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.
Conversely, an alcoholic priest can consecrate a type of wine called must, unpasturized natural grape juice which has been only briefly exposed to air, i.e. to the action of natural yeast, with virtually zero alcohol content.
When my mother was in her dying days in the hospital, she could not swallow solids, but the priest broke off a tiny piece of the Blessed Host and softened or dissolved it somewhat in a little water, and gave her just a drop, which was all she could receive.
It is my very firm belief that the scripture, taken as a whole, conveys the fact that the symbols of bread and wine are just that - symbols. You must take what Jesus said in John 6, what Matthew/Mark/Luke recorded about the ‘last supper’, and then further writings like Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul all spoke of this as a ‘remembrance’. In my church we take this time to remember what He did. We often take the elements with family and friends, to give thanks for our great high priest and encourage one another...forgive if need be.
I admit I don’t understand the catholic teaching. John says you must eat/drink flesh/blood. The wine/bread become the flesh/blood, and are thus eaten/drank. But I don’t get why it is an ongoing thing - like the other places in scripture direct. And it is obviously much more than just a ‘remembrance’ at that point. Seems inconsistent to me.
And, honestly, a bit scary. The cross of Christ is declared to be a stumbling block. Jesus came, obeyed His Father, and laid His life down on the cross. As the Son of God, He was the perfect sinless sacrifice - one time, for all mankind. Still a stumbling block...
He turns to His disciples and says, "Do you want to go, too?"
There's a good explanation of that LINK_John_6
If Jesus' words strike you a being really, really outrageous --- I think you're beginning to get it. Most of us take it way too casually. We've forgotten just how radical it is.
I disagree the text strongly indicates that. Also, the Bible never says the words are metaphors when they are metaphors, so that argument is useless.
And to be clear, I have not said I do or do not think he is talking figuratlively necessarily - I have only said Ireject the dogmatic insistence that He is speaking literally and that none of the arguments for that interpretation have been compelling.
Other Eicharistic miracles are cited. (There are hundreds of them. Believe -- don't settle for unbelief.
‘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.
Bingo!
Jesus never explained his parables in front of unbelievers...
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons.
No one left Jesus for doctrinal reasons...
If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
This is patently untrue...Why do you guys continue year after year to present this question when it has been pointed out to you time after time that Jesus answers this question right in the very scripture you are discussing???
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Jesus knew these people wouldn't follow him no matter what he said or what miracle he provided...Those disciples were not following Jesus because they believed he was the Son of God...Besides, no one left at that time...
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
This is where those disciples left...They knew they weren't there because they believed in Jesus...They knew that God wasn't the reason they were following Jesus...They liked the free meals...
Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Those disciples didn't feel a calling from God...
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Jesus was in fact addressing only those who responded to the calling of the Father (spiritual)...Only those could be a true disciple of Jesus...Those who were only interested in what Jesus could do for then, he had no use for...
While the call to eat Jesus was in fact literal, it was not physical...It was spiritual...
Joh 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Joh 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
And how did these disciples know that Jesus had the words of eternal life??? And why did many of the disciples NOT believe??? Anybody???
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
It's all spiritual...Believing is spiritual...Eating the flesh of Jesus is spiritual...The Kingdom of God is spiritual...
Sounds feasable...So where in the scriptures is the process??? Who did Jesus give the process to??? And where is the record to show to whom it was given???
Can't answer those questions??? Then there isn't any process...It's just a fairy tale...
It's all spiritual...There's nothing physical about eating the flesh of Jesus...
Just the way it is...Some folks are alergic to Jesus...
There, fixed that for ya...
I also wonder how transubstantiation, while not mentioned specifically, can be the hard truth, yet Matthew 23 has this: 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
I believe the Catholic Church has done more to bring souls to God, but I also believe they get so hung up in the religion/theological etudes that they often miss the mark by diverting attention from the spiritual to the canons and doctrines.
I see, so if you use the word “correctly” in your explanation then it must make it so. Any objective person would clearly and correctly have interpreted Christ as using symbolism, no matter how many times he said it.
Furthermore, even if that was Christ’s intent at that time, which obviously it was not, that hardly means that we mere mortals using communion “host” made in a bakery and not dropped from heaven couldn’t carry out a symbolic act without it being an act of idol worship.
On essence, you’re saying that 75 percent of Christians in this country are worshipping an idol every time they take communion. Sorry if that makes us Takfir in your eyes.
There are almost no facts about Christ which can be proved "beyond dispute" by Scripture, since obviously the whole thing (including "What is Scripture") can be, and is, disputed by billions, and even the most basic Christological knowledge is disputed among self-proclaimed Christians.
