Eucharist

[Mickey]

ruzz:

Main Entry: an·am·ne·sis m-w.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: "a-"nam-'nE-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural an·am·ne·ses m-w.com/images/audio.gif /-"sEz/
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek *anamnEsis, *from *anamimnEskesthai *to remember, from *ana- + mimnEskesthai *to remember – more at MIND
1 : a recalling to mind : REMINISCENCE

Greek anamnesis meaning a remembering again

That all seems like a symbol to remember Him with. Like a the smell of perfume that reminds one of their mother.

I am stealing this from mtr01 at another thread because it is a good explanation. I’m sure he won’t mind. If you would like to hold to a symbolic interp, that’s your perogative–you have free will.

**anamnesis, which in Latin is translated as “commemoration”, or in English as “remembrance”. What’s so special about this word? In the Septuagint it is used in connection with a memorial sacrifice (Lev 24:7):

**

***Anamnesis *is used 4 times in the New Testament including 1 Cor 11:24-25 and Hebrews 10:3 (in reference to a memorial sacrifice).
**

***anamnesis *is the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew word *azkarah. Azkarah *is used 7 times in the Old Testament in reference to sacrifice (Lev.2:2,9,16; 5:12; 6:15; Num. 5:26). Therefore, it is evident that the use of the word *anamnesis *in the Last Supper denotes the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist. In other words, our Lord was saying “Whenever you do this, do it as a memorial sacrifice of me”. If He meant, as you suggest, “to remind God of me”, or any “remembering”, the more appropriate word would have been either *mnemosunon *(Mt.26: 13; Mk.14:9; Acts 10:4) or even *anamimnesko *(Mk 11:21). Keep also in mind that anamnesis is a noun not a verb, which is even more support for equating it with a sacrifice (noun) than “to remember” (verb). I bet you didn’t know that the part of the Mass where the sacrifice is re-presented is called the, you guessed it, anamnesis.

 

[mtr01]

Tmaque:

The Gospel of John has been helpful but verse 63 confuses the issue in my opinion: It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life. This may suggest that Jesus wasn’t speaking in the literal sense about eating his flesh, but rather, in the spiritual sense. Because of this verse I felt I needed a deeper understanding of the theology behind the Real Presence. I had chosen to believe just by virtue of faith in the magisterium of the Church. I am now finding deeper reasons for believing and it is wonderful to find things like I mentioned in my previous post.

Hi Tmaque,

I just had a couple of observations concerning John 6:63 that I thought might be helpful to you. First, remember our Lord says he is speaking spiritually, not symbolically; spiritual is not an antonym of literal. One can both speak literally and spiritually. An example of this (and a similar construction) is found in John 3:5-6.

For me (at least) the key lies in the verse immediately preceeding it, where he talks about his Ascension. As we all know, he literally ascended to heaven, which reinforces the literal interpretation. More importantly, this clarifies what our Lord meant by spiritually. In other words instead of a carnal (the opposite of spiritual) interpretation of his words (e.g. the dreaded “cannibalism” claim), we are to eat and drink of his risen, glorified body in a sacramental way. It is the same body, but it is presented to us in a new, spiritual manner - not in a carnal “cannibalistic” way.

 

[Church_Militant]

This is related:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=40172

 

[Maccabees]

Tmaque:

As a convert the Real Presence is something I have struggled with. I’m coming to the conclusion that no matter how impossible it may seem, it must be so. There are just too many things that point to it as a reality. I was reading on a Jewish website yesterday that the Hebrews were commanded to eat the flesh of the Passover lamb and to not break any of it’s bones. I had never heard this before. If Christ is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice, the unblemished and final Passover lamb, then as beneficiaries of the sacrifice it would only be consistent if we too, would be required to eat the flesh of the Lamb. That is why Jesus gave us the Eucharist and why he said “If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you”. Only in authentic Christianity do you find the true link with the Passover sacrifice.
Perhaps most of you knew this already but it was a revelation of sorts for me.

