This post is post 3 in a series entitled Letting God Lead: My Journey Through Protestant and Catholic Beliefs. While you certainly can read this post by itself, I highly encourage you to check out the rest of the series as well. Find more about this series and a list of all of posts here. This post contains affiliate links.
The first blow to my old Protestant belief system was a big one, and one I wasn’t expecting. As I was reading along in the book Surprised by Truth, one section jumped right off the page and stopped me right in my tracks:
“Writing to the church at Smyrna, a major Christian center in Asia Minor, Ignatius condemned heretics who denied that Christ had an actual physical body… To refute them, Ignatius wrote “They [the heretics] even absent themselves from the Eucharist and public prayers [cf. Acts 2:42], because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which the Father in his goodness afterwards raised up again.”
Now, I’d had Catholics tell me that Jesus’s words “This is my body” and “This is my blood” were literal before, but not one of them could ever give me a single solid reason why I should believe it other than because that’s what they *thought* the words meant. Well… that’s not a very good argument. They thought it meant one thing–I thought it meant another. So… not exactly convincing.
You see, Jesus spoke in parables all the time, I reasoned. Therefore, the most logical conclusion was that this was simply another metaphor too. Just like how he said he was the vine and the door. Metaphors.
Except that once I started researching further, I started to discover things I never knew before. And in the course of my research, I found five very convincing reasons why the Eucharist must be none other than the real body and blood. Maybe they’ll convince you too?
1. The Early Church Believed It
I’ve always thought that if anyone had a chance of getting it right, it was the early church. After all, they were the ones who heard it straight from the source.
Take Ignatius, for example (author of the quote above). Ignatius was the first bishop of Antioch (the city were Jesus’ followers were first called Christians) and he studied under the apostle John (the one that wrote the Gospel of John). I’d say he would probably be a pretty reliable source! And yet, here he was writing about the real presence of the Eucharist as though it were common knowledge only 10 to 15 years after the apostle John’s death! That’s not a lot of time to get the message mixed up.
You don’t just have to take his word for it though. Apparently all of the early church fathers believed in the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. In fact, the doctrine was never seriously questioned until the 11th century. Hmmm…. Did not know that.
Given the choice between what my pastor says today and the beliefs of the first (and second, and third…) century church… well that’s a pretty strong argument. And it’s not the only one.
2. The Jews Couldn’t Accept It
Another thing I never realized: The “this is my body… this is my blood” passage you read in Luke… it isn’t the only time when Jesus talks about being the bread of life.
I won’t retype the entire passage here, but I strongly encourage you to look up and read John 6:22-71 (link for your convenience). In it, Jesus has a lengthy discussion with the Jews in which he compares the manna the Israelites ate in the desert and the bread of eternal life that God offers today. The Jews are understandably very confused, but Jesus just keeps repeating the same thing over and over again.
“Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” –John 6:33
“I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” –John 6:48-51
“Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 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 6:53-56.
But where it REALLY gets interesting is the Jews’ reaction after the fact. In verse 66, it records that “many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.” Would they leave over a mere symbol? Seems doubtful. So I’m guessing that the Jewish people knew Jesus was being literal, even if they didn’t really understand it.
3. Jesus’s Use of the Greek Word “Trogon”
While having the ability to read the Bible in English is wonderful; it does come with some limitations. One of which is the fact that some things are lost in translation.
What you DON’T notice when reading the passage above is that when Jesus talks about eating, he is actually using two separate verbs. At first, he uses the Greek word “phagon” which is the normal Greek word for “to eat.” Part way through the passage, however, he suddenly switches to the word “trogon,” which literally means to crunch or gnaw.
Jesus wasn’t telling them to “partake” or “consume.” He was saying they literally had to crunch, gnaw or chew. (Kind of hard to “crunch” on a symbol… but you can try!) Furthermore, the tense of the word “trogon” implies that this is an action that will take place continuously over time–not as a one-time event.
4. The Eucharist Comes with a Strong Warning
Fast forward to 1 Corinthians, and you’ll find this strongly worded passage:
“Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord… For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgement on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.” –1 Corinthians 11:27, 29-30
Since when do mere symbols come with death penalties?
5. Eucharistic Miracles
Before a few weeks ago, I never even knew there was such a thing as Eucharistic miracles. At first I was very skeptical–because how could you even prove something like this? But from what I can tell at least SOME of the miracles are VERY well documented, scientific and hard to dispute.
This video on the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano was my favorite by far. It’s not gross (Some of them are gross! Is it bad to say that?), but it is based on science and facts, and it’s really interesting!!
Well, there you have it, folks. These aren’t the only reasons–I actually came up with a few more–but if you believe in the Bible and these arguments don’t convince you (or at least cause you to question!), then I don’t know what will!
And now to answer a few of the burning questions you’ve been asking…
What do Catholics Believe About the Holy Eucharist?
In brief:
- The Holy Eucharist is the real body and blood of Jesus Christ in substance, even though still unleavened bread and wine in appearance. This is called “transubstantiation.”
- The elements become the body and blood at the moment when the priest says the words “This is my body” *poof!* and “This is my blood” *poof!*
- They stay the real body and blood as long as they keep their same form. (Once you digest them, they aren’t anymore.)
- Taking the Eucharist offers forgiveness for minor (venial) sins, but not major (mortal) sins. If you are in a state of mortal sin, you should not take the Eucharist until after you go to confession. (Venial/Mortal sins and confession are all topics for another day)
- Jesus is wholly present in equal amounts whether you have one speck of either the unleavened bread OR the wine or if you have a huge helping of both. Same amount of Jesus. (See the video above. That was awesome.)
Why Can’t Protestants Take Part in the Eucharist in a Catholic Church?
At Protestant churches, all Christians are welcome to receive the communion, yet at Catholic churches, only Catholics can. Why is that?
Well, contrary to popular belief, Catholics aren’t discriminating against non-Catholics. Instead, the main reason is that Catholics recognize the Eucharist as the true body and blood, and so they don’t just hand it out to people who don’t believe in it or who might treat it without the reverence and respect that it deserves.
Most Protestants do not believe that the Eucharist is the true body and blood–but only a symbol–and so for a Protestant to take the Eucharist without believing in it would be considered eating without discerning–a very serious offense according to 1 Corinthians 11:29.
Secondly, according to 1 Corinthians 11:16-17, everyone who participates does so in fellowship as part of a whole, unified community. (Catholics do not believe mass happens at individual churches, but that there is ONE mass in Heaven and by receiving on Earth, they are participating in the Heavenly mass with God and the angels.) While Catholics would love to welcome Protestants to the table, it would imply a unity that isn’t really there. (Not my rule. Don’t look at me.)
And finally–not all Catholics can participate in the Eucharist either. In order to partake, Catholics and non-Catholics have to be in a state of grace, have to have gone to confessions since their last mortal sin, and some other stuff. Protestants (and many Catholics) don’t meet these guidelines.
So… for those of you who were asking–these are the official reasons. And you should probably go check out these two articles which can explain it much better than I can:
Who Can Receive Communion on Catholic.com
Why Can’t Non-Catholics Take Communion on CatholicBridge.com
So I hope that helps?
Conclusion
I know that the Eucharist is strange and doesn’t make a lot of sense. But honestly, much of Christianity doesn’t make sense when you look at it from a purely logical perspective. (Three persons in one? There has to be blood shed for our sins?) That’s why it takes faith.
But–thankfully for people who need logic too (like me)–it isn’t JUST faith. There are very convincing reasons to believe in it too. And these are my five.
Discussion time! Do you believe the Eucharist is the real body and blood? Why or why not? What questions or concerns do you have?
Enjoyed this post? Don’t miss the rest of the posts in the series!
The Day I Realized My Religion Got it Wrong
10 Common Catholic Church Myths that Critics Believe
Is the Eucharist Really Just a Symbol?
Who has the Ultimate Authority? A Biblical Look at Sola Scriptura
A Brief Look at the History of Christianity
What All Christians Should Know About Priests, the Pope and Confession
What Do Catholics Really Believe About Mary, Saints and Statues?
Infant Baptism or Believer’s Baptism? Which is Correct?
What is Purgatory? What are Indulgences?
Why Do Catholics….? Honest Answers to Your Burning Questions
Protestant and Catholic Beliefs Series Conclusion
Resources
I’m not asking you to believe because I say so. Please DON’T take my word for it! The purpose of this series is only to share what I’ve learned on my journey in order to inspire you to begin a journey of your own. Here are a few helpful resources to get you started.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Surprised by Truth: 11 Converts Give Biblical and Historical Reasons for Becoming Catholic by Patrick Madrid
A Concise History of the Catholic Church by Thomas Bokenkotter
What Catholics Believe about John 6 by Tim Staples
Modern Misconceptions About the Eucharist by Rev. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap.
Two Minute Answers to Your Questions About the Catholic Faith by CatholicsComeHome.org
Who Can Receive Communion by Robert H. Brom
Why can’t non-Catholics, Evangelicals and Protestant denominations receive Catholic Communion? by CatholicBridge.com
Brittany
Latest posts by Brittany (see all)
- Are You an Emotional Eater? Here’s Why (and how to stop) - May 20, 2019
- 6 Reasons Why God Isn’t Answering Your Prayers - May 6, 2019
- It’s Giveaway Time! - April 29, 2019
Thank you for the research! This was definitely educational!
Thanks, Maria! That was my intent 🙂 Do with it what you will–but at least now you know!
For this last semestar I went to religious education for college students, and the topic of the whole semester was Holy Mass. When the priest talked about the Eucharist it was a huge eye opener for me because I really understood it for the first time (I’m 22 and I was raised Catholic).
It’s such a complicated subject so a lot of priests don’t talk about it often, because it’s hard to explain.
