I am going to paste a question here which I need an answer to. I want to make sure I get the facts, before responding to this person's question.

I know without a doubt that this is the place to get the right answer.

Thank you.

MaryLu

Ok, since we have a following of Catholics here, I have a question for you and am interested in your various responses.

I am an Episcopalian, a trained and certified Layreader and Chalice Bearer. I can and do conduct Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer and Evensong. We use almost the exact same liturgy that the Roman Catholic church uses. We follow the same church calendar. I have attended Cursillo. Now, I also go to Catholic churches from time to time and have taken Holy Communion along with the congregation and haven't informed anyone that I was not a confirmed Catholic.

I am aware that the Roman Catholic church does not invite nonCatholics to partake of Communion. I don't believe the Lutheran church, which is also similar, invites non Lutherans either unless the minister feels that the person understands clearly what taking the body and blood of Christ entails.

Now, here is my question. I believe that I take the Roman Catholic service as seriously as any Catholic, I prepare myself for Communion, I confess my sins and take it very seriously and prayerfully. BUT...do you think I am committing a sin because I am not a Catholic and don't tell anyone...Of course, I realize that God and Jesus know it, but I personally don't think they give a hoot who is what, as long as they are a Believer and they instructed us to "do that in memory of Him."

This is not an attempt to begin a huge debate, and it may be the wrong thread to have posted on. Maybe all the people that I would like to have answer won't even be reading this post again...but I would like some input if possible..

Hugs to all...Meli

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), August 04, 2004

Answers

With all due respect, if you took the Catholic Mass and Eucharist "as seriously as any Catholic", you could no longer accept the Episcopalian communion service, which may resemble the Eucharist in its externals, but which is not even remotely comparable in its essence.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 04, 2004.

If you believed in the Roman Catholic mass as seriously as ANY Catholic, that must mean that you'd believe in it seriously enough to recieve communion only after having gone through the traditional process of initiation and be Confirmed. At least in my experience, most converts are eager, willing and even excited to go through this process that everyone must go through. Apparently, you don't feel the need to go through this process and receive the communion anyway. That tells me that maybe you need to think a little longer, pray a little more, seek counseling from a Catholic priest, and refrain from recieving communion untill you've been properly initiated into the Catholic Church. Being able to recieve the communion is a privelage given freely to all who believe, but you must first, prove that you believe by respecting the traditions of the Church to which Christ gave the authority and duty of carrying out the sacraments.

-- Brian (Brian@Brian.com), August 04, 2004.

Thank you for your answers and hope you 'understand' that Meli is the Episcopalian asking the question - not me, MaryLu..I just wanted to know how best to answer her question.

Thanks, again, and God Bless.

ML

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), August 04, 2004.

As far as I am aware the substantial difference between Catholic and non-Catholic Communion/Eucharist is the issue of transubstiation (? spelling?). In the Catholic Church it is held that the host actually becomes the body - the flesh of Jesus. This view is found in Non- Catholic churches but isn't the only view. In the Bible we are encouraged to not take of the Body and Blood lightly -so if a non- Catholic recieves in a Catholic church without holding to the same beliefs than that poses a problem to the Catholics.

I have as a Anglican on very few occassions taken the Eucharist in a Catholic church. It is something I avoid doing out of respect for the Catholic community. However on certain occassions when there has only been a Catholic church available I have recieved - but only when I really needed the blessing I get from the Eucharist.

The previous postings talk about the differences as though only the Catholic experience is genuine and valid. In the Eucharist service I meet my Lord and Saviour in an intimate and deep way. He is there in the host and in the people gathered together to meet with Him. It is a blessing and an honour to partake of this precious gift.

-- Anglican Christian (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), August 05, 2004.

The Eucharist can be genuine and valid only in a Church which has a valid priesthood instituted by Jesus Christ. There are many situations in which I "meet my Lord and Savior in an intimate and deep way". But nothing else is even remotely comparable to receiving His actual Body and Blood in the most holy of all sacraments. It is the only element of Christian life and worship which Jesus described as essential in order to have the fullness of spiritual life within us.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 05, 2004.

Thank you.

ML

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), August 06, 2004.

PAUL.M.

