Home 
Resources Q&A Roman Catholic Church Eucharist
Resources Q&A Roman Catholic Church Eucharist
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven:
if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will
give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews
therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh
to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye
eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. .
. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that
I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and they are life” John 6:51-3,
63.
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 2144
Comments (6)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by slobo cant tell, July 04, 2009
so christians can break bread and dring grape juice in remeberance of jesus
-
- +0
-
-
written by Cyprain Ikeche, June 22, 2009
The rites performed by catholic priests in remembrance of the last supper to me does not amount to recreating God because God is our creator and nobody can recreate Him. I am more attuned to the school of thought that the rites constitute a sobering reminder to faithfuls of the suffering our Lord had to undergo for our sake. God is so loving that He would not want us His children to perish hence, He sent His only begotten son to bear the cross for our iniquities for the benefit of true reconcilliation to God. I guess it is appropriate for us to discern the implied meaning of rites performed by the catholic and other non penticostal movements. It is on this premise that I would say that the word of God is true and Amen, Jesus Christ through His earthly life spoke figuratively and mostly in parables and the spirit of God will always minister and direct His people. I hold myself bound by this reminder only or what what do fellow brethren think
-
- +1
-
-
written by afolabi samuel, November 15, 2008
continue from part 2
After it was over, I took the disconsolate old priest by the hand to my parsonage for breakfast. But all along the way he rent the air with his cries of distress. He would hardly taste anything, for his soul was really drowned in a sea of distress. I vainly tried to calm his feelings, by telling him that it was no fault of his; that this strange and sad occurrence was not the first of that kind; and that it had been calmly foreseen by the Church, which had told us what to do in these circumstances; that there was no neglect, no fault, no offense against God or man on his part.
But as he would not pay the least attention to what I said, I felt the only thing I had to do was to remain silent, and respect his grief by telling him to unburden his heart by his lamentations and tears.
I had hoped that this good common sense would help him to overcome his feelings, but I was mistaken; his lamentations were as long as those of Jeremiah, and the expressions of his grief as bitter.
At last I lost patience, and said: "My dear Father Daule, allow me to tell you respectfully that it is quite time to stop these lamentations and tears. Our great and just God cannot like such an excess of sorrow and regret about a thing which was only, and entirely, under the control of His power and eternal wisdom."
"What do you say there?" replied the old priest, with a vivacity which resembled anger. "I say that, as it was not in your power to foresee or to avoid that occurrence, you have not the least reason to act and speak as you do. Let us keep our regrets and our tears for our sins: we both have committed many; we cannot shed too many tears on them. But there is no sin here, and there must be some reasonable limits to our sorrow. If anybody had to weep and regret without measure what has happened, it would be Christ. For He alone could foresee that event, and He alone could prevent it. Had it been His will to oppose this sad and mysterious fact, it was in His, not in our power to prevent it. He alone has suffered from it, because it was His will to suffer it."
"Mr. Chiniquy," he replied, "you are quite a young man, and I see you have the want of attention and experience which are often seen among young priests. You do not pay sufficient attention to the awful calamity which has just occurred in your church. If you had more faith and piety you would weep with me, instead of laughing at my grief. How can you speak so lightly of a thing which makes the angels of God weep? Our dear Saviour dragged and eaten by rats! Oh! great God! does not this surpass the humiliation and horrors of Calvary?"
"My dear Father Daule," I replied, "allow me respectfully to tell you, that I understand, as well as you do, the nature of the deplorable event of this morning. I would have give my blood to prevent it. But let us look at that fact in its proper light. It is not a moral action for us; it did not depend on our will more than the spots of the sun. The only one who is accountable for that fact is our God! For, again I say, that He was the only one who could foresee and prevent it. And, to give you plainly my own mind, I tell you here that if I were God Almighty, and a miserable rat would come to eat me, I would strike him dead before he could touch me."
There is no need of confessing it here; every one who reads these pages, and pays attention to this conversation, will understand that my former so robust faith in my priestly power of changing the wafer into my God had melted away and evaporated from my mind, if not entirely, at least to a great extent.
