The Eucharist -- John 6

Are you a priest? Judging a priest?

Then I guess you would have been one of the disciples who rejected Jesus’ teaching and left. Bye—

"I guess you would have been one of the disciples who rejected Jesus’ teaching and left.

LOL! I simply reject the claims of those who contradict Him.

I, too, thank God that He called me to become a Catholic as a young adult.

It has been a wonderful 63-year journey so far, and now my eye is “on the finish line.”

I was also very grateful to the people who brought my husband the Holy Eucharist in the long months he was in home hospice before he died.

God bless you.

You are Who you eat: "Let Christ be eaten..."

A Scriptural Reflection on the Readings for August 19, 2012, the Twentieth Sunday in Ordinary Time | Carl E. Olson

Readings:
• Prv 9:1-6
• Ps 34:2-3, 4-5, 6-7
• Eph 5:15-20
• Jn 6:51-58

“You are,” my mother—like most other mothers—used to tell me, “what you eat,”

“You are Who you eat,” says my Mother, the Church, as she has for two thousand years. The Eucharist, wrote Ignatius of Antioch on his way to martyrdom, “is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death …” The person “who receives the flesh of our Savior Christ and drinks his precious blood,” wrote Cyril of Alexandria, “shall be one with him.” Augustine put it boldly and simply: “Let Christ be eaten; when eaten he lives because when slain he rose again.”

“Let Christ be eaten”—that is the essence of today’s Gospel reading. It contains the fourth and final “Amen, Amen” statement from Jesus in his Bread of Life discourse. With each statement (Jn. 6:26, 32, 47), Jesus took his listeners deeper in the mystery of his person, mission, and gift of salvation—a mystery rooted in the Incarnation, pointing to his death and resurrection, and given to the Church in the Eucharist.

As Jesus revealed more, he met more resistance. At first his listeners asked questions (v. 30), then made demands (v. 34), then murmured openly (v. 41), and then began to quarrel over his words. Jesus’ claim that the bread of life he offered was somehow closely linked with his actual flesh was deeply offensive. It smacked of cannibalism, which was an offense providing evidence God had cursed his covenantal people (cf. Lev. 26:27-29). So if Jesus, in saying that “the bread that I will give is my flesh”, was using metaphorical or poetic language, surely he would have cleared up any misconceptions created by his startling language.

Jesus did clear up misconceptions, but not as many of his listeners probably hoped or expected. He clarified his remarks by emphasizing that, yes, he was speaking of his actual flesh and of real eating: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do have life within you.”

These words, more than any other in Scripture, stopped me cold in my tracks many years ago. As a Fundamentalist and, later, as an Evangelical Protestant, I had never heard a sermon or attended a Bible study that grappled with these words. The various books and commentaries I studied did not address satisfactorily the meaning and purpose of Jesus’ declaration, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” I asked the same question as those listening to Jesus in person: Whatever did he mean?

Part of the answer is found in how Jesus described himself as the “living bread that came down from heaven.” G. K. Chesterton, in The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic, expressed it well, “Heaven has descended into the world of matter; the supreme spiritual power is now operating by the machinery of matter, dealing miraculously with the bodies and souls of men.” Put simply, the Eucharist is a continuation of the Incarnation. By becoming man, the Son of God took on flesh—not in appearance only and not for just a few years, but in actuality and for all of eternity.

The Creator, having taken on flesh, now brings about a new creation by inviting man to receive his flesh and blood in the Most Holy Eucharist. Having become man, the Son gives himself to us so that we, made sons of God through baptism, might continue growing in truth and grace and divine life, feeding on his life-giving flesh and blood. The Eucharist does not just sustain us, but transforms us; it does not just fill us, but completes us.

John Paul II, in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, wrote, “The Church draws her life from the Eucharist”, and explained that those who receive the Eucharist become “the Body of Christ—not many bodies but one body.”

How do we remain in Christ and become more Christ-like? By eating his flesh and blood. You are Who you eat.

(This "Opening the Word" column originally appeared in the August 16, 2009, issue of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)

John is writing theology just as the apostles wrote theology in the Didache.

Bringing up the Didache doesn't much help the cause of those whom push the Romish sacerdotal position. It is only by willful "reading meanings into" that one can see much other than the focus was on Christ as the reason for the gathering and sharing amongst themselves.

For sake of there being deacons present to later deliver the blessed & prayed over memorial supper shared amongst themselves, to those whom were not present, doesn't exactly give give them, or even HINT that it gives such ability and sole "powers of authority" to effect some form form physical transformation.

Paul's mentions of the "supper" can scarcely be seen to get anywhere near the idea of that which later developed more fully into "transubstantiation", much less that such should be dogma.