Are you qualified to make a pronouncement of the validity of an individuals relationship with Christ? In the Eucharist Christ invites us to share with Him and He shares with us. Was the samaritan womans experience of God at the well less valid because she was a Samaritan? God does not confine personal revelation of Himself to Catholics. I know there are some Catholics who go through the motions and don't have a personal relationship with Christ. Is there meeting with Christ in the Eucharist more valid than mine just because they are Catholic. I would never presume to judge the depth and validity of an individuals experience and relationship with God because that is something that is between the individual and God. God sees the heart of a person and knows the truth. He is the only one qualified to judge a persons relationship with Him and we will all have to stand before His judgement in the last days.

I understand that the Catholicism believes itself to be the only source of Truth - I would find that easier to believe if Catholics stopped trying to tell me that my relationship with God is not as valid as thiers. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only son, born of the Virgin Mary, who waas crucified, died and was buried. On the third day He rose again and ascended in to heaven. I believe in the Holy spirit, who with the Father And Son is worshipped and Glorified. I believe that Christ died for MY sin and that He will come again in Glory to judge the living and the dead. I have a personal and VALID relationship the with the God who saved me from my sin and I will approach His throne cleansed by the blood of Jesus to face whatever judgement is His to give.

I will not accept the claim that my relationship with God is not valid just because I am not Catholic.

-- Anglican Christian (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), August 10, 2004.

PAUL.M. Are you qualified to make a pronouncement of the validity of an individuals relationship with Christ?

As Paul.M. is actually the Rev Deacon Paul M whose ordination is valid,.... then probably!

-- Hugh (Hugh@inspired.com), August 10, 2004.

Sharon, Paul in no way questioned “the validity of an individuals relationship with Christ”, nor your “experience of God” nor any “personal revelation” you may have had from God, nor said that your “relationship with God is not valid”. Whether a Catholic has a conscious “personal relationship” with Christ or not, he still receives the graces of the Sacrament, except that if he does simply “go though the motions” and receive the Eucharist without discerning the body and blood of Christ, he eats and drinks judgment on himself. A Catholic’s meeting with Christ in the Eucharist may not be “more valid” than an Anglican’s meeting with Christ in the Anglican communion service, but it is definitely more real. The Catholic receives the real and actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, not just a symbolic memorial. This is what Catholics believe. Please don't take it as a personal insult to you.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 10, 2004.

Thank you Steve for the gentleness and sensitivity of your comment.

-- Anglican Christian (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), August 10, 2004.

Steve

We can mince our words to make them sound more friendly all we want. Indeed, I believe that Anglican's are loved by God as much any other human beings: Catholics, Islamists et al.

However, Anglicans are heretics and their sacraments are invalid, except baptism which even an athiest can perform validily if his intention is that of the Church's.

-- Hugh (hugh@inspired.com), August 10, 2004.

Hugh, I hope your relationship with God is sound because quite frankly you are not a very nice person and Catholics like yourself are a poor advertisement for your church. It is people like you that keep people away from Catholicism. You and people like you are the reason I find it difficult to accept Catholicism as the whole Truth. Maybe you should think about that. There is a bit in the Bible about being a stumbling block.....think on.

-- Anglican Christian (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), August 10, 2004.

Dear Anglican,

While I agree that there is such a thing as tact, Hugh didn't say anything untrue. Those are the straightforward facts, however bluntly stated. Your Church was formed by men, who rejected the authority Christ gave to His Church, the structure He gave to His Church, the sacraments He gave to His Church, and some of the Christian doctrinal truth He gave to His Church.

You asked me: "Are you qualified to make a pronouncement of the validity of an individuals relationship with Christ?" The answer obviously is no. However, since my previous posts didn't mention anything about the validity of an individual's relationship with Christ, I don't know why you are asking that. The only questions of validity I raised were in refence to the priesthood and the "eucharist" of your church, both of which are of human origin, and objectively invalid.

You ask "Is there meeting with Christ in the Eucharist more valid than mine just because they are Catholic." In fact, that specific aspect of their relationship with Christ IS more valid, not "because they are Catholics", but because the Eucharist they receive is the true Eucharist, not merely a symbolic representation of it.

