The Eucharist - Consubstantiation? Symbolic? I don't think so

[Teflon93]

Really - I was just asking the question as it reads. I am a high episcopalian defector and would like to know - well, of course it does not say that in the Bible…I am sure ti is not in the deposit of faith as it were - you would have told me if it was. Please tell me since it is not in the SACRED scriptures (the Word of god) - at what point did it become SACRED traditioon. I am in RCIA and trying to tie all of these things together. Your angst with evangelicals shows, but they have brought alot of people into the chruches for Christ… Your answer reagrding Indulgences…?

What do indulgences have to do with this thread?

Precisely nothing. Indulgences were merely the pretext by which Luther and those like him justified their disobedience to the Church Christ founded.

Had indulgences never been practiced (and they are practiced through to this very day), Luther would have simply found another pretext for the disobedience which he’d come to believe was his only liberation from the consequences of his sinfulness.

All of which has precious little to do—if anything at all—with the Eucharist.

 

[brownjt]

In an effort to bring this topic back on track (Hey, welcome back BrianH!!),

The question was raised, “Why did the Jews leave… who knows?”.

Well, let’s look at the evidence.

Verse 41 says, ***The Jews murmured ***about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” Hmmm…, it looks like the Jews don’t like this saying.

The next time we look in on the Jews conversation, they are beginning to try and parse almost exactly what we are in verse 52 …The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?".

So, after Jesus once again repeats that you must eat His Flesh, the Jews are complaining again, in verse 60, Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

Notice, these aren’t just the Jews that followed Jesus wanting more of that fresh bread. This group has been joined by some of Jesus’ followers. And they specifically are complaining about this command to Eat His Flesh. There’s no questioning the motive of their dis-belief at this point, IMO. It would seem they are having a hard time, shall we say “swallowing His Words”?.. Sorry, bad pun (can I have a rim-shot, Smitty?).

So, Jesus raises the ante even further, “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." … 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 this is the breaking point. For verse 66 tells us, As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

As a result of this, many disciples left him… As a result of what?

His talk on eating His Flesh, as I showed, could have caused the disciples to leave.

But his demand at the end, “no one can come to me…” could have caused them, for Jesus is implying that He is the Son of God.

So which is it? Well, this is not the first time Jesus has talked of being the Son of the Father and the like, which means if the disciples would have left Him, they would have left a lot earlier.

So, it seems logical to me, that they left over Jesus’ talk of eating His Flesh. Especially when you look at the Jewish Laws on blood and such (not to mention cannibalism).

Good point. I guess the continued indignant insistence by some catholics that unless you believe in the catholic interpretation of the Eucharist you are a lesser Christian. The key is to partake in it. Maybe the give no ground tone of this concept that godly mean sincerely disagree on turns some off. Jesus was sysign what his father sent him to say - he clould not intepret it. We must partake in the Eucharist - protestant or Catholic…

 

[Teflon93]

Good point. I guess the continued indignant insistence by some catholics that unless you believe in the catholic interpretation of the Eucharist you are a lesser Christian. The key is to partake in it. Maybe the give no ground tone of this concept that godly mean sincerely disagree on turns some off. Jesus was sysign what his father sent him to say - he clould not intepret it. We must partake in the Eucharist - protestant or Catholic…

Umm, no, Protestants do not have the Eucharist, nor are they allowed to partake of it. That’s why you’re in RCIA. I certainly hope you’re not taking Communion in the meantime.

 

[brownjt]

35: And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36: But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37: All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38: For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39: And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40: And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41: **The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. **
42: And they said, **Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? **
43: Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45: It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46: Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48: I am that bread of life.
49: Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50: This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51: I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52: The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58: This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59: These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60: Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, **This is an hard saying; who can hear it? **
61: When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62: What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64: But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65: And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66: From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67: Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68: Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69: And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70: Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71: He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Note that they murmured when Jesus told them he’d come down from heaven, but “strove [struggled] amongst themselves” and left after he commanded them to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

They did not doubt he was a prophet. They did not doubt he was a miracle worker. They did not even doubt that he was the Messiah (else they wouldn’t have tried to make him king).

