The Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ

This Sunday we commemorate the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.  And for this occasion I thought I’d bring out another solid argument on the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist.

In today’s second reading we find Paul reciting what he was told about Jesus’ words at the Last Supper but what you don’t hear is the explanation on why this is not a mere symbolic remembrance.  At the end of today’s reading, the very next verse and following we find Paul stating: 

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.  Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.  That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” (1 Cor 11:27-30)

The clue that precludes a mere symbolic understanding of the Eucharist is St. Paul’s usage of “guilty of blood,” which is a figure of speech connoting murder (Nm 35:27; Ez 35:6).  One incurs the “guilt of blood” only if the victim is present in person.  If someone fires a gun at a picture of the President of the United States, that person is not guilty of the President’s blood.  But if someone actually shoots the President, then that person is guilty of the President’s blood.

St. Paul says that we are guilty of Jesus’ blood if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily.  Therefore, we cannot conclude that St. Paul understood the Eucharist to be a mere symbol.  He must mean the Eucharist is Jesus present in person, with his body, blood, soul, and divinity.

And lastly, There are several other ways Jesus could have more clearly indicated that His words of institution (This is my body, this is my blood) was symbolism if He had wished to do so.  Aramaic [Jesus’ native language] has around three-dozen words that can mean ‘represents.’  That’s why Paul warns us that we are to discern the body (if we partake in an unworthy manner, then we are guilty of the blood of Christ.  Now, how can we ‘discern’ the body if it’s merely a symbol?  We can’t!  We are to discern the body in the Eucharist because the Eucharist IS the body.

God Bless

Nathan

Adapted from a Catholic Answers Newsletter

Missed it by That Much - Dollar on Holy Communion

I happened to be listening to TBN this morning and Creflo Dollar came on with a show on how to read the Bible properly.  I wasn't overly interested in hearing a Protestant minister telling me how to read the Bible, but I left it on while I got up to do the dishes I left in the sink the night before.  Then I overheard him talking about 1 Cor. 11:23-34

²³ For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.

²⁴ And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.

²⁵ In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

²⁶ For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

²⁷ Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

²⁸ But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.

²⁹ For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

³⁰ Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

³¹ But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

³² But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.

³³ Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.

³⁴ If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come.

Now, what struck me is that when Dollar came to verse 34, he spoke of the necessity to eat at home so as to not bring the judgment of the Lord upon us.  He stressed this is not due to sin, but due to not understanding what you are receiving in Holy Communion.  OK, at this point I had to pause from the dishes for a moment and give him more of a listen.  He repeated, you don't partake in Holy Communion because you are hungry, physically, and if you do - you are not perceiving the significance and meaning behind Holy Communion!  Yes, Dollar, you have this much right - but (quoting Maxwell Smart/Don Adams from the 1960's TV show, Get Smart) you "Missed it by that much!"  

You, Mr. Dollar, were SO close, but you didn't testify to the reality of what St. Paul was getting to in this passage.  What is it that St. Paul states you would be guilty of?  Verses 27 and 29 makes it clear that one would be unworthy if they did not recognize or discern the body of the Lord.  Not that Holy Communion is symbolic of the body of the Lord - but IS the body of the Lord - and if you do not discern THIS then you are guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.  The Eucharist is not just symbolism - but reality.  St. Paul uses the same words of consecration as do the earlier apostolic references - recording (again) Christ's own words testifying this IS the body of Christ and this IS the blood of Christ given to us so that the sins of the many may be forgiven.  Come to the reality of the fullness of the Truth - which you're not receiving from any Protestant reading of Scripture.  Yes, many of you come close - but "you missed it by that much" and the part which should scare you and convince you is what you touched upon in 1 Cor. 11:29 - that Holy Communion is not just a symbol, it IS the body and blood of our Lord.  You need to join with us in that proper discernment and flee from those who do not properly perceive and those who lack the faith to believe that Jesus Christ gave to us this ceremony of the Mass which consecrates mere bread and wine to become His body and blood.

Constant Teaching of the Church

The Constant teaching of the Church

Individuals can make mistakes or misunderstand their teachers BUT the fact that we find a continuous and unbroken chain of believing in the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist is extremely strong evidence that this belief was in existence from the very first moments of Christian history.

