The Institution of the Eucharist in Scripture

EWTN ^ | unknown | Scott Hahn

[armydoc]

So did Jesus say to them, "I didn't mean it, guys. I was just kind of, you know, using hyperbole or metaphor." No. He actually intensifies the scandal. He actually raises the obstacle even higher. "He said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood,' which Leviticus condemns, the drinking of blood, 'unless you eat my flesh and drink my 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. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.'

"He said that four times in four different ways.

In verse 60, "Many of His disciples when they heard it said, 'This is a hard saying. Who can listen to it?'" That is an understatement. "Jesus, however, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it" (the disciples, the followers, the spiritual proteges, not just the crowd now, the disciples themselves are taking offense at this and murmuring and grumbling), "said to them, 'Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the son of man ascending to where He was before? 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.'"

What words? That you've got to eat my flesh and drink my blood, those words.

Thank you, Mr. Hahn. Your thesis is very reassuring. See, I took the Eucharist as a Catholic many times. According to your reasoning, my salvation is assured.

[Mad Dawg]

I’m not really up on this, you are right. But I believe that Hahn maintains it was the 4th cup that Jesus gave as His blood. I hope someone more knowledgeable can come to hold up his side of the discussion.

[Mad Dawg]

One problem with the adversarial nature of these discussions is that people say things with a certain air of triumphant refutation, and I never have any clue (or rarely) of what their argument it.

I'm guessing that you disagree with Hahn and offer your remarks as some kind of refutation but a reductio ad absurdum. Am I right?

If so, have pity on my dumbitude and explain it further, please.

[armydoc]

One problem with the adversarial nature of these discussions is that people say things with a certain air of triumphant refutation, and I never have any clue (or rarely) of what their argument it. I'm guessing that you disagree with Hahn and offer your remarks as some kind of refutation but a reductio ad absurdum. Am I right? If so, have pity on my dumbitude and explain it further, please.

Hahn is arguing for a literal interpretation of John 6, focusing on proving the Catholic view of the nature of the Eucharist. However, that literal interpretation forces a conclusion that taking the Eucharist is both necessary and sufficient for salvation. Obviously, no one, including Catholics, believe this, for good reason. It does not fit with the whole of scripture. Therefore, we must conclude that John 6 is not talking of the physical, but rather the spiritual (which Jesus plainly tells us in 6:63).

[Natural Law]

"taking the Eucharist is both necessary and sufficient for salvation."

Taking the Eucharist is not simply the act of swallowing. The taking of the Eucharist requires preparing oneself mentally and spiritually. The confession of faith, the confessing and cleansing of ones sins and the act of acknowledging the Body of Christ, combined do ensure Salvation, but not indefinitely.

[armydoc]

You have provided an argument for the sufficiency aspect. What about the necessity aspect?

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[Melian]

“...judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.”

A pretty key phrase, in my opinion.

[Melian]

At Mass today we read the scripture in which Christ says those who love Him keep His word. He also states those who don’t keep His word don’t really love Him and that God will hold them accountable.

In other words, salvation is only assured by living out the teachings of Christ.

[Natural Law]

"What about the necessity aspect?"

It is in the liturgy, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, that "the work of our redemption is accomplished," and it is through the liturgy especially that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church.

The Church is a "communion of saints": this expression refers first to the "holy things" (sancta), above all the Eucharist, by which "the unity of believers, who form one body in Christ, is both represented and brought about"

[annalex]

as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come (1 Cor 11:26)

St. Paul did not subscribe to the yearly Communion idea.

[armydoc]

It is in the liturgy, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, that "the work of our redemption is accomplished," and it is through the liturgy especially that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church. The Church is a "communion of saints": this expression refers first to the "holy things" (sancta), above all the Eucharist, by which "the unity of believers, who form one body in Christ, is both represented and brought about"

I can't tell by this answer whether or not you believe that taking the Eucharist is necessary for salvation. Could you clarify?

[armydoc]

In other words, salvation is only assured by living out the teachings of Christ.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Catholic Church teaches that you can never be assured of your salvation.

[Natural Law]

"I can't tell by this answer whether or not you believe that taking the Eucharist is necessary for salvation. Could you clarify?"

