Some thoughts on the Eucharist

[The_Iambic_Pen]

During my search for the Church, I have primarily attended Catholic and Orthodox churches. Every now and then, however, I have still attended Protestant churches, visiting my own spiritual background, as it were. Today was one such day.

As it turned out, today was communion Sunday. As many of you are probably aware, communion rarely occurs every Sunday in most Protestant traditions. In fact, even once a month is rare. Nevertheless, today was the day. The pastor preached from 1 Corinthians 11:23-30. In keeping with the predominant Protestant theology, he referred to the bread and wine/grape juice (they had both) as being symbolic.

And then came the part that really caught my attention. He said how wondrous it would be when we are in Heaven, and we no longer have a symbol, but are face to face with Christ Himself. I thought to myself, “Catholics believe they have this already! How wondrous that is if it is true.” Well, I don’t think I thought those exact words, but it was something like that… Anyway, through reading the Early Church Fathers and studying both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I see that the doctrine of the Real Presence has been universally held since the beginning. Therefore, I have essentially accepted it on an intellectual level, seeing no real support for the symbolic view. My acceptance of this idea still hasn’t permeated my whole being yet, however, though I believe I will get there in time.

He then went on to preach on the importance of examining oneself and confessing all sin to God before partaking of communion. From a Protestant perspective, I thought what he said was very good, and I think Catholics would agree (though adding that this confession should take place during the sacrament of reconciliation). However, he used a (to me) new interpretation of verse 29. In the RSV:CE, the verse says:

For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

The pastor said this meant that anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the sins within one’s own self and confessing them ate and drank judgment upon himself. The interpretation I had always heard before was that anyone who ate and drank without discerning Christ’s body ate and drank judgment upon himself.

Any thoughts on either of these two interpretations? Which one, if either, has been traditionally used?

I thank you all in advance for your responses. I also ask that you would all pray for me as I try to discern the truth on the matter of the Eucharist. Thanks and God bless!

 

[Nicene]

During my search for the Church, I have primarily attended Catholic and Orthodox churches. Every now and then, however, I have still attended Protestant churches, visiting my own spiritual background, as it were. Today was one such day.

As it turned out, today was communion Sunday. As many of you are probably aware, communion rarely occurs every Sunday in most Protestant traditions. In fact, even once a month is rare. Nevertheless, today was the day. The pastor preached from 1 Corinthians 11:23-30. In keeping with the predominant Protestant theology, he referred to the bread and wine/grape juice (they had both) as being symbolic.

And then came the part that really caught my attention. He said how wondrous it would be when we are in Heaven, and we no longer have a symbol, but are face to face with Christ Himself. I thought to myself, “Catholics believe they have this already! How wondrous that is if it is true.” Well, I don’t think I thought those exact words, but it was something like that… Anyway, through reading the Early Church Fathers and studying both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I see that the doctrine of the Real Presence has been universally held since the beginning. Therefore, I have essentially accepted it on an intellectual level, seeing no real support for the symbolic view. My acceptance of this idea still hasn’t permeated my whole being yet, however, though I believe I will get there in time.

He then went on to preach on the importance of examining oneself and confessing all sin to God before partaking of communion. From a Protestant perspective, I thought what he said was very good, and I think Catholics would agree (though adding that this confession should take place during the sacrament of reconciliation). However, he used a (to me) new interpretation of verse 29. In the RSV:CE, the verse says:

The pastor said this meant that anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the sins within one’s own self and confessing them ate and drank judgment upon himself. The interpretation I had always heard before was that anyone who ate and drank without discerning Christ’s body ate and drank judgment upon himself.

Any thoughts on either of these two interpretations? Which one, if either, has been traditionally used?

I thank you all in advance for your responses. I also ask that you would all pray for me as I try to discern the truth on the matter of the Eucharist. Thanks and God bless!

The pastor is correct about the sin and confession part, but utilizing the wrong verse:

1 Cor 11: 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
28: A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

So according to Paul it is both, acknowledgment and confession of sins v27,28, but also the real presence of Christ v29.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nita]

I have trouble with the interpretation given by the minister. He says essentially:
discerning the body = discerning the **sins within one’s own **self

I did a word search on “body” and on “flesh”. (The Greek also uses two words.) When speaking of sinful desires the word “flesh” was used. **When the word “body” was used, it was for our human body or the body of Christ - that is, the Church **. Did find one verse that spoke of “desires of the body” (RSV translation), but when I checked the Greek, it was the Greek word for “flesh” and not “body”. There are many verses that tie in the word “flesh” with sin. I checked all those verses to be sure the word translated “flesh” corresponded to the Greek word for flesh.

