Recently in Eucharist Category

This past Sunday was the Solemnity of Corpus Christi (i.e. the Body and Blood of Christ). Officially this solemnity falls on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday, but in the U.S. it is celebrated on the following Sunday so that more people can participate in its' liturgies. Corpus Christi was instituted as a special day to draw our attention to the Most Holy Eucharist. It serves the Church as a reminder of the Reality that we possess in the Eucharist, namely Jesus Christ. For more information on this beautiful solemnity there is an excellent section on the website of Women for Faith & Family entitled:

Prayers & Devotions: Solemnity of The Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ

The following is the homily given by Pope Benedict XVI on the Solemnity of Corpus Christi 2006. Enjoy!

The Square at St John Lateran
Thursday, June 15, 2006

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

On the eve of His Passion, during the Passover meal, the Lord took the bread in His hands -- as we heard a short time ago in the Gospel passage -- and, having blessed it, he broke it and gave it to his Disciples, saying: "Take this, this is my body". He then took the chalice, gave thanks and passed it to them and they all drank from it. He said: "This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out on behalf of many" (Mk 14: 22-24).

The entire history of God with humanity is recapitulated in these words. The past alone is not only referred to and interpreted, but the future is anticipated -- the coming of the Kingdom of God into the world. What Jesus says are not simply words. What he says is an event, the central event of the history of the world and of our personal lives.

These words are inexhaustible. In this hour, I would like to meditate with you on just one aspect. Jesus, as a sign of His presence, chose bread and wine. With each one of the two signs He gives Himself completely, not only in part. The Risen One is not divided. He is a person who, through signs, comes near to us and unites Himself to us.

Each sign however, represents in its own way a particular aspect of His mystery and through its respective manifestation, wishes to speak to us so that we learn to understand the mystery of Jesus Christ a little better.

During the procession and in adoration we look at the consecrated Host, the most simple type of bread and nourishment, made only of a little flour and water. In this way, it appears as the food of the poor, those to whom the Lord made Himself closest in the first place.

The prayer with which the Church, during the liturgy of the Mass, consigns this bread to the Lord, qualifies it as fruit of the earth and the work of humans.

It involves human labor, the daily work of those who till the soil, sow and harvest [the wheat] and, finally, prepare the bread. However, bread is not purely and simply what we produce, something made by us; it is fruit of the earth and therefore is also gift.

We cannot take credit for the fact that the earth produces fruit; the Creator alone could have made it fertile. And now we too can expand a little on this prayer of the Church, saying: the bread is fruit of heaven and earth together. It implies the synergy of the forces of earth and the gifts from above, that is, of the sun and the rain. And water too, which we need to prepare the bread, cannot be produced by us.

In a period in which desertification is spoken of and where we hear time and again the warning that man and beast risk dying of thirst in these waterless regions - in such a period we realize once again how great is the gift of water and of how we are unable to produce it ourselves.

And so, looking closely at this little piece of white Host, this bread of the poor, appears to us as a synthesis of creation. Heaven and earth, too, like the activity and spirit of man, cooperate. The synergy of the forces that make the mystery of life and the existence of man possible on our poor planet come to meet us in all of their majestic grandeur.

In this way we begin to understand why the Lord chooses this piece of bread to represent Him. Creation, with all of its gifts, aspires above and beyond itself to something even greater. Over and above the synthesis of its own forces, above and beyond the synthesis also of nature and of spirit that, in some way, we detect in the piece of bread, creation is projected towards divinization, toward the holy wedding feast, toward unification with the Creator Himself.

And still, we have not yet explained in depth the message of this sign of bread. The Lord mentioned its deepest mystery on Palm Sunday, when some Greeks asked to see Him. In His answer to this question is the phrase: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit" (Jn 12: 24).

The mystery of the Passion is hidden in the bread made of ground grain. Flour, the ground wheat, presuppose the death and resurrection of the grain. In being ground and baked, it carries in itself once again the same mystery of the Passion. Only through death does resurrection arrive, as does the fruit and new life.

So Jesus said to them, '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 at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed’ – John 6:53-55

Throughout history, since Jesus made this bold proclamation, numerous Eucharistic Miracles have occurred confirming that Jesus actually meant what he said. I firmly believe that these miracles are the strongest proof for the Catholic belief in the Real Presence. These miracles are signs to those of us here on Earth that God is with us. They speak to us of the unity that God desires to share with us. They assist us in understanding the relationship that St. Paul speaks to us about in Ephesians 5:31-33.

One of the most fascinating facts about the Eucharistic Miracles is that they normally occur when one is doubting the Real Presence. What an act of mercy on the part of our loving Savior! One must wonder why He hasn’t done the same for others who doubted like Luther…

The following are a couple links to websites that specifically focus on the various Eucharistic Miracles. All of them are worth looking into….especially if you are struggling with this central and pivotal teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Real Presence Association

Living Miracles

In closing I wanted to post an article from Zenit about the results of one doctor who examined one of the most important Eucharistic Miracles. Enjoy!

Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano: Edoardo Linoli Verified Authenticity of the Phenomenon

ROME, MAY 5, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Dr. Edoardo Linoli says he held real cardiac tissue in his hands, when some years ago he analyzed the relics of the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy.

The phenomenon dates back to the eighth century. A Basilian monk, who had doubts about the real presence of Christ in the sacred species, was offering Mass, in a church dedicated to St. Legontian in the town of Lanciano.

When he pronounced the words of the consecration, the host was miraculously changed into physical flesh and the wine into physical blood.

Later the blood coagulated and the flesh remained the same. These relics were kept in the cathedral.

Linoli, a professor of anatomy and pathological histology, and of chemistry and clinical microscopy, and former head of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy at the Hospital of Arezzo, is the only doctor who has analyzed the relics of the miracle of Lanciano. His findings have stirred interest in the scientific world.

At the initiative of Archbishop Pacifico Perantoni of Lanciano, and of the provincial minister of the Franciscan Conventuals of Abruzzo, and with authorization from Rome, in November 1970 the Franciscans of Lanciano decided to have the relics examined scientifically.