You say "I would never presume to judge the depth and validity of an individuals experience and relationship with God because that is something that is between the individual and God." That is exactly right, and I likewise would never presume to do so in any specific case. However, in general terms it is true that the sacraments, especially the true Eucharist, are the principle means Christ gave us to come into a deeper relationship with Him. Therefore, those who reject the sacramental life which exists in the one true Church He founded for all men are spiritually handicapped, and that fact is bound to affect the depth of relationship with God that they are capable of attaining. This has been witnessed to time and time again by Protestants who have come to the Catholic Church. While Protestant they professed to a great depth of faith and relationship with Christ, and I don't question the faith and relationship they had. But I do know that much more is available in the Catholic Church than in any Protestant church; and such converts likewise discover that much greater depth of faith and relationship is available, which is exactly why they convert. They reach the limits of faith and relationship that is available in denominational religion, and they are hungry for more. That's when the Holy Spirit guides them home.

You say "I understand that the Catholicism believes itself to be the only source of Truth". You understand incorrectly. Catholicism is not the "source" of truth. Its founder, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, is the source of truth. The Church He founded is simply the recipient and repository of that truth, charged by Him with preaching that truth and making disciples of all men.

You say, "I will not accept the claim that my relationship with God is not valid just because I am not Catholic." Again, no-one has made any judgements regarding your personal relationship with God. It may well be deeper and more meaningful than the relationships many nominal Catholics have with God. But the fact remains that the fullness of Christian faith and the fullness of relationship with God can be found in the Church He personally founded as the channel of salvation for all men. And nowhere else.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 10, 2004.

Steve, you wrote :

A Catholic¡¦s meeting with Christ in the Eucharist may not be ¡§more valid¡¨ than an Anglican¡¦s meeting with Christ in the Anglican communion service, but it is definitely more real.

I would like to know how something which is invalid can be more real than something else? If something is invalid, how can it be real? Also, how can there be degrees of reality? Either something is real, or it is not. I would tend to think that validity and reality are absolute, not relative.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), August 11, 2004.

Yeah, you got me Olly. That's what I get for trying to be polite. OK, how's this? An Anglican communion service may be a valid experience of God for someone who takes part in it, but it is invalid as the Sacrament of the Eucharist, because Jesus' presence in it is not real.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 11, 2004.

So the Christ I meet powerfully in the Eucharist is not the 'real' Jesus? Who is He then that commands my soul? Who is He that reveals Himself as Christ crucified. Who is He that stirs my Spirit and visits my inmost being?

Where two or three are gathered in MY NAME there AM I in the midst of them.

A promise made to all who call on His Name not just Catholics.

Even so, Come Lord Jesus.

-- Anglican Christian (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), August 11, 2004.

It may well be the real Jesus who is symbolized in your communion service. But the true Eucharist IS the real Jesus, present in the flesh! That's the difference, and what a profound difference it is!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 11, 2004.

A promise made to all who call on His Name not just Catholics

No one claimed that only Catholics have valid sacraments: the Orthodox also have valid sacraments.

We are refering to your protestant 'communion' when we say that it is not the real presence.

-- Hugh (hugh@inspired.com), August 11, 2004.

Hi Anglican Christian,

No one is questioning your real spiritual experience and the blessings you have received from our sweet Lord.

The Eucharist for a Catholic is more than Jesus' spiritual presence, we believe the bread and wine in the Mass to be His actual body, blood, soul, and divinity. So He is present in a physical as well as a spiritual sense. This is how we define His "real presence."

The reason we say this only occurs in the Catholic liturgy is because we believe this only happens when the consecration is performed by a validly ordained minister. I don't think the Catholic Church recognizes the ordination of Anglican ministers. I think this might be why Catholics do recognize that Jesus is spiritually present in the Anglican liturgy, but not wholly present: body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 11, 2004.

The reason we say this only occurs in the Catholic liturgy

This is not true. This also happens in Orthodox liturgy

this only happens when the consecration is performed by a validly ordained minister.

It requires a validly ordained priest. A deacon is a validly ordained minister, yet cannot perform the consecration!

I don't think the Catholic Church recognizes the ordination of Anglican ministers.