There's enough ambiguity in Scripture --- for instance, because Jesus said "Why do you call Me holy? Only God is holy" --- for some to dispute that Jesus Christ is God. And I could multiply this 50-fold if I had nothing better to do on a Sunday morning.
Scripture is so rife with apparent contradictions (I say "apparent") both moral and theological, that the dogmatic certainty of the Church depends largely on the Vincentian canon ("Always, Everywhere, and By All"), taken as evidence of the effective guidance of the Holy Spirit.
If we were left with what can be held beyond dispute from Scripture, we would be in a state of permanent and almost total uncertainty.
The non-stop Bible-based wrangling on this board prove that nicely.
Thanks, Mrs. Don-o!
I find the fact that their physical bodies are distressed by what ought to be ‘flesh’ in a manner that is outside of the control of their will, somewhat noteworthy for the symbolism it entails.
Yeah. But the allergy to the bread is outside the will of the individual, hinting at a fatalism.
I can't remember the sources, but have read enough writings from the early Christians ALL believing something more powerful than a memorial meal was taking place when communion was shared.
That being said I have read that CS Lewis was fond of saying the commandment was to take and eat, not take and understand. I like that a lot.
Author Flannery O’Conner summed it up when she said “If it is only a symbol, to hell with it”. You either believe what Jesus said or you satisfy yourself with something less.
Exactly wrong - men cannot seem to keep from bolting on traditions. Reliance upon men is doomed to fail.
What I believe is this:
The Torah must needfully be kept sacrosanct - Yahweh does not change - What He said in the first place will surely be in the end. He has declared it... So allowing an interpretation that confounds the Torah must necessarily be incorrect. Likewise the Prophets, and every single prophecy (Psalms, as an instance - not technically 'Prophets' but overflowing with prophecy) must be preserved as well - They cannot be changed, or Yahweh is a liar and his prophets are false.
Therefore, the OT must inform the NT. If one must be careful to preserve what was said before, freely using interpretation is severely limited.
In this instance, the most glaring error is the absolute prohibition against drinking blood... ANY blood. This is present in almost every covenant, and is passed into the Christians too (in the NT). One may add to that the eating of unclean flesh (eating humans is not kosher).
Your 'sacrament' most decidedly changes what was said from the very beginning, allowing the drinking of blood and eating of human flesh via transubstantiation. It cannot be, according to the OT. Ergo, another interpretation must be sought... One that does not do damage to what has come before.
June 2, 2013
The Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ
Reading 1 Gn 14:18-20
In those days, Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine,
and being a priest of God Most High,
he blessed Abram with these words:
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
the creator of heaven and earth;
and blessed be God Most High,
who delivered your foes into your hand.”
Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
Responsorial Psalm Ps 110:1, 2, 3, 4
R. (4b) You are a priest for ever, in the line of Melchizedek.
The LORD said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand
till I make your enemies your footstool.”
R. You are a priest for ever, in the line of Melchizedek.
The scepter of your power the LORD will stretch forth from Zion:
“Rule in the midst of your enemies.”
R. You are a priest for ever, in the line of Melchizedek.
“Yours is princely power in the day of your birth, in holy splendor;
before the daystar, like the dew, I have begotten you.”
R. You are a priest for ever, in the line of Melchizedek.
The LORD has sworn, and he will not repent:
“You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.”
R. You are a priest for ever, in the line of Melchizedek.
Reading 2 1 Cor 11:23-26
Brothers and sisters:
I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,
that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over,
took bread, and, after he had given thanks,
broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you.
Do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying,
“This cup is the new covenant in my blood.
Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup,
you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Gospel Lk 9:11b-17
Jesus spoke to the crowds about the kingdom of God,
and he healed those who needed to be cured.
As the day was drawing to a close,
the Twelve approached him and said,
“Dismiss the crowd
so that they can go to the surrounding villages and farms
and find lodging and provisions;
for we are in a deserted place here.”
He said to them, “Give them some food yourselves.”
They replied, “Five loaves and two fish are all we have,
unless we ourselves go and buy food for all these people.”
Now the men there numbered about five thousand.
Then he said to his disciples,
“Have them sit down in groups of about fifty.”
They did so and made them all sit down.
Then taking the five loaves and the two fish,
and looking up to heaven,
he said the blessing over them, broke them,
and gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd.
They all ate and were satisfied.
And when the leftover fragments were picked up,
they filled twelve wicker baskets.
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.