Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues Jesus in the EucharistGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Jesus in the Eucharist | Login/Join |
For a few weeks now, I've had this urge to share this very same thing! I kept telling myself, no, no, that's just my *personal* experience and I indulge in sharing my personal stuff at SP way too much! But this morning, I thought, I gotta do it. It's burning me up not to share. So for those who are considering the Catholic Faith, here’s the BEST reason to take the plunge! Honestly, I would never have predicted this as I never took the Eucharist very seriously, certainly not considering it more than a nice symbol. (The Catholic Church seemed to me to be obsessed with symbols--dizzying, detailed, flamboyant, hyperbolic, etc. stuff!) Little did I understand! Since I have begun receiving Jesus in the Eucharist nearly every day for about one year now, I feel I’ve literally been transported into a deeper union with Christ. (I shared about this a bit on the Secular Carmelite thread.) Jesus is literally present in the Eucharist. What more wonderful a gift than to take His very body, blood, soul, and divinity into our own beings?! When I miss a day or two of the Eucharist, I feel a little bit of crazy starvation begin to set in. After receiving Jesus, I often feel I'm 'launched' into a deep place of such love and peace. The other day I thought, it's not a stretch to understand those Saints who would go for long periods of time without eating anything but Jesus in the Eucharist. So how did this Sacrament get started? It think it begins with John 6: 32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.” 35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” 41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” 43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. | |||
|
Shasha--- Well, I've been hesitating for many months now to bring this up for discussion here, but, since you've started us off, thank you. I did say a little bit to Pop-pop on page 6 of the "Get Them Dunked" thread that I see in these verses of John 6 my main obstacle to believing that Jesus is here talking about Real Presence in the Eucharist. I'm not sure how to go about taking about this, so please, bear with me. Where to start?... | ||||
|
Ariel-- It's amazing that there's a website for everything! (and I forgot to exclaim my surprise when you noted that you found a website about the Albanian Hoti clan! Unbelievable. Written just for the 6 people in the world who would care  ) I notice your last post was 500! Girl, you have been busy. So nice to have you. Back on topic, John 6 is just one of the Holy Scriptures that supports the Eucharist. The Last Supper is key. This website gives the whole background, history, rationale, miracles, etc. "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" (Mt. 26:26-28) http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html | ||||
|
Shasha-- I did read a great deal at therealpresence website nearly half a year ago, and it was in fact helpful. I hadn't known before then that most of the early church fathers do indeed seem to have believed in something along the lines on Real Presence; and their belief is very strong evidence to lead us to believe in it. Though, I should add that I didn't see a Real Presence-like teaching in most of the earliest writings we have, such as Polycarp, St. Clement, and the Didache. It is in Ignatious. More on this later... I need to be clear that I'm not at all resistent to believing in Real Presence. I do have some concerns about Catholicism, but I'm trying to say that my Catholicism concerns are not the cause of my John 6=Eucharist problem. And, I'm really not trying to be challenging or a pain in the neck, so I ask for everyone's mercy and love about this matter. I understand this is a matter that's close to people's hearts, and I don't mean to be running roughshod on ground that is so intimate and holy to people. But...I still want to express why I don't see how John 6 can be about the Eucharist. And, as my experience of the power of Holy Communion as a Protestant has been very different that Shasha's was as a Protestant, I want to speak of that, too. Please bear with me...  | ||||
|
 |
Ariel, check out 1 Cor. 10: 16.
