The sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, is a sacrament instituted by Christ at the Last Supper when he told his Apostles: " This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19)
While the other sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Holy Matrimony, Anointing of the Sick, Penance) give us grace, the Holy Eucharist gives us not just but grace, but also the author of grace, Jesus, God and Man. It is the center of all else the Church has and does.
Among all the dogmas of the Catholic Church, the dogma of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist rests on the strongest scriptural authority. Moreover, the four Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) together with St. Paul have written explicitly and abundantly on this subject that of them alone would be amply sufficient to prove the dogma, without taking them collectively.
The Holy Spirit who foresaw that this great mystery, which exacts so strong an exercise of our faith, and which bids us bow down our "Understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2Cor.5:5), would meet with opposition in the course of time from those who measure the ever infallible word of God by the erring standard of their own judgement, wrote through these five inspires writers.
The New Testament presents three forms of arguments which satisfactorily demonstrate the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist:
The Promise of the Eucharist
The Institution of the Eucharist
The use of Holy Eucharist among the faithful.
To begin with the words of the Promise. A large crowd comprising of both those who were attracted by the miracles he did and those attracted by the words of salvation which he spoke followed Jesus as he preached along the coast of the sea of Galilee. After getting the report that the people had no food, he multiplied five loaves and two fishes to such an extent as to supply the wants of five thousand men, besides women and children (Matt. 14:15-21).
Our Lord considered the chance a favourable occasion for speaking of the sacrament of his body and blood, which was to be distributed to all souls, in every place at all times, to the end of the world. To his hearers he said, "I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert an died...
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever, and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore disputed 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 shall have no life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:1-62).
Now if these words had fallen on your ears for the first time, and if you had been among the number of our Lords hearers on that occasion, would you not have been irresistibly led by the noble simplicity of his words, to understand him as speaking truly of his body and blood?
Of course, his language is not subject to any other interpretation than this.
The best and the most reliable interpretation of our Saviour's words are certainly the multitude and disciples who are listening to him. They clearly understood the import of his language as it is explained by the Catholic Church. They believed our Lord spoke literally of his body and blood.
You may say that in so many instances, the hearers of Jesus had misinterpreted his meaning, by taking his words in the literal meaning, while he may have spoken in figurative sense. But know it still that in such occasions, he(Jesus) always took care to remove from their mind the wrong impression they had formed by stating his meaning in a simpler language. For instance: When Jesus told Nicodemus that unless a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. But Christ perceived that his disciple (Nicodemus) did not correctly apprehend the meaning of what he said, he added: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" (John 3).
In like manner, when he warned the disciples against the leaven of the Pharisees, and finding that they had taken an erroneous meaning from his word, he immediately subjoined that they should beware of the doctrines of the Pharisees (Matt.16).
Then we can see that our Lord did not soften his words, or told his hearers that he spoke figuratively. Far from weakening the force of his words, he emphatically repeated what he earlier said: Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
After the words of Christ, he beheld the Jews and many of his disciples abandoning him, and turning to the chosen twelve, he said to them: "Will you also go? But Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of terenal life (John 6:68,69).
To you reading this, will you go with the Jews and the followers who left our Lord? Or will you go with Peter, who unbehalf of the chosen twelve apostles had no other choice but to stay with Christ?
Moving forward to the second argument which is the institution of the Holy Eucharist, one should note that this is given in almost the same expressions by the synoptic writers. We can see from the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 26:26-28: "And while they were at Supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke and gave thanks and gave it to his disciples saying: Take ye and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave then saying: Drink ye all this; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins."
Recalling to mind, the former text relative of the Promise of the Eucharist and comparing it with this, how wonderfully they fit together; like two links in a chain! How faithfully has Jesus fulfilled the Promise which he made!
Could any idea be expressed in clearer terms than these: This is my body; this is my blood?
But why is the Catholic interpretation of these words rejected by Protestants? Is it because the text is in itself obscure and ambiguous? Not exactly; but because, they do not comprehend how God could perform so stupendous a miracle as to give his body and blood for our spiritual nourishment, thus doubting the power of God.