Great and new lights had flashed through my soul in that hour; evidently my God wanted to open my eyes to the awful absurdities and impieties of a religion whose god could be dragged and eaten by rats. Had I been faithful to the saving lights which were in me then, I was saved in that very hour; and before the end of that day I would
have broken the shameful chains by which the Pope had tied my neck to his idol of bread. In that hour it seemed to me evident that the dogma of transubstantiation was a most monstrous imposture, and my priesthood an insult to God and man.
My intelligence said to me with a thundering voice: "Do not remain any longer the priest of a god whom you make every day, and whom the rats can eat."
....I had refused, for a moment, to believe that a man can create his god with a wafer! and I had thought that a church which adores a god eaten by rats, must be an idolatrous church!
In His love and service,
WLC Team.
After it was over, I took the disconsolate old priest by the hand to my parsonage for breakfast. But all along the way he rent the air with his cries of distress. He would hardly taste anything, for his soul was really drowned in a sea of distress. I vainly tried to calm his feelings, by telling him that it was no fault of his; that this strange and sad occurrence was not the first of that kind; and that it had been calmly foreseen by the Church, which had told us what to do in these circumstances; that there was no neglect, no fault, no offense against God or man on his part.
But as he would not pay the least attention to what I said, I felt the only thing I had to do was to remain silent, and respect his grief by telling him to unburden his heart by his lamentations and tears.
I had hoped that this good common sense would help him to overcome his feelings, but I was mistaken; his lamentations were as long as those of Jeremiah, and the expressions of his grief as bitter.
At last I lost patience, and said: "My dear Father Daule, allow me to tell you respectfully that it is quite time to stop these lamentations and tears. Our great and just God cannot like such an excess of sorrow and regret about a thing which was only, and entirely, under the control of His power and eternal wisdom."
"What do you say there?" replied the old priest, with a vivacity which resembled anger. "I say that, as it was not in your power to foresee or to avoid that occurrence, you have not the least reason to act and speak as you do. Let us keep our regrets and our tears for our sins: we both have committed many; we cannot shed too many tears on them. But there is no sin here, and there must be some reasonable limits to our sorrow. If anybody had to weep and regret without measure what has happened, it would be Christ. For He alone could foresee that event, and He alone could prevent it. Had it been His will to oppose this sad and mysterious fact, it was in His, not in our power to prevent it. He alone has suffered from it, because it was His will to suffer it."
"Mr. Chiniquy," he replied, "you are quite a young man, and I see you have the want of attention and experience which are often seen among young priests. You do not pay sufficient attention to the awful calamity which has just occurred in your church. If you had more faith and piety you would weep with me, instead of laughing at my grief. How can you speak so lightly of a thing which makes the angels of God weep? Our dear Saviour dragged and eaten by rats! Oh! great God! does not this surpass the humiliation and horrors of Calvary?"
"My dear Father Daule," I replied, "allow me respectfully to tell you, that I understand, as well as you do, the nature of the deplorable event of this morning. I would have give my blood to prevent it. But let us look at that fact in its proper light. It is not a moral action for us; it did not depend on our will more than the spots of the sun. The only one who is accountable for that fact is our God! For, again I say, that He was the only one who could foresee and prevent it. And, to give you plainly my own mind, I tell you here that if I were God Almighty, and a miserable rat would come to eat me, I would strike him dead before he could touch me."
There is no need of confessing it here; every one who reads these pages, and pays attention to this conversation, will understand that my former so robust faith in my priestly power of changing the wafer into my God had melted away and evaporated from my mind, if not entirely, at least to a great extent.
Great and new lights had flashed through my soul in that hour; evidently my God wanted to open my eyes to the awful absurdities and impieties of a religion whose god could be dragged and eaten by rats. Had I been faithful to the saving lights which were in me then, I was saved in that very hour; and before the end of that day I would
have broken the shameful chains by which the Pope had tied my neck to his idol of bread. In that hour it seemed to me evident that the dogma of transubstantiation was a most monstrous imposture, and my priesthood an insult to God and man.
My intelligence said to me with a thundering voice: "Do not remain any longer the priest of a god whom you make every day, and whom the rats can eat."
....I had refused, for a moment, to believe that a man can create his god with a wafer! and I had thought that a church which adores a god eaten by rats, must be an idolatrous church!
In His love and service,
WLC Team.
-
- +0
-
-
written by afolabi samuel, November 15, 2008
Continue from part 1 below.