The snippet brought pertaining to Justin also falls far short of the later made claims concerning the how and the why of what was transpiring concerning the supper.

I'm sorry, but the closer we get to original "source" the less much of the later developed doctrine and dogma can be seen to have firm basis for. The less precise claims made by those in the East, cover the issue, and are much safer in the end, doctrinally.

Still, as it is written:

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Is Paul wrong here?

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. [14] How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Is Jesus wrong here?

Joh 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: [23] That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. [24] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Or here?

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19] And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. [20] For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. [21] But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

In Matthew 25 it is the same Jesus as in John and Paul, so what he says here cannot contradict what he says there without introducing incoherency into the heart of the Gospel message:

Act 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. [11] This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. [12] Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

It is abundantly clear that belief in Jesus is not an optional adornment of “shared values.” It is the essence of the Gospel.

Back to Matthew 25. Notice two things. First, the acts of kindness Jesus cites are directed to a specific group, the brothers (and impliedly sisters) of Jesus. Who are these brothers and sisters? Jesus tells us:

Mat 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. [48] But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? [49] And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! [50] For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Well and good. It can be agreed there are many who do not do the will of God, especially if that will is understood in terms of good deeds (God’s “values”). There are many then who would be excluded. In fact, according to Paul, everyone:

Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; [10] As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: [11] There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. [12] They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Is Paul wrong? If not, how can there be any brothers or sisters of Jesus, let alone any sheep to separate from the goats on that great day of Jesus’ return in glory? We all stand convicted as rebels to the will of God. What then is the will of God that we should do, which if done, makes us a brother or sister of Jesus? Jesus tells us:

Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? [29] Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

So then we now know who these brothers and sisters of Jesus are. They are us who believe in Jesus. Directly.

So then who are these sheep who do kinds deeds to we who are the brothers and sisters of Jesus? We know they are blessed of the Father (verse 34), that their place in the kingdom was prepared for them “from the foundation of the world,” and that they have received Messiah Jesus, even if only indirectly through one of His local representatives:

Mat 10:40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. [41] He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. [42] And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

From the foregoing it appears that “shared values = salvation” is not a feasible interpretation of the salvation offered in Matthew 25. No one shares God’s values. Only faith in Messiah Jesus, whether direct or indirect, can rescue the lost soul. Therefore, what Peter said remains unalterably true, “there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

Peace,

SR

If there is no "miracle" of these elements being visibly changed every time they are "consecrated" ...

I have a question for you. And I ask it respectfully. Is God under obligation to perform a sign on demand? What's your interpretation of Mk 8:11-12? What's the reason for the deep sigh and refusal to perform a miracle? Other passages that come to mind are Mt 12:39, Lk 11:29, Jn 2:18-21. That sign of Jonah (the Resurrection), is what Catholics believe about the Eucharist, that it is the true risen Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity.

...then why is a Catholic Eucharistic celebration any more holy or efficacious than that of another Christian group that observes the remembrance celebration?

Because Jesus gave authority to his apostles, the Catholic view is that groups that split from the apostles do not have valid authority to celebrate the Eucharist. For most of these groups, the Catholic view is that they are receiving symbols, not the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. I ask one of my Catholic brethren to correct me if I have misstated this.

A Catholic who "receives" the communion wafer is no more sanctified than someone else who has believed on the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and participates in his own church's communion service, remembering the body and blood of Christ given for his salvation.

I leave it to God to do the sanctifying. He can come to me in Holy Communion or any way he chooses :) While Catholics hold that most nonCatholic communion celebrations are not actually the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord, I am not willing to say that Jesus doesn't visit devout nonCatholics in their worship. His is the business of making holy. I see mine as drawing as close to Him as I can, and conducting myself in my personal and spiritual life as those He put in authority over me encourage me to do. Personally, I have all the proof I need about Jesus coming to me in the Eucharist, praise be to God :) I am thankful I wasn't alive in Jesus' day. I would have been one of those who walked away. I know I would have :(

Peace be with all following this thread.

I am grateful for this post.

And I thoroughly understand all that you have written.

DR-Onlyists? I am slack-jawed with amazement. Very informative post. Thank you.

Abbot Anscar Vonier, in 1925, wrote a book entitled “A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist”.

Nearly a century later the book has begun to receive a lot of attention, more now than when it was first published.

Peter Kreeft writes about it: “Utterly lucid, penetrating and humble”

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus writes: “One could spend a lifetime contemplating the many dimensions of the Eucharist, and it would be a life well spent. Father Vonier’s lucid and compelling account will put into his debt Catholics who would spend their lives well.”

Avery Cardianal Dulles writes: “Remarkable for its balance, depth and accessibility.”

