Why do Catholics believe in the Eucharist?

[Della]

I thank everyone for their posts…due to the amount, I’m not able to reply to them individually. However, I do not believe in the Eucharist because I am a Messianic Jew. I respect your belief in it, but was really looking for more information about it. Basically, my biggest problems with it are:
1, God told his people not to eat blood. This is further confirmed in Acts when the Jerusalem council tells the Gentiles to abstain from blood. Therefore, if Jesus literally meant the wine turned to blood and told us to eat, it would be a violation of the Mosaic Law. He would therefore have sinned, and as I either have to find a different explanation or assume Jesus is not the Messiah based on this fact, I don’t feel I can accept a literal translation. Perhaps someone can help me here if yo see it differently.

When we receive the Eucharist we are receiving the risen, gloried body and blood of Christ–the same one that walked through walls and doors. Remember that Our Lord didnt cut parts of his body off at the Last Supper, he used bread and wine as not only a symbol, but as the means by which he would give us his body and blood under their appearance. Therefore, he fulfilled the Law in which the lamb was to be eaten by giving us his own body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine. So, it is not physical blood, but Christ himself we are receiving.

2, It is clear from the writings of Paul, and Jesus’ message, that faith saves. So if the Eucharist was required for salvation, wouldn’t that violate this message?

Not at all because we are putting faith in Christ’s own words when he said that “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life” (Jn. 6:54) and “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (Jn. 6:56). It is not faith that saves but faith in Christ. Do you see the difference? Faith is not mere mental assent to truth, it is obeying Christ’s commands–all of them, even the ones we do not fully understand. What you believe is a truncated version of true Christianity. It’s been enough to draw you to Christ, but the more you ask questions about the deeper things of God the more he will ask you to step out in faith to embrace the fullness of the truth.

I’m not trying to challenge everyone. Im just trying to throw my concerns out there and maybe get an explanation or give you food for thought.

Since you have never heard everything we are to believe but have only had part of the truth, it is only natural that you have questions. But the answers are available. Just keep your heart and mind open and let the Holy Spirit guide you.

 

[pablope]

I’ve talked to numerous Catholics, and though not one myself, I respect the Catholic Church.
However, though I know the origins of the Eucharist (Jesus’ proclamations at the Last Supper), I’m puzzled as to why it and the other sacraments are held to be so important, even to the point of bringing salvation. Especially, the fact of it being the actual blood and body of Jesus is puzzling…why?
Thanks for any explanations!

star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/scmnt4.html

Introduction: Eucharist is the Sacrament of Sacraments

Catechetical Summary

The catechetical summary: I just photocopied some pages out of a very good and reliable catechism. I’m not going to read it all to you but I want to touch upon some highlights. What is the Holy Eucharist? The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament. All right, so we can think of everything we have said so far about a sacrament being an oath, sacramentum, and an oath being that which constitutes a covenant. In this case, this is THE sacrament that constitutes THE New Covenant. And what is a covenant? It’s practically equivalent to a family, a sacred family bond.

So as flesh and blood are the bonding agents in the natural families that we all were born into – we received our flesh and blood from our parents. So that when Christ establishes a New Covenant, a new family, a sacred family, he does so using the same sort of material. Only the flesh and blood of Christ becomes supernaturally charged as the bonding agents for God’s universal family, so that we are actually temples of the Holy Spirit in which the Blessed Trinity indwells.

So the Holy Eucharist is a sacrament and a sacrifice. It’s a sacrifice, an unbloody sacrifice in which our Lord Jesus Christ – body, blood, soul and divinity – is contained wholly and offered and received under the appearances of bread and wine, (under the appearances of bread and wine by which we mean color, taste, weight, shape and whatever else appears to the senses.) In the Blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, we have the one sacrament that really seems, doesn’t it, to contradict our senses?

Here we do not have bread and wine and something else. Here we have Christ himself no longer bread and no longer wine, though our senses would tell us otherwise. We call it the Eucharist because Christ instituted it at a meal in which he gave thanks at the beginning and “eucharisto” is the Greek word for thanksgiving. So this is a thank offering, a specific kind of sacrifice. In addition to being a thank offering, it also pulls together all of the many Old Testament sacrifices. And there were several, and they were bloody and they were costly, and all of them have been reduced down to one clean, pure sacrifice of the altar, namely, the Eucharist.