I mean, a follower of Jesus could reject what He taught but the others who were taught directly by Jesus would not teach the same error.

Let’s go back through time to find what Christians believed on the Real Presence. In our Catechism, the official teaching of the Church on the Eucharist, we find: the catechism quoting the council of Trent from 1551 that the belief in the real presence to have been at least from 1551 to today:

1551 AD

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again , that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

The Reformation brought on the need for the Council of Trent because many started teaching contrary to the Church on many matters including the Real Presence. But what about before that time?

431 AD

Council of Ephesus

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all.  And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

c.400 AD

"[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: 'This is My Body and this is My Blood.' Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ." (Marcus the Magnesian)

c. 370 AD

"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. " (St Augustine)

325 AD

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] s hould give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it] " (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

212 AD

The flesh is anointed, so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed, so that the soul too may be fortified. The flesh is shaded by the imposition of hands, so that the soul too may be illuminated by the Spirit. The flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God. (Tertullian)

c.180 AD

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.  When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the Body of Christ , and from these the substance of our body is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life. (Ireaneus of Lyons)

c. 150 AD

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. (St Justin Martyr)

c.110

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ , who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible . (Ignatius of Antioch)

Or

They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Ignatius of Antioch)

Now consider this, Ignatius learned from the Apostles themselves. Did he misunderstand them? Isn’t it much more likely that he remembered what he was taught and taught others who would succeed him as Justin Martyr did, and Irenaeus, Augustine even councils speaking for the whole church teaching as the first followers of the original Apostles taught and all speaking with one voice on the matter?

Corpus Christi

Truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ

Individuals can make mistakes or misunderstand their teachers BUT the fact that we find a continuous and unbroken chain of Christians believing in the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist is not only extremely strong evidence that this belief was in existence from the very first moments of Christian history but that it was taught by the Apostles themselves.

 

I mean, a follower of Jesus could reject what He taught but the others who were taught directly by Jesus would not all teach the same error.

 

Let’s go back through time to find what Christians believed on the Real Presence.

 

In our Catechism, the official teaching of the Church on the Eucharist, we find the catechism quoting the council of Trent from 1551 which means that the belief in the real presence to have been existence for at least from 1551 to today:

 

Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again , that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

 

The Reformation brought on the need for the Council of Trent because many started teaching contrary to the Church on many matters including the Real Presence. But what about before that time?

 

431 AD

Council of Ephesus

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all.  And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius)

 

 

c.400 AD

"[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: 'This is My Body and this is My Blood.' Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ." (Marcus the Magnesian)

 

c. 370 AD

"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. " (St Augustine)

 

325 AD

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it] " (Canon 18).

 

212 AD

The flesh is anointed, so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed, so that the soul too may be fortified. The flesh is shaded by the imposition of hands, so that the soul too may be illuminated by the Spirit. The flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God. (Tertullian)

 

c.180 AD

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the Body of Christ , and from these the substance of our body is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life.” (Ireaneus of Lyons)

 

c. 150 AD

“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” (St Justin Martyr)

 

 

c.110

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.” (Ignatius of Antioch)

 

Or

 

“They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.” (Ignatius of Antioch)

 

Now consider this, Ignatius learned from the Apostles themselves. Did he misunderstand them? Isn’t it much more likely that he remembered what he was taught and taught others who would succeed him as Justin Martyr did, and Irenaeus, Augustine even councils speaking for the whole church teaching as the first followers of the original Apostles taught and all speaking with one voice on the matter? The fact of the matter is the belief of the presence of the Body and Blood of being truly present in the Eucharist is a belief found throughout the two millennia of Christian history and without break.  The idea of a symbolic presence only in the Eucharist is a novelty, a tradition of man.

 

God Bless

Nathan

Missed past week’s leaflets?  Questions?  Comments? 

Come visit our Blog at www.parishofthepreciousblood.blogspot.com
 Prepared by a St.Denis parishioner

The Real Presence, Part 4

“A type is a person, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something to come later in time.  It is like a taste or hint of something that will be fulfilled or realized.  Types are like pictures that come alive in a new and exciting way when seen through the eyes of Christ’s revelation.”  The type is always lesser than the anti-type.  The anti-type (New Testament event) is always greater than its type (shadow of an event in the Old Testament).  And both are independent of each other.

