Firstly I hope I have spelled that word correclty. I was saw a man in our Church bleed from the mouth when he received communion. I belive it was a blessing to let out the emotional pain he was suffering. Many thought I was nuts to say so.

What are your thoughts on the Body and Blood Of Christ?

Jean B.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 28, 1999

Answers

Jean,

This is a good question.:)

This idea of the TRUE Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, it one of the biggest things that seperates Catholics from most other Christian religions. I think that the Bible has some good stuff to say about this matter.

1 Cor. 11:27 -- This verse clearly shows that there is something more to the tradition of breaking bread. Paul says that anyone who eats of the Bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be responsible for the body and blood of the Lord. If these things were mere signs or even symbols than what would make any difference in eating them unworthily or not. If they are a mere sign, than if you don't believe in them they simply dont "mean" anything to you.... but if they are the True Body and Blood of Christ and you do not believe that they are, they still are, and you are guilty of His Body and Blood if you receive them unworthily.

Wow those are pretty powerful words, dont you think? Besides the fact that Jesus says it over and over that the Bread is His TRUE flesh, and the wine His TRUE Blood. It's funny to see that Judas finally left after Christ proclaimed this, much like our Christian brothers and sisters. The idea is difficult to grasp and to believe, but it is true and powerful. Wow what an awesome God!

-- Matthew Daniel (muse21@hotmail.com), June 09, 1999.

Another point of view:

When Christ says to eat of this bread (his flesh) and drink this wine (his blood), he is refering to the passover feast. Jesus says do this ex.(hey guys the next time(s) you eat this pasover feast do it in rememberance of me not in remeberance of the first passover in Egypt) Jesus now fulfills the passover feast!

Pauls statement: Anyone who eats of this feast unworthy is guilty of his flesh and blood(that's easy - that would be the Jews who still today eat the passover feast in remeberance of that night in egypt and not in remeberance of Christ)( theses Jews are also guilty of killing the first begotten son of God , The messiah!) The only people guilty of this crime are the Jews in the time of the crucifucation and the ones who still do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. They eat unworthy!

Sorry the catholic account does not hold to truth.

Another interesting fact is to check your history books and find out why "Easter" never falls on "Passover".

INTRIGUING!

Is this a "changer of times and law" again?

Shame on the sun and you!

-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), June 09, 1999.

Excuse for me being flippant:

There is a "alternative" religious programme on BBC2 on Sundays which regularly has spoof sketches of scenes from the Gospels - I'm sure if they showed it in the US there would be howls of outrage.

The last sketch featured the last supper and the infamous "do this in remembrance of me" ritual; the source of numerous arguments and wars throughout the centuries...

Jesus asks one of the disciples why he hasn't drunk his wine, and he says "because you said there was blood in it. That's disgusting!", but the crux of the sketch is Peter asking Jesus to clarify whether the eucharist is metaphorical of literal(and anachronistically speculating that a failure to sort this matter out now will lead to lots of trouble in the future). Of course Jesus will not comply with Peter's request - accusing him(like he has on previous sketches) of not understanding, much to the delight of the other disciples who laugh at Peter as if he were the dunce in an elementary school("I knew that!")

[Just an aside - there is a disciple who took the "fishing for men" metaphor literally, and has only tagged along because he is very excited at the thought of actually fishing for men - his disappointment is the subject of a previous week's sketch - I'd love to know what you think about this irreverancy]

My own thoughts? Allow me to advance a very personal idea of faith. I believe that faith is not a virtue, but a necessary evil. I'd probably qualify as an agnostic who regards a theism and atheism as acts of faith. The existence/absence of God is *not* something that be can determined by logical proofs - the nature of God(if it exists) defies such methodology. I know that agnosticism is a cowardly position, and I know that I have to make up my mind at some point; the implications of that decision are so immense that sitting on the fence is simply unnaceptable.

In an ideal world one could prove/disprove the whole Christian faith, but I don't believe this is possible. My objection to transubstantiation is that it is not *necessary* to believe in the transformation of the blood and wine into the body and blood of Christ. It is faith for faith's sake - believing in the virgin birth(however implausible) is essential because it is form part of the basis for Christ's claim to divinity, but nothing is gained by believing in transubstantiation. A lot of the Christian faith defies my rational outlook, but I believe these things because I have to - I don't have to believe(in my opinion)in transubstantiation, so therefore I don't. I know that transubstantiation falls within the realm of miracles(essential faith in my opinion), but this particular "miracle" serves no purpose.

Feel free to tear my amateur theology to bits, but I do believe that I have a point. How does a metaphorical interpretation of the eucharist undermine the Christian faith?

