Posted on 06/01/2013 1:36:03 PM PDT by NYer
Scriptural Reflection on the Readings for June 2, 2013, The Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ | Carl E. Olson
Readings:
Gen 14:18-20
Ps 110:1, 2, 3, 4
1 Cor 11:23-26
Lk 9:11b-17
Shortly after my wife and I entered the Catholic Church in 1997, I had a conversation with an Evangelical friend that was as disconcerting as it was friendly. A.J., who I met in Bible college several years earlier, was curious about the Catholic doctrine that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. I say curious because A.J., unlike some of my other Protestant friends, was not really bothered or offended by this belief, merely puzzled. After much discussion, he said, I dont see what the big deal is. I believe that Communion is symbolic, and you believe it is more than a symbol. But, either way, were both Christians.
His comment surprised me because it was readily evident to meas it is to many Protestantsthat the Catholic belief in the Eucharist (shared by Eastern Orthodox and Ancient Oriental Christians) is an all or nothing proposition. If the Eucharist is Jesus, it calls for a response of humble acceptance; if the Eucharist is not really Jesus, it is an idolatrous offense against Godworshipping bread and wine as though they are somehow divine.
On this feast day celebrating the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, the readings reveal, in different ways, the truthfulness of the ancient and consistent belief in the Eucharist. It is fitting that this great mystery has ancient roots in one of most mysterious of all biblical figures: the priest Melchizedek, who makes just one historical appearance in the Scriptures (Gen. 14:18-20), is mentioned once more in the Old Testament (Ps. 110:4), and then reappears in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Having just left the battlefield, Abram encountered the king of Salem, who was also a priest of God Most High. Melchizedek brought bread and wine to Abram and blessed the patriarch, and Abram responded with a tithe. Both actions indicated Melchizedeks superior position, as noted in the letter to the Hebrews (Heb 7:1-7). It is the first time a priest is mentioned in the Scriptures, several centuries before the Hebrews had a priesthood.
The Christian tradition, the Catechism states, considers Melchizedek, priest of God Most High, as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique high priest after the order of Melchizedek (CCC 1544, 1333). Christs priesthood is superior to the Aaronic priesthood. Because He is the Son of God and is God Himself (the argument of Hebrews 1), His priesthood is validated by His eternal nature and His infinite being (Heb. 7:16, 24ff). Melchizedeks importance lies in his loyalty to God Most High, the purity of his intentions, and his sacrifice of bread and wine. He represents a time when the priesthood was part of the natural order of family structure. By establishing the New and universal covenant through His death and resurrection, Jesus Christ formed a new and everlasting family of God, bound not by ethnicity, but by grace and the Holy Spirit.
And because Jesus is God, He is able to give the household of God His Body and Blood for the nourishment of soul and body, and for the forgiveness of sins. By providing this Eucharistic banquet, a foretaste of the Kingdom of God, He fulfills the promise of a worldwide family of God foreshadowed in the person of the king-priest Melchizedek. The feeding of the five thousand, described in todays reading from Lukes Gospel, anticipates and represents the sacrament of the Eucharist, as Christ miraculously feedswith the assisting hands and efforts of His priests, the Apostlesthose who hunger to hear His words.
If the bread and wine remained unchanged, Christ would be, at best, equal to Melchizedek. But the King of Kings said, This is my body that is for you, and the High Priest declared, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. The Eucharist is Jesus Christ. That is the great truth we humbly celebrate todayand every day we receive the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.
The Didache, which details the most primitive and most "Jewishly" influenced accounts and instructions on the Eucharist and the Mass, predates St. Justin Martyr's writings by at least 50 years.
Peace be with you.
(Justin the Martyr, also known as Justin of Caesarea) (100 165)
Of Justins extant writings, three are referenced here: the first and second portions of his apology written to Emperor Antoninus (138-161), referenced as first apology and second apology, and Justins Dialog with Trypho the Jew.
In Justins first apology, he gives a rather detailed description of the celebration of the Eucharist for the purpose of contrasting it with certain pagan distortions of truth.
