Why do Catholics believe in the Eucharist?

[bben15]

Ah yes, I have several Orthodox friends and I know they also believe in the Eucharist…I’m wondering why. Not how it works, but why…does anyone have a defense for it?

The Orthodox have a valid Eucharist.

 

[R_C]

On Sacraments

Excluding the Eucharist, extensively mentioned above.

Baptism

“Unless you are born of water and Spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. …] Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” (The Lord)

In the writings of Paul: a burial and resurrection with Christ, a baptism into Christ, a work of God, a washing and regeneration, a spiritual circumcision, a renewing of the Holy Spirit, a justification by grace, etc.

Justin Martyr: “For Christ also said, ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: ‘Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.’ And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason…in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe…And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus”

Origen (184-253 AD): “Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants.”

Tertullian, “On Baptism”: “the prescript is laid down that 'without baptism, salvation is attainable by none”, chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord"

Cyprian of Carthage: “But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth…this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons.”

Gregory Nazianzen (381 AD): “Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature? Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitaited.”

Augustine (400 AD): “And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision”

Confirmation

Theophilus of Antioch (AD 181): “And about your laughing at me and calling me “Christian,” you know not what you are saying. because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.”

Hippolytus of Rome (204 AD): “And she said to her maids, Bring me oil. For faith and love prepare oil and unguents to those who are washed. But what were these unguents, but the commandments of the holy Word? And what was the oil, but the power of the Holy Spirit, with which believers are anointed as with ointment after the layer of washing? All these things were figuratively represented in the blessed Susannah, for our sakes, that we who now believe on God might not regard the things that are done now in the Church as strange, but believe them all to have been set forth in figure by the patriarchs of old”

Tertullian: "After this, when we have issued from the font, we are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction…from the old discipline, wherein on entering the priesthood, then were wont to be anointed with oil…Whence Aaron is called “Christ,’ from the 'chrism,'which is ‘the unction;’ which, when made spiritual, furnished an appropriate name to the Lord, because He was ‘anointed’ with the Spirit by God the Father…Thus, too, in our case, the unction runs on the body, but profits spiritually”

Cyril of Jerusalem, “On Chrysm”: “But beware of supposing this to be plait ointment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist. after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no longer, but the Body of Christ, so also this holy ointment is no more simple ointment, nor (so to say) common, after invocation, but it is Christ’s gift of grace, and, by the advent of the Holy Ghost, is made fit to impart His Divine Nature. Which ointment is symbolically applied to thy forehead and thy other senses; and while thy body is anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit.”

continued

 

[luthier93]

He is with us in the Eucharist. Where ever there is that blessed sacrament, he is with us.
He has stayed with us through that most blessed sacrament, he comes to us through the Holy Eucharist and the Holy Spirit.
Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, Jesus has proven beyond any doubt that He is truly present in the Holy Eucharist. Why did He have to prove this to us? It is because at certain times in history, there were heresies that denied the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. On other occasions, some priests doubted the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. And yet, on other occasions, the Holy Eucharist was abused by believers and non-believers alike.

They knew exactly what he was saying, because this was his reply.

He did not correct them or call them back saying that they misunderstood him. It was no metaphor. If it were a metaphor he simply would have called the disciples that turned away back because they misunderstood him.
God Bless.
Thank you for reading
Josh

Thanks for your insight, I appreciate the clarity. However, Jesus didn’t always correct people who were wrong…Many of his teachings were in parables, which should have been obvious to those with a knowledge of the Torah. Couldn’t this instance be similar? I mean, we say someone is a “blood” relative even though they never actually touched or came from our body (say a brother or grandson).
So why, in this instance, is it taken so literally (does anyone know where/how it started)?

 

[luthier93]

luthier describes him/herself as being Messianic. To me that just means Protestant fundamentalist with a few phrases in Hebrew and sometimes following the Jewish holidays.

Fundamentalists believe that all religion to be valid must be spiritual only and any physical actions are bad and unneeded. That is why lutier questions the sacraments with their physical elements.

For fundamentalists the only the only thing that matters is a mental prayer called at times the “sinner’s prayer”. The mental prayer is what matters and baptism and the other sacraments are just “works”.

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.”
Derogatory personal comments are out of place, as well as characterizations without knowledge.

 

[MJCamp]

John 6:51-58: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."52The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?"53Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.54"Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.55"For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.57"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.58"This is the bread which came down from heaven; not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

What more are you looking for? There are references throughout scripture along with sacred tradition. Why or how would anyone from 30AD decide to implement the sacrament of Holy Communion without learning from Jesus? Man can be creative but don’t you think it is more unbelievable to think somebody themselves decided to implement the Sacrament of the Eucharist?

acfp2000.com/Miracles/eucharistic.html

 

[R_C]

Confession

“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!” Jesus replied, "A person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean. …] Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. …] Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you …] If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven. (The Lord)

Didache or Teaching of the Twelve (AD 70): “In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience…On the Lord’s own day,assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins,so that your sacrifice may be pure.”