Many of the first Christians used this method to find new insights in the Scriptures.  We see these ‘types’, or ‘figures’ or examples in many places in Scripture like in 1 Cor 10:11 and Heb 11:19 for example.

One of these instances can be found in the Gospel of Matthew where we see that the Egyptian Exodus told in Hosea 11:1 is quoted exactly in Matt 2:15 when speaking of Jesus’ return to Israel from Egypt: “where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."”

What Matthew has done here is he took an historical event and interpreted it as a shadow of something greater to come in the future, which he sees as ‘fulfilled’ in the person of Jesus the Messiah.

Other examples of Jesus Christ type/antitype pairs are: 

A) Jonah in the belly of the whale is a type of Christ in the tomb.  For Jonah stayed in the belly for three days as did Christ stay buried for three days until His resurrection as Jesus explained Himself “In the same way that Jonah spent three days and nights in the big fish, so will the Son of Man spend three days and nights in the depths of the earth. “(Matt 12:40)

 

B)  The deadly bites of serpents are healed by the brazen serpent, which was lifted up that those bitten might look at it and live (Num 21:9).  Jesus Himself gives the explanation of this: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believes in Him may not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:14)

 

C)  In God’s request that Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen 22:2) we find another type of Christ.  The birth of both was supernatural (remember, Abraham was a hundred years old and Sarah an elderly woman when she bore Isaac).  Both are sons of promise.  Both were called “the only begotten son.” Both carried the wood of their own demise up the same mountain, Moriah.  Both consented to endure death.  Both were bound.  Both were offered by their fathers.  Both were laid on the wood.  Both were in the vigor of life, and both live again after the offering.

 

D)  Melchizadek is another type of Christ.  We see evidence of this in Heb 6:20 “On our behalf Jesus has gone in there before us and has become a high priest forever, in the priestly order of Melchizedek.”  and “Melchizedek, who was king of Salem and also a priest of the Most High God, brought bread and wine to Abram [whose name was later changed to Abraham] and blessed him, and said, "May the Most High God, who made heaven and earth, bless Abram!”(Gen 14:18)

In the Paschal lamb which the Israelites were commanded to eat as part of the Passover celebration is another strong foreshadowing of Christ.  Each family is commanded to take a lamb without blemish and to sacrifice it (Exo 12:7-8).  The lamb was to be roasted and eaten with unleavened bread and wild lettuce.  The Paschal Lamb prefigured symbolically Christ, “The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).

We can agree that Jesus is a priest forever of the order of Melchizedek (Heb 6:20), and that he is also the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29) because we find these statements in Holy Scripture.  By putting these to types together we see that Jesus is a priest forever but also the sacrificial lamb to atone for our sins.  Jesus as priest offers up to God a perfect sacrifice to atone for our sins, Himself.  That sacrifice, as in the Passover sacrifice of the lamb, we are to EAT the lamb.  Now, how are we to eat the lamb when the sacrifice is in the form of bread and wine?  We find the solution in Jesus’ own words in the Last Supper when He raises up the bread and then the wine and says: “this is my body…this is my blood”.  The bread and wine presented and consecrated is transformed into the body and blood of our Lord but in keeping the same form of bread and wine!  A perfect fulfillment of both types including a third type where Jesus calls Himself the true bread of Heaven which gives eternal life! John 6:48-50 states “I am the bread of life.  Your ancestors ate manna in the desert, but they died.  But the bread that comes down from heaven is of such a kind that whoever eats it will not die.”

The difference between Christ’s death on the cross – the event- and the Eucharist – the sacrament – is the difference between history and liturgy.  The historical event happened once and it will never again be repeated (Heb 9:25-26).  The liturgical sacrament, however, not only keeps the past from being forgotten; through it the Eucharist of history – Jesus’ passion and death – is made present again.  While his act of physical death will never be repeated, Jesus’ act of total self-giving to the Father for us (Rom 8:32) continues eternally in Love – that is, the Holy Spirit.

