Explaining the Eucharist

[bitznbitez]

I have been trying to explain the teaching of the Church on the Eucharist. Here is the nut of how I have come to understand and how I tried to explain it.

Christ when he was on earth took bread, blessed it and declared it to be his body, likewise the wine and when he had blessed it declared it to be his blood. So too the Church imitating Christ speaks of the bread and wine after they have been blessed as the Body and Blood of Christ. Its completely scriptural.

In the creed we say Christ was “consubstantial with the Father”. This is an important idea. It means of the same substance. When Christ was on earth, he looked like a man, he felt like a man, yet he was God. In the same way after the bread and wine have been blessed they still look, feel, and taste like bread and wine, yet their substance becomes fully that of Christ.

When Christ fed the 5000, his disciples saw him walking on the water that night, and the next day he explained that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood we will have no life in us. When he said this people found it hard to believe and understand. Those who could accept this continued to follow Christ and became the Christians, those who could not accept this quit following him. This has always been the visible divider between Christian and non Christian. Its completely scriptural.

We speak of the mass as the Sacrifice of Christ and we say that Christ was sacrificed once for all. How do we understand this ? In Israel before Christ, in their temple liturgy, you would go tell the priest what you had done, they would direct you what sacrifice you needed to offer. You would take your lamb, the priest would kill the lamb, then the lamb would be taken and placed on the altar and after it had been on the fire a while it would be removed, you would take your lamb and you and those with you would eat it. In the same way Christ was killed once for all, yet in communion he becomes present on the altar and we participate in the second part of the sacrifice, the eating of the sacrifice eternally.

In this did I say anything that is doctrinaly incorrect ?

 

[Della]

It sounds okay to me. I would add that Christ’s sacrifice is an eternal one, offered once for all, which is why we can re-present it to the Father as the consecrated bread and wine. Also, make sure those to whom you present you explanation understand that “spiritual” does not mean “metaphorical”. That which is spiritual is as real as that which is physical.

 

[po18guy]

Very good. One point: Rather than merely imitating Christ, the Church acts in Persona Christi, or in the Person of Christ at the consecration. It is both in the Person of, and with the authority of Christ.

This is just as Paul forgave sins in the person of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:10). Some rather lax modern bibles have this as “in the presence of Christ”, but this is nonsensical. How do you forgive sin outside of the presence of Christ?

 

[bitznbitez]

Thanks to both. Comments noted and appreciated.

 

[po18guy]

The Holy Mass is not exactly time travel, but time almost stands still at the moment of consecration.

 

[MaryIrene]

You are wrong. Jesus died once for all in a very torturous bloody manner. There is no such thing as an unbloody sacrifice for sin. Jesus does not come down to the catholic altar to be offered as an unbloody remembrance/sacrifice for sin. The statement Jesus made in John chp 6 about eating and drinking Him was not to be taken literal. He made this statement to get us to understand the seriousness of His blood sacrifice. We must really believe and trust in His saving blood sacrifice. At His supper He was telling His apostles to eat the bread and wine in remembrance of His blood sacrifice, “Do this in remembrance of Me”. In the book of Hebrews it says that Jesus does not offer Himself again and again.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

I have been trying to explain the teaching of the Church on the Eucharist. Here is the nut of how I have come to understand and how I tried to explain it.

Christ when he was on earth took bread, blessed it and declared it to be his body, likewise the wine and when he had blessed it declared it to be his blood. So too the Church imitating Christ speaks of the bread and wine after they have been blessed as the Body and Blood of Christ. Its completely scriptural.

In the creed we say Christ was “consubstantial with the Father”. This is an important idea. It means of the same substance. When Christ was on earth, he looked like a man, he felt like a man, yet he was God. In the same way after the bread and wine have been blessed they still look, feel, and taste like bread and wine, yet their substance becomes fully that of Christ.

When Christ fed the 5000, his disciples saw him walking on the water that night, and the next day he explained that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood we will have no life in us. When he said this people found it hard to believe and understand. Those who could accept this continued to follow Christ and became the Christians, those who could not accept this quit following him. This has always been the visible divider between Christian and non Christian. Its completely scriptural.

We speak of the mass as the Sacrifice of Christ and we say that Christ was sacrificed once for all. How do we understand this ? In Israel before Christ, in their temple liturgy, you would go tell the priest what you had done, they would direct you what sacrifice you needed to offer. You would take your lamb, the priest would kill the lamb, then the lamb would be taken and placed on the altar and after it had been on the fire a while it would be removed, you would take your lamb and you and those with you would eat it. In the same way Christ was killed once for all, yet in communion he becomes present on the altar and we participate in the second part of the sacrifice, the eating of the sacrifice eternally.