Irenaeus: "Some of them, indeed, make a public confession of their sins; but others of them are ashamed to do this, and in a tacit kind of way, despairing of [attaining to] the life of God, have, some of them, apostatized altogether. "

Origen: “In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance…when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord”

Cyprian: “Moreover, how much are they both greater in faith and better in their fear, who…with grief and simplicity confess this very thing to God’s priests …] I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one should confess his own sin, while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while the satisfaction and remission made by the priests are pleasing to the Lord”

Augustine: "All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grevious sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. "

Matrimony

Ignatius of Antioch: “It is becoming, therefore, to men and women who marry, that they marry with the counsel of the bishop, that the marriage may be in our Lord, and not in lust.”

Tertullian: “Whence are we to find (words) enough fully to tell the happiness of that marriage which the Church cements, and the oblation confirms, and the benediction signs and seals; (which) angels carry back the news of (to heaven), (which) the Father holds for ratified?”

Clement of Alexandria: “Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law.”

Anointing of the Sick

They [the Apostles] drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. (Mark 6:13)

Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. (James 5:14, quoted by many Church Fathers)

Holy Orders

You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you …] Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.” Then he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” …] Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me …] (the Lord)

Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs. …] Matthias was selected to become an apostle …]

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off. …]Paul and Barnabas also appointed elders in every church …]

Ignatius of Antioch: "Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ …] Let nothing exist among you that may divide you ; but be ye united with your bishop, and those that preside over you …] It is therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. "

Clement of Alexandria: “Since, according to my opinion, the grades here in the Church, of bishops, presbyters, deacons, are imitations of the angelic glory, and of that economy which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who, following the footsteps of the apostles, have lived in perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel. For these taken up in the clouds, the apostle writes, will first minister [as deacons], then be classed in the presbyterate, by promotion in glory (for glory differs from glory) till they grow into ‘a perfect man.’”

Tertullian: "God wills us all to he so conditioned, as to be ready at all times and places to undertake (the duties of) His sacraments. There is ‘one God, one faith,’ one discipline too. So truly is this the case, that unless the laics as well observe the rules which are to guide the choice of presbyters, how will there be presbyters at all, who are chosen to that office from among the laics? "

 

[R_C]

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.”

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.

 

[jediliz]

Here’s my answer, from John 6:48-68

"I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” 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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 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. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thanks for your insight, I appreciate the clarity. However, Jesus didn’t always correct people who were wrong…Many of his teachings were in parables, which should have been obvious to those with a knowledge of the Torah. Couldn’t this instance be similar? I mean, we say someone is a “blood” relative even though they never actually touched or came from our body (say a brother or grandson).
So why, in this instance, is it taken so literally (does anyone know where/how it started)?

Jesus did often clarify his parables, for example Nicodemus asking how to get back in his mother’s womb to be born again!

This IS the only time in scripture that Jesus’s followers left him. When they questioned the repugnance of his comments to eat flesh and blood (big no no for Jews). He did clarify his teaching, he just did not change it. He said Verily Verily (Seriously seriously) I tell you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and Drink his blood you have no life in you.

With that many of his disciples left him…and he let them…turning to the 12 he asked will you leave me too, and they responded, Lord, to where shall we go? You have the words of eternal life!

It should also be noted that in 1 Corinthians 10 Paul says:

Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. 15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[e] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[f] in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

He then says in Chapter 11:
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[c] 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened[d] so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

How can you profane the body of The Lord if it is merely symbolic bread???

As was pointed out by others, ALL the apostolic churches believe this!

It was the ONLY teaching on the Communion until the reformation. Then of course, since the reformers (other than Lutherans and Anglicans that have some semblance of this) and the new protestant churches had no priests and thus the symbolism theology creeped in since the protestant pastors could not have valid Eucharist even if they wanted to.

 

[josh987654321]

Thanks for your insight, I appreciate the clarity. However, Jesus didn’t always correct people who were wrong…Many of his teachings were in parables, which should have been obvious to those with a knowledge of the Torah. Couldn’t this instance be similar? I mean, we say someone is a “blood” relative even though they never actually touched or came from our body (say a brother or grandson).
So why, in this instance, is it taken so literally (does anyone know where/how it started)?

Thank you for your reply.

No, it’s not similar, infact the Eucharist could not have been any more clearly stated in Johns gospel.

Please read this and contemplate it.

John 6:47-71

Rejected by His Own

47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me[g] has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”

53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed,[h] and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Turn Away

60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”

68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”*

70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.*

I don’t know how people could get anything else out of this passage. The Eucharist is the one and only explanation.