The Holy Eucharist is also called the Blessed Sacrament because it is the most excellent of all the sacraments because it gives us Christ Himself. The Holy Eucharist is called Holy Communion when it is received, usually in Church. Sometimes Communion is taken to the sick, in which case it is called Viaticum. So the Body and the Blood of Christ can be received in communion.

Now how did Christ institute the Holy Eucharist? Because after all, how have we defined sacraments for ages? An outward sign, instituted by Christ to give grace. So how and when did Christ institute this sacrament?

 

[Goya]

Luthier93:

In three different posts (19, 22, 26) I have shown how the Early Church has professed for the Eucharist and the Sacraments the very same faith that today the Catholic Church holds. I have demonstrated that this is not a “Catholic” novelty, but orthodox Christian tradition that has been present in the Church for literally 20 centuries. I invite you to patiently read them in order to understand the teaching of the Church. I would expect the courtesy of at least spending five minutes reading what took me almost one hour to bring together for the edification of both of us.

Afterwards, you may reciprocate the review of where does the opposite teachings originate: namely, that the Eucharist is not the body and blood of Our Lord and that the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation. We will then be able to discern which teaching is orthodox and apostolic, and which one bears the mark of error and the patronage of a heresiarch.

You posed a question–it’s been answered in spades–so much so, that I have nothing to add to the answers posted (just about all were awesome, btw ).

Basically, the Eucharist is what the Catholic Church professes it is–what is has ALWAYS professed it to be–as indicated in the sited bible verses, and confirmed by the quotes RC posted from the ECF’s (I could actually add to his list, but in this case, it just isn’t necessary).

Peace.

 

[Filioque]

My friend, I asked a simple question asking those of you who believe in the Eucharist to explain why. As Paul said, “Be prepared to answer anyone about the hope you hold.”.

As a kid when we had our Seder, there were two major issues that were stressed by my grandfather from the Haggadah, 1. There were things that we needed to do for the Seder to be a Seder, (Instructing the lazy and dull sons) the making of the Hillel “sandwich” etc. 2, was that we were not to understand that the Exodus was something that God did to our forefathers, but that participating in the Seder it is something He does for us.

Now in the NT the narrative was first expressed in Greek, And understood by Greek speaking Jews of the Diaspora, In english we read that Jesus said it was His body and that He said to do this in rememberance of Me. Rememberance is (as I see it) a poorly choosen word as most understand it, since the Greek says, make Anmensis of Me.

Just as I was taught that participation in the Seder made the Exodus present and God is doing something for me now, which was also done to my forefathers then. Or that the Exodus was made present now by the power of God through Anmensis, so too the Command of Jesus that we make Anmensis of His sacrificial offering at the Last Supper and the next day on the Cross is made present and He (being true God and true Man) having the ability to take bread and wine and by His command it becomes His own true body and blood, by His power through His priesthood becomes through Anmensis present for us today. By Jesus authority we gathered here today are in the Upper Room, and at the Foot of the Cross, as well as wittnessing the Resurrected and Asended Jesus through His Anmensis.

 

[Filioque]

I thank everyone for their posts…due to the amount, I’m not able to reply to them individually. However, I do not believe in the Eucharist because I am a Messianic Jew. I respect your belief in it, but was really looking for more information about it. Basically, my biggest problems with it are:
1, God told his people not to eat blood. This is further confirmed in Acts when the Jerusalem council tells the Gentiles to abstain from blood. Therefore, if Jesus literally meant the wine turned to blood and told us to eat, it would be a violation of the Mosaic Law. He would therefore have sinned, and as I either have to find a different explanation or assume Jesus is not the Messiah based on this fact, I don’t feel I can accept a literal translation. Perhaps someone can help me here if yo see it differently.
2, It is clear from the writings of Paul, and Jesus’ message, that faith saves. So if the Eucharist was required for salvation, wouldn’t that violate this message?

