Help a non-Catholic understand the Eucharist from a Catholic perspective

[yoboy]

Please forgive my ignorance. I truly want to understand the catholic beliefs concerning the eucharist. It is not my intention to insult anyone but this seems like a good platform to ask my questions.

From my understanding the catholic church believes that the elements of the eucharist actually become the body and blood of Christ. What is the basis for this belief. What are the benefits of the elements being the literal body of Christ vs a representation or symbol of Christ? For those who believe it is the body of Christ why would you drink/eat it? Couldn’t that be seen as catabolism? Or at-lease as gross? When does the church believe that the elements become the body of Christ?

 

[ktfranke]

Let me begin by saying thank you for reaching out! This is a good topic to learn more about, as it is integral to the Catholic faith.

The premise is that in the words of Jesus at the last supper “take my body” and “take my blood” he enables the faithful to be in communion with him because he loves us. This becomes a microcosm of the sacrifice on the cross as well as to allow the church to remember the memorial of his passion. If we consider today’s (or Thursday’s) solemnity of the Ascension, Christ physically leaves Earth, however, because of the institution of the Holy Eucharist, his spiritual presence remains present.

As for it being cannibalism or gross, the church believes that there is a separation between substance and accident. Yes, the church fully believes that christ becomes our spiritual meal and spiritual drink. However, while the substantive identity of the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Jesus, the accident of the appearance remains the same. Additionally, Cannibals eat purely what is dead, while the eucharist is considered living. Cannibals partake in only parts of a body. The Eucharist is considered the whole being of Christ.

Christ’s risen body is not a resuscitated corpse like that of Lazarus, but an utterly transformed “spiritual body” (I Cor. 15:44) far different from the Spatio-temporal “body of our lowness.” (Phil. 3:21) Therefore, when a Catholic receives the Eucharist, he is receiving not just flesh but glorified flesh, a resurrected and transfigured “super body” that foreshadows the new reality of a new Heaven and a new earth. Cannibalistic practices don’t do that. When you eat food, it becomes a part of you. With the Eucharist, however, the opposite happens. We become a part of it, that is, in Holy Communion, we are made a part of the mystical body of Christ. In our Lord’s words, those who eat His flesh and drink His blood abide in Him (Jn. 6.40). Catholics understand the Mass as the non-bloody re-presentation of the sacrifice of the Cross. Christ, whose innocent blood was unjustly shed 2,000 years ago, is made available for His disciples under the appearance of bread and wine, but in a peaceful, nonviolent way. Cannibalism is inherently violent and usually predicated on the assumption that the victim is guilty of a crime against society (usually they are prisoners of war).

Transubstantiation, the physical transformation during the Eucharist of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus, officially happens at the instant the officiant declares that the bread and wine are His body and blood. This is known as the epiclesis.

Here is a link to the Catholic beliefs of the eucharistic beliefs. I hope this helps

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

 

[Margaret_Ann]

John 6: 48 et seq with footnotes:

[48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

[54] “Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood”: To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

Cont’d

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Pt. 2

[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? [62] But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? [63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

[63] “If then you shall see”: Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.

[64] “The flesh profiteth nothing”: Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.

[64] “Are spirit and life”: By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.

 

[JerryZ]

This is indeed a fundamental question. One has to ask can it be true?
The reality that GOD could empower a man to bring Jesus to us and do what HE commanded the 12 in the upper room that night of the “Last Supper”.
It has been the constant belief of Christianity for the 1st 1600 years.
Of course there were instances of Heresy but they were all fought against fervently. Martyrs lost their lives defending the Eucharist since the very beginning.
No one looses his or her life over a piece of bread.
But for the Body Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus! Completely a different story. Yes protect it with our own lives. What could be more important.
You will find I hope many answers to your question. Keep searching HE will show Himself to you.
Peace!

 

[adf417]

What the Early Church Believed: The Real Presence | Catholic Answers Tract

Does Paul Teach the Real Presence of Christ? | Catholic Answers Magazine

Eucharistic Miracles: Evidence of the Real Presence | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Tis_Bearself]

From my understanding the catholic church believes that the elements of the eucharist actually become the body and blood of Christ. What is the basis for this belief.