But he made some great points, some of which you talk about here, all corroborated with quotes from the Bible. When he explained the meaning of Last Supper and connected it to Pesach/Passover we were all blown away, and the whole auditory went silent.
I whish I could share it with you but we live in Croatia and all of his homilies are in Croatian.
If you want I can give you his e-mail and I’m sure he’ll be glad to answer your questions ( he lived in Canada and the US, no language barrier 🙂 )
That sounds really interesting! I think I’m sufficiently convinced for now though, thank you 🙂
“sufficiently convinced”?
You are funny. This Eucharist ‘thing’ grows on you, and sucks a person in like flowers do a bee; the Sweet Love of Jesus.
Beware!
lol. Thanks for the warning!
Could you send me the comments …I have a protestant friend that breaks her own bread in her bedroon as she watches her online church…syas it is between her and God
I’m really enjoying this series, Brittany, and glad you are witnessing to truth as found in scripture and the early Church beliefs. I have two “nuances.” While we believe the miracle of transubstantiation does occur with Christ’s words of Institution, saying “poof” makes it sound a little like a sudden magic act! The Holy Spirit is present at the altar and acting upon the elements of bread and wine from the beginning of the Eucharistic prayer. And while it is true that Christ’s body and blood (and soul and divinity) are present as long as the appearance of bread and wine remain, when we consume Him in this way, WE become the form of Christ. He “abides in us and we in him” (John 6:56). So his presence is not LOST by digestion, but made intimately personal. As Paul says, “it is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” (Gal 2:20). God bless your journey!
lol at the first one. It kind of IS magic! (Not the sorcery kind, but the miracle kind)
And the second one–yes. Thanks for the clarification. Like I’ve mentioned before, I’m not even Catholic so I’m doing my best! lol 🙂
“I’m not even Catholic so I’m doing my best”???? Truly you are doing MUCH better than that. You are doing a great service of charity to Christ’s Body. Keep it up.
Well, I can’t very well do BETTER than my best, now can I? But thank you. 🙂
Very interesting read!
Thanks, Janell!
Just wanted to share with you how much I’m enjoying this series. My husband and I are both Catholics reverts…and watching you explore this on your blog reminds us of our own journey to strengthening our faith in search for the Truth. Well done.
Thanks! I hope you are learning a lot (or rather, it’d be awesome if you already knew all of this!) and feeling inspired and strengthened 🙂
Hi Brittany,
This series is fascinating, and I love reading it!
I had a question about John 6:33 though — (Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.”).
If Jesus is talking about never thirsting and never hungering and we know that’s not literal (because who of us has not ever been hungry or thirsty), how do we know he’s being literal in the rest of the verse? It would seem to me that he would continue his mode of thought from one sentence to the next.
What are your thoughts?
I think that in this part He is not talking about physical hunger and thirst in this life. It means that he gives eternal life in which we’ll never be hungry or thirsty (and free of all other physical needs) by giving us his flesh and blood.If we eat his body we will have eternal life where we will not be hungry or thirsty ever.
Mind that whenever he talked in metaphores He would later explain it to the apostoles, He would clarify it. But here, when his disciples say: “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” “and many disciples left him then” (understandably, because it IS a hard teaching to understand and accept), He didn’t provide further explanations to the Twelve, He said: “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
He was very clear on this. Would he really just let go of his disicples over a missunderstood metaphore?
That is a fantastic question. I have no idea. I can look into it for you, though! Honestly, what it came down to me, though, was after I had researched and looked at both sides, I asked “Looking at this as unbiased as possible, if I’d never heard anything about either side either way and I was trying to figure it out based on the text–which side makes more sense?” And for me, the position that it is real simply had WAY more facts in its favor. We’ll never know 100%, I imagine. But that’s my best guess.
Megan/Brittany,
Definitely not a theologian, but here is my best take. In John 6:27, Jesus instructs us not to work for food the perishes, but for food the endures for eternal life. The people then ask Jesus for a sign saying, “Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.” Jesus then answers, “Amen, Amen I say to you, it was not Moses that gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven; my Father gives you true bread from heaven.” Jesus is the new manna that doesn’t just fulfill our physical hunger like manna, but our spiritual hunger. True sustenance endures for eternal life. So I think Christ is still literal in the sense that we will never hunger and never thirst, but he is referencing our spiritual hunger and spiritual thirst.
Megan,
You hit perfectly the difficulty with the text, that it contains both literal and figurative elements. The Catholic exegesis would say that the switch occurs in the middle of the discourse. Jesus is using symbolic language “I am the bread of life, etc” (He is no more literal bread than he is a literal door). But then he switches “I am the living bread that came down from heaven… and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” Since the discourse is given within the context of the feeding of the 5000 with literal bread and fish Jesus is predicting another literal bread that he will give which will be his flesh. Additionally, he then uses very graphic language for eating to emphasize the literal sense of his words.
I understand your confusion, but I offer this for your contemplation.
http://www.miraclesofthesaints.com/2010/10/miracle-of-eucharist-total-fast-from.html
Brittany,
As a “cradle Catholic” I’m enjoying reading your series! You are tackling some big and often misunderstood topics of the Catholic faith with a lot of great information. I can’t imagine all the hard work and hours you are investing to compile such clear and concise posts about various beliefs of the Catholic Church, like the Eucharist. I too love learning about the early church fathers and the Eucharistic miracles are amazing! I know the teaching of the Eucharist is difficult for my limited mind to fully comprehend and that’s why I often say in Mass “I believe, help my unbelief.” Like you said, it takes faith to believe in Jesus’ teachings, but with faith comes much fruitfulness. May God continue to bless you on your journey!
Thanks, Tracy! It IS a lot of hard work and hours, but it’s worth it, right?
Brittany,
Anytime we earnestly seek truth and Gods will for our lives, it’s ALWAYS worth it!
Megan, Jesus can be interpreted literally here. Assuming I’m properly disposed to receive Him, the Eucharist is completely restorative and eternal. Any spiritual hunger or thirst is fully sated at Communion, and if I died that evening I may never have hungered or thirsted again! Unfortunately, by that time I may have chosen to retreat back into sins both great and small, so my new spiritual hunger and thirst is not because Jesus has not filled me completely and permanently, but because I am a very imperfect vessel full of holes. His grace would “be sufficient” (2 Cor 12:9) if I didn’t squander it. Which is why the Church is necessary, a fountain of grace through the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist.
Brittany I know you’ve put a great deal of research into this.
My concern is that the transubstantiation was decreed by a man, Pope Innocent III in 1215. It was not Jesus who The thought that a man can change a mere wafer and drink to Jesus’ physical body and blood is troubling to me. How can we be the creator of the Creator?
We must also look at the Last Supper in context. It was Passover; a time when Jews celebrated God’s saving grace through the shed blood of a lamb painted on their doors. That blood was spilled to save them; now Jesus is saying, “This is my blood, spilled for you.” They would have understood the symbolism because the feast they were celebrating was in remembrance to a time when their people had to shed blood to be saved.
Danielle, you are correct that the word “transubstantiation” was not “decreed” by Christ, but neither was the word “Trinity.” In both cases a theological vocabulary was formed to explain almost-inconceivable truths. We cannot, with our limited intellects, comprehend the fullness of a Triune God, nor can we adequately define and explain HOW Christ can be present in the Eucharist. “Transubstantiation” as a term, and as an explanation, was created by man (not just Pope Innocent, mind you, but over 500 patriarchs and bishops at the 4th Lateran Council backed up by the historical and infallible teaching authority of Christ’s Church). But that doesn’t mean the truth it explains is not valid. The Catholic Church doesn’t “invent” truth, it simply teaches the truth given by Jesus Christ, and strives to explain what that truth reveals about God and salvation through Jesus Christ.
Danielle,
The author is clear above that the early church (long before the 11th century) believed that Jesus’ Body and Blood were truly and fully present, under the *appearances* of bread and wine.
Popes do NOT make up doctrine, nor do they sit in committees to plot out which doctrine they will make up this month — instead they respond to issues. In the 11th century, the question of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist was brought to a very public head, and the Pope responded by explaining/defining in no uncertain terms what the Church had believed up to that point.
Regarding the connection to Passover. God gave the words, rules, articles and gestures for Passover. The Jews were to follow very strict ordinances here. NO changing of the words. God set it forth, only God can change it.
And Jesus changed the words.
No-where in the Passover celebration do we find words about “This is My Body” and “This is the chalice of My Blood”. These words were said in the context of the Passover celebration itself – during the time when the words were to be the same from one year to the next.
Yes, they would have understood the symbolism – and they would have understood the SIGNIFICANCE of what He was saying. Perhaps not fully just yet – that took the power of the Holy Spirit given to them at Pentecost, to fully understand.
And there-in lies the power of transubstantiation. It is not “man” being creator of the Creator – if anyone has that honor, it would be Mary who bore Him in her womb and nursed Him at her breasts. In the Eucharistic Prayers, we “implore (God the Father) by the same Spirit, graciously make Holy these gifts we have brought to you for consecration, that they may become the Body and Blood of Your Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ.”
The Holy Spirit has the power; we humbly request – because Jesus TOLD us to do so.
The question of “How can the Catholic church just DECIDE things years later” was a big one for me too. Thankfully, that’s not what actually happens. Instead, the church simply believes what she believes and then offers a formal decree when teachings are challenged in order to clear up any misconceptions.
For example, I’ve never told my children not to throw our pet down the stairs. Not because they can, but because I’ve never felt the need to. It’s assumed to be common knowledge. If my children were ever to try this or ask if it were okay, however, then I would have to officially tell them no. The church does the same thing. They don’t decree a bunch of things people already know. (“The sky is blue!” “Yes… we know….?”) Instead, they clarify when challenged. I believe that’s what happened here.
And if you look through the early church fathers, you would see that they all believed in it. So it wasn’t just invented later.
