No faith in the eucharist then no faith?

[tigerlily]

i truly hope i don’t offend anyone with this thread, its not my intention honestly.

due to my church of scotland upbringing i doubt i could ever really believe that the eucharist really IS jesus’s body and blood. i just can’t get my head round it and i don’t see how a priest can change the host.

i’ve seen the lanciano miracle online, i’ve gone over and over the entry in catholicism for dummies, looked up other websites and its just not making sense to me and i don’t understand how taking in the host would benefit me. why must someone ‘ingest’ the body of christ?

i’m not saying it could NEVER happen, i just do not understand how and why. if the rc faith didn’t start til the 3rd century, did the eucharist start then or was it always in practice? i know it was a secret ceremony due to persecution of christians but was it always done this way ie LITERALLY jesus and not a representation of him?

can you out there please enlighten me, i’d really appreciate it. i really want to understand the reverance and joy catholics feel at mass when they take communion.

 

[irishmac]

It’s what Christ asked of you, for YOUR salvation. Read the Bread of Life discourse in the Gospel of John, chapter 6.

 

[Della]

Well, I’ll try to help you with both issues here–the Eucharist and when the Church began to celebrate it.

First of all, the Church has always celebrated the Eucharist. The NT (written after the Church began) tells us that Jesus initiated it at the Last Supper when he said, “This is my body…” “This is my blood…” and told the Apostles to “do this…”–do what? What Jesus had done, consecrate bread and wine making them Jesus’ body and blood. This is done by the power of God through the words of the consecration, not done by human hands alone.

The NT also tells us that the early Church gathered for the “breaking of bread,” which is none other than the celebration of the Eucharist. And when the disciples on the road to Emmaus finally recognized that the stranger who had walked along with them, expounding on the Scriptures was truly Jesus was when he broke the bread–a direct reference to his actions at the Last Supper.

As for having a hard time believing in the Real Presence, I submit to you that it takes no more faith to believe in that miracle than it does in the Incarnation of God becoming man, or in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, or in his Resurrection, all things that are not unreasonable, but which require faith to believe, yes?

The Church did not begin in the 3rd century. It began Pentecost, 33 AD. The NT wasn’t confirmed until the 4th century, by the Church. A good book to read on that topic is Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church written by Rev. Henry G. Graham who was himself a convert from the Church of Scotland.

 

[Thal59]

What’s up, Tigerlily?

It would be difficult to explain it all here, but you need to find some study material on the OT Jewish covenants and sarifices.

Jesus is the Paschal Lamb of god. The first Paschal lamb was offered in Egypt before the Exodus. Before God’s wrath slew the firstborn of Egypt, the children of Israel had to slay a lamb without blemish, cook it, and eat it. If they failed in any of these steps, their firstborn would have died with the Egyptians. (They also spread the blood of the lamb on the doorposts.)

Then there is the Todah sacrifice which began with Abraham and Melchizedek in the form of bread and wine. Can you see how the two may be related? As I said, it would take a while to explain it all. If you want, send me an email and I will explain it via email.

Thal59

 

[VociMike]

i truly hope i don’t offend anyone with this thread, its not my intention honestly.

due to my church of scotland upbringing i doubt i could ever really believe that the eucharist really IS jesus’s body and blood. i just can’t get my head round it and i don’t see how a priest can change the host.

First, the priest doesn’t change the elements. God changes them. Secondly, if somebody told you “due to my XYZ upbringing I just couldn’t believe Christ when He said…”, what would you say to that person?

i’ve seen the lanciano miracle online, i’ve gone over and over the entry in catholicism for dummies, looked up other websites and its just not making sense to me and i don’t understand how taking in the host would benefit me. why must someone ‘ingest’ the body of christ?

Because Christ wants you to, and He knows best.

i’m not saying it could NEVER happen, i just do not understand how and why. if the rc faith didn’t start til the 3rd century, did the eucharist start then or was it always in practice? i know it was a secret ceremony due to persecution of christians but was it always done this way ie LITERALLY jesus and not a representation of him?

The Catholic Church didn’t start in the 3rd century. And the Eucharist has always been understood to be really and truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. That’s why in the early Church you cannot find anybody writing about the “new invading heresy” of the Real Presence. The “heresy of the Real Presence” never invaded the Church because the Church always believed in the Real Presence.

can you out there please enlighten me, i’d really appreciate it. i really want to understand the reverance and joy catholics feel at mass when they take communion.

The Eucharist is the making present to us, each and every day, of the entire wonderous gift of Christ’s Incarnation. Christ united God and man, and that union is complete and forever. That is why He is not satisfied to come to us only spiritually, because that is not the entirety of His being, nor the entirety of our being. In the Eucharist Christ continues to join His entire being with out entire beings. That includes His and our bodies and blood, as well as His and our souls, and His divinity.

The Eucharist is about Christ giving Himself to us fully, undivided. It is about His perfect, complete and eternal union with His creation, and with humanity in particular.

