Convince me about the Eucharist

[QuasiCatholic]

(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.

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?
2. 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?
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.)
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?
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.

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

 

[zab]

Actually this forum is about the way that the Liturgy and Sacraments are celebrated, not for defending the doctrines. This thread may get moved to the “Apologetics” forum.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

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 )

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Oh, thanks Zab.

 

[Della]

(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.

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?

No, this is not correct. The host and wine become the body and blood of Christ when the priest says the words of consecration that Jesus commanded be said:

Luke 22[19] 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.”
[20] And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

1Cor.10[16] 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?

1Cor.11[24] 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.”
[27] 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.
[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

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?

Since Jesus is actually everywhere, why not in a little box, as well? Jesus gave us to us under the appearance of bread and wine to make it easy to receive him. I see it as an act of ultimate love.

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.

No, his presence is spiritual but real. Spiritual does not mean metaphorical–it means in a manner not discernible by our 5 senses.

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.

It’s both/and nor either/or. Jesus being present in the Eucharist in no way limits his presence in heaven. He gave us the Eucharist to fulfill his promise that he would “be with you always, until the end of time.” We cannot see his risen, glorified body now, but we can receive him in the Eucharist until he comes again.

(continued in next post…)

 

[Della]

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.)

What you are doing here in rationalizing away Jesus’ clear statement. Jesus never said he was speaking metaphorically. Indeed, he simply said, “This is…” not “This is if you want to believe it” or “This is metaphorically speaking.”

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?

It doesn’t make any sense the way you describe it. But that’s not what happened. The accidents of bread and wine–their physical appearance remains the same, but their substance becomes the body and blood of Christ.

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.

In remembrance of me means to make it present not merely to memorialize it. This was Our Lord’s direct command. If we were to accept your interpretation it would mean Jesus commanded an unnecessary thing, because it would only be a “memory”, but he never commanded anything that wasn’t truly important or that we didn’t need to do. He meant what he said as the Church says it because it is how the Apostles understood it and their successors since 33 AD. The Orthodox believe the same thing and their roots are also apostolic.

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

I hope I helped. You have misconceptions and are trying to understand spiritual things by mere human reasoning. Reason is fine, but one needs to understand these things through faith, not without it or it becomes unreasonable to the earthly mind. Faith comes first and then understanding–not the other way around.

 

[Della]

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 )

Unleavened bread was used at Passover. The Eucharist is the completion of the Passover in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Therefore, the Church uses unleavened bread.

 

[zab]

It is not my job to convince anyone about the truths of the Catholic Church. But for those who are truly interested in learning, these tracts on this topic may be helpful:

The Real Presence**- **The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and…

Christ In The Eucharist**- **Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals…

 

[QuasiCatholic]

What you are doing here in rationalizing away Jesus’ clear statement. Jesus never said he was speaking metaphorically. Indeed, he simply said, “This is…” not “This is if you want to believe it” or “This is metaphorically speaking.”

The sentence “This is my body” is pretty much exactly the definition of a metaphor – comparing two things without using “like” or “as.” (e.g. “My love is like a rose” = simile, “my love is a rose” = metaphor.) Of course, it’s also the same sentence structure you’d use if you were speaking literally, too. Doesn’t really give you a lot of guidance as to which way he meant it.

It doesn’t make any sense the way you describe it. But that’s not what happened. The accidents of bread and wine–their physical appearance remains the same, but their substance becomes the body and blood of Christ.

I don’t understand your answer here. Are you saying the bread and wine turned into extra flesh that wasn’t previously part of Jesus’ body? If it was part of Jesus’ living flesh, how did it get from him into the bread without leaving wounds on him where it had been?

 

[Della]

The sentence “This is my body” is pretty much exactly the definition of a metaphor – comparing two things without using “like” or “as.” (e.g. “My love is like a rose” = simile, “my love is a rose” = metaphor.) Of course, it’s also the same sentence structure you’d use if you were speaking literally, too. Doesn’t really give you a lot of guidance as to which way he meant it.

The word “is” also connotes what a thing is. Such as a whale is a mammal. All Christians up until the 16th century believed in the Eucharist as taught by the Apostles. Even Luther believed in it, as well as most of the other reformers. It was a serious departure from the historical/theological understanding to say it is not actually the body and blood of Christ.

I don’t understand your answer here. Are you saying the bread and wine turned into extra flesh that wasn’t previously part of Jesus’ body? If it was part of Jesus’ living flesh, how did it get from him into the bread without leaving wounds on him where it had been?

Jesus had not yet been tortured at that Passover nor crucified. What he offered at the Passover meal was in anticipation of those events. God is not bound to time and space, as we are. Jesus drew on a future event to make present his body and blood in the bread and wine. In a similar way, we draw on a past event, the crucifixion, making it present (in remembrance of me) when we partake of the Eucharist at Mass. You are thinking two-dimensionally and limiting God to time and space.

 

[Michael_Allen]

Hi QuasiCatholic

Would it be too much of a stretch for you to think that you might “meet” Christ in the breaking of bread? Several different churches believe that Christ really is present in the sacrament of breaking of the bread, but they will think of it in different ways. For the Lutheran, as I understand it, they believe that Christ becomes present as the communicant receives communion - that is the time that Christ becomes present *with *the bread. The Orthodox Church don’t try to define details - they simply accept that Christ is present in the sacrament (they won’t then keep the bread as Catholics do in their churches). Anglicans of the traditional kind might think of it like the Lutherans, like the Catholics, or like the Orthodox Church.