In this did I say anything that is doctrinaly incorrect ?

I would also encourage you to watch my video, the Eucharist just uploaded to YouTube a couple of months ago:

In English:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPP5rKJ74ro

In Spanish:
youtube.com/watch?v=qlf8jJErzsE

Watch in HD. It explains the Eucharist from Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

[po18guy]

You are wrong. Jesus died once for all in a very torturous bloody manner. There is no such thing as an unbloody sacrifice for sin. Jesus does not come down to the catholic altar to be offered as an unbloody remembrance/sacrifice for sin. The statement Jesus made in John chp 6 about eating and drinking Him was not to be taken literal. He made this statement to get us to understand the seriousness of His blood sacrifice. We must really believe and trust in His saving blood sacrifice. At His supper He was telling His apostles to eat the bread and wine in remembrance of His blood sacrifice, “Do this in remembrance of Me”. In the book of Hebrews it says that Jesus does not offer Himself again and again.

Before you swung your hammer, did you perchance read the forum rules?

 

[fxcc]

I have been trying to explain the teaching of the Church on the Eucharist.

Hi,

I’ve put together a PowerPoint presentation about the Eucharist, going right back to the times when it was so powerfully foreshadowed in the Old Testament rites of (compulsory) sacrifice. Hopefully it’ll help you demonstrate why the Eucharist is the source, center and summit of the authentic Christian life - because the Eucharist is life itself. Or rather, Eternal Life Himself.

Funnily enough, I was led to create this presentation after a Fundamentalist friend preached to me that as Christians we “must not drink blood”, because God Himself forbade it (in the OT)… Following from that, she reasoned, Jesus COULDN’T have meant us to drink His actual blood! Of course God the Father did forbid the drinking of blood and God the Son (apparently in contradiction) did command us to drink His blood, but my Fundamentalist friend hadn’t quite bothered to consider WHY either of Them might have done what They did!

God bless you and make fruitful your proclamation of the FULLNESS of the Good News!

Francis

4shared.com/office/II7MD_ME/Eucharist.html

 

[Church_Militant]

This article from my blog may help some. The Eucharist IS Scriptural

 

[NeedImprovement]

This part (highlights mine) could cause you a little difficulty later on :

. . .
In the creed we say Christ was “consubstantial with the Father”. This is an important idea. It means of the same substance. When Christ was on earth, he looked like a man, he felt like a man, yet he was God. In the same way after the bread and wine have been blessed they still look, feel, and taste like bread and wine, yet their substance becomes fully that of Christ. . .

Substance is also used to denote the nature or essence of a thing. Christ has two natures - a divine nature and a human nature. In Him both natures exist. In the Eucharist ,only one or the other nature(s) ever exists. First, the nature or the substance of bread and/or wine, and at the moment of consecration, the entire Christ in both His human and divine natures.

I believe you only mean what you’re saying as an analogy. But when using the example of the Son being consubstantial with the Father and then proceeding to attempt explaining the Eucharist through this same union by comparison with the words “in the same way” , it introduces the possibility of someone interpreting your quote above as implying consubstantiation of the Eucharist instead of transubstantiation ; or at the very least, potential confusion of the two of them (though none of it was your intention).

From Modern Catholic Dictionary, Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

CONSUBSTANTIATION.
The belief, contrary to Catholic doctrine, that in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ coexist with the bread and wine after the Consecration of the Mass. John Wyclif (1324-84) and Martin Luther (1483-1546) professed consubstantiation because they denied transubstantiation.

 

[Gorgias]

bitznbitez:

In the creed we say Christ was “consubstantial with the Father”. This is an important idea. It means of the same substance. When Christ was on earth, he looked like a man, he felt like a man, yet he was God. In the same way after the bread and wine have been blessed they still look, feel, and taste like bread and wine, yet their substance becomes fully that of Christ. . .

I believe you only mean what you’re saying as an analogy. But when using the example of the Son being consubstantial with the Father and then proceeding to attempt explaining the Eucharist through this same union by comparison with the words “in the same way” , it introduces the possibility of someone interpreting your quote above as implying consubstantiation of the Eucharist instead of transubstantiation ; or at the very least, potential confusion of the two of them (though none of it was your intention).

Yep, what NeedImprovement said!