It takes time to read, but is worth every moment.

I think boatbums asked about miracles: Transubstantiation happens at every Mass -- that alone is a miracle -- even though one cannot see, or taste it. Here you go with some other miracles that can be seen and tasted and touched!!!! (Most approved by the church.

‘Bleeding’ Eucharist at Primary School in Moruga [Trinidad]
The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy (The Body and Blood of Christ) [Catholic Caucus]
Do You Believe in Eucharistic Miracles?
Eucharistic Miracle at St. Stephen's in New Boston MI.(Catholic Caucas)
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES

[CATHOLIC CAUCUS]'Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity': The Miracle and Gift of the Most Holy Eucharist
Looking After a Eucharistic Miracle (Franciscan Recounts His Special Mission in Siena)
Eucharistic Miracle: 2009?
Possible Eucharistic Miracle in Poland
The Eucharistic Miracles(Catholic Caucus)
Vatican display exhibits eucharistic miracles
Eucharistic Miracle - Bolsena-Orvieto, Italy
Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano -Verifies Authenticity of the Phenomenon
BLOOD TYPE FOUND IN ICONS IS SAME AS IN SHROUD OF TURIN AND 'LANCIANO MIRACLE'
Eucharistic Miracle: Lanciano,Italy-8th Century A.D.

I think boatbums asked about miracles: Transubstantiation happens at every Mass -- that alone is a miracle -- even though one cannot see, or taste it. Here you go with some other miracles that can be seen and tasted and touched!!!! (Most approved by the church.

No, boatbums said that this "miracle" should be literally provable EVERY time it is performed. I also said this is a perception of those who believe it but it does not prove it actually happens. As to these "approved" miracles which are said to have happened, I say OF COURSE the "church" wants to officially approve them - but there is no way trickery, switcheroos and, even, demonic influence can be ruled out. Besides, if, as the Church says, it is a literal reality EVERY time, then it would just be a given that the miracle happens and there would be no chance of trickery or other subterfuge.

I think it is shameful that Catholics have used this as a way of convincing ignorant people into believing that the Roman Catholic church is the ONLY true church of Jesus Christ - insisting that ONLY by joining and doing all the steps commanded of them they can hope to be saved. When all along the Bible is so clear that to be saved we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. When we receive Him as Savior we are born again into the family of God and Jesus, our good shepherd, says we will NEVER perish but HAVE everlasting life. The traditions of men have perverted the true Gospel and God will hold them responsible. The Apostle Peter said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." We are saved by grace THROUGH faith and NOT of ourselves, not of works lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8,9) Believing in Christ IS receiving His body and blood and is the ONLY way it can save us.

Jesus said, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:35)

and

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (John 6:47).

In all the talk about what Jesus said in John 6, why are these verses not talked about?

I agree, plus I think the description of the early church’s manner of worship more closely resembles that of Evangelical churches that I have attended.

“I already addressed that the word Ananmnesis does not actually mean “Memorial Sacrifice.” Read my post on it.”

~ ~ ~

Repost or direct me to your objection to the meaning of anamnesis. Looks like the Protestant Bibles agree, anamnesis has a sacrficial meaning. The KJV changes a few words from the original, the Vulgate. “Remembrance” is now “memorial.”

“The Greek term for “REMEMBRANCE” is anamnesis, and every time it occurs in the Protestant Bible (whether in the New Testament or the Greek Old Testament), it occurs in a sacrificial context.” See the word changes in the KJV
from the original, the Latin Vulgate.

Douay-Rheims:
Numbers 10:10
If at any time you shall have a banquet, and on your festival days, and on the first days of your months, you shall sound the trumpets over the holocausts, and the sacrifices of peace offerings, that they may be to you for a remembrance of your God. I am the Lord your God.

KJV:
Numbers 10:10
10 Also in the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginnings of your months, ye shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; that they may be to you for a memorial before your God: I am the LORD your God.

I have a question for you. And I ask it respectfully. Is God under obligation to perform a sign on demand? What's your interpretation of Mk 8:11-12? What's the reason for the deep sigh and refusal to perform a miracle? Other passages that come to mind are Mt 12:39, Lk 11:29, Jn 2:18-21. That sign of Jonah (the Resurrection), is what Catholics believe about the Eucharist, that it is the true risen Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity.