They were repelled by the Eucharist.

As many remain today.

Not because of the Eucharist they stay away. Because of the storng words that he said that day and today. The message is that yes - Jesus is the bread of life and anyone who comes to the father must cone through him. The Jews were missing out of the big picture. It becomes painfully clear what he was trying to say after the fact. This passage is the most powerful statement in the New Testemant - you can feel the metaphoric lightning and electricity when you read it now. It becomes clear at the Last Supper - the Lord’s Supper what his commands are. He has done all of this and Peter responded. I think he knew that he also needed an apostle to carry on for Him and be there when His Advocate came. This is not just baout the Real Presence question, is it?

 

[NotWorthy]

Not because of the Eucharist they stay away. Because of the storng words that he said that day and today. The message is that yes - Jesus is the bread of life and anyone who comes to the father must cone through him. The Jews were missing out of the big picture. It becomes painfully clear what he was trying to say after the fact. This passage is the most powerful statement in the New Testemant - you can feel the metaphoric lightning and electricity when you read it now. It becomes clear at the Last Supper - the Lord’s Supper what his commands are. He has done all of this and Peter responded. I think he knew that he also needed an apostle to carry on for Him and be there when His Advocate came. This is not just baout the Real Presence question, is it?

I’m not so sure about this statement. In chapter 5, Jesus said some pretty powerful things:

For the Father loves his Son and shows him everything that he himself does, and he will show him greater works than these, so that you may be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also does the Son give life to whomever he wishes. 22 Nor does the Father judge anyone, but he has given all judgment to his Son, 23 so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation, but has passed from death to life. 25 Amen, amen, I say to you, the hour is coming and is now here when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he gave to his Son the possession of life in himself. 27 And he gave him power to exercise judgment, because he is the Son of Man.

I still say that what offended the Jews was Christ’s words of eating His Flesh.

 

[Teflon93]

I’m not so sure about this statement. In chapter 5, Jesus said some pretty powerful things:
I still say that what offended the Jews was Christ’s words of eating His Flesh.

Which is what the text plainly says and what the Church has maintained since the earliest times.

 

[God_1st]

Teflon93;4453562:

In order to understand how my patricular church does this, which is really the point…but it seems to be directed at me. It is more of a small meal and not part of the church servie itself. As a Bible believer, the example of Christ, Paul, is a meal. As far as wine versus grape juice, because we consume a meal, and our outreach is towards the poor and those who are struggling with addictions, wine would be a really really bad idea.
We do not burn our Bible. I still fail to see why you are worried about what happens to food. It is either thrown away or eaten and then ends up as waste matter in a sewer. Neither option is particularly glorious to me. The bread and wine are just bread and wine. Symbolism is symbolism. The Bible has real content to it. It is the word of God. Bread is…bread.
I fail to understand why a person who does not believe it is symbolic cares what we do with our symbolic food.
On a crass note, why is pooping something out better than throwing it away?

I was lurking and came across this thread. It is difficult to discuss scripture with fundamentalists because they choose what to interpret literal and not and secondly, modern fundamentalism has only been around since the 1920’s and you simply can not compare 90 years of man made teachings with 2000 years of apostolic teachings. The irony is that fundamentalists and protestants use the same Holy Bible that has been passed down for generations, yet they don’t believe in Sacred Tradition. Just want to add my 2 cents for what it’s worth. Water is water until one is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Oil is oil until it is annointed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Bread is bread until it is consecrated on the altar. You ask why is pooping something out better than throwing it away? First, poop is waste matter after the body has absorb all the nutrients. The consecrated bread and wine is completely absorb by every cell in the person consuming it. NOT one bit of the eucharist turns to poop, unlike your symbolic bread which gets moldy and stale and has to be thrown in the sewer. Manna, the prefigure of the Eucharist, came from heaven and nourished the Israelites during their travels in the wilderness. Lastly, how is it that Protestants believe that God is all powerful, all infinte, creator of the entire universe, yet limit HIS word to just a few hundred pages in the Bible? If it is not in the Bible it does not exist. Huh?

