Convince me about the Eucharist

[Della]

Hmm … let’s try this as a sub-thought:

Even if I’m not convinced about the whole “real presence” thing, I can at least admit that it’s possible.

Is being open to the idea that the communion wafer might actually become the body and blood of Christ good enough to accept it without it being sacrilegious? Or do you actually need to actively believe that it does?

Yes, this is very good. Every step towards understanding and belief is a good one.

 

[adrift]

It is interesting and to me not accidental that John 6 begins with the miracle of multiplication of bread and fish. This is the chapter that is refereed to as the Bread of Life in which Jesus tells the crowd that in order to have eternal life they must eat His Body and drink His Blood.

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him

As I said, I don’t think it was accidental that the miracle of the people being feed was accidental it points to the miracle of many people being feed by Jesus though He is only one.
Consider also Jesus first miracle of changing water into wine. Is it so hard than to believe that wine can and is (according to Jesus word) changed into Jesus body. Not because we command Him (ridiculous) but He commands us.

“This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”

 

[runningdude]

1. This is sort of a side note, but why does the Catholic Church use communion wafers instead of, you know, bread? I think most Protestant churches (at least the ones I’ve attended) still use actual bread, which seems more reverential/authentic (although I suppose if you wanted to be really authentic you’d probably use something like Pita bread )

The wafer is just a tiny Pita!

(Actually, a simple pita is just unleavened wheat and water, which are the exact ingredients of the wafer)

 

[runningdude]

(I already posted this in the Sacred Scripture forum, but it probably fits better here so I’m re-posting. Thanks!)

Hi folks,

I was raised as a Protestant and am now dating a devout Catholic. I attend a Catholic church with him (since it’s a lot easier to pray as a Protestant at a Catholic church than to pray as a Catholic at a Protestant church), but am currently not planning to convert. There are a few reasons for this, but for now let’s focus on the big one – I cannot accept the idea of the real presence in the Eucharist. Symbolic, sure. Maybe even the presence of the Holy Spirit, OK. But his actually body? No.

I’m listing a couple of my thoughts on why this can’t possibly be literal below. If anyone thinks they can shoot them out of the water, please be my guest. But just keep in mind that I’m looking for a better explanation of a literal presence than “because the church says so.” I’d also appreciate something beyond “all things are possible.” Just because something is possible, doesn’t mean the evidence actually supports it, even when it comes to miracles.

I am a Catholic and was formally in your boyfriend’s shoes (dating a Protestant).

From my experience arguing with her over tiny details, it just made her more steadfastly against the Catholic position. For you, I would recommend a more broad approach.

You would have to meet God halfway. I understand that you have no interest in converting, but you have expressed an interest in understanding your boyfriend’s faith. To understand the Eucharist, you have to interact with it*.

As a Protestant, Communion to you has always been a piece of blessed bread and understood fully as such. The Catholic Church teaches it to be much more, and as such it requires much more time to experience this. During Mass, Communion lasts only a few minutes, and as a non-Catholic you’ve haven’t received. Try visiting a Eucharistic Adoration to have more time.

As it appears to be only bread for you, I won’t ask you to worship the Host itself, but try praying or reflecting silently while in the room.

*Since the Eucharist is Jesus Christ, according to Catholic teaching, I don’t mean for this to sound absurd.

 

[johnnyc176]

You need to actually believe it does.

Take the leap of faith, see what happens!

Spend some time in Adoration and pray for clarity in front of the Blessed Sacrament. You might just get an answer

Read John 6, and then read the story of Thomas in John 20 who would not believe until he actually touched Jesus wounds. “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed.”

Very good advice. I would just add also to read Luke 24:13-35 the road to Emmaus. Then read this commentary…

forcatholicholymass.blogspot.com/2010/04/hidden-mass-on-road-to-emmaus.html

 

[Canuck000]

I’m not sure if this helps or not, but one thing that really got me digging in deeper and deeper with my search was, I googled eucharistic miracles.
I’m a recent convert and I had much of the same questions, even on into RCIA. I had a hard time wrapping my brain around this, but I do absolutely believe in miracles.
After much research on the eucharistic miracles, I was totally convinced.
Welcome!!