Final point: I remember the fuss over the Turin Shroud - men had placed their entire faith in a piece of cloth, and still hung onto this faith when this object was proved to be a fake. Why is a metaphorical interpretation of the eucharist so controversial? We don't venerate relics anymore(or do we?), we don't have pardoners anymore... why do we cling on this on this piece of wholly unnecessary faith?

Regards

-- Matthew(non-catholic/agnostic/heretic/Milton's fab etc etc) (u05mdp@abdn.ac.uk), June 10, 1999.

A question for the Michael who wrote immediately above.... If transubstantiation is revealed by God then it's important for you to believe it, isn't it? The real questions are, which interpretation is correct and how can we find out?

We get an excellent clue as to which interpretation was passed on by the Apostles themselves when we view what the earliest Christians living just after the Apostles believed. The belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist is universal both chronologically and geographically. I suggest that the only plausible explanation of this is that it was disseminated by the Apostles themselves:

Ignatius of Antioch, writing around A.D. 106 writes of the Gnostic heretics of his day that,

"They even abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the self-same body of our Savior Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised up again" (Epistle to the Smyrneans, 7, 8).

Justin Martyr writes around A.D. 130 that,

"We do not receive these as common bread or common drink. But just as our Saviour Jesus Christ was made flesh through the Word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food which has been eucharistized by the word of prayer from Him . . . is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus" (First Apology 66:2).

And St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, writing around A.D. 160, says:

"He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks and said, This is My body. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world. . . . Then again, how can they [Gnostic heretics] say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption and does not partake of life? . . . When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can [the Gnostics] affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?" (Against Heresies 4:17:5, 4:18:4-5, 5:2:3).

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 10, 1999.

Michael please.............

When Jesus talks of His Body and Blood he is talking to the crowds, and He isn't talking about the passover feast. He says unless you eat my body and drink my blood you will have no life within you. Then people who were listening were confused. This is the only time that the crowd is confused and Jesus doesn't explain, because he doesn't need to -- they are understanding him for what he is really saying. Thats why so many people left, they thought he was crazy.

and Paul isn't addressing the Jews,... he isn't judging them and bringing damnation over those who do not know the truth -- infact he isnt even talking about them... instead it is so very clear that he is saying that those who are unworthy to eat and drink it are guilty of sin. Not words for bread and butter!

You can make up whatever you want and say that the Catholic interpretation is wrong, but you know what happens to liars don't you? Yes...... perhaps Jesus is saying that we should do that in remeberance of the clothes he was wearing when he was at the last supper, perhaps his stylish garb. Come on, the message is quite clear with 2000 years of tradition to back it up!

-- Matthew (foo@bar.com), June 13, 1999.

This is a very crucial topic and point of disagreement among (the following believe in transubstantiation or a similar understanding of the Eucharist) Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Coptics, Anglican's, Lutherans, and the rest of the Christian communities.

The mission of the Messiah was to bring life and free us from the bondage of sin. This He did on the Cross. The Lord in all His mercy established the Eucharist as a means of recieving the grace that springs forth from the once-for-all sacrifice on the Cross.

When Christ first speaks of the topic of the coming Eucharist (John 6:25-71), Judas the betrayer for the first time falls away (70-71). This is note worthy in that Judas did not fall away when Jesus talked about any other doctrinal issue. Then again at the Last Supper, Judas again betrays Jesus. Indeed the Scriptures tell us that "Satan entered Judas" (Luke 22:3) at this point. Here we see that the Devil was present both at Jesus' first explanation of the Eucharist and at its actual institution. Apparently, there is something more than just a mere symbolic meaning in the Eucharist for Satan to attempt to thwart Jesus' plans for instituting it.

As for Tradition, the texts to support the Catholic position are too numerous and have been cited in a previous response. As a matter of fact, the first denial that can be historically verified of transubstantiation came from Berengarius of Tours who died in 1088. Thus the belief in a symbolic presence was an innovation that began a millineum after Christ.

I guess what was so hard for Jews to understand in John 6 was that Jesus was telling them to "eat the flesh and drink the blood." When used figuratively among the Jews this meant to bring about serious injury to that person. If Jesus was speaking figuratively, it would amount to utter nonsense. "If you injury me seriously you have eternal life." Therefore the figurative interpretation is irreconcilable with the context of entire passage. Christ would be saying the exact opposite of what he meant.