The story and the experience which I am sharing with you here is from the book titled Fifty Years in the Church of Rome BY CHARLES CHINIQUY page 182-185
The Councils of Rome have forbidden the blind priests to say their mass; but on account of high piety, he had got from the Pope the privilege of celebrating the short mass of the Virgin, which he knew perfectly by heart.
One morning, when the old priest was at the altar, saying his mass, and I was in the vestry, hearing the confessions of the people, the young servant boy came to me in haste, and said, "Father Daule calls you; please come quick."
Fearing something wrong had happened to my old friend, I lost no time, and ran to him. I found him nervously tapping the altar with his two hands, as in anxious search of some very precious thing. When very near to him, said: "What do you want?" He answered with a shriek of distress: "The good god had disappeared from the altar.
He is lost! J'ai perdu le Bon Dieu. Il est disparu de dessus l'autel!" Hoping that he was mistaken, and that he had only thrown away the good god, "Le Bon Dieu," on the floor, by some accident, I looked on the altar, at his feet, everywhere I could suspect that the good god might have been moved away by some mistake of the hand. But
the most minute search was of no avail; the good god could not be found. I really felt stunned. At first, remembering the thousand miracles I had read of the disappearance, and marvelous changes of form of the wafer god, it came to my mind that we were in the presence of some great miracle; and that my eyes were to see some
of these great marvels of which the books of the Church of Rome are filled. But I had soon to change my mind, when a thought flashed through my memory which chilled the blood in my veins. The church of Beauport was inhabited by a multitude of the boldest and most insolent rats I have ever seen. Many times, when saying my mass, I had seen the ugly noses of several of them, who, undoubtedly attracted by the smell of the fresh wafer, wanted to make their breakfast with the body, blood, and soul, and divinity of my Christ. But, as I was constantly in motion, or praying with a loud voice, the rats had invariably been frightened and fled away into their secret quarters. I felt terror-stricken by the thought that the good god (Le Bon Dieu) had been taken away and eaten by the rats.
Father Daule so sincerely believed what all the priests of Rome are bound to believe, that he had the power to turn the wafer into God, that, after he had pronounced the words by which the great marvel was wrought, he used to pass from five to fifteen minutes in silent adoration. He was then as motionless as a marble statue, and his feelings were so strong that often torrents of tears used to flow from his eyes on his cheeks. Leaning my head towards the distressed old priest, I asked him: "Have you not remained, as you are used, a long time motionless, in adoring the good god, after the consecration?" He quickly answered, "Yes; but what has this to do with the loss of the good god?" I replied in a low voice, but with a real accent of distress and awe, "Some rats have dragged and eaten the good god!" "What do you say?" replied Father Daule. "The good god carried away and eaten by rats!"
"Yes," I replied, "I have not the least doubt about it." "My God! my God! what a dreadful calamity upon me!" rejoined the old man; and raising his hands and his eyes to heaven, he cried out again, "My God! my God! Why have you not taken away my life before such a misfortune could fall upon me!" He could not speak any longer; his voice was chocked by his sobs.
At first I did not know what to say; a thousand thoughts, some very grave, some exceedingly ludicrous, crossed my mind more rapidly than I can say them. I stood there as nailed to the floor, by the old priest, who was weeping as a child, till he asked me, with a voice broken by his sobs, "What must I do now?" I answered him:
"The Church has foreseen occurrences of that kind, and provided for them the remedy. The only thing you have to do is to get a new wafer, consecrate it, and continue your mass as if nothing strange had occurred. I will go and get you, just now, new bread." I went, without losing a moment, to the vestry, got and brought a new wafer, which he consecrated and turned into a new god, and finished his mass, as I had told him.
Due to comments restriction please continue on the above in part 3.
The story and the experience which I am sharing with you here is from the book titled Fifty Years in the Church of Rome BY CHARLES CHINIQUY page 182-185
The Councils of Rome have forbidden the blind priests to say their mass; but on account of high piety, he had got from the Pope the privilege of celebrating the short mass of the Virgin, which he knew perfectly by heart.
One morning, when the old priest was at the altar, saying his mass, and I was in the vestry, hearing the confessions of the people, the young servant boy came to me in haste, and said, "Father Daule calls you; please come quick."