This moment in salvation history is the culmination of all of Scripture.  As the Israelites were to sacrifice and eat the Passover lamb, so now are we to re-present His sacrifice forever in the form of bread and wine and eat His body and drink His blood because HE is the perfect sacrificial Lamb that we are to eat for our salvation (John 6:51).  As the first Isrealites had to eat the sacrificial lamb, so too must we do the same.

 

God Bless
Nathan

The Real Presence, Part 3

Third reason to believe:  Scripture

For Scriptural verses supporting the Real Presence I will reference only two sections of our Bible.  John chapter 6, verse 51 and 1 Cor 11. 

JOHN 6 (Bread of Life Discourse)

Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. ³⁶ But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. ³⁷ All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

-- Jews grumble at this.--

[…]
 ⁴⁷ Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. ⁴⁸ I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. ⁵⁰ But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
⁵² Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
⁵³ Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ⁵⁴ Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. ⁵⁵ For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. ⁵⁶ Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. ⁵⁷ Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. ⁵⁸ This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” ⁵⁹ He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus⁶⁰ On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

⁶¹ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? ⁶² Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! ⁶³ The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit^[e] and life. ⁶⁴ Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. ⁶⁵ He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

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

1)       The first thing to notice is “what else could Jesus have said to make it any more plain?”  Six times He tells them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.  6 times!

 

2)       Second, He doesn’t correct those that leave Him for misunderstanding Him since they thought He spoke literally while He supposedly spoke only symbolically.  My question is: why didn’t He say so before they left Him?

 

3)       Thirdly, the apostle John recounts Jesus using two different words when speaking of ‘eating’ His flesh.  In the beginning of His discourse He uses the word “PHAGO” which is defined as ‘eat’ and which can sometimes be taken symbolically.  But when the Jews have difficulty accepting Jesus’ second attempt at clarifying His teaching Jesus switches to the word “TROGO” in verse 54 when speaking of ‘eating’ His flesh, a word which is NEVER used symbolically in Scripture and means to ‘munch, gnaw or crunch’ His Flesh making it extremely clear that Jesus was speaking literally.

And so Jesus let the Jews leave because they understood Him correctly, they just couldn’t accept this ‘hard teaching.’

My favorite verse of the whole ‘Bread of Life’ discourse is verse 51.

Verse 51 of John 6 says this: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven.  If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”

Jesus is the living bread.  We are to eat this bread.  This bread that He gives for us to eat is the flesh that He will give for the life of the world.    If the bread is symbolically His flesh then the flesh that He gives for the life of the world must be symbolic as well.  That’s how Jesus describes it.  Was the flesh on the cross symbolic? Or real?  The flesh that we are to eat, is it symbolic or real?  If the flesh on the cross is real then the bread that we are to eat is that same flesh.

In 1 Corinthians 11, verse 27.  Paul writes to the Corinthians about eating the bread and drinking of the cup unworthily, to do that is to be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.  Paul explains it this way: “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”  How can one sin against the body and blood by eating and drinking unworthily of the bread and wine UNLESS the bread and wine are now the body and blood of the Lord.

Two verses later, verse 29, Paul explains how it can be a sin to eat and drink unworthily.  It’s a sin because: “…anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”  How can one DISCERN the body of the Lord in the bread if its NOT the body of the Lord?  To discern it as the body of the Lord means that the bread is, in fact, the body of the Lord.

And the last Scriptural verse that I want to bring to prove the Real Presence in the Eucharist are from the words of God Himself at the Last Supper.  Jesus raised the bread and said “This IS my Body.”  He didn’t say that the bread was just a symbol, a sign or a figure of His body.  He lifted up the bread and said “this IS my Body”.  He never pointed to a door and said “This is my body”.   God Himself said “Let there be light.  And there was light”.  God the Son said “This is my body” and so, no matter what our senses might tell us, we are obliged to believe Him.  That His Word has power.  For God, to say it is so…makes it so.

