How can I explain the Eucharist more clearly?

[Blood_Angel]

Yes I can see that. And if we had slabs of meat id agree but this is Christ 's glorified resurrected body which is not of this world (went through walls, traveled great distances, etc…)

It is a matter of faith ultimately so, let something like this be toward the end of your journey into Christianity.

It’s interesting that in the ancient church they were often accused of cannibalism because if a misunderstanding of this practice.

They also would send the catechumens out during the communion and present this teaching to them toward the end of their 3 year formation.

If you look at John 6, the crowd that Jesus was speaking to had similar thoughts and he lost many followers because of this teaching. Rather than backing down and explaining that he was speaking metaphorically, he doubled down, saying that not only do we have to eat his flesh, but he wants us to gnaw on it! It isn’t cannibalism because we’re not eating dead human flesh, but the glorified living flesh of Christ.

I think that if I were to eventually accept Catholicism I would have to accept everything, so therefore even if I didn’t understand this part logically, I would accept that it is important and mysterious and good for me and not have to understand it if you see what I mean?
Is that a form of faith?

 

[JRKH]

I think that if I were to eventually accept Catholicism I would have to accept everything, so therefore even if I didn’t understand this part logically, I would accept that it is important and mysterious and good for me and not have to understand it if you see what I mean?
Is that a form of faith?

Absolutely.

And trust me…None of us understand all of it logically.

In fact, I’d say that everything we know “logically” rests on the underlying faith that we have.
In other words, the logic of things does not lead to faith - rather faith leads to the logic of things.
That faith - our firm belief in the truth of our faith allows us to see the logic of many things that would otherwise confuse us.

I think this is part of the reason that Jesus used parables and analogies so much.

Peace
James

 

[Blood_Angel]

Absolutely.

And trust me…None of us understand all of it logically.

In fact, I’d say that everything we know “logically” rests on the underlying faith that we have.
In other words, the logic of things does not lead to faith - rather faith leads to the logic of things.
That faith - our firm belief in the truth of our faith allows us to see the logic of many things that would otherwise confuse us.

I think this is part of the reason that Jesus used parables and analogies so much.

Peace
James

The problem I see though is I’d just be accepting something without understanding it so there would always be a doubt. But then doubt is a very human trait and even Jesus had doubts, so even then, I suppose that’s not a bad thing maybe.

 

[JRKH]

The problem I see though is I’d just be accepting something without understanding it so there would always be a doubt. But then doubt is a very human trait and even Jesus had doubts, so even then, I suppose that’s not a bad thing maybe.

Jesus had doubts??? Where do you see this?

But you are right…we can have doubts - but what is a doubt? Is it not an inquisitiveness that, if unsatisfied, is frustrating to us?
Yet this problem can be partially solved by remaining as simple as possible and not troubling ourselves over such matters. This is where trust comes in. Trust is a very important component of faith. In fact, My few of “faith” is that it is a combination of belief (an intellectual aspect) and trust (a more, emotional and spiritual aspect).

Belief by itself can give some consolation but doesn’t really bring peace until trust is added to it. Trust allows one to let go - to be calm - to accept without undo concern. It allows us to set aside doubts as unimportant. This frees us up to actually DO that which our belief in Christ asks of us. This (to me) is what faith is.

The most fundamental aspect of our belief in Christ is to Love. Agape - or brotherly, selfless love.
To me - this is the simplest way and the surest way of faith…Love God and Love neighbor as yourself. All the rest, even doubt, pales in comparison.

Peace
James

 

[johnnyc176]

The Catholic Church believes it because Jesus said it.

Here is an excerpt from Catholicism for Dummies…

In the Synoptic Gospels each writer uses the same phrase to describe the Last Supper on Holy Thursday. Jesus took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples and said, This is My Body. The verb ‘to be’ is used such that an equality exists between ‘This’ (which refers to the bread) and ‘My Body’. So the bread becomes the body of Christ. Because all three Gospels (MT 26:26, MK 14:22 and LK 22:19) meticulously repeat the exact same phrase, as does St. Paul (1 Cor 11:24) these sacred words must be taken literally

The words of the Last Supper spoken by Christ over the bread and wine are consistent with the New Testament: Jesus explicitly and graphically commanded, “Eat My flesh and drink My blood” more than a few times. The Church reasons that if Jesus had meant this to be symbolic He wouldn’t have allowed so many of His followers to leave with such a serious misunderstanding. For Catholics the Holy Eucharist is the Last Supper, His death on the cross and His Resurrection all rolled into one. That is why we say the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith.