Fearing something wrong had happened to my old friend, I lost no time, and ran to him. I found him nervously tapping the altar with his two hands, as in anxious search of some very precious thing. When very near to him, said: "What do you want?" He answered with a shriek of distress: "The good god had disappeared from the altar.
He is lost! J'ai perdu le Bon Dieu. Il est disparu de dessus l'autel!" Hoping that he was mistaken, and that he had only thrown away the good god, "Le Bon Dieu," on the floor, by some accident, I looked on the altar, at his feet, everywhere I could suspect that the good god might have been moved away by some mistake of the hand. But
the most minute search was of no avail; the good god could not be found. I really felt stunned. At first, remembering the thousand miracles I had read of the disappearance, and marvelous changes of form of the wafer god, it came to my mind that we were in the presence of some great miracle; and that my eyes were to see some
of these great marvels of which the books of the Church of Rome are filled. But I had soon to change my mind, when a thought flashed through my memory which chilled the blood in my veins. The church of Beauport was inhabited by a multitude of the boldest and most insolent rats I have ever seen. Many times, when saying my mass, I had seen the ugly noses of several of them, who, undoubtedly attracted by the smell of the fresh wafer, wanted to make their breakfast with the body, blood, and soul, and divinity of my Christ. But, as I was constantly in motion, or praying with a loud voice, the rats had invariably been frightened and fled away into their secret quarters. I felt terror-stricken by the thought that the good god (Le Bon Dieu) had been taken away and eaten by the rats.
Father Daule so sincerely believed what all the priests of Rome are bound to believe, that he had the power to turn the wafer into God, that, after he had pronounced the words by which the great marvel was wrought, he used to pass from five to fifteen minutes in silent adoration. He was then as motionless as a marble statue, and his feelings were so strong that often torrents of tears used to flow from his eyes on his cheeks. Leaning my head towards the distressed old priest, I asked him: "Have you not remained, as you are used, a long time motionless, in adoring the good god, after the consecration?" He quickly answered, "Yes; but what has this to do with the loss of the good god?" I replied in a low voice, but with a real accent of distress and awe, "Some rats have dragged and eaten the good god!" "What do you say?" replied Father Daule. "The good god carried away and eaten by rats!"
"Yes," I replied, "I have not the least doubt about it." "My God! my God! what a dreadful calamity upon me!" rejoined the old man; and raising his hands and his eyes to heaven, he cried out again, "My God! my God! Why have you not taken away my life before such a misfortune could fall upon me!" He could not speak any longer; his voice was chocked by his sobs.
At first I did not know what to say; a thousand thoughts, some very grave, some exceedingly ludicrous, crossed my mind more rapidly than I can say them. I stood there as nailed to the floor, by the old priest, who was weeping as a child, till he asked me, with a voice broken by his sobs, "What must I do now?" I answered him:
"The Church has foreseen occurrences of that kind, and provided for them the remedy. The only thing you have to do is to get a new wafer, consecrate it, and continue your mass as if nothing strange had occurred. I will go and get you, just now, new bread." I went, without losing a moment, to the vestry, got and brought a new wafer, which he consecrated and turned into a new god, and finished his mass, as I had told him.
Due to comments restriction please continue on the above in part 3.
-
- +0
-
-
written by afolabi samuel, November 15, 2008
Hi, Sam Pomidoro,- I read your post with interest and really pity you. Why, because it is quite difficult to get the pure truth of the holy Bible across to you given the fact that you are very dogmatic about the doctrine of transubstantiation. Well I will endeavor to do two things perhaps the Lord may reach you thru them. (1) I will share a brief history of the doctrine you believed. (2) I will also share an experience from a ex-Catholic Priest who happened to be in the church of Rome for 50 years about the wafer.
In the first part of the ninth century a man named Paschasius Radbertus, who was a Benedictine monk, began to advocate the presence of Christ in the bread and wine. In 831 he wrote a treatise, “Concerning the Body and Blood of Christ.”
Here is a brief summary of the doctrine which Paschasius advanced: “After the consecration of the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper, nothing remains of these symbols but the outward figure, under which the body and blood of Christ were locally present. While the bread may have the appearance of bread, it is now, after the priest utters the words: “This is my body, the real body of Christ. The cup, after the priest blesses it, is no longer wine, but the real blood of Christ.”