As a convert myself the real presence was one of the few things that I was sure of coming into the church. I had a lot of doubts about a lot of things but for some reason I was blessed to accept this teaching at face value I guess it was mountain of unitive evidece from the earliest christians that yes he;s their in the Body and Blood I didn’t need a degree in theology to figure out all christians beleived this the first thousand years of christiantiy unquestioned and until Calvin this doubt was not widespread. Some things in church history were not as clear like the Marian doctrines the fathers were not as unanimopus not as early in some of the church doctrines so that took some time to take the leap of faith to accept. But the eucharist to a Bible Christian is often what leads a literalist to come to the catholic church.

 

[adnauseum]

I wonder if there is an analogy between “doctors” agreeing to withhold food from Terri Schiavo, and certain protestant pastors withholding Christ in the Eucharist from their flock.

It seems to me both betray their vocation.

 

[ruzz]

adnauseum:

I wonder if there is an analogy between “doctors” agreeing to withhold food from Terri Schiavo, and certain protestant pastors withholding Christ in the Eucharist from their flock.

It seems to me both betray their vocation.

I might remind you that catholic priests withhold the Eucharist from non-confirmed catholics. In fact, being a beliver in Christ is not sufficient to be served. Divorced people as well, cannot receive it.
So if it is so important, why is the church withholding it from those who desire it?

.

 

[adnauseum]

ruzz:

I might remind you that catholic priests withhold the Eucharist from non-confirmed catholics. In fact, being a beliver in Christ is not sufficient to be served. Divorced people as well, cannot receive it.
So if it is so important, why is the church withholding it from those who desire it?.

Because receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is harmful.

If it is the Body of Christ, those who receive it must be free from mortal sin.

That makes sense to me. Not you?

 

[Maccabees]

ruzz:

I might remind you that catholic priests withhold the Eucharist from non-confirmed catholics. In fact, being a beliver in Christ is not sufficient to be served. Divorced people as well, cannot receive it.
So if it is so important, why is the church withholding it from those who desire it?

.

Bad anologies here. First of all non-confirmed catholics need to learn what they are getting themselves into and if they really beleive the catholic faith do they beleive the eucharist to be the body of christ. And of course they need to go to confession after learning the faith in order to recieve the body and blood of Christ in a state of grace which has always been catholic teaching form the Didache in 60 AD.
WHy give protestants who beleive it is a symbol the precious body and blood christ. It’s like giving your 10 year old the keys to a Ferrari they don’t know exactly what they are getting themselves into nor do they realized the responsibility that comes with having access to such power.
The apostles Paul set this principle anyway it is an apostolic tradition to have all those who share the cup of the lord to be of one faith one lord and one baptsim. The Reformed Christians practiced seperate communions as well even they recognized there was something wrong with communing with those who you disagreed with on major doctrinal issues. Of course many prots have suffered from indifferentism and allow anyone to participate in waht is supposed to be a unifiying event you are in communion or with union with those who partake of the cup.
Divorced people can partake in catholic communion. Please know your catholic doctrine before spouting of non-senese.
What is not permitted is those who divorce and remarry. That is not permitted becasue that is adultry. I know protestants allow serial adultry in their church. But since Catholic actually give more than lip service about believing in the Word of God we actually don;t allow serial adulterers to partake of the body and blood of christ we respect Christ too much to do that.
You obviously would risk injuring Christ and the adulterer in order to be tolerant well that is idiotic.

 

[Ignatius]

ruzz:

I have many questions that don’t make sense to me about all this.

I know, “it is a hard saying” isn’t it. Will you also walk away?

May the love of God the Father, the peace of His son Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy spirit be with you always.