It does not and the Anglican Communion does not recognise the sacramentality of Holy Orders themselves anyway!

I think this might be why Catholics do recognize that Jesus is spiritually present in the Anglican liturgy,

Do we? More so than anyone reading from a prayer book at home?

but not wholly present: body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist.

His real presence is absent.

-- Hugh (hugh@inspired.com), August 11, 2004.

Thanks again Hugh. Good corrections/clarifications of my post. I know its important to get this right.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 11, 2004.

I must admit though, yours have a much more friendly tone :-)

God bless

Hugh

-- Hugh (hugh@inspired.com), August 11, 2004.

It is important to accurately decribe Catholic teaching and belief. I continue to learn by reading and dropping in on this forum on a regular basis.

I also think there is alot to be said about the manner in which we as Catholics educate others about our faith. It can be helpful and enlightening for them, or counterproductive in that it drives them away feeling hurt or angry.

That being said I think Andy does a nice job of explaining Catholic teaching without being derogatory. Getting our point across can be accomplished without negating the value of anothers faith and effectively closing their eyes to ours.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), August 11, 2004.

Jim, Amen to that! I agree, Andy is an asset to this forum and his comments are always charitable and informative. What a blessing so many people here have been to my life.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 11, 2004.

I'm a little bit confused so please help me out here. On the one hand Catholics are saying that the spiritual presence of Christ is not ncessarily the "real" presence. What does that mean? If Christ is spiritually present, then He really is present is He not? I don't think it's a figment of one's imagination.

Secondly, by real presence, do you mean physical presence?

Thirdly, if you say that Christ is physically present, then would you concede that this infers that the bread has undergone a physical change? If not, why not?

Fourthly, if the bread has undergone a physical change, does that mean that tests would come up positive for a fleshy type substance, or can we still positively test for starch etc as is the case with bread?

Fifthly, if you say that by substance, you do not refer to substance by physicality, and if, going by point one, you make a distinction between spiritual presence, and real presence, then this would suggest that the real presence is neither referring to a physical, nor spiritual presence. If this is the case, what kind of presence is it?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), August 11, 2004.

Good questions Oliver - I await the answers with great anticipation. Andy - Thanks - you put your point across in a way that conducive to healthy debate and not in a way that offends. Thanks for that. With your answers I am able to look at what you are saying and think and pray about it without feeling offended.

-- Anglican Christian (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), August 12, 2004.

Christ is physically present in the Eucharist because the form in which He is present is physical. It can be seen, touched, eaten. However, the change that occurs at the consecration, while actual (real), is not physical. There is no physical change in the bread and wine. Physically they remain bread and wine, but actually (in essence) they become the Body and Blood of the risen Savior. The change that occurs is spiritual, yet results in a physical presence because the matter in which the spiritual change occurs is physical matter, and that physical matter is truly, though not physically, transformed into different substance (transubstantiation).

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 12, 2004.

So are you saying that the bread and wine changes substance spiritually? Since the Catholic church does not believe in co- substantiation, I'd like to know, what essentially has the bread and wine lost in consecration to no longer be essentially bread or wine?

I guess it confuses me cos when u say that the essence , though not physical, is Christ's flesh, flesh is essentially a physical thing, not spiritual. There's nothing spiritual about flesh.

Also, even were I to have a strand of Christ's hair, I would not bow down and worship it, because that is something of the flesh, and is not His person.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), August 12, 2004.

"“How can this man give us His flesh to eat?…This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”…After this many of His disciples drew back and no longer went about with Him." (John 6) Yes, the Real Presence of Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist has always been a stumbling block, “to the Jews an abomination, to the Greeks, madness.”

Oliver, you could probably engage forever in theological speculation about what EXACTLY happens to the Eucharistic species when it is consecrated. A wise man once said “I would rather FEEL contrition than be able to define it.” Similarly, I would rather truly believe that I receive the real body and blood of Christ, than to be able to define exactly how it happens, which is ultimately impossible in terms of human reason.

No, I would not worship a preserved lock of Christ's hair either. But in the Eucharist we have the LIVING body and blood of our LIVING Savior, who gives life to us.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 12, 2004.

