The Eucharist (Here we go again)

[Jeremy_Peter]

Hi all.

I am sooooo sorry to bring this up (I am sure it has been brought up a gazillion times in this forum), but I am hoping to understand, step by step, the concept and literalness of the Eucharist. This is really important because it is the deciding factor as to whether I revert to Catholicism.

I currently do not ascribe myself to any particular religion. I come from a Catholic background but have been a protestant for many years. It is only recently that I have, by the grace of God, started to seek the Kingdom and knock so that I may understand His will fully; a privilege that I am greatful for.

I have been reading about the Early Church and find many things consistent with the Catholic Church, including the Deutorocanonical Books (God Bless St. Augustine for introducing me to these books!). The ONE thing holding me back from conversion is the doctrine and understanding of the Eucharist.

I would please ask that this not become an immature debate, filled with sarcasm and lacking in the love of Christ. Let us answer each other in love and peace, believing that Christ is in us, thereby answering to Christ Himself as He has commanded us to do.

Here is what I understand:

1. Christ was present when he broke the bread with His disciples. He was still fully human at this time. How could he have given His own flesh while he was still fully human?
2. Christ said many things symbolically and metaphorically. Why is this literal? Christ also said things like “I am the true vine”, “I am the door”, but we do not take these things so literally because we know it is against the natural law that governs the Earth as God has made it. Can Christ be Christ in the flesh as well as in the bread? Why would this be if He was still with His disciples? What would be the point unless it were a symbol in rememberance of Him when He actually left this Earth to be with the Father?
3. Christ is already present when we gather at church (Where two or three are gathered…). Christ is already there outwardly. Inwardly, we already have Christ within us (“I am in you as you are in me”). His spirit is within us, why must we also have His flesh? Seems to me that this is against spiritual understanding by taking it so literally.
4. I believe the “disciples” who left Christ when He referred to eating His flesh and drinking His blood, left because, just as other times during His ministry, they did not have an “ear to hear” and did not discern spiritual things from carnal. Just as even Nicodemus was “offended” when he heard Christ say “you must be born again”. Nicodemus took this literally, but it was not literal.
5. I am perplexed by all of the literature and philosophy out there, each having valid arguments, yet proving absolutely nothing. I have read many of the early church fathers on the subject and absolutely NO evidence can be found to prove the lieteral or symbolic either way. There are so many valid arguments for both the literal and symbolic that make so much sense. Any comments?

These are a few points to start with, but I am sure more will come up as the discussion builds.

JP

 

[Newbie2]

Hi all.

I am sooooo sorry to bring this up (I am sure it has been brought up a gazillion times in this forum), but I am hoping to understand, step by step, the concept and literalness of the Eucharist. This is really important because it is the deciding factor as to whether I revert to Catholicism.

I currently do not ascribe myself to any particular religion. I come from a Catholic background but have been a protestant for many years. It is only recently that I have, by the grace of God, started to seek the Kingdom and knock so that I may understand His will fully; a privilege that I am greatful for.

I have been reading about the Early Church and find many things consistent with the Catholic Church, including the Deutorocanonical Books (God Bless St. Augustine for introducing me to these books!). The ONE thing holding me back from conversion is the doctrine and understanding of the Eucharist.

I would please ask that this not become an immature debate, filled with sarcasm and lacking in the love of Christ. Let us answer each other in love and peace, believing that Christ is in us, thereby answering to Christ Himself as He has commanded us to do.

Here is what I understand:

1. Christ was present when he broke the bread with His disciples. He was still fully human at this time. How could he have given His own flesh while he was still fully human?

What is the difference between now and then, as far as he being able to give himself to us in the Eucharist? Whether or not he was physically present (in his earthly body) then and is not here now doesn’t make much of a difference, methinks, about his ability to be present in the Eucharist.

1. Christ said many things symbolically and metaphorically. Why is this literal? Christ also said things like “I am the true vine”, “I am the door”, but we do not take these things so literally because we know it is against the natural law that governs the Earth as God has made it. Can Christ be Christ in the flesh as well as in the bread? Why would this be if He was still with His disciples? What would be the point unless it were a symbol in rememberance of Him when He actually left this Earth to be with the Father?