I’m not trying to challenge everyone. Im just trying to throw my concerns out there and maybe get an explanation or give you food for thought.

You have posted two things that were recorded in the NT, but you forget that St. Peter had a vision of all that was unclean, and that God now declared them clean, so the laws of Karshrut no longer bind. He foretold the destruction of the Temple, thereby ending the authority of the priesthood of Aaron and Levi. As God and the High priest He instituted His own priesthood.

Yes St. Paul writes that we need faith, but the story does not stop there. Jesus also commanded that the Apostles go to the ends of the earth and preach, baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. He laid hands on them, breathed on them, and told them that they now had the authority to forgive sins. In the NT Jesus takes the Apostles aside and further explains His doctrine. St. John tells us if everything Jesus said or did was written down not all the books of the world could hold them. Even if we judge his statement based on how many books existed in around 90 AD, they would compose much more than the Canon of the OT and NT contain. So to pick one or two verses and allow your walk with Christ to be short changed by not enveloping the entire teaching of Jesus as passed on to us by the Apostles and guarded by their successors seems to me as only accepting some of what He taught, rather than living a full and rich life with Him.

 

[luthier93]

Others have quoted the scriptures have given you the basis of our belief. But I would also
like to say that though Jesus often spoke in parables and some did not believe, in this case
the bible is very explicit in saying that “many” walked away. They did so because they
believed Jesus was talking about really eating his flesh and that was too much for them.
As to the “why” of this and other sacraments, Jesus knew how many graces we would need
and he instituted our sacraments for the purpose of giving us special graces when we
partake of them. It makes so much sense to me, even as a little girl when I was receiving
my first holy communion. On our own, even in believing and living for the Lord, we need
those graces only he can give us.
Those who wrote the bible were around or near those who walked with Jesus, so we know
they had a special knowledge of what he said and did and recorded the events. And, yes,
we believe the bible literally when it comes to our sacraments. It is the opposite for the
protestants, many have told me they believe “every dot and tittle” of the bible, yet they
don’t believe it literally when it comes to the sacraments.
Thanks for the question. I hope you will at least understand what and why we believe as
we do.

Yes, indeed…I thank you all for the explanations. It’s much more clear to me why at this point, and though I’m not quite satisfied that my concerns are answered about it I’m sure you all are sincere in following it.

 

[luthier93]

When we receive the Eucharist we are receiving the risen, gloried body and blood of Christ–the same one that walked through walls and doors. Remember that Our Lord didnt cut parts of his body off at the Last Supper, he used bread and wine as not only a symbol, but as the means by which he would give us his body and blood under their appearance. Therefore, he fulfilled the Law in which the lamb was to be eaten by giving us his own body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine. So, it is not physical blood, but Christ himself we are receiving.
Not at all because we are putting faith in Christ’s own words when he said that “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life” (Jn. 6:54) and “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (Jn. 6:56). It is not faith that saves but faith in Christ. Do you see the difference? Faith is not mere mental assent to truth, it is obeying Christ’s commands–all of them, even the ones we do not fully understand. What you believe is a truncated version of true Christianity. It’s been enough to draw you to Christ, but the more you ask questions about the deeper things of God the more he will ask you to step out in faith to embrace the fullness of the truth.
Since you have never heard everything we are to believe but have only had part of the truth, it is only natural that you have questions. But the answers are available. Just keep your heart and mind open and let the Holy Spirit guide you.

So you are saying that the wine does not actually turn to blood per say, but rather spiritual “blood”? At that point I guess I’m confused about how that’s more than a representation.
However, I agree with you that faith is not an idle thing…that’s part of the belief of us Messianic believers, that the law is not done away with and God’s commands still apply. This is evidenced through many of the letters of Paul (especially Romans) when taken in context properly, and the decision of the Jerusalem council in Acts. That would also mean the eucharist or communion.
But I think there’s a difference between obedience and faith in this way: It is not required of us to follow every commandment perfectly in order to achieve salvation. I don’t think you’ll disagree. But we must have a trust or faith for salvation. So while obedience is a necessary component, it isn’t essential. Am I being clear? That’s where my issue with the Eucharist comes in, at least as I understand you to hold it.

