I don't understand the Eucharist

[Mammoths]

The Real Presence has been a distinction that the Church, east and west, has made since the beginnings of Christianity. Jesus didn’t just come to teach and suffer and die and rise but also then to be “with you always” Matt 28:20. Sacraments are the theology of the Church in action form. We are to partake of and commune with Jesus, He must remain in us and us in Him in order for us to have life. So not merely a physical but also a spiritual event takes place with the sacraments, as, in the case of the Eucharist, we recognize our continuous need to be nourished by God. So this nourishment is not solely a matter of hearing and feeding off of the the word through the bible but goes beyond that; again; it is God’s life in us, a necessity for us in order to be justified-to be made just-and therefore for eternal life.

Similarly the other sacraments spell and act out the theology of the Church. Baptism, as far back as the Church knows, is necessary for salvation. Reconciliation/Confession is necessary if we’ve broken our Baptismal vows, straying back away from God and into serious sin. In that case we’ve already broken communion with God spiritually and should not be partaking of Him in the Eucharist-that would be hypocritical as well as futile. We need to turn back to Him in repentance, confessing our sins, and then communion makes sense again, and indeed has already been restored. The Church provides the means to do this.

With these and the other sacraments we physical beings have a simple, concrete, physical way of understanding and living out the faith that has been received and preserved and proclaimed and handed down from generation to generation via the Church.

It is an important distinction because of the implications. For example, if transubstantiation has not occurred then adoration of the species amounts to worship of an object made with hands. If on the other hand, if transubstantiation does occur, rejection of the Eucharist is rejecting Christ himself. Perhaps no other doctrine of the church is a more proof-test distinction among the denominations. If the doctrine fails, the center piece of Catholic doctrine, sacred tradition, is in doubt because the sacramental view of grace is the quintessential assertion of sacred tradition. If it stands, no other denomination has exactly the same teaching. While the resurrection of Jesus is the proof of Christianity, the Eucharist is the proof of Roman Catholicism’s version of Christianity.

 

[catholic1seeks]

It looks to me like the doctrine of the real presence could be explained as an example of an early doctrine that was quickly propagated by popular misconception despite the best efforts of the fathers. Sometimes when looking at “early” dates we can forget how little time it takes for controversy to develop. For example, the level of disagreement about the correct interpretation of the US Constitution barely 240 years old. We know of things in practice today among Catholics that are in conflict with the churches teaching although popular. Significant criticism from evangelicals is aimed at incorrect practice. No doubt there is a risk that such things can creep into the priesthood. Clement and Origen’s explanation of communion is virtually identical to my view but I got mine from reading the scriptures. I find bible-oloters will come up with some strange theories to reconcile irreconcilable differences. I suppose we might see the same here. However clearly these two early fathers not only agreed that the sacrament was symbolic, they denied the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Jesus would have been a complete and utter failure if he had established a ritual he knew would be immediately misunderstood and distorted into an objective act of idolatry. I’m not sure who you consider Jesus to be, but I would assume based on your religious identification that you are still within the Christian tradition. Can we really think Jesus would have talked as literally as he did – read John 6 again – knowing his words, if merely symbolic, would be easily misunderstood?

So again, if you are Christian, you essentially believe the witness of the fourth century church in officially recognizing and determine the canon of the New Testament… all the while rejecting what this very church held universally. Ironic, considering “New Testament” in the Bible actually refers to the institution of the Eucharist. The Bible was formed in reference to the liturgy. That is, they were the “writings of the New Testament” before they were simply writings.

 

[catholic1seeks]

It looks to me like the doctrine of the real presence could be explained as an example of an early doctrine that was quickly propagated by popular misconception despite the best efforts of the fathers. Sometimes when looking at “early” dates we can forget how little time it takes for controversy to develop. For example, the level of disagreement about the correct interpretation of the US Constitution barely 240 years old. We know of things in practice today among Catholics that are in conflict with the churches teaching although popular. Significant criticism from evangelicals is aimed at incorrect practice. No doubt there is a risk that such things can creep into the priesthood. Clement and Origen’s explanation of communion is virtually identical to my view but I got mine from reading the scriptures. I find bible-oloters will come up with some strange theories to reconcile irreconcilable differences. I suppose we might see the same here. However clearly these two early fathers not only agreed that the sacrament was symbolic, they denied the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Read John 6

 

[Mammoths]

Read John 6

I have many times. Look above to see what i think it could mean as I have commented on that passage specifically.