Remember, he never said “take and eat this vine…” or “take and eat this door”. Christ can be present in the flesh as well as in the bread, as he transcends the “natural laws”. The fact that he chose bread instead of anything else, as we need it for physical sustanance as we need his spirit for spiritual sustanance

1. Christ is already present when we gather at church (Where two or three are gathered…). Christ is already there outwardly. Inwardly, we already have Christ within us (“I am in you as you are in me”). His spirit is within us, why must we also have His flesh? Seems to me that this is against spiritual understanding by taking it so literally.

Ah, but “among” us isn’t as intimate as when he becomes a part of us.

1. I believe the “disciples” who left Christ when He referred to eating His flesh and drinking His blood, left because, just as other times during His ministry, they did not have an “ear to hear” and did not discern spiritual things from carnal. Just as even Nicodemus was “offended” when he heard Christ say “you must be born again”. Nicodemus took this literally, but it was not literal.

I don’t get your point here.

1. I am perplexed by all of the literature and philosophy out there, each having valid arguments, yet proving absolutely nothing. I have read many of the early church fathers on the subject and absolutely NO evidence can be found to prove the lieteral or symbolic either way. There are so many valid arguments for both the literal and symbolic that make so much sense. Any comments?

What “proof” are you looking for? Part of our Catholic faith is believing that the Truth has been revealed to the Church.

These are a few points to start with, but I am sure more will come up as the discussion builds.

JP

 

[VociMike]

Hi all.

I am sooooo sorry to bring this up (I am sure it has been brought up a gazillion times in this forum), but I am hoping to understand, step by step, the concept and literalness of the Eucharist. This is really important because it is the deciding factor as to whether I revert to Catholicism.

1 Peter 3:15

1. Christ was present when he broke the bread with His disciples. He was still fully human at this time. How could he have given His own flesh while he was still fully human?

But he is always fully human. He didn’t cease to be fully human upon his death, or upon his resurrection, or apon his ascension into heaven.

How can he do this? With God all things are possible. I’m sure it has something to do with the Eucharist being his glorified body, which (since it exists in heaven) exists outside of time and space.

Note the tenses that Christ used at the last supper. To paraphrase, “This is my body which is given for you.” “This is my blood which is poured out.” He didn’t say “will be”, he said “is”.

1. Christ said many things symbolically and metaphorically. Why is this literal? Christ also said things like “I am the true vine”, “I am the door”, but we do not take these things so literally because we know it is against the natural law that governs the Earth as God has made it.

In those cases he gave us a sign of his manner of speaking. When he said he was the vine, he also said that we are branches. But we know that humans are not literally branches, thus we know that he was speaking metaphorically. Same with him being the door, since we know that humans are not literally sheep. But he gave no such sign regarding his real and substantial presence in the Eucharist.

Can Christ be Christ in the flesh as well as in the bread? Why would this be if He was still with His disciples? What would be the point unless it were a symbol in rememberance of Him when He actually left this Earth to be with the Father?

If it is only a symbol it is a disgraceful one. A tiny bit of wafer and a sip of wine (or juice) to memorialize God Incarnate, King of Kings, Redeemer of the World? Why, we would not memorialize the least of our friends with such a “meal”. It would be an insult, an affront to any person’s memory. However, if you accept the real presence then it all becomes fitting. We memorialize God with the only truly fitting memorial meal, which is God Himself. We remember Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf with Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf. It all makes perfect sense. It is all perfectly fitting.

In Protestant theology we have the lowest, most inappropriate memorial meal imaginable. In Catholic theology we have the highest, most appropriate memorial meal possible.

1. Christ is already present when we gather at church (Where two or three are gathered…). Christ is already there outwardly. Inwardly, we already have Christ within us (“I am in you as you are in me”). His spirit is within us, why must we also have His flesh? Seems to me that this is against spiritual understanding by taking it so literally.

The Real Presence is a necessary consequence of the Incarnation. Jesus Christ is no longer only spirit (if he ever was, but that’s another discussion). He is body and blood as well as soul and divinity. And we are body and blood as well as soul. So for him to abide fully with us, it must be an abiding that includes body and blood as well as spirit. And this fully abiding happens in the Eucharist, where the fullness of Jesus Christ is united with the fullness of ourselves. Again, it makes perfect sense, it is perfectly fitting.

