The Blessed Sacrament: It's either All or nothing

Insight Scoop ^ | June 1, 2013 | Carl E. Olson

[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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think your argument proves too much. If it is always and everywhere wrong to actually eat human flesh and drink human blood (or any blood), even if God tells you otherwise then God as Sovereign lawgiver is quite demoted, since it is (on that account) not within His power or authority to command otherwise.

And if it is an exceptionless norm that even God cannot put aside, then all that business in Acts and in the Pauline Epistles and in Hebrews about not loading the Gentiles with the entire burden of the Mosaic Law is nonsense.

And if flesh-eating / blood-drinking is inherently abominable at all times and in all circumstances, then it would be wrong to do it even symbolically. For instance, if it is wrong for a man to rape your wife, it would be wrong for him to symbolically rape your wife. If it's wrong for a man to sodomize your son, it would be wrong for him to symbolically sodomize your son.

I don't think that, with the best of intentions, you can evade the sheer radical shock of what Christ was proposing when He said "Eat my flesh and drink My blood."

What cannot be in the OT was to be the very center of the NT: the eating and drinking of a slain, sacrificed victim who is none other than the Son of God.

[NYer]

Any objective person would clearly and correctly have interpreted Christ as using symbolism, no matter how many times he said it.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

[piusv]

I would also add that that this was not the first time that Christ upset the apple cart by changing OT thinking. He worked on the Sabbath by doing good and healing on the Sabbath. There were Jews that took issue with that and didn’t follow Him, but He didn’t change the message.

So it is with Christ’s reference to drinking His blood: it too broke with tradition. In this instance He wasn’t merely talking about animal or human blood. He was talking about His Blood. Something new and entirely different.

And yes, some Jews couldn’t handle that either...and they too walked away.

But He didn’t change the message.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

I think you are confusing ‘tradition’ with ‘law’.

The law said to keep the sabbath holy. Tradition dictated how the Jews thought that should be carried out - no healing.

It wasn’t a ‘tradition’ that said don’t drink blood, it was the law. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to do away with it (Matthew 5:17&18).

[piusv]

So are you suggesting that we should all be following all 613 “laws” of the OT? The prohibition of blood is only part of Leviticus where a whole slew of other “laws” were located.

The key is that Christ did change things. Because He was God, He could. Besides, He wasn’t speaking of human or animal blood. He was speaking of His Blood. Some folks left Him for it because they were offended by it probably because of Leviticus; others did not. If He was speaking metaphorically, He could have easily cleared up the misunderstanding...but He didn’t.

It appears we still have folks who are offended by what He said.

[C. Edmund Wright]

More than a memorial for sure - but not necessarily what is being discussed here. Impossible to worship one we can understand, and I don’t fully understand this, or the Trinity, or time and space - and never will on this earth. And that’s not all bad...

[C. Edmund Wright]

Dogma is not necessarily a bad or a good thing - it can certainly be either - depends on the application. I am careful about dogma about that which is clearly beyond human comprehension.....

[LearnsFromMistakes]

I am not suggesting we should follow the laws. Sorry if that was implied. Jesus came to fulfill the law so that we didn’t have to. Yes, a lot changed when Jesus laid down His life and became, once and for all, the perfect sacrifice.

This is certainly a hard saying in John 6. Fortunately for us, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record Him addressing the issue once again in an event we call the ‘last supper’.

He talks about taking ‘bread’ and performed 3 actions - gave thanks, broke it, distributed it. And presented it as ‘His body’. That is what we have recorded - no more and no less.

Then He did similar with the wine (Matthew and Mark have a little more detail than Luke). Gave thanks and shared it. But one other thing is recorded. After He gave it to them, He specifically referred to it as ‘the fruit of the vine’ - wine. He presented it to them as ‘His Blood’, but called it wine.

What are we to do with this? It is also a hard saying. About ready to lay His life down, He is sharing one last meal with His closest friends. God had prepared this time, this place, this meal. Jesus was spending His last moments as a free man with His closest associates (they were with Him in the garden, but slept thru it). He takes this opportunity to once again mention a teaching that caused so many to leave Him (recorded in John 6). And He specifically refers to ‘His blood’ as ‘fruit of the vine’.

This is what we have recorded. Let me know if you think I misrepresented anything.

[FatherofFive]

You’re picking and choosing and thinking in English.....the Bible was spoken in Hebrew and Greek....

GREAT POINT! Let’s look at the Greek

Estin- is 3rd person singular active indicative

Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."
Mat 3:17 kai idou fwnh ek twn ouranwn legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa

So, is Jesus the Son of God, or does he represent the son of God?

Mat 17:5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"
Mat 17:5 eti autou lalountov idou nefelh fwteinh epeskiasen autouv kai idou fwnh ek thv nefelhv legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa tsbautou akouete aautou

Again, is Jesus the Son of God, or does he represent the son of God?