 

[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!

 

[kenny111]

I ask that prayer be your guide. Knowledge can be a mistrust. ask in prayer for the Holy Spirit to assist you. The Novena to the Holy Spirit with and open mind. THat is, the desire for the TRUTH not just thought…

A video series has made it easy for me to believe. A series of 9 videos show an answer for you…Signs from GOD. …Mike Willesee now believes…He is a convert.

One must want the truth…not there own truth…

Medjugorje. org …or .com will help…

 

[jediliz]

so you will believe that Jesus turned Water Into Wine (Wedding at Cana), raised several people from the dead, cured the deaf, blind and lame, was able to feed ~5000 people with 2 fish and a few loaves of bread and rose from the dead himself, but when it comes to THE BIG ONE - The LAST SUPPER - GOD can’t DO THAT???

1. The Early Christians died for their belief in the Eucharist, which they called “the holy mysteries”. Maybe you should educate yourself here - read about Saint Tarcisisus
2. Jesus said **THIS IS MY BODY **and THIS IS MY BLOOD
3. IT IS Bread - It is the BREAD OF LIFE, as Jesus called himself in John 6. The hosts are placed in the little house - the tabernacle, which means “dwelling place”, instead of being thrown away…This is JESUS! We’re not going to be throwing HIM away!
4. After the resurrection, the apostles recognized Jesus in the BREAKING OF THE BREAD! Luke Chapter 24:35
   Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

 

[Jon_S_1]

**

1. This is a two-parter: As I understand it, the Catholic Church believes transubstantiation takes place automatically every time a priest asks for it, but also only if it’s invoked by a Catholic priest (so, for example, even though the Episcopalian Church believes in a real presence, Catholics don’t think Jesus actually shows up when they do it.) So a) Do we really think we can summon Jesus on command? And b) if Jesus asked his believers to do this, and the Episcopalians are also true believers, why wouldn’t he show up for them too?

This is not totally correct. I saw it largely answered by another poster, but wanted to point out that Whenever there are valid Holy Orders then Christ is present in the Eucharist. You see, Apostolic succession is key to this. The Apostles handed down their authority to bishops who in turn designate priests as their agents. As such, both eastern and latin Catholics have valid eucharists. Orthodox, Syriac, and Coptic Churches do as well since they are Apostolic Churches. Anglicans, technically may, if apostolic succession was maintained, but since it largely has not it would be a rare anomaly in that church and as such, the Catholic Church considers none of theirs valid. So it has more to do with Apostolic Succession than what the Church is called.

1. The leftover consecrated host is placed into the tabernacle. So not only do we think Jesus shows up on command, but we also think it’s OK to lock him in a little box and make him wait around until we need him again?

This is a way of showing respect and honor to the bread that was consecrated to God,a nd through which Christ becomes present. I see no problem with this…Obviously Jesus is not only in the box, but everywhere, the host in the box, is a special manifestation of Christ and his glory.

1. Someone in another thread told me that Jesus’ real body is wholly and completely present in each and every Communion wafer. That would require there to be millions of Jesus’ in the world simultaneously. Real human bodies with actual flesh and blood can’t multiply themselves.

The Eucharist is Christ’s glorified body after the resurrection. It is that same body, that went through doors and traveled great distances in the blink of an eye. That same body that had mortal wounds, and yet lived. As such, it is a miracle, and considering it is Christ’s glorified body than there is no reason to doubt this or think of it so carnally. God was able to drop mana in the desert for the Israelites, Incarnate himself into mankind, die and conquer death…I mean he created the physical laws and as such he can bend them/break them.

1. On that same note, we are all waiting for the second coming, right? The little hymn during communion even ends with “…until you come again.” If Jesus is actually physically present at the Eucharist, he has already come again over and over and over again.

The second coming is different. We will see Jesus not just have him in a way that is centered in faith. He will come and walk the earth again and take all with him.By the logic you hold here, Jesus coming to Paul on the road to damascus would be the second coming, and his appearance to John on Patmos was his third coming…and so on.