Paschasius further claimed that the body and blood of Christ thus present in the Lord’s Supper was the same body which was born of the Virgin Mary, which hung and suffered on the cross, which was buried and rose from the dead. This new doctrine, when first advocated, was bitterly opposed. Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz, took definite issue with the new concept and perversion of the Lord’s Supper. He wrote the following in reply: “Some persons, of late, not entertaining a sound opinion respecting the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, have actually ventured to declare that this is the identical body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; the identical body, to wit, which was born of the Virgin Mary, in which Christ suffered on the cross, and in which He arose from the dead. This error we have opposed with all our might.” -Rabanus Maurus, Epist. Ad. Heribald, c. 33.
A protracted battle was fought over this new teaching. However shocking and preposterous this invented tenet was to clergy and laity of the ninth century, transubstantiation and the worship of the elements bread and wine were never mentioned by any of the contenders. Many fierce verbal battles were fought by the bishops over the “real presence” until the Fourth Council of Lateran, 1215, when transubstantiation was made a dogma of the church. Pope Innocent III officiated at this Council. The decree issued on the dogma is as follows: “The body and blood of Christ are contained really in the sacrament of the altar, under the species of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated (changed) into the body of Jesus Christ, and the wine into His blood, by the power of God.”-Council Lateran, IX, cap. 1.
Because transubstantiation, or the changing of the bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, was now made a dogma by the Lateran Council, it could no longer be contested. To oppose or even doubt would be heresy. The alleged power of the clergy to create God from the elements of bread and wine has never ceased to claim the veneration of the admiring and credulous worshipers. This dogma gives the priesthood sacerdotal influence and emolument. But what does it do to our Lord? The Council of Trent, 1545-1563, in one of its sessions confirmed what the Fourth Lateran did in 1215 on the question of transubstantiation. Note the following: “This holy Council declares-That by the consecration of the bread and wine, there is effected a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is fitly and properly termed by the holy Catholic Church, Transubstantiation.” – Council Trident, Session XIII, cap. 4.
The Catholic Church today accepts and practices the doctrine of transubstantiation. The faithful members of the church believe what they have been taught. The Roman Catholic Mass is designed to be a dramatic representation of our Lord’s passion. The priest at the altar performs the part that the Savior went through from the time He entered the Garden of Gethsemane until He arose from the tomb. The principal part of the Mass is reached when the officiating priest allegedly transmutes, or changes, the bread and wine into the real “body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord.” When this act is accomplished, transubstantiation is effected, so the church claims.
In the first part of the ninth century a man named Paschasius Radbertus, who was a Benedictine monk, began to advocate the presence of Christ in the bread and wine. In 831 he wrote a treatise, “Concerning the Body and Blood of Christ.”
Here is a brief summary of the doctrine which Paschasius advanced: “After the consecration of the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper, nothing remains of these symbols but the outward figure, under which the body and blood of Christ were locally present. While the bread may have the appearance of bread, it is now, after the priest utters the words: “This is my body, the real body of Christ. The cup, after the priest blesses it, is no longer wine, but the real blood of Christ.”
Paschasius further claimed that the body and blood of Christ thus present in the Lord’s Supper was the same body which was born of the Virgin Mary, which hung and suffered on the cross, which was buried and rose from the dead. This new doctrine, when first advocated, was bitterly opposed. Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz, took definite issue with the new concept and perversion of the Lord’s Supper. He wrote the following in reply: “Some persons, of late, not entertaining a sound opinion respecting the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, have actually ventured to declare that this is the identical body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; the identical body, to wit, which was born of the Virgin Mary, in which Christ suffered on the cross, and in which He arose from the dead. This error we have opposed with all our might.” -Rabanus Maurus, Epist. Ad. Heribald, c. 33.
A protracted battle was fought over this new teaching. However shocking and preposterous this invented tenet was to clergy and laity of the ninth century, transubstantiation and the worship of the elements bread and wine were never mentioned by any of the contenders. Many fierce verbal battles were fought by the bishops over the “real presence” until the Fourth Council of Lateran, 1215, when transubstantiation was made a dogma of the church. Pope Innocent III officiated at this Council. The decree issued on the dogma is as follows: “The body and blood of Christ are contained really in the sacrament of the altar, under the species of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated (changed) into the body of Jesus Christ, and the wine into His blood, by the power of God.”-Council Lateran, IX, cap. 1.
