Do Catholics worship the Eucharist?

[Linda_Marie]

Yes, we worship the Eucharist. The Eucharist is God.

God said, ‘let there be light.’
God said, “this is my body.”

No matter what it looks like anymore, the Eucharist is the Body of Christ. The priest acts ‘In Persona Christi’, that is - in the Person of Christ, when he consecrates the Eucharist. A miracle occurs on the altar when the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Eternity, Calvary, is present on the altar.

Read John 6 and then the accounts of the Last Supper.

Then, there’s the Eucharistic Miracles:
Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association
(there’s lots more about the Eucharist at this link, in addition to the miracles)

Throughout Christian history, our Lord has shown us that he is really present as the Blessed Sacrament. Interestingly, many Eucharistic miracles have occurred during times of weakened Faith. For instance, many Eucharist miracles have taken place as a result of someone doubting the Real Presence. Included on this page are descriptions of just a few of these miracles. All of them have received full approval by the Church.

Most Eucharistic miracles involve incidences in which the Host has “turned into human flesh and blood”. Of course we as Catholics believe that the consecrated Host is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord, under the appearances of bread and wine. Therefore, Jesus, through these miracles, merely manifests His Presence in a more tangible way.

“Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.’ Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.’” (Jn 20:27-29)

Eucharistic Miracle
Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.

Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano

It was the Eucharist which drew me to the Church and the Eucharist which sustains me and gives me life. I have no life but what God gives me with His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

 

[dcana]

Apology accepted.

Thank you for accepting my apology.

It is spoken about here all the times. You have less than 100 posts, so you may not be aware of the fact.
I mentioned in my post to you that I am aware of the CC’s position. I am not offended that you would repeat it. I expext you to as a Catholic. In a charitable dialogue, I will repsond that I respectfully disagree with the Catholic Church’s position, and point out two things: 1) the growing convergence between our communions on a number of fronts, including statements from the USCCB regarding their respect for our clergy, and 2) that I suspect that the particular question of Apostolic Succession would not be a barrier for unity.

What do you mean by “respect” for your clergy? We should all respect everyone, even me. Do you mean that some bishops are now of the opinion that their orders are valid? That opinion one way or the other by certain bishops doesn’t change the status of their orders. The USCCB puts out a lot of statements. PLEASE correct me if I’m wrong but after a lengthy investigation, hasn’t Rome *officially *declared that their orders are invalid?

I hope it wouldn’t be a barrier to unity either. They would just need to be ordained.

You are the one who chose to describe using his words. I feel that was unfortunate. Clearly, by your post here, that is not the kind of person you are. I will assume it was a poor choice of words. We all do that here, at some point.

Yes, it was a poor choice of words. However, any “eucharist” either is or isn’t Jesus. If it’s not Jesus physically present then it’s a piece of bread, whether one refers to it as a cookie, a wafer, a host, or by any other name. Jack Chick accuses Catholics, and I can only assume Anglicans and Lutherans, if he’s at all consistent (maybe I’m assuming too much) of idolatry. In fact, he refers to the host as the “death cookie” and certainly believes that anyone participating in these sacraments are deserving of the just punishment of idolatry, namely hell. I would never say such a thing, although, for me to be consistent, and I try to be, he and I would agree that there is de facto idolatry going on, if you define idolatry as worshiping something that is not God. However, with these groups of Protestants, there is no sin of idolatry being committed because for there to be sin, there must be knowledge that the thing being done is contrary to the law of God. If someone believed he was worshiping a wafer, that would be idolatry, though, for the life of me, I can’t imagine why anybody would believe that a simple piece of bread is God. The classic case of idolatry is the Jews of the OT and their idols. They literally bowed down to these “works of human hands” as if they were one of the various gods worshiped by the people of Canaan or the surrounding area. Actually, I doubt that any actually worshiped the statue itself, which, after all, was nothing but some clay made into the shape of some figure, but their “idea” of the god that the idol represented, who they believed actually existed and could entreat for their needs, instead of the LORD, by name, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If a Christian of these sects believed that a piece of bread only was present on the altar, he wouldn’t worship it. That would be silly. He would either become a Catholic or a member of another religious group that believes like he does. How can grace possibly come from this? Because our God is an all-merciful and all-knowing God who sees mens’ hearts. He knows that they are trying to honor Him by their participation in these rites and, I believe, accepts that, so that they are indeed truly honoring and even worshiping Him. Sounds paradoxical, I know, but that’s the way I see it. “My ways are not your ways” …

I missed this one. As JonNC said, there have been lots of posts around here, over the years, on, particularly, Anglican orders. Most of them involving me; I’ve been around a long time. And Apostolicae Curae, its sad history, the personalities and politics and theology involved in it; Monsgr. Raphael Merry del Val word’s over Leo XIII’s signature in 1896, has been a hobby of mine for much longer than I’ve been around here, even. Ten years plus. Trust me. The topic gets discussed regularly. Especially by me, whenever it comes up.

