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 don’t see what the big deal is. I believe that Communion is symbolic, and you believe it is more than a symbol. But, either way, we’re both Christians.”
His comment surprised me because it was readily evident to me—as it is to many Protestants—that 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 God—worshipping 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 Melchizedek’s 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). Christ’s 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). Melchizedek’s 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 today’s reading from Luke’s Gospel, anticipates and represents the sacrament of the Eucharist, as Christ miraculously feeds—with the assisting hands and efforts of His priests, the Apostles—those 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 today—and every day we receive the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.
Don't put limits on what God can do.
Let's assume, for sake of argument, that Christ wanted us to eat his flesh. When he said 'This is my body" he meant it to mean, This is my body. When he said "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man you have no live in you" he meant you must eat the flesh of the son of man. When he said, "Do this in remberance of me" he wanted this crazy notion of eating his flesh to continue for generations. So lets assume, for whatever reason, That Christ wanted us to eat his flesh. Christ would have had to create a mechanism for that to happen. His physical body had a limited amount of flesh. His physical body would not have lasted for generations, so he would have had to institute a mechanism for giving us his flesh. Since we know now He was not planning a second coming in a few days, and if he wanted us to eat his flesh, he would have had to create a process to give us his flesh to eat. This is why he created the Eucharist.
Turning bread into his flesh is the way His words make sense.
From Matthew 26
27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Jesus clearly referred to the contents of the cup as 'fruit of the vine'. Grapes grow on a vine...sounds like wine.
There it is. Simple - 3 verses. No assumptions, laid out by Jesus Himself. Jesus gave His disciples wine in the cup that He described as 'His blood'.
Are we ready to move on to 'the body' yet?
"For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily like those high priests to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people. Because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak but the word of the oath which came after the Law appoints a Son made perfect forever."(emphasis mine, TBP)
Jesus also said "It is finished." So why do the priests offer Him up again and again to be sacrificed? Do they think that Jesus didn't do a good enough job the first time?
I don’t put limits on what God can do, including the rich use of metaphor. I also know that the “body” means the church, or at least all believers, in some usages too. I know that “in Christ” does not mean literally inside. You’re picking and choosing and thinking in English.....the Bible was spoken in Hebrew and Greek....
Exactly. Bread turned into his flesh, wine turned into his blood so future generations can follow his commands.
Simple, when you don't underestimate the power of God.
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
Jesus said they were drinking ‘fruit of the vine’. FatherOfFive says it was blood.
I know who I am going with.
So you just ignore my simple questions and make statements.
You neglected to read this comment.
No, I didn’t neglect to read your comment. In fact, I read it a couple times.
I do choose to not give it the weight of Jesus’ own words, which I included above. His words were simple and straight-forward.
I am going with Jesus over the words of FatherOfFive and the comments of NYer.
Why should the gluten-containing ‘host’ trouble the gluten-sensitive consumer if he or she were gluten-intolerant? What is the symbolic implication of a person’s body rejecting what is claimed to be Jesus’ actual flesh?
What a wonderful response
“If the bread and wine remained unchanged, Christ would be, at best, equal to Melchizedek. ..”
Not so. Christ gave his life as a sacrifice. Melchizedech did not.
Sorry, when I originally read this post, I didn’t understand that you were telling me that your comments were the only possible interpretation of the passage and that once you had spoken, it was a done deal.
I don’t understand the passage as that unique. Jesus had followers that stopped following often, and I don’t agree that this was the ‘only record...doctrinal reasons’. The Jesus that I read often left the listener confused. Jesus said he spoke in parables so that not everyone would understand the secrets of the kingdom (Matthew 13:10-11).
This is the reason that I didn’t take your comments as the final authority. It seems to me that Jesus made a habit of speaking words that were hard to hear, and very seldom did he try to sooth the ears of the listeners.
You will never hear this more beautifully set to music.
The Catholic Church was established by Jesus (God).
That thou art Peter [Kipha, a rock], and upon this rock [Kipha] I will build my church [ekklesian], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21).
By the word “rock” the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for “Peter” and “rock”. His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ. This meaning becomes so much the clearer when we remember that the words “bind” and “loose” are not metaphorical, but Jewish juridical terms. It is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles and in the Christian community was the basis for the Kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church of Christ. Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles by Christ Himself. This foundation created for the Church by its Founder could not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to continue and did continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops.
From Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm
You either have Faith and believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church or you don’t have that faith.
Let's rephrase the entire discussion. If the Creator of the Universe says to you, "I am the Bread of Life", you might challenge him for a better explanation. Again, he says to you "I am the Bread of Life. Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life within you". You will probably be taken aback at such a statement and, again, ask him for clarification. He gives it to you and again, you can't grasp this, so you ask again. He spells it out a fourth time. So he rephrases the same words "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day". You are thinking 'this can't be right, I need to ask again'. A fifth time, you ask him for an explanation. He tells you "my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed". You wonder how this can be; surely you are misunderstanding Jesus, so you ask again. He responds, "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" This is still not registering so you ask a 7th time, then an 8th time ... a 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th time. How many times does our Lord have to tell you something for you to understand it? No interpretation is necessary; these are the words of Jesus Christ.
True.
you are guilty of hyper extrapilation....
With all due respect, you did not ask a single question - and did not use a single question mark - in your diatribe. You made some statements. I put them into perspective.
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.