One additional thought, though: you said that Jesus “looked like” and “felt like” a man, yet was God. Now, that helps your analogy – the Eucharist “looks like” and “feels like” bread and wine, but yet, their substance is that of Christ (and only Christ). However, at the Incarnation Jesus didn’t just “look like” and “feel like” a man – he become both fully human and fully divine.

(I think that, in order to make your analogy, you (inadvertently?) slip into Docetism, given that you only say that Christ appears human. In his person, Christ is both fully human and fully divine. In the Eucharist, Christ is substantially present, but not physically present.)

Hope this helps!

Blessings,

G.

 

[bitznbitez]

Caught up on this thread again… Will browse the links shared later… appreciate them.

It doesn’t appear that the explanation I wrote is immediately incorrect but, as with most, could become incorrect if taken in directions not intended. The challenge is to not speak wrongly while yet showing at a high level the biblical text supports the traditional understanding.

The biggest challenge I have seen is the entire basis of understanding the world has changed over the centuries. The language has changed, the understanding of nature itself has changed. Most now understand the world in a purely materialistic sense and not as the ancients did. Of course if one reads things like Lucretius “On The Nature Of Things” a first century BC writer, one realizes that even our modern materialist/athiestic description of nature, its processes and structure, is itself ancient too. The resurgence of that philosophy and view precedes and causes the rest of the collapse of behavior we observe as our nation continues to look more and more like pagan Rome before Christ came.

 

[gcharles]

I wrote an article that I feel and hope makes sense for us mere humans to un derstand.

Holy Communion

What does the ‘real presence’ mean when you celebrate the Holy Communion? It is a term used that expresses a belief that Jesus Christ is physically present in what appears to be bread and wine. There are two different beliefs. The first is by Catholics and Orthodox in that what happens that the bread and wine transforms into the real body and blood of Christ. This is called transubstantiation. The Lutherans and other Protestant denominations believe that the body and blood becomes present with the bread and wine. This is called consubstantiation. Once this transformation happens the host is then known as the Eucharist.
There is information I’ve read that 67% of Catholics do not believe in the ‘real presence’ in the Eucharist. I have several reasons for writing this paper. I hope to make the transformation of the host into the body and blood of Christ understandable. I also will present evidence from the Early Church Fathers that they believed in the real presence. I will answer critics of the real presence and answer their reasons for not believing in the real presence.
I will start by trying to explain why this transformation into the body and blood of Christ from the bread can happen. There is a saying among us mere humans that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it’s a duck. So when you take the host at Communion if it looks like bread and tastes like bread., then it is bread because we are mere humans. I would refer you to Matthew 19:26. Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” I think we all can agree that with God all things are possible. Of course that would mean that with God it is possible to turn the bread into the body and blood of Christ. God can do this and still make it look like bread and taste like bread. Holy Communion is not a mere human event. God is involved in Holy Communion and that makes this transformation possible. This might answer your question at least partially. I think you will find the rest of this article very interesting.
You can see testimony directly from Jesus Christ concerning the that we will need to eat the body and blood of Christ…This is stated in John 6:53-56. Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”
In John 6:63 Jesus then said to his disciples, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” This verse gives rise to an interpretation that it is the Spirit alone. Those who interpret the verse would have to totally neglect the verses in John 6:53-56.
To get a better insight to solve this conflict you would only need to go to John 6:60 which says that on hearing this many of the disciples said that this is a hard teaching referring to verses 53-56. Then in John 6:66 it states that many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. If Jesus meant that it is only the spirit and you wouldn’t have to eat his flesh and drink his blood, he would have called those disciples back and explained to them they misunderstood what he was saying. I believe this should end that conflict.
We can also look back at the early Christian fathers for more evidence. We find this evidence in the First Apology of Justin and then in Irenaeus against Heresies. We can really get a good perspective on this argument from our early church fathers. The first evidence is from First Apology of Justin. This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate by God’s word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from Him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. Irenaeus Against Heresies For when the mixed cup and the bread that has been prepared receive the Word of God, and became the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ. Iranaeus received his teachings from Polycarp who was mentored by John. This is compelling evidence that in the Early Church the physical part of the Holy Communion was considered transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
In a letter from Ignatius to the Smyrnaens Ignatius says, “They(Docetics) hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Ignatius is describing a cult known as the Docetics. Ignatius also says of them that they seem to believe that Christian martyrdom is meaningless as an imitation of the Christ if he had never suffered. This shows the extreme heresy the cults would go to back then to deny the true meaning of the Eucharist. This is what the Jehovah Witnesses believe. It is also what the Docetics taught to Mohammed. This is the reason Islam believed Jesus just appears to be on the cross.
This is a verse that was very confusing to me at first. In 2 John it says, “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. And such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.” This verse did not make sense to me when I first read it. Every cult today such as the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses deny the deity of Christ. This verse is exactly backward in that is says Christ never came in the flesh. The verse in 2 John refers to the Docetics mentioned in the previous paragraph. They admitted Jesus was God but they denied that he took on flesh.
This is more evidence from an early Christian father. In a letter written by Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans reveals a warning from Ignatius. “Pay close to attention to Docetics. They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Christian martyrdom is meaningless as an imitation of the Christ if he never suffered. What good does anyone do me by praising me and reviling the Lord by refusing to acknowledge that He carried around live flesh. “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Phillipians
Chap 3 verse 1 For whosoever does not confess Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, he is Antichrist: and whoever does not confess His suffering upon the cross is the devil.
There could be a misunderstanding that Luther was the one who initiated the teaching denying the real presence. Actually Martin Luther debated Zwingali in 1529 which, was called the Marburg Colloquy, that the Eucharist was the actual body and blood of Christ. There are just a few Christian denominations that do acknowledge the Eucharist. Those that still use the term are Anglicans, Reformed/Presbyterians, United Methodists and Lutherans. Also included in using the term Eucharist are Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholics. The term Eucharist comes from the Greek word ‘eucharista’ giving of thanks. Only a few denominations deny the real presence and usually you will find them to be Anabaptists. Again, I want to stress they are not cults if they simply don’t understand the real presence of the Eucharist.
If Jesus never died in the flesh there would be no road to salvation. He would have suffered no pain. Of course the Docetics main purpose was to show that could not have been the real body and blood of Christ since he was never in the flesh. Therefore there is no salvation.
I would also mention that later that some Docetics said Jesus came in the flesh but never experienced a physical birth as a normal human being would have. This still denies that Christ didn’t come in the flesh but just appeared in the flesh. It also is explainable that Jesus had to e physically born.
Remember when the Lord and two other men appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18:1 to warn him about Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 18:2 it says three ‘men’ appeared to Abraham. Since Jesus stayed and the other two men left that would clearly show Jesus was the third man that appeared to Abraham. Jesus stayed with Abraham while the two other men went to report what they would see in Sodom and Gomorrah. Then in Genesis 19:1 it reveals that the other two men were angels. “The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city.” I use this example to show you angels as well as Jesus (before his birth) can appear to take on flesh. In this attempted deception Marcion was still saying that Jesus was never born as a human being. Jesus had to have real flesh and not appear just to have flesh as he did to Abraham. If he would have been sacrificed at the time of his visit with Abraham when he and the angels it would have not counted for his our salvation. In addition he was never born he would not have fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.

