Explaining The Holy Eucharist Too Protestants Christians.

[White Knight]

Hello everyone, I'm a soon to be Catholic and I have some questions about the Eucharist.

After reading the All the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, Holy Thursday. About the Bread and Wine turned into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. Anyway when Jesus said, [b]"take this, eat of it"[/b], [b]"take this, drink of it"[/b], and [b]"do this in in memory of me"[/b],

He basically said that this was and is Him, and we sould do this in memory of him.


Now Protestants seem to get this all mixed up, they say the Last Supper is not litteral but symbolic, and they accuse in some cases Catholic Communion to be a Cannibalistic ritual.

[b]How can a person defend and explain the truth to another preson who doesn't understand the Litteral presence of Jesus Christ and it is not symbolic, but absolutely postitively litteral, and real? [/b]


[b]Also, how can one explain to non Catholic believers that it is not a cannibalistic ritual but a act of worship?[/b]


Thank You, God Bless, Pax Christi.

White Knight.

[N/A Gone]

Im not a militant, so let me offer what I can, and what you find of value use it. Otherwise I stand correctable by anyone with cool symbols.

As a former evangelical there were a couple things that helped in my development of a sacramental theology, which is the root issue here.

1.) understanding that protestant theology is a victiam of a Kantian understanding of spirituality. Protestant theology often thinks the world is bad, physical is bad. Where as the idea of sacraments is that grace is brought in the physical, through the physical. This is a key point that needs to be understood.

2.) The jewish understanding of what it means to "remember" someone, the eucharist, and the last supper is a Todah sacrifice. In "remembering" they are "doing" the thing. Literally. Not just in imagination, but in actually doing it. There is alot that can be said here as well.

3.) The patristic commentary about the eucharist. It is not only obvious, it is intense and devotional. Augustine says that when we eat bread it becomes us, when we consume the eucharist We and the ones that turn and change. (just an example)

4.) a small bit of philosophy helps, understanding the difference in subject and predicate helps.

Dave Currie wrote a great book, and he addresses the issue of eucharist from a protestent POV. Let me try and attach it for you. It helped for me, and I have even had 2 fundies read it.

the biggest thing is a williness. Are they willing to listen and discuss it, or are they just closed off to it?

better yet, if someone could tell me how to attach..hehe, or give me your email

[thessalonian]

[quote name='White Knight' post='1154735' date='Jan 2 2007, 04:05 PM']
Hello everyone, I'm a soon to be Catholic and I have some questions about the Eucharist.

After reading the All the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, Holy Thursday. About the Bread and Wine turned into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. Anyway when Jesus said, [b]"take this, eat of it"[/b], [b]"take this, drink of it"[/b], and [b]"do this in in memory of me"[/b],

He basically said that this was and is Him, and we sould do this in memory of him.
Now Protestants seem to get this all mixed up, they say the Last Supper is not litteral but symbolic, and they accuse in some cases Catholic Communion to be a Cannibalistic ritual.

[b]How can a person defend and explain the truth to another preson who doesn't understand the Litteral presence of Jesus Christ and it is not symbolic, but absolutely postitively litteral, and real? [/b]
[b]Also, how can one explain to non Catholic believers that it is not a cannibalistic ritual but a act of worship?[/b]
Thank You, God Bless, Pax Christi.

White Knight.
[/quote]


First of all we need to understand that real, literal, does not exclude symbolic or figurative. The Eucharist is symbolic, bread being symbolic of the many grains molded in to one loaf and the wine, crushed grapes in to one drink, i.e. the body of Christ. So don't make the mistake of denying the symbolic because of the literal. They are right that it is symbolic, but wrong when they stop there. We also have to understand that literal does not in this case mean physical, i.e. taking a byte out of an arm. The literal sense is that the flesh is sacramental and the blood is sacramental, and is Christ's resurrected flesh. So it is real but in a sense figurative, that it is not physical flesh like is on your arm. Therefore it is not canabalistic and has been made palitable for us by God.