 

God Bless

Nathan

The Real Presence, Part 2

Last week we learned that we do in fact have extra-ordinary events, by that I mean unexplainable by scientific means, that prove the message of the True Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. But as the Lord said to ‘doubting’ Thomas when he finally touched the wounds of Christ and believed: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Many have done just that, they have believed even when their senses tell them otherwise.   And so I come to my second reason to believe, its history.  We find in the writings of the early Christians, people throughout history who believed in the actual presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.  This belief is a continuous belief from the very first generation of Christians to today.  Those writings where they speak of others who do not believe in the True Presence are the beliefs of those who no one from today would even consider being Christians.  For 1500 years, until the Reformation, all Christians believed in the True Presence.  Here are a few quotes for your consideration…

A quote from St Ignatius of Antioch who heard the Apostle John speak and was the second successor of the Apostle Peter at Antioch.  He wrote in c.110 AD:

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us.  They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty.  They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness raised from the dead.” (Letter to the Ephesians, par. 20)

Here is a second quote from Ignatius:

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life.  I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

St Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy.  He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.  He said:

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us.  For we do not receive these things as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from Him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”(First Apology, Ch. 66, c. 150 AD)

Cyril of Jerusalem at 350 AD said:

“He once in Cana of Galilee, turned water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?” 

Here’s another by Cyril:
“Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.”

I could go on but in the interest of time I will give you one last quote from an early Christian considered a saint and hero by many in the Protestant community.  St Augustine lived in the late fourth century at a time where great discussions were under way in determining which books actually belonged in our Bible.  He had no small part in cementing the canon of Books for the whole Christian community.  What he said on how he understood the words of our Lord at the Last Supper when He said “This is my Body” is my favorite quote on the Eucharist by an Early Church Father.  He said: “And was carried in His own hands: ‘how was He carried in his own hands’?  Because when He commended His own Body and Blood, He took into His hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said: ‘This is my Body’” (Augustine, on the Psalms, 33:1, c. 400 AD)

We can find this belief in the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist in all 2,000 years of written Christian history from its first years after the Apostles to today.  No one can make that claim for a symbolic presence only.  In fact, you can’t find this understanding of a symbolic presence only about the blessed bread beyond 500 years ago.  Why is that?   Could it be because it simply wasn’t a belief the early Christians entertained, let alone accept in the early years of Christianity?  If that is the case then the belief in a symbolic presence only in the Eucharist should be rejected as the invention of man that it is.  Let us keep to the teachings of the early Christians who learned the faith from the Apostles and ultimately from God incarnate, Jesus Himself.

 

God Bless

Nathan

The Real Presence - Part 1

The Real Presence

First reason to believe, The miracles…

Yes it’s a miracle in the change from bread and wine to the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord but I’ve always wondered why such a miracle is not visible as all the other miracles our Lord did like those described in the Bible as the lame walk and the blind could see. Why is it that the greatest miracle of all, our Lord and God making Himself present to us in such a way as being visible and concrete to our senses, is only seen as ordinary bread and wine? To answer this, I guess we’ll first need to have a closer look as to why miracles happened in the first place.

A miracle was most commonly performed by God for the purpose of convincing the listeners of the authority of the message. That the message does indeed come from God. The splintering of so many different denominations believing differently on key salvific issues is an important factor in showing the most obvious problems of finding the one who is truly speaking God’s Word (In this particular case whether the consecrated bread and wine turns into the actual Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ).

One possible solution to this dilemma in determining who’s got it right is by recognizing that the individual that is being sent directly by God will perform miracles so as to authenticate his message. You see, because there is a definite possibility that many will be deceived into believing that they, themselves, were sent by God, there must be a way to verify their ‘pedigree’, as you can appreciate the difficulty in finding someone teaching God’s Word amidst a sea of different ideologies and beliefs. Indeed, we find many examples of these in the Bible where these individuals, who are sent directly by God, performing supernatural signs to prove they were speaking God’s Word.

Examples like in the Book of Exodus where we find Moses performing miracle upon miracle to convince the Pharaoh to release the Jewish people.

Or in the first Book of Kings, chapter 19, verses 36 through 39 we read:

“Then at the time of the offering, Elijah the prophet came near and said, O Lord, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel, let it be seen this day that you are God in Israel, and that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things by your order. Give me an answer, O Lord, give me an answer, so that this people may see that you are God, and that you have made their hearts come back again. Then the fire of the Lord came down, burning up the offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and drinking up the water in the drain. And when the people saw it, they all went down on their faces, and said, The Lord, he is God, the Lord, he is God.”

