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.

[C. Edmund Wright]

I think you are obsessed with a certain issue that is hardly the fundamental truth of John 3:16 - and I think you have over estimated your ability to discern it.

You are boring me now.

[roamer_1]

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.

But that is precisely the point - He wouldn't tell you otherwise - He said in the beginning that He WOULDN'T say otherwise... That He never changes... And that, if ANYONE comes 'telling you otherwise', then that person is definitively a false prophet- So it is inherent that what was said first, what was said before, must hold more weight than what was said after. If after seems to change what was said before, then the interpretation is probably at fault, because YHWH cannot be made to be a liar.

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.

It IS nonsense - that is, the way it is interpreted cannot be right. And to think otherwise flies in the face of Yeshua's explicit commandment to do and teach the Torah. Nowhere can He be found changing the Torah, and in fact, all he did sent people back to the Torah, and away from the law (of the Pharisees).

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.

Not at all - the symbolism of 'wine as blood', and 'the bread of life' are well defined in the OT.

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.

I think you fail to grasp the full impact of Yeshua (supposedly) violating the Torah. That cannot have happened. Had he violated the Torah, his sacrifice is made imperfect, and his salvation is made moot.

I also suggest that you have not fully examined the impact of *any* change at all upon the value of the word of YHWH. The quintessential difference between YHWH and all other 'gods' is inherent in the bare fact that what he said in the beginning will inexorably happen. Every other pretender to the throne has a built in method of change - authority of priests or prophets to alter what has come before in order to accommodate the present... Yahweh does not allow that at all... And in that, we know He is GOD... That He, as sovereign lawgiver, can make his own way known in the first place, and it will require no amendment.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Are you a -— I’m not sure what the correct term is -— one of those belivers thst says the Epistles are wrong and only the Gospels are correct, because Paul was wrong about the Jewish/Gentile Question?

[roamer_1]

Are you a -— I’m not sure what the correct term is -— one of those belivers thst says the Epistles are wrong and only the Gospels are correct, because Paul was wrong about the Jewish/Gentile Question?

Since I have no idea what you are talking about, I would venture to say no.

[FatherofFive]

You are boring me now.

And you are not answering simple questions

[C. Edmund Wright]

St. Augustine agrees with me, or rather, I agree with him, and he doesn’t bore me.

[boatbums]

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?”

Why did you leave out all those verses between 59 and 66? Instead of trying to make the Scripture say what one thinks it is saying, let it actually say what Jesus said:

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

There is a context for why the people were leaving. It was NOT, as Catholics insist because Jesus said something they didn't understand or that repulsed them, but because he said some of the followers were not true believers and one would even betray him. THAT is why they left! It says it right there in the verses conveniently left out of the story. Now why would people want to do that?

The thread title insists that it is "all or nothing", and pretty much bases the entire Catholic religion on this ONE doctrine, so why is it being twisted to make Jesus say something he didn't say or for people to react in a way that they didn't? The Christian faith is based on WAY more than the inderstanding of one single doctrine about the Lord's Supper and its significance. If the Catholic Church presumes it is the ONE true church because of this, they are sadly lacking.

[FatherofFive]

St. Augustine agrees with me, or rather, I agree with him, and he doesn’t bore me.

But you still refuse to answer simple questions.

[boatbums]

What? Quote Luther when he agrees with Catholicism on a point? Now how does that work when the author of this thread smears all “Protestants” as being wrong on the subject?

[FatherofFive]

I know. But for 1,500 years Christiaity did not deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Not until the heresy of the protestantim.

[terycarl]

If the bread were really the flesh of Christ, and a person with a severe gluten intolerance could not consume it without harmful effects, does that mean that the “flesh”-based access to the divine is forbidden to him? Assume that this person lived in the 1400s when modern technology didn’t exist to allow for gluten-free bread.

consume only the consecrated wine....it is the full body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ!!!

[boatbums]

I know. But for 1,500 years Christiaity did not deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Not until the heresy of the protestantim.

You have been misled.

Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence

[Natural Law]

"And where does HE say so?"

If they taught you that in bible college you should get a lawyer and get your money back. Besides, you never did answer why you or any Protestants needed a bible college if the Bible is sufficiently self interpreting so as to not need a Magisterium.

Peace be with you

[BlueDragon]

Now how does that work when the author of this thread smears all “Protestants” as being wrong on the subject?

It's simple. They seek to hold the body for ransom.

[C. Edmund Wright]

But you still refuse to answer simple questions.

Or, put another way, I'm not playing your silly little game. The questions are not simple, not relevant, and not the point. You're the one claiming to have all the answers - not me. This is not some court of law where your leading questions are going to be honored. They are not. So yes, I refuse to answer irrelevant leading loaded questions.

[boatbums]

If they taught you that in bible college you should get a lawyer and get your money back. Besides, you never did answer why you or any Protestants needed a bible college if the Bible is sufficiently self interpreting so as to not need a Magisterium.

If they taught me what in Bible college??? What are you getting in a huff about this time?

As for why someone would want to study the faith in a formal institution and the connection to the Bible being "sufficiently self-interpreting", you need to ask yourself the same question and explain why priests, or even new members for that matter, need to be educated in the religion of Catholicism if the Magesterium is supposed to be the interpreter to everyone of what the rule of faith is. I hope you can see that the two are not mutually exclusive.

I am satisfied with the education I received at the Bible college but it was only the start of a life-long learning process of plumbing the depths of knowing God. It was, in a sense, a jump start in teaching me what I believed and why I believed it. Many Catholics, on the other hand, when asked why they believe a certain doctrine, can only answer with the feeble, "That's just what we believe.". When shown Scripture that contradicts what they are taught, many go into "turtle mode" and put their fingers in their ears, unable to deal with the truth and unwilling to explore further. Some, like myself, look into it and realize that God's word DOES have authority over what some religion states, and we choose to obey God rather than man. This, by the way, IS part of why we can know the Scriptures are God-breathed - the words have power to change hearts and draw souls out of false religions and into the light of the glorious gospel of the grace of God.

[boatbums]

It's simple. They seek to hold the body for ransom.

I think you are right. There were several threads posted recently that extolled the one thing that supposedly sets Catholicism apart from ALL other Christian traditions and they hang their hats on that one difference - the Eucharist. This doctrine is proclaimed as THE major reason why every Christian MUST be Roman Catholic because no other can impart the right kind of grace needed to gain salvation. All evidence to the contrary that proves the early church did NOT receive this exact doctrine from the Apostles nor Scripture is typically ignored. Sadly, from the looks of a few of the stories posted, some people are roped into the charade. One even was used where the woman who converted was denied the Eucharist because of her husband's un-annulled marriage, and she was okay with that! Imagine that! Leave your church for another that won't let you participate in the one thing they insist can give you eternal life. The term "captive, silly women" comes to mind.

[Natural Law]

"As for why someone would want to study the faith in a formal institution and the connection to the Bible being "sufficiently self-interpreting", you need to ask yourself the same question and explain why priests, or even new members for that matter, need to be educated in the religion of Catholicism if the Magesterium is supposed to be the interpreter to everyone of what the rule of faith is."

My statement would only be relevant to one who had said priests and a teaching authority were not necessary because Scripture is sufficiently self interpreting because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Which one of us meets that criteria?

If one were to take Protestantism seriously instead of only paying it lip service they would need nothing beyond a KJV Bible, no clergy, no ministers, no bible colleges, no seminaries, no revivals, no theologians, no authors, no apologists, radio or TV preachers, no bloggers, in fact no visible church at all.

[boatbums]

Nothing you said can be taken seriously.

[Servant of the Cross]

All evidence to the contrary that proves the early church did NOT receive this exact doctrine from the Apostles nor Scripture is typically ignored.

St. Justin Martyr (~100-165AD), wrote extensively about the worship of the early Church and the meaning of the Eucharist and manner of its celebration as handed down by the Apostles.