 

[Mammoths]

Jesus would have been a complete and utter failure if he had established a ritual he knew would be immediately misunderstood and distorted into an objective act of idolatry. I’m not sure who you consider Jesus to be, but I would assume based on your religious identification that you are still within the Christian tradition. Can we really think Jesus would have talked as literally as he did – read John 6 again – knowing his words, if merely symbolic, would be easily misunderstood?

So again, if you are Christian, you essentially believe the witness of the fourth century church in officially recognizing and determine the canon of the New Testament… all the while rejecting what this very church held universally. Ironic, considering “New Testament” in the Bible actually refers to the institution of the Eucharist. The Bible was formed in reference to the liturgy. That is, they were the “writings of the New Testament” before they were simply writings.

Except that Origen and clement seem to deny the real presence doctrine.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I have many times. Look above to see what i think it could mean as I have commented on that passage specifically.

Sorry I was too lazy to chop your post to show what I was referring to. It was in reference to when you said that you got your view from “reading the scriptures.”

Of course everyone wants to claim their view is scriptural, but then that points to the need for the larger Christian tradition and a living teaching authority within the church.

When it comes to John 6 specifically, note how both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons have connections to John and his thought. Remember that Polycarp was taught directly by John. Well Polycarp in turn discipled Irenaeus. (Polycarp may have an explicit teaching on the Eucharist, which would be even more directly connected to John… I just can’t recall it as of now.)

So the point here is that while one may claim a certain understanding of John 6 and the Eucharist, note that those who were associated with the Apostle indicated a very realistic understanding of the Eucharist.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Except that Origen and clement seem to deny the real presence doctrine.

Well then this shouldn’t really matter, according to your view — if it were in fact true that these two denied the real presence. For they come late in the game when it comes to the testimony of others like Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and even the Didache and Clement of Rome (who refer to the Eucharist as sacrifice).

Then it would seem the misunderstanding came later at the Alexandrian school, where allegorical interpretation was favored. As you say in one post, it could be that the fathers misunderstood and propogated a false teaching. But the earliest testimony strongly indicates a strong understanding of the Eucharist as Christ’s body and blood. So the misunderstanding, if there is one, came not early on (with Eucharistic realism being evident), but with a (possible) purely allegorical interpretation that came** later**.

However, I do not think it is necessary to think Origen denied the real presence. Consider these snippets:

We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.(Against Celsus 8:33)

I am not sure your personal view, but note how the bread “becomes” the “sacred body” through prayer (e.g., of consecration at liturgy). Partaking of this bread actually sanctifies those who partake of it.

You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish….how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting his body? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)

…now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: “MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK.” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)​

 

[fhansen]

It is an important distinction because of the implications. For example, if transubstantiation has not occurred then adoration of the species amounts to worship of an object made with hands. If on the other hand, if transubstantiation does occur, rejection of the Eucharist is rejecting Christ himself. Perhaps no other doctrine of the church is a more proof-test distinction among the denominations. If the doctrine fails, the center piece of Catholic doctrine, sacred tradition, is in doubt because the sacramental view of grace is the quintessential assertion of sacred tradition. If it stands, no other denomination has exactly the same teaching. While the resurrection of Jesus is the proof of Christianity, the Eucharist is the proof of Roman Catholicism’s version of Christianity.

True enough. And not only is the doctrine “the center piece of Catholic doctrine”, understanding that as *Roman *Catholic doctrine, but also happens to be the centerpiece of the other ancient Churches, the Eastern Orthodox. And some Protestant denominations believe in some form of the RP as well. In any case Tradition is the *only *thing that could resolve such a question conclusively, because Scripture alone can only end up in best-guess theology on this matter, some believing one way, some another…

 

[Kliska]

As far as Iranaeus’ talk of Jesus’ age, scholars have postulated that he didn’t corrupt tradition but rather had this idea of recapitulation that caused *his own interpretation *of scripture that placed Jesus’ age at death as older than 30 but younger than 50.