There are numerous passages from the early Fathers that indicate belief in the Real Presence, though this was not spelled out in terms of transubstantiation or anything like that. There was also no reservation of the Sacrament for purposes of adoration in the early Church, as there were no churches to do so for several centuries. I think C.S. Lewis said it best, however, when he wrote that the Lord Jesus told us to take and eat, not take and understand. | |||
|
Ariel, No worries...we'll bear with one another. I hope you know me well enough by now to know I'm not easily offended or bothered by different experiences, beliefs, etc. And you know I'm not interest in converting anybody, just being true in sharing. | ||||
|
What a great topic. I have come to believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in spite of worshiping in churches where communion is seen as only symbolic. At the start of the communion time the Pastor usually prays and then tells the congregation that we are partaking in remembrance of Jesus and his death on the cross, but I've always felt that communion is more than just remembering or symbolic action. I'd never really looked into the fact that the Roman Catholic church doesn't think Christ is really present in Protestant churches, but I believe I receive Christ in the communion. I've often worshiped in churches that only take communion once a month (my current church less than that) and I've always wished we partook every Sunday like the Orthodox, Catholics and others. I don't know whether I believe in transubstantiation and I've never spent much time reflecting on physical vs. spiritual presence, but I believe it's Jesus I'm partaking of and I believe the communion feeds my whole body with the full reality of Christ. | ||||
|
Jacques---I believe Catholic teaching is that Christ is really present in Protestant churches, but not consecrated (or confected?) in a Protestant Eucharist because we don't have valid apostolic succession--so while Lutherans, for example, firmly believe Christ is really present in the bread and wine, and say the words of institution, Catholics would say no, it's just bread and wine and the words have no power other than symbolically. | ||||
|
Shasha, thanks very much for the reassurance that I can bring my questions here. I do believe most people who believe in transubstantiation greatly benefit from that, and it's not my intention to confuse other readers, nor to deny that the Mass is a real and effective means for drawing people closer to God. I've greatly benefited from experiencing the the Lord's Supper in another way, though, which I'll share tomorrow. My personal experience doesn't preclude transubstantion perhaps being the reality, though...but in a real sense, regarding the Lord's Supper, my cup seems already full and at times overflowing without that specific belief. I had an amazing experience at a Passover Seder years ago, and it was before my dad told us he was Jewish, so the experience wasn't just due to believing the Seder applied to me personally. I'll try to explain myself tomorrow. | ||||
|
Ariel, I tend to agree with your thinking about RC's not believing in your Eucharist because of lost apostolic succession. I say that (unofficially) because your thinking reflects my understanding and belief. Do Lutherans have Eucharistic adoration? I have no idea, but am guessing you wouldn't, because you don't hold belief in transubstantiation. Pop-pop | ||||
|
I'm waiting to begin RCIA classes in August, so that I can join the Catholic Church, and my main reason for going through the process is so I can receive the Eucharist. For years now I've asked God what I can do to take "the next step" to deepen my relationship with him, and the ansswer has been put on my heart the same every time: join the church, receive the Eucharist. This has been hard for me for a number of reasons, but the persistence of the conviction has won me over. Being as stubborn, lazy, and full of myself as I naturally am, going through a months-long process of being educated on things I already am certain I know was not on my list of things to do. But I couldn't get around the fact that every time I asked what to do, and every time hoping for a different answer, there it was, always the same: join the church, receive the Eucharist. Being raised Protestant, I still intellectually can't say that I firmly believe the scripture explicitly confirms the real presence. What I CAN say is that after reading the scripture, the doctrine of the real presence must certainly be AT LEAST one valid way to interpret and approach the subject, and at that, one from which real spiritual benefit may be obtained. So my spirit seems to be convicted, my intellect has given its ascent, and now I start the process of following with action. It seems to me that it's the only way to fInd out Paul | ||||
|
Phil-- Yeah, I'm a puzzled person. I've heard that quote from Lewis, and indeed sometimes I feel like sort of a jerk for not believing what most of Christendom believes about the Eucharist. But I don't think it's a problem of me being too insistent on rational belief---I could easily accept and believe...it's more of a conflicting evidence problem with me. I'll bring up where I'm puzzled tomorrow. | ||||