Hope that helps.

Edited January 2, 2007 by thessalonian

[White Knight]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1154764' date='Jan 2 2007, 04:40 PM']
First of all we need to understand that real, literal, does not exclude symbolic or figurative. The Eucharist is symbolic, bread being symbolic of the many grains molded in to one loaf and the wine, crushed grapes in to one drink, i.e. the body of Christ. So don't make the mistake of denying the symbolic because of the literal. They are right that it is symbolic, but wrong when they stop there. We also have to understand that literal does not in this case mean physical, i.e. taking a byte out of an arm. The literal sense is that the flesh is sacramental and the blood is sacramental, and is Christ's resurrected flesh. So it is real but in a sense figurative, that it is not physical flesh like is on your arm. Therefore it is not canabalistic and has been made palitable for us by God.

Hope that helps.
[/quote]


I agree there, but your also right whenever, Protestants say its only symbolic and nothing more, and the fact that its both, I'm sorry I didn't give more elaberate details on my personal udnerstanding of the Eucharist.

[Akalyte]

You tell them, that if they really love the bible, then they would take it for what it says, and not what they think it says or doesnt say. .


"Blessed are you who believed
that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."

(Luke 1:39-45)


"I Am The Bread of Life"

"For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

(John 6: 55-56)


"Does this shock you?"


"What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.
The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe."

Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe
and the one who would betray him. And he said,
"For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me
unless it is granted by my Father."

As a result of this, many [of] his disciples
returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"
Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go?
You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced
that you are the Holy One of God."
(John 6:61-69)


Just as you know not how the breath of life
fashions the human frame in the mother's womb,
So you know not the work of God
which he is accomplishing in the universe.
(Eccl 11:5)





John 1:29

"Behold, the Lamb of God,
who takes away the sin of the world."



" I Am The Bread of Life."
(John 6:48)

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying,
"How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?"
Jesus said to them,

John 6: 52-54
"Amen, amen I say unto you:
Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man,
and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."


John 6:55-56
"He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
abideth in me, and I in him."


John 6:57
"Just as the Father who has life sent me
and I have life because of the Father,
so the one who feeds on me will have life because of me."


John 6:60
Then many of his disciples who were listening said,
"This is hard; who can accept it?"


John 6:64
"But there are some of you who do not believe."
Jesus knew from the begining the ones who would not believe
and the one who would betray him.


John 6:66
As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life
and no longer accompanied him.


Jesus then said to the Twelve,
"Do you also want to leave?"


John 6:67-69
Simon Peter answered him,
"Master, to whom shall we go?
You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced
that you are the Holy One of God."


The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass


John 6: 48-58

"Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead.
This is the bread which cometh down from heaven;
that if any man eat of it, he may not die."


(1 Cor. 11 25-27)
St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians:

In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying,
"This cup is the new covenant in my blood:
this do ye, as often as you shall drink,
for the commemoration of me.
For as often as you shall eat this bread,
and drink the chalice, you shall shew
the death of the LORD, until he come."

Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread,
or drink the chalice of the LORD unworthily,
shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the LORD.
But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread,
and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself,
not discerning the body of the LORD."


The chalice of benediction and the bread which we break: the body of the Lord.


1 Corinthians 6:20
For you are bought with a great price.
Glorify and bear God in your body


1 Corinthians 10:15
I speak as to wise men: judge ye yourselves what I say.

The chalice of benediction, which we bless,
is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
And the bread, which we break,
is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
For we, being many, are one bread, one body,
all that partake of one bread.


1 Corinthians 10:21
You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord,
and the chalice of devils:
you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord,
and of the table of devils.

(Douay Rhiems)


They Recognized Him
In the Breaking of the Bread....


(Luke 24:30-31)

"And it happened that, while he was with them at table,
he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him,
but he vanished from their sight."