Frank

 

[Katrina5]

The thing that most Fundamentalists don’t get is that there wouldn’t even BE a Bible if the Roman Catholic Church hadn’t decided at the First Council of Nicea which books to include, around 300AD.
The King James Bible is missing some books (Apocraphal=False) because Martin Luther decided he wasn’t sure where they came from.
Most Fundamentalists don’t know who King James was (James the First of England-- happened to be King at the time it was translated into Elizabethan English [thee, thou] and was a contemporary of Shakespeare, 1511.)
The King James Bible has no footnotes. It can be read and interpretted and then fought over by whoever chooses. Then when they disagree, they just start yet another church.
The New American Bible that we are most familiar with has many footnotes and explanations of the language, the translations, etc.
The Book of Sirach (formerly Ecclesiasticus in the Douay-Rheims version, translated from the Latin Vulgate around the same time period as KJV) has wonderful descriptions of various professions, including doctors. This, to me, takes away all the doubt that some Religions believe in healing by faith, rather than trusting the intervention of a doctor, whose “knowledge is from God”.
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew,and Jesus was a Jew. He refers to the Scriptures that He studied. The New Testament was mostly written in Greek and Aramaic. They were translated into Latin by St Jerome.
The first English (and German)Bibles were not read by most people because the majority of people were ILLITERATE!!
They had to have someone else read and explain the Scriptures to them. Yes, there were “Chained Libraries” because the books had been meticulously transcribed by monks and were not like an ordinary paperback book, as some Protestants believe.
If people would just study history, they would have a much better understanding of all of this.

 

[NotWorthy]

The King James Bible is missing some books (Apocraphal=False) because Martin Luther decided he wasn't sure where they came from.....

Apocryphal does not necessarily mean false. It simply means its not inspired by Gods. At least that’s what the Church teaches. I’m not sure about our Protestant brothers and sisters.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The thing that most Fundamentalists don’t get is that there wouldn’t even BE a Bible if the Roman Catholic Church hadn’t decided at the First Council of Nicea which books to include, around 300AD.
The King James Bible is missing some books (Apocraphal=False) because Martin Luther decided he wasn’t sure where they came from.
Most Fundamentalists don’t know who King James was (James the First of England-- happened to be King at the time it was translated into Elizabethan English [thee, thou] and was a contemporary of Shakespeare, 1511.)
The King James Bible has no footnotes. It can be read and interpretted and then fought over by whoever chooses. Then when they disagree, they just start yet another church.
The New American Bible that we are most familiar with has many footnotes and explanations of the language, the translations, etc.
The Book of Sirach (formerly Ecclesiasticus in the Douay-Rheims version, translated from the Latin Vulgate around the same time period as KJV) has wonderful descriptions of various professions, including doctors. This, to me, takes away all the doubt that some Religions believe in healing by faith, rather than trusting the intervention of a doctor, whose “knowledge is from God”.
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew,and Jesus was a Jew. He refers to the Scriptures that He studied. The New Testament was mostly written in Greek and Aramaic. They were translated into Latin by St Jerome.
The first English (and German)Bibles were not read by most people because the majority of people were ILLITERATE!!
They had to have someone else read and explain the Scriptures to them. Yes, there were “Chained Libraries” because the books had been meticulously transcribed by monks and were not like an ordinary paperback book, as some Protestants believe.
If people would just study history, they would have a much better understanding of all of this.

Thank you for the insight into history.
I now know that Nicea met in 300 AD and decided the canon.
My copy of the KJV, which has the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals should not.
It has no footnotes, imagining that too.
And lastly that the NT was written in Aramaic.
I want my money back from seminary, they clearly lied to me!!