|
No, Pop-pop, I don't believe Lutherans have Eucharistic adoration, at least not that I've ever heard. The Lutheran belief is very close to the RC belief, but resembles the Orthodox "leave it a mystery" approach more than a defined pinning the Real Presence down to transubstantiation. I'm not too familiar with Anglican/Episcopal/Methodist definitions given that I live in such a PA German area, but I believe again they lean towards Real Presence being left a mystery. | ||||
|
Good for you, Paul. I've really hesitated to talk about why I have a problem in believing John 6 is about transubstantiation because I can see the Mass gives people real spiritual benefit. | ||||
|
other scriptures that bear on this discussion are : Acts 2:42 which indicates that the early church devoted themselves to the breaking of the bread and prayers. RCs believe the breaking of the bread was always central in liturgical services, I believe. The other very relevant passage is 1 Cor 11 23-33. Therein one reads of more than symbolic belief in the bread and cup. Paul maintains that disrespect and unworthy reception of Eucharistic food brings sin upon themselves and the effects of sin (in sickness and infirmity). One can sin against the body and blood of the Lord! see 1 Cor 11:27. One would not sin against species (mere bread and wine) if they were not truly the body and blood. pretty significant theology embedded there. Pop-popThis message has been edited. Last edited by: pop-pop, | ||||
|
I can relate to your multi-faceted personality here and your asking God to speak but "hoping for a different answer." Ha, ha...we have to laugh with tender compassion at ourselves, don't we? It really does seem to boil down to your approach: Ask God to guide your steps toward a deeper union with Him! Trust that He will explicitly talk to you...God, our Father and Maker cares so tenderly for us. He is a desperate Lover of our souls. | ||||
|
Good point! It's interesting to me that Paul, as well as many of the Saints, revered the Eucharist so highly. One might think that when one is so intimate with God, walking with Him, breathing His Life, one would not need keep receiving Him in the Eucharist--and I doubt they're doing it solely out of duty to Mother Church or to be good role models. Certainly they wouldn't need to eat some external 'symbol' of Jesus as they already possess Him. | ||||
|
BTW, Paul, when you do begin receiving the Eucharist and you tell us of how it changes you and regret dragging your feet to the alter, we might just have to serve you a steaming, hot bowl of "We told you so."  | ||||
|
Hey, Ariel. I don't know what you have in mind specifically about John 6, but sure, I can see that that Scripture alone is far from convincing proof of transsub. It would be good to hear of your Seder experience! | ||||
|
|
Ariel wrote:
I don't know that John 6 is meaning to say anything about "transubstantiation." I'd guess that word doesn't show up for several centuries after Christ, when theologians began to more deeply reflect on how it could be that the Lord is really present in the Eucharist even as the bread and wine retain their form. It seems, rather, that the early Church just accepted that he was communicating his life through the bread and wine and believed it was really him, and not just some symbolic act of remembrance. Iow, we accept this in faith in Jesus' word and promise. I doubt that transubstantiation has ever convinced anyone who lacked this faith to come to believe, and I am sure that most people who believe in the Real Presence do not really know much about the teaching on transubstantiation. | |||
|
Ariel, and others, So, having read the scripture reference in 1 Cor 11 that I earlier posted regarding basis for Catholic belief in the Real Presence (and BTW the words from that passage are those of the consecration that are prayed in Catholic mass), one I think (I hope) can understand why Catholics place their faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Verse 27 shows that St. Paul truly believed in the Real Presence of Christ and was clearly concerned that the body and blood be received with conscious respect for what is there present … and that St. Paul believed that there is real consequence to not respecting the reality of the body and blood there present. Sacrilegious consequences pertain to the sacred. One does not experience sickness and infirmity as a consequence of disrespect of the profane. We earlier discussed that Catholics do not believe that Lutheran ministers and ministers of other denominations have Real Presence in their Eucharistic liturgy because of loss of apostolic succession. There is significantly more to all that than lost apostolic succession though. The lack of Real Presence in Protestant Eucharist is based on real difference. When a Protestant minister prays he places no faith in transubstantiation. (He does not believe in transubstantiation). So he prays without the sap of intentionality (faith) that God requires be present in our praying (for whatever we pray for). As such, why would our Father honor a response for what one has not in fact requested … indeed, does not in fact have faith in? Is it that God loves Catholics more than Protestants? No. Certainly