Is then the power or mercy of God to be measured by the narrow rule of human understanding? Is the Almighty not permitted to do anything except what we sanction by our reason? Why refuse the revealed truth and still say you believe in Christ?Funny enough! Even they who rejected the Catholic interpretation cannot even explain these words: " This is my body; this is my blood..." to their own satisfaction. Just but few years after the early Reformers had rejected the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, no fewer than one hundred meanings were given to these words. It is quite easier to destroy than rebuild!
Stepping forward to the third argument, we can note as well that when Jesus instituted the Eucharist at his Last Supper, he commanded his disciples and their successors to renew, till the end of time, in remembrance of him, the ceremony which he performed. What I have done, do ye also "for the commemoration of me" (Luke 22:19).
What then did the Apostles do in the commemoration of the Lord? Did they bless and distribute mere bread and wine to the faithful, or did they consecrate, as they believed the body and blood of Jesus Christ? A very big NO I say to the former.
For about eighteen years after St. Matthew wrote his Gospel, a letter is read from the Apostle Paul, in which the following words occur:
"The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?... For, I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, brake it, and said: Take and eat: this is My body which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of Me. In like manner also the chalice, after the supper, saying: This cup is the New Covenant in My blood. This do ye, as often as ye shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For, as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye shall show the death of the Lord until He come. Therefore, whoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the bodyand of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For, he who eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord" (1Cor. 5:16, 11:23-29).
St. Paul stated clearly in the above, that the chalice and bread which he and his fellow Apostles bless is a participation of the body and blood of Christ. And surely no one could be said to partake of that divine food by eating ordinary bread.
Note aswell that the minister of this sacrament in only a validly ordained priest, who has gained the apostolic continuity and ordained to the Order of Melchizedek, who offered the sacrifice of thanksgiving with bread and wine (Gen.14:18).
Although some Protestants have communion service as a symbolic action of Christ, the words of Christ are clear: " This is my body, this is my blood", not a symbol of my body and blood.
It is a good time you hold tight the truth to avoid being swayed by heresies and unfortunately landing yourself and leading others into hell.
While the other sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Holy Matrimony, Anointing of the Sick, Penance) give us grace, the Holy Eucharist gives us not just but grace, but also the author of grace, Jesus, God and Man. It is the center of all else the Church has and does.
Among all the dogmas of the Catholic Church, the dogma of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist rests on the strongest scriptural authority. Moreover, the four Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) together with St. Paul have written explicitly and abundantly on this subject that of them alone would be amply sufficient to prove the dogma, without taking them collectively.
The Holy Spirit who foresaw that this great mystery, which exacts so strong an exercise of our faith, and which bids us bow down our "Understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2Cor.5:5), would meet with opposition in the course of time from those who measure the ever infallible word of God by the erring standard of their own judgement, wrote through these five inspires writers.
The New Testament presents three forms of arguments which satisfactorily demonstrate the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist:
The Institution of the Eucharist
The use of Holy Eucharist among the faithful.
To begin with the words of the Promise. A large crowd comprising of both those who were attracted by the miracles he did and those attracted by the words of salvation which he spoke followed Jesus as he preached along the coast of the sea of Galilee. After getting the report that the people had no food, he multiplied five loaves and two fishes to such an extent as to supply the wants of five thousand men, besides women and children (Matt. 14:15-21).
Our Lord considered the chance a favourable occasion for speaking of the sacrament of his body and blood, which was to be distributed to all souls, in every place at all times, to the end of the world. To his hearers he said, "I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert an died...
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever, and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore disputed 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 shall have no life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:1-62).
Now if these words had fallen on your ears for the first time, and if you had been among the number of our Lords hearers on that occasion, would you not have been irresistibly led by the noble simplicity of his words, to understand him as speaking truly of his body and blood?
Of course, his language is not subject to any other interpretation than this.
The best and the most reliable interpretation of our Saviour's words are certainly the multitude and disciples who are listening to him. They clearly understood the import of his language as it is explained by the Catholic Church. They believed our Lord spoke literally of his body and blood.