This is a book that anyone who wants to have a basic knowledge of what the Catholic Church teaches should check it out.

catholiccompany.com/catholicism-dummies-p1001687/

It is available in many libraries also.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I think that if I were to eventually accept Catholicism I would have to accept everything, so therefore even if I didn’t understand this part logically, I would accept that it is important and mysterious and good for me and not have to understand it if you see what I mean?
Is that a form of faith?

Yes absolutely!

For me I saw the historical and logical foundation for the church’s authority. Once I accepted the church authority most every other domino fell over relatively easy. With the Eucharist, John 6 helped immensely (not once did I hear a sermon on the latter half of John 6 as an evangelical=red flag) also, the church fathers belief in it, but ultimately a mixture of faith in God’s ability to do so and trust in the church to declare things correctly.

You’ve been asking really good questions on the forums by the way!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jesus had doubts??? Where do you see this?

But you are right…we can have doubts - but what is a doubt? Is it not an inquisitiveness that, if unsatisfied, is frustrating to us?
Yet this problem can be partially solved by remaining as simple as possible and not troubling ourselves over such matters. This is where trust comes in. Trust is a very important component of faith. In fact, My few of “faith” is that it is a combination of belief (an intellectual aspect) and trust (a more, emotional and spiritual aspect).

Belief by itself can give some consolation but doesn’t really bring peace until trust is added to it. Trust allows one to let go - to be calm - to accept without undo concern. It allows us to set aside doubts as unimportant. This frees us up to actually DO that which our belief in Christ asks of us. This (to me) is what faith is.

The most fundamental aspect of our belief in Christ is to Love. Agape - or brotherly, selfless love.
To me - this is the simplest way and the surest way of faith…Love God and Love neighbor as yourself. All the rest, even doubt, pales in comparison.

Peace
James

I’d say Jesus had doubts about both starting his ministry in Canaan, the temptation in the desert , and the agony in the garden.

It speaks of his humanity. It’s natural for us to doubt and have worries. His divinity overcame these fears.

 

[JRKH]

I’d say Jesus had doubts about both starting his ministry in Canaan, the temptation in the desert , and the agony in the garden.

It speaks of his humanity. It’s natural for us to doubt and have worries. His divinity overcame these fears.

Thanks for sharing this.

I think that terminology can be an issue here. Does “worry” = “doubt”? Does “concern” = “doubt”? Does “question” = “doubt”?

I suspect that we can probably look at various things the matters above and find different ways of describing them - maybe using different terms…and possibly different understandings but both trying to convey the same, or at least similar ideas.

Peace
James

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Pray for his understanding, first, he sounds resistant.

The only thing I could recommend is what you already tried, that when Jesus said it, he meant it.

Even if on a molecular level the host and wine are unchanged materially, it IS the body and blood of our God.

Sorry I can’t be more helpful/

 

[thenobes]

I could understand the bread and wine being symbolic but it’s when you say it’s real, actual body and blood.
But you’re eating bread and drinking wine, not actual human flesh or blood.

Sorry to be so blunt because it’s your beliefs and all.

No offense taken.

Perhaps my own way of looking at the situution may be helpful. (Although it is not catholic doctrine, just speculation).

First (not speculation), we believe that the bread and wine becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus after the consecration in the Mass.

Second, the soul, spiritual in nature, is the animating and organizing principle of the human nature, and, if attached to matter, it forms a human body with it. (This is sort of doctrine).

Next, since Jesus’s soul is present in the Eucharist, the matter it is attached to must be His Body.

BUT, since it is a glorified Body, in direct connection with God, it has properties that ordinary matter doesn’t have, through the glorified soul.