Linoli was entrusted with the study. He was assisted by Dr. Ruggero Bertelli, retired professor of human anatomy at the University of Siena.

Linoli extracted parts of the relics with great care and then analyzed the remains of "miraculous flesh and blood." He presented his findings on March 4, 1971.

His study confirmed that the flesh and blood were of human origin. The flesh was unequivocally cardiac tissue, and the blood was of type AB.

Consulted by ZENIT, Linoli explained that "as regards the flesh, I had in my hand the endocardium. Therefore, there is no doubt at all that it is cardiac tissue."

In regard to the blood, the scientist emphasized that "the blood group is the same as that of the man of the holy Shroud of Turin, and it is particular because it has the characteristics of a man who was born and lived in the Middle East regions."

"The AB blood group of the inhabitants of the area in fact has a percentage that extends from 0.5% to 1%, while in Palestine and the regions of the Middle East it is 14-15%," Linoli said.

Linoli's analysis revealed no traces of preservatives in the elements, meaning that the blood could not have been extracted from a corpse, because it would have been rapidly altered.

Linoli's report was published in "Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori" in 1971.

In 1973, the Higher Council of the World Health Organization (WHO) appointed a scientific commission to verify the Italian doctor's conclusions. The work was carried out over 15 months with a total of 500 examinations. The conclusions of all the researches confirmed what had been stated and published in Italy.

The extract of the scientific research of WHO's medical commission was published in New York and Geneva in 1976, confirming science's inability to explain the phenomenon.

Today, Linoli participated in a congress on Eucharistic miracles organized by the Science and Faith master's program of Rome's Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, in cooperation with the St. Clement I Pope and Martyr Institute, on the occasion of the Year of the Eucharist under way.

"Eucharistic miracles are extraordinary phenomena of a different type," Legionary Father Rafael Pascual, director of the congress, told Vatican Radio. "For example, there is the transformation of the species of bread and wine into flesh and blood, the miraculous preservation of consecrated Hosts, and some Hosts that shed blood."

"In Italy, these miracles have occurred in several places," he said, "but we also find them in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain " and some in North America.

In Christ,
Joe

But as it is, [Jesus] has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. - - Hebrews 9:26

When Catholics begin talking about the “Sacrifice of the Mass,” it tends to make protestants a little jumpy. Without a doubt they immediately point to Hebrews, which unequivocally explains that Jesus Christ died once and for all to take care of our sins and does not need to be “re-sacrificed” repeatedly on Catholic altars. But is this what is taking place?

The Catholic Mass
Actually, the Catholic Church has never taught that Jesus is repeatedly sacrificed in the Catholic mass. The Church teaches that the Eucharistic sacrifice in the mass is a participation in the once and for all sacrifice of Christ at Calvary:

CCC 1367. The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross; only the manner of being is different.” “In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered Himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner.” (Quoted text from the Council of Trent DS 1740)

The laws of science do not restrict the God which created those laws. Which means that God has the ability to transcend time and space and allow each Eucharistic sacrifice to be a participation in the actual sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross two thousand years ago.
As Alan Schrek puts it in Catholic and Christian:

What Jesus did in the past - his death on the cross – is present to God. God can make this sacrifice present to us when Christians gather to celebrate the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist in his memory.

The Sacrifice at Calvary
What Jesus did at Calvary was sufficient for us as a single occurrence. There is no need for a resacrifice of Christ now or at any point in the future, since He took the weight of our sins and paid for them in a perfect manner. However, Jesus did instruct us to eat His body and blood (John 6:53) and in the very first Mass, which we call the Last Supper, Jesus showed the apostles exactly how we are to consume God. Since then the Mass has been celebrated with the Eucharistic sacrifice as the pinnacle and central function of the liturgy. And during that liturgy, we follow Jesus’ lead and re-present the sacrifice at Calvary as we as participate in that sacrifice in a completely unique way.

Bread becomes God
As part of the process, the ordained priest actually turns bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in a real way. Jesus is present body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharistic feast as we participate in the Mass. Thus we are consuming exactly what the apostles consumed 2,000 years ago at the Last Supper. Ultimately this intimate relationship with God – more personal than any other relationship could be – is what called me into the Catholic Church and into a deeper relationship with my savior. I won’t go into the details of the Eucharist here, but you can read this article on the Eucharist for more details.

Conclusion
In the end I’ll quote an excellent passage:

Futhermore, in the Mass, Jesus Christ ultimately offers the sacrifice of himself (just as at the Last Supper), with the priest merely acting in his stead, as a purely secondary, instrumental agent. In no sense, then, is the Mass some sort of magic or “hocus pocus” (this phrase itself is a caricature of the Latin words of consecration: Hoc est enim corpus meum). The priest and congregation are willing participants in what is God’s supernatural work from beginning to end. This is the furthest thing from sorcery, which is the utilization of either demonic supernatural powers, or those thought to be natural, apart from the originating agency of a personal God (see Acts 8:17-23).

That is from Dave Armstrong’s A Biblical Defense of Catholicism.

God bless,
Jay

The Eucharist is the biggest difference in protestant vs. Catholic theology. It is today, as it was for Judas and many of Jesus’ disciples, a stumbling stone for believers. We have written pretty extensively on the Eucharist and the Biblical arguments for the reality of Jesus’ Body and Blood in the Eucharist on this site, but it’s been a while since we wrote anything comprehensive on it, so I wanted to point everyone back to the main articles:

• This is the Lamb of God Who Takes Away the Sins of the World: Understanding the Eucharist
  
• Why Does Jesus Call Himself “Bread”?
  
• REFERENCE: The Real Presence (The Eucharist). This article points out the majority of the Biblical references to the Eucharist as Catholics understand it.
  
• Union through Communion: The Necessity of the Eucharist
  
• The Eucharist in the Economy of Salvation: What the Church Teaches
  

The Eucharist is what calls non-Catholics to join Christ’s Church – it is the center of Mass and the key Sacrament of the Church. I pray that everyone reading this one day gets to experience the power of partaking in the Eucharistic meal.