I think the following reasons show “body” should be interpretted as referring to Jesus’ body in the Eucharist:

1. that “body” is not the word used when referring to sin or sinful passions
2. that the word “body” was used just two verses previously for Our Lord’s body,
3. that the normal sense/meaning of the words points to “body” being a reference to Jesus’ body

Nita

 

[Pax]

Nita,

Nicely done:thumbsup:

 

[chrysostom15]

Read John Chapter 6.

After just multiplying the bread and the fish, Jesus said:

Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for

So they said to him, "What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you? What can you do?

Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’"

So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.”

The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop murmuring among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.

Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

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."

These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

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?

What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.

And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

[And now John 6:66] 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."

Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”

He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Thanks for all the info, everyone!

 

[Techno2000]

Thanks for all the info, everyone!

Just Remember that confession to the Priest, purifies your soul
for Jesus to enter in.:yup:

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thanks for all the info, everyone!

Greetings from Iraq, my home station is in Ft. Stewart, but I am deployed in Iraq with 3ID’s Special Troop Battalion.

I see you seek the theology behind the Eucharist. It is true after the Apostolic Age the ECF believed in the Real Presence.

St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote this in his Letters to Smyrnaeans in 110 AD

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Letter to the Ephesians

The Eucharist should be central to our lives and our worship:

Make an effort, then, to meet more frequently to celebrate God’s Eucharist and to offer praise. For, when you meet frequently in the same place, the forces of Satan are overthrown, and his baneful influence is neutralized by the unanimity of your faith. Peace is a precious thing: it puts an end to every war waged by heavenly or earthly enemies. (paragraph 13)

Here St. Ignatius focuses on 1 Corinthians 10:17:

If Jesus Christ, yielding to your prayer, grants me the favor and it is His will, I shall, in the subsequent letter which I intend to write to you, still further explain the dispensation which I have here only touched upon, regarding the New Man Jesus Christ–a dispensation founded on faith in Him and love for Him, on His Passion and Resurrection. I will do so especially if the Lord should reveal to me that you–the entire community of you!–are in the habit, through grace derived from the Name, of meeting in common, animated by one faith and in union with Jesus Christ–who in the flesh was of the line of David, the Son of Man and the Son of God–of meeting, I say, to show obedience with undivided mind to the bishop and the presbytery, and to break the same Bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death, and everlasting life in Jesus Christ. (paragraph 20)

Comments from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Paragraph 1404-1405
The Church knows that the Lord comes even now in his Eucharist and that he is there in our midst. However, his presence is veiled. Therefore we celebrate the Eucharist "awaiting the blessed hope and the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ," (Roman Missal 126, embolism after the Our Father: expectantes beatam spem et adventum Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi; cf. Titus 2:13) asking "to share in your glory when every tear will be wiped away. On that day we shall see you, our God, as you are. We shall become like you and praise you for ever through Christ our Lord." (EP III 116: prayer for the dead)

There is no surer pledge or dearer sign of this great hope in the new heavens and new earth "in which righteousness dwells,"  (2 Pet 3:13) than the Eucharist.  Every time this mystery is celebrated, "the work of our redemption is carried on" and we "break the one bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ." (LG 3; St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Eph. 20, 2: SCh 10, 76)

Source: eucharisticlife.com/ELimages/Timeline/200/Ignatius.html

newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

 

[maryj]

John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him on the last day.

I meditated on this verse at Adoration last friday. I’ll bet I must have read this verse 40 times in an hour. Here is the conclusion to that meditation…we must see the Son and believe…the only way to see The Son is in the Eucharist. Oh how blessed we are as Catholics. sorry just had to share…

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Greetings from Iraq, my home station is in Ft. Stewart, but I am deployed in Iraq with 3ID’s Special Troop Battalion.

See you in an unrevealed amount of time, which I shall not reveal for reasons of operational security. Not that someone couldn’t just read the paper and find out anyway…

I see you seek the theology behind the Eucharist. It is true after the Apostolic Age the ECF believed in the Real Presence.

Thanks for all the information. I agree that the early testimony in favor of the Real Presence is undeniable. I have yet to see anything that contradicts it.

John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him on the last day.

I meditated on this verse at Adoration last friday. I’ll bet I must have read this verse 40 times in an hour. Here is the conclusion to that meditation…we must see the Son and believe…the only way to see The Son is in the Eucharist. Oh how blessed we are as Catholics. sorry just had to share…

Thanks.

 

[Mannyfit75]

See you in an unrevealed amount of time, which I shall not reveal for reasons of operational security. Not that someone couldn’t just read the paper and find out anyway…

When time is give I have time to be online provided that this internet service stays online.

Thanks for all the information. I agree that the early testimony in favor of the Real Presence is undeniable. I have yet to see anything that contradicts it.