Forgive my ignorance. Its “sad history and personalities and politics and theology involved in it” notwithstanding, it is still a bull issued by Leo XIII that declares Anglican orders “null and void.” So what’s the issue, in a nutshell? Is there any possibility that a bull can be “overturned,” so to speak?

That would be unfortunate. We all grow in love and charity, by hearing and listening to each other.

Jon

Eh. Thank you for the sentiment but I think I’ll leave it to the professionals and go back to being a lurker on this forum.

 

[Dominic_Korozya]

Catholics worship the Eucharist because it is exactly what Christ told us it was.

 

[GKC]

“Forgive my ignorance. Its “sad history and personalities and politics and theology involved in it” notwithstanding, it is still a bull issued by Leo XIII that declares Anglican orders “null and void.” So what’s the issue, in a nutshell? Is there any possibility that a bull can be “overturned,” so to speak?”

Possibly; not for me to say, though certainly the wording in AC rather inclines one to believe otherwise. It is not ex cathedra, but must be accepted and affirmed by the RC faithful, at least as sententia ad fidem pertinens, it would seem (personal opinion). And certainly, in all the discussions I have on the subject I remind RCs, if needful, that they should affirm the conclusion as stated.

My point was that the subject is a well-rehearsed one here, that springs up regularly, and draws me regularly, to discuss precisely what was said, and why, by whom, and what other factors might have a bearing on the matter (if not the form and intent). And to remind folks that Anglicans, being Anglicans, do not affirm Leo’s dictum. It is quite true to say that, IAW AC, all RCs should affirm Anglican orders as null and void. Which is not the same as saying Anglican orders are null and void.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

 

[rinnie]

Here is something to think about. Jesus said this is the bread of life, whoever eats this will have eternal life.

Now those are very very powerful words. If this Eucharist can give us eternal life what is Jesus saying. Simple that he is the Eucharist. What people need to realized it is not who the Priest is in Church, how friendly the people are etc. What we do is go to God one on one and receive him everyday in the Eucharist. We share in his body and blood and become one with him.

This can be done no other way!! The Eucharist is not a symbol or replay of the Last Supper. It is the REAL Supper again in the living presence of Christ.

At the Last Supper he told his Apostles I will not be back with you again until I go to my Father. But he did come back!! And he promised them he would be with them always. That is what this Easter celebration is all about. He came back, he is here, he is alive in the Eucharist. The only difference is God now has taken on another way to reveal himself. That is the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is the reason the whole reason for the RCC in being!!

The RCC is ONE IN CHRIST. THROUGH HIM, WITH HIm,And IN HIM IN UNITY WITH THE HOLY SPRIIT ONE GOD FOREVER AND EVER AMEN! We hear it every Sunday.

This is our faith, this is what we proclaim the mystery of his death, and life. This my Friends is the whole reason for our RCC and faith. That Jesus Christ gave that power to the Apostles throught Holy Orders to turn regular bread and wine into the living Christ!!

That is what drives us to grow and grow and strive to become Christ-Like in our life. That powerful Eucharist to receive Christ in our hearts and minds and souls. That is a grace unlike any other possible.

 

[JonNC]

=dcana;6472318]
What do you mean by “respect” for your clergy? We should all respect everyone, even me. Do you mean that some bishops are now of the opinion that their orders are valid? That opinion one way or the other by certain bishops doesn’t change the status of their orders. The USCCB puts out a lot of statements. PLEASE correct me if I’m wrong but after a lengthy investigation, hasn’t Rome *officially *declared that their orders are invalid?

Read some of the joint documents on the USCCB website, such as;
usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml
Again, it is not lost on me or anyone else the stance of the CC on Lutheran orders. I made no claim otherwise. What I am saying is there is changing attitudes between our traditions. Wen Cardinal Ratzinger can say that there is a salvation granting presence of our Lord in a Lutheran Eucharist, that is evidence of a changing attitutde.

I hope it wouldn’t be a barrier to unity either. They would just need to be ordained.

Of course, I will say they already are. How this would be resolved I would leave to leaders.