God bless,
Jay

The following is from a book that I stumbled upon called The Holy Eucharist: From the New Testament to Pope John Paul II, by Aidan Nichols, OP. The book is now out of print but used copies can be found on Amazon. There has been a lot of discussion on this site about the Fathers and their understanding of the Eucharist. Some attempt to use the Fathers to downplay or make insignificant this fundamental pillar of the Church. Nichols provides a good reflection on the matter. In a few days I will be posting on St. Augustine and the Real Presence, but I thought this would be a good beginning since it deals with some of the linguistic issues we've discussed. Warning! This is a lengthy piece, so grab a comfortable chair and a cup of coffee before diving in....Enjoy!

The Eucharist in the Age of the Fathers
In dealing with the patristic theology of the Eucharist, I propose to divide the material which has come down to us into three blocks: the words of the Fathers about the real presence, about the real sacrifice and about the relationship between the Eucharist and the Church.

The Eucharist as presence
First of all, the real presence. In the period before the First Council of Nicaea, assembled in 325, we encounter three kinds of language for what is given to us in the Eucharist. In the first place, we can overhear the Fathers using a relatively vague language, which speaks in rather general terms of a spiritual gift. Thus the Alexandrian writer Origen (c. 185-254) refers to the ‘flesh and blood of the Word’ as ‘drink and refreshment’ give by God to ‘the whole human race’. (1) The (third century?) Egyptian Church Order describes the purpose of the eucharistic consecration as

the holiness (of the communicants), and filling them with the Holy Spirit, and for strengthening faith in truth, that they may glorify and praise you. (2)

In the second place, we come across statements to the effect that the eucharistic bread and wine are the sumbolon, ‘symbol’, or figura, ‘figure’, of Christ’s body and blood. Thus Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) remarks that ‘Scripture called wine the mystic sumbolon of the sacred blood’, (3) while the North African Tertullian (c. 160-225) explains the words ‘This is my body’ as ‘This is the figura of my body’. (4) How can such language be reconciled, if at all, with the exegesis of the Institution Narrative offered in the last chapter, where it was maintained that, at the Last Supper, Jesus identified his body and blood with the Passover bread and wine, rather than declaring them to be mere tokens of his sacrificial death? The word sumbolon in ancient times had very different connotations from those it bears today. The (Lutheran) historian of doctrine Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930) put the matter clearly. In his history of dogma he writes:

What we nowadays understand by ‘symbol’ is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time, ‘symbol’ denoted a thing which in some kind of way really is what it signifies. What we now call ‘symbol’ is something wholly different from what was so called by the ancient Church. (5)

Evidence for the truth of this statement will be forthcoming if we look briefly at how the Latin Church in Tertullian’s time used his favorite phrase for the eucharistic gifts: figura. Where Paul says of the Lord, in the Letter to the Philippians, that he was “in the form, morphe, of God’, (6) the old Latin Bible, picking up the quasi-aesthetic connotations of that word, has it that the Son was in God’s figura. (7) Again, the Latin version of the Creed used in Gaul translates sarkothenta, ‘and was made flesh’, with the words, ‘and took the figura of man’. (8) Tertullian himself, when stressing that the Word truly took flesh in Mary’s womb, speaks of him as taking caro figuratus: not ‘figurative flesh’, evidently, but the distinctively formed flesh of a human being. So, just as sumbolon means the manifestation of a reality in a fresh medium, figura signifies the distinctive of a reality. And similarly, when Tertullian calls the Eucharist a representation of Christ’s body and blood, we must bear in mind that, in general, repraesentare means to make present (re-present) that which is now unseen. (9)

Catholic teaching regarding communion often provokes opposition, confusion, or outright resentment among protestants. There are many different aspects of the Eucharist that provoke such reactions, but one of the most common is the concept of the “real presence”. As a former protestant, I guess I should be able to sympathize with common protestant sentiment in this regard. But the sentiment is actually quite difficult for me to understand. Even as a protestant, I accepted the idea that Christ could be and was present in communion. I must admit that some of this acceptance came out of my background.

As a “PK” in the late 70’s to early 80’s, I grew up with a basic understanding of “sacraments”. As a protestant, I knew that there were only two sacraments: baptism and communion. Over time, my dad moved down a more fundamentalist path, gradually rejecting the idea of “sacraments” (I think). Actually I am not entirely clear what path he took and why because we never discussed the issue. But my own early upbringing was never unseated, and I never rejected the idea that Christ had left certain “sacraments” for the church. Among these was “communion”. And if communion was a “sacrament”, it must be something more than just a symbol. In the first place, evangelicals and fundamentals generally dislike symbols as a rule of thumb. Second, the idea of placing any sort of theological emphasis on a symbol was more distasteful. And finally, we did have symbols that were “okay”, like the fish on the back of the car (now he’s often eating a Darwin fish!), little dove logos, and, of course, the cross. Yet none of these symbols could be considered “sacraments”. So obviously communion and baptism had to have some sort of power that was more than merely symbolic.

When I went to college and attended church for the first time as an adult, I ended up at a Lutheran congregation. This was an odd place for an evangelical like me, especially considering the proximity of Lutheranism to Catholicism, the more liturgical service (though not strictly practiced at this congregation), the infant baptism, etc. However, during Bible classes, I had no problem accepting the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence, known as “consubstantiation”. In short, this meant that the bread and wine were not replaced by Christ’s body and blood, but that the elements were joined by Christ’s body and blood. The prefix “con” meaning to join, compared with the Catholic dogma of “transubstantiation” where the prefix “trans” indicates a transformation. In either case, both doctrines accept the true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the elements.

Some of you who know my conversion experience know that the final protestant congregation to which I belonged (a fundamentalist denomination called “Calvary Chapel”) practically drove me into the arms of the Church by its casual neglect of communion. Though some of my reaction was driven by my experiences and education as described above, a lot of it was based on Scripture as well. And after my family and I joined the Catholic Church, I came to understand just how Scriptural the centrality of the Eucharist was.