 

[ruzz]

Maccabees:

Bad anologies here. First of all non-confirmed catholics need to learn what they are getting themselves into and if they really beleive the catholic faith do they beleive the eucharist to be the body of christ. And of course they need to go to confession after learning the faith in order to recieve the body and blood of Christ in a state of grace which has always been catholic teaching form the Didache in 60 AD.
WHy give protestants who beleive it is a symbol the precious body and blood christ. It’s like giving your 10 year old the keys to a Ferrari they don’t know exactly what they are getting themselves into nor do they realized the responsibility that comes with having access to such power.
The apostles Paul set this principle anyway it is an apostolic tradition to have all those who share the cup of the lord to be of one faith one lord and one baptsim. The Reformed Christians practiced seperate communions as well even they recognized there was something wrong with communing with those who you disagreed with on major doctrinal issues. Of course many prots have suffered from indifferentism and allow anyone to participate in waht is supposed to be a unifiying event you are in communion or with union with those who partake of the cup.
Divorced people can partake in catholic communion. Please know your catholic doctrine before spouting of non-senese.
What is not permitted is those who divorce and remarry. That is not permitted becasue that is adultry. I know protestants allow serial adultry in their church. But since Catholic actually give more than lip service about believing in the Word of God we actually don;t allow serial adulterers to partake of the body and blood of christ we respect Christ too much to do that.
You obviously would risk injuring Christ and the adulterer in order to be tolerant well that is idiotic.

Talk about a poor analogy. Giving your kids the keys to a sports car and not giving people who desire Christ his body are as far apart as possible. A child can get KILLED driving a car. A person can get LIFE from Christ.

WOW! What you’re saying is the Eucharist has a lot of conditions before you can partake. Love of Christ and desire are not enough.

This is one of the main reasons for coming to church. Yet people are turned away because they are not worthy in the eyes of the church.

Would Christ have done that? Did He put conditions? He reached out to those sinners who those around them rejected.
He loves sinners as well as good people. He wants them ALL to come to Him.

What Would Jesus Do?

.

 

[BlueMit11]

ruzz:

Talk about a poor analogy. Giving your kids the keys to a sports car and not giving people who desire Christ his body are as far apart as possible. A child can get KILLED driving a car. A person can get LIFE from Christ.

WOW! What you’re saying is the Eucharist has a lot of conditions before you can partake. Love of Christ and desire are not enough.

This is one of the main reasons for coming to church. Yet people are turned away because they are not worthy in the eyes of the church.

Would Christ have done that? Did He put conditions? He reached out to those sinners who those around them rejected.
He loves sinners as well as good people. He wants them ALL to come to Him.

What Would Jesus Do?

.

If one desires to receive communion, one can. He or she need only be baptized, learn the Catholic doctrine behind the Eucharist, and go to confession. This is an incredible gift from God, and with it comes responsibility–responsibility to understand the gift and to allow God to prepare you to receive it.

Those who are not part of the Catholic Church or are in a state of a mortal sin have already stated by their actions that they do not fully desire Christin the Eucharist. If they did, they would join the Church and/or repent. No one is worthy of this gift, therefore it is not about worthiness. It is about, as you said, true desire.

And, Maccabees, using the word idiotic when speaking to someone who seems to have some interest in the awesome gift of the Eucharist is not a very good way to encourage their openness to this gift. Surely you see that diplomacy (not at the expense of Truth, of course) can go along way in healing the Body of Christ.

 

[Cormier6083]

alterserver_07:

and also I heard that 70% of Catholics don’t truely understand what there Faith is.

Yes I should know, I see it every day at my parish. (IM CATHOLIC)

 

[Church_Militant]

ruzz:

Talk about a poor analogy. Giving your kids the keys to a sports car and not giving people who desire Christ his body are as far apart as possible. A child can get KILLED driving a car. A person can get LIFE from Christ.

You don’t understand what you are talking about. The early church certainly did not allow just anyone who was siiting in their meetings to partake of the Eucharist. You ned to read up on the early church history.

WOW! What you’re saying is the Eucharist has a lot of conditions before you can partake. Love of Christ and desire are not enough.

Well…based on 1st Corinthians 11:23-31, I’d have to say yes indeed. This is a good example of what the man above was trying to get across to you about the dangers of unworthy reception.

This is one of the main reasons for coming to church. Yet people are turned away because they are not worthy in the eyes of the church.

Now you’re being facetious. Most n-C churches might do communion once a week at best, but most are on a monthly or longer cycle, in defience of the NT passages that show that they had this meal every time they came together. Since they choose not to believe the words of Christ Himself in John 6:26-63 it is not miraculous or even scriptural…so it means less to them. In the early church this was not so at all, at all.