Earlier in his apology Justin defended against accusations that Christians partake of human flesh and blood. Here, in his description of the eucharist, he is making it clear that Christians do not partake of flesh and blood in any carnal way, but rather bread and wine mixed with water: to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water. Justin then asserted that though Christians partake of bread and wine, it is not common bread or common wine, but that the bread and wine are connected to Christ who became incarnate and was sacrificed at Calvary for those who believe. This food, i.e. bread and wine mixed with water, which by transmutation nourishes the body, is what the Christians call the flesh and blood of Christ. Justin therefore, refutes the accusations that Christians partake of human flesh and blood.
Justin gives an example of what the pagan government did tolerate and even honor, while persecuting Christians for what appeared to them to be a similar behavior. Among them were certain men who performed evil magic and were honored and revered by the pagan leaders. Justin even names some of these men: a Samaritan named Simon for whom they erected a statue in his honor with the inscription, To Simon the holy God. Another was Meander, a disciple of Simon who persuaded his followers that they would never die. Marcion also, who, among other heresies, denied that God was the creator of the universe.
All these, Justin explained, are called Christians. But the authorities only persecute the true Christians who hold the apostolic teachings. And in summing this up, Justin wrote:
To put it in context, Justin first referred to the eating of human flesh a shameful deed; then he explained that the Eucharist celebration does not involve consuming human flesh in any way. The bread and wine mixed with water are symbolically the body and blood of Christ. The accusation that Christians ate human flesh was used to persecute Christians, while others who may have actually done that were not persecuted. The purpose of Justins explanation of the Eucharist was to counter the accusation that Christians ate human flesh.
Justin continues to make his point in his second apology. Here Justin shows that feasting on human flesh is contrary to the Christian mindset.
Justin thoroughly refuted the claim that the Eucharist is literally flesh and blood in his apologies. In a debate with a Jew named Trypho, Justin deals directly with the Eucharist as he did in his first apology. To Trypho he wrote about many Old Testament types and how they pointed to Christ and His church. With regards to the Eucharist, he said:
This is the very definition of the Eucharist a celebration of the remembrance of the Lords passion in which Christians offer thanks and prayer. The offering of fine flour was part of what the cleansed leper was required to offer. Justin tells Trypho that this offering was a type of the bread of the Eucharist. He goes on to explain what the bread of the Eucharist represents, thus by similarity, what the fine flour presented by the leper represented.
The bread represents what Jesus offered in the past, that is, His suffering flesh, which He endured for the sake of those who believe on Him. According to Justin, the fine flour presented by the leper pointed forward to the same thing. But the Catholic Encyclopedia does not agree. Under the topic of The Sacrifice of the Mass, they say this:
Unwilling to accept Justins definition, the Catholic encyclopedia continues with an objection: Did he intend by thus emphasizing the interior spiritual sacrifice to exclude the exterior real sacrifice of the eucharist? Clearly he did not, for in the same Dialogue (c. 41) he says the food offering of the lepers, assuredly a real gift offering (cf. Leviticus 14), was a figure (typos) of the bread of the eucharist, which Jesus commanded to be offered (poiein) in commemoration of His sufferings.
The problem with this reasoning is Jesus never commanded the bread to be offered, but rather taken or received (lambano); Take, eat, this is My body. He then commanded His disciples to do this (poiein) in remembrance of Him; that is, to break bread in remembrance of Him and offer the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving, not offer the bread as a sacrifice. The encyclopedia article continues to become more desperate as it continues on:
You know you are in trouble when you have to resort to defining common Greek words like toutesti (that is). Perhaps the Catholic quire will believe it, but certainly not anyone seeking the truth. Justin continues to develop his point as the dialog progresses. Justin makes his point even more clearly in chapter 70 where he connects a prophecy of Isaiah with the Eucharist.
Justin explicitly stated that bread (not the flesh) is given by Christ in remembrance of His flesh, and that the cup is in remembrance of not is His own blood. If Justin believed in transubstantiation i.e. the real presence, he would have certainly stated it here, instead he refutes it.
In ending his exhortation to Trypho on the subject of sacrifice, Justin affirmed the definition of true Christian sacrifice in this statement:
Truly it is as Justin said, giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God. (ibid, chapter 117) (http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.