 

[grannymh]

Rightlydivide;4453764:

I was lurking and came across this thread. It is difficult to discuss scripture with fundamentalists because they choose what to interpret literal and not and secondly, modern fundamentalism has only been around since the 1920’s and you simply can not compare 90 years of man made teachings with 2000 years of apostolic teachings. The irony is that fundamentalists and protestants use the same Holy Bible that has been passed down for generations, yet they don’t believe in Sacred Tradition. Just want to add my 2 cents for what it’s worth. Water is water until one is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Oil is oil until it is annointed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Bread is bread until it is consecrated on the altar. You ask why is pooping something out better than throwing it away? First, poop is waste matter after the body has absorb all the nutrients. The consecrated bread and wine is completely absorb by every cell in the person consuming it. NOT one bit of the eucharist turns to poop, unlike your symbolic bread which gets moldy and stale and has to be thrown in the sewer. Manna, the prefigure of the Eucharist, came from heaven and nourished the Israelites during their travels in the wilderness. Lastly, how is it that Protestants believe that God is all powerful, all infinte, creator of the entire universe, yet limit HIS word to just a few hundred pages in the Bible? If it is not in the Bible it does not exist. Huh?

Frank

If it is difficult to discuss Scripture with Fundamentalists, why not discuss beliefs?

For a good explanation of what happens during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass go to www.rockforddiocese.org and click Meet Bishop Doran, then click His Pastoral Letter on the Most Holy Eucharist. Or go to www.rockforddiocese.org/bishop

 

[NotWorthy]

Thank you for the insight into history.
I now know that Nicea met in 300 AD and decided the canon.
My copy of the KJV, which has the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals should not.
It has no footnotes, imagining that too.
And lastly that the NT was written in Aramaic.
I want my money back from seminary, they clearly lied to me!!

Maybe they meant Matthew was written in Aramaic? And of course, Hippo and Carthage worked out the Canon in the 390’s.

I hate to see that you guys consider the Deutero’s Apocryphal. That’s sad.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Grannymh,

We had a delightful Thanksgiving, too - had all 4 grandkiddies over and they just wore me out… Ah, the real relief was wavng goodbye as they all went home …

Ah, now on to the topic. Thank you for your thoughtful post. I know you spent a lot of time and thought in putting it together. And, it could just be that I have clogged another artery with pumpkin pie… but, I did run into a snag in your presentation.

Let me summarize:
1.) While there are some OT prophets who were clear as day and God’s clearly stated Will was made known to all within hours just as foretold - (Dan 5:1-31) - the majority of prophets are less clear. As a result,

2.) Multiple interpretations are common. These multiple and divergent interpretations were not just items of historic interest, but are with us to this very day. This brings us to the ultimate conclusion that,

3.) Understanding one another’s point of view is the best way to engage in thoughtful dialogue.

Hopefully, this is a fair summary

The issue, at least as I appreciate it, deals with an admittedly speculative topic: just why did the Jews walk away from Christ at the end of John 6? Each one was an individual person and surely had their own individual reason for walking away from - and no longer following - Christ. I think it is possible to identify the members of this group as simply not being in the “sheep fold” that Christ claimed “…hear my voice” (John 10:27). But, while accurate, this response seems to lack specificity - why did they walk now?

The only real evidence comes from the Scriptures themelves. Recall, most (if not all) had the free meal the day before and at least some (I guess) had wanted to make Christ a political “king”. Apparently annoyed that He had left these Jews (and their illusion of an earthly kingdom free of Roman Empire domination) they work to seek Him out (albeit for the wrong reason) - and find Him in Capernaum (John 6: 23-25). My guess is that if Christ had agreed to be their political “king” none of this group would have any agrugment and would have stayed. But, as we know, this was not God’s Plan for our salvation.

The only other topic to now consider is the issue of Christ’s statement that, “Unless you eat My Flesh… you have no life in you.” (John 6:53). And, unfortunately, for this topic - a very real line of division is drawn clearly for all to see - either one believes Christ is God and actually DO what He says He will DO, or this was just a crazy man encouraging cannibalism. As I see it - and you are certainly again invited to provide yet another item - there are only these two roads to take in John 6. One either believes or does not believe. If one believes, then following Christ - the Son of God - is what they have chosen to do. if one does not believe… well,… you are following someone or something else. This choice was SO clear to the Jews that when it was presented to them - there was no equivacation; they either walked with or away from Christ.

While we have spent time on John 6 - let me add another item from this same author 1John 2: 4 “Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” Another clear line is drawn. The only real question that we each must answer is just where are we standing in relationship to that line.