1. I believe the “disciples” who left Christ when He referred to eating His flesh and drinking His blood, left because, just as other times during His ministry, they did not have an “ear to hear” and did not discern spiritual things from carnal. Just as even Nicodemus was “offended” when he heard Christ say “you must be born again”. Nicodemus took this literally, but it was not literal.

I won’t argue against your view, I will only say that that is not what the Church received and it was never what the Church taught.

1. I am perplexed by all of the literature and philosophy out there, each having valid arguments, yet proving absolutely nothing. I have read many of the early church fathers on the subject and absolutely NO evidence can be found to prove the lieteral or symbolic either way. There are so many valid arguments for both the literal and symbolic that make so much sense. Any comments?

How many early Church fathers have you found who denied the real presence? Sure, sometimes they may focus on the symbolic nature of the Eucharist (and it is very symbolic, see below), but they never deny the real presence.

Regarding the many symbolisms of the Eucharist, there is of course the symbolism of food, and of humans needing food to have life. I am also especially struck by the symbolism of bread and wine, because both of these are a joining of God’s work and our work. God provides the wheat and the grape, and we take these gifts from God and work them into something new. God could have chosen food and drink that required no human preparation, but he did not do that. In this he points out once again that he has freely chosen to invite us to cooperate in his work of salvation. Such is the loving generosity of God.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

One of the MAIN arguments which the Council of Ephesus (refuting Nestorianism) made against the heresy of Nestorianism WAS the Eucharist.

Check out this quote from the main decree of the Council, if you’ve never see it you will be impressed. This is what St Cyril of Alexandria said against Nestorius at the Council:
“Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the Unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and the Precious Blood of Christ the Saviour of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the Life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his Flesh, he made it also to be Life-giving, as also he said to us: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood.”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.viii.html
Look at what is affirmed here:

1. The Mass is a Sacrifice.
2. Jesus is substantially present.
3. John 6 was seen as the Eucharist.

This is the Third Ecumenical Council, this squashes the Protestant position. From a Protestant point of view, what was said here is unBiblical and very blasphemous and not part of true Christianity. However, to go against this huge Council (which most Protestants say they accept) is to slap the entirety of Christendom in the face.

And as a bonus, here is what the Council said in Session 3:
Philip the presbyter and legate of the **Apostolic See ** said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xv.html
**

 

[MarcoPolo]

Hi Jeremy, couple things to consider besides good answers you have already received.

First, remember the passage in John 6 when Jesus says “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life…” Then text says some of the disciples said, “This is a hard saying, who can accept it.” And Jesus repeated Himself and some of them abandoned Him. You raise a critical point, however, that Jesus DID sometimes speak metaphorically. Soooooo…the disciples would have known He sometimes spoke metaphorically. BUT…what happened when Jesus said “eat my flesh, drink my blood.” Did they say, “OH! He’s of course speaking metaphorically as He sometimes does!” By no means, they took Him quite literally, and Jesus repeated His assertion when they questioned Him!

Secondly, think of Jesus holding up the bread at the last supper. He said, “This is my body, it will be given up for you.” So what was given up on the Cross? A metaphor of Jesus’ body or actually Jesus’ body? Well—literally Jesus’ body!

Thirdly, think of the prophecy in Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. What offering do we have in the New Covenant celebrated day and night all over the world that is a pure offering. For if the Eucharist is just a symbol, there is no pure offering. If the Eucharist is indeed His body and blood (as we have established here), then the prophecy in Malachi is fulfilled!

God bless!

 

[davidv]

Here are few my thoughts that haven’t been addressed yet.

Hi all.

I am sooooo sorry to bring this up (I am sure it has been brought up a gazillion times in this forum), but I am hoping to understand, step by step, the concept and literalness of the Eucharist. This is really important because it is the deciding factor as to whether I revert to Catholicism.

I currently do not ascribe myself to any particular religion. I come from a Catholic background but have been a protestant for many years. It is only recently that I have, by the grace of God, started to seek the Kingdom and knock so that I may understand His will fully; a privilege that I am greatful for.