Oliver, you could probably engage forever in theological speculation about what EXACTLY happens to the Eucharistic species when it is consecrated. A wise man once said ¡§I would rather FEEL contrition than be able to define it.¡¨ Similarly, I would rather truly believe that I receive the real body and blood of Christ, than to be able to define exactly how it happens, which is ultimately impossible in terms of human reason.

Actually Steve, I'm just trying to see what the Catholic position is. I don't want to misrepresent it, so this is why I'm asking the questions. I have a problem with the word "real" being used because it seems from this thread that the "spiritual" presence of Christ is not the "real" presence of Christ.

I really wonder why that is, and I still don't feel satisfied with the answers I have been given. Secondly, the word "actual" and "essence" seem to be thrown about quite freely as well but I have yet to find an adequate explanation of what this really means.

Our Anglican friend has been told that he might have a valid experience of the spirtual presence of Christ, but that experience is not real. I really find this confusing. Am I being difficult? If so, I have no intention of being difficult, and I do apologise if I seem to have conveyed such an attitude.

Co-substantiation means that the bread and the flesh co-exist. Trans-subtantiation means that the bread no longer exists but has been changed into wine. Then I'm told that no physical change has taken place but rather a spiritual one. But hang on, the bread doesn't have a spirit, and if the bread is still physically bread, then it's essence hasn't changed has it, or am I missing something here ? Does bread have some kind of spiritual dimension to it?

Btw, I don't believe in the doctrine of co-substantiation, but I'm just trying to get my head around things here. Please bear with me.

No, I would not worship a preserved lock of Christ's hair either. But in the Eucharist we have the LIVING body and blood of our LIVING Savior, who gives life to us.

Ok, so the body/blood is living. Are you speaking in physical terms or spiritual terms? And again, we are talking about a thing, not a person. I worship a person, not a body part, not a piece of flesh, not a blood clot.

Let's suppose someone kept the consecrated host instead of eating it, and put the host on the shelf. Will that host ever decay ? And if so, is the living flesh still present?

On another note. Why would you say the body/blood is living if this is supposed to be the blood/flesh that suffered death at the crucifixion?

I hope I'm not offending anyone with all these questions. I truly just want to know the Catholic position more clearly because there are a lot of things I don't understand. Thanks to everyone for the responses so far and for those in the future.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), August 12, 2004.

Hi MaryLu,

I think this gal must really ache for the real thing otherwise she wouldn't even be asking this question, or "stealing" the Eucharist. What is her underlying reason for not going ahead and taking the plunge, crossing the Tiber, and becoming Catholic?

I must say I have been tempted over the last year, while awaiting my anulment from a previous marriage, to go to a parish far away and sneak up to the altar BUT I didn't, because I have too much respect for the blood, and didn't want to dishonor the Lord in anyway. I do, however, understand the yearning.

BTW, folks, this weekend at the Feast of the Assumption, my husband and I will finally, officially, become members of the Holy Catholic Church!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 12, 2004.

WOW Gail, congratulations! You will both be in my prayers!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 12, 2004.

That’s OK Oliver, I’m glad you’re interested enough to try to get to the heart of the matter. I don’t claim any expertise on the theology of the Eucharist but:

- The Church speaks of the "Real presence" of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist – His "body, blood, soul and divinity". You are having difficulty with the words “real” and “actual”. These adjectives depend for their meaning on the noun they are qualifying. I’m sure Anglicans can have a “real experience” of Jesus in their communion services and in many other ways, but only in the valid Eucharist can anyone physically take into their own body the real body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.

- No the bread doesn’t have a spiritual dimension. Its substance (or if you will, its essence) changes when it is consecrated. But its appearance does not change. It still seems bread to our physical senses (sight, touch, smell, taste). If you tested it in a lab you would find only the same constituents the bread had before consecration. Yes if you left it on a shelf it would decay at its usual rate, and yes it would remain the body of Christ until it decayed to nothing. What we receive in the Eucharist is not “a body PART” or a blood clot, but the whole Jesus. Even the smallest portion of the Eucharistic Host (OR of the consecrated wine) is the whole body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

- “Why would you say the body/blood is living if this is supposed to be the blood/flesh that suffered death at the crucifixion?” Come on, you don’t need to ask this. Jesus’ body rose from the dead and now lives forever. If this didn't happen the Eucharist, and indeed our whole faith, would be meaningless

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 12, 2004.

