The Eucharist

[Paul_theApostle]

I dont understand how the Catholic Communion Host is the Flesh of Christ

I can see that wine can transform into blood although we cant see it spiritually as they are both liquids

But when i think of the Flesh or body of Christ i think of my own flesh if i were to have a chunk or piece of my flesh ,or perhaps a small piece of red meat,and if we compare that chunk of meat to a very small ,flat and light Communion host i cant see how it can be the same thing even if it is invisible.

I understand and believe in the power of prayer even over food to make it taste better if my mum prays while cooking food,

So i can understand when powerful prayers are read over the bread and wine,that they may become instruments of grace or full of grace and nourishment.

I heard that the Communion is the Body/Blood of the “Glorified Risen” Christ so would that mean that it may not be exactly like his physical earthly body similar to raw flesh or meat,

At the last supper Christ was also not Risen or Glorified yet so how was that Communion his Risen Glorified Body and blood.

Thank you for your help,i am still learning

 

[Joan_M]

It is quite simple. God, who is all powerful, can do what He will.

You are trying to understand what happens from a human point of view, which is natural, but it just cannot be understood that way.

Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Jesus is God, God cannot deceive. Therefore, what he told us is the truth. He gave the power to the apostles, who were his first priests and bishops, to do this. Therefore, when an ordained Catholic priest does what Jesus commanded, then Jesus is present - body, blood, soul and divinity - in both species of Communion.

This is a mystery of faith. We may grasp some of it, but will never, in this life, fully understand it. Blessed are those who have not seen, but believe.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

God said it, so it is! The literalness of Jesus’ words in John 6 is another basis for the literalness of the substance of the bread becoming His Body.

 

[Spencerian]

To help you, we need to note both Scripture and history.

In Genesis 14:18, after Abram’s (Abraham’s) victory with a series of battles, the king of Salem (later, Jerusalem), named Melchizedek, called a “priest of the God Most High,” offers bread and wine as a form of sacrifice in thanks to the Lord. This is the first expression of a sacrificial form to God in the form of bread and wine. This is also the first time we see the use of the word “priest” in Scripture. Psalm 110 also recounts this event, and Melchizedek’s actions.

The Jews were instructed by God to make atonement with their Covenant by the sacrifice of *lambs *to God at an altar in the Temple. As part of the ritual, a portion of the sacrifice is eaten by the offering party and priest. God promised that this would be the way of atonement, but He perfected a true atonement for all sin by offering the Lamb of God, His Son. Offered by the High Priest, Christ, through his Priests, this Lamb of God, under the appearance of bread and wine, is also the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord, and is consumed.

The key that links this and all manner of the sacrifice, of Old and New, is Matthew 5:17, when Christ tells us, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” That means that the priesthood, the acts of sacrifice for atonement, and keeping to the Commandments is being upgraded, not abolished.

Christ set up a new line of priests, who offer the Lamb of God every day in a extratemporal way, as if we are at Calgary at each Mass, where the Lord gives Himself at the altar, under the appearance of bread and wine (as Christ specifically said in John 6 to many unbelieving disciples, and later in the Lord’s Supper by offering bread and wine, proclaiming that that is His Body and Blood that must be offered and eaten).

You can visit Scripture Catholic.com for specific references for a more detail on scriptural support of the Eucharist..

 

[JRKH]

Permit me to share this bit that I heard a couple of months ago…It helped me immensely.

We agree that Jesus was and is God, correct?
Yet if we took a piece of Jesus’ flesh, bone, or blood, and looked at it under a microscope what would we find? human flesh, human bone, human blood. It would look no different and if would be impossible, by looking at the material with our known science to find “God” in it.
So - If God can reside in human flesh and it be “Truly God”, why should we doubt that he can reside win bread and wine and it be Truly His Body and Blood?

Peace
James

 

[Joe_5859]

You may also wish to take a look at some of the tracts from Catholic Answers:

http://www.catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp

That link will take you to a list of all their tracts on sacraments, including some great ones on the Eucharist.

 

[PennyinCanada]

The miracle of Lanciano, where the host and the wine actually turned into blood and* heart *tissue before the eyes of the doubting priest, continues for all of us to this day from 1200 years ago, to help us with our doubts, through the centuries. The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

From: michaeljournal.org/eucharist3.htm

The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (The blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

 

[ESMDHokie77]

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (The blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

haha, wow, I now know Jesus’ blood type!