It is my point that it is possible to understand the different interpretations of John Chapter 6 and related passages. This is similar to understanding the motives that prompted the exit of some of the Jews in Chapter 6. I am not focusing on Christ’s words. I am focusing on the people around me. I respect God’s gift of free will.
----- This does not mean that all the interpretations are true. Plus, I am not bound to agree with them. Non-theists don’t agree with any of them.

But I do have the responsibility, if I am a Christian theist, to find the true interpretation of John Chapter 6 and then live it out.

As I sorted through the dueling scripture quotes (I found that description in a post.) my first reaction was that there must be a more gentle way to find the truth.

Alas, all I see in trying to come up with various reasons why (a few, some, most, all…) Jews left (other then what is provided in the text itself) is unlimited speculation. There really is no gentle way - it take hard work and hard choices need to be made every day. The bottom line is that some Jews left (for whatever reason) and some stayed. The bottom line for each of us is that Christ’s Words were clearly spoken and His command - has been implemented exactly by the Catholic Church.

I must plead ignorance as to what a “Christian theist” is. To be honest I have usually seen the word “Christian” used as a noun rather then an adjective modifying something else. While there are many “Christians” out their in the sense that they claim to follow Christ, one must look at the Word of God and what He told us to do - and then see which group is keeping to the commands of Christ.

Ultimately, we will all be judged based on our efforts to develop an enlightened conscience and to then follow that conscience to the correct answer.

God bless

 

[brownjt]

Umm, no, Protestants do not have the Eucharist, nor are they allowed to partake of it. That’s why you’re in RCIA. I certainly hope you’re not taking Communion in the meantime.

Give me a break I meant the the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion for protestant. Eucharist is the catholic term. If a protestant is confirmed, he should be partaking in his equivlanet of that sacrament.

 

[Teflon93]

Give me a break I meant the the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion for protestant. Eucharist is the catholic term. If a protestant is confirmed, he should be partaking in his equivlanet of that sacrament.

Protestants do not have the sacrament of the Eucharist. Valid holy orders are required for the consecration.

This is not a niggling point—it defines which communities are and are not in full communion with the Church Christ founded. No Protestant community is.

 

[grannymh]

Hi, Grannymh,

" I must plead ignorance as to what a “Christian theist” is. "

Good catch about my use of Christian as an adjective. That was one of my more creative senior moments.

Recently, I’ve noticed a shift from the use of atheist to non-theist because some people don’t like to be associated with Richard Dawkins. Could be I was considering the fact that there are other religions besides Christians who believe in God, the Jewish people for example.

Nonetheless, the above is no excuse for not catching my senior moment. Can one have a senior moment about a senior moment? I do hope there are others on this thread who can laugh with me

Bottom line, I like to respond to your obvious question right away – before commenting further.

Blessings to all who have a sense of humor.
grannymh
.

 

[NotWorthy]

Give me a break I meant the the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion for protestant. Eucharist is the catholic term. If a protestant is confirmed, he should be partaking in his equivlanet of that sacrament.

I wasn’t aware there was “an equivalent of that sacrament (the Eucharist)”.

Only the Greek Orthodox and (maybe) the Anglican Church have a valid Apostolic Succession other than Catholics.

Do any of the rest take part in the Sacrifice of the Mass? Do they have valid Holy Orders?

I can play Pirates all I want, but it doesn’t make me BlackBeard.

 

[brownjt]

Protestants do not have the sacrament of the Eucharist. Valid holy orders are required for the consecration.

This is not a niggling point—it defines which communities are and are not in full communion with the Church Christ founded. No Protestant community is.

I understand - thank you. That is why i said “equivalent” to the Sacrament. What is the difference between the two - the real presence question? If you have a reference I can refer to read about it, that is fine, too.

 

[Teflon93]

I understand - thank you. That is why i said “equivalent” to the Sacrament. What is the difference between the two - the real presence question? If you have a reference I can refer to read about it, that is fine, too.