You must ask yourself, after all of those miracles that the desciples witnessed, why did so many turn away at this teaching? why were the desciples not corrected when they said “this is too hard for anyone to understand.” and they are right it is a hard teaching to understand and thus why so many protestants reject it.

Jesus replied to that “Does this offend you?” He says the same to us, “Does this teaching offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?”

He said “The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” So you must ask yourself, do you not believe this teaching as the other desciples did who left him?

Eucharistic Miracles - catholicdoors.com/misc/eucharisticmiracles.htm

Pope Francis had a fanatasic homily on this, please read this - ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=7498

God Bless You.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

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.”
Derogatory personal comments are out of place, as well as characterizations without knowledge.

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.

 

[Robyn_p]

Thanks for your insight, I appreciate the clarity. However, Jesus didn’t always correct people who were wrong…Many of his teachings were in parables, which should have been obvious to those with a knowledge of the Torah. Couldn’t this instance be similar? I mean, we say someone is a “blood” relative even though they never actually touched or came from our body (say a brother or grandson).
So why, in this instance, is it taken so literally (does anyone know where/how it started)?

As for where this belief started, it started in the very beginning. St. Paul himself believed it.

Whoever therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of The Lord. Let a man examine and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body *** eats and drinks DAMNATION upon himself***. (1 Cor 11:27-29)

Those are strong words. A little harsh and out of proportion to say if you go up and receive a symbol unworthily, or without discerning it, you would be damned.

But it is true if you fail to recognize the Creator and King of the entire universe.

Other posters already quoted to you the Church Fathers from as early as 107 AD, only seven years after the Apostle John died, demonstrating the antiquity ofthis doctrine. So I won’t do that right now. But just know that belief in the Real Presence is really, really, REALLY, old. It’s been the belief of every apostolic church, in fact. Even those not in communion with Rome.

As for your other question, why do we believe Jesus’ words in John 6 are literal when there are lots of other times when people misunderstood Jesus and he didn’t correct them. That’s a very good point and I’m glad you brought that up!

Its very true, as you say, Jesus did have a lot of sayings that confused his audience. In fact, almost all of those instances are found in John’s Gospel itself!!

But there’s a pattern in John’s gospel that we see. 1) Jesus has a teaching, 2) people misunderstand and take him literally, 3) he clears up the misunderstanding right away, or John does in his commentary on the event.

For example, in John 2, we see the pattern. 1) Jesus tells the Jews, destroy this temple, and in three days I will rebuild it. 2) They take him literally and think he really means he’ll destroy the literal temple. 3) But John tells us “he spoke of the temple of his body.” Ok, now the meaning is crystal clear!

John 4 the same thing happens. 1) The disciples brought food to Jesus, and he tells them he has food to eat of which they do not know. 2) Again they take him literally here and think he means literal food. 3) But he tells them right away, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.”(Jn 4:34) Again, no more confusion.

This happens over and over in John. Chapters 2,3,4,6,8, and 11 all have Jesus’ audiences get confused or get angry over his message. There’s only two places where there is no correction given by either Jesus or St. John, and that’s in Chapter 6 and 8. Where Jesus teaches on the Eucharist and His divinity, respectively. Those two there are no corrections. Why? Because those two are meant to be taken literally. It’s actually quite interesting when you realize that, according to St. Irenaeus, writing about ninety years probably after John’s Gospel was penned, John was writing his gospel against the heretic Cerinthus, who denied the divinity of Christ and the Real Presence. That would make sense why John’s Gospel of all four is the most plain about Jesus being God, and why those two places in John, ch 6 and 8, are the only places where Jesus doesn’t correct a misunderstanding.

I don’t know, I realize it’s not proof, but I find it very intriguing myself. And it makes a lot of sense.

So it’s not the fact that the Jews misunderstood Jesus that is so astonishing. But that Jesus didn’t clear up any of the misunderstandings, which he obviously had no issue doing before. Especially since this very teaching caused some of his own DISCIPLES to leave him. Not just the crowd.

By leaving him, they were placing their own salvation at risk. It would be irresponsible and wrong of Jesus to let them go and desert him over something that could be so easily fixed by simply saying its only symbolic. Again, their souls were on the line here. Why would he leave them in error?? The answer is, he didn’t.

So basically Catholics believe it because Jesus taught it himself, St. Paul taught it, and all the Early Church fathers and virtually every Christian up until five hundred years ago believed in it. But most importantly, we believe it because we believe in Him. It really all comes back to Jesus.

Also, something else to consider. Jesus appeared to the disciples “in another form” according to Mark 16:12 on the road to Emmaus. And that’s exactly what we believe He does even today in the Eucharist. He comes to us under the form of bread and wine, and even though we can’t recognize Him - just like to the disciples senses he must have looked completely different - it still was really truly Him. Just some more food for thought.