1. I have seen people argue that the fact Jesus let people walk away over the “you must eat my flesh” statement without telling them it was just a metaphor is evidence that it was literal. Why couldn’t it be seen as a test of faith? When God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac he didn’t tell him that he was just kidding until after he was sure Abraham was willing to do it. Maybe Jesus didn’t fix the “misunderstanding” because he wasn’t interested in disciples who wouldn’t follow him no matter what. He then explains it as a symbolic statement to the remaining disciples at the Last Supper when he hands them bread and says “THIS is my body” (i.e. > this is what I was talking about earlier, not actual flesh … but thank you for being willing to eat actual flesh if you had to.)

This doesn’t work at all. I could give you the test of faith thing, and as such we should continue with it, Jesus never clarified this as symbolic to the Apostles, but even if he had, why would he give the “test of faith” to the multitudes and then reveal the “truth” to only the 12? Further, history refutes that the apostles believed this was symbolic.

1. Part II of the above > Jesus is sitting there USING his real human body the first time he gives people bread and tells them that it’s his flesh and they need to eat it. All the tortures later imposed on his by the Romans cause actual physical injuries. But we think his disciples sat there EATING his ACTUAL flesh, and it didn’t hurt him? What sense does that make?

[Stop thinking so carnally and think more miraculously Jesus is God and can manipulate nature how he wants. He can do it with mere words. you know, “Storm be still” and it was still, “Lazarus come out” and he came out, “Little girl wake up” and she woke up, “This is my body” and it is his body, “My flesh is real food” and it is real food.

7) Also, he says “do this in memory of me.” Usually “in memory” suggests the subject isn’t present at the time. If you were doing it for someone who was present, you would say “in honor of” or “in recognition of” or something.

Not necessarily true. If I was on my death bed, I could say “When I am gone, meet in that park we loved every year in memory of me”. That makes total sense.

 

[Michael_Allen]

I actually have no problem with that idea – that God is all around us all the time but that there are certain moments when we become more aware of it. I mean that’s basically the idea of a symbolic communion, that it makes you focus on the sacrifice and what it meant and in doing so brings you closer to God and the rest of the church.

I just don’t think what you’re describing is in line with most Catholics mean when they say “real presence”… Or is it?

Hi QuasiCatholic,

Well, I wouldn’t say that in the Eucharist, in the breaking of bread, we are just more aware of the presence of Christ, but rather that there is a deeply profound sharing in His real presence to the extent we are re-connecting with His one-time sacrifice on Calvary in a special way. Some call this “anamnesis” - a remembrance so deep there is a connection to actual event. Both Orthodox and Catholic views of the Eucharist involve the notion of anamnesis, and this, I would say, goes beyond the typical evangelic view of a symbolic remembrance, though perhaps in the notion of anamnesis we start to make some connections between an evangelical view of communion and a Catholic/Orthodox view of the Eucharist - they are perhaps not necessarily as poles apart as some polemical apologetics (from both Catholics and Evangelicals) would have us believe.

Does that take us anywhere useful? Don’t be afraid to say “no”

 

[Jon_S_1]

Here are the quotes from history. From the Early Church Father’s. (They made my initial post too long)

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

-1 Cor. 10:16-17

“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 in 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. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

-1 Cor. 11:23-27

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

-“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

“First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Earlier in his life he studied under St. Polycarp. Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.

[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."

Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

“So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.”

-"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely

 

[petra22]

I was raised a Catholic all my life, went to Catholic school for 12 years, and it still took me years to discover the richness of my faith. Jesus is real. He said real things. He said it and we believe it. He is present in the Blessed Sacrament, humbling himself under the appearance of bread and wine for the love of us. Can you imagine his glorified body on the altar for us to eat? The Israelites couldn’t even stand to look at the face of Moses after he had talked with the Lord. They made him cover his face to talk to them… We would be prostrate on the floor, which is where we SHOULD be, if Jesus was there in His Glory… He will be one day and when He comes, will we be ready?

You sound honest and sincere. I like that and Jesus likes that, too. Talk to him about your doubts. Other people have. St. Thomas for example said (roughly quoting), “Jesus, I believe. Help my unbelief.” He will meet you where you are if you only ask him.

Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make our hearts like unto thine.

 

[MJCamp]

This website may help explain what the Bible says about the Eucharist. It also explains how the book of Revelation relates the the Holy Mass. It really is amazing when one approaches scripture the way it was intended when the Catholic Church put the Bible together at the Council of Nicea

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#eucharist-IIa

 

[Michael_Allen]

Other people have. St. Thomas for example said (roughly quoting), “Jesus, I believe. Help my unbelief.”

Just to be a little pedantic, that was the father of the possessed boy in Mark 9.

 

[pablope]

(I already posted this in the Sacred Scripture forum, but it probably fits better here so I’m re-posting. Thanks!)

H
6) Part II of the above > Jesus is sitting there USING his real human body the first time he gives people bread and tells them that it’s his flesh and they need to eat it. All the tortures later imposed on his by the Romans cause actual physical injuries. But we think his disciples sat there EATING his ACTUAL flesh, and it didn’t hurt him? What sense does that make?

1. Also, he says “do this in memory of me.” Usually “in memory” suggests the subject isn’t present at the time. If you were doing it for someone who was present, you would say “in honor of” or “in recognition of” or something.

So there you have it. Any ideas on how to get around those stumbling blocks? Thanks!

Here is short journal written by former protestants…chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/eucharist.pdf

But What Do We Mean By “The Real Presence!”
By Dwight Longenecker

The Jewish roots of the Eucharist…amazon.com/Jesus-Jewish-Roots-Eucharist-Unlocking/dp/0385531842

 

[angell1]

Hmm … let’s try this as a sub-thought:

Even if I’m not convinced about the whole “real presence” thing, I can at least admit that it’s possible.

Is being open to the idea that the communion wafer might actually become the body and blood of Christ good enough to accept it without it being sacrilegious? Or do you actually need to actively believe that it does?

if you are thiking of becomng a catholic then yes, you will need to believe it. may i suggest that you pray about it and i think you will get an answer. i struggled with this myself at one point. it is definitely a hurdle to overcome and requires great faith. and as others have pointed out, that was was believed fofr the majority of christianity stemming from the apostles. and for first century jewish apostles to believe it required a great deal of faith on their part since i’m sure you know that consuming blood was totally forbidden by the mosaic law and eating human flesh as well. don’t you think it would have been much easier for them to say it was symbol back then if it really was? everything will be made clear in time. god bless

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Not necessarily true. If I was on my death bed, I could say “When I am gone, meet in that park we loved every year in memory of me”. That makes total sense.

Yeah, but when they met there, you wouldn’t be there with them.

 

[R_C]

Being open is a big step.

Let’s quote some who learned the faith even when there was no bible as we know it.

Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of John, third bishop of Antioch after Peter and Evodius (35 - 98 AD):

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD):

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus *

Cyprian of Carthage (200-258 AD):

He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord

Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386 AD):

The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ.

Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ.

John Chrysostom (347-407 AD):

Let us therefore in all respects put our faith in God and contradict Him in nothing, even if what is said seems to be contrary to our reasonings and to what we see. Let His word be of superior authority to reason and sight. This too be our practice in respect of the Mysteries [Sacrament of Eucharist or Communion], not looking upon what is laid before us, but taking heed also of His words. For words cannot deceive; but our senses are easily cheated. His word has never failed; our senses err most of the time.
When the word says, ‘This is my Body,’ be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual.

As for why only validly ordained priests, I shall quote John Chrysostom again:

For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw nigh to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation.

For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. For it has not been said to them, ‘Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.’ They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants.

…] I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son.

We may also add, as a corollary, two quotes, one from St. Jerome, who brought together the definitive Bible (Biblia Sacra Vulgata, IV Century), and St. Ignatius of Antioch again.

the successors of the apostles…with holy words consecrate the body of Christ, and … make us Christians

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

QuasiCatholic, Della, and everyone, since this thread is active right now (as of 5:51 Eastern Time, Sunday 7/7/13), I set up a private temporary chat room here: www.chatstep.com/#Eucharist

if you want to join. Just an experiment!

VC