Because transubstantiation, or the changing of the bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, was now made a dogma by the Lateran Council, it could no longer be contested. To oppose or even doubt would be heresy. The alleged power of the clergy to create God from the elements of bread and wine has never ceased to claim the veneration of the admiring and credulous worshipers. This dogma gives the priesthood sacerdotal influence and emolument. But what does it do to our Lord? The Council of Trent, 1545-1563, in one of its sessions confirmed what the Fourth Lateran did in 1215 on the question of transubstantiation. Note the following: “This holy Council declares-That by the consecration of the bread and wine, there is effected a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is fitly and properly termed by the holy Catholic Church, Transubstantiation.” – Council Trident, Session XIII, cap. 4.
The Catholic Church today accepts and practices the doctrine of transubstantiation. The faithful members of the church believe what they have been taught. The Roman Catholic Mass is designed to be a dramatic representation of our Lord’s passion. The priest at the altar performs the part that the Savior went through from the time He entered the Garden of Gethsemane until He arose from the tomb. The principal part of the Mass is reached when the officiating priest allegedly transmutes, or changes, the bread and wine into the real “body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord.” When this act is accomplished, transubstantiation is effected, so the church claims.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sam Pomidoro, November 14, 2008
Its all about faith. I try to not get angry about this, but if you would do some research you would find the truth. Look for your self since you would not do the correct reseach i did it for you!
Some Evangelicals believe that Jesus intended his phrase "I am the bread of life" to be understood in a symbolic way. Catholics believe that Jesus clearly spells it out "Very truly unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." (Jn 6:53) Many followers left him saying "who can follow this teaching." Christ let them leave. He did not say "Hey, you have it all wrong, come back, its just a metaphor - a symbol- its not really my flesh" (2) Here is a further discussion on why Catholics believe the desciples fully understood "I am the bread" to be Jesus' actual body before they abandoned him.
Some Evangelicals believe that when Jesus said "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless,"(Jn 6:63)he was saying that his teaching "I am the bread of life" was just a metaphor. Catholics believe that Jesus was explaining to them that the limitations of their faith is their flesh so they could not see the spiritual truth in what he is saying. We must remember this was Jesus' response to them saying "This teaching is difficult, who can accept it."
Catholics are clear that the Eucharist is not just a spiritual warm fuzzy like when we get hit with the Holy Spirit at a prayer meeting. It is the only body Jesus has had since the ascension. We share in this body during communion and become his body (the Church).
Catholics believe this is a great mystery of the Christian faith. But we believe Jesus set it up very well before dropping this truth "bomb" on the disciples in the book of John 6. John 6:3 begins with the miracle of the loaves, he then talks about the miracle of the manna in the dessert (Jn 6:49). These both foreshadow his most powerful statement "I am the Bread of Life" and help him set the people up for what he knew would be the most difficult statement to understand that he ever spoke. He knew many would leave at that point and so after setting it up with the foreshadowing, after explaining it four times, and clarifying himself in Jn 6:63 he let them go (Jn 6:66). He did not chase after them to assure them he was just talking "symbolically" because they understood his words correctly and they could not accept it. Thank God the apostles stayed with him.
This belief that the Eucharist becomes the glorified body of Christ is not "consubstantiation." Catholics believe the Eucharist is fully Him (Transubstantiation). Catholics believe the miracle of the Eucharist is that it has the taste, smell, and shape of the wafer but that during the mass, the substance actually becomes Christ's glorified body which can only been seen through the eyes of Faith. Some might say "how is that possible?" My question would be "could Jesus do it if He wanted to?" Catholics believe the answer is "yes." They believe he wanted to, that He said he would do it and that He delivered on his promise.
Catholics believe the act of "disobedience" in Eden was to eat of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." (Gen 2:17) This introduced death into the world. Catholics believe that the act of "obedience" that introduces life into the world is to follow Jesus' command when he says "whoever eats me will live because of me" Catholics believe Jesus is the new life.