Also–I agree that the Jews would have originally thought symbolism. Which is why they were so confused and asked again and again, and why Jesus had to keep repeating the same message again and again, and even using the literal words for “chew.” If they thought it was just a symbol–why would they leave? Their reaction doesn’t make sense in that light.
As someone already said it is not a mere man who transforms the gifts it is the Holy Spirit who does the transforming.
While it is a theological nuance, the bread and wine do not become the “physical” flesh and blood of Christ. (It’s why eating and drinking the Sacrament is not an act of cannibalism). The physical properties of bread and wine still remain unchanged.
Another way to understand the mystery is that the bread and wine, by the Holy Spirit, are perfectly united to the Person of Christ in such a way that what was two realities (bread/wine on the altar on earth and Body/Blood at the altar in heaven) become one reality (Body/Blood on earth and in heaven) without losing their distinctive physical attributes.
You also mention the blood of the Passover. The “blood of the covenant” was not a liquid symbolic of lamb’s blood but was literally the blood of the lamb. The Paschal context would lead to the interpretation that the contents of the Cup of the Last Supper was literally the Blood of the Lamb
“Another way to understand the mystery is that the bread and wine, by the Holy Spirit, are perfectly united to the Person of Christ in such a way that what was two realities (bread/wine on the altar on earth and Body/Blood at the altar in heaven) become one reality (Body/Blood on earth and in heaven) without losing their distinctive physical attributes.” This is misleading and very close if not exactly the understanding of the Lutheran faith. “In Lutheranism, there is a Sacramental Union of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ. In other words, Christ’s body and blood are present “in, with and under ” the forms of bread and wine. This is sometimes known as Consubstantiation http://christianityinview.com/eucharist.html
Servant of God, Fr. John Hardon SJ spent much of his work on earth in working to teach the physical presence of Christ on earth. Typing in a search with his name and the words Eucharist, and or Real Presence and physical will bring up many helpful documents.
No, that isn’t what Fr Paul was saying. The difference between the Catholic Church’s understanding and the Lutheran is this: Lutherans believe that what they receive is BOTH bread and Jesus’ body, BOTH wine and Jesus’ blood. Catholics believe it is ONLY Jesus’ body and blood, with the appearance of bread and wine. That’s what Fr Paul said. Further, Lutherans don’t believe the body and blood remain permanently, but that after the service the bread and wine return to being ONLY bread and wine, with no further need for respectful handling.
You must also realize, Danielle, that the Jews during Passover HAD to eat the REAL lamb which had been sacrificed. It was not only killed, but they also had to “trogon” (crunch or gnaw) on it. If they didn’t eat it, the whole sacrificial meal was INCOMPLETE.
This is what Catholics and Orthodox do. They ‘trogon’ the Paschal Lamb, because without eating Him, the sacrifice is incomplete.
Danielle … Other people have responded to the bulk of your comment, so there’s no sense in repeating it, but it does seem that one small question of yours has gone unanswered: How can we be the creator of the Creator?
The priest does not “create the Creator” when he transforms the bread and wine into Jesus. It is not as if a new Jesus is brought into being every time the Mass is celebrated. Instead, one and the same Jesus is made to be substantially present. I should also point out that He does not become a million wafers scattered all over the world either. Instead, those wafers become Him. Each wafer makes the one Christ substantially present.
I hope that helps.
The doctrine of transubstantiation was not invented in 1215. It had been universally believed and taught since the earliest Christians, as the article says. In 1215, it was formally defined by the Pope in response to attacks on the belief. Up until that time, there had been no significant controversy, so there had been no need for such a formal declaration. It wasn’t a new teaching, but a reassertion, in formal terms, of what had always been taught.
Hmm, to add just a little bit on to what Nicholas Hardesty said, when the priest consecrates the bread and wine, he does so ‘in persona Christi’, that is, ‘in the person of Christ’. So it is Christ (through the Holy Spirit) who is changing the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, not the man.
Danielle,
If you do some research you’ll discover a few things not so commonly known about the Last Supper.
1. The Essenes were a sect of devout Jews who would not set foot in the temple in Jerusalem because it had become so corrupt (even though Jesus prayed and preached there, and later cleansed it).
2. This meant that the Essenes had the misfortune of having to celebrate their Passovers without a sacrificed lamb.
3. When Jesus instructed His disciples to prepare a room for the New Passover, he directed them to look for a man carrying a pitcher of water. Men did not carry water in those days, only women did – except for the Essenes, who were celibate. This is the scriptural indication that the Upper Room was in the Eassene (eastern) quarter of the city. Archaeological findings have since confirmed the fact that the Upper Room was in fact the prayer room of the Essenes. Jesus chose to celebrate the Last Supper/New Passover with them.
4. Now. Recall there was *no sacrificed lamb* from the temple to celebrate with! And so it had to be – by long planned divine decree! Because the very Lamb of God Himself was (not on. but at. the Table) to feed His disciples that night with His own flesh and blood, confirming, “This is my body” (the flesh of The Lamb) and “this is the chalice of my blood” (the blood of The Lamb). The era of animal sacrifice was over. This was the one, eternal sacrifice, the only one acceptable to God (Who, if you read the Old Testament, actually detested the animal sacrifices and thundered against them, even though it was necessary for His People to undertake them).
Enjoying your series! I’m a revert to Catholicism. What brought me back was my absolute, adult belief in the Eucharist as Jesus’ body and blood. I enjoy reading other people’s account of their journeys to (or back to) the Church.
Thanks, Katie! That’s what started me really looking into things more intently too.
How very true! Sometimes I wonder what people thought Christians did for centuries, what practices they carried on that were instituted by Christ himself through the apostles, before anyone came around offering their own “truth”. The church never created new beliefs or practices, only confirmed publicly what has been truth since the time of Jesus!
I think many Protestants don’t think about it! I never did. Or they just assume the Catholics got off by a couple degrees somewhere and ended up way off 2,000 years later. I think the biggest issue is many (most?) Protestants AND Catholics don’t truly know what the official church teaches or why.
If you haven’t already, you might check to see if your library has a copy of William A Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers. It’s a three volume set (each volume covers a different time period) of quotes from the Early Church Fathers and the index in the back allows you to search by topic and get a lot of relevant quotes.
Sounds interesting! Thanks for sharing!
Interesting read, Brittany. Catholics are one of the few Christian denominations that believe that the bread and wine are the true body and blood of Christ. Even after reading this, it is still hard for me to believe that the Catholics got it right and “mostly everyone else” got it wrong. And I know you provided reasons for this in your post, but I cannot get over that other Christians cannot participate in communion at a Catholic church. It doesn’t seem right to me at all. Like I said in my own post…we are all worshipping the same Jesus.
Well, whether it is or is not isn’t really up to a vote… 🙂 And yes we are.
Since the long reply/explanation to Laura was not to you Brittany, you may miss it (not show on your notifications). You may find some items in it helpful, if you have not dealt with them yet, or come across them as of now.
Blessings.
I see and read every single comment. 🙂 I have two posts planned on these exact topics over the next two weeks.
With all due respect, Laura, using the yard stick of what is most believed, or popular, to determine what is truth seems like a terrible idea! Truth would change! (As you can see, Christians as a whole believed in the Real Presence since the beginning of the Church.) Also, your thinking is misguided. You consider Catholic and “the few other Christian denomindations that believe. . . ” to be the minority. if you consider that people that make up these denominations (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Orthodox, some Lutheran and some Episcopalian) you would come close to 1.8 billion people, about 1 billion more than those who are of a protestant denomination that do not believe. I don’t mean to be pushy at all, but I do think this teaching is of such importance that we don’t dismiss it because it doesn’t seem like everyone could be so wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members
Laura, it is not that one got it right and all those that have been born into the Protestant Reformation, or have come to learn about Jesus and believe in Him through the love of someone within the Evangelical Christians got it wrong. At the core of all this we are confronted with two realities.
The first is that the Catholic Church and all the Orthodox Churches have the EXACT same beliefs in the seven Sacraments, and BOTH claimed to go all the way back to Pentecost day. These beliefs go all the way back to the apostles, and of the seven Sacraments, one of them is the Eucharist. It is important to understand that this belief was handed down to them and continues to this day.
The second is that the completely ‘new’ doctrine that was born from the Protestant Reformation (PR) is that the Bible is the ONLY authority on Christians (Sola Scriptura), of course there was also the Sola Fide (Faith Alone) doctrine, but this one is not relevant here. This ‘Bible Alone’ core belief creates the dilemma of having to depend solely on the Bible to retrieve and understand its information as if it was a very thorough ‘manual’. The reality is that there are some things which are pretty clear and straight forward, while others are not at all and can be interpreted in a variety of ways.
The reality of the myriad of interpretations can be found when we talk of many Protestant doctrines. Take baptism as an example. Some denominations within the PR believe in infant baptism, while others reject infant baptism and adhere solely to adult baptism. Furthermore, even within them there are some that believe and profess that baptism is merely a symbol, while others say it is more than a symbol. Here, again, both Catholics, Orthodox, Coptics, etc (all ancient Churches) have the same faith.
So, as I have shown, this divergence of beliefs is not only on the Eucharist, but is the fruit of deciding that the Bible is the ‘complete’ revelation of God to mankind, which the Bible itself contradicts, and then trying to figure out what it says and means. The fact is that when it comes to us having ONE Faith, what we witness today is a long ways from it. Even within Martin Luther’s time they could not agree on the Eucharist, Baptism, and various other things. This is the reason why they went in different directions and with different beliefs, while excommunicating each other at times.
I hope this helps, and brings some peace into your heart.
Luther held a belief similar to the Catholic (but not the same), which is what the high Lutherans and Anglicans believe, John Calvin rejected his interpretation and it was much more symbolic, and this accounts to the Presbyterians and many reformed churches. And Huldrych Zwingli rejected them both and adhered to it being nothing more than a symbol, and his belief is the preponderant one in today’s Evangelical Christians.