Transubstantiation makes sense in the light of all the Scriptural and historical data. Melckizedek, a foreshadowing of Christ, was king of Salem and priest of the Most High God. The "bread and wine" of this priest in Genesis 14 fits perfectly with Christ who is also a priest in the order of Melchizedek (Heb 7:17; Ps 110:4) who also offers "bread and wine". The prefigurements of the Hebrew Scriptures are also noteworth: the eating of the unblemished lamb (Ex 12:5,7- 8,10-11); the manna (Ex 16:4,14-15,35); the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem [City of Bread] (Micah 5:2-4);

-- Jorge (JTrujillo7203@hotmail.com), June 20, 1999.

Sorry for the incomplete answer. I left to go to Mass without finishing this answer. My friend got on my pc and sent the incomplete message without my knowledge. Well I'm back to finsih my response.

Regarding the Hebrew Scripture's foreshadowing of the Eucharist is: the prophet Malachi (Mal 1:11) regarding the prophecy of the "pure offerings" that were to come. Notice that the word "pure" was never used of any Old Testament sacrifice. This was a prophecy of of the Eucharist. Also note that offerings is plural (Catholics celebrate the Eucharist daily all around the world). This is the Apostolic interpretation . The Didache (c. 60), the earliest Christian document, has this interpretation of Malachi.

In the Greek Scriptures, Jesus begins his discourse of the Eucharist by a the miracle of the bread (John 6:4,10-14). The then goes on to explain that His flesh and blood is real food not just symbolic food (John 6). At the Last Supper, the institution of the Eucharist, Christ again refers to the bread and wine as his body and blood (Luke 22:7-19). Then after the Resurrection, Jesus appears to two disciples and they recognize Him not. It is only after Christ gives thanks and breaks bread (the Eucharist) that they "recognize" Jesus (Luke 24:30- 31). "Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them WHEN he broke the bread" (Luke 24:35). Interesting choice of words. They recognized him in the breaking of bread (the Eucharist). This is how we recognize and encounter Christ in our own times.

Through the Eucharist, we participate and receive the benefits of the sacrifice of the Cross. This is why the Eucharist is referred to as a sacrifice. "We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat" (Heb 13:10). "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's TABLE and the table of demons" (1Cor 10:21; Mal 1:11- 12).

The Eucharist was part of the Christian worship since the beginning. It was known as "THE breaking of bread" (see Acts 2:41-42). This action carries the definite article "the" showing that it isn't a mere snack that there having during worship services. It refers to a specific part of the Christian worship along with "THE prayers" (surely specific liturgical prayers).

The Manna of the Old Testament was a figure of the Eucharist. Paul refers to it as "supernatural food" and that the Jews drank of the supernatural Rock which was Christ (see 1Cor 10:1-4). How much more supernatural is the Eucharist which is the reality of what the Manna represented - food from God for the soul.

I didn't really touch upon the important texts of Scripture that directly deal with the Eucharist (Matt 26:17-30 & parallel Gospel passages; John 6; 1Cor 10:14-22; 11:17-34) since they are discussed in detail in any Catholic book regarding the Eucharist which are readily available.

"I Am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" - The Lord Jesus (John 6:51).

-- Jorge (jtrujillo7203@hotmail.com), June 20, 1999.

Good answer Jorge now please explain Matt ch.26:29

" But i say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

???

-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), June 20, 1999.

Michael, As to John's "...will not drink of the fruit of the vine..." passage, Christ does drink of the fruit of the vine. It was the wine on the hysop branch. One should note that when Christ celebrated the passover feast, he made the remarks of "This is my body..this is my blood..." just after the 3rd of 4 cups that get drank at the passover meal. This third cup is sometimes called the hi-lel(sp?) cup, because directly after it, the hil-el pslams are sung.

If you note, in the Gospels, it is stated that they sang these psalms before arriving in the garden at Getsemane. But to end the passover meal early like this would have been outrageous to a Jew. It is also after the third cup that the lamb is eaten. So, Christ sacrificed himself on the cross between the 3rd and 4th cups. Christ ends the passover meal, with himself as the lamb (see Revelation for the various references to Christ as a lamb, including a lamb "standing as if slain") with that fourth cup (the wine on the hysop branch.

For a more detailed answer, try looking at the EWTN website, in their text library section for "The Fourth Cup" by Scott Hahn.

In Christ, Padric

-- KSweeney (Padric a@aol.com), September 27, 2002.

yes, Padric, Jacob brought my attention to the article by Scott Hahn, on "The fourth Cup", it was an amazing revelation. I encourage everyone to read it for a good insight into the Jewish traditoin and how it affected the order of Christ's passion and salvific work.

Praised be Jesus!!! Honored be Mary!!! Theresa

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), September 27, 2002.