Now I’m not sure is the change of physical appearance to Bread and Wine is an effect of the glorified soul, or the direct intervention of God to rearrange the matter of the Body while keeping it attached to the soul, thereby maintaining it as a living body, BUT, I beleive that the above explains the appearance of His Body and Blood as Bread and Wine.

peace
steve

 

[ynotzap]

Jesus wouldn’t expect us to eat His human flesh,and drink His human blood AS SUCH. He desires us to eat His flesh, and drink His blood in the form of bread and wine. He is God, and the Creator of all things. By His Power He can do this. This is why it is call “Transubstantiation” The changing of substance under the appearance of bread and wine. It is a mystery of Faith, a belief in Christ’s words found in scripture. Human reason and understanding can’t comprehend this but can accept this mystery if we are given the gift of Faith in Jesus, God-man. One has to believe in Christ’s words in order to experience the effects of this Mystery. I can testify that it is real and so can many others through history. As a matter of fact I believe the Mystery will be the center of all Christian Faiths. Science doesn’t have a clue, it is a matter of faith.

 

[MarshallJackson]

Thank you very much for all of your responses and prayers. I many of you have given me new ideas about how to discuss this with my father. I think it’s going to be an ongoing discussion altogether with him being raised Baptist, raising me the way the only way he knew to be best, and then me switching to Roman Catholicism. I can’t really complain, because I have read some stories about some family members completely cutting off contact because of people’s decision to leave their church. My dad has been fully supportive of me on my journey. He says “If it brings you closer to God, then I think that’s what really matters”
Still, all of my friends, family, and even my girlfriend are Protestants (albeit most of them are “non-practicing” Protestants, as they usually don’t attend church anymore) and I dream of them one day joining me in the Catholic faith.
Sorry, kind of drifted off topic there, but I was just sharing a little background of why I’m trying to “plant the seed” with my dad and other family members, so to speak

 

[JRKH]

Sounds like you are doing just fine.

It’s great that your dad is supportive. Just continue your journey. Share with him, pray with him, and with all of your family. Show the joy that your new faith gives you and you will not only have planted a seed, but watered and nourished it. God will do the rest.

Peace
James

 

[ericc]

The problem I see though is I’d just be accepting something without understanding it so there would always be a doubt. But then doubt is a very human trait and even Jesus had doubts, so even then, I suppose that’s not a bad thing maybe.

I am sure Peter didn’t understand any of this stuff either John 6:32-68. But he stuck with Jesus anyway. Many of Jesus’ disciples didn’t. It wasn’t “logical”. John 6:52 is exactly the OP’s father feelings about the Eucharist.

 

[josh987654321]

I’m sure this question has been brought up a lot, but I am having trouble explaining the Eucharist to my dad. He was raised as a Southern Baptist. I have told him that we believe it to be the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, not a symbol. And I have explained and read the verses from the book of John to him. I have also explained that if Christ didn’t truly mean what he said when he said it was his body and blood, he would have corrected himself when he lost many of his followers because they were offended by the mentioning of cannibalism.
He just keeps saying “It can’t truly be his body and blood, because if it was, how was he standing there telling them it was his body and blood? It’s not like he was literally cutting off slabs of his flesh and putting it on the table. He was holding bread and wine and saying that it was his body and blood. To me that means he was saying that it symbolizes his body and blood”
I don’t really know how to respond to this. I did finish RCIA near the end of last year, so I am still relatively new to people challenging me like this. Any help/advice would be great! Thanks!

I’m glad you have focused on John 6

There is a great short thread in that regard that I came accross that has a wealth of information regarding the literal interpretation of John 6 here - Holy Eucharist, and dealing with objections - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=839444

Id also like to share this picture that I thought was really good from that thread linked above.

http://s14.postimg.org/aoz6onyep/The_Eucharist_2.png

I would also like to simply suggest explaning to him the difference between ‘accidents’ and ‘substance’ of the Holy Eucharist.

When at his Last Supper, Jesus said: “This is my body”, what he held in his hands still had all the appearances of bread: the “species” or “accidents” remained unchanged. However, when Jesus made that declaration, the underlying reality (the “substance”) of the bread was changed into that of his body, blood, soul and divinity. In other words, it actually was his body, blood, soul and divinity, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation (accidents) were still those of bread, exactly as before. The same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at the consecration of the Eucharist.

The substance being the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and accidents being the appearance of bread and wine.

Could this be all in our heads? no, thankfully we are reassured of this through the many Eucharistic miracles that have taken place throughout history, (many are still preserved at the Vatican to this day) just like they were reassured before by Jesus’ feeding five thousand men just before such teaching.

