Eucharistic: Adore Or Eat

[Jake Huether]

Christ told His Apostles at the Last Supper, "take and eat, all of you, for this is my body which will be given up for you."

In John 6 Jesus tells the people, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you. For my flesh is REAL food and my blood real drink."

The Eucharist is Christs flesh and blood. When we eat this, we then have life in is. Christ is in us and we are in him (as he said).

Adoration on the other hand does NOT give us this Sacramental Grace, this "life" that Jesus talks about. Adoration is not a part of what the Sacrament does for us, it is the very least that we can do for Christ.

Christ instituted this Sacrament. He gave us himself under the accidents of bread and wine.

When we eat his Body and drink His Blood it is Christ doing something for us. He gives us something; he gives us Life.

What can we give Christ? There is nothing that we can offer Christ. All we can offer is our Love and Adoration. And so it is that Catholics return God's favor with the humble offering of our Love and Adoration for the Life that He has given us through the Sacrament.

You are right in that Christ commanded us to eat and drink the Eucharist. He did not command us to adore it. But then again he did not have to. The first commandement given to Moses was to Love thy God with all thy heart and mind and soul. Moreover, must Christ command us to adore him.? Must we be commanded to adore our maker? Or should it be impulsive? Shouldn't we desire to adore him regardless of whether he commanded it or not? If He offers Himself to us in the Eucharist, is it not fitting that we should Adore Him in the Eucharist?

[Bruce S]

Hey, I STATED it is your complete right to do this.

I also stated it is a "distinctive OF" the Catholic Church, something Protestants find odd.

No sweat off my brow actually.

This "adoration and veneration" thing generates a lot of heat, and divides us.

We like to keep things simpler, that is all.

Best.

[jasJis]

Hey, I STATED it is your complete right to do this.

I also stated it is a "distinctive OF" the Catholic Church, something Protestants find odd.

No sweat off my brow actually.

This "adoration and veneration" thing generates a lot of heat, and divides us.

We like to keep things simpler, that is all.

Best.

Who is this mysterious "we" in your post, Bruce? You certainly have shown that you don't know or represent "universal" protestant theology. You are anti-Catholic and base your theology on that.

[Paladin D]

How can adoring God be complicated and not simple?

[Circle_Master]

Who is this mysterious "we" in your post, Bruce? You certainly have shown that you don't know or represent "universal" protestant theology. You are anti-Catholic and base your theology on that.

actually, I agree with all the major points of his theology I've seen, and I am in consistency with a very large majority of educated protestants in america. Lets push on for debate, not nitpicking and criticizing jasjis. (don't get me wrong, I like you jasjis, you would be on my top 3 catholic list but you don't seem to give bruce any chance for anything. he has not been as aggressive in his posts for a few days now - lets accept it and be grateful, not stereotypical)

[jasJis]

It isn't an either/or choice. It's an and statement. If you are told to eat the flesh of God, how could you not also adore the flesh of God? To eat without adortaion is to blaspheme what it is. St. Paul was very clear about this, why is it a question?

Even if one doesn't believe in the Real Presence and views the Host as a mere symbol, how could one refrain from adoring what it symbolized?

The denial of the Real Presence (something that not all Prots do, but disagree in the understanding of how) is what is leading many Christians farther and farther away from Graces that God has given His children.

Just as Jesus had to let followers go because of their difficulty in being open to eventually learning more about 'eating His flesh', so must the Church sadly allow others to leave. It is sad. Jesus' example also teaches us that we are not to abandon TRUTH in order to keep people undivided. Jesus wants us to be One, but He won't lie to us to accomplish that. The Church desires us all to be intimately One as Christ is willing to provide the grace, but we all have free will to walk away and decide not to be open to what we understand, to be open to graces that will help us believe the inconcievable. None of us are graced with complete and total knowledge of God. We know and understand more as we mature in faith. We mature in faith as we grow in grace.

[jasJis]

actually, I agree with all the major points of his theology I've seen, and I am in consistency with a very large majority of educated protestants in america.  Lets push on for debate, not nitpicking and criticizing jasjis.  (don't get me wrong, I like you jasjis, you would be on my top 3 catholic list but you don't seem to give bruce any chance for anything.  he has not been as aggressive in his posts for a few days now - lets accept it and be grateful, not stereotypical)

I am honored to the point of being embarrased for you to say that. I thank you, but I feel most here are better Catholics than I. I do have certain graces, one of which is stubborness that I pray is tempered with humility.