I have been reading about the Early Church and find many things consistent with the Catholic Church, including the Deutorocanonical Books (God Bless St. Augustine for introducing me to these books!). The ONE thing holding me back from conversion is the doctrine and understanding of the Eucharist.

I would please ask that this not become an immature debate, filled with sarcasm and lacking in the love of Christ. Let us answer each other in love and peace, believing that Christ is in us, thereby answering to Christ Himself as He has commanded us to do.

Here is what I understand:

1. Christ was present when he broke the bread with His disciples. He was still fully human at this time. How could he have given His own flesh while he was still fully human?

He is also fully divine, was he not? As He demonstrated many times, He commanded nature, illness, demons and even death. Why not the material essence of the bread and wine?

{snip}

1. I am perplexed by all of the literature and philosophy out there, each having valid arguments, yet proving absolutely nothing. I have read many of the early church fathers on the subject and absolutely NO evidence can be found to prove the lieteral or symbolic either way. There are so many valid arguments for both the literal and symbolic that make so much sense. Any comments?

These are a few points to start with, but I am sure more will come up as the discussion builds.

JP

I think that if you want “proof” you will not find it. Acceptance of the mysteries of God and His Church require faith.

 

[Soutane]

The proof for me has always been Christ’s encounter with the Apostles on the road to Eamus.At "lunch’ Christ who was not recognisable to the Apostles Took bread,blessed it and broke it and at THAT INSTANT they recognised Him and He “disappeared” because His Visual Presence became redundant.I truly feel that the purpose of this Scripture is to underscore the Real Presence.

 

[BEHanner]

Lets see if Luther can’t help with this one.

Stop worrying about the sophistries of how it works.
The Bread is the Body of Christ. The Wine is the Blood of Christ.
It is the same body hung on the cross and the same blood spilled there made present again. Stop trying to split the hairs that are beyond the comprehension of man and have faith.

 

[RosaryFan]

1. Christ said many things symbolically and metaphorically. Why is this literal? Christ also said things like “I am the true vine”, “I am the door”, but we do not take these things so literally because we know it is against the natural law that governs the Earth as God has made it. Can Christ be Christ in the flesh as well as in the bread? Why would this be if He was still with His disciples? What would be the point unless it were a symbol in rememberance of Him when He actually left this Earth to be with the Father?JP

Hi, JeremyPeter. I only have one comment with respect to your questions (regarding #2, which I’ve quoted here). I think the most compelling argument for Jesus not speaking symbolicly about His Flesh is when he told the crowds “You must eat my flesh and drink my blood…” If you remember, many in the crown turned and left after He said this. They must’ve thought he was crazy. Did he stop them and say “Wait, come back! I only meant it symbolicly”. No, He let them go. Also, the word he used for “eat” was “trogo”, which when translated, means chew or gnaw. He chose the word “chew” or “gnaw” rather than “consume” in order to make His literal point. “You must gnaw my flesh…” I think that says a whole lot.

 

[Holly3278]

(Joh 6:53 RSV) So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
(Joh 6:54 RSV) he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

 

[VociMike]

(Joh 6:53 RSV) So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
(Joh 6:54 RSV) he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

More John 6:
[50]This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

 

[Linda_Marie]

Here is what I understand:

1. Christ was present when he broke the bread with His disciples. He was still fully human at this time. How could he have given His own flesh while he was still fully human?

One of the Mysteries of Jesus is His 2 Natures. He is both fully human and fully divine. This is how He was able to accomplish our salvation. Only God could reconcile us, and He chose to redeem our flesh by taking it on Himself. Being both God and man, He is able to give His flesh eternally.

1. Christ said many things symbolically and metaphorically. Why is this literal? Christ also said things like “I am the true vine”, “I am the door”, but we do not take these things so literally because we know it is against the natural law that governs the Earth as God has made it. Can Christ be Christ in the flesh as well as in the bread? Why would this be if He was still with His disciples? What would be the point unless it were a symbol in rememberance of Him when He actually left this Earth to be with the Father?