What are Eucharistic Miracles? Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, Jesus has proven beyond any doubt that He is truly present in the Holy Eucharist. Why did He have to prove this to us? It is because at certain times in history, there were heresies that denied the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. On other occasions, some priests doubted the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. And yet, on other occasions, the Holy Eucharist was abused by believers and non-believers alike.

What follows are some of the Eucharistic Miracles that took place throughout the history of the Catholic Church. All of these have received the full approval of the Catholic Church. Please click on the link below. catholicdoors.com/misc/eucharisticmiracles.htm

I would also strongly encourage you MarshallJackson to introduce your father to Scott Hahn’s conversion story, it’s Scott Hahn’s conversion story that converted my Father to Catholicism, as Scott Hahn used to be an evangelical protestant and has converted many to Catholicism, his conversion story free to listen to is here - youtube.com/watch?v=FrQN8LHYg5g

It’s that one absolute truth to the real presense in the Holy Eucharist that converts so many to Catholicism.

I hope I have helped.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

In relation to John 6 Bishop Fulton J. Sheen say’s in his book “Life of Christ”

As I live because of the Father,
The living Father Who has sent Me,
So he who eats Me will live,
In his turn, because of Me.
John 6:58

How carnal was the eating of the manna, and how spiritual was the eating of the flesh of Christ! It was a far more intimate living by Him than a baby’s living by the nourishment supplied by the mother (breastfeeding). In the mother-child relationship, both are on the same level. In the Christ-human relationship, the difference is that of God and man, heaven and earth. Furthermore, no mother ever has to die and take on a more glorious existance in her human nature before she can be the nourishment of her offspring. But our Lord said that He would have to “give” His life, before He would be the Bread of Life to believers. The plants which nourish animals do not live on another planet; the animals which nourish man do not live in another world. If Christ then was to be the “Life of the World,” He must be tabernacled among men as Emmanuel or “God with us,” supplying a life for the soul as earthly bread is the life of the body.

But the mind of His hearers rose no higher than the physical, as they asked: How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

It was madness for any man to offer his flesh to eat. But they were not left long in the dark as Our Lord corrected them, saying that not a mere man, but “The Son of Man” would give it. As usual, that title referred to the expiatory sacrifice He would offer. Not the dead Christ would believers feed upon, but the Glorified Christ in Heaven Who died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. The mere eating of the flesh and blood of a man would profit nothing; but the glorified Flesh and Blood of the Son of Man would profit unto life everlasting. As man died spiritually by physically eating in the garden of Eden, so he would live again spiritually through eating the fruit of the Tree of Life.

Christ’s words were too literal, and He cleared up too many false interpretations, for any of His hearers to claim that the Eucharist ( or Body and Blood He would give ) was a mere type or symbol, or that it’s effects depended upon the subjective dispositions of the reciever. It was Our Lord’s method whenever anyone misunderstood what He said to correct the misunderstanding, as He did when Nicodemus thought “born again” meant re-entering his mothers womb. But, whenever anyone correctly understood what He said, but found fault with it, He repeated what He said. And in this discourse, Our Lord repeated five times what He had said about His Body and Blood. The full meaning of these words did not become evident until the night before he died. In his last will and testament, He left that which on dying no other man has ever been able to leave, namely, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, for the life of the world.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I also liked Pope Francis’ homily in relation to John 6, I thought I would share it with you.

John 6:41-71

Pope Francis - Homily

In the Gospel from the liturgy of the day many disciples truly believe the language of Jesus, they whisper, are shocked and eventually leave the Master:

"These people have turned away, they are gone, they say, ‘this man is a bit’ strange, he says things that are hard…It’s too big a risk to go down this road. We have common sense, eh? Let’s go ‘back a little and not so close to Him’. These people, perhaps, had a certain admiration for Jesus, but little ‘from afar: not to meddle too much with this man, because he says things that are a bit’ strange … ".