As far as Bruce goes, this is what he posted within the last 20 minutes:

Catholics can do whatever they want. And I respect that ... honestly.

I might have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. I came to accept Catholicism from the looong way. It is/was the TRUTHS that Christian denominations share in common that helped me recognize the reality of God's TRUTH. All Christians are morally, spiritually, and intellectually obligated to seek and percieve TRUTH to the utmost of their ability. Circumstances of life, environment, good & bad Christian witness, affect our abilities in different ways and limit our perspectives. I have huge respect and admiration for any non-Catholic Christian (or Catholic) who has a different view than I, but they live their desire to embrace 100% of the TRUTH of God as they are able. They are my role models. I cannot deny TRUTH or let falseness hide it. Christians can (and do) disagree with each other in love. God gives us the grace to do so.

We cannot lie or hide truth in order to "love" and be "as one" because that starts limiting our vision of the TRUTH that is God.

God Bless you, Circle. I thank God for you being here and disagreeing with us. You and I may get heated, but I beleive we remain open to God's correction because of what our ultimate goal is and the what the source of our actions are.

Edited January 6, 2004 by jasJis

[Jake Huether]

This "adoration and veneration" thing generates a lot of heat, and divides us.

To expand on what JasJis said.

John 6:

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 him.

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.

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live for ever.

59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

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 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 are spirit and they are 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 him.

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

Bruce, according to your own words, then, Christ probably shouldn't have said any of this because it caused MANY of his desciples to leave!

Yes, Catholics are aware of how silly it looks to kneel before a "piece of bread". But should we stop worshiping the Savior, the King of kings, Lord of lords, because we look stupid!?

Should Christians collectivly stop publically worshiping Jesus, God-man, because it "generates heat" and "divides us"?!

[IXpenguin21]

what's the debate?

when the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Christ durring the re-presentation (i.e. presenting the actual sacrifice again as opposed to a representation of what was the actual sacrifice) of Calvery and of our Lord's passion, death, and resurection, we are given exactly what i just stated: Calvery.

at the point of the Mass where the priest elevates the Body and Blood for the final time, he anounces that it is the saviour of the world, what revelation proclaims as the lamb, standing as if slain, before all the nations to be adored endlessly by all.

Eucharistic adoration uses unused Hosts, specificaly set aside for this purpose, and re-presents us this image of the King in Glory, adored by all the saints and angles in His full majesty for all to see and for all to adore!

there is no question on whether or not this is good or evil, right or wrong... This is the Body of Christ, proclaimed in glory in the book of revelation for all to come and adore!

Revelation 13:8

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

Revelation 19:7

"Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready."

This Lamb is Christ! The Bride is us (the Church)! we are called to give glory to the Lamb, who is present in the sacrifice of the Eucharist, and re-presented at the Mass and adored durring adoration.

[hyperdulia again]

I want my Lord in the Eucharist. Now!

[IXpenguin21]

in no way am i stating that adoration is more important than consuming the Host.

it's comparing apples and oranges...

both are good for you in their own way.

Christ can only dwell in you if He is in you. this is true, as others have said.

but praise and glory for the Lamb, for Christ, for God will also reap benefits in the spiritual aspect of your life.

Giveing thanks to God at the cross His Son died on for the sake of the entire world is something that we all should partake of!

[Anna]

This "adoration and veneration" thing generates a lot of heat, and divides us.

Matthew 10:34, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household."

We are divided on the entire doctrine of the Eucharist, not just on adoration. That would be ok, no sweat off our brow...that is, unless we're supposed to care about our brothers' souls, too...

Pax Christi. <><

[Guest bchriste]

Here is some great information from both the catechism and original Greek, something to chew on. Sorry bad pun.

John 6:35-59

The Bread of Life discourse. Interpretations of this sermon often take one of two positions. Some think of the discourse as an extensive invitation of faith, so that eating the bread of life is seen as a metaphor for believing in Jesus. Others interpret the discourse along sacramental lines, so that eating the bread of life means partaking of the Eurcharist. Both of these views are true and can be correlated with a natural and symmetrical division of the sermon into two parts.