Since there are exceptions to the requirement (i.e.; the invincibly ignorant, infants and children, those physically prevented from taking the Eucharist by incarceration, physical disability, etc.) the very legalistic answer would be no. However, imputability aside, Christ did command us to "do this in memory of me".

[DouglasKC]

as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come (1 Cor 11:26)
St. Paul did not subscribe to the yearly Communion idea.

He did. 1 Corinthians 11:26 simply means "every time you do this you show his death". Many versions of the bible translate it this way.

It doesn't say "do this as often as you can". If that were the sense than it would be "better" to be constantly doing it.

It's no accident that Paul, in the same letter, commanded the Christians at Corinth to observe the feast of Passover and unleavened bread:

1Co 5:7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

It was getting close to the time of year when they were going to be observing the passover. As part of that Paul was giving instructions on the wine and the bread.

[annalex]

Now, the meaning is clear:

ὁσάκις ...

as many times as, as often as

(Lidell-Scott)

One cannot write "as often as you celebrate the New Year, ..." The expression means that the frequency is arbitrary.

The Church allows receiving the Holy Communion once a day ordinarily, second time at a special occasion such as attending a wedding Mass. The restriction has to do, -- I am guessing -- with the concern that someone might eat it to satisfy physical hunger.

Receiving each Sunday or other holidays is obligatory.

[DouglasKC]

Now, the meaning is clear: ὁσάκις ... as many times as, as often as (Lidell-Scott) One cannot write "as often as you celebrate the New Year, ..." The expression means that the frequency is arbitrary.

Most commentators don't agree on that. However the Passover ceremony using the bread and wine can actually be done twice a year which may explain "as often as":

Num 9:2 "Let the children of Israel keep the Passover at its appointed time.
Num 9:3 On the fourteenth day of this month, at twilight, you shall keep it at its appointed time. According to all its rites and ceremonies you shall keep it."
Num 9:4 So Moses told the children of Israel that they should keep the Passover.
Num 9:5 And they kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month, at twilight, in the Wilderness of Sinai; according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so the children of Israel did.
Num 9:6 Now there were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse, so that they could not keep the Passover on that day; and they came before Moses and Aaron that day.
Num 9:7 And those men said to him, "We became defiled by a human corpse. Why are we kept from presenting the offering of the LORD at its appointed time among the children of Israel?"
Num 9:8 And Moses said to them, "Stand still, that I may hear what the LORD will command concerning you."
Num 9:9 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
Num 9:10 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'If anyone of you or your posterity is unclean because of a corpse, or is far away on a journey, he may still keep the LORD's Passover.
Num 9:11 On the fourteenth day of the second month, at twilight, they may keep it. They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

God considers his Passover so important that he made sure that everyone has an opportunity to partake. Paul, who knew scripture, no doubt knew that this command he gave would be applicable to either observance.

I think what you're doing is reading scripture through the filter of tradition. In biblical times Christianity was still very close to it's jewish roots. The observance of Passover was once a year. Christ instituted the new covenant ceremony on Passover.

[annalex]

I simply read what is written. “As often as” does not mean “at fixed intervals” of any duration.

Things like frequency of communion or other calendaric things are the purview of the Church, and often, of the local Church. It is possible, for example, that due to a shortage of priests the Eucharist be celebrated less frequently than even once a week (something similar happened to some Old Believer communities of the Orthodox). I have no quarrel with what other communities of faith teach in that regard. The same applies to other aspects of the Jewish law, such as circumcision, dietetic restrictions, and celebration of the Sabbath.

[Melian]

Exactly, because only God can judge for sure how you lived out the teachings of Christ. He knows your heart inside and out and will be able to sift appropriately.

Even St. Paul was not 100% sure of his salvation but worked on it “with fear and trembling.”

[armydoc]

Since there are exceptions to the requirement (i.e.; the invincibly ignorant, infants and children, those physically prevented from taking the Eucharist by incarceration, physical disability, etc.) the very legalistic answer would be no. However, imputability aside, Christ did command us to "do this in memory of me".

Jn 6:53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

Ah, yes, I see the "exceptions" you speak of implicit in Jesus' words.