 

[hilde_the_dog]

Ontologically it is the body, blood soul and divinity of Christ. And really the real “you” is not that person we can see, taste, touch smell. Your body is a part of you.

 

[FCEGM]

I dont understand how the Catholic Communion Host is the Flesh of Christ

I can see that wine can transform into blood although we cant see it spiritually as they are both liquids

But when i think of the Flesh or body of Christ i think of my own flesh if i were to have a chunk or piece of my flesh ,or perhaps a small piece of red meat,and if we compare that chunk of meat to a very small ,flat and light Communion host i cant see how it can be the same thing even if it is invisible.

I understand and believe in the power of prayer even over food to make it taste better if my mum prays while cooking food,

So i can understand when powerful prayers are read over the bread and wine,that they may become instruments of grace or full of grace and nourishment.

I heard that the Communion is the Body/Blood of the “Glorified Risen” Christ so would that mean that it may not be exactly like his physical earthly body similar to raw flesh or meat,

At the last supper Christ was also not Risen or Glorified yet so how was that Communion his Risen Glorified Body and blood.

Thank you for your help,i am still learning

Paul, if you were to cut off a small piece of your flesh, your body would have lost a piece of itself and thus been diminished. In the Eucharist, though, the Flesh (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) we consume is not lost to the One Who gives us to eat. We receive Christ’s Glorified Body and Blood. Glorified now, His Body and Blood cannot be changed or diminished by our partaking of Him in the Eucharist (in contrast to cannibalism which changes by diminishment that which is consumed). He feeds our bodies and souls that we may share in that same glory.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in A.D. 107:

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us …They abstain from the Eucharist and from the Prayer (i.e., the Mass) because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the same Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead” (Ignatius to the Smyrneans, 6, A.D. 107).

Just as with His Blessed Mother and her preservation from Original Sin by virtue of the foreseen merits of the Cross, so, too, the “application” of His Death and Resurrection is given by the Lord in His first Gift of the Eucharist to the gathered Apostles at the Last Supper.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Ok Thank u

I was away for 14 years from the Catholic Church and involved in other Churches that disbelieved in the Validity of Catholic Orders and sacraments so i still struggle with doubts.

Of course i believe Gods word and his institution of the Eucharist,its just within the Catholic Church itself and with the small light piece of bread or wafer/Host that i have had doubts that behind what i can see with my eyes ,that it is really a bit of flesh,

I read about that miracle centuries ago ,so it seems it is true

Its maybe just because i still am influenced and my head has been filled by the Non Catholics and Anti Catholic Churches and i struggle to believe in the Validity of its Orders,Sacraments and its orthodoxy and Holiness.

Peace

 

[JRKH]

Ok Thank u

I was away for 14 years from the Catholic Church and involved in other Churches that disbelieved in the Validity of Catholic Orders and sacraments so i still struggle with doubts.

Of course i believe Gods word and his institution of the Eucharist,its just within the Catholic Church itself and with the small light piece of bread or wafer/Host that i have had doubts that behind what i can see with my eyes ,that it is really a bit of flesh,

I read about that miracle centuries ago ,so it seems it is true

Its maybe just because i still am influenced and my head has been filled by the Non Catholics and Anti Catholic Churches and i struggle to believe in the Validity of its Orders,Sacraments and its orthodoxy and Holiness.

Peace

Prayers to you in your struggles.

I think that in this sense our Eastern Orthodox Brothers have an advantage. The eastern view does not seem to require the same sort of “reasoned”, logical, defined, explanation that western culture seems to demand. They take the view, as someone here mentioned that, Jesus said it; We believe it; That settles it.

All the rest just seems to be trying to explain “how” instead of just practicing faith and…After all. if we knew “how” it wouldn’t require faith…

Peace
James

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Prayers to you in your struggles.

I think that in this sense our Eastern Orthodox Brothers have an advantage. The eastern view does not seem to require the same sort of “reasoned”, logical, defined, explanation that western culture seems to demand. They take the view, as someone here mentioned that, Jesus said it; We believe it; That settles it.