Thanks.

That is why I am Catholic. It is affirmed in the Scripture in John 6, and Paul’s letter to the Corinthians concerning eating the body and blood of the Lord.

 

[JimG]

At the risk of sounding somewhat sola scriptura myself: whenever I hear an account like this, I’m always rather amazed that the pastor could so blindly miss the plain meaning of the scripture that he is quoting.

 

[Brenda4God]

I’m with Nita.

 

[Odell]

If only they knew what was going on down the street at the Catholic Church.

We “lift up our hearts” to heaven and are, in a real sense, “caught up in spirit” and taken into a liturgy that’s always going on in heaven (see Revelation 4:2).

That’s what was revealed to the Apostle John in the Bible’s last book. In fact, it’s the Mass that makes sense of the puzzling, and often frightening visions and symbols of Revelation.

What’s revealed to John is that the Mass we celebrate on earth is a participation in the liturgy of heaven.

John’s vision begins on “the Lord’s day,” Sunday (see Revelation 1:10) - the name the first Christians gave to the first day of the week, upon which they celebrated “the breaking of the bread” (see Acts 20:7; Luke 24:1).

John is “caught up in spirit on the Lord’s Day.” In other words, possibly while celebrating the Eucharist himself, John is taken to heaven.

And John sees the same things we see when we come to Mass.
He sees an altar (see Revelation 8:3); candles (1:12); incense (5:8); priests dressed in robes (4:4). And he sees bread or manna (2:17), and bowls or chalices of blood (see Revelation 16).

He sees heavenly worshippers – angels and saints – crying, “Holy, Holy, Holy” (4:8), singing a hymn to the glory of God, the heavenly king (15:3) and shouting “alleluia” (19:1,3,6) and making the sing of the cross on their foreheads (14:1).

There are readings from Scripture (Revelation 2-3), and, finally, the “wedding feast of the Lamb” (19:9).

With the Angels and Saints

John is invited to “come up here” (see Revelation 4:1). And we are invited to come up to heaven, as well – to lift up our hearts - at the beginning of our Liturgy of the Eucharist.

When we lift up our hearts, we are asked to sing with the angels and saints.

This is not simply a fine expression of sentiment. As with everything else in the Mass, there is a “sacramental realism” at work here.

At this point in the Mass, we are in a mysterious way joining our song to the song that John – and the prophet Isaiah before him – heard in heaven: “Holy, holy, holy . . .” (see Revelation 4:8; Isaiah 6:3).

The second part of our song ("Blessed is he . . . ") is taken from the Psalm that pilgrims to Jerusalem would sing at Passover. It was also the psalm that was sung upon Christ’s triumphal entry to Jerusalem (see Mark 11:10; Psalm 118:26).

The biblical words give us clues to what’s going on in the Mass. We have gathered around the altar – not only an earthly altar, but a heavenly altar as well. We have made our way to Mount Zion, the new and heavenly Jerusalem.

This is what John saw – “the Lamb standing on Mount Zion” (see Revelation 14:1).

The Letter to the Hebrews (see Hebrews 12:22-24) likewise speaks of the Eucharistic celebration on earth as entrance into and participation in the heavenly liturgy in the new Jerusalem.

In the Mass, says Hebrews, we approach “Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.” There, we join “countless angels” and “the assembly of the firstborn” and Jesus, “mediator of the new covenant and the sprinkled blood” in a “festal gathering” or feast.

And notice the similarities between Hebrews’ description of the Mass and John’s Revelation. Both see a new Jerusalem, a new Zion, the dwelling place of the Lord (see Psalm 132:13-14). Both see angels and Jesus, the Lamb whose blood takes away the sin of the world. And both see a “feast” and a gathering of “firstborn” or “firstfruits” of those who believe in Jesus (see Revelation 14:4). And both see in this feast in the temple of heaven a sign of the new covenant wrought in the blood of Jesus (see Revelation 11:19)

What these Scriptures show us is that the Mass is the summit of salvation history told in Scripture.

And this is the same thing that the prayers of the Mass tell us.

if you have the time listen to this and tell me what you think.

salvationhistory.com/book…audioRsrcs.cfm

and scroll down to
The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass and the Apocalypse

also all this from the same website. This is a bible study on the subject. I deffenently recomend reading Scott Hanns book the Lambs supper.

salvationhistory.com/onli…urse2_home.cfm

 

[Kitty_Chan]

At the risk of sounding somewhat sola scriptura myself: whenever I hear an account like this, I’m always rather amazed that the pastor could so blindly miss the plain meaning of the scripture that he is quoting.

Well if he were to go back and ask the Pastor then everyone would know for sure. Its not proven he “doesnt know” whats hes quoting, thats being assumed.