 

[gcharles]

continued

There is another argument that at the Lord Supper Jesus had not died yet. Those who argue correctly that Jesus hadn’t died yet. First of all the Lord’s Supper was done as a Passover meal and it wasn’t Holy Communion. Matthew 26:27 states, Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus could not have drunk from the cup because Jesus had no sins to forgive. Jesus drank from the cup and said he would never do it again until he drinks it with us in His Father’s kingdom.
You can see that Jesus refers to a new covenant. This covenant broke the enmity between God and man. It was not only salvation for Jews but also for Gentiles. This was an act of God’s grace reconciling man to Himself. This covenant eliminates the rigors of the law and provides the perfect sacrifice in Christ to forgive men’s sins and not just cover them with the sacrifice of animals.
There is another issue that I’ve never seen addressed. This has to do with the Church being the bride of Christ. Christ is the groom. The Jewish custom of the time was the following. The bridegroom would present himself to the bride with this agreement, offering to pay a suitable price for her and she and her father would consider his contract. If the terms were suitable, the bride and groom would drink a cup of wine together and would seal the bargain. This cup was most significant. It signified the bridegroom’s willingness to sacrifice in order to have this bride. It was offered as a toast to the bride, and of course, it showed the bride’s willingness to enter into marriage. There is nowhere else where the apostles drank the wine that was the acceptance of the marriage proposal. Being that Jesus was Jewish there was a necessary act. Jesus drank the wine with the apostles who, of course represented the bride. If this were simply Holy Communion Jesus would not have drank the wine since he never sinned. I believe when the apostles, representing the church, drank the wine it was the bride saying yes to the groom. The church is now the bride of Christ.
In addition, after this ceremony the groom would give a small speech and then announce to his bride, “I go to prepare a place for you.” (John 14:2 -3) In my father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you may also be where I am. “This is more evidence that this represents Jewish wedding tradition.” Finally in 1Thessalonians 4:16-17 we read that the Jesus has prepared the place for us and Michael the Archangel, a member of the wedding party shouts for the bride. It’s all Jewish wedding tradition.
In conclusion if you believe in the real presence of the Eucharist I believe you will appreciate more of what Christ has done for us. It will draw you into a deeper relationship with him. Always remember Christ is Risen!