 

[luthier93]

I don’t think it’s correct to compare it to animal blood or even our own human blood. This is Christ’s transfigured body. Also, it is a matter if faith because we acknowledge the Eucharistic miracle takes place under the forms of bread and wine (you don’t taste blood but wine/ the properties if wine remain)

“The Eucharist is the glorified body of Jesus Christ. Concomitance is possible because Christ’s living and eternal body is forever reunited with His blood; hence, receiving the former entails receiving the latter. Christ’s risen body is not a resuscitated corpse like that of Lazarus, but an utterly transformed “spiritual body” (I Cor. 15:44) far different from the spatio-temporal “body of our lowness.” (Phil. 3:21) Therefore, when a Catholic receives the Eucharist, he is receiving not just flesh but glorified flesh, a resurrected and transfigured “super body” that foreshadows the new reality of a new Heaven and a new earth”

-Michael Foley

So are you saying the wine does not become physically blood?

 

[luthier93]

You have posted two things that were recorded in the NT, but you forget that St. Peter had a vision of all that was unclean, and that God now declared them clean, so the laws of Karshrut no longer bind. He foretold the destruction of the Temple, thereby ending the authority of the priesthood of Aaron and Levi. As God and the High priest He instituted His own priesthood.

Yes St. Paul writes that we need faith, but the story does not stop there. Jesus also commanded that the Apostles go to the ends of the earth and preach, baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. He laid hands on them, breathed on them, and told them that they now had the authority to forgive sins. In the NT Jesus takes the Apostles aside and further explains His doctrine. St. John tells us if everything Jesus said or did was written down not all the books of the world could hold them. Even if we judge his statement based on how many books existed in around 90 AD, they would compose much more than the Canon of the OT and NT contain. So to pick one or two verses and allow your walk with Christ to be short changed by not enveloping the entire teaching of Jesus as passed on to us by the Apostles and guarded by their successors seems to me as only accepting some of what He taught, rather than living a full and rich life with Him.

Well, I won’t get too much into this here, but we can discuss it elsewhere. Even Peter realized that it wasn’t food God was talking about in his vision, but rather those which God called clean through faith, the Gentiles. Remember that if God had been meaning animals, Peter would have disobeyed God three times and there would be evidence of such. Rather, it was a relatable picture for him. God didn’t actually tell Peter the animals were clean, but rather “don’t call unclean what God has called clean.” There’s no real evidence he was referring to the animals Peter saw. So therefore, the laws of Kashrut have not been nullified.
I’ve turned from the Protestant faith I was raised in precisely because I realized what you say, that it’s shortchanging yourself to only follow part of the story. But in reality, the OT is the greater portion of the Scriptures and it’s all about the Messiah. So if we leave it behind, we are missing a lot!

 

[mcrow]

A simple thought on the subject is we do it because he told us to do it.

“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

Note he says, “this IS my body” not this is “like” or “represents”…ect and that he clearly says , “do this”.

“This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood”

Also, this marks the point where a new covenant was started which spreads some light on some the OPs questions on the mosaic law.

Pope Urban VIII, Profession of Orthodox Faith, 1642: “Similarly, we profess that the legalities of the Old Testament, the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, the rites, sacrifices, and sacraments have ceased at the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ; they cannot be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel. The distinction of clean and unclean foods found in the old Law pertains to the ceremonies which have passed away with the rise of the Gospel. The Apostles’ prohibition on food offered to idols, blood, and the meat of strangled animals was suitable at that time to remove cause for disagreement between Jews and Gentiles; but since the reason for this prohibition has ceased to be, the prohibition too has come to an end.”

Basically the 10 commandments (moral law) and the natural law contained in them are still in effect but the means of worship. Much of Mosaic Law was a means bridge gaps between what the Jews and Gentiles of the day disagreed on.

 

[Jon_S_1]

So are you saying the wine does not become physically blood?

If you mean you taste blood out of the cup, or sending it to a lab indicates blood, then no it does not. It remains in the appearance of wine called the accidents of bread and wine.