Scripture.

Mark 14:22-24: While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.

Matthew 26: 26-28 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

Luke 22:19: Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”

Note that Jesus doesn’t say, “This is a symbol of my body and blood.” He says THIS IS MY BODY and THIS IS MY BLOOD.

See also:

“Unless you eat my body...”: Is John 6:53 Symbolic or Literal? - The Coming Home Network

What are the benefits of the elements being the literal body of Christ vs a representation or symbol of Christ?

This question makes no sense. It’s not a symbol or a representation as that’s not what Jesus said. There would be no “benefits” to us making up the idea that it’s a symbol; in fact we’d be sinning by going against what Jesus actually said.

(Continued next post due to length limits)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

For those who believe it is the body of Christ

Why would any Christian NOT believe this when again, it’s what Jesus himself said?

why would you drink/eat it?

Because Jesus said we should. As shown by Scripture, Jesus told us we had to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life.

John 6: 48-58 I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

Couldn’t that be seen as catabolism? Or at-lease as gross?

Only to those who don’t understand or trust in Jesus, like all the Jewish people who walked away from Jesus when he told them they would have to do this. Note that the Apostles, who had true faith, stayed. And in the end, Jesus had them eat his body and drink his blood under the appearances of ordinary bread and wine - no cannibalism or grossness involved.

John 6: 60-61 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?

John 6: 66-69 As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

When does the church believe that the elements become the body of Christ?

At Mass, at the consecration, when the priest who has been ordained in the apostolic succession repeats the words of Jesus at the Last Supper.

 

[yoboy]

Help me understand Jesus’ statements like “I am the door” in John 10:9 and “I am the true vine” in John 15. Do Catholics take these statements as literal too? And if not, how does the church determine which statements Christ meant literally and which are figurative?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If you read the article that I posted, there are some good answers to your question in there.

 

[adf417]

And if not, how does the church determine which statements Christ meant literally and which are figurative?

The church lived with Christ long before these statements were written down. Thats how they knew.

In this sense the church does not determine which statements are literal or figurative but rather the church wrote in the literal or figurative manner their understandings of Christs teachings.

Peace!!!

 

[JerryZ]

Well He is actually the only door that allows you into Heaven. He is the Judge to whom we shall all present ourselves at the end of our lives.
As for the statement on the true vine, perhaps you should learn how grapes are grown. The farmer selects a strong vine, one can withstand droughts, too much water, insects, etc. Then on this strong vine he inserts the vine of the type of grape he wishes to get produce from. The reasons are many and it has been done for thousands of years.
So Jesus is showing us that HE is the true vine strong to give us energy to produce good fruits. If we tried on our own we would fail.
So yes they are both “true” statements, they are conveying a truth.
Of course Jesus is not a physical door made of wood or a plant but the concept that these 2 paragraphs convey are true.
Hope it helps.
Peace!

 

[Peeps]

Help me understand Jesus’ statements like “I am the door” in John 10:9 and “I am the true vine” in John 15. Do Catholics take these statements as literal too? And if not, how does the church determine which statements Christ meant literally and which are figurative?

OK.

Question for you. Did Jesus ever say, “This door is Me,” or “This vine is Me.”

No, He never said that.

But He DID say, “This bread is Me (My Body) this wine is Me (My Blood).”

This is what convinced my younger daughter (when she was 30, she discovered this in her own Bible reading) that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, not just a symbol.

By the way, my husband and I, and our older daughter (when she was in her mid-20s) , are all converts to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism.

 

[yoboy]

Thank you all for your time and for responding to my questions! I’m just trying to understand catholicism better and therefore better understand where some of my friends are coming from.

 

[Canvas]

When does the church believe that the elements become the body of Christ?