So, ask yourself. Which of these three got it right? All three are very different. They were using the same Bible and rejecting the Catholic Church’s teaching. The sad thing is that none got it right (no offense meant).
The moment that Luther proclaimed, based on his OWN authority, that the Bible was the ONLY authority for all Christians he had no idea of what was going to take place. Later in his life he realized that he had opened the flood gates and instead of one pope he had thousands. The irony here is that the New Testament was written long after the Church was alive and well, and before the Bible took its present form, there were tremendous persecutions where all sacred writings were just as fiercely sought for destruction as were the Christians.
Contradicting Luther’s ‘new’ doctrine of Sola Scriptura, St Paul tells us the THE Church is the ‘Bulwark & Pillar of Truth’, and NOT the Bible. Actually, the Bible did not even come into its present form for another 350 years. Additionally he tells us to hold on to the TRADITIONS he was teaching them either orally or by writing. What was being taught orally makes the written Word be perfectly understood, but without this oral tradition, we have to be continuously trying to re-invent the beliefs of the early Church. I think the success of the results speak for themselves, since there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of variances in beliefs and some are diametrically opposed.
Regarding the Baptism, I did not complete something.
It is important to realize that Catholics, Orthodox, Coptics, Armenians, etc (all ancient Churches) have the same faith. Baptism is NOT a mere symbol, unlike most Protestants. In the Catholic Church we use the term Sacrament (from the Latin = mystery), while in the other traditions they may use slightly different language to say the same thing.
Additionally, the closing statement: “I hope this helps, and brings some peace into your heart.” ended in the middle and not at the end.
Oooops.
Thank you for doing all of this research! I’m Episcopalian but I’ve recently been doing a lot of research on Catholicism partly because I’m drawn to it and partly just trying to get a better understanding of the history of the liturgy of my own denomination. I’m looking forward to the rest of the series!
Thanks, Lisa. Hope you learn a lot! 🙂
i have to differ with you when you say “The elements become the body and blood at the moment when the priest says the words “This is my body” *poof!* and “This is my blood” *poof!*”
our children in the Catechesis of the Good Shepherd are taught that EPICLESIS, when the priests’ hands hover over the hosts (during the first Eucharistic prayer), prays, then signs a cross over them, is when transubstantiation occurs.
The “moment of transubstantiation” is generally considered for the Latin Church as the words of institution, in the Eastern Churches it is the epiclesis. However, in both cases this must take place within the context of the Eucharist. (Priests can’t just say the words of institution over bread and wine and consecrate).
Thanks for clarifying. Either way, before we get it 🙂
Additionally, I learned recently, that the ‘epiclesis’ was added to the Latin Rite’s Eucharistic Prayer because of the ecumenical dialogue that has been in existence with our Eastern counterparts (respectful accommodation I think). It was part of the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy and in their theology they believe the consecration to take place there. Anyway, this is a theological theme that we may never know the EXACT moment, unless the Church formally defines it.
The way I see it, is that since the Western Church did not have (Peter and Paul’s Liturgy) and consecration ALWAYS took place, then it is obvious that it couldn’t happen in the epiclesis. With its inclusion, then the proper descriptive language is the one that Fr. Paul used.
Brittany, you are doing awesome, excellent research. May I suggest a few more resources? Catholic Answers is an awesome radio show. You can listen to it on your local Catholic radio station or on their App. They also download their shows to podcasts. It’s an apologetic call in talk show. They regularly (weekly?) have days where they welcome only non-Catholic callers to talk about the faith.
I love Jesus. I love my faith. I love my Church. I love the sacraments and the grace and ah- God is good!
I bet you would love adoration. Perhaps you could ask around and find out the schedule at various churches. It would be beautiful to lay down at his feet any tough questions you may be aving trouble reconciling.
Thanks, Emily. I have heard it before; I just haven’t taken the time to listen regularly. I’m pretty sure they have adoration here too. 🙂
I disagree with you on this from your conclusion:
“I know that the Eucharist is strange and doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
Once you dive in deeper and begin to meditate on and ‘contemplate’ the love of God, which was manifested in its plenitude in Jesus Christ, it will make perfect sense and, instead of strange, will feel like the most natural, yet awesome thing. The mystery to unlocking this is to see this love through Eucharistic eyes.
Here is something to ADD to your list of amazing Eucharistic transformations, if you have not yet come across it.
1. There have been some cases of Catholics that have lived for years strictly on the Eucharist. No other food of any kind. Christ is enough sustenance for them. The perfect union with Christ and the graces they receive transcend the physical and the spirit provides all the needs for the body. The natural laws are broken just as when there was only enough oil for one day but lasted seven more (2 Kings 4).
2. There are many Incorruptibles in the Church. These are holy people who through God’s grace their bodies don’t see corruption. Some of them exhume an odor like flowers or a garden; ‘Odor of Sanctity’. These are not mummies. The bodies are flexible, as if alive in a deep sleep.
So the ‘figurative’ words of Jesus in John 6 in these cases are NOT figurative, but literal because the Eucharist, Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity effected on the physical and ‘literally’ transformed them into proofs of the power of His word.
Very interesting! I did not know either of those facts.
WARNING: IF you think you love Jesus now, your love and understanding will increase dramatically after this ‘love-cruise’ that you have embarked on. In the end you will find yourself in awe at the depth of HIS love, as I do find myself so many times. Enjoy this beautiful and blessed ride that you have began, because the deeper we understand and live HIS love, the more it transforms us into becoming more like HIM.
The deeper we desire to enter into a communion with HIM, the greater the love HE nourishes within us, so that we can love HIM as HE desires to be loved.
Hope this helps.
I don’t know Antonio, I don’t think I would begrudge her for saying that the Eucharist is strange and does not make a lot of sense. “This is a hard saying” as much for people today as it was when it was first proclaimed. For Protestants, who are not used to experiencing a relationship with God in a sacramental way, the Eucharist IS strange, it IS somewhat nonsensical. Brittany comes from a background where something like the Eucharist is very radical and new, and she is writing primarily for an audience that would share that sentiment. I think it’s good, when speaking with Protestants about the Eucharist, to acknowledge and even affirm the difficulties that this teaching brings. But then we must (as she has done) explain the Eucharist in a manner that they can understand and accept.
Thanks 🙂 A LOT of Catholicism is radical and new (and yes, strange!) to me…
Yes, Nicholas, I agree with you, and I also understood her language, since I have been in dialogue with non-Catholic Christians for over a decade, but I wanted to give her some food-for-thought, coming from the other end.
In some circles it is called BAIT (smiling here).
Really thought provoking! I’m enjoying your research. Thank you!
Thanks, Ann 🙂
Thank you very much for this wonderful article about the Real Presence; it’s much needed today. I wondered is you have read about the great Eucharistic Miracle with st. Anthony of Padua, the Jewish man and a very hungry donkey? You will surely be ‘inspired’ by it, I believe!!…
I haven’t looked into that one yet. Thanks for the tip!
Hey! Sorry I have been reading through a bunch of your posts, I thought you might find this in site from my fiance interesting, he emailed me it the other day.
Anywho, true presence of the Eucharist. The most powerful thing that opened my eyes is the story of the resurrected Jesus appearing to the disciples on the road to Emmaus – Luke 24:13-35.
Highlights of that story/my commentary:
So you’ve got two disciples heading to Emmaus, then “this guy” starts walking with them, it’s the resurrected Jesus, but they don’t recognize Him. They tell him the “news” of Jesus’s resurrection, and Jesus explains all of Scripture to them (wow), and how it was foretold, etc. They still don’t recognize it’s Jesus, but as He’s about to continue on they say “Stay with us.” That’s beautiful, they want him to stay, they don’t even know it’s Jesus, but “this guy” so powerfully explained the Gospel to them, they deeply desire him to stay with us (what we all really long for even when we don’t realize it’s Jesus we’re longing for). So, “this guy” stays, they eat supper. Verse 30, he breaks bread and gives thanks (communion/Eucharist), AND NOW THEY RECOGNIZE HIM. So interesting – as He is giving communion, giving himself to us in true body and blood, they recognize him. AS SOON as they recognize Him in the Eucharist, he vanishes. What does this mean?! My extrapolation or assumption is that Jesus in a way right there in front of their eyes became the Eucharist, the elements of communion, and in that way he answered their request and STAYED WITH THEM. Which He still does, so beautifully and powerfully to this very day in the same way, the Eucharist. So, as we receive the Eucharist, the real prayer of our heart should be that of those disciples when they said, Stay with us.
I just thought it was really powerful, and to think the way Jesus stays with us, is through the Eucharist. Imagine, Christ sits lonely in so many churches, because He never wants to make us wait for Him, He is happy to wait for us as long as it takes, so that we always know where He is when we may need Him the most.
Also, if you read the scripture its so cool, because Jesus right there is performing the first Mass. He is revealing to them the OT (the first reading in Mass) and then He explains more of the life of Jesus and how that fulfills the OT ( The Gospel reading) and then He breaks bread with them (communion) so cool!!!
lol, I love your excitement, Courtney! Thanks for sharing 🙂
At the end of #2, I think you mean to put that “Jesus was being serious …” instead of “Jesus wasn’t being serious …”.
Thank you! I fixed it!