In reflecting on the life and death of Pope John Paul II, I found myself profounding moved by the deep love he had for our Lord Jesus fully present in the Eucharist. Throughout his pontificate our Holy Father would declare certain themes for individual years. We celebrated the Year of the Family, the Year of God the Father, the Year of the Son, the Year of the Holy Spirit, the Year of Mary, the Mother of God, the Year of the Rosary, and so forth. During those years Pope John Paul II reknewed our love and understanding of the specific Scriptural and doctrinal teachings that those themes had sprung from. He pointed to the truth and value found in each one of them.

In October of 2004, Pope John Paul II declared the Year of the Eucharist. For the Year of the Eucharist our Holy Father wrote the Encyclical Letter, Ecclesia de Eucharistia (in English - On the Eucharist in Its Relationship to the Church). Just on a side note, it is important for us to remember that an Encyclical Letter is an example of the papal charism of infallibility, so Catholics are required to accept, believe, and embrace this letter as absolute truth. In the introduction the pope states:

1. The Church draws her life from the Eucharist. This truth does not simply express a daily experience of faith, but recapitulates the heart of the mystery of the Church. In a variety of ways she joyfully experiences the constant fulfilment of the promise: “Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt 28:20), but in the Holy Eucharist, through the changing of bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord, she rejoices in this presence with unique intensity. Ever since Pentecost, when the Church, the People of the New Covenant, began her pilgrim journey towards her heavenly homeland, the Divine Sacrament has continued to mark the passing of her days, filling them with confident hope.

The Second Vatican Council rightly proclaimed that the Eucharistic sacrifice is “the source and summit of the Christian life”. “For the most holy Eucharist contains the Church's entire spiritual wealth: Christ himself, our passover and living bread. Through his own flesh, now made living and life-giving by the Holy Spirit, he offers life to men”. Consequently the gaze of the Church is constantly turned to her Lord, present in the Sacrament of the Altar, in which she discovers the full manifestation of his boundless love.

On this blog, we have repeatedly stated that the following passage (along with the Last Supper narrative) is a clear teaching of Christ on the Eucharist:

John 6:51-56. "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "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 true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.” [Emphasis mine]

Only the Catholic Church interprets this verse in a literal way, which I believe Jesus intended (my emphasis above points out some of the reasons why); Christ states that His flesh is “true food” and His blood is “true drink.” But it’s also important to note that Jesus wasn’t using metaphorical language – He was using phrases like “gnaw my flesh” and “chew my flesh” to get across the very real character of His teachings.

The argument from non-Catholics has always been that Jesus was speaking metaphorically or symbolically. He didn’t really mean this. After all, they say, Jesus also called Himself a door and a vine. So I thought I would point out from Scripture why these two can’t be compared. Let’s start here:

Acts 2:42. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

This passage is talking about the Christians in the early Church. So, there are two trains of thought here. The non-Catholic, who argues that the “breaking of bread” is merely symbolic, and the Catholic, which argues that the “breaking of bread” is a reference to Mass in which we accept the Eucharist.

If you accept the non-Catholic position, they are “devoting” themselves to a meaningless task: the breaking of bread. What’s the point? Why not just be devoted to “the apostles teachings and to fellowship . . . and to prayer.” Why did Luke feel this was as important as the other three things listed?

As a Catholic, it makes perfect sense. They are devoting themselves to the Oral Word (teaching of the Apostles), to fellowship (loving their neighbor, etc.), to the breaking of bread (the Mass), and to prayer. All are parts of a truly Christian life. What’s odd is that they aren’t devoting themselves to “opening a door” or “growing a vine” or any of the other metaphorical examples Christ gave of Himself. This clearly emphasizes the role of “breaking of bread.” Also, some argue that “breaking of bread” means community or fellowship. This also is illogical, since Luke has already listed “fellowship” in the four. If “breaking of bread” meant the same thing, then why would it be listed twice? I think the next passage will clarify even more:

1 Corinthians 11:27-30. 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.

This is perhaps the most direct teaching on why the non-Catholic position is wrong. As a non-Catholic, Christ isn’t really in the bread or wine. He is merely symbolized by it. Why would we die for unworthily consuming a symbol?. Paul is telling us to carefully examine our souls to make sure we are worthy before consuming the “bread” or drinking the “cup of the Lord” (a reference to the Last Supper).

As a Catholic, this verse again makes much sense. Christ said that the bread is truly His body and the wine is truly His blood, so of course those who consume God unworthily will get sick and possibly die. This makes much sense; you are what you eat in essence. If a dehydrated man drinks a lot of water, he will be sick and probably vomit. If a unholy man consumes the Eucharist, which is pure holiness (God), he will be sick and, according to Paul, might even die. This doesn’t sound like a symbol to me.

Until someone can point out Scripture that says “examine yourself before walking through a door or you might die,” then we only have bread and wine to examine. If we believe Scripture is infallible, how do our beliefs line up with these passages? Better yet, if we believe Scripture is infallible, how can we go another day without consuming God in the Eucharist? Come home to the Catholic Church today.

God bless,
Jay

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 Antioch

Why 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.

Miracles were used by Jesus to prove He was the person He claimed to be. From early times, the Catholic Church has relied on miracles as proof that a person was in heaven (two documented miracles are required before canonization of a Saint). The unique and inexplicable nature of Miracles is a way God points us to truth.

Why do I bring this up? Miracles also point to another truth of the Catholic faith: the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Over the years, there have been numerous Eucharistic miracles, which primarily consist of the bread and wine actually turning into skin and blood. Non-Catholic scientists (sometimes atheists) have studied these miraculous events in detail to try and explain them using secular terms. Many of these scientists have later converted solely because of these events. Two examples:

The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano. In the 8th century, a priest, who is after all human, in Lanciano, Italy had doubts about whether the Eucharist really was the body and blood of Jesus. Until one day, during Mass, the bread and wine visibly changed into flesh and blood. To be exact, it turned into heart tissue, complete with veins. The blood type has been shown to be AB. Testing began in 1574, was undertaken again in 1970, and finally again in 1981 by a well known doctor in Italy. You can click the link above for more details including pictures – or you can go to Italy and see it for yourself at the Church of St. Legontian.

