True Food and True Drink

Would you mind quoting unacceptable parts please? While I don't doubt you, I would like to understand you. When I read them, there is a little slop, but like I said not outright a problem.

Eucharist: Understanding Christ's Body--1998

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0199.asp

The Sacrament of the Eucharist: What Has Happened to My Devotion?--1992

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0992.asp

Real Presence In The Eucharist--1996

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0996.asp

41 posted on 12/16/2004 1:50:59 PM PST by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)

Thank you so much for these quotes in order!

42 posted on 12/17/2004 4:44:24 AM PST by Diva

Dom,

I have to get to work. I will get back with you as soon as I can.

Peace

43 posted on 12/17/2004 6:28:15 AM PST by undirish01 (Go Irish! If only we can get the theology dept. turned around.)

Jesus calls us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. We must avoid an overly literalistic understanding of these words. We do not literally eat flesh or drink blood.

...

Well, we can begin by blowing this part to smithereens, Dom.

The accidentals of the Body and Blood remain as if they were bread and wine, but, they are indeed flesh and blood. The author is sloppy, but is not contradicting Church doctrine.

45 posted on 12/17/2004 1:16:24 PM PST by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)

"The author is sloppy, but is not contradict Church doctrine."

Kind of like giving a kid a cookie with a chocolate chip laced with arsenic. It's not completely okay, but it is mostly alright. However it may make you sick for a while.

This is huge part of the problem Dom. You water it down enough and the next thing you know the real doctrine is nowhere to be found and one ends up starving for real Truth. This is the "apologetcis method" of the Modernists.

I liked this part of that article:

"The body of Christ is not only ON the table, but AT the table and AROUND the table."

Well, I suppose I am the Eucharist right? No, I mean, WE are the Eucharist! Okay, I get it now. He is on the Altar, er--sorry, TABLE, but He is also present as us in the assembly!

So, should I respond to "The Body of Christ" when I receive communion with "I am!"???

Shoot, I could get some buds to go down to the Pizza Hut for some pepperoni and brew! Why go to Mass if I/we are the Body of Christ? I can give thanks to God right there----since I/we are Him.

Oh, and take that silly tabernacle out of the main nave of the Church. Kind of redundant to have the "consecrated bread" in here since I/we are "consecrated bread" ourselves.

Dom, you know I am being sarcastic but do you see what I mean? The stuff in these things really is so goofy in many ways. You are looking for specifics. I would be happy to share something with you about one of the other Updates.

Would you like to take this up privately like I asked Dom?

Jesus is NOT present the same way where two or three are gathered in His name as he is in the Sacred Host and Precious Blood.

46 posted on 12/17/2004 1:56:45 PM PST by undirish01 (Go Irish! If only we can get the theology dept. turned around.)

To: Dominick; sartorius

From Ecclesia de Eucharistia:

10. In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet. Furthermore, the necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist is reduced to its mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation. This has led here and there to ecumenical initiatives which, albeit well-intentioned, indulge in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith. How can we not express profound grief at all this? The Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation.

13. By virtue of its close relationship to the sacrifice of Golgotha, the Eucharist is a sacrifice in the strict sense, and not only in a general way, as if it were simply a matter of Christ's offering himself to the faithful as their spiritual food. The gift of his love and obedience to the point of giving his life (cf. Jn 10:17-18) is in the first place a gift to his Father. Certainly it is a gift given for our sake, and indeed that of all humanity (cf. Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20; Jn 10:15), yet it is first and foremost a gift to the Father: “asacrifice that the Father accepted, giving, in return for this total self-giving by his Son, who 'became obedient unto death' (Phil 2:8), his own paternal gift, that is to say the grant of new immortal life in the resurrection”.

In giving his sacrifice to the Church, Christ has also made his own the spiritual sacrifice of the Church, which is called to offer herself in union with the sacrifice of Christ. This is the teaching of the Second Vatican Council concerning all the faithful: “Taking part in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the source and summit of the whole Christian life, they offer the divine victim to God, and offer themselves along with it”.

27. At various times in the two-thousand-year history of the People of the New Covenant, the Church's Magisterium has more precisely defined her teaching on the Eucharist, including its proper terminology, precisely in order to safeguard the apostolic faith with regard to this sublime mystery. This faith remains unchanged and it is essential for the Church that it remain unchanged.