May I share my Eucharistic Miracle? My mother and I went to Italy last year on a pilgrimage with other members from our church. It was an amazing experience. We went to Lanciano for a quick stop. They were celebrating Mass including vast amounts of the incense. I am allergic to incense to the point that I can’t breathe, not just the tickle in the throat that echoes through the church on Holy Saturday, but the full-on wheezing that comes from constricted airways. We had walked into the Church, found there was Mass and filed as quietly as we could out another door into a courtyard. At an appropriate time in the Mass, again to be as inconspicuous as possible, we filed into a chapel and then behind the altar to see the monstrance. I had to go back into the Church where all the incense was. My mother wanted me to stay outside. Others were also recommending the same. I wanted to see Him. I had dreamed of this trip for over 20 years, ever since I turned back to the Church. It was worth my last breath to me. I insisted. I prayed. “Jesus, let me see you. You are my breath and my life. Let me see you.” I was able to walk into that Church. Lay my hand against the glass and pray. I was able to talk and laugh when I walked out again. Jesus answered my prayers.
Nice! Thanks for sharing!
Just to add to your point #2 – what I find even more convincing than the former believers LEAVING after hearing Jesus’ explanation in John 6 is the fact that He LET them leave! If Jesus meant for this idea to be a SYMBOL, He would have stopped them and explained, “Hey, you misunderstood! It’s just a SYMBOL of my flesh and blood. I didn’t mean it LITERALLY! ” But He did NOT do this. Instead, “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.'” BAM!
Thank you for sharing your exciting journey. I am praying for you as you continue to reveal for yourself the beautiful Truth of the Catholic faith. Welcome home!!
.
I’ve heard this argument too. But there are lots of times when Jesus DID let people misunderstand on other points, so I didn’t find it as convincing 🙂 (Had to narrow the list somewhere, right? lol)
And thanks so much for the prayers and the welcome. No promises though. Still on a journey! 🙂
How wonderful to read your three posts thus far. Thank you for letting us in on your journey. I am a recent convert (Dec 2012) who inadvertently started my journey while wishing to disprove Catholic doctrine and beliefs. Having my “list” of things that I “knew” to be wrong in Catholicism, I started reading and researching. After a year (maybe two), my list had dwindled down to nonexistence. Then I started considering, “What if this is all true?” I started looking around for a woman’s Catholic Bible study and began attending. I began going to daily Mass here and there. I began just sitting in Reservation Chapels in different churches and just prayed or read or just sat/knelt there and thought through things. My heart began a longing I was uncertain about. But all the while, I would beg Jesus to guide me and show me the way. I trusted the Holy Spirit to lead me into all truth as He promised. Seven years after my research began, I entered the Church. I came in with eyes wide open and have fallen in love with Jesus more and more if that is even possible. Ever since I have been so glad that I made the choice that I did!
I am excited to follow your journey wherever it leads you. GOD loves us no matter what we choose, yes? But His call is sure and undeniable if we are willing to listen. My prayers will be with you as well, Brittany.
Thanks, so much Beverly! I can definitely use all the prayers I can get as I take this journey publicly! lol I’m not so much concerned about where I end up, but I hope to discover the truth and inspire others to do the same.
Brittany … I have an M.A. in Theology and a Certification in Catechetics from Franciscan University of Steubenville and am currently the Director of Religious Education at my parish. I just found your blog today and thought I should let you know that I’m willing to answer any questions you have as you continue on your journey to learn more about the Catholic faith. I have also been explaining and defending the Catholic faith on my blog since 2006. There is a wealth of material there that may be helpful to you: http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com
Peace of Christ to you!
Thanks! I might just take you up on that!
You wrote: “(Some of them are gross! Is it bad to say that?)”
No! Not bad at all! I remember praying once with the question, “Why don’t You show yourself as flesh, at least? It’s hard to see You when You look like bread.” The answer came, “Because if it looked like flesh, you wouldn’t eat it, silly!” Christ was taking care of us frail humans even in giving us His Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine, rather than as flesh and blood.
And I’m so glad he did!
Wow, what a great post! I’m a cradle Catholic, but it wasn’t until my early 20s that I finally started to explore and understand the Eucharist, with a little bit of help from John 6 and Eucharistic miracles… and needless to say, it has changed my life! I have to commend you for your courage in exploring different teachings of the faith – I have many Protestant friends who just don’t want to talk about “Catholic things” at all!
Also just have to say – Surprised by Truth is such an excellent series! I really recommend Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn as well – also a great and well-written conversion story!
Well, as some of the comments come in, I’m starting to question the wisdom of taking this journey in such a public way… (TOTALLY just kidding! lol) I like talking about religion, and the more knowledge and resources we can all get and share the better! I have read Rome Sweet Rome as well 🙂
I think it’s also worth noting as a proof that when Satanists seek to desecrate Christianity, they actually steal the Eucharist from Catholic Masses so that they can have a “Black Mass” – if it were merely a symbol, why not just use their own bread and wine? But they seek specifically to get Communion from Catholics because it is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, and the most evil thing to do would be to use Him in a sacrilegious manner.
Also, we Catholics always keep reserved hosts in the tabernacle, which is how Jesus makes good on His promise, “Behold, I am with you always until the end of the age.”
Not only present to use spiritually, but actually, physically present on earth! That’s pretty cool. 🙂
I’ve heard that reasoning too, though it’s not a strong one for me just because–personally I could care less what Satanists believe. The fact that Satanists believe something doesn’t make it any more or less true. (I mean, after all, they believe a LOT of things I DON’T agree with!) I don’t need their endorsement 🙂
And yes, very cool 🙂
People who don’t believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist like to say that Jesus was speaking “metaphorically” when He commanded His disciples to eat His flesh and drink His blood.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, it is IMPOSSIBLE that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have LIFE in you…” (John 6:54).
It CANNOT be the case, because the expressions to “eat flesh” and to “drink blood” already had a LONG AND WELL ESTABLISHED METAPHORICAL MEANING for Jews – and, given this metaphorical meaning, just about every person listening to Jesus in John 6 would’ve known that He couldn’t POSSIBLY be speaking METAPHORICALLY about their need to eat His body and drink His blood! (Indeed, that’s precisely why so many of his followers left Him and no longer walked with Him from then on!)
You see, the METAPHORICAL meaning of those expressions (“eat flesh” and “drink blood”), for Jews (and for Arabs – even to this day), is to wage war against a person (“eat his flesh”) and calumniate/do harm to a person (“drink his blood”)!
So, if Jesus had been speaking METAPHORICALLY, He would’ve been talking UTTER NONSENSE! He would’ve been saying, “Unless you wage war against me and do harm to me, you will suffer eternal death!” That’s how ABSURD His words would’ve been! Of course they weren’t absurd, because He wasn’t speaking metaphorically at all!
To put the (LITERAL) meaning of Jesus’ words beyond doubt, there happen to be numerous verses in Scripture itself – containing words spoken by GOD Himself – which amply demonstrate the METAPHORICAL meaning of “eating flesh” and “drinking blood”. Here are a few:
________________________________________
Isaiah 9 (Judgments upon Israel for their sins.)
9:19. By the wrath of the Lord of hosts the land is troubled, and the people shall be as fuel for the fire: no man shall spare his brother.
9:20. And he shall turn to the right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda. (Meaning: they’ll fight against each other, but also fight simultaneously against Juda).
________________________________________
Isaiah 49
49:26. And I will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine: (Meaning: they’ll fight and harm/kill each other) and all flesh shall know, that I am the Lord that save thee, and thy Redeemer the Mighty One of Jacob.
________________________________________
Jeremiah 19 (Prophecy of desolation for the Jews)
19:9. And I will feed them with the flesh of their sons, and with the flesh of their daughters: and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend (Meaning: they’ll turn on each other) in the siege, and in the distress wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them.
________________________________________
Baruch 2
2:2. That the Lord would bring upon us great evils, such as never happened under heaven, as they have come to pass in Jerusalem, according to the things that are written in the law of Moses:
2:3. That a man should eat the flesh of his own son, and the flesh of his own daughter. (Just like Jesus has prophesied for our own times, that over matters of the faith a man will turn against his father, and daughter against her mother, etc… Matt 10:35).
________________________________________
Ezekiel 39
39:17. And thou, O son of man, saith the Lord God, say to every fowl, and to all the birds, and to all the beasts of the field: Assemble yourselves, make haste, come together from every side to my victim, which I slay for you, a great victim upon the mountains of Israel: to eat flesh, and drink blood.
39:18. You shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and you shall drink the blood of the princes of the earth, of rams, and of lambs, and of he goats, and bullocks, and of all that are well fed and fat.
________________________________________
Daniel Chapter 7 (Daniel’s vision of the four beasts, signifying four kingdoms: of God sitting on his throne: and of the opposite kingdoms of Christ and Antichrist.)
7:1. In the first year of Baltasar, king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream: and the vision of his head was upon his bed: and writing the dream, he comprehended it in a few words: and relating the sum of it in short, he said:
7:2. I saw in my vision by night, and behold the four winds of the heavens strove upon the great sea.
7:3. And four great beasts, different one from another, came up out of the sea.
(Four great beasts. . .Viz., the Chaldean, Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires.)
7:4. The first was like a lioness, and had the wings of an eagle: I beheld till her wings were plucked off, and she was lifted up from the earth, and stood upon her feet as a man, and the heart of a man was given to her.
7:5. And behold another beast, like a bear, stood up on one side: and there were three rows in the mouth thereof, and in the teeth thereof, and thus they said to it: Arise, devour much flesh (Meaning: wage war on these four godless empires).
________________________________________
Micah 3 (For the sins of the rich oppressing the poor, of false prophets flattering for lucre, and of judges perverting justice, Jerusalem and the temple shall be destroyed.)
3:1. And I said: Hear, O ye princes of Jacob, and ye chiefs of the house of Israel: Is it not your part to know judgment,
3:2. You that hate good, and love evil: that violently pluck off their skins from them and their flesh from their bones?
3:3. Who have eaten the flesh of my people (Meaning: persecuted them), and have flayed their skin off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot.
________________________________________
Zechariah 11
11:9. And I said: I will not feed you: that which dieth, let it die: and that which is cut off, let it be cut off: and let the rest devour every one the flesh of his neighbour.
