Eucharist

[Church_Militant]

Laurel:

It is one of the mysteries of faith…right?

Yes indeed! But remember what the definnition of mystery of faith is…and is not.

It is not “something that cannot be understood”, but “Something that cannot be understood completely.”

I can understand how Our Lord can ask us to participate in something like this that is miraculous, but I cannot understand the exact way that He does what is involved in it. That is one reason why our explainations only go so far and then fail…
Pax vobiscum,

 

[nike248]

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.

There’s also been all sorts of miracles where the Host has turned into flesh or started bleeding. I can give you some links if you like. It certainly helped me out!

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

Wading in with my thoughts, hope you don’t mind.
I believe in the Real Presence, and as such I beleive the teachings of the Church (i.e. that Jesus meant this in a literal way, not symbolic).
If it is only symbolic, it would not matter who partook of the Eucharist or the original supper, for that matter; but we are warned that to partake unworthily (i.e. in a state of mortal sin) essentially makes us culpable for the body and blood of Christ…now, if we use this, going back to the original Supper, who else in a sense was culpable for the body and blood of Jesus on the Cross…we could say Pilate, and to a point we’d be right, but the original culprit was Judas. Now if we look at the Supper, we see that this man who was in a state of mortal sin (i.e. planned to betray Jesus) was omitted from the Supper, and instead was given his own bread and Sop / sauce to consume, at which point Satan took hold. In a sense, by example, Jesus was showing us that if we took his body and blood unworthily, we may as well be partakers of Judas’ brew, for we would be betraying Jesus’ sacrifice for our salvation.
Just my thoughts; I could be wrong, but that is how I see it.

Peace be with you all.

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

There are earlier references to the Eucharist, but I think this from St. Ignatius says it all (although I confess, I may be easily pleased.)

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

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

Peace be with you all

​

 

[BJ_Colbert]

I just have to add my 2 cents here and I mean no offense by it, but after reading here how serious the Eucharist is to Catholics and that you believe it really is literally the blood and body of Jesus Christ, not just a symbol. I attend mass with my husband every week and he takes the Eucharist extremely seriously and if he feels he is not worthy one week he doesn’t take it. But, there are people just going up and mindlessly taking it without the serious thought that should be present if they feel it is the actual blood and body. I think they need to be more mindful of the what they are doing when they take the Eucharist. If they aren’t worthy to partake of the blood and body of Christ then they should abstain until they are worthy. Sorry, I do not really know what your belief is about being worthy or not to take the Eucharist, maybe it doesn’t matter whether they are worthy or not. Does it? BJ

 

[ephphatha]

alterserver_07:

Yes, Jesus is 100% in the Eucharist, not just some symbol, Read Matthew 26 v26-29. This IS my Body, This IS my Blood of the Covenant.

It seems to me that if we take these passages as justifying transubstantiation, then Christ is not in the Eucharist; but rather, Christ is the Eucharist.

 

[mtgman]

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.

read verse 66 "After this, many of His disciples went back and walked no more with him.

This passaage seals the deal for me. If the people didn’t understand Him to be speaking literlly…then why did they leave Him?

This coupled with “this being a hard saying” verse 60. shows that Jesus is speaking literally.

God Bless,

Nate

 

[ephphatha]

mtgman, I haven’t read this whole thread, so I hope you’ll excuse me if I’m just repeating something that has already been said. I wanted to respond to this post you just made.

It seems to me that some of Jesus’ followers left him because they did take him to be speaking literally. I don’t have a Bible with me right now, but wasn’t “this is a hard saying” in v. 60 spoken by one of those people, and not by the narrator? If so, then at best all it shows is that the person who said it thought Jesus was speaking literally. It doesn’t show that Jesus was speaking literally.

 

[Fernando]

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.

 

[Fernando]

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.

 

[StMarkEofE]

Mickey:

There is blood in the body and the body consists of blood. So one species can be both.

The Eucharist is valid through consecration. Do your research on Holy Orders and apostolic succession.

The Greek word for “remembrance” is anamnesis, which points to a sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist. It does not mean to remember Him in a symbolic way. His Body is food indeed. His Blood is drink indeed.

Hope that helps!

So, technically the priest could say Mass without the wine if this were true. But we know different. Or is the wine merely symbolic? Why would Christ offer BOTH bread AND wine at the Last Supper if the bread would have sufficed for both species? Wouldnt not He have said “…take this and eat for this is My Body AND Blood…” if the consecrated bread was both body and blood?

StMarkEofE