For me, even though I understood John 6 and the Last Supper and 1 Cor 11, it was surprisingly that one little verse in Marks Gospel that wasn’t even talking directly about the Eucharist that caused it all to make sense to me and finally sink in. I remember being like “Ohh I see now!” It probably won’t be that way for anyone else, but I thought I’d share it just in case.

Anyway, hope that helped a little. God bless!!

 

[andrewstx]

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.”
Derogatory personal comments are out of place, as well as characterizations without knowledge.

OK all personal comments aside I believe in the Holy Eucharist because Jesus himself gave it to us Christians, and he said “this is my body”.

Jesus did not say “this represents my body, or is only a symbol of my body”.

And I take Jesus at his word.

 

[Jon_S_1]

OK all personal comments aside I believe in the Holy Eucharist because Jesus himself gave it to us Christians, and he said “this is my body”.

Jesus did not say “this represents my body, or is only a symbol of my body”.

And I take Jesus at his word.

As God, Jesus was able to affect reality with his words.

Let there be light and there was light

Lazarus come out and he came out

Little girl get up and she got up.

Storm be still and it was still

Son your sins are forgiven. And they are forgiven

So to…

This IS my body

This IS my blood

And it was so

 

[josh987654321]

OK all personal comments aside I believe in the Holy Eucharist because Jesus himself gave it to us Christians, and he said “this is my body”.

Jesus did not say “this represents my body, or is only a symbol of my body”.

And I take Jesus at his word.
Jon S;10805940:

As God, Jesus was able to affect reality with his words.

Let there be light and there was light

Lazarus come out and he came out

Little girl get up and she got up.

Storm be still and it was still

Son your sins are forgiven. And they were forgiven

So to…

This IS my body

This IS my blood

And it was so

:clapping: Amen.

 

[tp3192000]

Ah yes, I have several Orthodox friends and I know they also believe in the Eucharist…I’m wondering why. Not how it works, but why…does anyone have a defense for it?

Hi Luthier93,
You must have missed the posts prior to your last posted. Especially RC’s which carefully referenced seven early Church Elders and their quotes regarding the True Presence in the Eucharist. There’s really nothing to wonder about.

 

[Della]

Ah yes, I have several Orthodox friends and I know they also believe in the Eucharist…I’m wondering why. Not how it works, but why…does anyone have a defense for it?

You are assuming that it is not true and we must come up with an answer that will satisfy you. I don’t point this out to be snarky, but to let you know that you are approaching this from the wrong way around.

What you should be asking is why isn’t it possible. And the answer to that is–because it is possible. IOW, it is reasonable within the context of our faith–Christianity, that is

If we accept that Jesus was the final word/revelation of God to man then we must believe what he told us, even if it goes against our sensibilities/likes/dislikes.

Others have provided ample witness from Scripture, but as we all know, it is easy to quote Bible verses to support whatever we’d like to believe. So then how do we know what we are to believe–that is the logical question, yes?

We know because history, Sacred Tradition, the teachings of the Apostles, and the Magisterium all tell us the same thing, that’s why. I will set all these against any more modern notions that need to deny what Christians believed for several centuries before some came along who questioned this most basic belief. What do you have to set against this ancient belief? That’s what you need to ask yourself, you see.

 

[luthier93]

You are assuming that it is not true and we must come up with an answer that will satisfy you. I don’t point this out to be snarky, but to let you know that you are approaching this from the wrong way around.

What you should be asking is why isn’t it possible. And the answer to that is–because it is possible. IOW, it is reasonable within the context of our faith–Christianity, that is

If we accept that Jesus was the final word/revelation of God to man then we must believe what he told us, even if it goes against our sensibilities/likes/dislikes.

Others have provided ample witness from Scripture, but as we all know, it is easy to quote Bible verses to support whatever we’d like to believe. So then how do we know what we are to believe–that is the logical question, yes?

We know because history, Sacred Tradition, the teachings of the Apostles, and the Magisterium all tell us the same thing, that’s why. I will set all these against any more modern notions that need to deny what Christians believed for several centuries before some came along who questioned this most basic belief. What do you have to set against this ancient belief? That’s what you need to ask yourself, you see.

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.

 

[Jon_S_1]

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.

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

 

[Jon_S_1]

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.

Also, I know this may not mesh with your Messianic Tradition, but the NT speaks of faith in Christ as the fulfillment of the law. Those dietary restrictions are no longer necessary. Since Jesus is God and he is the one who gave us the law, he can replace the law/change it.

That does not make him a liar, it is him giving us a better way.

Galatians 3 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?[a] 4 Have you experienced** so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[c]

7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[d] 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[e] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”[f] 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”[g] 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

The Law and the Promise

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,”* meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.***