But most notably in the Gospel of John, specifically in John 10:37-38 where even Jesus admitted “Do not believe me, then, if I am not doing the things my Father wants me to do. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, you should at least believe my deeds, in order that you may know once and for all that the Father is in me and that I am in the Father."

So why am I speaking of miracles to prove that a message is from above? Because throughout history, our Lord has shown us that he is really present in the Blessed Sacrament. Catholics believe that the consecrated Host is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord, under the appearance of bread and wine. Therefore, Jesus, through many Eucharistic miracles, manifests His Presence in a more tangible way through visible and undeniable miracles. So, in the case of Eucharistic miracles, the miracle itself is the message.

Miracles like in Sienna, Italy on August 17, 1730 where the consecrated Hosts remain unprotected and yet perfectly preserved for over 250 years.

Or in Amsterdam, Holland in 1345 where a Eucharist is thrown into fire overnight and is miraculously unscathed.

Or in Blanot, France on March 31, 1331 where the Eucharist falls out of a woman’s mouth unto an altar rail cloth. The priest tries to recover the Host but all that remains is a large spot of blood the same size and dimensions as the wafer.

Or in Bolsena-Orvieta, Itatly. A priest has difficulties believing in the Real Presence, and blood begins seeping out of the Host upon consecration. Because of this miracle, Pope Urban IV commissioned the feast of Corpus Christi, which is still celebrated today.

As a last example we can look at the Eucharistic miracle which happened in the eighth century in Lanciano, Italy. Again, a priest has doubts about the Real Presence; however, when he consecrates the Host it transforms into flesh and blood. This unexplained event has undergone extensive scientific examination and can only be explained as a miracle. The flesh is actually cardiac tissue which contains arterioles, veins, and nerve fibers. The blood type as in all other approved Eucharistic miracles is type AB!

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs. These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB

In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of fresh normal blood.

The preservation of the Flesh and Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

To read further about these and other Eucharistic miracles please go to therealpresence.org

So we do in fact have extra-ordinary events, by that I mean unexplainable by scientific means, that prove the message of the True Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. But as the Lord said to ‘doubting’ Thomas when he finally touched the wounds of Christ and believed: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Many have done just that, they have believed even when their senses tell them otherwise. And so I come to my second reason to believe, its history.

Next week, we will look at the history of this belief.

God Bless
Nathan

St. Augustine on the Sacrament of the Eucharist

Many protestants tell Catholics that the problem with their theology is that they don't believe things as they are plainly written in Scriptures.  However we say we believe exactly what it says in Scripture, including what our Lord Jesus said in John 6; that our Lord meant exactly what He said, as it is said.  I was reminded of this argument after this Sunday's Gospel reading:

"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."

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"

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. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.  This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."  (John 6:51-58)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXE.HTM

We believe Him and we follow His command to eat His Flesh and drink His blood.  Some protestants also attempt to use out of context quotes from the Church Fathers to try to explain away the Church's 2,000 year old belief in what Jesus actually said.  However, I thought this quote from St. Augustine in the print version of the Compendium: Catechism of the Catholic Church (not in the online version because it is included in commentary to a picture in the print version) makes it quite clear the St. Augustine was in full agreement with the Church believed and still believes on this issue.

"Christ our Lord, who in His suffering offered for us what in His being born He took from us and who has become in eternity the greatest of priests, has commanded that this sacrifice which you see be offered, that is, His Body and Blood.  Indeed, His Body, rent by the lance, poured out water and blood by which He forgave our sins.  Remembering this grace and working out your salvation (which is God then working in you), draw near and become a partaker of this altar with fear and trembling.  See in this bread that very body which hung upon the cross and in this cup that very blood which gushed from His side. 

Even the ancient sacrifices of God's people prefigured in their manifold kinds this unique sacrifice that was to come.  Christ is at the same time the lamb by reason of the innocence of His pure soul and the goat by reason of His flesh which was in the likeness of sinful flesh.  Any other thing which in many and various ways might be prefigured in the sacrifices of the Old Testament points solely to this sacrifice which has been revealed in the New Testament.