11:16. For behold I will raise up a shepherd in the land, who shall not visit what is forsaken, nor seek what is scattered, nor heal what is broken, nor nourish that which standeth, and he shall eat the flesh of the fat ones, and break their hoofs.
________________________________________
Romans 14
14:21. It is good not to eat flesh and not to drink wine (Meaning: have dissensions among yourselves, slander, attack or do harm to each other): nor any thing whereby thy brother is offended or scandalized or made weak.
________________________________________
James 5 (A woe to the rich that oppress the poor. Exhortations to patience and to avoid swearing. Of the anointing the sick, confession of sins and fervour in prayer.)
5:1. Go to now, ye rich men: weep and howl in your miseries, which shall come upon you.
5:2. Your riches are corrupted: and your garments are motheaten.
5:3. Your gold and silver is cankered: and the rust of them shall be for a testimony against you and shall eat your flesh like fire (Meaning: harm you). You have stored up to yourselves wrath against the last days.
Really enjoying this series! <3
Thanks, Haley! I am too 🙂
I love the article and I think it’s a great, concise, and helpful description of our beliefs. In your bullet points, you say that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood when the priest says the words of consecration… *poof* This is an incorrect way to state this. We do not believe in magic, which is what this sounds like. The priest does not make the gifts transubstantiate. What really happens? The bread and wine become the Body and Blood when God wills it through the Holy Spirit. We believe this happens during the Eucharistic prayer and the prayer of consecration; not of our own accord or actions like magic words (*poof*), but rather of the Will of God. I think this is a very important point for all Catholics and anyone looking at the Church to understand.
Well, I don’t mean the priest uses magic words or that it really goes *poof* lol. But, to someone who doesn’t understand–it is kind of like magic. Not the bad kind, but the good kind. How does it exactly happen? I don’t know. God makes it happen! *poof* just like that! It just does! It’s a mystery!
Brittany,
This is a beautiful sharing of your journey! I “reverted” to the Church in 2005 after a 7 year journey. Interesting that one of the first few months for me also was affected greatly by Patrick Madrid’s book, Surprised by Truth. Sitting in the library of an Abbey where I had gone to meet with one of the monks, I just “happened” to grab it off the shelf. I was spell bound with the testimonies! Having left the church in my early twenties, in my thirties I experienced a renewal that lead me into the Protestant church for 22 yrs. My number one desire was to see my Catholic family “reborn”. Long story short, it was the longing for the Eucharist that drew me home to my roots. It is a daily longing that only intimacy with Jesus in the Eucharist satisfies my heart. “I in Thee and Thou in me, in time and in eternity”!
As I have read through all the comments, the ones posted by Father Paul and Alex Hill have been most helpful and meaningful for me. I hope it might be OK to repost something that Alex posted on January 28th that fits in again at this point on February 4. There is just something so profound in its holiness and spiritual reality that he shared that is worth repeating. Bless you and I will be keeping you in my prayers with great joy as you continue your journey!!
Alex Hill
January 28, 2015 at 11:26 pm – Reply
I’m really enjoying this series, Brittany, and glad you are witnessing to truth as found in scripture and the early Church beliefs. I have two “nuances.” While we believe the miracle of transubstantiation does occur with Christ’s words of Institution, saying “poof” makes it sound a little like a sudden magic act! The Holy Spirit is present at the altar and acting upon the elements of bread and wine from the beginning of the Eucharistic prayer. And while it is true that Christ’s body and blood (and soul and divinity) are present as long as the appearance of bread and wine remain, when we consume Him in this way, WE become the form of Christ. He “abides in us and we in him” (John 6:56). So his presence is not LOST by digestion, but made intimately personal. As Paul says, “it is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” (Gal 2:20). God bless your journey!
Stories really do hold some power don’t they! Hopefully my story will help people as well. Thanks for sharing yours 🙂
Please don’t lump all protestant churches together. I am a Lutheran MS and we also have close communion and believe in the true body and blood. You must understand our beliefs to commune with us also.
You are correct in that assertion, Judy. But, if you look careful at both expressions of faith there is a definite difference. In Lutheranism the belief is cosubstancial, while in Catholicism it is transubstantial.
Additionally, (don’t mean to offend and sound supremacist, because that is not the intent, only wish the truth to be clear) the Catholic Church has defined a while back that, beside some schismatic groups that have apostolic succession such as the SSPX, only the ancient churches with apostolic succession have valid Holy Orders (ordination). The Anglican church held valid orders for a while, after it broke away from the Catholic Church, but those ceased once the prayers and intent of the ordination of priests and bishops was changed during the Cromwell years (if I am not mistaking). A similar situation took place with Luther’s breakaway. Luther was a fully ordained priest, just like the other priests that left with him, their ‘holy orders’ ceased to be passed on for the same reasons.
Hope this helps.
Hi, Judy. While I would absolutely love to speak about every single denomination individually, apparently there are around 30,000 of them… so…. that’s not exactly practical. The point of this series isn’t to share every single fact about every single issue or every single denomination, just to share a few things that I’ve learned personally on this journey I’m on currently. But thank you for sharing! Now I’ve learned something new 🙂
My husband recently had a transformative experience because of the Holy Eucharist. He is not Catholic and a priest had forgotten this (because he’s been going to church with me for over 10 years) and the priest asked him to consume some precious blood rather than have it go down a drain. My husband complied because it was in the middle of a service and he didn’t want to call out the priest for forgeting in front of people. So after Mass I asked him if he felt different and he said YES! And he felt like it wasn’t wine because wine normally gives him some immediate symptoms and he avoids wine. About a week or so later, he told me he was going to RCIA classes and felt that this situation was a call from God to join the Catholic church and now he’s on his way to join the church at Easter. The Holy Eucharist IS SPECIAL and it is a shame that we cradle Catholics do take it for granted sometimes.
Wow, that’s quite a story! I’m not sure what I would have done in your husband’s situation…. I’m glad he is attending RCIA to learn more though!
This is lovely, thank you for posting! I am a convert of about 17 years now. My husband was studying for his MDIV at Denver Seminary when we began to be drawn to Rome- long story short, we left seminary 36 hrs short of his MDIV to wander around in a no man’s land between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism before finding ourselves happily joined to the Church in 1997. Seventeen years, seven children, five grandchildren and two careers later- there is not a day when I regret finding my Lord and Savior hidden but wholly available to me in the Most Blessed Sacrament or the Sacrament of Penance. If you need a swimming buddy for transversing the Tiber, I’ve been there and done that, and I would gladly swim it over and over again, rapids and sharks included, for one taste of heaven on earth that is My Lord Jesus Christ in the fullness of this faith!
Wow! That must have been terrifying! I can’t imagine calling it quits at that stage of the game. I remember when I had one semester left to go in my education degree–how badly I needed to get it finished once and for all. Did he never complete his degree? And yes, I’ll take a swimming buddy any day! (As long as we don’t have to literally go swimming–we have several inches of snow here currently!) 🙂
As a cradle Catholic, a long time ago, I tried leaving the Catholic Church. When I went to other services that did not have the Holy Eucharist, I was never so empty in my life. I came back for good.
I know my husband says that going to Protestant churches with me just doesn’t feel like “church” to him. (To be fair, I feel the same way at Catholic church….) 🙂
Wow! Brittany, continuing to read these posts I pray you don’t get overwhelmed with all of us “reverts” and converts who are so passionate! Hard to hide our excitement when a person discovers the beautiful banquet the Lord has prepared for us!
A little overwhelmed (have you SEEN all the responses these posts are getting? lol!) but I’m hanging in there 🙂 I understand the excitement, and I’m really happy to see so many passionate Christians diving in and discussing the issues! It’s really great!
Brittany,
As a Catholic, I really love and admire the way you’re approaching the major topics of the Catholic Church. I think you’re doing a fantastic job of speaking about the Catholic church and her beliefs in a simple, understandable way. I do hope for those reading that aren’t Catholic that it helps them understand where we’re coming from more as Catholics. I know sometimes it can be confusing because there is so much to our church and some of it (like Mary/Saints, the Eucharist etc) are just different and unfamiliar in comparison to a lot of Protestant churches. I do hope this blog of yours brings lots of good, positive conversations.
Praying for you on your journey of faith!
Also, feel free to shoot me an email if you need any help finding resources. I work in ministry, and love this sort of thing! I’m all about conversation, not conversion (although conversion is great! I’m just not forcing it).
Thanks, Chelsea! What is your work exactly? (Just curious)
I work as the Dir of Faith Formation for a church in Florida. I oversee all Sacrament prep programs, Sunday school classes, youth ministry, Adult Faith Formation/Bible studies, etc. My umbrella is pretty big lol. Our website is http://www.ourladydunedin.org if you want to check it out! Our new/updated site debuts next week too (so if you look at it now, sorry it’s kinda old and corny)
Coming from a background with one Catholic and non-Catholic parent as well as lots of friends who were Protestant/Evangelical and not always accepting of my Catholic faith, it’s refreshing to read about someone who is open to learning about it. 🙂
Nice! And thanks 🙂
“why is this night different than all of the other nights?” This was a question I’m certain that Christ asked at the last supper. The Jews in attendance would have roasted lamb, matzah (someone called it a wafer) wine and some other foods at the last Seder. Why were they eating this meal togetether? They were fulfilling the law by remembering and re enacting the Passover meal. More importantly, they were part of the true Passover. A lamb was chosen to be the sacrifice. The blood was poured out and some anointed the door posts as a signal to the angel that these people were “being saved.” The lamb was roasted and Unleavened bread was made in haste. Their journey was about to begin. The good gift (Eucharist) was the sacrifice that Christ made. We are to eat (believe) and drink (be marked by the Holy Spirit) so that when judgement begins….we are passed over. Christ said do this in remembrance of me. Like the Passover Seder, this should echo until he returns.