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans But I know that even after his resurrection he was in the flesh; and I believed that he is still so.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians 2:10 Stop your ears therefore, as often as any one shall speak contrary to Jesus Christ; who was of the race of David, of the Virgin Mary.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:13 — God himself appearing in the form of a man, for the renewal of eternal life.
Rapture Barnabas 8:15 —And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the Lord will deliver up the sheep of his pasture, and their fold and their tower into destruction also 4:15 Wherefore the Son of God came in the flesh for this casue.

 

[cnon12]

I have been trying to explain the teaching of the Church on the Eucharist. Here is the nut of how I have come to understand and how I tried to explain it.

Christ when he was on earth took bread, blessed it and declared it to be his body, likewise the wine and when he had blessed it declared it to be his blood. So too the Church imitating Christ speaks of the bread and wine after they have been blessed as the Body and Blood of Christ. Its completely scriptural.

In the creed we say Christ was “consubstantial with the Father”. This is an important idea. It means of the same substance. When Christ was on earth, he looked like a man, he felt like a man, yet he was God. In the same way after the bread and wine have been blessed they still look, feel, and taste like bread and wine, yet their substance becomes fully that of Christ.

When Christ fed the 5000, his disciples saw him walking on the water that night, and the next day he explained that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood we will have no life in us. When he said this people found it hard to believe and understand. Those who could accept this continued to follow Christ and became the Christians, those who could not accept this quit following him. This has always been the visible divider between Christian and non Christian. Its completely scriptural.

We speak of the mass as the Sacrifice of Christ and we say that Christ was sacrificed once for all. How do we understand this ? In Israel before Christ, in their temple liturgy, you would go tell the priest what you had done, they would direct you what sacrifice you needed to offer. You would take your lamb, the priest would kill the lamb, then the lamb would be taken and placed on the altar and after it had been on the fire a while it would be removed, you would take your lamb and you and those with you would eat it. In the same way Christ was killed once for all, yet in communion he becomes present on the altar and we participate in the second part of the sacrifice, the eating of the sacrifice eternally.

In this did I say anything that is doctrinaly incorrect ?

Go check out www.the4thcup.com

It was a really good reference point for me in learning and understanding the Eucharist. The material is all downloadable in both audio only and video format, plus notes. It explains the Eucharist from both an Old Testament perspective as well as covering everything Jesus talked about in the Gospels.

 

[504Katrin]

The Holy Mass is not exactly time travel, but time almost stands still at the moment of consecration.

Is this also why the curch bells ring at the time of the consecration? At least in our town the church bells always ring for about a minute or so.

 

[Gorgias]

Is this also why the curch bells ring at the time of the consecration? At least in our town the church bells always ring for about a minute or so.

No. The practice of ringing the bells started so that people would know when the moment of consecration was, in order that they’d have the opportunity to pay attention (as it were). It didn’t begin as an action with deep theological import.

 

[Della]

No. The practice of ringing the bells started so that people would know when the moment of consecration was, in order that they’d have the opportunity to pay attention (as it were). It didn’t begin as an action with deep theological import.

Actually, it was to alert those who rang the church bells in the bell tower to ring the bells. At one time the church bells were rung at the consecration. Our parish still does this Christmas and Easter. Our altar servers also ring the bells at consecration at all Masses they serve.

 

[504Katrin]

No. The practice of ringing the bells started so that people would know when the moment of consecration was, in order that they’d have the opportunity to pay attention (as it were). It didn’t begin as an action with deep theological import.

Actually, it was to alert those who rang the church bells in the bell tower to ring the bells. At one time the church bells were rung at the consecration. Our parish still does this Christmas and Easter. Our altar servers also ring the bells at consecration at all Masses they serve.

Thanks guys In my parish the altar boys or girls always ring the little bells while kneeling in front of the altar when the Priest holds Jesus up high. I once read that this comes from back then when mass was said in Latin, so that everyone who didn’t understand the language knew when to look, so they rang the little bells.
The big church bells (in the bell tower) always ring at the time of the consecration, and also at each mass that we celebrate. I’ve always felt as if they rang the big church bells in order to announce to the rest of the town that a miracle was happening right there at that very moment. (I’m getting goose bumps typing this )