Eucharist question

[Rightlydivide]

I am reminded of the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy in the 7th century, where a monk, upon consecrating the bread and wine had great doubts as to the real presence of Jesus. Before his eyes, and the eyes of those present, the bread turned into real flesh and the blood coagulated into 5 globbles of blood.

The species is still present today in Lanciano, for public view. several scientific experimentations have been done on the flesh and blood and it is conclusive that it is true flesh and true blood, with no preservatives. Type AB+ blood. Both scpecies belong to the same person. Just a few of the scientific facts that you can read and study if you are interested. Many other Eucharistic miracles have occured, but none greater.

If you are going to bring science into this equation, you will surely realize that none of the controls to make your assertion valid were present. I do not need to go that way but since you are going that route…

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I have no clue what the ask me into your heart question means. You will have to explain that to me.

The Fundamentalist churches I attended exhorted people at the end of every service to ask Jesus into their hearts and accept Him as their Personal Lord and Saviour, and by doing that they would be “born again.” I’m still trying to find the verse that says “Ask Jesus into your heart and thou shalt be saved.”

You did not answer my question, well you did but it just repeats your beliefs, it does not address substance or accident.

The terms substance and accident do not need to be written in Scripture. Jesus says “This is…” while He’s holding what appears to be bread and wine, yet He says they’re His Body and Blood. So which is it? It appears to be bread, but Jesus just said it is His Body. I think I’ll go with Jesus on this one.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Fundamentalist churches I attended exhorted people at the end of every service to ask Jesus into their hearts and accept Him as their Personal Lord and Saviour, and by doing that they would be “born again.” I’m still trying to find the verse that says “Ask Jesus into your heart and thou shalt be saved.”

There is not one. I have never used that phrase. I follow the Bible, not some tradition of man.

The terms substance and accident do not need to be written in Scripture. Jesus says “This is…” while He’s holding what appears to be bread and wine, yet He says they’re His Body and Blood. So which is it? It appears to be bread, but Jesus just said it is His Body. I think I’ll go with Jesus on this one. :thumbsup

 

[bov]

Anyone who would doubt the Real Presense of Jesus in Eucharist would have to doubt everything that Jesus tuaght on the doctrine and everything the early Chruch Fathers taught on the doctrine and everything the Chruch for 2000 years has tuaght on the doctrine. Nothing more can be said that has not been taught by Christ and His Chruch.

 

[bov]

How much more clear can Jesus say it “This IS my body, This IS my blood”. He did not say this represents my body or this symbolizes my blood.

 

[Rightlydivide]

How much more clear can Jesus say it “This IS my body, This IS my blood”. He did not say this represents my body or this symbolizes my blood.

But they were not his body or his blood. How much more clear could THAT be? Figurative Language is not that complicated…

 

[Rightlydivide]

Anyone who would doubt the Real Presense of Jesus in Eucharist would have to doubt everything that Jesus tuaght on the doctrine and everything the early Chruch Fathers taught on the doctrine and everything the Chruch for 2000 years has tuaght on the doctrine. Nothing more can be said that has not been taught by Christ and His Chruch.

No I believe everything Jesus taught about it. Thats why I know John 6. If I believed he was being literal all I would need to do was go on over to the Catholic Church and have some of the Eucharist and I would have eternal life forever. But of course Catholics do not take that literally as we know.
I am not surprised at all that people were getting things wrong early on. Last I checked, most of the NT letters are people being corrected for boneheaded things they were doing.

 

[vocatio]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Seder

I realize the source, but the information is on other sites. I liked this one because of the pictures. Read about the passover meal. In order to understand what Jesus was doing, you need to be Jewish, or at least study up on it. Don’t just assume.

The 3rd cup has a significance and when you read this article you will come to understand something that pleasantly surprised me. It’s not Lent yet, but why not get an early start even before Advent. The rituals and the wine/cup and bread all have significant meaning. This goes back to Moses remember. Remember the 4th cup. Read Scott Hahn’s book “The Lamb’s Supper”. He covers this in a very simple way that makes it easy to follow. He just took Church teaching and applied Protestant methods to teach it. Worked for me.

I prefer to receive both elements. I’d prefer both for all, however, some peole can’t receive everything for varioius medical reasons. I just respect them when I offer them the Eucharist for Father.

 

[sambos671]

You’re totally missing my point. I’m not at all arguing that our priests should do things exactly the same as the Jewish priests.

I’m just arguing that a ‘priesthood of all believers’, such as the Jews had by the way (the concept is from the OT), doesn’t mean we all have the same role or all perform the same functions or do the same things, or offer sacrifice in the same manner.