Scripture says "For indeed Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us. Therefore, let us keep this feast." (1 Cor 5:7-
This relates to Exodus 12:1-42. The Passover meal saved from the angel of death who was striking the first born children in Egypt. At a traditional Passover supper, the Jews ate the sacrificial lamb. Catholics believe Paul is saying that this feast should continue. They don't think that he was "re-sacrificing" Christ when he kept this feast.
We see the Eucharistic formula throughout Scripture. At table, Jesus takes . . . blesses . . . breaks . . . and gives the bread. He also took a cup of wine; after giving thanks to God, He gave it to His disciples saying, "This is My blood . . . of the [new] covenant." Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20. This is the same formula Jesus uses during the first Eucharistic celebration after the resurrection when He encountered two disciples on the road to Emmaus (see Luke 24:13-35). When the Corinthians drift from the proper Eucharistic formula, Paul corrects them.(1 Corinthians 11:23-29)
Some Evangelicals believe that Jesus intended his phrase "I am the bread of life" to be understood in a symbolic way. Catholics believe that Jesus clearly spells it out "Very truly unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." (Jn 6:53) Many followers left him saying "who can follow this teaching." Christ let them leave. He did not say "Hey, you have it all wrong, come back, its just a metaphor - a symbol- its not really my flesh" (2) Here is a further discussion on why Catholics believe the desciples fully understood "I am the bread" to be Jesus' actual body before they abandoned him.
Some Evangelicals believe that when Jesus said "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless,"(Jn 6:63)he was saying that his teaching "I am the bread of life" was just a metaphor. Catholics believe that Jesus was explaining to them that the limitations of their faith is their flesh so they could not see the spiritual truth in what he is saying. We must remember this was Jesus' response to them saying "This teaching is difficult, who can accept it."
Catholics are clear that the Eucharist is not just a spiritual warm fuzzy like when we get hit with the Holy Spirit at a prayer meeting. It is the only body Jesus has had since the ascension. We share in this body during communion and become his body (the Church).
Catholics believe this is a great mystery of the Christian faith. But we believe Jesus set it up very well before dropping this truth "bomb" on the disciples in the book of John 6. John 6:3 begins with the miracle of the loaves, he then talks about the miracle of the manna in the dessert (Jn 6:49). These both foreshadow his most powerful statement "I am the Bread of Life" and help him set the people up for what he knew would be the most difficult statement to understand that he ever spoke. He knew many would leave at that point and so after setting it up with the foreshadowing, after explaining it four times, and clarifying himself in Jn 6:63 he let them go (Jn 6:66). He did not chase after them to assure them he was just talking "symbolically" because they understood his words correctly and they could not accept it. Thank God the apostles stayed with him.
This belief that the Eucharist becomes the glorified body of Christ is not "consubstantiation." Catholics believe the Eucharist is fully Him (Transubstantiation). Catholics believe the miracle of the Eucharist is that it has the taste, smell, and shape of the wafer but that during the mass, the substance actually becomes Christ's glorified body which can only been seen through the eyes of Faith. Some might say "how is that possible?" My question would be "could Jesus do it if He wanted to?" Catholics believe the answer is "yes." They believe he wanted to, that He said he would do it and that He delivered on his promise.
Catholics believe the act of "disobedience" in Eden was to eat of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." (Gen 2:17) This introduced death into the world. Catholics believe that the act of "obedience" that introduces life into the world is to follow Jesus' command when he says "whoever eats me will live because of me" Catholics believe Jesus is the new life.
Scripture says "For indeed Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us. Therefore, let us keep this feast." (1 Cor 5:7-
This relates to Exodus 12:1-42. The Passover meal saved from the angel of death who was striking the first born children in Egypt. At a traditional Passover supper, the Jews ate the sacrificial lamb. Catholics believe Paul is saying that this feast should continue. They don't think that he was "re-sacrificing" Christ when he kept this feast. We see the Eucharistic formula throughout Scripture. At table, Jesus takes . . . blesses . . . breaks . . . and gives the bread. He also took a cup of wine; after giving thanks to God, He gave it to His disciples saying, "This is My blood . . . of the [new] covenant." Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20. This is the same formula Jesus uses during the first Eucharistic celebration after the resurrection when He encountered two disciples on the road to Emmaus (see Luke 24:13-35). When the Corinthians drift from the proper Eucharistic formula, Paul corrects them.(1 Corinthians 11:23-29)
-
- +1
-
-
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