What is interesting is the absence of the roasted lamb in the last Seder account. In Gen. 22:7 Isaac asked “And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” The last supper is the answer to that question. Jesus is the hidden manna, the life that sustains every believer while in this wilderness. Even though he was broken, we become one body as we share in the end result of his sacrifice. Communion of the saints. By not allowing non Catholics to take part in the Union of saints, judgement has been made for the believer. This discernment should be made by the individual believer, not the church.
I am protestant and I find it interesting to look at this Issue of the mass.I am slowly trying to take in what it all means.I see myself as a sinner who Christ drew to himself( John 6:44) and now I have eternal life(john 6:47)The Spirit gave me this life not my flesh (john 6::63) This life I have was granted or enabled by the by the Father.(John 6:65) I have been saved by grace and not my works (Eph.2:8,9) This is what I have come to know and believe and experience.How can the Eucharist help me? Thank you
That’s a great question. According to Catholic belief–receiving the Eucharist allows for the forgiveness of minor sins and it strengthens us so that we can do better in the future. This article lists several benefits according to various Catholics. Whether or not you believe all of them… it’s at least worth looking over. http://www.stmarknc.org/adoration/benefits_of_holy_hour.pdf For me personally, if it really truly is God, don’t you want it?
Thank you my dear friend for supplying us with wonderful passages in the bible to bring life to this very difficult dialogue.
Jesus has given me faith to believe and has gifted me the love of Him in the Holy Eucharist.
It is however difficult to explain to our brothers and sisters in Protestant or other Faiths but you have given great examples and done so lovingly. Thank you thank you.
May God bless you and your family all the days of this life.
Amen.
Thanks, Kristy. It is a very difficult concept!
My true desire is to know God and love Him and understand His Word. I see over and over on the question how can one be saved and I see,” Believe on the Lord and you will be saved”, Whoever calls upon the Lord will be saved ” and repent then turn to God and your sins will be wiped out.” I see myself as a sinner that cannot do anything good to earn or play a part in my salvation.That’s why I Christ had to come.” to save His people from there sins” Matt.1:21) not trying but actually saving whom he wants.So that’s where I want to know where the eurcharist comes in, what does it accomplish? What I have always seen is that the life Christ lived and His death on the cross is what was needed to accomplish the redeeming of His elect. Thanks
Brian, I believe the Eucharist imparts additional graces. In other words, it encourages, strengthens and equips us as we live our out Christian walk. And it provides the forgiveness for minor sins as well.
What additional graces would I need? If he has caused me to be born again and have the Holy Spirit as a seal for my salvation I am a new creation. Filled with His Spirit to encourage me strengthen me and equip me. We also have His Word to do this as well. If our sins are covered as far as the east is from the west and He died even for my sins of the future then there is nothing that can separate us from the Love of God, no one can snatch us out of His hands . We have been baught at a price. His death! Which actually accomplished something and not just making salvation a potential thing.I hope to love,learn and share. I pray to be humble and live for His Glory during this short time on earth. Thanks
I believe the graces would allow us to live out our Christian walk more fully and to be more Christ-like. Not to make us any more saved then we are already, but to deepen and strengthen our relationship with Him and our ability to do good things (bc they are the right thing to do and we should want to).
Also–concerning the verse on “nothing can separate us from the love of God” : I looked up that verse again during this series because I remembered hearing it used while I was growing up the same way you used it in your comment. The verse doesn’t say “nothing can separate us from eternal life” or “nothing can separate us from God.” It says nothing can separate us from “the Love of God.” In other words, no matter WHAT we do–even if we completely reject Jesus and refuse to believe, nothing will ever stop him from loving us. The verse isn’t talking about Heaven/eternal life. It’s talking about His unfailing love for us.
And yes, a loving God can send people to Hell. It’s not that He damns them there so much as He doesn’t force us to choose Him. He lets us choose, and for people who choose that they want to be separated from Him, He lets them have that choice.
Brittany,
Thanks for your comments.If we are saved we cannot become any more saved.Is that what I see you wrote? I would agree. When God draws us,grants us,appoints us and chooses us then we are saved.Just look at Rom 8:28 down to 39 He Foreknows us,predestines us,justifies us and glorifies us. What great promises.Who can bring charges against His Chosen?( 33) He interceeds for US(34)so in verse 35 and 39 in context who is the US?from 28 all the down it is for His chosen ones and this is a special love for the ones He will save.This is not about a general love for all people.
God Knows we have wills that are slaves to sin and cannot and will not come to Him. So for some He comes,draws and gives life to whom He wants. (eph.1)
Thanks
GREAT post Brittany!!! Have you ever read books on Eucharistic miracles?! Its amazing.
One of my favorite quotes on the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is from Flannery O’Connor: “If its a symbol, then to Hell with it!”
And I love that included the church history…that stuff don’t lie and shows it goes all the way back to the beginning!
Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the encouragement, Patty! 🙂 (And no, I haven’t had the time to read any books yet. Just a few youtube videos)
This post has some very interesting and well reasoned proofs for the Catholic belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. However, there is one statement in the “in brief” section that needs some further clarification. At some point during the prayers of consecration, the Holy Spirit acts upon the bread and wine and they become the Body and Blood of our Lord, however it does not happen like a magic act…say the words “This is my Body” and “poof” the bread becomes the Body of Christ; say the words “This is my Blood” and “poof” the wine becomes the blood of our Lord. Many pagans during the early days of the Latin Mass thought just that…in fact, the magic words “hocus pocus” come from the Latin for “This is My Body”…hoc est corpus meum. (Hoc est=hocus; corpus-pocus). The pagans thought the priests were doing magic, but the Eucharist is not magic…it is confected by the Holy Spirit acting through the person of the priest.
You know, of all the things I thought people would say about this article, I was really surprised that the “poofs” were what was really bothering people! (You’re not the first person to mention them 🙂 ) I don’t mean magic as in sorcery or anything evil. I just meant that–as someone who doesn’t really understand how it happens–it just kind of happens–poof/boom/ka-pow! just like that! and it’s different. Yes, because God made it happen, but it’s definitely a mystery! I don’t know how it works!
Hi Brittany,
Don’t you have to have something a little more substantial than accepting things just because the RCC says so? Scripture is the only book of authority for all true Christians,( I do know that the RCC do not believe that the Word of Almighty God is “not enough for all truth”). The bible clearly warns believers about following teachings outside of the “inspired” word of God. Outside of teachings that were taught and written by the Apostles, eye-witnesses of Christ, men who were chosen by God to write down HIS WORD! “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! …” Galatians 1:8. The RCC teachings can be seen as being opposed to what is written in God’s word.
Wow. Thanks for the kind, loving and edifying comment. The entire point of this series is that I am NOT accepting things because someone said so–from either side. I wasn’t raised Catholic, so I wasn’t even ever taught their doctrine. I’m simply researching into issues myself, using the Bible as my #1 guide. My findings aren’t based on what anyone taught me or anyone said. They are based on what I am learning through studying the Bible and other books. You are free to disagree, but there’s no need to be rude.
Hello Brittany
I am sorry you felt my comment to be “rude”, that was never my intention. You asked me in your reply email to show “proofs” if I “have any” regarding the Eucharist being symbolic, or more biblically, a memorial. I do have them. However, I wondered if you could first answer one question for which the answer eludes me : What would a true believer (as the bible defines such) benefit from the bread to become Christ’s actual flesh, and the wine to become Christ’s actual blood when partaking in the Lord’s Supper? Have a good day!
Okay, good!
And honestly, I don’t know what the exact benefit is… more grace to live out our Christian life more fully, I think? BUT, I think it’s more a matter of… if you really believe it is Jesus, wouldn’t you want to experience Him? I don’t know.
HI Brittany
Ignore the question of previous comment, I seen it re-reading over your page on Eucharist. Looking forward to reading about ‘mortal’ and ‘venial’ sins and how the RCC explains them.
Hi Brittany
The video on the ‘Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano’ cannot be substantiated for it to be used as truth. The ‘flesh’ and ‘blood’, may well be what they are said to be, however, it doesn’t prove (if true) whose flesh and whose blood.
I’m wondering if you are searching more for a religion to follow than you are for a true, saving faith and relationship with Jesus. Also, don’t you think a lot more in-depth research, over a considerable amount of time is much needed? For example, you made reference to Ignatius, said to be a disciple of John; did you know that Ignatius was also suspected of parting from the true teachings of the first Apostles, by whom the scriptures were written, and being inspired by God – unlike any other ancient writings? It was not a new thing for ‘disciples’ to turn away from the truth, such happenings are mentioned a number of times in the NT.
With regards to the ‘early church fathers’ one has to remember that they were not inspired by God to write anything, the Apostles were (“for all scripture is God-breathed” [inspired]), written by men chosen by God), they were also actual eye-witnesses of Christ, unlike the ‘early church fathers’ who were not.
If you are searching between protestant and catholic to choose from, I’m not understanding how you claim to be a believer in Christ, as Christ did not come to start a new ‘religion’. As He said “I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life…”
Most of the first church disciples (Acts 2 in particular), were Jewish, the OT & NT are Jewish in their writing and mentality, it is not an ‘aryan book’ and the first believers were not ‘aryan’ as they are often depicted as being. Christ Himself came as a Jew, and at His second coming He will come again as a Jew when He sets His foot on the Mount Olives.
“The doctrine of transubstantiation was formulated in its present form in the Middle Ages by Thomas Aquinas based on Aristotle’s “philosophy of accidents” which was debunked by modern science, chemistry, and physics” (Jacob Prasch, Moriel Ministries). Jacob comes from a Jewish/Catholic background (he’s also from a science background), he is a scholar in Greek, Hebrew and some Arabic, and has been a bible teacher for many years.