I'm with you Oliver, btw I'm female not a he!

I don't want to offend anyone either I'm just struggling with the concept. If the Host is what you say it is - what was it at the Last Supper while Christ was still physically present? At its institution was the bread and wine symbolic or not?

-- Anglican Christian (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), August 13, 2004.

Luther believed in "real presence." Its my understanding, that he did not like the specifics of "transubstantiation."

Not from a standpoint of "validity,"---- how does our conception of "transubstantiation" differ from the Lutheran belief in "real presence?"

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), August 13, 2004.

The Lutheran belief is consubstantiation. They believe that at the moment of consecration Jesus becomes intimately associated with, or enters into the bread and wine in such a way that when you receive the bread and wine you truly receive Him as well. But the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine.

The Catholic belief is transubstantiation. At the moment of consecration the bread and wine BECOME the body and blood of Christ, just as He said ... "this IS my body ... this IS my blood". After the words of consecration are spoken there is no longer any bread or wine on the altar, only the body and blood of Christ.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 13, 2004.

Great questions Olly and Anglican Christian and great answers Hugh, Steve, and Paul M! It’s a pleasure to converse with other Christians in such charity. I’m learning a lot reading this whole discussion. I wholeheartedly believe the Eucharist to be THE foundation of Catholicism.

I’ve personally struggled to understand the Catholic concept of the Eucharist most of my life (I still do). I’m going to speak only for myself and share some things on how I understand it based on my imperfect knowledge and struggles with this idea of transubstantiation. As always, I honestly welcome corrections and clarification to my post. I certainly don’t want to water down Catholic belief in an attempt to explain it. And my understanding is certainly imperfect, and may be wrong in some aspects.

I’ve come to understand “transubstantiation” and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as being along the lines of the Incarnation. How can this man named Jesus be God? He is fully man yet fully God at the same time. My guess is that if a full medical analysis was done on Jesus, we would see him to be an ordinary man. His hometown could not believe Him to be God. They saw Him as just a man. Only by faith can anyone see Jesus as God. If you or I saw Christ walking on the street in the flesh at that time, we might easily have seen Him as an ordinary man. We only might have seen something special about Him after He spoke the words of God or performed miracles. In other words, only after we saw Him in faith.

Likewise, it is only by faith that I have come to believe that Christ “IS” the Eucharist. He does not coexist with the bread and wine. He “IS” the bread and wine. This happens during Mass when the bread and wine are consecrated. Because the Eucharistic bread and wine is as much Christ as when He stood with the Apostles after His Resurrection and breathed the Holy Spirit upon them, I should be moved to adore Him in this form. I don’t adore the bread and wine, I adore Christ who has humbled Himself to take the form of bread and wine so that He can commune with me in a very physical AND spiritual way. In my mind, the Eucharist isn’t just the “pieces” of Christ (body, blood, soul, and divinity) in the form of bread and wine, but the whole Christ, the union of all these in that form. Christ gives Himself to us totally in this form. When I say totally, I mean He gives His whole being to us in the Eucharist. The Risen Christ is more than just spirit. He is man and God completely united. He is union of physical and spiritual. Union, as in one. Not two parts mixed together in a mixture, but one. He holds nothing back so we may consume Him and commune with Him.

Christ appeared to be a normal human, but He was God. Likewise, the Eucharist appears to be normal bread and wine, but it is He. The difference between Jesus’ presence when two or more are gathered in His name, and His Real Presence in the Eucharist is the difference between meeting Christ spiritually in community prayer and meeting Him as the disciples did on the Road to Emmaus. They spoke with him “in the flesh” before their eyes were opened and they knew Him in the breaking of the bread. He was with them in a very spiritual and physical (i.e., real) way on the road to Emmaus.

Because Christ takes the form of bread and wine so we may consume Him, He speaks to us differently in this form than when He spoke in human form. The effect he has on our souls though, is very real as long as we have faith and do not obstruct the grace He freely gives to us.