All the rest just seems to be trying to explain “how” instead of just practicing faith and…After all. if we knew “how” it wouldn’t require faith…

Peace
James

When i was at Orthodxy for a long time i never doubted the Eucharist,of course i had faith in the Church and the Holy Spirit

The bread they used is like real bread we eat and buy and i didnt have a prob to believe the big pieces of bread mixed in with the wine would be the Flesh and Blood of Jesus

I just read about how before the great schism ,the Greek Patriarch closed the Latin Churches in his city and his soldiers threw the Latin Eucharist into the streets and desecrated them because he didnt believe they were valid Eucharist

Another Greek Priest said to me that anybody can just get a wafer and say its the Body/blood of Christ,he didnt believe it either,and he also mentioned how the Orthodx do their cross when passing a Church because the Church contains the true Eucharist,but he said they all dont do their Cross when passing a Catholic Church because there is no Eucharist there…

I have been plagued by the anti Catholism of the Orthdox

Or if they are correct,then i am nowhere here or there

Peace

 

[blanc10]

This is probably so wrong but here it goes…

Jesus has the power to rise from the grave and rise others souls to heaven, then I’d believe him if he said take this bread, this is my body. That bread that tastes like wheat flower it IS his body.

It’s hard to say what I’m trying to say. It probably came out wrong.

 

[Paxvobis]

I dont understand how the Catholic Communion Host is the Flesh of Christ

The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a very tough doctrine. Many of Christ’s followers left him over it in John 6. Protestantism professes to follow Christ yet still denies Christ’s real presence and says that Holy Communion is only symbolic. What Protestants ask is “How can you possibly believe that the bread becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ?”

To answer that question we need to look into the Church’s view of creation. The Church - in accordance with Genesis 1 - sees that the Logos - God’s Word - is the cause of all creation. God said “Let there be light” and there was light. Existence is given its greatest reality, indeed it’s very existence, through the word of God.

We hear in the prologue to St. John’s Gospel that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” (St. John 1:1,14) Jesus is the Incarnation of God’s Word and throughout his ministry we hear that Jesus’ very words have an effect in reality.

For example, Jesus said “Lazarus, come out” and he who had been dead for days came out of the grave.

Jesus said “Little girl, get up,” and the little girl got up.

Jesus said “Be thou made clean,” and the leper was made clean.

Jesus is showing us that it is the Word of God to which all creation responds. God’s Word has real creative power.

And so, the night before he died, Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and said “Take this all of you and eat of it: For this is my body.” Then he took wine, blessed it, and said “Take this all of you and drink of it: For this is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant - the mystery of faith - which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. And as often as ye do these things, ye shall do them in memory of me.”

Jesus here is changing the deepest reality of the bread and wine into his body and blood. As shown in John 6, he is not adding a symbolic meaning to the bread but - through the power of God’s Word which not only creates but can change reality at its deepest essence - he is changing the substance of the bread at it’s deepest level. It maintains the appearance of bread. In a laboratory you can’t tell the difference between a consecrated and an unconsecrated host but that’s not the point, for this isn’t a scientific issue. The priest at Mass - following in the footsteps of the Apostles in honoring Christ’s command to do these things in his memory - says the words of consecration and the result is that through the words,the bread and wine are changed into the Flesh and Blood of Jesus offered as a perpetual sacrifice for our salvation and that of all mankind.

 

[PLAT]

The host is both the body and blood of Christ, the consecrated wine is also both body and blood of Christ. That would not be understood visually would it?

 

[JRKH]

When i was at Orthodxy for a long time i never doubted the Eucharist,of course i had faith in the Church and the Holy Spirit

The bread they used is like real bread we eat and buy and i didnt have a prob to believe the big pieces of bread mixed in with the wine would be the Flesh and Blood of Jesus.

I think that here is where you need to focus. If you didn’t have trouble believing that the “big bread”, so different from actual flesh, was the true body of Christ, why do you have trouble believing that the “flat wafer” - same substance, wheat flour and water (sans leaven) - is the true Body and Blood.
I suppose that what you write below is a big part of the problem.

I just read about how before the great schism ,the Greek Patriarch closed the Latin Churches in his city and his soldiers threw the Latin Eucharist into the streets and desecrated them because he didnt believe they were valid Eucharist

Another Greek Priest said to me that anybody can just get a wafer and say its the Body/blood of Christ,he didnt believe it either,and he also mentioned how the Orthodx do their cross when passing a Church because the Church contains the true Eucharist,but he said they all dont do their Cross when passing a Catholic Church because there is no Eucharist there…

I have been plagued by the anti Catholism of the Orthdox

Or if they are correct,then i am nowhere here or there

Peace

Try as much as possible to avoid reading about the sins of the past if such reading is going to trouble you faith. Yes such things happened, but they are past and we must move forward.