 

[Vico]

It looks to me like the doctrine of the real presence could be explained as an example of an early doctrine that was quickly propagated by popular misconception despite the best efforts of the fathers. Sometimes when looking at “early” dates we can forget how little time it takes for controversy to develop. For example, the level of disagreement about the correct interpretation of the US Constitution barely 240 years old. We know of things in practice today among Catholics that are in conflict with the churches teaching although popular. Significant criticism from evangelicals is aimed at incorrect practice. No doubt there is a risk that such things can creep into the priesthood. Clement and Origen’s explanation of communion is virtually identical to my view but I got mine from reading the scriptures. I find bible-oloters will come up with some strange theories to reconcile irreconcilable differences. I suppose we might see the same here. However clearly these two early fathers not only agreed that the sacrament was symbolic, they denied the doctrine of transubstantiation.

There is a symbolic aspect as the wheat and wine are called signs. The resurrected Christ is under the consecrated species. They are not present in the same way in the sacrament as a body is present. Pope Paul VI wrote (see below): “they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new “reality” which we can rightly call ontological.”

Catechism
1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: “This is my body which will be given up for you. . . . This is the cup of my blood. . . .”

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

Pope Paul VI, in* Mysterium Fidei* (1965):

As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new “reality” which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium.html

 

[Mammoths]

Well then this shouldn’t really matter, according to your view — if it were in fact true that these two denied the real presence. For they come late in the game when it comes to the testimony of others like Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and even the Didache and Clement of Rome (who refer to the Eucharist as sacrifice).

Then it would seem the misunderstanding came later at the Alexandrian school, where allegorical interpretation was favored. As you say in one post, it could be that the fathers misunderstood and propogated a false teaching. But the earliest testimony strongly indicates a strong understanding of the Eucharist as Christ’s body and blood. So the misunderstanding, if there is one, came not early on (with Eucharistic realism being evident), but with a (possible) purely allegorical interpretation that came** later**.

However, I do not think it is necessary to think Origen denied the real presence. Consider these snippets:

We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.(Against Celsus 8:33)

I am not sure your personal view, but note how the bread “becomes” the “sacred body” through prayer (e.g., of consecration at liturgy). Partaking of this bread actually sanctifies those who partake of it.

You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish….how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting his body? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)

…now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: “MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK.” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)​

Perhaps what I should do is go back and read the whole book from which those snippets are taken. I noticed the famous quote of ignatius was less than clear taken in the context of the whole book. “They abstain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” It looks like he is affirming the real presence specifically. But not if your reading comprehension exceeds a hermeneutical limit of 4 sentences per thesis. It is pretty clear he is referring to the gnostic’s inability to recognize that Jesus came in the flesh. Since they deny the incarnation the Eucharist is meaningless to them and in the same language as Jesus and Paul in scripture, Ignatius says they don’t recognize the Lords body. But I have already shown the scriptures don’t make that doctrine explicit either. Since this is clearly not intended to make a point about the real presence, we shouldn’t take it as such. Ignatius’ use of the word “is” is ambiguous in light of the whole of this controversy. One thing nobody has answered is that given the Eucharist is supposed to be the glorified body, how at the last supper did Jesus give His body when he was not yet resurrected? It seems if the last supper was not Eucharistic, then it sets a precedent for the verb “is.”

 

[Mintaka]

Why wouldn’t Jesus be able to feed His Apostles with His Body before His death?

He is God. “Eat Me, while I’m still alive” is not impossible, any more than any of the other things.