The Eucharistic Miracle of Sienna. Again in Italy, but this time in 1730, a different type of miracle occurred. Consecrated hosts, which become the body and blood of Christ during the consecration, were stolen from a Church in Sienna. A few days later they were found and returned to the Church. But oddly enough, after some time had passed the hosts were not deteriorating as they should. In fact, they seemingly looked new. Since then they have been tested and tasted to see why this preservation is occurring, but there is no scientific explanation. The little Church in Italy still puts them on display each month for viewing. These hosts have survived 250 years and still look and taste new.

There are many other miracles surrounding the Eucharist, but this is just two of them (chosen because they are different). These are examples of God miraculously intervening in our lives in order to solidify our faith and strengthen our understanding. Some people believe that clear, visible miracles have ceased to exist, but in the Catholic Church this is not true. Miracles continue to occur – from Saints whose bodies do not decay to mystical appearances of Christ to Eucharistic miracles – regularly in the Catholic Church. This is just another way of God pointing to His Church and its special role in the world.

God bless,
Jay

I think it’s important to note that there are two kinds of people in this world. There are those who are practical atheists, which means no matter what they profess to believe it really doesn’t affect their lives in any direct way. Then there are those who seek out God and attempt to conform to the truth they understand – this includes virtually everyone visiting our blog – after all if you didn’t care you wouldn’t have ever found us.

A conversion from one belief system to another is a big deal – to shake off an old religion that you have grown up believing is very difficult. This type of conversion demands not only intellectual assent to truth but something more, it demands some reason for conversion; if there was no real reason, most would allow conversion to be put off for years – even if they mentally assented to the new truth. For me, it was a hunger or a thirst for God. I came to accept the Biblical doctrine of the Eucharist and I hungered for it in a way that prevented me from putting off my conversion. God is calling each of us to an intimate relationship based upon consuming His flesh and blood, is there any way to resist? Even if there was, why would you want to? There is no closer personal relationship with Christ.

In John 6, Jesus commands that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood so that we might have life in us. Through this consumption of God, we receive direct grace that gives us the strength to conform our will to His, to become the men and women He calls us to be. The question is not, “Am I required to partake in order to get to heaven?” the question is, “How can I wait another day to unite with God in such a way?” Especially when God desires this even more than we do.

God bless,
Jay

There has been some discussion on the blog where non-Catholics claim the Early Church was not convinced of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So, I've pulled together the references to the Eucharist from Scripture and the Early Church.
I've probably missed some Scriptural references (they are overwhelming), so let me know if I'm missing something. The Early Church, by the way, was united in their faith in the Real Presence - some of the quotes are outstanding.

Biblical references are always listed first (regardless of date) and formatted as so: Verse. Short synopsis of content and other comments.

Early Church Father references are formatted as so: Author Name of Work. Date – traditional numbering (Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers Numbering). Short synopsis of content and other comments.

The Real Presence (the Eucharist)

• Genesis 14:18. The first mention of a priest offering “bread and wine.” This (along with the other Old Testament references) prefigures the Eucharist. See Psalm 110:1-4.
  
• Exodus 12:5-11. Explains the Passover, which is key to understanding the Eucharist.
  
• Exodus 16:4-35. Manna from heaven prefigures the Eucharist.
  
• Micah 5:3-4. A prophecy concerning Christ that specifically notes he will “feed his flock” - note that this ties into Jesus telling Peter to “feed My sheep” as well.
  
• John 2:1-11. Jesus turns water into wine, another prefiguring of the Eucharist.
  
• John 6:4-10. Jesus multiplies bread and feeds the people. Note that He uses His apostles to offer the bread/food.
  
• John 6:43-68. A key passage where Jesus calls Himself the “bread of life” and demands we eat him literally (the word “eat” gets stronger each time he says it and literally means “gnaw”). He also loses many of His disciples who cannot accept the teaching.
  
• Luke 22:19-20, Matt 26:26-29, and Mark 14:22-25. The passage recited in the mass, which says “This is My body” etc.
  
• Luke 24:29-31. They don’t recognize Jesus until He celebrates the Eucharist with them.
  
• Acts 2:41-42. Notice that they dedicate themselves “to the breaking of bread.”
  
• 1 Corinthians 11:23-27. Paul explains the reality of the Eucharist and points out that those who accept unworthily become sick and some die. Very clear.
  
• 1 Corinthians 10:15-21. The cup is a “participation” in “the blood of Christ” and the bread is a “participation” in the “body of Christ.”
  
• Hebrews 9:11-14. The blood of Jesus “purifies your conscience”
  
• Revelation 5:6. Description of the slain Lamb of God, which points to the Passover and Eucharistic sacrifice.
  
• St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Romans. c. 110 A.D. - 7, 3 (54a). He desires “the bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ”.
  
• St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Philadelphians. c. 110 A.D. - 3, 2 (56). There is “one Flesh . . . and one cup” - refres to them as the Eucharist.
  
• St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans. c. 110 A.D. - 6, 2 (64). Chastises those who don’t believe that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Christ.
  
• St. Justin the Martyr First Apology. c. 148 A.D. - 65 (128). Explains clearly that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ, literally. A detailed quote.
  
• St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180 A.D. - 4, 18, 4 (234). The bread is no longer bread but Eucharist - “the Body of the Lord.” Long explanation of transubstantiation and how it affects the receiving believer.
  
• St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180 A.D. - 5, 2, 2 (249). Another long explanation of the purpose of the Eucharist and the reality. Says it “is the Body and Blood of Christ.”
  
• Tertullian The Resurrection of the Dead. c. 208 A.D. - 8, 2 (362). Shows the importance of the Eucharist to us and says “the flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God.”
  