When He consecrates the Eucharist He says, “This is my Body”. He has turned it around. He did not say,“I am the bread” (although He did say this in John 6), at the Last Supper, He said, “This bread is My Body, this wine is My Blood.”. He is also specifically refering to the bread He was holding , the cup in His Hands, not speaking in general terms like in ’ I am the vine.’. There was no vine present with Him saying that that vine was Him.

1. Christ is already present when we gather at church (Where two or three are gathered…). Christ is already there outwardly. Inwardly, we already have Christ within us (“I am in you as you are in me”). His spirit is within us, why must we also have His flesh? Seems to me that this is against spiritual understanding by taking it so literally.

Because He commanded it. He told us to Eat His Body and Drink His Blood. Read John 6, and then the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper…

19
7 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you;** do this** in memory of me.”
20
And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.
usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke22.htm

1. I believe the “disciples” who left Christ when He referred to eating His flesh and drinking His blood, left because, just as other times during His ministry, they did not have an “ear to hear” and did not discern spiritual things from carnal. Just as even Nicodemus was “offended” when he heard Christ say “you must be born again”. Nicodemus took this literally, but it was not literal.

What He is saying is that we have to accept what He taught here with faith, in the Spirit, that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood or we will not share in His life. It is a hard teaching and if you think of it literally, revolting,and cannibalistic.

Yet, He tells us in John 6,

]53
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.
54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
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.

So many left Him because He had made it very clear that He was speaking literally. At other times, when His followers don’t understand, He clarifies it. He clarifies what He is saying here, repeating again and again that we must eat His Body, each time using a stronger word for ‘eat’ (in the original Greek) until the last when it is literally gnaw and tear at His flesh with our teeth. Had they misunderstood Him, He would not have let them walk away. He would have called them back and explained again. He did not. Instead, He asked the disciples if they too would leave Him over this Teaching.

They were confused and didn’t really understand at this point just how He would give them His flesh to eat but they believed in Him and refused to leave Him over it. As Peter said, to whom would they go? At the Last Supper, it became clear to them that this was how we would eat His body and drink His blood.

I recommend that you spend some time praying at a Catholic church in the Presence. I find that going outside of Mass time, I have the church pretty much to myself and I can pour out my heart to Him. There is something different about praying at the church and praying at my home or even with my prayer group.and I believe it is the Presence.

 

[Eucharisted]

Hi all.

I am sooooo sorry to bring this up (I am sure it has been brought up a gazillion times in this forum), but I am hoping to understand, step by step, the concept and literalness of the Eucharist. This is really important because it is the deciding factor as to whether I revert to Catholicism.

I currently do not ascribe myself to any particular religion. I come from a Catholic background but have been a protestant for many years. It is only recently that I have, by the grace of God, started to seek the Kingdom and knock so that I may understand His will fully; a privilege that I am greatful for.

I have been reading about the Early Church and find many things consistent with the Catholic Church, including the Deutorocanonical Books (God Bless St. Augustine for introducing me to these books!). The ONE thing holding me back from conversion is the doctrine and understanding of the Eucharist.

I would please ask that this not become an immature debate, filled with sarcasm and lacking in the love of Christ. Let us answer each other in love and peace, believing that Christ is in us, thereby answering to Christ Himself as He has commanded us to do.

Here is what I understand:

1. Christ was present when he broke the bread with His disciples. He was still fully human at this time. How could he have given His own flesh while he was still fully human?
2. Christ said many things symbolically and metaphorically. Why is this literal? Christ also said things like “I am the true vine”, “I am the door”, but we do not take these things so literally because we know it is against the natural law that governs the Earth as God has made it. Can Christ be Christ in the flesh as well as in the bread? Why would this be if He was still with His disciples? What would be the point unless it were a symbol in rememberance of Him when He actually left this Earth to be with the Father?
3. Christ is already present when we gather at church (Where two or three are gathered…). Christ is already there outwardly. Inwardly, we already have Christ within us (“I am in you as you are in me”). His spirit is within us, why must we also have His flesh? Seems to me that this is against spiritual understanding by taking it so literally.
4. I believe the “disciples” who left Christ when He referred to eating His flesh and drinking His blood, left because, just as other times during His ministry, they did not have an “ear to hear” and did not discern spiritual things from carnal. Just as even Nicodemus was “offended” when he heard Christ say “you must be born again”. Nicodemus took this literally, but it was not literal.
5. I am perplexed by all of the literature and philosophy out there, each having valid arguments, yet proving absolutely nothing. I have read many of the early church fathers on the subject and absolutely NO evidence can be found to prove the lieteral or symbolic either way. There are so many valid arguments for both the literal and symbolic that make so much sense. Any comments?

