The Eucharist & Matthew 24:23-24

[ChristianWAB]

I’m starting a new thread regarding a response I received from Michelle Arnold recently. I’ll quote what I wrote and how she responded:

On December 2, 2004, Catholic Answers apologist Michelle Arnold was kind enough to provide a brief explanation on what adoration means in the Catholic context. She wrote:

“Adoration” in this context refers to worship of the Eucharist, which is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, present under the appearance of bread and wine. Because the Eucharist remains the body and blood of Christ so long as the appearances of bread and wine remain, the Church invites people to worship Christ under the form of bread in Eucharistic adoration. A Communion host is placed in a monstrance, and placed upon an altar for people to gaze at, pray before, and worship."

I just can’t understand how this isn’t considered to be idolatry in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Michelle Arnold used the word worship more than once in her explanation of the adoration of the communion host, yet unless I’m grossly misinterpreting the scripture, Exodus 20:4-5 seems to condemn the practice.

Don’t get me wrong – I can certainly understand breaking bread in memory of our Lord Jesus… but to worship the bread seems to stretch the scripture a little further than it was ever meant to go (…especially in light of Exodus 20:4-5). Jesus DID refer to Himself as the bread of life, but then again, He also referred to himself as a door (John 10:9), yet we clearly wouldn’t worship the door to any given church.

Thank you for your time.

This was Michelle Arnold’s response:

“Suppose a man walks into the room dressed in a disguise. Despite the disguise, you recognize him to be Jesus. Would it be idolatrous to worship this man as God once you recognized him to be Jesus Christ? No, because you are worshipping Jesus, who is God. In a similar manner, the Eucharist really is Jesus present under the “disguise” of bread and wine. Just as it would not be idolatrous to worship Jesus if he were disguised by a costume, so it is not idolatrous to worship him under the “disguise” of Communion.”

I had two concerns regarding the response; one is based on scripture and the other one on semantics.

I guess I always thought of a “disguise” as something one adorns in an effort to deceive or misrepresent oneself, which seems out of character for Jesus. I won’t belabor that point because I know that He didn’t reveal Himself as the Son of God until after a period of time (though I don’t consider that to have been deceptive in the least, because it wasn’t His time). My main question is regarding what I’d read in the Gospels recently.

It can be found in both Mark 13:21-22 and Matthew 24:23-24 and I’ll quote from the latter. It reads:

“Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”

Do you think this has any bearing on the idea of the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist? I wanted to get the Catholic perspective on the matter, but I didn’t want to keep bothering the Apologists. Thank you for your time.

 

[JeanneH]

It can be found in both Mark 13:21-22 and Matthew 24:23-24 and I’ll quote from the latter. It reads:

“Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”

Do you think this has any bearing on the idea of the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist? I wanted to get the Catholic perspective on the matter, but I didn’t want to keep bothering the Apologists. Thank you for your time.

NO–If you believe in the Real Presence in Communion at Mass what is your problem here? The priest consecrated the host that is placed in the monstrance and this host is truly Jesus. In the above passages Jesus is telling them to beware of false prohpets.
Eucharistic adoration is the act of worshiping God as He is present in the consecrated Eucharist

 

[JimG]

Michelle’s response made perfect sense in light of Catholic belief.

If you believe that Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharist, then worship is the appropriate response.

If you don’t believe that Jesus is present, then you would consider it idolatry.

When Jesus said “This is my body; this is my blood,” at that first eucharist, his apostles understood it literally. After he ascended into heaven, they continued to repeat this action and always understood it literally, as they have for 2000 years.

If you don’t believe that Jesus meant what he said, then you would have a hard time not considering it to be idolatry.

It has nothing to do with false Christs and false prophets. That refers to human beings who allege themselves to be a Christ or messiah or prophet. The Eucharist does not allege anything. The Eucharist is simply Christ among us. That is why we worship.

 

[Didi]

ChristianWAB:

I guess I always thought of a “disguise” as something one adorns in an effort to deceive or misrepresent oneself, which seems out of character for Jesus.

I have read many meditations by saints and popes on Eucharistic adoration over the last 4 years. One common theme among them is that Jesus makes Himself available to us in the humble form of bread so that we come in faith to Him. Also, because we are still in our human and sinful nature, we could not gaze upon God in all His glory; it would be too much for us.

ChristianWAB:

"Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

As JimG said: When Jesus said “This is my body; this is my blood,” at that first eucharist, his apostles understood it literally".

We are not taking man’s word for it; we are taking Jesus’ word!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Christian,

I agree with Jim’s excellent explanation above. I would add that *if *one were to consider the Eucharistic species to be merely bread than any act of worship toward the Eucharist would be, de facto, idolatry. Conversely, if one accepts the truth that the Eucharistic Christ is present, than refusal to adore would be irreverence and impiety.

Idolatry is actively giving worship to *what you know *is not the True God. Hence, the Israelites’ worship of the Golden Calf, was idolatry because they worshiped it instead of the God who led them out of Egypt.

On the other hand, the Israelites adoration and reverence towards the presence of God in the Temple, or above the Ark of the Covenant, was NOT idolatry, because God Himself told them that it was He – and they believed what He said. They knew they were worshiping the God of Abraham, not Baal or Zeus, or a calf.

Likewise Catholics do the same. Christ said “This is My Body”, and we believe Him.

