October 30, 2004
The Year of the Eucharist
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . They 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. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. - - St. Ignatius of AntiochWhy this quote? It was written in 110 A.D. by St. Ignatius, who was a follower of St. John the Apostle. And it was written approximately 10 years after the death of St. John the Apostle.
Pope John Paul II has named the next twelve months the “Year of the Eucharist.” This signifies to Catholics that a special emphasis should be placed on understanding and honoring the Eucharist, both personally and as a unified church.
When we post on the Eucharist, typically we get very few comments or arguments. Protestants don’t completely understand the fact that the Eucharist is more defining and divisive than any other Catholic teaching. In fact, the Eucharist is such as difficult teaching that in the Bible when Christ explained it, He lost all of his disciples except the twelve apostles (but you can also count Judas as one lost over the Eucharist).
Why is it so controversial? Because we as Catholics worship the Eucharist. Do we worship bread and wine? No, we worship the second person of the Trinity who actually appears in our churches in the form of bread and wine. If we had but faith, we could see Christ Himself on the altar. I’ve already posted on the Scriptural proof of the Eucharist and on the miracles associated with the Eucharist. But I haven’t said enough about our thirst for God in the Eucharist.
The Catholic Church calls the Eucharist, the “source and summit of the Christian life.” When Christ was asked for a sign to prove He was God, Jesus launches into the Bread of Life discourse of John 6, where he states:
Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed.
Jesus knew this was a hard teaching, but in that discourse He made the teaching clear. Each time Christ says the word “eat,” He strengthens the term – the last instance could be translated “chew” or “gnaw.” And after this discourse all of His disciples leave, because they understand Him literally (and cannibalism is against Jewish law). What does Jesus do? Does He correct them as in other instances where He is misunderstood? Does He say “Wait, I was just speaking metaphorically”? No, Jesus lets them leave, which underlines the importance of this teaching.
We are Christian cannibals in the best sense of the word. Under Jewish law, cannibals were cut off from their people, which is exactly the point. Christ feeds us in a literal way not merely in an intellectual way, but in a personal, intimate, physical way, Christ becomes food that sustains our spiritual lives and holiness. You are what you eat, they say, and I say Amen!
Do you hunger for God? Do you want a closer relationship with Him? You cannot find a more personal relationship than the Eucharist. In the Year of the Eucharist come home to Jesus and depend on Him for sustenance. He is the Bread of Life that you may eat of it and not die. And He is calling you home.
God bless,
Jay
PS – I also created this reference to all of the Scriptures and the early Early Church Fathers comments on the Eucharist.
Posted by Jay at October 30, 2004 01:44 AM | TrackBack |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
No comments, eh?
Posted by: Jay at November 1, 2004 10:18 AMJay,
In another forum there is a discussion about how the word ALL does not have the meaning of totality as some interpret it. This only goes to show that some meanings are lost from the original languages when they are translated into English. We also have to know the style of writing that was used during those times, the idioms that were used, IE Grass meaning a lawn in some circles but in other circles it is slang for a drug ..
You say that "Christ becomes food that sustaines our spiritual lives and holiness." Is the eucharist meant to feed our physical bodies or to nourish our flesh ? According to your statement above it nourishes the Spririt.
You are saying that Jesus was saying that we are to eat His physical flesh to nourish our spirits?
Is that what John 6:57-65 meant. If so what is the meaning of these verses : 62 "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 "It is the (Spirit) who gives life; the (flesh)profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are (Spirit and are life.)
I have noticed and maybe it is because of the way it is translated into English that sometimes there seems to be contradictary statements in the scriptures. This seems to be one of those instances.
You say that Mary knew no sin and never sinned because she was full of Grace and that she remained sinless for life, yet 1 John 1:8 says
" If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
So I guess this verse does not apply to Mary ?
If Mary was sinless then why didn't Jesus or any of the apostles clearly point this out anywhere in the new testament. You sure make a big assunption that "Being full of Grace was retroactive to Mary's conception and remained with her all of her life after that.
When a person reads the bible they can get the general principals and themes of what God wants and how we can obtain salvation, but a lot is missed from our not being able to read the scriptures in the original languages. Even if that were possible still some nuances may be lost. Our language changes over the generations.
Just look at the English language for example. A word or a phrase can have a different meaning if it is said in a different area of the county such as the South or the Midwest or the Northeast.. Or a word or phrase in English in the United States can mean something totally different then the meaning of that same word or phrase means if it were used in England..
So I am sure that meanings of some words or phrases in Hebrew and Aramaic have changed from the time of Christ until now.. How does anyone know that the 20th century meaning of a word in Hebrew or Aramaic had the same meaning during the time of Jesus ? If you are honest you can not know..
Maybe you are a linguist or a Scholar of Hebrew or Aramaic.. If not then how do you KNOW that Jesus was saying that the Bread and Wine are literally HIS physical Body and blood and that He did not mean this in a spiritual sense ??
Your Brother in Christ,
Clem
Posted by: Clem at November 1, 2004 11:12 AMJay,
I will pray for the argumentative spirit that resides in you. LOOSE IT IN THE NAME OF JESUS;)
God Bless
Posted by: Marc at November 1, 2004 05:25 PMActually, Marc, I'm not that argumentative - those who know me can attest. However, I do know that protestants typically ignore our posts on the Eucharist because either they don't understand the topic or they don't have a response. So go back and look at previous Eucharistic posts - it often takes a challenge to get anyone to respond.
I'm hoping you did read the article. Any thoughts?
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
I have no thoughts or motivation to type about it. Sorry.
God Bless
Posted by: Marc at November 4, 2004 07:00 PM