not! Is the issue of Catholic non acceptance of Protestant Eucharistic Real Presence one that is based on mere Catholic contumely? No. Certainly not! [Though among the millions of Catholics (sinners, eh) one might get a taste of the haughty on occasion … unfortunately]. Essentially much of our basis of belief (in your non-transub) is based on your basis of belief (non-transub). Catholics don’t believe Protestants generate transubstantiation because Protestants don’t believe they generate transubstantiation. Why would we put faith in something you don’t put faith in? Make sense? Real Presence is based upon real difference. Prayer requires intentionality to be efficacious. It is a tenet of Catholic faith that transubstantiation occurs via the ‘apostolically ordained’ minister's Eucharistic praying. Priests pray with such intentionality. Always have. The centrality of Catholic priesthood is focused on their sole and primary functionality of being able to effect transubstantiation. Pop-popThis message has been edited. Last edited by: pop-pop, | ||||
|
Hi Pop-pop--- Are you perhaps misunderstanding what Lutheran ministers believe? The belief and intentionality is there---that Christ becomes present as His body and blood, soul and divinity, as they consecrate the bread and wine. They don't use Aquinas' term of transub. (good abbrev., Shasha) though, as they say the change really happens (from wine to blood and from bread to body) but it is a mystery exactly how the change takes place. They used to call it consubstantiation, but I don't see that defining term being used anymore. From what I've read, the Orthodox follow a very similar way of thinking---the change really takes place, but how it does so is a mystery. I think Phil also noted that transubstantiation wasn't a well developed idea in the early church. So, from what I know at this point, I think a lack of apostolic succession is why the CC doesn't believe God will change the Lutheran bread and wine into Christ's body and blood---as the CC accepts that the Orthodox don't define the change as transub., but accepts that God really does the change in Orthodox churches. | ||||
|
That seems likely to me, too. | ||||
|
Here is my John 6 dilemma--and, if several people can give me their thoughts on this, that would be great. Please read John 6:53 again, within context, of course; but consider Jesus' strong statement: "Very 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." What is He saying? This isn't a trick question. Edit: Phil, Shasha, Pop-pop, or anyone---If my question has wondering why I have a problem with connecting John 6 with the idea that Jesus must be talking here about a real bodily presence in Holy Communion, I'll elaborate. Or if it seems I'm just being irritating, I'll elaborate. | ||||
|
|
Re. "transubstantiation" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
The whole idea of "substance" and "accident" that go into the transubstantiation explanation are contributions of Greek philosophy and are an attempt, using the tools of such philosophy, to explain how it can be that Jesus is literally present as flesh and blood even though we see and taste bread and wine. As I noted above, the early Church was not preoccupied about this matter, accepting Jesus' power and promise as sufficient. Pop, you noted:
To my understanding, the prayer or intentionality of the priest has nothing to do with the efficacy of consecration. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_opere_operato which does a nice job of explaining that the efficacy of a Sacrament for an individual is dependent more on the faith of the recipient, but not at all on the faith, holiness or intention of a priest (thank goodness! ). It is Christ's word and promise that is the source of efficacy for a Sacrament. So the question on the table re. "Real Presence" in Catholic and Protestant Eucharistic celebrations has nothing to do with the intent of the priest or ministers and everything to do with how Christ chooses to honor his promise to be with us "in the breaking of the bread." Does he restrict himself to celebrations whereby only priests from valid apostolic lineage preside, or does he choose go beyond this to other gatherings as well? We know what the RC church says about this, of course; apostolic succession is considered to be an essential context for consecration. Whether this is one of those areas where the Lord has chosen to bind himself to Church teaching, we do not know. Having journeyed with many Protestant ministers in spiritual direction, however, I can share that a number of traditions very much do believe that Jesus communicates his life with them through the bread and wine in communion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Presence which has a good summary of how this topic is understood in several Protestant traditions. Personally, I have no need to try to convince those Protestants who believe in Real Presence that they cannot possibly be correct on this point. I do not know. I don't think anyone knows, though there are many who speak as though they think they do, on this point. - - - Ariel, you ask a good question about John 6. What is your response to it? | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|