God Bless, and thank you for such a sincere and interesting post,
VC

 

[jimmy]

ChristianWAB:

I’m starting a new thread regarding a response I received from Michelle Arnold recently. I’ll quote what I wrote and how she responded:

On December 2, 2004, Catholic Answers apologist Michelle Arnold was kind enough to provide a brief explanation on what adoration means in the Catholic context. She wrote:

“Adoration” in this context refers to worship of the Eucharist, which is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, present under the appearance of bread and wine. Because the Eucharist remains the body and blood of Christ so long as the appearances of bread and wine remain, the Church invites people to worship Christ under the form of bread in Eucharistic adoration. A Communion host is placed in a monstrance, and placed upon an altar for people to gaze at, pray before, and worship."

I just can’t understand how this isn’t considered to be idolatry in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Michelle Arnold used the word worship more than once in her explanation of the adoration of the communion host, yet unless I’m grossly misinterpreting the scripture, Exodus 20:4-5 seems to condemn the practice.

Don’t get me wrong – I can certainly understand breaking bread in memory of our Lord Jesus… but to worship the bread seems to stretch the scripture a little further than it was ever meant to go (…especially in light of Exodus 20:4-5). Jesus DID refer to Himself as the bread of life, but then again, He also referred to himself as a door (John 10:9), yet we clearly wouldn’t worship the door to any given church.

Thank you for your time.

This was Michelle Arnold’s response:

“Suppose a man walks into the room dressed in a disguise. Despite the disguise, you recognize him to be Jesus. Would it be idolatrous to worship this man as God once you recognized him to be Jesus Christ? No, because you are worshipping Jesus, who is God. In a similar manner, the Eucharist really is Jesus present under the “disguise” of bread and wine. Just as it would not be idolatrous to worship Jesus if he were disguised by a costume, so it is not idolatrous to worship him under the “disguise” of Communion.”

I had two concerns regarding the response; one is based on scripture and the other one on semantics.

I guess I always thought of a “disguise” as something one adorns in an effort to deceive or misrepresent oneself, which seems out of character for Jesus. I won’t belabor that point because I know that He didn’t reveal Himself as the Son of God until after a period of time (though I don’t consider that to have been deceptive in the least, because it wasn’t His time). My main question is regarding what I’d read in the Gospels recently.

It can be found in both Mark 13:21-22 and Matthew 24:23-24 and I’ll quote from the latter. It reads:

“Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”

Do you think this has any bearing on the idea of the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist? I wanted to get the Catholic perspective on the matter, but I didn’t want to keep bothering the Apologists. Thank you for your time.

No, it has to do with people claiming to be the Christ and being false. The Catholic Church professes the true presence of Christ in the sacrament as the apostles did and as the earliest Christian writers believed. Paul said concerning the Eucharist, " Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord."[1Cor.11] How can you recieve it unworthily and be guilty if it is just a symbol?

 

[John_Taylor]

Hi ChristianWAB…

** I had two concerns regarding the response; one is based on scripture and the other one on semantics:

I guess I always thought of a “disguise” as something one adorns in an effort to deceive or misrepresent oneself, which seems out of character for Jesus. I won’t belabor that point because I know that He didn’t reveal Himself as the Son of God until after a period of time (though I don’t consider that to have been deceptive in the least, because it wasn’t His time).**

I think you answer your own objection…just as Jesus humbled Himself to appear in human form during His ministry upon earth - as the time of His glorification had not yet arrived - likewise Jesus humbles Himself to appear in the form of food for those who receive His teaching (per John 6) inorder to “eat and drink” His “body and blood”. There’s no question of “deception” in either instance. Both require faith to see what is not apparent.

**My main question is regarding what I’d read in the Gospels recently. It can be found in both Mark 13:21-22 and Matthew 24:23-24 and I’ll quote from the latter. It reads:

“Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”**

I suppose I can see how a non-Catholic believer in Christ would think this applies to the Catholic teaching about the Real Presence but I think it is a stretch in that the Eucharist is not presented as an alternative the the True Christ/Messiah, Jesus…rather it is presented as being Jesus Himself. It doesn’t invite people to follow a Christ other than the True Christ, Jesus.

As I read the passage, it clearly refers to other men presenting themselves to be either (1)the long awaited Messiah of the Jewish people or (2) as Jesus who has returned to earth.

In Mark 13:5-6…“Jesus said to them: 'Watch out that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many.”

The Eucharist itself doesn’t speak, it doesn’t “come in the name of Jesus” and claim “I am he” therefore it doesn’t fit what Jesus is warning against.

Also, Mark 13:21 refers to a specific time still in the future, does it not?.. verse 14 reads: “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong” then “At that time” if someone comes claiming to be Christ we know them to be false.

As I see it, verse 5 warns us of the everyday false messiah who comes in the intervening years between Christ’s Resurrection and Acension whereas verse 21 warns of false Christs coming during the more turbulent time of the Tribulation…and in both instances Jesus is warning against “men” who claim to be Christ…not against men who claim that Jesus Himself is present under the appearance of “bread and wine”.

Do you think this has any bearing on the idea of the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist?

As a Catholic, no I don’t. In a sense non-Catholics affirm a “Real Presence” of Christ whenever “two or more are gathered in His Name” and when one reads the Scriptures. Just as they would not think it a violation against Mark 13:21 to say “Christ is waiting within the passages of Scripture to feed you with His Words”, Catholics do not see it a violation of Mark:13:21 to say “Christ is waiting in the Eucharist to feed you with His Body and Blood”.

I hope this helps

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[MariaG]

*“Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”

*Obviously Catholics can point to Scripture that we say refers to the Real Presence of Christ. Today, others say that Catholics have preverted Scripture and interpret it wrongly.

But if you go back and read what the 1st century Christians wrote, you would see that the “false prophets” who came along and deceived the elect are not the Catholics. The Church has taught since the 1st century about the Real Presence of Christ. False prophets have come along and now claim it is all just symbolic.

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

God Bless,
Maria