Just some thoughts on how I understand the Eucharist. I hope to gain a better understanding from this discussion. I hope I just haven’t added more confusion to the whole thing.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 13, 2004.

Congratulations Gail! I will keep you and your husband in my prayers too.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 13, 2004.

Andy

You haven't added to the confusion, that was very helpful. The parallel of Jesus being both fully God and fully man as compared with the Eucharist, helped to clear some of the recurring clouds that obscur my own understanding, as well as my ability to explain it to others. Usually after describing it the best I can, I then go to "well, its a mystery of faith." Your example fills in many blanks.

-- Jim (furst @flash.net), August 13, 2004.

Congratulations Gail!!! I am so excited for you. As for me, I have to wait until Easter, but you have been waiting much longer. May the Lord bless you! I will pray for you and your family. Is your daughter joining too? I remember that you said you have a young daughter.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

Hi Gail,

Congratulations!! I know your perseverence strengthens many including myself. Thank you for sharing.

Andy,

You've made a number of great posts recently. Just want you to know I really enjoyed them.

Emily,

8 months can go so really fast for me! Hope you keep strength and above all else be happy :)

God Bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 13, 2004.

Thanks Andy. I have to say that is the first time I've really grasped this particular Catholic belief. I still don't quite understand what the Bread and wine were at that very first Eucharist - the last supper - while Christ himself was still physically present. Are you saying that at that time the bread and wine also became the Body and Blood even though Jesus was right there with them and His Sacrifice was still to come?

Thanks everyone for your answers so far - I think I'm beginning to get my head around it all!

-- Anglican Christian (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), August 16, 2004.

Yes, Christ gave the Apostles his body and blood at the Last Supper. God is not constrained by time, so it didn’t matter that Christ’s death and Resurrection had not yet occurred in time. When we receive the Eucharist, we share in His death and Resurrection. The events of Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Sunday are in fact really all the same event to God, but He separated them into three so that we humans can gain a (limited) understanding of what it means.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 16, 2004.

Steve, Do Catholics believe that Christ Himself ate His own flesh and drunk His own blood?

Would you suggest that there were two "Christs" present at the Lord's supper ? One being the consecrated bread/wine and the other Christ Himself as seen in person? Or many Christs ? Since each piece of bread is wholly Christ ? Or just one Christ who is embodied in the flesh as manifested in person, the consecrated bread, and wine ?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), August 16, 2004.

Oliver,

Steve writes that God is not constrained by time. I believe this already answers your questions. Time and space are codependent for the human observer. An object cannot be at two places any given time. It can be in different places at different times.

Christ being God is neither constrained by space or time. Therefore, Christ could be present in the whole universe as the whole universe if He so chose to, or whatever else He wants to do. It's not our place to know or decide.

Steve, Do Catholics believe that Christ Himself ate His own flesh and drunk His own blood?

It's not necessary for Catholics to know this. For the sake of discussion, let's say the answer is "yes" to your question because apparently he did, in human terms. Does that change your perception of Him? I don't think it should. It certainly won't allow us to make value judgements of Him. Who are we to say?

I really don't think it's necessary to know the answer to this question.

Christ can be anywhere and everywhere He wants to be.

God bless you,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 16, 2004.

Christ is now simultaneously present at the right hand of the Father, and on the altar in the form of the consecrated species. Therefore He could easily be present to the disciples both in his earthly body and in the form of the consecrated species. He is God after all. He can be present anywhere and in any form He wishes.

No, Christ did not consume His own body and blood. There would have been no reason for Him to do so, and there is no indication that He did so. Scripture says He "GAVE IT TO THEM, saying 'take this and eat it, for this is my body'".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 17, 2004.

Also in the OT, Jesus' coming in this manner was foreshadowed. This occurred when the Israelites ate the Passover Lamb or the priests ate the consecrated bread or "Bread of the Presence." (Ex. 25:30, Lev 24:5-9, 1 Sam 21:6). If God's Presence could exist in these things way before Christ even came to Earth, at the hands of mere men, then why not at the very hands of Jesus during the Lord's Supper? God is not bound by time. Jesus' sacrifice was "once for all time," ie. a perpetual sacrifice. In Revelation, we see that Jesus is the Lamb as though he had been slain, in heaven!

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.