Dominick, notice how JPII over and over again focuses on the SACRIFICE of Holy Mass? How many times do you see this in any of the Catholic Updates? He even says, "At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet." Yet, the "fraternal banquet" understanding of Holy Mass IS the focus of these Updates.

He also says, "The Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation."

"Abiguity and depreciation". Hmmmm. Could that also per chance mean "sloppily written" as you say?

I am sorry. It is my contention that "watered down" and "sloppily written" catechetical materials, like many of these Catholic Updates and other material, directly leads one into heresy.

47 posted on 12/18/2004 8:30:22 AM PST by undirish01 (Go Irish! If only we can get the theology dept. turned around.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794


It is true that some people consider the Catholic Church’s belief about the Eucharist to be totally unbelievable and almost outrageous. Catholics actually believe that when a priest, during the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass, repeats the words of Jesus at the Last Supper over the bread and wine, they really do become the Body and Blood of the Lord Himself. How can this be? Where did the Church get this idea? The simple answer would be that we believe it because Jesus said it, and this Word of His is transmitted to us in various ways. One of these ways is precisely the one that many Catholics are challenged on today — the Bible. In addition to the testimony of the Sacred Scriptures, however, we also have Sacred Tradition, that which the Apostles handed down to us and which they learned from Christ. We also have the teaching of the Church, given the authority to teach by Jesus in His name. Let us look first, then, at the Bible to see how exactly the Church can so confidently teach what she does. The primary Scripture text we have that clearly demonstrates the reason for the Church’s belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist is that part of the Gospel referred to as the “institution narrative” — the words used by Christ when He gave instructions to His Apostles on how they were to commemorate His Passion. At the Last Supper, Jesus “took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is My body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of Me’” (Lk 22:19, see also Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22). It was the beginning of something — He was telling them to do this, and every time they did it, to remember Him. It is also evident in the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John that, very early in His ministry, Jesus had already given the first promise of the Eucharist. A crowd of five thousand had just witnessed one of Christ’s greatest miracles (the multiplication of the loaves) and they were in great awe at what they had experienced. So they follow Him to Capernaum, wanting Him to perform more signs. When they begin to speak about the manna that God gave to their ancestors to eat in the desert, Jesus uses this opportunity to give a discourse that every Christian should read and reread very carefully. “I am the bread of life,” he said (Jn 6: 35). “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (Jn 6: 51). The Scripture then says that this shocked the Jews. How could he give them His flesh to eat? He answered by saying, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For My flesh is true food and My blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me and I in him” (Jn 6: 53-59). These were very powerful words, and they are the words of Jesus Christ! He was telling them that the bread that He would give for the life of the world was His flesh! At this point, many of them left His company, but we notice that Jesus did not call them back saying, “I didn’t mean it the way you think I did.” This is because He did mean it! If Jesus had meant His words to be taken symbolically only, then He would have had to explain this to His disciples, but He does not. This is very important. Now, He thought the rest of them would leave also, but then Peter responds by giving one of the most moving answers in all human history. “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (Jn 6: 68). At that moment, Peter may not have even realized the full import of what he was declaring, but later it would become clear to him. In verse 47 of John 6, Jesus states, “He who believes has eternal life.” What was He talking about? It must have been the teaching that He was giving them. Over and over in these passages He repeats and reaffirms that He is the Bread of Life and that “if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever” and the bread He will give for the life of the world “is My flesh.” It takes great faith to accept and believe these words of our Lord, but we should never allow our predispositions or traditions to restrict us from recognizing the truth that Jesus wished to teach us. Our Lord said, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (Jn 20: 29). © Copyright 2004 Grace D. MacKinnon For permission to reprint this article, or to have Grace speak at your event, contact Grace MacKinnon at grace@deargrace.com. Grace MacKinnon holds an MA in theology and is a syndicated columnist and public speaker on Catholic doctrine. Her new book Dear Grace: Answers to Questions About the Faith is available in our online store. If you enjoy reading Grace’s column, you will certainly want to have this book, which is a collection of the first two years of “Dear Grace.” Faith questions may be sent to Grace via e-mail at: grace@deargrace.com. You may also visit her online at www.DearGrace.com.