These are a few points to start with, but I am sure more will come up as the discussion builds.

JP

1. Jesus is fully God and fully Man. God is eternal, without beginning or end.
2. Jesus said, “This is really My Body” and “This is really My Blood” in Aramaic. The Latin translation reads thus (Matthew 26:26-29):
   26 Cenantibus autem eis, accepit Iesus panem et benedixit ac fregit deditque discipulis et ait: “ Accipite, comedite: hoc est corpus meum ”.
   27 Et accipiens calicem, gratias egit et dedit illis dicens: “ Bibite ex hoc omnes:
   28 hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum.
   29 Dico autem vobis: Non bibam amodo de hoc genimine vitis usque in diem illum, cum illud bibam vobiscum novum in regno Patris mei ”.
3. Jesus is present spiritually where we gather, when we unite ourselves to Him through love (“abide in Me as I abide in you”), and in the words of the Scriptures. Only in the Holy Eucharist is Jesus present literally, under the appearance of bread and wine.

In the Catholic Church, everything is about Christ. Just as Jesus had two Natures - Divine and Human, Invisible and Visible - so too dose the Church have two natures: Divine (Jesus) and Man (believers), Invisible (Heaven and Purgatory) and Visible (Earth); so, too, the Scriptures have two interpretations: the literal and the spiritual; so, too, do the sacraments have a literal reception and a spiritual reception; et cetera. This is why the Catholic Church is called the Body of Christ.

 

[Holly3278]

More John 6:
[50]This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Ah yes! Very good! Thank you for posting this! I would add the following:

(Joh 6:52 RSV) The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
(Joh 6:53 RSV) So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
(Joh 6:54 RSV) he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
(Joh 6:55 RSV) For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
(Joh 6:56 RSV) He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
(Joh 6:57 RSV) As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
(Joh 6:58 RSV) This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
(Joh 6:59 RSV) This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caperna-um.
(Joh 6:60 RSV) Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
(Joh 6:61 RSV) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
(Joh 6:62 RSV) Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
(Joh 6:63 RSV) It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
(Joh 6:64 RSV) But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
(Joh 6:65 RSV) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
(Joh 6:66 RSV) After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
(Joh 6:67 RSV) Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
(Joh 6:68 RSV) Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
(Joh 6:69 RSV) and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
(Joh 6:70 RSV) Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
(Joh 6:71 RSV) He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

Look at how Jesus responds when many of His disciples turned away and left. He did not say “Now wait a moment. You were taking me too literally. What I meant was this…” No, he said to the twelve disciples “Do you also wish to go away?” and Peter, speaking for the group as he was the leader of the group spoke up and said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus responds and says, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” He was of course referring to Judas Iscariot who was to betray him as we learn in John 6:71. But notice in particular how he does not tell the many disciples who left him to come back and that he meant something else! *** No, he does not clarify what he means because they understood him properly!*** To me, this is Biblical proof that the Eucharist is Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity.

 

[grannymh]

Hi all.

I am sooooo sorry to bring this up (I am sure it has been brought up a gazillion times in this forum), but I am hoping to understand, step by step, the concept and literalness of the Eucharist. This is really important because it is the deciding factor as to whether I revert to Catholicism.

I currently do not ascribe myself to any particular religion. I come from a Catholic background but have been a protestant for many years. It is only recently that I have, by the grace of God, started to seek the Kingdom and knock so that I may understand His will fully; a privilege that I am greatful for.

I have been reading about the Early Church and find many things consistent with the Catholic Church, including the Deutorocanonical Books (God Bless St. Augustine for introducing me to these books!). The ONE thing holding me back from conversion is the doctrine and understanding of the Eucharist.