That said, in faith we believe that it mystically becomes the real body blood soul and divinity of Christ. We believe he is fully present in every drop and crumb. So it’s not like the chalice contains 16 ounces of Christ’s Blood.

This is an excellent Q and A on EWTN WEBSITE that I think you will find helpful.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha1a.htm

Here are a couple if the many on the website.

1. Did anything of the bread and wine remain after their substance had been changed into Our Lord’s body and blood?

After the substance of the bread and wine had been changed into Our Lord’s body and blood, there remained only the appearances of bread and wine.

(a) Because the appearances of bread and wine remain in the Holy Eucharist, we cannot see Christ with our bodily eyes in this sacrament. We do see Him, however, with the eyes of faith. Our bodily eyes, moreover, do not deceive us when they see the appearances of bread and wine for these appearances really remain after the Consecration of the Mass.

1. What do we mean by the appearances of bread and wine?

By the appearances of bread and wine we mean their color, taste, weight, shape, and whatever else appears to the senses.

1. What is the change of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ called?

The change of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is called Transubstantiation.

1. Is Jesus Christ whole and entire both under the appearances of bread and under the appearances of wine?

Jesus Christ is whole and entire both under the appearances of bread and under the appearances of wine.

(a) We know that Christ is whole and entire under both appearances because, “Christ having risen from the dead, dies now no more” (Romans 6:9). Because Christ cannot die, His blood must remain united always to His body, and His soul to both. The divinity of Christ, moreover, always remains united to His body and blood and soul because He is God made man.

(b) The whole Christ is present under each part of the sacred appearances and remains present as long as the sacred appearances remain.

1. How was Our Lord able to change bread and wine into His body and blood?

 

[PeaceInChrist]

We believe in the Eucharist because it is an ancient teaching handed down by the Apostles. Ignatius, a disciple of the Apostle John (yes, he really learned from John himself), condemns the gnostics for not professing that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ. Justin the Martyr, in his apology (defense) to the emperor of Rome, says that the bread and wine are ‘transmuted’, and are no longer bread and wine, but Christ’s flesh and blood. These are examples from 2nd and 3rd generation Christians (the apostles being the 1st).

Many, many, many Church fathers speak of the real presence in the Eucharist. In fact, if you Google search ‘Church fathers and the Eucharist’, you will get many, many excerpts from them proclaiming the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I used to search them myself and post examples, but I am too pressed for time to do so. The earliest Church proclaimed the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and interpreted John 6 thus. Who are we to deny the truth they have given us?

 

[teachccd]

The very Word that spoke when things leaped into existence also said, “This is my body”. I think that the burden of proof remains on those who say that it isn’t. Obviously, the previous posters showed the biblical references to the Eucharist but I have to ask, “What would seem to die out after 20 centuries of time: the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or a symbolic remembrance?” It would seem that the Real Presence would have seemed absurd and would have died out had it not been true from then until Jesus comes again.

Catholics believe in the Eucharist because Jesus left His gift to the Apostles and the early Church worshipped this way and continue to do so to this day. Not only does a symbolic communion go against Scripture, it goes against the liturgical worship since the Acts of the Apostles. The better question is: Why do Christians not believe the Eucharist? Seems that something went wrong somewhere…

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I thank everyone for their posts…due to the amount, I’m not able to reply to them individually. However, I do not believe in the Eucharist because I am a Messianic Jew. I respect your belief in it, but was really looking for more information about it. Basically, my biggest problems with it are:
1, God told his people not to eat blood. This is further confirmed in Acts when the Jerusalem council tells the Gentiles to abstain from blood. Therefore, if Jesus literally meant the wine turned to blood and told us to eat, it would be a violation of the Mosaic Law. He would therefore have sinned, and as I either have to find a different explanation or assume Jesus is not the Messiah based on this fact, I don’t feel I can accept a literal translation. Perhaps someone can help me here if yo see it differently.
2, It is clear from the writings of Paul, and Jesus’ message, that faith saves. So if the Eucharist was required for salvation, wouldn’t that violate this message?

I’m not trying to challenge everyone. Im just trying to throw my concerns out there and maybe get an explanation or give you food for thought.