These Christians - the Pope said - " are not united in the Church, they do not walk in God’s presence, they don’t have the security of the Holy Spirit, they do not make up the Church":

"They are Christians of good sense only: they keep their distance. Christians - so to speak they are - ‘satellites’, that have a small church, in size: to quote the words of Jesus in Revelation, ‘lukewarm Christians’. The indifference that is in the Church … They walk only in the presence of common sense, common sense … that worldly prudence: This is a temptation just worldly prudence. "

Pope Francis reflected on so many Christians “that now bear witness to the name of Jesus, even unto martyrdom.” These - he says - are not ‘Christian satellites’, because “they go with Jesus on the path of Jesus”:

"These people know exactly what Peter says to the Lord. They understand exactly what Peter says the Lord, when the Lord asks the question: ‘Do you also want to go, be’ Christian satellites ‘?’. Simon Peter answers him: 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life '. So from a large group there becomes a group a little 'smaller, but those who know perfectly well that they cannot go somewhere else, because only He, the Lord, has the words of eternal life. "

The Pope finally recites this prayer:

"Let us pray for the Church, will continue to grow, unite, to walk in the fear of God and with the security of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord deliver us from the temptation of that ‘common sense’, and in inverted commas, “the temptation to whisper against Jesus, because it is too demanding, and the temptation from scandal. So be it. "

Text from page en.radiovaticana.va/articolo.asp?c=684817
of the Vatican Radio website

 

[mskejj]

There are two great books I would recommend you both read and discuss and pray about together. One is “Jesus and the Jewish Understanding of the Eucharist” by Brant Pitre and the “Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn. They both do an excellent job of shedding light on this teaching. Pitre is a Jewish guru who converted to Catholicism I believe after using his research to try and disprove the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist so its powerful stuff he covers. He takes us back to what the 1st century understanding of Jesus’ teaching in this area. Totally fascinating and one that most Christians today are not even aware of.

Also, check out Father Barron’s “Catholicism” series of DVD’s. Well worth the money and there is one devoted to the Eucharist and many other aspects of Catholic faith. I’ve held Bible study groups using these DVDs and they are AWESOME as all have mentioned.

Your father is thinking as men think and it shows in that he thinks God cannot do what Jesus says in giving us his flesh and blood. There are NO LIMITS to what God can do and this is something we should NEVER forget. Either Jesus was a crazy man, a liar, or truly God speaking the truth and doing the miracles.

I’d also like to ask one question and this is not a joke. What do 1st Century Jews and Protestants have in common? They both take issue with the physical nature of God. The 1st Century Jews couldn’t believe that God would become a man. Protestants that deny the Eucharistic teaching of the Catholic Church take issue that Jesus could not give us himself in a bloodless manner through the forms of bread and wine. God can do ANYTHING and if Jesus said, “This is my body” and “This is the cup of my blood” then I’m going to take him at his truthful word as God cannot lie. Six times in John 6 Jesus said it’s truly himself there using different choices of words. Not once did he say, “I’m using metaphors or symbols here.” In fact, when questioned and confronted that this teaching was difficult to follow Jesus doubled down on it and insisted further that it IS his body and blood and that we should not just eat his flesh but we should gnaw on it. Further, every time the Eucharist is mentioned in the 4 Gospels and the other books in the New Testament the word “IS” appears in the sense of This IS my body, This IS my blood. I’ll pray for your and your father so it goes well.

I agree that both of those books are great…just have to clear up the point that Dr. Brandt Pitre never was Jewish. He is a cradle Catholic who got his PHD from Notre Dame in Ancient Judiasm and New Testament Studies…he teaches at a seminary in New Orleans and all of his CD’s are so informative!

 

[jochoa]

Any help/advice would be great! Thanks!

Here are some concepts to consider:
Eating the Body and Blood of Christ is not cannibalism because it involves a human eating a different species, namely God.
One brilliance in recognizing the image of God is round in form is that science demonstrates that we are created in God’s image: We, both male and female, first exist as living humans in the form of a single cell, which is round in form.
An additional brilliance in recognizing the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of God is the correlation to longevity of livelihood. Science has demonstrated that we can only live as long as the amount of energy we consume from eating other living beings. Therefore, if we want to live forever, we will have to eat something that lives forever, and the only thing to live forever is God, and the only way to eat His Body and drink His Blood is in the Eucharist!

Thank you very much for sharing the very interesting questions! I look forward to further discussion!

 

[ericc]

Here are some concepts to consider:
Eating the Body and Blood of Christ is not cannibalism because it involves a human eating a different species, namely God.

No you are wrong, Jesus was truly man. It is not cannibalism because cannibalism is the eating of the flesh of dead people. Jesus is alive and not dead! His flesh is true food and his blood true drink.