I am not saying that God is under "obligation" to perform miracles on demand, only that what this article as well as the Roman Catholic dogma states is that the "transubstantiation" in the Eucharistic service IS the changing of the elements into the LITERAL (and it DOES use that word) body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. My contention is simply that this is NOT literal at all but a perception of the person who believes it occurs. What I object to most of all is not that someone believes in the "real presence" but that participating in the communion service and receiving the host MUST be done in order to have an infusion of sanctifying grace AND that only those who believe in the LITERAL presence ARE given grace to save them. If you read some of the early fathers of the Christian faith you will see that they were not in agreement about what the Roman Catholic Church says today about the Eucharist and that most of them that speak about the "physical" nature do so in response to the Docetists and Gnostics who DENIED that Jesus even HAD a physical body. Understood in that context, makes their teachings a little more clear.

As to "groups that split from the apostles", all I can say is that the ONLY way that anyone can be counted among the followers of Jesus Christ is by their faith in what Scripture says about Him and the Apostles and their designated disciples taught what is contained in the Bible. It is the Bible that, as God-breathed, is our authority and the early theologians that stayed true to the faith held that NOTHING they taught should be received if it could not be proved by Holy Scripture. As you may know, the Reformation came about because of the apostasy of the Catholic Church and because its leaders had strayed from the clear Gospel of Jesus Christ, putting the traditions of men ABOVE what the Bible said. I would rather follow the faith as it is taught in Scripture than a church that only claims it IS the true church. That should be ALL of ours criteria for truth claims.

Thank you for your respectful comments. I bid you peace.

"It is abundantly clear that belief in Jesus is not an optional adornment of “shared values.” It is the essence of the Gospel."

No, it is not the essense of the Gospel (of salvation). Sola fide is empty, because it is an insufficient subset of what is required for salvation. The entire set of requirements for salvation consists of holding hte concepts and values of God. If one does that and has access to the true Person of God, then they will believe in Him. That belief comes from an examination of the evidence and reference to ones own core values.

Simply believing what someone says about God is not sufficient for salvation. Works are required as I pointed out per Matt 25 and works depend on one's core values, not who one has faith in.

"So then who are these sheep who do kinds deeds to we who are the brothers and sisters of Jesus?

Pagans do kind deeds for their friends. God expects them to be done for the least of men. There are those that do that w/o ever knowing who God is and they most assuredly are saved. Some of them reject what the Churches say, because they present errors. ie. sola fide, sola sciptura and the doctrines born of them and of the democratic actions of councils. Faith is belief in what someone says and that requires trust. One who presents errors and does not use logic to correct them does not deserve trust.

God's fundamental statement on salvation is the following given in Matt 12:32, "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. God judges according to the values one holds and expresses in action. He said in Matt 12:7, If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. These two statements from God contradict sola fide absolutely and indicate no one need believe in Jesus to be saved.

God's fundamental statement on salvation ... indicate no one need believe in Jesus to be saved.

Really? And why do you trust Matthew to be the definitive statement on salvation? No use for Paul? Or Peter? Or John? What if, hypothetically, I were to take the position that Matthew got it all wrong, and only Paul was right on this particular subject? Am I not a sovereign individual, empowered to pick and choose only those Scriptures that support my position? Selecta Scriptura, anyone?

Protestant or Catholic, we should all be in awe. Proof, you can’t call error, Jesus knew/knows perfectly what to say. Just think, how divine, everything He ever said was perfect.

~ ~ ~

Before we look at an analysis of the Greek text, consider this basic point about Christ’s own words at the Last Supper: If He had intended to mean that the bread and wine were merely SYMBOLS of His Body and Blood, He would have said so. He was speaking to uneducated men who hung on His every word and who would build His Church. Since it is an undebatable fact that the Church believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist universally for 1,500 years it would have been utterly scandalous and preposterous for Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, to speak the words that caused this belief if they were not actually true.

And now, the Greek, courtesy of John Salza, which refutes the (contrived) Protestant objection that the bread remained bread because Christ’s “this” refers to the bread: “The Greek transliteration of “This is my Body which is given for you” in Lk 22:19 is Touto esti to soma mou to uper hymon didomenon. Like many languages, Greek adjectives have genders (masculine, feminine, or neuter) which agree with their object nouns. The word ‘this’ (touto) is a neuter adjective. The word ‘bread’ (artos) is a masculine noun. This means that the neuter adjective ‘this’ is not referring to the masculine noun ‘bread’, because their genders do not correspond” (emphasis mine). “Instead, ‘this’ refers to ‘body’ (soma), which is a neuter noun. In light of the grammatical structure, Jesus does not say ‘This bread is my body,’ as the Protestant argument contends. Instead, Jesus says ‘This [new substance] is my body,’ or more literally, ‘This [new substance] IS the body of me.’

Did you copy and paste that from elsewhere?

If so, please give credit where credit is due. The writing, and the reasoning, even if you agree with it, does not appear to be what I know to be your style, judging not only from what has appeared on FR, but on other forums, too, under different aliases.