As for the that particular Greek priest’s view of the RC Eucharist, I can only say that, both the East and West have valid orders traceable back to the Apostles. Both are able to confect the Eucharist therefore both are valid. Do not be troubled by the “partisan” views of some.

Peace
James

 

[PennyinCanada]

If the Host turned bloody and became human cardiac tissue in front of our eyes, who would go up to receive?

God in His kindness, comes like the babe in Bethlehem, in poverty and hiddeness, without the trumpets, fanfare, and castles. Little, so we could dare approach Him and look with awe and wonder. How could it be that this baby is God’s son? How could this wafer be the heart of God himself? Because God is humble and gentle before us, not to frighten us away.

 

[promethius]

The bread they used is like real bread we eat and buy and i didnt have a prob to believe the big pieces of bread mixed in with the wine would be the Flesh and Blood of Jesus

Then they are incorrect. One only has to attend a Jewish passover to understand the requirements of Matzoh bread and that it cannot contain yeast (so it won’t rise and therefore would not be fluffy like “real bread”). Jesus, a good Jew, would not have touched leavened bread during passover, so you can be sure of one thing: the bread used in the Last Supper, the institution of the Eucharist, was unleavened flat bread like you find in the Catholic Church.

As to your question about appearance, you are hung up on that over what is reality. Let me give you a philosophy primer and then a metaphor…

The primer:
Reality is not defined by existence, but rather by essense. In the greek philosophy, let’s say simply that the idea of a man preceeds the existance of man… in other words, I am a man because I have the ESSENSE of a man, and incidently I have the body of a man to go with that essense… but my “maleness” existed before my body. This is contrary to existentialism that says I’m only a man because I have the body of a man. So to everyone before Neitsche and existentialism came around, reality was defined by the essense of something… THAT was reality, not just what you saw sitting before you.

Metaphor (or, how this applies):
Let’s say I have a clock. It has a wood housing, a face, gears, hands, etc. But the clock is a clock because it is a timekeeping piece. My clock could just as easily be made entirely from metal. It could be digital and have no gears. It is a clock because it’s ESSENSE says it is a timekeeping piece known as a clock.

One day my clock breaks. It will no longer tick or tell time (as I like to joke, it becomes accurate only twice a day). I start to set it on papers to keep them from blowing off of my desk. The clock no longer tells time, it now has the essense of a paperweight. It still has the wood, the gears, the hands, the face of a clock… but it does not have the very essense of a clock. This is no longer a clock, it is a paperweight in the physical appearance of a clock.

In the same way, we have the bread, but the institution of the Eucharist REMOVES the essense of bread from it’s physical existance. This essense, it’s real being, is replaced totally by the essense of Body of Christ. As such, it is Christ in the physical appearance of bread. The reality is the essense, that the real being of the bread, it’s essense, is now that of the Body of Christ.

(Side note: in church dialogue, these two natures of objects are known as substance and accident. So transubstantiation removes the substance (essense) and replaces it with new substance, while the physical accident (existence) is unchanged. This is not merely a spiritual change, however, remember we are talking pre-neitsche where essense is reality, not existence).

 

[JRKH]

Then they are incorrect. One only has to attend a Jewish passover to understand the requirements of Matzoh bread and that it cannot contain yeast (so it won’t rise and therefore would not be fluffy like “real bread”). Jesus, a good Jew, would not have touched leavened bread during passover, so you can be sure of one thing: the bread used in the Last Supper, the institution of the Eucharist, was unleavened flat bread like you find in the Catholic Church.

While I do not wish to dispute the particulars of Church teaching or Jewish law and practice, etc. I must take issue with a couple of things.

1. You say that “they are incorrect”, yet how can this be since the Holy Father has said that the EO has a valid priesthood and valid Sacraments?
2. Jesus, a good Jew, was not above doing things outside of Jewish Law. He healed on the Sabbath, he said that it is not what goes in the mouth but what comes out that defiles a man and in a vision, told Peter not to call “unclean” that which God has made.

It IS true that as a matter of ritual, discipline, we use unleaven bread in the Latin Rite. However, our choice does not automatically make the EO’s choice incorrect. Especially when one considers that the Holy Father has said that their priesthood and sacraments valid.

As to your question about appearance, you are hung up on that over what is reality.

I wholeheartedly agree with this comment. Appearance is not what matters. If Jesus is believed to be wholly present even in the smallest crumb, then obviously the size of the host makes no difference at all.