According to Wikipedia: The Feast of Corpus Christi (Latin for Body of Christ), also known as Corpus Domini, is a Latin Rite liturgical solemnity celebrating the tradition and belief in the body and blood of Jesus Christ and his Real Presence in the Eucharist. It emphasizes the joy of the institution of the Eucharist, which was observed on Holy Thursday in the somber atmosphere of the nearness of Good Friday.
I was received in to the Catholic Church as an adult May 24, 2009 and a big part of my conversion story was being convinced intellectually that the Eucharist is not a symbolic memorial but truly the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
After coming to belief in God and the Christian faith I began looking for the true church of Christ one with authority to teach in His name. One of the central issues that drew my attention was precisely the Eucharist. Is it truly the Body and Blood of Christ or not? What focus on this? Well, apart from being a clear difference between the Catholic Church and Protestant communities it is also one of those clear black and white issues about which there can be no middle ground and it can't be left up to the individual to decide either. It either is the Body and Blood of Christ, or it is not. Of course this question slowly brought me on to the question of authority in the Church which only the Catholic Church can hold any reasonable claim to. Curiously enough the process of reading the Bible and the Early Church also brought me to the belief that Apostolic Authority which was passed down through the laying on of hands through the Bishops was also a Christian truth which couldn't be denied, but that is for another post.
Back to the Eucharist. After much reading and listening I slowly came to the conclusion that Christ was not speaking metaphorically when [26] ...Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. [27] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. [28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
As you can see in John 6:51, Jesus identifies himself with the miraculous bread and then says that if any man eats of this bread they will live forever. Was he speaking metaphorically? Well, the Jews looking at their response in John 6:53 obviously took him literally. What was Jesus' reaction to them taking him as speaking literally? The answer is found in the next verse:
[54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Jesus, rather than correct their error about as he does for example when speaking about the "yeast of the Pharisees" (Matt 16:6) instead goes on to insist on the eating His body and blood even more.
[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
He then re-affirms it and continues to do so in very explicit language.
[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?
If he was just speaking of symbolically eating his flesh as eating and drinking his cup, or accepting Him would this have been so scandalous? It's clear Jesus is saying something very shocking here. And now comes the shocking bit that I remember reading:
[66] And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. [67] After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. [68] Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
In verse 67 many of his disciples left him. This is the only place in the Bible where Jesus' disciples abandon him over something he taught. We know from verse 53 (The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?) that they took him at his word and he lets them walk away. Even more shocking is that he then turns to his disciples and asks if they will leave as well.
Reading this it was obvious that Jesus really couldn't have been speaking figuratively and if he were then surely he would have corrected those that misinterpreted him and left? His silence is almost as powerful as his words.
The other thing that convinced me that the Catholic Church was right on the Eucharist was the writings of the Early Church. Indeed, it was these that truly led me to the Church on an array of topics; apostolic authority, importance of the liturgy, obedience to the Bishops etc. Whilst researching online I remember reading many protestants who claimed that their "reformation" was not based on new doctrines but was a renewal of the church to how it was in the first centuries. That sounds quite nice. However, it struck me as strange reading and listening to debates that it was in fact only the Catholic apologists who seemed to quote from writers in the early Church. Well, what better way to see what faith the Apostles handed on than by reading the writings directly? I started reading the Church Fathers looking to see whether the early Christians believed in the real presence and to my surprise it is so unanimously taught and believed that even some Protestant scholars that reject the real presence do indeed admit that the early Christians professed it.
I will just include one quote here that I found incredibly powerful and further below is a link to a large selection of further quotes from the first centuries of the Church which confirm that the real presence was not only taught but was unanimously taught.
"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". (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)
The following link shows many quotations from the Early Church fathers:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm
Back to the Eucharist. After much reading and listening I slowly came to the conclusion that Christ was not speaking metaphorically when [26] ...Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. [27] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. [28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
Scripture
Part of coming to knowledge of the truth came from reading the Bible. There are many passages than speak about the true presence of Christ such as "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?" (1 Cor. 10:16) and "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29) - if it were merely bread and wine how could someone eat and drink judgement on themselves by consuming it?
Part of coming to knowledge of the truth came from reading the Bible. There are many passages than speak about the true presence of Christ such as "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?" (1 Cor. 10:16) and "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29) - if it were merely bread and wine how could someone eat and drink judgement on themselves by consuming it?
However, the most powerful passages that I read which give witness to the Eucharist being the True Body and Blood of Christ are found in John 6.
[51 ]I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52 ]If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
[51 ]I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52 ]If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
As you can see in John 6:51, Jesus identifies himself with the miraculous bread and then says that if any man eats of this bread they will live forever. Was he speaking metaphorically? Well, the Jews looking at their response in John 6:53 obviously took him literally. What was Jesus' reaction to them taking him as speaking literally? The answer is found in the next verse:
[54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Jesus, rather than correct their error about as he does for example when speaking about the "yeast of the Pharisees" (Matt 16:6) instead goes on to insist on the eating His body and blood even more.
[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
He then re-affirms it and continues to do so in very explicit language.
[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?
If he was just speaking of symbolically eating his flesh as eating and drinking his cup, or accepting Him would this have been so scandalous? It's clear Jesus is saying something very shocking here. And now comes the shocking bit that I remember reading:
[66] And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. [67] After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. [68] Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
In verse 67 many of his disciples left him. This is the only place in the Bible where Jesus' disciples abandon him over something he taught. We know from verse 53 (The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?) that they took him at his word and he lets them walk away. Even more shocking is that he then turns to his disciples and asks if they will leave as well.
Reading this it was obvious that Jesus really couldn't have been speaking figuratively and if he were then surely he would have corrected those that misinterpreted him and left? His silence is almost as powerful as his words.
Early Church
The other thing that convinced me that the Catholic Church was right on the Eucharist was the writings of the Early Church. Indeed, it was these that truly led me to the Church on an array of topics; apostolic authority, importance of the liturgy, obedience to the Bishops etc. Whilst researching online I remember reading many protestants who claimed that their "reformation" was not based on new doctrines but was a renewal of the church to how it was in the first centuries. That sounds quite nice. However, it struck me as strange reading and listening to debates that it was in fact only the Catholic apologists who seemed to quote from writers in the early Church. Well, what better way to see what faith the Apostles handed on than by reading the writings directly? I started reading the Church Fathers looking to see whether the early Christians believed in the real presence and to my surprise it is so unanimously taught and believed that even some Protestant scholars that reject the real presence do indeed admit that the early Christians professed it.
I will just include one quote here that I found incredibly powerful and further below is a link to a large selection of further quotes from the first centuries of the Church which confirm that the real presence was not only taught but was unanimously taught.
"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". (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)
The following link shows many quotations from the Early Church fathers:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm
Hmmmmm...
ReplyDelete