During the Eucharistic Prayer. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (no. 79) provides the following summary of the Eucharistic Prayer:

The main elements of which the Eucharistic Prayer consists may be distinguished from one another in this way:

a) The thanksgiving (expressed especially in the Preface), in which the Priest, in the name of the whole of the holy people, glorifies God the Father and gives thanks to him for the whole work of salvation or for some particular aspect of it, according to the varying day, festivity, or time of year.

b) The acclamation, by which the whole congregation, joining with the heavenly powers, sings the Sanctus ( Holy, Holy, Holy ) . This acclamation, which constitutes part of the Eucharistic Prayer itself, is pronounced by all the people with the Priest.

c) The epiclesis, in which, by means of particular invocations, the Church implores the power of the Holy Spirit that the gifts offered by human hands be consecrated, that is, become Christ’s Body and Blood, and that the unblemished sacrificial Victim to be consumed in Communion may be for the salvation of those who will partake of it.

d) The Institution narrative and Consecration , by which, by means of the words and actions of Christ, that Sacrifice is effected which Christ himself instituted during the Last Supper, when he offered his Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine, gave them to the Apostles to eat and drink, and leaving with the latter the command to perpetuate this same mystery.

e) The anamnesis , by which the Church, fulfilling the command that she received from Christ the Lord through the Apostles, celebrates the memorial of Christ, recalling especially his blessed Passion, glorious Resurrection, and Ascension into heaven.

f) The oblation , by which, in this very memorial, the Church, in particular that gathered here and now, offers the unblemished sacrificial Victim in the Holy Spirit to the Father. The Church’s intention, indeed, is that the faithful not only offer this unblemished sacrificial Victim but also learn to offer their very selves,and so day by day to be brought, through the mediation of Christ, into unity with God and with each other, so that God may at last be all in all.

g) The intercessions , by which expression is given to the fact that the Eucharist is celebrated in communion with the whole Church, of both heaven and of earth, and that the oblation is made for her and for all her members, living and dead, who are called to participate in the redemption and salvation purchased by the Body and Blood of Christ.

h) The concluding doxology , by which the glorification of God is expressed and which is affirmed and concluded by the people’s acclamation "Amen ." http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/index.cfm

 

[Justin_Mary]

What is the basis for this belief.

It starts in Genesis, God approved Abel’s offering but not Cain’s. Then it builds up from there, some more important than others. Abram was to sacrifice his only son, God was going to provide the lamb.

Sprinkle blood of the lamb over your door, consume the meat. Then the Angel of Death would pass over your house.

Etc, etc, etc…

What are the benefits of the elements being the literal body of Christ vs a representation or symbol of Christ?

For me, if it’s literal then I don’t have to wonder if I prayed hard enough, or rightly, or whatever.

For those who believe it is the body of Christ why would you drink/eat it?

Because He told us to.

 

[Justin_Mary]

Help me understand Jesus’ statements like “I am the door” in John 10:9 and “I am the true vine” in John 15. Do Catholics take these statements as literal too? And if not, how does the church determine which statements Christ meant literally and which are figurative?

Do you have a reference where he says, “truly I say to you unless you thread over me you’ll never enter the Kingdom of God.”

Or, “truly, unless you grow out of my side you’ll never be a part of me.”

Because we can show you were He says, “truly my flesh is true food.”

 

[Canvas]

The following are the texts of the four principal Eucharistic Prayers, broken into the various sections in the US Conference of Catholic Bishop’s document describes: Eucharistic Prayers I-IV

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII wrote on this 100+ years ago:

http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-x...-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

Really good reading.

 

[Peeps]

Thank you all for your time and for responding to my questions! I’m just trying to understand catholicism better and therefore better understand where some of my friends are coming from.

I suggest that you find a copy of The Lamb’s Supper by Dr. Scott Hahn.

Dr. Hahn is a convert to Catholicism. He was a Presbyterian pastor, and now is a professor at Franciscan University in Steubenville and the author of many helpful books.

I like his books because they are written from the point of view of a convert. He understands what Protestants think and how they were formed in their faith. He and his wife have been Catholics for about 2 decades now (wow time flies!).

He also writes conversationally and uses personal illustrations from his life. Sometimes books, especially the older books, by Catholics, are written in a very staid, “careful” style that is really hard for a 21st century person to wrap the mind around. A lot of these Catholic authors never give any personal examples from their own lives, so it sometimes seems as though they are writing as distant observers rather than real-life participants. It’s probably just the style of their historical time, but it’s hard to read. Dr. Hahn is definitely scholarly, but pleasnt to read (and listen to, if you prefer to listen to his CDs).