The only thing He couldn’t do is re-present His death as a sacrifice; but since He is God dealing with God, a pre-presentation would be the same thing, in eternal terms.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Perhaps what I should do is go back and read the whole book from which those snippets are taken. I noticed the famous quote of ignatius was less than clear taken in the context of the whole book. “They abstain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” It looks like he is affirming the real presence specifically. But not if your reading comprehension exceeds a hermeneutical limit of 4 sentences per thesis. It is pretty clear he is referring to the gnostic’s inability to recognize that Jesus came in the flesh. Since they deny the incarnation the Eucharist is meaningless to them and in the same language as Jesus and Paul in scripture, Ignatius says they don’t recognize the Lords body. But I have already shown the scriptures don’t make that doctrine explicit either. Since this is clearly not intended to make a point about the real presence, we shouldn’t take it as such. Ignatius’ use of the word “is” is ambiguous in light of the whole of this controversy. One thing nobody has answered is that given the Eucharist is supposed to be the glorified body, how at the last supper did Jesus give His body when he was not yet resurrected? It seems if the last supper was not Eucharistic, then it sets a precedent for the verb “is.”

I disagree. I think it is strongly apparent that Ignatius is directly saying the heretics do not believe in the real presence (since they do not confess it to be his body). I’m not sure I get what you’re saying. Of course Gnosticism was more than just denial of the Eucharist, but this passage is pretty clear that a consequence of that belief system is to reject the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which ignatius also refers to as the “medicine of immortality.”

To the Philadelphians he says:

“Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

That is the Catholic system beautifully wrapped up. Our unity comes from the Eucharist, which is participation of the flesh and blood of Christ and is presided over by the bishops and presbytery of the church along with the deacon.

 

[Mammoths]

Why wouldn’t Jesus be able to feed His Apostles with His Body before His death?

He is God. “Eat Me, while I’m still alive” is not impossible, any more than any of the other things.

The only thing He couldn’t do is re-present His death as a sacrifice; but since He is God dealing with God, a pre-presentation would be the same thing, in eternal terms.

Because the Eucharist is a spiritual body as in the resurrection. The body he had before His passion was of dust. The basis for this question from the other parallel thread on the Eucharist.

 

[Mammoths]

I disagree. I think it is strongly apparent that Ignatius is directly saying the heretics do not believe in the real presence (since they do not confess it to be his body). I’m not sure I get what you’re saying. Of course Gnosticism was more than just denial of the Eucharist, but this passage is pretty clear that a consequence of that belief system is to reject the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which ignatius also refers to as the “medicine of immortality.”

To the Philadelphians he says:

“Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

That is the Catholic system beautifully wrapped up. Our unity comes from the Eucharist, which is participation of the flesh and blood of Christ and is presided over by the bishops and presbytery of the church along with the deacon.

Possibly. That is a reasonable interpretation. I am just not sure it is the right one. the one I presented is reasonable too. This is a test case. When two possible explanations each seem to hold explanatory value, it is fair to with hold judgement as to the nature of reality. I am not committed to Christian agnosticism. Just reluctant to land carelessly. My immortal soul is at stake. I am sure you understand.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Possibly. That is a reasonable interpretation. I am just not sure it is the right one. the one I presented is reasonable too. This is a test case. When two possible explanations each seem to hold explanatory value, it is fair to with hold judgement as to the nature of reality. I am not committed to Christian agnosticism. Just reluctant to land carelessly. My immortal soul is at stake. I am sure you understand.

Consult all the ancient traditions – that is, those Christian communities that have foundation in the apostolic era. Catholic and the various Eastern churches. They all maintain the real presence of Christ in the transubstantiation sense, even if they do not use that language.

If you do not adhere to the notion that there is a teaching authority given to the church by Christ (namely, the bishops as successors to the Apostles, in union with the successor of Peter the pope), then at least see the strong place of Tradition – the consistent teaching of those churches with apostolic foundation.