It is not simply the Real Presence, but rather everything about the sacrament of the Eucharist. It is the linchpin of the Church and the focus of the Mass.

The Catechism:

ARTICLE 3
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

1322 The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord’s own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist.

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.’"135

I. THE EUCHARIST - SOURCE AND SUMMIT OF ECCLESIAL LIFE

1324 **The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."136 “The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch.”**137

1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."138

1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.139

1327 **In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: “Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking.”**140

II. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED?

1328 The inexhaustible richness of this sacrament is expressed in the different names we give it. Each name evokes certain aspects of it. It is called:

Eucharist, because it is an action of thanksgiving to God. The Greek words eucharistein141 and eulogein142 recall the Jewish blessings that proclaim - especially during a meal - God’s works: creation, redemption, and sanctification.

1329 The Lord’s Supper, because of its connection with the supper which the Lord took with his disciples on the eve of his Passion and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the Lamb in the heavenly Jerusalem.143

The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part of a Jewish meal, when as master of the table he blessed and distributed the bread,144 above all at the Last Supper.145 It is by this action that his disciples will recognize him after his Resurrection,146 and it is this expression that the first Christians will use to designate their Eucharistic assemblies;147 by doing so they signified that all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion with him and form but one body in him.148

The Eucharistic assembly (synaxis), because the Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful, the visible expression of the Church.149

1330 The memorial of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering. **The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, “sacrifice of praise,” spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant. **

The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church’s whole liturgy finds its center and most intense expression in the celebration of this sacrament; in the same sense we also call its celebration the Sacred Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the Sacrament of sacraments. The Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated by this same name.

1331 Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body.151 We also call it: the holy things (ta hagia; sancta)152 - the first meaning of the phrase “communion of saints” in the Apostles’ Creed - the bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality,153 viaticum. . . .

1332 Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God’s will in their daily lives.

 

[Teflon93]

Cont:

III. THE EUCHARIST IN THE ECONOMY OF SALVATION

The signs of bread and wine

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: “He took bread. . . .” “He took the cup filled with wine. . . .” The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the “work of human hands,” but above all as “fruit of the earth” and “of the vine” - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering.155

1334 In the Old Covenant bread and wine were offered in sacrifice among the first fruits of the earth as a sign of grateful acknowledgment to the Creator. But they also received a new significance in the context of the Exodus: the unleavened bread that Israel eats every year at Passover commemorates the haste of the departure that liberated them from Egypt; the remembrance of the manna in the desert will always recall to Israel that it lives by the bread of the Word of God;156 their daily bread is the fruit of the promised land, the pledge of God’s faithfulness to his promises. The "cup of blessing"157 at the end of the Jewish Passover meal adds to the festive joy of wine an eschatological dimension: the messianic expectation of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he gave a new and definitive meaning to the blessing of the bread and the cup.

1335 The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist.158 The sign of water turned into wine at Cana already announces the Hour of Jesus’ glorification. It makes manifest the fulfillment of the wedding feast in the Father’s kingdom, where the faithful will drink the new wine that has become the Blood of Christ.159

1336 The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"160 The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. “Will you also go away?”:161 the Lord’s question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life"162 and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.

The institution of the Eucharist

1337 The Lord, having loved those who were his own, loved them to the end. Knowing that the hour had come to leave this world and return to the Father, in the course of a meal he washed their feet and gave them the commandment of love.163 In order to leave them a pledge of this love, in order never to depart from his own and to make them sharers in his Passover, he instituted the Eucharist as the memorial of his death and Resurrection, and commanded his apostles to celebrate it until his return; "thereby he constituted them priests of the New Testament."164

1338 The three synoptic Gospels and St. Paul have handed on to us the account of the institution of the Eucharist; St. John, for his part, reports the words of Jesus in the synagogue of Capernaum that prepare for the institution of the Eucharist: Christ calls himself the bread of life, come down from heaven.165

1339 Jesus chose the time of Passover to fulfill what he had announced at Capernaum: giving his disciples his Body and his Blood:

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the passover meal for us, that we may eat it. . . .” They went . . . and prepared the passover. And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”. . . . And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."166