Would Christ have done that?

Yes indeed!

Did He put conditions?

Yes again:
John 15:14 You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you.

He reached out to those sinners who those around them rejected.
He loves sinners as well as good people. He wants them ALL to come to Him.

Well DUH! No argument from the Catholics

What Would Jesus Do?

He would obey the will of His Father in heaven. What will you do?
John 8:49 Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honour my Father, and you have dishonoured me. 50 But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

See these links:
catholic.com/library/Institution_of_the_Mass.asp
catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp
catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

Maybe you’ll get a hint from all that…
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

ruzz:

I might remind you that catholic priests withhold the Eucharist from non-confirmed catholics. In fact, being a beliver in Christ is not sufficient to be served. Divorced people as well, cannot receive it.
So if it is so important, why is the church withholding it from those who desire it?.

For their own good…Or do you think that it’s no small thing to put not only their souls in danger, but their lives as well…based on 1st Corinthians 11:23-31 that’s exactly what you are saying we should do.

So…you feel that Jesus clear statements about divorce can be set aside by you and your church. Please don’t attempt to talk to us about the traditions of men that set aside the laws of God, since you just espoused that very thing.

 

[butch57]

yes he is 100% present in the HOLY EUCHARIST!

 

[Ignatius]

ruzz:

I have many questions that don’t make sense to me about all this.

I know, “it is a hard saying” isn’t it. Will you also walk away?

 

[Subrosa]

Hi ruzz!

I think I can answer some of these questions. There is some scripture that helps. Here we go!

ruzz:

But the desciples ate that bread and I’m sure it’s all gone. "IS my body " and WAS His body. Of course we knew that Jesus spoke in many parables. Was he not simply speaking of His death that was about to take place? “The new convenant”?

1 Cor 11:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that 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 death of the Lord until he comes 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

There’s alot going on in this scripture. Pertinant to your questions are vs. 26 & 27. Vs 26 indicates the proclamation of death of Christ each time we take the Eucharist. Vs. 27 puts a caviat on taking the Eucharist. Why would we have to answer for something that occurs only as a representation?

Add to this:
1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Paul is posing the negative form of these questions in order to emphasize the actual participation in the body and blood of Christ. Taking the Eucharist has a consequence.

1 Cor 10:17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

The “loaf of bread” is the body of Christ. We become a part of the “one body” of Christ, spiritually, of course, as a direct result of taking the Eucharist (for we all partake of the one loaf.)

Early Christians “broke bread” in rememberance. They didn’t perform any prayer to convert/transubstanciate it.

and…

What does it require to create “the body of Christ” form bread? How does this happen?

Another look at the scripture:

1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Notice that Paul says the cup is blessed. The Catholic Church does this at Mass. While the bread is not specifically mentioned as blessed, it is part of the whole statement and as such included. So, yes, there was some sort of ritual that was done to bless. This is required by a priest to make the transubstantiation.

What if I eat His body but don’t drink his blood? Am I not getting the whole sacrament. I’ve seen many churches who do NOT serve the wine. If Christ commanded we do this, then why aren’t they serving BOTH? Or did Christ (who was about to be killed) want us to simply remember at each meal His sacrifice for our sins (new covenant)?

Just several days ago the woman Terri Shaivo received communion from a priest. It was a single drop of wine. Any amount of the sacrament is legitimate.

I must say, personally I prefer receiving both parts. But, receiving just a drop is sufficient.

I have many questions that don’t make sense to me about all this.

Keep asking! This is how we get to know things.

God bless,
Jerry

 

[Exporter]

Curious:

Where’s the “I don’t know” option?

---

Curious, was that really necessary? That sounds like an anti-Catholic jab.

 

[Ignatius]

ruzz:

I have many questions that don’t make sense to me about all this.
**

I know, “it is a hard saying” isn’t it. Will you also walk away?

May the love of God the Father, the peace of His son Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy spirit be with you always.

 

[Laurel]

It is one of the mysteries of faith…right?