You may say that in so many instances, the hearers of Jesus had misinterpreted his meaning, by taking his words in the literal meaning, while he may have spoken in figurative sense. But know it still that in such occasions, he(Jesus) always took care to remove from their mind the wrong impression they had formed by stating his meaning in a simpler language. For instance: When Jesus told Nicodemus that unless a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. But Christ perceived that his disciple (Nicodemus) did not correctly apprehend the meaning of what he said, he added: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" (John 3).
In like manner, when he warned the disciples against the leaven of the Pharisees, and finding that they had taken an erroneous meaning from his word, he immediately subjoined that they should beware of the doctrines of the Pharisees (Matt.16).
Then we can see that our Lord did not soften his words, or told his hearers that he spoke figuratively. Far from weakening the force of his words, he emphatically repeated what he earlier said: Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
After the words of Christ, he beheld the Jews and many of his disciples abandoning him, and turning to the chosen twelve, he said to them: "Will you also go? But Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of terenal life (John 6:68,69).
To you reading this, will you go with the Jews and the followers who left our Lord? Or will you go with Peter, who unbehalf of the chosen twelve apostles had no other choice but to stay with Christ?
Moving forward to the second argument which is the institution of the Holy Eucharist, one should note that this is given in almost the same expressions by the synoptic writers. We can see from the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 26:26-28: "And while they were at Supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke and gave thanks and gave it to his disciples saying: Take ye and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave then saying: Drink ye all this; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins."
Recalling to mind, the former text relative of the Promise of the Eucharist and comparing it with this, how wonderfully they fit together; like two links in a chain! How faithfully has Jesus fulfilled the Promise which he made!
Could any idea be expressed in clearer terms than these: This is my body; this is my blood?
But why is the Catholic interpretation of these words rejected by Protestants? Is it because the text is in itself obscure and ambiguous? Not exactly; but because, they do not comprehend how God could perform so stupendous a miracle as to give his body and blood for our spiritual nourishment, thus doubting the power of God.
Is then the power or mercy of God to be measured by the narrow rule of human understanding? Is the Almighty not permitted to do anything except what we sanction by our reason? Why refuse the revealed truth and still say you believe in Christ?Funny enough! Even they who rejected the Catholic interpretation cannot even explain these words: " This is my body; this is my blood..." to their own satisfaction. Just but few years after the early Reformers had rejected the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, no fewer than one hundred meanings were given to these words. It is quite easier to destroy than rebuild!
Stepping forward to the third argument, we can note as well that when Jesus instituted the Eucharist at his Last Supper, he commanded his disciples and their successors to renew, till the end of time, in remembrance of him, the ceremony which he performed. What I have done, do ye also "for the commemoration of me" (Luke 22:19).
What then did the Apostles do in the commemoration of the Lord? Did they bless and distribute mere bread and wine to the faithful, or did they consecrate, as they believed the body and blood of Jesus Christ? A very big NO I say to the former.
For about eighteen years after St. Matthew wrote his Gospel, a letter is read from the Apostle Paul, in which the following words occur:
"The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?... For, I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, brake it, and said: Take and eat: this is My body which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of Me. In like manner also the chalice, after the supper, saying: This cup is the New Covenant in My blood. This do ye, as often as ye shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For, as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye shall show the death of the Lord until He come. Therefore, whoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the bodyand of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For, he who eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord" (1Cor. 5:16, 11:23-29).
St. Paul stated clearly in the above, that the chalice and bread which he and his fellow Apostles bless is a participation of the body and blood of Christ. And surely no one could be said to partake of that divine food by eating ordinary bread.
Note aswell that the minister of this sacrament in only a validly ordained priest, who has gained the apostolic continuity and ordained to the Order of Melchizedek, who offered the sacrifice of thanksgiving with bread and wine (Gen.14:18).
Although some Protestants have communion service as a symbolic action of Christ, the words of Christ are clear: " This is my body, this is my blood", not a symbol of my body and blood.
It is a good time you hold tight the truth to avoid being swayed by heresies and unfortunately landing yourself and leading others into hell.
Comments
Post a Comment