 

[tigerlily]

thank you everyone for taking the time to help. i realise that i might come across as intolerant which i’m not at all i promise you. its hard to over turn the things taught as fact to us when we were children. hope that makes sense to you.

you’ve all given me a lot to think about and i’m going to research some more. i’ve not been looking in the right places and my take on it all has been that its something magical only reserved for catholics and only you guys can understand it.

i’ve often thought that jesus’s words in john can be interpretated either way or is that wishful thinking on the part of protestants?

is it down to protestants not wishing to share the same things as catholics? why did the reformers throw the eucharist away in exchange for a representation which surely was less fulfilling?

its hard to be believe in miracles in the 21st century and i’m finding it hard to understand how those who convert can instantly believe its possible. cradle catholics (hope that’s the right term), i feel are very lucky, there’s nothing to question and everything to believe in.

i guess i’m envious…

 

[irishmac]

Tigerlily, trust in the Holy Spirit to lead you. There is no need to be envious. We are all welcome to the table, if we only accept the invitation.

 

[JanDurch]

If it helps at all not even the council of trent teaches that we eat Jesus in a literal or physical way. One of the most helpful things I have ever heard is one someone pointed out that the council of trent never evn uses the woord “lilteral” or “physical.” It says that we eat Jesus in a “sacarmental” way. Maube that helps you or maybe not. it helped me.

 

[Liberian]

Tiger Lily,

I would like to draw a distinction between believing something and understanding it. I do not understand the details of how a car works, but that does not stop me from driving to work in the morning. I have faith in my car that it will work properly. Similarly, you don’t need to understand how the bread and wine change into the Body and Blood of Jesus, you just have to have faith that somehow they do and then receive them with reverence.

The Eucharist was current in the Church in the middle of the first century–twenty or thirty years after Jesus rose from the dead. Paul talks about it in I Corinthians 11 using terms that quite clearly state that this is the Body and Blood of Christ. This is no third-century phenomenon.

I appreciate your desire to understand, and it is nice to understand, but understanding is not necessary.

If I may, I would also add that anybody who is offended by an honest inquiry needs to examine his conscience.

• Liberian

 

[VociMike]

thank you everyone for taking the time to help. i realise that i might come across as intolerant which i’m not at all i promise you. its hard to over turn the things taught as fact to us when we were children. hope that makes sense to you.

Yes, we do understand. And we appreciate that you’re so honest about it.

i’ve often thought that jesus’s words in john can be interpretated either way or is that wishful thinking on the part of protestants?

I think it is wishful thinking. I don’t see how anybody who takes the bible at face value cannot see in John 6 that Christ is talking quite literally. But even if His words could be taken both ways, we must have a way to decide which is right. That way is the Church, which in this matter has always and everywhere taught that Christ’s words in John 6 are literal. For 1500 years this was the only understanding, and for most Christians in the world this is still the only understanding. The Protestant “symbolic understanding” is in the minority both in terms of age and in terms of numbers of believers.

is it down to protestants not wishing to share the same things as catholics? why did the reformers throw the eucharist away in exchange for a representation which surely was less fulfilling?

Catholic writer Hillaire Belloc says that it was because of the Reformers great antagonism towards the ministerial priesthood. You might enjoy reading some Belloc some day.

its hard to be believe in miracles in the 21st century and i’m finding it hard to understand how those who convert can instantly believe its possible. cradle catholics (hope that’s the right term), i feel are very lucky, there’s nothing to question and everything to believe in.

i guess i’m envious…

Oh, I’m sure many Cradle Catholics have pondered the Eucharist deeply. I know I have. And whenever I ponder it I am overwhelmed with God’s all-giving love. He has reached down to join Himself to us, that He might raise us up to Him. The Eucharist is just one very great and very beautiful aspect of this very great and very beautiful act of God’s love for us.

 

[maryj]

What’s up, Tigerlily?

It would be difficult to explain it all here, but you need to find some study material on the OT Jewish covenants and sarifices.

Jesus is the Paschal Lamb of god. The first Paschal lamb was offered in Egypt before the Exodus. Before God’s wrath slew the firstborn of Egypt, the children of Israel had to slay a lamb without blemish, cook it, and eat it. If they failed in any of these steps, their firstborn would have died with the Egyptians. (They also spread the blood of the lamb on the doorposts.)

Then there is the Todah sacrifice which began with Abraham and Melchizedek in the form of bread and wine. Can you see how the two may be related? As I said, it would take a while to explain it all. If you want, send me an email and I will explain it via email.

Thal59

Please let me point out the wonderful and simple this explanation is, great job. And it answers his questions completely. You need go no further than this to know that Christ is the Lamb of God sent to be offered as a sacrifice, for the forgiveness of sins. The flesh of the sacrifice must be eaten for the sacrifice to be complete. End of story. There actually were people outside of the gates of Jerusalem that sold unblemished lambs to those jews that had to travel far to get to jerusalem for the passover celebration, indeed outside of the gate that Jesus entered into Jerusalem through on Palm Sunday. Quite interesting!!