• Tertullian The Crown. c. 211 A.D. - 3, 2 (367). Notes: “We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread fall on the ground.”
  
• St. Hippolytus of Rome The Apostolic Tradition. c. 215 A.D. - 21 (394i). This is a detailed explanation of how to baptize new Christians and afterward how they are to receive the Eucharist. Points out that “they who believe are nourished like little children” on “the very flesh of Christ.”
  
• St. Clement of Alexandria The Instructor of Children. c. 202 A.D. - 2, 2, 19, 4 (410). Explains that the Eucharist is spiritual and actual; also notes that both are present in the Eucharist.
  
• Origen Homilies on Exodus. c. 244 A.D. - Hom. 13, 3 (490). Notes those who worry about one particle falling to the ground and that they should worry about this.
  
• St. Ephraim Homilies. c. 340 - 373 A.D. - 4, 4 (707). Explains the Last Supper and the reality of the Eucharist. Notes “if anyone despise it or treat it with ignominy . . . he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His body.”
  
• St. Ephraim Homilies. c. 340 - 373 A.D. - 4, 6 (708). The disciples at the Last Supper “knew that they had eaten of Christ’s body.” An excellent explanation of the reality of the Eucharist.
  
• St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures. c. 350 A.D. - 22, Mystagogic 4, 3 (845). Points out that we are “sharers of the divine nature” through His Body “in the figure of bread.”
  
• St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures. c. 350 A.D. - 22, Mystagogic 4, 6 (846). Warns you to not mistake the Eucharist for bread and wine, “for they are . . . the Body and Blood of Christ.”
  

God bless,
Jay

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “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 at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” -John 6:47-58

Throughout the Gospels, there are several things that Jesus clearly states are necessary for eternal life. In John 3, when speaking to Nicodemus, Jesus mandated Baptism with water (John 3:5-8) and faith in the Son of God and a life of good deeds (John 3:16-21). In John 4, when speaking to the Samaritan woman, Jesus proclaimed the need to worship in both spirit and truth (John 4:24-26). Then later in John 4, Jesus commands his disciples to be laborers of service(John 4:35-38). In John 5, Jesus mandates belief in His power over death and acceptance that He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. And so we come to John 6. Out of all the things necessary for salvation, as laid out in John’s Gospel, the need to consume the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is the most clear. Jesus commands it repeatedly in John 6. He goes to such great detail as to compare the relationship between Himself and the Father to the relationship the faithful believer can experience with Him through the eating of His Body and the drinking of His Blood. As Catholics, when we receive Holy Communion we fulfill the commandment given by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Many of our Protestant brothers and sisters will claim that this was only a symbol and that communion is simply a symbolic replicating of the Last Supper, yet that is not what was thought by the Apostles nor the Early Church Fathers.

Just an FYI for those in or near Atlanta, the 2004 Eucharistic Congress for the Archdiocese of Atlanta is coming up on June 12th.

They have a great lineup of folks (Alan Keyes, Raymond Arroyo, Jeff Cavins, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Deal Hudson, and Christopher West) and four tracks including a hispanic track, a teen track, a kid track and the general track. The congress lasts from 8 am until closing mass at 5:30 pm on a Saturday, so you could drive in if interested. I believe a couple of our contributors will be going, so we'll post updates and information.

God bless,
Jay

The hot political topic of the day seems to be John Kerry and whether he should receive communion or not. Communion, for those who don’t know, is the reception of the Eucharist – the “source and summit of the Catholic faith” as the Catechism calls it. The Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. So why would the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church attempt to stop John Kerry from receiving Jesus?

The key issue involves the correct reception of the Eucharist. St. Paul teaches in the Bible:

1 Corinthians 11:23-30. For I [Paul] received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

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 any one 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.

Paul is teaching a key truth of the Eucharist – you cannot accept it if you are in a state of serious sin otherwise you “eat and drink judgment upon” yourself. John Kerry is not simply one who tolerates abortion, but a man who ardently and consistently works to defend and expand the practice of killing unborn children. He recently voted against a bill that made murdering a pregnant woman two criminal offenses, rather than just one, because he is so worried that mothers won’t be able to kill their unborn children whenever they want. This reflects a persistence in a state of serious sin.

The Bible also teaches:

Matthew 18:15-17. [Jesus speaking] “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Over time John Kerry’s actions have lead to this point. Who is being sinned against in abortion? Obviously the child who no longer has an opportunity to live (and learn to love Christ), but also the mothers who obtained abortions. Abortion is a violence against mothers just as it is against children. Finally, our society loses millions of potential brothers and sisters every year to this horrible crime. About a week or two ago a Catholic Bishop spoke privately to Kerry, obviously exhorting him to stop his persistence in supporting this terrible act. And yet this week John Kerry is speaking publicly before the pro-abortion march in Washington (something abortion-supporter and former president Bill Clinton always refused to do). John Kerry has refused to listen to the Church and persisted in serious sin. He has chosen the potential for power over the potential for heaven.

Ultimately the Bishops are trying to save souls. They want a fully pro-life president in the US, but obviously that won’t happen this election. But more importantly, they are trying to save the soul of John Kerry and those of the Catholic faithful. What would it say if the Church allowed a self-professed Catholic to persist in saying abortion should be supported? It would likely suggest to the faithful that it is possible to be pro-abortion and Catholic, which is untrue. John Kerry has not received excommunication – this is merely a strong warning that he must either change his views or risk losing his soul. Let’s all pray that Kerry reconsiders his ignorant position on abortion and returns to being one of the Catholic faithful. Remember, he could choose God and the Church would instantly forgive him and (after confession) allow him access to communion again. The question is: can John Kerry choose life for himself and for others?

God bless,
Jay

UPDATE: I recommend Catholics take a look at the debate over the term CINO at Catholic[?] Kerry Watch. "CINO" stands for "Catholic In Name Only" and is seen as a designation for politicians such as Kerry which claim the name Catholic then publically denounce basic Catholic beliefs. I think it's a decent way of getting to the heart of the matter: these politicians aren't Catholic.