God told the people not to drink blood from animals or people because it is their “life” blood (“since the life of the flesh is in the blood” Lev 17:11). It is as if one is drinking in their life. Ancient pagans would sometimes drink the blood of strongest people of they ones they conquered to gain that person’s strength. So, God definitely wanted to make sure that Jews were not set on the path of drinking blood in the same manner— a lot of the rules of Judaism was meant to steer them away from pagan practices. However, Jesus is God. He wants us to drink His blood because it is HIS life. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Unless you drink His blood, you have no life in you. Jesus died for our sins, and in His manner of death He shed His blood-- for without the shedding of blood there is no atonement of sin. Now, in the Eucharist, He gives His blood to us because it is HIS life blood.

Regarding faith, yes, faith in Jesus is a huge component for salvation. Not sure how you think believing in the Eucharist violates that. Believe me, it takes a LOT of faith to take Jesus at His word. It would be easier to just consider what He said symbolic. But He was not speaking symbolically when He was speaking of the Eucharist. We know this because we have the light of the Church that was founded by Jesus to help us to understand what Jesus meant. The Church was present from the beginning and the meaning of the Eucharist is apparent in the earliest Church writings. This is one reason that both of the ancient Christian Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) believe the same thing–which, by the way, should speak volumes on the subject. The two Churches which were at the time one Church both agree on their understanding of the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Another historical nugget that is of importance is that when archeologists dig up ancient churches they all have one thing in common and it is something that non-Catholic/Orthodox Churches do not have— an alter for the consecration of the Eucharist. The evidence that the earliest Christians understood the Eucharist to be the true presence of the Lord and that understanding has been passed down the generations.

 

[luthier93]

God told the people not to drink blood from animals or people because it is their “life” blood (“since the life of the flesh is in the blood” Lev 17:11). It is as if one is drinking in their life. Ancient pagans would sometimes drink the blood of strongest people of they ones they conquered to gain that person’s strength. So, God definitely wanted to make sure that Jews were not set on the path of drinking blood in the same manner— a lot of the rules of Judaism was meant to steer them away from pagan practices. However, Jesus is God. He wants us to drink His blood because it is HIS life. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Unless you drink His blood, you have no life in you. Jesus died for our sins, and in His manner of death He shed His blood-- for without the shedding of blood there is no atonement of sin. Now, in the Eucharist, He gives His blood to us because it is HIS life blood.

Regarding faith, yes, faith in Jesus is a huge component for salvation. Not sure how you think believing in the Eucharist violates that. Believe me, it takes a LOT of faith to take Jesus at His word. It would be easier to just consider what He said symbolic. But He was not speaking symbolically when He was speaking of the Eucharist. We know this because we have the light of the Church that was founded by Jesus to help us to understand what Jesus meant. The Church was present from the beginning and the meaning of the Eucharist is apparent in the earliest Church writings. This is one reason that both of the ancient Christian Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) believe the same thing–which, by the way, should speak volumes on the subject. The two Churches which were at the time one Church both agree on their understanding of the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Another historical nugget that is of importance is that when archeologists dig up ancient churches they all have one thing in common and it is something that non-Catholic/Orthodox Churches do not have— an alter for the consecration of the Eucharist. The evidence that the earliest Christians understood the Eucharist to be the true presence of the Lord and that understanding has been passed down the generations.

Okay, so my perspective is like this: The participating in the Eucharist is not actually faith but rather evidence that you have faith; as you say, it takes a lot of faith to participate. So conceptually is where we differ. Participating in the Eucharist is an action proving faith, so it’s essential…but it doesn’t actually save. Does that make sense?

 

[luthier93]

Maybe I’m just dull, but I feel like we’re just arguing semantics here. You say bread and wine change mystically/spiritually into Christ’s body and blood during the Eucharist. Back when I was in the Protestant church, we did communion, where we interpreted the bread and wine to be symbols. I don’t think any Protestant would deny that Christ could/would be spiritually present during this ceremony. So it seems the actual concept the same; that Christ is present spiritually during Communion/Eucharist. But you would consider a Protestant unsaved because they don’t say the the bread and wine are actually turned into Christ’s blood and body.
It’s not that I disagree with you at this point, I just don’t see that it’s a big difference, other than wordplay.