1) Invitation to faith (6:35-47). The first half of the discourse opens with the statement, "I am the bread of life" (6:35). This is followed by a string of invitations to come to Jesus and believe in him for salvation. The metaphorical import of Jesus' teaching is so obvious that it stands out in the response to the Jews, who ask him, not why he calls himself bread, but how he can claim to have descended from heaven (6:42).

2) Invitation to the Eucharist (6:48-58). The second half of the discourse likewise opens with a statement, "I am the bread of life" (6:48). This is followed by a string of invitations to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood. Here the literal import of Jesus' teaching is is so obvious that it, too, stands out in the response of the Jews who ask how it is possible to consume his flesh (6:52). In the end, these two halves of the sermon work in tandem, since without faith we can neither be united with Christ nor recognize his prescense in the Eucharist. If eating is believing in 6:35-47, then believing leads to eating in 6:48-58 (CCC 161, 1381).

Eats (6:54)

Trogo (Gk): A verb meaning "chew" or "graw". It is used five times in the Fourth Gospel and only once elsewhere in the NT. Greek literature used it to describe the feeding of animals such as mules, pigs, and cattle, and in some cases for human eating. In John, the verb is used four times in the second half of the Bread of Life discourse (Jn. 6:54, 56, 57, 58). This marks a noticeable shift in Jesus' teaching, which up until 6:54 made use of a more common verb for eating (Gk. esthio, 6:49, 50, 51, 53). The change in vocabulary marks a change of focus and emphasis, from the necessity of faith to the consumption of the Eucharist. The graphic and almost crude connotation of this verb thus adds greater force to the repetition of his words:he demands we express our faith by eating, in a real and physical way, his life-giving flesh in the sacrament.

Deo Omnis Gloria

[Anna]

Fantastic post, bchriste.

I have copied this and saved it on my computer for future reference. It's a keeper.

So the Bread of Life Discourse isn't either metaphorical or literal; It is both metaphorical and literal!!!!!

So, some peeps only have it half right. :(

[cmotherofpirl]

Here is some great information from both the catechism and original Greek, something to chew on. Sorry bad pun.

John 6:35-59

The Bread of Life discourse. Interpretations of this sermon often take one of two positions. Some think of the discourse as an extensive invitation of faith, so that eating the bread of life is seen as a metaphor for believing in Jesus. Others interpret the discourse along sacramental lines, so that eating the bread of life means partaking of the Eurcharist. Both of these views are true and can be correlated with a natural and symmetrical division of the sermon into two parts.

1) Invitation to faith (6:35-47). The first half of the discourse opens with the statement, "I am the bread of life" (6:35). This is followed by a string of invitations to come to Jesus and believe in him for salvation. The metaphorical import of Jesus' teaching is so obvious that it stands out in the response to the Jews, who ask him, not why he calls himself bread, but how he can claim to have descended from heaven (6:42).

2) Invitation to the Eucharist (6:48-58). The second half of the discourse likewise opens with a statement, "I am the bread of life" (6:48). This is followed by a string of invitations to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood. Here the literal import of Jesus' teaching is is so obvious that it, too, stands out in the response of the Jews who ask how it is possible to consume his flesh (6:52). In the end, these two halves of the sermon work in tandem, since without faith we can neither be united with Christ nor recognize his prescense in the Eucharist. If eating is believing in 6:35-47, then believing leads to eating in 6:48-58 (CCC 161, 1381).

Eats (6:54)

Trogo (Gk): A verb meaning "chew" or "graw". It is used five times in the Fourth Gospel and only once elsewhere in the NT. Greek literature used it to describe the feeding of animals such as mules, pigs, and cattle, and in some cases for human eating. In John, the verb is used four times in the second half of the Bread of Life discourse (Jn. 6:54, 56, 57, 58). This marks a noticeable shift in Jesus' teaching, which up until 6:54 made use of a more common verb for eating (Gk. esthio, 6:49, 50, 51, 53). The change in vocabulary marks a change of focus and emphasis, from the necessity of faith to the consumption of the Eucharist. The graphic and almost crude connotation of this verb thus adds greater force to the repetition of his words:he demands we express our faith by eating, in a real and physical way, his life-giving flesh in the sacrament.

Deo Omnis Gloria

And the bread of life tradition is directly from the OT bread of the presence offered in the Temple weekly, and an allusion to the manna of the desert that that GAVE LIFE in the desert.