My question of the Eucharist doesn’t have anything to do with priestly functions. It is clear that Jesus wants us to partake in the body and blood as believers. Thats how the apostles did it and the Early Christians did it. Justin Martyr explains the communion well and does not limit the intake of both elements of communion. So, my question was if this is the body and blood of Christ then it would follow both should be taken.

 

[ralphinal]

My question of the Eucharist doesn’t have anything to do with priestly functions. It is clear that Jesus wants us to partake in the body and blood as believers. Thats how the apostles did it and the Early Christians did it. Justin Martyr explains the communion well and does not limit the intake of both elements of communion. So, my question was if this is the body and blood of Christ then it would follow both should be taken.

This may have been asked and answered already, but what if they run out of Body or Blood?

 

[Peter_J]

Read any account of the Last Supper. While He may never have used the exact terms “substance” and “accident” (when did He ever say, “Ask Me into your heart and accept Me as your Personal Saviour”?) that’s exactly what He taught when He held up bread and said, “THIS IS My body” and likewise with the cup, “THIS IS My blood.”

Perhaps you fail to realize that a lot of apologetics is fundamentally “reactive”. Not just Catholic apologetics, but Protestant apologetics as well (like if you were to ask a Protestant “When was the last time you heard a sermon that mentioned Mary, the Mother of Jesus?” and instead of answering, he or she responded with “Oh, I guess you think we should talk about her all the time and pray to her, like the Catholics do!”)

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Last I checked, most of the NT letters are people being corrected for boneheaded things they were doing.

Where in the NT were the early Christians being “corrected” for believing that participation in the bread and wine was a participation in the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

See 1 Cor. 11:23-29

[23] 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,
[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.”
[25] 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.”
[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
[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.
[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

This seems to support the Catholic position - i.e. that the bread and wine should be discerned as the body, lest a man be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

How could a person profane the body and blood of the Lord by eating, if all they ate was bread and all they drank was wine?

Should we not understand Jesus in John 6 as telling us plain truth when He said…

[51] 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."
[52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
[53] 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, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

I do not understand how such an adamant statement… repeated four times… can be dismissed as figurative when Jesus Himself did not explain the language as figurative to the disciples who “departed” from him because of such a “hard” saying. He affirmed that what he spoke was the truth… a truth that manifested clearly after his resurrection, when He even revealed himself to his disciples with the breaking of bread after the resurrection.

See Luke 24:30-35

[30] When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.
[31] And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.
[32] They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?”
[33] And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,
[34] who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”
[35] Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

(See also, John, Chapter 21, where Jesus appears with bread and directs Simon Peter to “Feed His Sheep”)

I think that professed “bible believing” christians engage in mental gymnastics to avoid the reality of the Eucharist that would spring from the pages of the bible if it were not held in check by those who still say it is a “hard” teaching to accept. Christ is the Pascal sacrifice… let us keep the feast. (1 Cor. 5:7-8: “…For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”)

It is His will to feed us, ALL of His sheep, with the Living Bread.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

My question of the Eucharist doesn’t have anything to do with priestly functions. It is clear that Jesus wants us to partake in the body and blood as believers. Thats how the apostles did it and the Early Christians did it. Justin Martyr explains the communion well and does not limit the intake of both elements of communion. So, my question was if this is the body and blood of Christ then it would follow both should be taken.

I agree with you that both should be taken, because the taking of both species is a more full sign of the communion that we share in.

However, there is a distinction that is important here - i.e. whether both species MUST be taken to receive the fullness of the sacrament. The Church has answered this question in the negative, because it teaches that wherever Christ is present He is full and complete. Thus, one who cannot partake of bread because of allergies or other maladies can still fully communicate, while a person who cannot drink wine may fully communicate by receiving Christ’s Real Presence under the appearance of bread only. It is not hard to understand why the Church teaches this way. By the same errant logic of the utraquists, one may conclude that if the communion host one is to receive is broken in half - one would only receive half of the body. This also was rejected by the Church at Trent.

And it has already been pointed out on this thread that in all of the eastern Catholic churches the practice of giving both host and cup has remained consistent through the centuries. The practice of withholding the cup in the west was, in large part, the Church’s attempt to correct the utraquist heresy that your question implies - i.e. that the sacrament cannot be fully received unless one partakes under both species. It is wrong to think this because it is wrong to think that Jesus Christ is less than fully present at any time and at any place. Scripture and tradition soundly defeat the position that was taken by some of the reformers, that receipt under both species was necessary.

You can read about the totality of the Real Presence here. And you can read about the Utraquists here.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[anjoh66]

I have a question on this, i am a catechumen and when it is time for me to recieve my baptism and my communion and confirmation will i be given only the host or both wine and host?

In my parish usually they only give the host at the time of eucharist.