 

[jwinch2]

I’ve talked to numerous Catholics, and though not one myself, I respect the Catholic Church.
However, though I know the origins of the Eucharist (Jesus’ proclamations at the Last Supper), I’m puzzled as to why it and the other sacraments are held to be so important, even to the point of bringing salvation. Especially, the fact of it being the actual blood and body of Jesus is puzzling…why?
Thanks for any explanations!

Here is a thorough breakdown of Church Doctrine as it relates to the Eucharist and the Mass. Cited within is Sacred Scripture, the Church Fathers, Theologians, Church Doctors, and Ecumenical Councils. If you are really interested in understanding what the Church believes in regards to the Eucharist and why she believes it, in addition to some of the other excellent resources suggested by posters earlier in the thread, this is a great place to look. Pages 370 - 415 (of the book, not the document) are where the information on this topic is contained. Any other aspect of Catholic Dogma that you have a question in, to include the other sacraments, etc. can be found in the text.
docs.google.com/file/d/0B7fZscRMVeruWTRwU2FId0hRelk/edit

Also, I hear this text is excellent, but I have not personally read it to give you a first hand account.
amazon.com/Divine-Flesh-Raymond-Cardinal-Burke/dp/0981631428/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_z

 

[Jon_S_1]

Maybe I’m just dull, but I feel like we’re just arguing semantics here. You say bread and wine change mystically/spiritually into Christ’s body and blood during the Eucharist. Back when I was in the Protestant church, we did communion, where we interpreted the bread and wine to be symbols. I don’t think any Protestant would deny that Christ could/would be spiritually present during this ceremony. So it seems the actual concept the same; that Christ is present spiritually during Communion/Eucharist. But you would consider a Protestant unsaved because they don’t say the the bread and wine are actually turned into Christ’s blood and body.
It’s not that I disagree with you at this point, I just don’t see that it’s a big difference, other than wordplay.

We would say Protestants are mistaken, but declaring them unsaved is up to God not us.

The difference is we believe the consecrated hosts (wafer) are Christ divine nature. We believe He is fully present there. Thus we can adore the consecrated host, bow before it and show the host all the reverence of Christ.

Protestants generally believe it is was and always will be a wafer and that we do it to remember the last supper. If they believe Christ is spiritually in their midst, that is very different.

Ultimately you must look at Christian History. Did you read Irenaeus yet? Or Justin Martyr?

Please do.

I also have a question for you. Do messianic Jews claim any sort if historical lineage to the time of Christ? If not, shouldn’t you if the claims you made about the OT law and the NT affirmation of it were true?

 

[jwinch2]

The truth of the sacrament is that through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we are made present at the true sacrifice of Calvary. The Mass allows us to be really and substantially present at Christ’s crucifixion and death on the Cross. Through the Mass, the bread and wine which are brought are changed, not just spiritually, but truly and substantially into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ.

If you are really interested in understanding this, and it seems as if you are genuine, I encourage you to read this. Here is the same link I provided above, but chopped down so it is only on the topic of the Eucharist. That might make things a bit easier to find for you.
docs.google.com/file/d/0B7fZscRMVeruWld3Vi1TMkpZUTQ/edit?usp=sharing

Also, you can take a look at the PDF which I uploaded. A friend of mine put that together for our parish RCIA program and did a fantastic job.
docs.google.com/file/d/0B7fZscRMVeruUVlvYm9BRU1HeTA/edit?usp=sharing

 

[Ignatius]

I’ve talked to numerous Catholics, and though not one myself, I respect the Catholic Church.
However, though I know the origins of the Eucharist (Jesus’ proclamations at the Last Supper), I’m puzzled as to why it and the other sacraments are held to be so important, even to the point of bringing salvation. Especially, the fact of it being the actual blood and body of Jesus is puzzling…why?
Thanks for any explanations!

It should be pointed out that it is not just Catholics. The majority of non-catholics understand the Eucharist to be truely the Body and Blood of Christ. Not so much now as the understanding has dwindled rapidly over the last couple of hundred years. Before that, even a majority of Protestants knew that.