Yes, it was a poor choice of words. However, any “eucharist” either is or isn’t Jesus. If it’s not Jesus physically present then it’s a piece of bread, whether one refers to it as a cookie, a wafer, a host, or by any other name. Jack Chick accuses Catholics, and I can only assume Anglicans and Lutherans, if he’s at all consistent (maybe I’m assuming too much) of idolatry. In fact, he refers to the host as the “death cookie” and certainly believes that anyone participating in these sacraments are deserving of the just punishment of idolatry, namely hell. I would never say such a thing, although, for me to be consistent, and I try to be, he and I would agree that there is de facto idolatry going on, if you define idolatry as worshiping something that is not God. However, with these groups of Protestants, there is no sin of idolatry being committed because for there to be sin, there must be knowledge that the thing being done is contrary to the law of God. If someone believed he was worshiping a wafer, that would be idolatry, though, for the life of me, I can’t imagine why anybody would believe that a simple piece of bread is God. The classic case of idolatry is the Jews of the OT and their idols. They literally bowed down to these “works of human hands” as if they were one of the various gods worshiped by the people of Canaan or the surrounding area. Actually, I doubt that any actually worshiped the statue itself, which, after all, was nothing but some clay made into the shape of some figure, but their “idea” of the god that the idol represented, who they believed actually existed and could entreat for their needs, instead of the LORD, by name, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If a Christian of these sects believed that a piece of bread only was present on the altar, he wouldn’t worship it. That would be silly. He would either become a Catholic or a member of another religious group that believes like he does. How can grace possibly come from this? Because our God is an all-merciful and all-knowing God who sees mens’ hearts. He knows that they are trying to honor Him by their participation in these rites and, I believe, accepts that, so that they are indeed truly honoring and even worshiping Him. Sounds paradoxical, I know, but that’s the way I see it. “My ways are not your ways” …

Forgive my ignorance. Its “sad history and personalities and politics and theology involved in it” notwithstanding, it is still a bull issued by Leo XIII that declares Anglican orders “null and void.” So what’s the issue, in a nutshell? Is there any possibility that a bull can be “overturned,” so to speak?

Eh. Thank you for the sentiment but I think I’ll leave it to the professionals and go back to being a lurker on this forum

The interesting thing is that this is well said. I don’t agree with everything you say, obviously, but I appreciate the way you’ve said it. Hope you’ll participate more.

Jon

 

[dcana]

Thank you. I would amend it to say that there is, in fact, no idolatry going on at all. Of course, that is a huge change in what I was saying. Because idolatry is, precisely, knowingly worshiping something that is not God, and that does not take place in any of these denominations’ liturgies, for the reason I stated above.

 

[Ignatius]

Prayer before the Holy Eucharist:

Jesus, I believe, I adore, I hope and I love You.
I pray for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not hope and do not love You.

 

[Eileen_T]

In discussions with a non-Christian this subject came up. He was checking out denominations at that time, looking for the one that would convince him to be the One True Church founded by Jesus. He told me that if he found it to be other than the Catholic Church, he would pull out all stops to convert me.

I explained that Catholics worship Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Eucharist. This is why I can never be anything other than a Catholic.

He never did find that Church he was looking for to be other than the CC and now he attends no denomination at all because he couldn’t get past his prejudices towards the CC. He even admitted that he was convinced the Catholic Church was the one founded by Christ and received its Authority from Him.

 

[Contarini]

Yes, Catholics worship the Consecrated elements of the Eucharist with latria (worship due only to God). This practice became popular in the West around the 14th Century and was approved at the Council of Trent. Anglo-Catholics will also practice Benediction. However it was never introduced in the East.

Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Anglicans do not deny the Real Presence (but they do deny transubstantiation as it is an Aristotelian term introduced in the Middle Ages) but do not practice adoration on the basis of a Sacrament should not be used for what it is not meant to be used for.

Actually this applies to *extra-liturgical *adoration. You are right that this practice developed only in the West (I’d say more 12-13th centuries–I think 14th century is too late). But the Eastern Church certainly adores Christ in the elements as part of the Eucharistic Liturgy, and this has been standard Christian practice since at least the 4th century.

Your statement is also mutually contradictory, because you first say (rightly) that Anglo-Catholics practice Benediction, and then you claim that Anglicans don’t “practice adoration.” Anglo-Catholics are Anglicans, though not all Anglicans are Anglo-Catholics.

Whether Lutherans adore Christ in the liturgy is for them to answer–I believe that they do, or at least that many of them do (I think Luther did, for one). Anglicans are all over the map. Very low-church Anglicans hold to only a “Calvinist” sense of the Real Presence, which excludes adoration of Christ in the elements. I think a lot more Anglicans would be more or less with the Lutherans and the Orthodox (not that those two positions are identical).