I would please ask that this not become an immature debate, filled with sarcasm and lacking in the love of Christ. Let us answer each other in love and peace, believing that Christ is in us, thereby answering to Christ Himself as He has commanded us to do.

Here is what I understand:

1. Christ was present when he broke the bread with His disciples. He was still fully human at this time. How could he have given His own flesh while he was still fully human?
2. Christ said many things symbolically and metaphorically. Why is this literal? Christ also said things like “I am the true vine”, “I am the door”, but we do not take these things so literally because we know it is against the natural law that governs the Earth as God has made it. Can Christ be Christ in the flesh as well as in the bread? Why would this be if He was still with His disciples? What would be the point unless it were a symbol in rememberance of Him when He actually left this Earth to be with the Father?
3. Christ is already present when we gather at church (Where two or three are gathered…). Christ is already there outwardly. Inwardly, we already have Christ within us (“I am in you as you are in me”). His spirit is within us, why must we also have His flesh? Seems to me that this is against spiritual understanding by taking it so literally.
4. I believe the “disciples” who left Christ when He referred to eating His flesh and drinking His blood, left because, just as other times during His ministry, they did not have an “ear to hear” and did not discern spiritual things from carnal. Just as even Nicodemus was “offended” when he heard Christ say “you must be born again”. Nicodemus took this literally, but it was not literal.
5. I am perplexed by all of the literature and philosophy out there, each having valid arguments, yet proving absolutely nothing. I have read many of the early church fathers on the subject and absolutely NO evidence can be found to prove the lieteral or symbolic either way. There are so many valid arguments for both the literal and symbolic that make so much sense. Any comments?

These are a few points to start with, but I am sure more will come up as the discussion builds.

JP

I’m glad you brought this up because I am doing a major project on the Eucharist, including a handout with questions. In fact, I posted a thread in Evangelization on the Feast of Corpus Christi, The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. As I am getting ready to leave to visit grandkids, I’ll just give you comments from my personal perspective and get back to this thread when I return.

First – find a chapel or church which has Eucharistic Adoration. Eucharistic Adoration is when a Consecrated Host is placed in a glass compartment of a vessel or monstrance and then placed in full view on an altar. Here is Jesus, Himself, inviting us to come visit Him. Some places will have Eucharistic Adoration once a month. Others have it 24/7. When you find out when Adoration takes place, find out how you can get in. Some places have open doors. Some have security keypads which require a code.

Second – when you go into the chapel or church, find a pew which is comfortable for you. The last row is a favorite spot of mine. Sit down. You don’t have to say any particular prayers. Your being there is what is important. If you want to kneel, go ahead. Being in the last row will give you plenty of opportunity to look around.

Third – when you feel like leaving, leave. At our chapel, people pop in for 10-minute visits all the time.

Fourth – go back to Eucharistic Adoration a few more times just to get the hang of it.
Don’t worry about having a religion label. We have other Christians coming to our chapel quite often because they respect the Eucharist as the presence of God. Often they come because of the peace there.

Finally – it’s o.k. for you to bring reading material with you to Eucharistic Adoration. Assuming of course that it is related to spiritual matters. Harry Potter doesn’t count. The key is that this is your personal, quiet time with Jesus. It is o.k. to cry.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[Jeremy_Peter]

Thank the Lord and you all for your posts. I will consider everything carefully.

I was hoping that some of you could comment on some of the things I am struggling with as I search for the truth.

I have a great love for St. Augustine and am inclined to look to him for answers to my faith. I have come across the following and was hoping someone could comment:

*"However, the theological giant who provided the most comprehensive and influential defence of the symbolic interpretation of the Lord’s Supper was Augustine.13 He gave very clear instructions and principles for determining when a passage of Scripture should be interpreted literally and when figuratively. Passages of Scripture must always be interpreted in the light of the entire revelation of Scripture, he concluded, and he used John 6 as a specific example of a passage that should be interpreted figuratively.14

Augustine argued that the sacraments, including the eucharist, are signs and figures which represent or symbolize spiritual realities. He made a distinction between the physical, historical body of Christ and the sacramental presence, maintaining that Christ’s physical body could not literally be present in the sacrament of the eucharist because he is physically at the right hand of God in heaven, and will be there until he comes again. But Christ is spiritually with his people.15 Augustine viewed the eucharist in spiritual terms and he interpreted the true meaning of eating and drinking as being faith: ‘To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.’16