You may be right that, on one’s own private interpretation, scripture can go this way or that way. When it comes to the Eucharist, there are many aspects that scripture simply does not explicitly answer. But that is because the New Testament documents imply and assume the larger Christian tradition. Christians were “doing” the Eucharist long before the first NT letter or gospel was written. The New Testament only suggests the already-established practice. And when we read scripture with the grid of the proper tradition (for everyone DOES have their own tradition), then it becomes clear that all the Eucharistic passages refer to a very real presence of Christ in the species of bread and wine. It’s no mere spiritual presence, or Christ present among the community at the celebration. No, the institution narratives, the bread of life discourse, and the Corinthian texts all refer to the BREAD itself and the WINE itself as the presence of Christ: “This IS my BODY” … “He who EATS my FLESH and DRINKS my BLOODS has life.” … “The BREAD which we break is a PARTICIPATION in the BODY of Christ.” And so on…

 

[rayteurfs]

When I was in seminary to become a priest, we had a discussion of the Eucharistic Presence. I found the philosophical talk to be more than abstruse. Upon graduating from the seminary college and scoring the highest in the seminary’s history in the Princeton Graduate Record Exam in scholastic philosophy, my own confidence in my thinking started to grow. Since then, I have done a lot of my own thinking - something all Catholics are welcome to do despite any protestations of authority otherwise. That being said…

No one understands ‘transubstantiation’ because it is at least as mysterious as God or the question of why or how anything exists in the first place. No one knows. Being conscious of my own mystical bent (I believe it is in all of us) and hiking in the High Sierras one day with the Minaret Mountains above and a raging river/stream below, the thought occurred to me that if I were Jesus walking with my disciples and trying to get them to understand the oneness of all creation, I might with a grand sweeping wave of my arm say, “This is my body,” and with a similar wave of my arm toward the raging river say, “This is my blood.” At one point in my life, about 45 years ago, I tried to explain my mystic insight to a fellow philosophy student and friend (from a public university). He was very intelligent but had no idea what I was talking about. I was frustrated. So, too, I believe Jesus was a frustrated mystic, saying those same words as he picked up the bread and wine, frustrated, looking for a way to say how it is all ONE. This interpretation is easy to understand. Back those 45 years, I thought to myself, “what sense does it make to have a mystery (transubstantiation or Eucharistic presence) that not even the priests of the church understand.” I say that the priests don’t even understand it because back then I was recognized as one who would understand it if any of us did among those being prepared for the priesthood, but I thought it was unconvincing and confused thinking. …this is from someone who scored in the 99th percentile of those studying the very philosophy used to interpret this mystery.

 

[Mammoths]

When I was in seminary to become a priest, we had a discussion of the Eucharistic Presence. I found the philosophical talk to be more than abstruse. Upon graduating from the seminary college and scoring the highest in the seminary’s history in the Princeton Graduate Record Exam in scholastic philosophy, my own confidence in my thinking started to grow. Since then, I have done a lot of my own thinking - something all Catholics are welcome to do despite any protestations of authority otherwise. That being said…

No one understands ‘transubstantiation’ because it is at least as mysterious as God or the question of why or how anything exists in the first place. No one knows. Being conscious of my own mystical bent (I believe it is in all of us) and hiking in the High Sierras one day with the Minaret Mountains above and a raging river/stream below, the thought occurred to me that if I were Jesus walking with my disciples and trying to get them to understand the oneness of all creation, I might with a grand sweeping wave of my arm say, “This is my body,” and with a similar wave of my arm toward the raging river say, “This is my blood.” At one point in my life, about 45 years ago, I tried to explain my mystic insight to a fellow philosophy student and friend (from a public university). He was very intelligent but had no idea what I was talking about. I was frustrated. So, too, I believe Jesus was a frustrated mystic, saying those same words as he picked up the bread and wine, frustrated, looking for a way to say how it is all ONE. This interpretation is easy to understand. Back those 45 years, I thought to myself, “what sense does it make to have a mystery (transubstantiation or Eucharistic presence) that not even the priests of the church understand.” I say that the priests don’t even understand it because back then I was recognized as one who would understand it if any of us did among those being prepared for the priesthood, but I thought it was unconvincing and confused thinking. …this is from someone who scored in the 99th percentile of those studying the very philosophy used to interpret this mystery.

So are you a pantheist?