My own view is that Christ certainly should be worshiped in the Sacrament during the Liturgy, and that to worship Christ in the elements outside the Liturgy is not idolatry. I am on the fence as to whether special services dedicated to such worship are a good idea–I tend to think that a regular practice of extra-liturgical Eucharistic devotion is of somewhat dubious wisdom, but I respect the fact that the Latin Catholic Church has thought otherwise for hundreds of years and am slow to reject the practice outright. I genuflect to the Tabernacle, whether in an Anglican or Roman Catholic church (I use “Roman Catholic” here deliberately since we are speaking specifically of Latin usage). And if I go into a Catholic church where Adoration/Benediction is taking place I participate (by the traditional bodily gestures, and sometimes by praying for a few minutes). I wish my parish practiced a Eucharistic vigil after the Holy Thursday liturgy, but I could happily live without services of extra-liturgical Adoration the rest of the year.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Dcana,I know you,like I believe that the Eucharist exists only in the Catholic Church

Aren’t you forgetting the Eastern churches not in communion with Rome? (Chalcedonian Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and I believe also the Church of the East.) I also think that your Communion recognizes the sacraments of the “Old Catholic” churches, though admittedly there aren’t very many of them.

By the way, I appreciate the irenic spirit of your post–sorry for picking on you, but this is something Catholics forget and I wanted to point it out.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

“Do Catholics know when the Bread and Wine become Jesus’ Body and Blood?”

The prayers of consecration and the host is lifted, this is called the “epiclesis”. It takes place during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, after the Liturgy of the Word which the two parts make up the Catholic mass.

No, the “epiclesis” is the act of calling down the Holy Spirit upon the elements. It doesn’t occur in the traditional Western liturgy, although some modern Eucharistic prayers have reintroduced it.

The Latin Catholic position is that the transformation takes place with the Words of Institution. I believe that the scholastics defined the precise moment as the point at which the phrase “Hoc est Corpus Meum” has been fully uttered.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

There is scripture forbidding the worship of man-made ogjects, graven images.

The Eucharist after Consecration is not a “man-made object.”

“What God’s Son has told me, take for truth I do.”

Or, to use an Anglican formulation:

“He was the Word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it,
And what that Word did make it,
That I believe and take it.”

I have been asking for some time about the Sacred Traditions. Is worshipping the Eucharist a tradition that must be followed for one’s salvation?

I’m not particularly interested in what “must be followed for one’s salvation” if by that you mean “what must be followed to escape going to hell” (I figure God doesn’t want me to go to hell, and if I seek the truth as I understand it God will do the rest). I’m interested in what “must be followed to participate fully in the richness of the Christian Faith.” (Granted, that is basically what I think salvation is, but you may mean something different by “salvation.”)

Not talking about whether there is real presence or not-that is a given.

But if you meant by “Real Presence” what the early Church meant, you wouldn’t even be asking this question.

Can you show me how the Apostles worshipped the Eucharist and the chain of passing that tradition down - beginning with Peter?

What do you mean by “show me how the Apostles worshiped the Eucharist”? If it was in Scripture explicitly, there would be no need to show a “chain” of tradition, would there? And how else could we “show” you?

I don’t know what the Apostles did. I know that the practice of worshiping Christ in the Eucharist was well established by the fourth century, and I think it’s entirely reasonable to believe that something like it had been practiced much earlier.

I would think that the practice of worshiping Christ in the Eucharist would develop along with the Church’s view of Christ’s divinity, and the evidence, such as it is, seems to support this.

The focus of our worship is Jesus during our entire service, including during the Lord’s Supper, but His worship remains outside the Eucharist…

Does your entire service focus on Jesus and is then shifted from Jesus to the Eucharist?

If you believe in the Real Presence, then this is a very odd way of speaking. If Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, then how can you switch focus from Jesus to the Eucharist? Clearly we don’t all mean the same thing by the phrase “Real Presence,” which demonstrates why our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters see the need to insist on transubstantiation. (The Catholic cardinal from whom I take my alias insisted on the term at the Regensburg Colloquy precisely for this reason. It puzzles many scholars, especially Protestants, because Contarini seemed like such a reasonable chap up to that point. But this conversation helps show why he felt the need to be so dogmatic.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t know why you would find this insulting? The pagan living in the hut I’m referring to is Aristotle, a non-Christian who invented the term.

I don’t think Aristotle lived in a hut, but I don’t know much about his living quarters and don’t see it as relevant. Many great saints have lived in huts, or even on pillars of rock.

Much more to the point is that Aristotle never used the word “transubstantiation,” and indeed that it would have made no sense to him at all. What you mean is that he used the terms “substance” and “accidents.” Aquinas and other medieval theologians used that terminology to express the Real Presence, but they weren’t being particularly faithful to Aristotle in the way they used it.