John 6:51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.

Tonight, on Holy Thursday, we know that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper and instituted the Eucharist. Christ gave to us the food that can give to us life:

Our Lord was what He would be on the Cross the next day: both Priest and Victim. In the Old Testament and among pagans, the victim, such as a goat or a sheep, was apart from the priest who offered it. In this Eucharistic action and on the Cross, He, the Priest, offered Himself; therefore He was also the Victim.
- - Fulton J. Sheen Life of Christ

For this we are eternally grateful. Christ gave us His Love, His Life, His Body, so that we may be made worthy of Heaven. This was the first real meal that filled spiritually as well as physically.

1 Corinthians 11:26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

God bless,
Jay

During Lent I’m going to make an attempt to provide some reflections as often as possible that illuminate the purpose of and need for the season. This is the first in that series.

When we think back to the Passion, we typically focus our thoughts and meditations on Jesus and rightly so. But it’s also interesting to see the surrounding characters in the narrative and attempt to understand their actions. Pilate was always fascinating to me. How much arrogance must one have to ask, “What is Truth” to He who is Truth? And yet Pilate didn’t know. Pilate was just a few feet from Christ Himself, but his lack of holiness blinded him to the truth. We often see images of Jesus with a halo or seeming to radiate light, however this required faith in order to see. Faithless Pilate saw only Jesus’ humanity and missed the deeper reality of Jesus’ divinity.

We look back now and laugh a little – how could Pilate have missed it? The Messiah was right in front of him! And yet every week we sit in Mass and sometimes miss that Christ Himself is present in reality. If only we have the faith to see, God Himself is sitting just a few feet from us calling us to Him. Through the Eucharist God sanctifies His people and calls us to deeper communion with Him. How many times have we missed Mass without understanding that we are ignoring an appointment with the Jesus who died on the Cross for us?

Lent is the perfect time to make reparation to God, to straighten our priorities, and to realize the reality of life: we will die and face God. Now is the time to take a holy hour, to go to Mass more than once during the week, and to remember that God Himself is present in the Eucharist.

God bless,
Jay

Often non-Catholics are surprised and even annoyed when they learn that they cannot partake in the Eucharistic celebration during mass. They feel excluded by the Church and offended. So why would the Church stop non-Catholics from reception of communion?

First, we must understand what the Eucharist is:

John 6:53-56. So Jesus said to them, “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 at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

This is the beginning of understanding Holy Communion which was instituted at the Last Supper (Matt 26:26, Mk 15:22-24, Luke 22:19-20). Communion is the celebration of the Eucharist when we consume the body and blood of Christ. It looks like bread and wine, however during mass it is transformed into the body and blood of Christ. This is the central celebration of the Catholic Church.

Jesus clearly seems to indicate the importance of this consumption for our salvation, so why wouldn’t the Church want everyone to consume it? This would seem to meet Jesus’ criteria above, correct? Well, there is some responsibility required when consuming the body and blood of Christ. I’ll let Paul explain:

1 Cor 11:27-30. 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 any one 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.

Because the Eucharist is not a symbol, but really the body and blood of Christ, it has power. This entails responsibility for us. The Eucharist is tied into the sacrament of Confession in a very real and powerful way. Confession prepares us for Holy Communion in a perfect way by allowing us to examine ourselves and “[discern] the body.” This begins to get to the heart of why non-Catholics cannot participate.

The Church limits participation out of concern for souls. In her wisdom, the Church prevent you from “eat[ing] and drink[ing] judgment upon” yourself. Because non-Catholics do not understand the power of the Eucharist and the sanctity with which we should approach the altar, they are not prepared to accept the responsibility that the Eucharist entails. In other words, if you do not understand what you eat, you can’t possibly understand the ramifications of eating it. The Church is protecting you from the inevitable judgment that is so severe that “some have died.” That’s the power and holiness of God.

It is not a restriction to be petty or mean, but rather a true concern for your soul. Yet the Eucharist continually calls you home to the Catholic Church, so that you may participate in the body and blood of Christ:

1 Cor 10:15-17. I speak as to sensible men: judge for yourselves what I have to say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

Come home and participate in the body and blood of Christ!

God bless,
Jay

The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” - - Catechism (1324)

What is the Eucharist? It is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, which is consumed by the faithful in mass. The Eucharist contains the second person of the Trinity and was instituted by Him at the Last Supper. There is significant confusion over the Eucharist, so I’ll take a look at what the Bible says about the “sum and summary of our faith” (Catechism 1327). But for starters, I’ll clear up the biggest misconception about the Eucharist: We do not re-sacrifice Christ at every mass. The Eucharist is a participation in the singular sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. It is as difficult to explain as the Trinity or Jesus becoming man, but it is no less true. The bread and wine actually and really become the body and blood of Jesus during the mass – and here’s the Scripture to prove it:

THE OLD TESTAMENT
First, we must understand that from the beginning, God began giving His people hints of the future (prefiguring the Eucharist, just as other events such as Calvary are prefigured). For example:

Genesis 14:18. And Melchizedek, king of Salem [ed. note: this became Jerusalem] brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.

Remember Melchizedek was the greatest High Priest of the Old Testament. And, Jesus was tied to Melchizedek by God:

Psalm 110:1,4. The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.” The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

But these don’t define specifically the reason for the Eucharist. The Eucharist is, like many other sacraments, a building upon an Old Testament event; a replacement that actually has power to change us and give us grace. For example, the Old Testament ritual of circumcision (as the route to entering the church) was replaced by the powerful rite of Baptism that really washes away sin (circumcision did not have this power). In the Old Testament, God instituted the Passover as a clear prefiguring of the Eucharist. The Passover was a one-time event (only once did the firstborn males die), but it was repeated annually as a way to partake in the one-time actual Passover. The details are important:

Exodus 12:5-11. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats; and you shall keep it until the fourteen day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening. Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them. They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled with water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. And you shall let none of it remain until the morning, anything that remains until the morning you shall burn. In this manner you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord’s Passover.