Mat 26:26 And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
Mat 26:26 esqiontwn de autwn labwn o ihsouv ton arton kai euxaristhsav euloghsav eklasen kai douv edidou toiv maqhtaiv tsbkai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou

This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.

Mat 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Mat 26:28 touto gar estin to aima mou to thv kainhv diaqhkhv to peri pollwn ekxunnomenon ekxunomenon eiv afesin amartiwn

This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.

Mar 14:22 And while they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it; and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is My body."
Mar 14:22 kai esqiontwn autwn labwn o ihsouv arton euloghsav eklasen kai edwken autoiv kai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou

This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.

Mar 14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Mar 14:24 kai eipen autoiv touto estin to aima mou to thv kainhv diaqhkhv to ekxunnomenon uper peri pollwn ekxunomenon

This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.

Is = Is. In English and Greek. Your man made tradition says Is = represents.

[C. Edmund Wright]

That proves nothing. I”ll admit, it is somewhat indicative perhaps, but not nearly as profound as you think. Your obsession is Pharisaical.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Please apply the same analysis to 1 Cor 10: 17-18......

[LearnsFromMistakes]

English and Greek

Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic, correct? I don't know either Greek or Aramaic (some would say I struggle mightily with English), but I suppose we would have to go back to Aramaic to do a proper analysis?

[Mrs. Don-o]

The subjects which are beyond human comprehension are exactly where you need dogma. Many, many issues in life are argued, and endlessly re-argued, on the basis of "the preponderance of evidence." But matters of the greatest importance --- the things of God --- are by definition beyond human comprehension.

You cannot build a house if you are constantly running down to the basement, knocking out the bearing walls, digging up and redesigning the foundation. St. Paul - as we can read in his Epistles --- evidently had some serious problems with some of his new Christians who, in their rejection of dogma, were unable to build their newly-planted churches: digging up the foundations, wrangling about everything, building nothing.

St. Peter notes that such unstable people twist Scriptures to their own destruction. Scriptures are, unfortunately, twistable. (2 Peter 3:16).The Church has the authority to make judgments on disputes; these judgments serve both truth and peace; they are spiritual works of mercy; they are called Dogmas.

[ADSUM]

The totality of the real presence

In order to forestall at the very outset, the unworthy notion, that in the Eucharist we receive merely the Body and merely the Blood of Christ but not Christ in His entirety, the Council of Trent defined the Real Presence to be such as to include with Christ’s Body and His Soul and Divinity as well. A strictly logical conclusion from the words of promise: “he that eateth me the same also shall live by me”, this Totality of Presence was also the constant property of tradition,

His whole Humanity also, and, by virtue of the hypostatic union, His Divinity, i.e. Christ whole and entire, must be present. Hence Christ is present in the sacrament with His Flesh and Blood, Body and Soul, Humanity and Divinity.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

GOD loves you. Accept HIS love and follow HIM.

[FatherofFive]

That proves nothing.

You don't like the English, and asked me to go to the Greek. Estin = Estin throughout Scripture. What it proves is that you have no linguistic or logical position for your beliefs. You can't answer simple questions. Maybe the Devil has clouded your thinking...

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, "It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present."

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” –Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

[FatherofFive]

but I suppose we would have to go back to Aramaic to do a proper analysis?

Well, actually not. Scripture wasn’t written in Aramaic.

But you raise a good point. Aramaic is important to understand Matthew 16:18. The Catholic haters will say that the Rock on which Christ builds his Church is not Peter. They look to the Greek and see petra and petros, and say this proves that Peter is not the rock. They don’t understand gender in the Greek language. In Greek, Christ would not have called Peter ‘petra’ because petra is a feminine noun, so it is changes to petros, a male noun since it is referring to a man. It is the same meaning, but only the gender of the noun is different.

But what about the Aramaic? Rock in Aramaic is Kepha. And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. What Jesus probably said to Simon in Matthew 16:18, in Aramaic, was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church.’ Totally consistent with Peter as the Rock.

[FatherofFive]

Your obsession is Pharisaical.

And exactly what is my obsession? Please explain.

I think I am obsessed with the TRUTH and nothing more.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

Back to the thread topic.

Jesus said His blood was ‘fruit of the vine’. I don’t know why I would have to defend those words. I certainly don’t want to be the one to have to correct Him in His misunderstanding.

[Servant of the Cross]

Any objective person would clearly and correctly have interpreted Christ as using symbolism, no matter how many times he said it.

John Chapter 6: 52 - 59

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um.

66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”

Jesus did not say ... Wait, don't leave! I was only speaking symbolically!

[C. Edmund Wright]

You are confusing dogma and principle, and I don’t have the patience to try and splain it to you.....cieau