These views of Augustine are obviously in direct opposition to those of the Council of Trent. In fact, teachings such as his on the eucharist were anathematized by that Council. This highlights once again the lack of patristic consensus on the teaching of this major doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The view of the transformation of the elements into the literal body and blood of Christ eventually triumphed within the Church but not without consistent opposition. There were two major controversies in the ninth and eleventh centuries between the literal and more spiritualistic views and even in the Scholastic age there were many prominent theologians who rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation.17

In an attempt to give the impression that there has been a unanimous consent throughout the history of the Church to the Roman Catholic interpretation of the eucharist Karl Keating makes the following statement:

Whatever else might be said, it is certain that the early Church took John 6 and the accounts of the Last Supper literally. There is no record in the early centuries of any Christian doubting the Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and the metaphorical accepted.18"

Quote:

1. For comments by Augustine on the nature of the Eucharist and the Real Presence refer to Appendix 8.
2. ‘If the sentence . . . seems to enjoin a crime or vice. . . it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.’ Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, St. Augustin: The City of God and On Christian Doctrine, On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 563.
3. Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, St Augustin, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Tractate XXVI.I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 168.
4. For instance: Theologians such as Duns Scotus, Biel, Occam & Wessel. See Seeberg, vol. 2, pp. 203ff. for details.
5. Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 238*

Please bear with me as I continue my search.

Thanks again!

JP

 

[VociMike]

When a Church Father is cited as saying something that appears to conflict with Church doctrine, do not assume that the citation is correct and complete. Investigate it further.

bringyou.to/apologetics/num34.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/num30.htm

 

[stephraim]

Here is another Augustinian view:

“‘And he was carried in his own hands.’ But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when referring to His own Body, He said, ‘This is My Body.’ For He carried that Body in His hands.”
-On the Psalms, 33, 1, 10

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ.”
-Sermons 227

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction.”
-Sermons 227

 

[stephraim]

Lk 22:19 Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

• ἄρτος “bread” masculine noun
• Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου literally “This is the body of me”
• Τοῦτό “this” neuter demonstrative pronoun; cannot refer to ἄρτονς “bread” in the preceding verse
• ἐστιν “is” in 1828, Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman published a study Horae Syriacae, which catalogued no less than 40 Syriac (a cognate of Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke) expressions conveying the meaning of “to signify” and “to symbolize.” If any one of these were used by Our Lord, they would then have had to be translated into Greek by a correspondic symbolic word, such as σὑμβολον “symbol” or σημεἶον “sign.”
• σῶμά “body” nominative neuter noun

The meaning therefore is not “this bread is the body of me,” but rather “this [new entity] is the body of me.”

1 Cor 11:24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν, Τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

• Τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα literally “This of me is the body”, variation further emphasizing that τοῦτό is connected even more closely to Christ

 

[stephraim]

Here are some quotes from Fathers of the Church even earlier than Augustine, some who knew and were taught and ordained by Apostles themselves.

**St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. ca. 107 – 110) **
But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. 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.
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6,2 – 7,1

I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.
Letter to the Romans, 7

… you come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God, so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.
Letter to the Ephesians, 20

For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]. Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.
Letter to the Philadelphians, 3,2-4,1

-For the word “altar” Ignatius uses the Greek θυσιαστήροιν, the same word used in Hebrews 13:10 and 1 Corinthians 10:18 in referring to the altar on which the Eucharistic consecration is performed.

St. Justin the Martyr (ca. 100/110 – ca. 165)
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
First Apology, 66

And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
First Apology, 65
-Other Fathers who spoke of carrying the Eucharist to the houses of members are Cyprian, On the Lapsed, 26; and Basil, Epistles, 93. Similarly, Cyril of Alexandria states “I hear that it is said that the mystic Eulogy (the Eucharist) is of no avail unto sanctification, if a remnant of it is left over for the next day. But those who maintain this are foolish; for Christ does not alter and His sacred body is not remolded, but the power of blessing and the quickening grace is constantly in Him.” *Epistle to Calosyrium*