Edwin

 

[schaick]

I don’t know what the Apostles did. I know that the practice of worshiping Christ in the Eucharist was well established by the fourth century, and I think it’s entirely reasonable to believe that something like it had been practiced much earlier.

I would think that the practice of worshiping Christ in the Eucharist would develop along with the Church’s view of Christ’s divinity, and the evidence, such as it is, seems to support this.

In Scripture we see how the Eucharist is treated. The real presence is spoken of by Paul:

*1 Corinthians 11
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.*

If you read verse 26 you see that the bread and wine remains the bread and wine yet there is **Real Presence **in the Eucharist. Jesus’ Body and Blood is present in, under and with the bread and wine.

Can one worship the bread and wine if it is simply the** vehicle **of consuming the Body and Blood of Christ?

If you believe in the Real Presence, then this is a very odd way of speaking. If Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, then how can you switch focus from Jesus to the Eucharist? Clearly we don’t all mean the same thing by the phrase “Real Presence,” which demonstrates why our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters see the need to insist on transubstantiation.

I ask because as a mere-Christian when I consume the Body and Blood of Jesus HE becomes internal to me, no longer simply externally omnipresent. HE is no longer simply everywhere but also in me.

I do not look outward for Christ, as to the Eucharist but inwardly.

 

[Lapey]

No, the “epiclesis” is the act of calling down the Holy Spirit upon the elements. It doesn’t occur in the traditional Western liturgy, although some modern Eucharistic prayers have reintroduced it.

The Latin Catholic position is that the transformation takes place with the Words of Institution. I believe that the scholastics defined the precise moment as the point at which the phrase “Hoc est Corpus Meum” has been fully uttered.

Edwin

Thanks once again for correcting my ignorance Edwin, or was it just a poor description on my part. The epiclesis is the invocation of the Holy Spirit which is part of all of the forms now used in the Eucharitic prayers of the Latin Rite Church. It proceeds the words of institution and elevation and followed by a genuflect of adoration by the priests and deacons.

Many speak of this whole process as the epiclesis as did I in my post earlier. Excuse me for not using it in it’s proper context.

Yes the epiclesis is what you describe, but that is not what the quiestion was, it was when is the “change” taking place. You have stated what i believe to be true.

 

[Contarini]

In Scripture we see how the Eucharist is treated. The real presence is spoken of by Paul:

1 Corinthians 11
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

If you read verse 26 you see that the bread and wine remains the bread and wine yet there is **Real Presence **in the Eucharist. Jesus’ Body and Blood is present in, under and with the bread and wine.

Can one worship the bread and wine if it is simply the** vehicle **of consuming the Body and Blood of Christ?

People keep telling you that no one is worshiping bread and wine. People are worshiping Jesus. Jesus said, “This is My Body.” You are interpreting this by a Calvinist theory (you use Lutheran language, but the logic of your position seems more Calvinist) according to which there’s a sharp distinction between the sign (bread and wine) and the thing signified (the Body and Blood) even though believers receive one in receiving the other. But the theory doesn’t itself come from Scripture. (Neither does the theory of transubstantiation–this says nothing about which theory is correct, or whether either is.) It is your attempt to account for the Biblical language.

We clearly agree that in the Eucharist Christians receive the Body and Blood of Jesus. And that’s a very important point of agreement. But I would respectfully suggest that the wisdom of the Christian tradition needs to be heard when it questions the sharp line you seem to want to draw between the “vehicle” and the reality of Christ’s presence.

The Pauline language itself doesn’t solve the issue one way or the other.

I ask because as a mere-Christian when I consume the Body and Blood of Jesus HE becomes internal to me, no longer simply externally omnipresent. HE is no longer simply everywhere but also in me.

I do not look outward for Christ, as to the Eucharist but inwardly.

I think that’s a very good point, and it underlines why many Christians–even the Orthodox to some extent–have problems with the Latin Catholic emphasis on Eucharistic adoration.

At the same time, the problem with a purely “inward” understanding of Christ’s presence is that it becomes indistinguishable from Christ’s spiritual presence within us. The Real Presence becomes just a nice symbolic way of saying that Jesus is in us by faith.

I think it’s an important part of orthodox Christianity (something on which Luther particularly focused, and which the present Pope tends to emphasize) that grace comes to us from outside. It is given to us, not something that just indwells us as an “inner light.”

This external “looking for Christ” which you disparage is, when rightly understood (i.e., that the Eucharist is given us to receive and not simply to adore), a dramatic and embodied reminder that we do not manufacture Christ’s presence within us.

Edwin