John 6:4,11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This was prophesied in the Old Testament (e.g., 2 Kings4:43), and foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.

Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

Edited January 2, 2007 by Akalyte

[Katholikos]

What were you given in RCIA to explain the Eucharist? Did it help you understand it? I would encourage you to use it, study it, memorize it, for talking with your friends.

Or, rely on trained catechists like Raphael or Phatcatholic to give you an explanation you can use with others. We may use the wrong words when we explain it. Words are critical.

David Currie's book is [i]Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic,[/i] published by Ignatius Press. It's great for explaining the faith to anyone who is not Catholic. Easy to read. Highly recommended.

It's important to remember that the Catholic Church didn't read 1 Corinthians or the Sixth Chapter of John and then decide to teach that Jesus Christ is really, truly present in the Eucharist. The Church was about a quarter of a century old when St. Paul wrote Corinthians, and she was in her late 60's or early 70's when the Gospel of John was written. St. Paul and St. John were both writing to believers -- practicing Catholics (though they may not have been called that) who had learned their doctrine from the lips of the Apostles, not from reading a book. They had been celebrating Mass (called the Breaking of the Bread) and receiving the Eucharist long before the NT was written and four centuries before it was canonized and put into one book.

Jay

[White Knight]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1154952' date='Jan 2 2007, 08:33 PM']
What were you given in RCIA to explain the Eucharist? Did it help you understand it? I would encourage you to use it, study it, memorize it, for talking with your friends.

Or, rely on trained catechists like Raphael or Phatcatholic to give you an explanation you can use with others. We may use the wrong words when we explain it. Words are critical.

David Currie's book is [i]Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic,[/i] published by Ignatius Press. It's great for explaining the faith to anyone who is not Catholic. Easy to read. Highly recommended.

It's important to remember that the Catholic Church didn't read 1 Corinthians or the Sixth Chapter of John and then decide to teach that Jesus Christ is really, truly present in the Eucharist. The Church was about a quarter of a century old when St. Paul wrote Corinthians, and she was in her late 60's or early 70's when the Gospel of John was written. St. Paul and St. John were both writing to believers -- practicing Catholics (though they may not have been called that) who had learned their doctrine from the lips of the Apostles, not from reading a book. They had been celebrating Mass (called the Breaking of the Bread) and receiving the Eucharist long before the NT was written and four centuries before it was canonized and put into one book.

Jay
[/quote]

We haven't begun the RCIA session on the Eucharist yet, thats still a few weeks away.

Thanks for the tips, I'm going to read some more about the MASS and Eucharist, in the Catechism, and Catholicism for Dummies.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='White Knight' post='1154775' date='Jan 2 2007, 05:56 PM']
I agree there, but your also right whenever, Protestants say its only symbolic and nothing more, and the fact that its both, I'm sorry I didn't give more elaberate details on my personal udnerstanding of the Eucharist.
[/quote]

Depends on which Protestants you're talking about. Anglicans and Lutherans believe that Christ is physically present with the bread and wine, as opposed to our belief (along with Eastern Orthodox) that the substance of bread and wine no longer exist after the consecration. They even call it the Real Presence of Christ. However, after the service Christ's Presence is believe to leave and the elements are once again only bread and wine.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1155070' date='Jan 3 2007, 01:42 AM']
Depends on which Protestants you're talking about. Anglicans and Lutherans believe that Christ is physically present with the bread and wine, as opposed to our belief (along with Eastern Orthodox) that the substance of bread and wine no longer exist after the consecration. They even call it the Real Presence of Christ. However, after the service Christ's Presence is believe to leave and the elements are once again only bread and wine.
[/quote]

To clarify, Lutheran belief is that after the consecration, the real body and blood of Christ exist "in, with, and under" the bread and wine, but after the communion service, the elements revert to mere bread and wine.

Anglican beliefs vary from transubstantiation (Anglo-Catholic) to merely symbolic (the Evangelical branch of Anglicanism).

----------------------------
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!