Perhaps all these Churches are trying to understand and express something that is ultimately beyond philosophical analysis (the Orthodox Church seems most content at accepting the real presence of Christ without trying to describe the details of how it works). What seems important to me (and I admit this is just a personal perspective) is that in the Eucharist heaven and Earth, Christ and his people, are coming together in what we might call a “liminal” space - that boundary between the mundane and the divine. Christ indwell sin us, and we indwell in Him, in a deep communion that hopefully extends beyond the Eucharist. Some call it a “thin” space. You might have experienced these liminal or thin places elsewhere as I don’t think they are limited to the Eucharist, but I see the sacraments as being regular touching points between the mundane and the divine.

Anyway, not sure if that helps or not. Well done on being willing to go along and pray with your boyfriend - it sounds like you have a generous heart. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

God bless +

Michael

 

[MJCamp]

(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.

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?
2. 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?
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.)
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?
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.

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

At what point did your protestant brethren determine that the Eucharist was symbolic? 1500AD? I believe if you do your research, you will see the apostles and early church fathers were in no way doubting the sacrifice Jesus made for them. There are tons of writings backing the Catholic Church and the Eucharist. Also suggest reading John Chpt 6 from a Catholic point of view. (yes, the one’s who actually put the Bible together in the fourth century). Scripture backs the Catholic Faith on every subject that Protestantism seems to have disputes with. All it takes is a little reading and research. I wonder what all those Jews and Gentiles did before the Bible was put together in the 4th century? Has it ever occurred to our protestant brethren that the practice of the Eucharist, Confession, Priesthood, Anointing of the Sick, Confimation were all being handed down through Sacred Tradition? These were the practices of our early fathers, the one’s who were taught by Jesus disciples. To reject what our early saints passed on from the teachings of Jesus himself, is a serious form of misguidance by our Christian brothers

 

[QuasiCatholic]

At what point did your protestant brethren determine that the Eucharist was symbolic? 1500AD? I believe if you do your research, you will see the apostles and early church fathers were in no way doubting the sacrifice Jesus made for them.

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.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Hi QuasiCatholic

What seems important to me (and I admit this is just a personal perspective) is that in the Eucharist heaven and Earth, Christ and his people, are coming together in what we might call a “liminal” space - that boundary between the mundane and the divine.

Michael

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?

 

[QuasiCatholic]

[No message]

 

[SMA_12]

Something that I find convincing, that is not usually used in apologetic debates (maybe it should be), is a comparison to the original Passover.

Let me explain. I would assume most Christians agree that the Old Testament prefigured the New Testament and the New Testament fulfills the Old. Also, in this light, most Christians agree that Christ is the Passover Lamb of the New Testament- the NT says this to be true.

Well, looking at the first Passover Lamb, it was not only necessary for the Jews enslaved in Egypt to sacrifice the Lamb to be spared from the last plague, they had to eat the lamb, not symbolically, but literally.

Now fast forward to the New Testament, when Christ is celebrating the Passover with His disciples He tells them to eat (gnaw/chew) his flesh and drink His blood. Is it just a coincidence? Or is the Old Testament fulfilled in the New Testament, where the Passover Lamb of the New Testament not only had to be sacrificed, but eaten, for us to be saved from eternal death?

Christ answers this question for us when he says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.”

 

[QuasiCatholic]

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?

 

[SMA_12]

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.”

 

[Della]

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.

Not quite. They didn’t think the earth was flat, and never did–that is a myth, women were/still are forbidden to preach in the Church (no one may preach except those ordained, so no laymen preachers, either), and the earth is the center of the universe because all points in the universe are at the center–because there is no center. The earth orbits the sun, but even the sun is not at the center of the universe. And the priesthood is a discipline, not a doctrine/dogma, so it may be changed–not likely, but it may be. Only doctrines and dogmas may not be changed. We are not talking about scientific theories that may change with further knowledge, but of doctrines, such as the divinity of Christ, that cannot and will not change–ever.

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 the Church only holds to those beliefs that were passed down by the Apostles, so no problem there. The Catholic Church does not have the authority to change any of the teachings of the Apostles, therefore, it never will.

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.

Jesus is not sacrificed again and again in the Eucharist. Rather, the one sacrifice of Christ is made present in the Eucharist. There is a huge difference between the two. Please don’t use the term “cracker.” That is offensive and belittling. Rather, the proper term is “host.”

 

[MJCamp]

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.

Earth being flat or Earth being in the center has nothing to do with divine interpretation. It is still OK for priests to be married under certain circumstances. God is divine and doesn’t change. The Catholic Church does not change belief or dogma because it fits with the times. Catholics do not sacrifice Jesus over and over like you stated here. There are plenty of good books and writings that explain the Eucharistic Sacrifice for what it truly is, other than that which seems to be spread by misinformed protestants. Calm down my friend

Matthew 16:17-19

English Standard Version (ESV)

17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock[a] I will build my church, and the gates of hell** shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[c] in heaven.”

Do you know where St. Peter’s final resting place happens to be?**