 

[rayteurfs]

I don’t think of myself as a pantheist. I will try to describe how I came to sound like one. When we studied both the transcendence and immanence of God, God’s being above and simultaneously within every aspect of creation, I realized that to be completely transcendent, any ‘god’ would have to be completely immanent; and, for any god to be completely immanent it would have to be completely transcendent. You can think of it this way, if we had existence outside of God, we would then have something God did not have: our own self. This would destroy God’s transcendence because God has it all. Back some 50 years ago, I concluded that God was more ‘me’ than I was.

Then you can study the mystics of Chrisitianity, Judaism, Islam, and they ALL sound pantheist.

One modern mystic, the Roman Catholic priest, Raimon Panikkar, said in his book, The Experience of God, “were God to be spoken of as object, God would become nothing more than an idol.” When we pray to, adore, or worship, we always pray to, adore or worship an object. So, those activities are technically idol worship. Wow! …but, hold on. It is true. Objects are what our mind can handle. As the neoThomist, the much respected Jacques Maritain says in his book, Degrees of Knowledge, we think in ‘delimited concepts’. In other words, we cannot but think of God as an object. Panikkar knew this: but, as a mystic, he said what he said because he got it.

So, when I made my original comment, it was from this point of view. Catholics are given mysteries without being educated that everything we know of God is metaphor. To presume that we know God in some particular manner, like the meaning of physical presence in the Eucharist, has the danger of forgetting - or not realizing in the first place, Panikkar’s admonition.

This is all very difficult to talk about with the faithful at large because humanity is not made up of people who have had the time, opportunity or inclination to think on these things from such a perspective. However, some humility about the limits of our knowledge would be a wonderful thing, I think. I think of Catholics as being far too docile and far too insecure in their own minds to think as autonomously as they can (and, maybe, ought to). The hierarchy in the Catholic Church has no corner or real authority to tell anyone what they ought to think, but that is exactly what the Church has done.

…Francis, of course, has been changing that. “Who am I to judge?” According to traditional Catholic thinking , the pope is THE one to judge. Francis, though, knows better. We - all of us humans in every religion and not - are capable of independent thought. And, parsing this question with what all the experts down through the ages have said is not the only way of getting at the truth. For me, the TRUTH in its wholeness and ultimate meaning, is not ours to have with any certainty, not here and not now. The Catholic Church, however, has acted as if it were.

I could be kicked off this site for having an agenda. Well, I do. It is to see Catholics release their awesome power by reclaiming their own autonomy in thought. I think it is what Jesus would want.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The hierarchy in the Catholic Church has no corner or real authority to tell anyone what they ought to think, but that is exactly what the Church has done.

Hmmm. Well you see, this is what a Catholic believes. If you do not believe this, then one ought not be Catholic. Of course, I have to give your statement nuance, for when I say “this is what a Catholic believes,” I am referring to the teaching authority present in the church – an authority that is granted divine authority to draw boundaries on what is and what is not Catholic faith. Catholics don’t believe church leaders can tell us whatever we ought to think. The hierarchy of bishops and the pope, who are successors to the Apostles, are meant to unify the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints by Christ and the Apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

They guard the deposit of faith and make distinction as to what is of Christian belief – just as they did in the fourth century when determining what truly was canonical Christian scripture.

I’m not sure if you accept the Bible as inspired or not. But if you do, you at least accept the Catholic Church’s teaching authority on this point.

You do not have to accept or even fully understand the Eucharist. But if one is Catholic, one must accept that is of divine foundation. Just like the Trinity or Incarnation. Faith is not opposed to or against reason; faith can assist reason and it complements it. But at the end of the day, one accepts a truth like the Eucharist because it is of divine revelation – and not because we have reasoned to it on our own.

No disrespect, but I think it is nonsensical to describe Jesus’ intention on the Eucharist as you did – about Jesus being a frustrated mystic. No, he knew what he was doing. He was celebrating the Jewish Passover. He was renewing it as the New Covenant in his blood. Just at the Jewish passover feast and celebration recalled the original even in a mystical way, so the Eucharistic celebration recalls and makes present Christ’s saving passover.