Throughout the next week, I’ll post a few mediations on how the Scriptures treat the Birth of our Savior. Today’s is straight from St. Jerome:

Luke 2:6-7. And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manager, because there was no place for them in the inn.

Both the swaddling cloths and the manager are as important for their symbolic value as they are for the truth they express. First, why specifically ‘swaddling cloths’? Because we know from Wisdom 7:4 that this is how David came into the world. Jesus is the new king on the Davidic throne and Luke specifically uses the swaddling cloths to make this clear from His birth.

But the manger is even more key. Why not lay Jesus simply on some hay in the barn, or hold him? The manger has symbolic value: it is the trough where animals are fed. Jesus, as the new manna, is sustenance for the world. Luke mentions the manger three times (also in 2:12,2:16) to underline this point in our minds. As Jerome points out, Luke has an “overriding interest in the theme food” as a symbolic development of the Eucharist. Clearly, from the time of His birth, Jesus was intended to be our food.

Remember this Christmas, the Davidic King Jesus came to sustain us through His sacrifice.

God bless,
Jay

Upon reading Joe's excellent article on suffering, I began to reflect upon the greatest suffering our Lord endured and still endures today - the cross. Then today as I was reading my book I Believe in Love, the author progressed from the topic of suffering to the Eucharist. For we are commanded by God,

"Be you therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt. 5:48

What is this perfection, but to be holy victims, to be Eucharistic people. How do we become Eucharistic people, how do we become holy victims full of love? In the past I have always relied mostly on my own abilities to avoid sin and to do what is right, but even this is an illusion! My own abilities are not mine, but rather God's. The only possible way I have of becoming a Eucharistic person is by Christ consuming me so that I no longer exist, only His Love burns within me. This task seems impossible and it is. That is why I do not rely on my strengths, rather I turn to Jesus. And where is Jesus present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity? Here in the living miracle of the Eucharist. He is burning in every tabernacle, in every Catholic Church. Hunger and thirst to eat this living miracle; nourish yourselves with it!
In the book I am reading Fr. Jean shed some new light into my desires to be one with Christ. As an adult I have wanted to receive the Eucharist because I knew I needed as much grace as I could get, however, it never occurred to me that Christ wanted me as much as I wanted Him.

"Receive Communion not only for yourself, in order to have this immense grace, but for Jesus, in order to respond to His desire to come down into you, to give Him the joy of descending into your heart, which is a heaven for Him."
I Believe in Love by Father Jean C.J. d'Elbee

Listen further to little St. Therese

"He comes down each day from Heaven in order to find another heaven, the heaven of our souls, made in His image, the living temple of the adorable Trinity."

Therefore, the first and last step we need to take in learning how to embrace suffering and become Love is to go to Mass. Receive Christ so that He might make you perfect as He is perfect. The answer to all our problems begins and ends in our daily bread in Holy Communion. And if for whatever reason you are unable to receive Christ daily make an effort each morning to have a spiritual Communion with Christ. I leave you with one last thought.

"If only you knew how Jesus hungers for you, how He burns with desire to come into your heart, how impatient He is to come down to you, bridging all distance between you and Him! The day you miss a Communion is a great disappointment for Him. So go to Him; respond to His desire." Fr. Jean

The Bible is an incredible book containing layers of information, knowledge and spiritual depth. However, because of its comprehensive nature, it contains far too much knowledge to keep in your head at one time. In fact, most of us have favorite passages that we go back to time and again.

This is one of the issues with Protestant doctrine. A protestant pastor often ends up giving sermons on his favorite passages more often than on the less well-liked verses; especially verses that aren’t totally understood or explained by protestants. An example of this is the second half of John chapter 6. These verses are vital to our understanding of the Church after the resurrection, but because of misunderstanding and apprehension, most protestants pay little attention to them. Let’s take a look at one section:

51. “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53. So Jesus said to them, “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; 54. he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Wow. The Bible doesn’t get much more beautiful then this – our God announcing that he will give us himself to eat and offer us eternal life. Protestants, however, don’t often hear these verses in church, primarily because they suggest that we must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ in order to get to heaven. And protestants churches don’t teach this.

So how is it that we have so many protestants claiming to be ‘Bible-Christians”? Well, they’ve found a way out of these verses. Here’s the scapegoat, just a little further down the page:

63. It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

So – a protestant would contend – Christ is strictly speaking metaphorically. He means we must symbolically consume him to get to heaven. They utilize this verse to strip the earlier passage of it’s meaning. But, in order to do this, you’ve got to ignore the next passage:

64. But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. 65. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” 66. After this many [Ed. Emphasis] of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Here Jesus notes that many do not believe his statements above. And because of that disbelief, many of his disciples left – further passages suggest that all but the twelve stopped following him. If the protestant interpretation is correct, why didn’t Christ simply say, “No – wait! I was only speaking symbolically. You don’t really have to eat my flesh.” In the mind of the Jews that left, this probably would have been enough. However, this statement would have been untrue, so Christ allowed them to leave.

In Jewish law, the punishment for cannibalism was being cut off from your people and hung on a tree to die. Clearly, Christ intended to start the Eucharist from the beginning and the protestants have misread his intentions. He repeats the necessity of eating (also translated as chewing) his flesh three times in these verses. Other important verses associated with the reality of the Eucharistic presence include (but are by no means limited to):

1 Cor 10:17. Because the bread is one, we, though many, are one body, all of us who partake of the one bread.

1 Cor 11:27-30. 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. 28. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Luke 22:19. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

To top it off, I encourage everyone to read the writings of the ‘Early Fathers’ – the first Christians after Christ’s ascension to heaven. Even in the protestant versions of these texts, you can find the word “Eucharist” and the seriousness with which the early Christians accepted these teachings.

I think it’s time for the protestant pastors to revisit their interpretations of these verses. If you begin with a clear, open mind, the only doctrine you’ll find in the Bible is Catholic. More to come in future articles . . .

Jay