What I would suggest is that you submit your questions to Jesus in the Holy Spirit. Uh, don’t make the mistake I often do when asking something that really bothers me, -take time to listen as well as to ask!

One thing I would say about reserving the Consecrated Hosts in the Tabernacle is that it is not so much about putting Jesus in a box (I mean, who can?), as it is protecting the Hosts from vandalism or other insults. Most of us who have been Catholic for a long time can walk into a church an tell almost immediately whether the “Real Presence” is present. There is just a sense, for me, of the air being more dense. When the place of reservation is in a side chapel, the sense is different.

I got your comment about the metaphor/simile difference. Yet there is also the idea of identity. Partly it is in how the words are emphasized. "This IS My Body, This
IS My Blood. In John we hear that “God IS Love” which is another identity statement.

God Bless you for seeking!

But i repeat myself! Hope!.

 

[Porknpie]

Quasi -

Suggest reading Brandt Pitre’s book below. It will help you understand that the first Jewish Christian converts did not dispute the Real Presence and why. Great book.

amazon.com/Jesus-Jewish-Roots-Eucharist-Unlocking/dp/0385531842

if you believe that Christ taught the apostles and the apostles taught their immediate decendants correctly without error then you must listen to the words of St Ignatius who was a disciple of St John.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

Similarly Justin Martyr writes that they were taught about the Eucharist (from the apostles)

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

So it is a question of who do you believe…those taught by the apostles who were taught by Christ or someone 1,500 years later who misinterprets a Catholic book?

Pork

 

[ohms]

My advice would be to ask Jesus to show you that he is really present in the Eucharist in Mass.

Even if you can’t consume the body and blood, God will happily give you confirmation that he is present as he says. Go with an open mind, humble heart and a desire to experience whatever your Heavenly Father wants to show you. Childlike trust in the one who loves you and will never deceive you is the key to opening all the doors.

 

[Porknpie]

My advice would be to ask Jesus to show you that he is really present in the Eucharist in Mass.

that’s good advice but also, Catholics use faith and reason in our journey in understanding the the essence of God. In the case of the belief in the Real Presence, reason comes into play when we understand that Jesus taught his apostles as reflected in scripture, as reflected in the writings of the early Church and as reflected in Tradition. No where does the early Church write about a symbolic communion, a false gospel that was brought forward in the reformation when the bible was removed from the Apostolic faith that produced it.

Even if you can’t consume the body and blood, God will happily give you confirmation that he is present as he says. Go with an open mind, humble heart and a desire to experience whatever your Heavenly Father wants to show you. Childlike trust in the one who loves you and will never deceive you is the key to opening all the doors.

we pray at Mass for those not able to receive the Eucharist that they may be healed. But if Jesus wanted us to receive him in this manner during the liturgy he would have said so. He didn’t .