The idea of ‘eating’ Christ’s flesh can be shown from scripture that it was not literal (not all scripture is literal and we have to be able to distinguish between literal, and metaphorical, using correct hermeneutics). Christ said He is “..the bread of Life” He told His disciples “…I have food that you do not know about…” “..My food is to do the will of Him Who sent me and to accomplish His work..” John 4:31-34
Christ is the “Word made flesh” we eat His ‘flesh’ means to ‘feed on His word’. There are many other scriptures, outside the scope of this comment, that will confirm what Christ was saying about ‘eating His flesh’.
No, I am not searching for a “religion,” — just the truth. And as I studied several sources (not just Catholic ones), I found enough information to believe that the Eucharist is meant to be the body and the blood. Even if it was someone else’s flesh–that’s still a pretty big miracle! I would think the idea that it would be Jesus’s, like he said, would be more believable than thinking that a wafer just turned into some random Joe Schmo. Plus, how would you explain away all the other reasons I gave? I just don’t see enough evidence for it to be symbolic other than Protestants saying “Well, because we think so.” I’d love to hear more proofs if you have them!
Brittany,
How would you go about understanding Jesus being a vine,a door and other metaphors ? Why do we not look at Him being “bread” the same way? I have a link here that might shed some light on some things .https://carm.org/transubstantiation..We see in so many places ” believe on me” “call upon me” “come to me” and then it’s followed by ” then you will be saved”This one time sacrifice was atoned by Christ on the cross. Question: Do we ever see the payment of Christ alone never being enough?( He loses none which the Father gives)Which of our sins were not covered?We take communion as He said in “remembrance” not that I see that it’s bringing in more grace than what He has already accomplished. .I too want the truth and will continue to read catholic resources,and others to gain more of a understanding. Thanks so much.
Growing up, I DID see it the same way–as a metaphor. It was only once I began researching and discovered the things I put in this article that I had to change my mind. (The use of the Greek word “Trogon” is pretty darn literal, I’d say. He didn’t say “consume,” he said “chew/gnaw.” And then the Jew’s reaction–I really think it indicates they thought he was being literal. But they couldn’t believe it, so they went away.
How it’s not cannibalism? I honestly don’t know. And “in remembrance” is still accurate, since Catholics aren’t crucifying him again, but only making his sacrifice present. Re: the apostles not thinking it was–there were LOTS of things they didn’t get until after Jesus’s death and resurrection. His teachings were hard, and they were a little dense 🙂 How he did it before his crucifixion: Catholics believe that Jesus works outside of the constraints of time. Time to God isn’t the same as it is to us. Hopefully that helps somewhat?
And as for needing faith + works: keep reading through the series 🙂 I address this in Is Faith Alone Enough? And actually, several of the verses listed at the end of the article concerning faith being enough are addressed in my article. And the ones that aren’t–well, if you read the context around them, there is more to the story 🙂
Hello Brittany
You said you would like more “proof” if I have them concerning actual flesh/blood.
A Response to ‘Five very good Reasons to believe…Eucharist ‘
#1 ‘The Early Church Believed It’ – This is only correct so far as the RCC teach it. Not all RC ‘early church fathers’ agreed with transubstantiation: Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius et al. The first church was as it is found in Acts 2. There, the Apostles/disciples gathered to share in the Lord’s Supper. There is no mention or inference to actual flesh and blood, bread/wine respectively.
Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper: “…take eat; this is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me..” In the same way He took the cup after they had eaten saying “…this cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood..” “..take this [cup] and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes..”
To do something in ‘remembrance’ of, is a memorial, a commemoration. Christ never infers it becomes His actual blood and flesh with ingestion, the bread is bread and the wine is wine. Also, at the Last Supper, Christ was still 100% in His human, earthly body, how then did the bread become His body/flesh, the wine His blood?
#2 The reason the Jewish believers turned back after hearing Jesus talking about eating His ‘flesh’ and drinking His ‘blood’, does not prove it was more than symbolic/figurative. The Jews turned back because they knew from their Torah that God forbid the eating of flesh and the drinking of blood, as did also the Apostles. They turned back because they didn’t understand it wasn’t literal. God forbids the drinking of blood, why would He contradict Himself and later say they can drink blood, and that of His own beloved Son? Lev 3:17, 17:10-12; Acts 15:20. It was not just because drinking blood/eating flesh was a pagan practice (which it was), it was forbidden because “….for the life is in the blood” Lev 17:14
#3 Trogon – Phagon The change from the milder form of eating to the stronger form of eating, doesn’t prove the eating flesh/drinking blood is literal. The Jewish leaders didn’t understand when He used the mild form Trogon, Christ went on speaking more intently “…Truly, truly..” which would be today’s equivalent of ‘speaking with an exclamation mark. (the Jewish leaders should have understood the first time, from their own law).
God’s word is many times in OT/NT referred to as ‘food’. eg, Jer 15:16; 1 Cor 3:2; the ‘milk’ ‘meat’ of the Word Heb 5:12; Jesus is the “Word became flesh and dwelt among us..” John 1:1,2, 14. The ‘milk’ of the word is the more fundamental truths, while the meat is more complex, of some deeper order (meat is chewed, gnawed etc). So, the true believer ‘feeds’ on Jesus, the bread of heaven, and grows from babe/milk- adult/meat.
#4 That some believers got sick and some ‘slept’ was a consequence of taking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, doesn’t show anything regarding real flesh/real blood. Some believers used the Lord’s Supper for indulgence, this may possibly be one consequence. 1 Cor 11:21, 27,29.
#5 ‘Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano’. No matter what the specimens really are, this ‘miracle’ is totally subjective and has no bearings on proving anything from scripture. Many hoax miracles in Italy & Latin America especially, ie., statues of Mary ‘weeping blood’, all is subjective and to some, it’s hocus pocus (as the RCC themselves proved in some of these cases – can Google it).
“For the Word of God is powerful, stronger than any two-edged sword…”
Very old thread, I know….but am just reading and enjoying it now. 🙂 I want to correct one thing Carrie misunderstood. When we speak of Arians (the early heresy), we are speaking of followers of Bishop Arius, not Aryans, as in white people favored by Nazis. Common mixup.
Oops! That’s one spelling mistake that makes a big difference! 🙂
I see a big thing missing in this article about why there is Holy Communion: Jesus is the Passover Lamb and His sacrifice covers our sins perfectly in God’s commandments from Leviticus. In every Gospel, Jesus and the disciples go to a room for the Passover meal. Traditionally, a place setting is set for the Messiah and the door is left open for Him to be welcomed in. Jesus sits at that place and shuts the door. Then he proceeds to give the Last Supper, which can also be found in Leviticus. As the Jews ate the lamb and remembered their deliverance from Egypt. Jesus gave the disciples the new deliverance from sin. Other people have commented on this (i skimmed a little). Maybe another article about the crossover with Leviticus and the Gospels is in order!! Though not Catholic, I appreciate many Catholic thoughts, traditions, and beliefs and have Incorporated some into my own worship. My husband is also not Catholic and since he is the spiritual head, I won’t pressure him into the religion.
I do not understand why we as Christian Catholics would want to divide ourselves from Christian Protestants over the matter of the Eucharist? I believe we all as Christians have the Great Commission from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to “Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” Mark 16:15 Jesus said “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16 Receiving this gift of salvation and sharing the gospel of salvation seems to be the point of our Christian faith. Sincerely, Mary
The point isn’t to be decisive. Just that the Eucharist is VERY important to Catholics and I imagine they would want Protestants to know what they know too?
Hi Brittany.
I am trying to read the posts I missed during your series as my mom broke her hip while you were writing and I was unable to follow in a timely manner. This post really challenged me…and I am glad! I have teetered back and forth on this issue but I am ashamed to say that I never took the time to research it. I will be committing this to much prayer and will have my husband read the post through too! For years my husband went to both Catholic and Protestant services over this very issue. We really need to decide on where we stand once and for all…thanks for taking the time to research and present the information in a clear way.
Hey, don’t feel bad. Too many people never even bother to research at all. I didn’t for years, and there are still plenty of other things I need to research more too! But you’re researching now, and that’s what matters 🙂
Thank you so much for posting this! Makes a very difficult topic more clear 🙂 I’ve been to the Eucharistic miracle at Lanciano and can speak for its beauty and wonder! God Bless!
You’re welcome! Hope it helped
“The Early Church Believed It” Is not correct. Regardless of what Ignatius wrote about it. For a very simple reason. We call it Communion, but it is in fact only a very small part, of the Jewish Passover feast. Nowhere in any Jewish history did they believe it was the actual embodiment of the Messiah. There are many Christians Jews who will gladly tell you what this part of the Passover feast is about. It is meant to represent our Lord…but is it in no way meant…to be…our Lord. That is a Catholic held belief. And does not represent all of Christianity.
The word is the new flesh that we put on
Hi Brittany. Very glad you found the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. There are many more Eucharistic miracles as well that are quite astounding. As a life long Catholic, I’m still learning and my faith evolving and growing. I hope yours does as well! I found the Shroud of Turin to be an amazing testimony of Christs resurrection. Read about it. Simply amazing. God bless.
Thanks for sharing! There’s always so much to learn, isn’t there?
I have a friend who buys bread praysnover it it and calls it the eucharist( a sumbol not true body ajd blood ). She says it is between her and God. She wants to discuss this no further …. She is a protestant where they break bread once a month in their church and onr watching their onlinr church can get bread from the fridga and break it too…..so she does not have to go to church but says she can church online…
Does she actually use the words “the Eucharist?” Because as long as she doesn’t actually believe it’s the body and blood in her house, there really is nothing wrong with what she is doing. Yes, it would be better to have community, but in Protestant churches, they view it as a symbol (and in Protestant churches it IS just a symbol), so there’s nothing wrong with her using it as a symbol in her own home as well.