      "Take then and eat the Body of Christ since now you have become members of Christ in the body of Christ.  So as not to be cut off, eat that which unites you; so as not to think little of yourself, drink what is the price of your person.  As this food, when you eat and drink of it, is transformed into yourself, so also do you transform yourselves into the body of Christ if you live in obedience and devotion to Him.  He indeed, when His passion was near, celebrated the Passover meal with His disciples.  Taking the bread, He blessed it saying:  This is my body which will be given up for you.  In the same way, after having blessed it, he gave the cup saying:  This is my blood of the new covenant which will be shed for all for the forgiveness of sins.  This you have already read and heard of in the Gospel but you did not know that this Eucharist is the Son Himself.  Now with heart purified in an unstained conscience and with your body bathed in clean water, look to Him and you will be radiant with joy and your faces will not blush with shame."  (Discourse, 228B) --quoted in the Compendium: Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 66

Passover Lamb

The following was posted to CDF and is reposted here with the author's permission and he wishes to be known only as "Nathan."

====================================

PASSOVER LAMB

It all started on that fateful night when the Angel of Death came to kill the first-born son of every family whether Egyptian or Hebrew. The Hebrew people were to sacrifice an unblemished lamb and mark the doorposts and lintel of their homes so that the Angel of Death should 'pass over' their household. *That night marked the birth of the nation of Israel but it also was a picture of a greater birth and a greater sacrifice to come many centuries later; the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death upon the cross as the true Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (*added comment by Phil).

But before going on let's see what John wrote about the circumstances of Jesus' death, the death of the Lamb of God (John 1:29).

John is at the foot of the Cross holding Mary, suffering a mothers grief at losing ones son. John tells us in his account of Jesus'' death that although they broke the legs of the other two being crucified they didn't break those of Jesus "so that the scripture passage might be fulfilled: 'Not a bone of it will be broken.'" Here John is referencing the requirement that the bones of the Passover lamb were not to be broken as found in Exodus 12:46 "You shall not break any of its bones."

We can confidently say that John wants us to link the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross to the first Passover because not only does John mention 'not breaking any bones' but even before that statement John still points to this night of the first Passover when he mentions how Jesus was given wine to quench His thirst by using a sprig of hyssop, the same type of plant used to mark the doorframes with the blood of the sacrificial lambs on that fateful night (Exo 12:22).

So what happened at the first Passover that John would bring us back to this point in time while Jesus is being crucified? Maybe because John wants us to see the connection between the sacrificial lamb (John 1:29) who saved us from the bondage of sin with the lamb who saved the Israelites from the bondage to the Pharaoh in Egypt. Maybe because he believed the same as Paul did when he wrote to Timothy that "All scripture is…useful for teaching… and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16). So we know that the sacrificial system of the Jewish liturgy of the Passover celebration teaches us, trains us in righteousness. We also see in Malachi that this liturgy will be changed and fulfilled or brought to fruition through his prophecy that: "For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts." (Malachi 1:11)

First, we see that at the time the book of Malachi was written, God's name was NOT great among the nations, therefore this is a prophecy of things to come. Second, at the mention of "a pure offering", what is the only pure offering ever brought to His name? Jesus. Third, we see that at that same event incense is also brought. This rules out most Evangelical and Fundamentalist groups as they cannot and do not fulfill this part of the prophecy because they don't use incense in their worship/liturgical ceremonies. And finally, "from the rising of the sun to its setting". All day long in other words. Which worship ceremony uses incense and brings a pure offering all day long (from rising to setting of the sun) all around the world? The Catholic Church is the only church which can claim this.

But what about the pure offering? What are we to do with it when we offer it to God? Well, just look at what John was pointing to when Jesus was dying on the Cross. Look At what the Israelites had to do at the first Passover sacrifice – they to kill the lamb and then eat it (Exo 12:7-8 or Exo 12:43-47). It wasn't enough to sacrifice the lamb and to put its blood on the door frames. To save the first-born sons of each household, they also had to eat the lamb as well. How can we be sure of this? By listening to Jesus' own words of John 6 which states "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.". And to confirm this suspicion, the account of the Last Supper as described by Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul all say the same when holding the unleavened bread once it was blessed. Jesus says "This IS my body...this IS my blood".

God Bless
Nathan