I would love to read the best explanations for the Eucharistic Body of Our Lord.
I would love to read the best explanations for the Eucharistic Body of Our Lord.
Not sure what you mean but this may help… Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist
I am just looking for good teachings.
What about John 6
Jesus said it so it must be true. What else do you need when you have the words of Jesus himself:)
The question is, at least for me, did Jesus say it or do we interpret what He said to mean that? Its not so clear from the words that are written. Jesus often spoke in parables and riddles, did He really mean that in a literal sense?
I think if you read the 6th chapter of John’s Gospel including John 6, the institution narratives given in the synoptics (“This IS my body”) and the institution narrative given by St. Paul along with his warning about taking the Eucharist without recognizing the body of the Lord, it’s pretty obvious that Jesus meant what he said.
That plus the fact that nobody questioned the belief for 1500 years.
Could it be possible that it WAS His body only at the Last Supper?
When Jesus told the Pharisees (something to the effect of), “If you were ignorant your sin would be forgiven, but since you say ‘we know’, your sin will remain.” Is St Paul saying something similar about those who eat and drink judgement on themselves? Could “eating and drinking” simply mean “those who claim they know better”?
Only? No. You have to remember the context of the Last Supper. It is the new Passover, instituting the New Covenant. And the sacrifice of the cross is an eternal offering of the Son to the Father. That’s why Jesus instructed them to carry it out eternally. Also, re-read John 6. He tells the entire crowd that everyone must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to gain eternal life. Only the Apostles were at the Last Supper. So John 6 nixes the idea that it was His Body only at the Last Suppe.
The principle is that those who are unaware of God’s commands through no fault of their own do not incur sin upon themselves. St. Paul is writing to Christians who have been instructed about the New Covenant and the Eucharist. As such, when they take communion while not in a state of grace, they sin mortally.
THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD
A Catholic Understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
by Randy Carson
In the sixth chapter of John, Jesus makes the following statement: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Jn 6:51 (all scripture quotations from the NIV)
Just exactly what did Jesus mean when he said, “this bread is my flesh”? Many people argue that Jesus was only speaking symbolically when He said that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Is this true?
We can discover the true meaning of Jesus’ words by examining the reactions of the crowd who heard his teaching with their own ears, from the infallible word of God contained in the New Testament, and from the writings and teachings of the early Church.
Reaction of the Eyewitnesses
Speaking before a crowd assembled at a synagogue in Capernaum, Jesus delivered a teaching that has divided the Catholic and Protestant churches since the time of the Reformation. 1500 years earlier, his words had a similarly divisive effect on the audience who heard them for the very first time.
After Jesus declared Himself to be “the living bread that came down from heaven,” the very next verse of scripture tells us: “Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” Why were they arguing? If they understood Jesus to be speaking metaphorically, then there would have been hardly an eyebrow raised. For example, on other occasions, Jesus said, “I am the gate for the sheep” (Jn 10:7) and “I am the true vine” (Jn 15:1) but on those occasions, the listeners easily discerned that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. In contrast, an argument did break out when Jesus said, “this bread is my flesh,” and this indicates that those in the crowd held different opinions about what he meant. Some said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? He’s crazy!” while others may have responded, “Of course he can’t do that…his words must have a symbolic meaning!” The one group rejected Jesus’ ability to give us his body and blood as real food and drink while the other missed his true meaning altogether. Either way, the crowd was divided.
Of course, Jesus knew what they were saying amongst themselves, and if it was merely his intent to draw a symbolic parallel between his flesh and the bread of heaven, he could have put an end to their misunderstanding immediately. Instead, Jesus reiterated and strengthened the literal meaning of his words by declaring,
“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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Our forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever. He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.” (Jn 6:53-58)
Rather than quieting the crowd which had broken out into arguments about what he had just told them, Jesus pressed his point home even more emphatically: “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” In fact, whereas he had initially said positively, ”If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever,” now he has just stated the negative result of failing to do so: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Thus, Jesus has clarified his meaning by stating what happens if we do – and do not – eat his flesh and drink his blood.
The next verse is particularly revealing: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (Jn 6:60) Notice that it was not Jesus’ typical enemies, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who rejected his teaching on this occasion but his disciples – those believers who followed him from place to place and hailed him as the Messiah. They had seen Jesus perform many miracles and heard him teach wondrous things. But this was too much even for them.
“Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said this to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” Jn 6:61-64
Not only does Jesus continue to uphold the literal meaning of his teaching, but also he presses even further by asking that if this bothers them, what will they do when they see him ascend to heaven? Protestants do not deny the ascension of the resurrected Jesus, yet here Jesus places two key truths side by side. He is saying, in effect, “If eating my flesh causes you theological problems, just wait until you see what else I have planned…you ain’t seen nothing yet!”
The gospel continues: “From this time, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Jn 6:66-69
There is a lot going on in these three verses; let’s look at them closely. After hearing Jesus declare that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink, his disciples, his followers, could not accept his words and no longer followed him. Of course, if they had understood that his body and blood were being used as symbols, they would have had no complaint. It was precisely because they understood exactly what Jesus meant that they refused to follow him any longer. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to what the eyewitnesses understood Jesus to be saying.
Now, imagine the scene: Jesus has been teaching a crowd, and many of them have gotten up to leave because they could not or would not accept his words. In rejecting his teaching, they rejected the one who gave it and turned their backs on the savior of the world. Thus, their souls were at risk of eternal separation from God. Jesus came to seek and save what was lost; therefore, if these disciples had a simple misunderstanding of the metaphorical language he had used that might cause them to spend eternity in Hell, Jesus would have corrected their error. But we do not see him chasing them down the road saying, “Wait, everyone. I think there’s been a misunderstanding … let me explain what I meant.” Jesus could not correct a misunderstanding because there had been none.
Instead, he watched sadly as they departed and then turned to the Twelve, the closest of his disciples, and put the question directly to them: “What about you? Are you leaving too?” In doing so, Jesus was risking everything he had been working for since he had first called Simon and Andrew to follow him by the shore of the Sea of Galilee. If the Twelve had abandoned him at this crucial moment, Jesus would have had to begin again with a new group of Apostles to whom he would entrust his teachings and upon whom he would build his church. By God’s grace, Simon Peter, the first among the Apostles, responded in faith acknowledging that Jesus is the Holy One of God and accepting this difficult teaching.
Luke 24:13-35 is another good one. It explains how you can learn scripture, even from Jesus himself, but if you don’t receive the Eucharist you don’t truly know Jesus Christ.
Why then would Paul twenty years later say,