 

[USMC]

i truly hope i don’t offend anyone with this thread, its not my intention honestly.

due to my church of scotland upbringing i doubt i could ever really believe that the eucharist really IS jesus’s body and blood. i just can’t get my head round it and i don’t see how a priest can change the host.

i’ve seen the lanciano miracle online, i’ve gone over and over the entry in catholicism for dummies, looked up other websites and its just not making sense to me and i don’t understand how taking in the host would benefit me. why must someone ‘ingest’ the body of christ?

i’m not saying it could NEVER happen, i just do not understand how and why. if the rc faith didn’t start til the 3rd century, did the eucharist start then or was it always in practice? i know it was a secret ceremony due to persecution of christians but was it always done this way ie LITERALLY jesus and not a representation of him?

can you out there please enlighten me, i’d really appreciate it. i really want to understand the reverance and joy catholics feel at mass when they take communion.

Although you do not believe in the Eucharist yet, you are very well disposed. Asking questions is good, but the most important thing for you to do at this time is to pray. Your will in inclined in the right direction, which will enable God’s grace to bring you the rest of the way.

One quick point which may have already been answered: The Catholic Church did not start in the 3rd century. The Catholic Church is the actual Church founded by Jesus. The evidence of this is the list of Popes going back, without interruption, to Peter who was the first Pope. You can access the list of Popes in any Enclopedia or by doing a google search.

 

[Contarini]

i truly hope i don’t offend anyone with this thread, its not my intention honestly.

due to my church of scotland upbringing

But what’s the real Church of Scotland? The Church of Knox and the Covenanters? The Church of St. Margaret? The Church of the Culdees?

Go walk around the ruins of the cathedral at St. Andrews sometime. That is your heritage.

i doubt i could ever really believe that the eucharist really IS jesus’s body and blood.

Start with the Westminster Confession:

VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

In typical uber-Reformed fashion, it’s far more concerned with what isn’t true than with what is. But still, poking through the denials, there’s considerable substance there.

“Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then as really present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.”

Do you believe that?

I myself don’t believe in transubstantiation–or at least I can’t see that it’s such a big deal. But I believe that Christ is truly present.

if the rc faith didn’t start til the 3rd century, did the eucharist start then or was it always in practice?

I’m not sure what you mean by that. The Eucharist has been celebrated since earliest times, and is celebrated by the Church of Scotland as by nearly all Christians.

It’s one Eucharist, whatever we believe about it.

i know it was a secret ceremony due to persecution of christians but was it always done this way ie LITERALLY jesus and not a representation of him?

I don’t think that’s a meaningful contrast. The classic Catholic definition is hardly “literal.” The substance is transformed. Substance is hardly a concept that fits our use of the word “literal.” When we think of something being “literally” changed we’re more likely to be thinking of “accidents.”

In the Catholic view the bread and wine are *really *transformed. I don’t think “literal” is a helpful word to use.

Edwin

P.S. Where in Scotland do you live? My dad is from Shetland though he’s spent most of his life elsewhere (Australia, England, and the U.S., with briefer stints in New Zealand and China). My mother was born in Glasgow, but her parents were American and she moved to England when she was eleven. I myself have not spent much time in Scotland, but my wife and I went to the Highlands for our honeymoon, and I hope to visit Scotland more often in the future.

 

[tigerlily]

P.S. Where in Scotland do you live? My dad is from Shetland though he’s spent most of his life elsewhere (Australia, England, and the U.S., with briefer stints in New Zealand and China). My mother was born in Glasgow, but her parents were American and she moved to England when she was eleven. I myself have not spent much time in Scotland, but my wife and I went to the Highlands for our honeymoon, and I hope to visit Scotland more often in the future.

i’m was born in glasgow too! i’ve lived all over: grew up in ayr, lived in edinburgh twice, aberdeen twice (here now), studied in stirling. my dad’s from glasgow and mum’s from strathpeffer. whereabouts did you honeymoon?

but glasgow is the best, the mixture of irish catholicism in with the original scots has manifested in the warmest friendliest people you can find this side of the pond. they’d do anything for you and make sure you always have a drink in your hand.

the only drawback is sectarianism but that’ll disappear, its not as bad as it used to be. time’s a great healer i believe.

thank you for those insights, st andrews is the one place i’ve not visited (pretty bad for a patriotic scot! )

i’m pretty mixed up about my faith just now. i think the whole protestant ‘thing’ has turned into an advertisement for the writers of ‘left behind’. the people i get on with best are either of no belief whatsoever, catholic or muslim. people who are staunch in what they believe (or don’t) and won’t be swayed by a book or a flipping film! i’ve been attacked for disputing being ‘raptured’ by those of my own faith in other forums! go figure!

anyway that’s diverting the point of the thread which is very helpful thank you. whether you can ‘prove’ the eucharist of not probably wouldn’t make much difference, people are always going to come up with counter arguments which make a fact (or lack of fact) undefineable.

i guess it does come down to belief and nothing else. another catholic told me to think of it as taking in god himself.

i’ve always thought its a beautiful ritual but hey i’m still learning…