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 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.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
-John 6:53-58
I've been thinking a lot lately about how a lot of Protestants deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and wishing I could think of a really good apology to convince them of it. Then through my reading I came upon it. If you believe that Christ offered himself up as the true paschal lamb for our salvation, which all Christians believe, then I am convinced you must believe that Christ is fully present in the Eucharist.
Here's why: (Besides Christ actually saying that the bread and wine are his body and blood! Also, Jesus Christ does not lie. He IS truth. Ergo, if he says it is his body and blood then you had better believe it!)
During the time of the first Passover in Egypt, the Israelites had to sacrifice a paschal lamb and then eat it in order to be saved from God's wrath on Egypt's firstborn sons. Likewise, during the Passover around the year 33 AD, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, offered himself up as the true paschal lamb to be sacrificed on the cross for the salvation of the whole world. Christ instituted the Eucharist as a memorial of his Passover sacrifice (which we Catholics partake in every Sunday, as do some Protestants) in which we eat and drink the bread and wine that are truly Christ's body and blood.
When reading the Bible it is of the utmost importance, as I have learned from Scott Hahn, that we look at the New Testament in light of the Old as well as the Old in light of the New!
Furthermore, St. Paul admonishes:
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
-1 Cor 11:27-29
For such a holy act as eating the body and blood of Christ, St. Paul warns that it shouldn't be done lightly. For doing so could bring judgment upon yourself. If the bread and wine were not really the body and blood of Christ, but rather simply a symbolic act, then St. Paul would not speak about it with the seriousness that he does.
29 comments:
This is a huge issue in ecumenical dialogue - the Real Presence. It's so fundamental though. So central. We will not be united as one Church until we all recognize Christ in the Eucharist. But then again, according to many statistics, the percentage of Catholics who actually believe that the Eucharist is Christ, fully human and fully divine, ranges from 25 to 35%. Maybe we need start by evangelization and better catechesis within the Church first.
Good post!
Just one thing you said which I didn't get...
"which we Catholics partake in every Sunday, as do some Protestants"
? What do you mean? I know there are some Protestant groups (e.g some high Anglicans or 'Anglo-Catholics' as they call themselves) who believe that they actually are consecrating the bread & wine into the body & blood of Christ, but my understanding was that no Church has the Blessed Sacrament apart from the Catholic Church (& the Orthodox)...
Antonia,
I was refering to the Anglican Church which celebrates the Eucharist every Sunday. Now whether they all believe that it is the Real Presence of Christ is a different story. I know for a fact that they all don't. Which is why I have become Catholic. I'm not sure, but I think the Lutherans might celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday as well.
The point I was trying to make was that if the these Protestant churches obey Christ's command to take communion every Sunday, then they should also obey (or rather believe) Christ when he says that he really is present in the sacrament.
Because when it comes down to it, whether they believe or not, Christ is still present!
Dp,
I totally agree that there needs to be more evangelization and better catechesis withing the Catholic Church before we branch out into ecumenical dialogue. I'm shocked at how many Catholics I have talked to who don't know much about their faith. As an Anglican I knew more than they did about Catholicism.
Sometimes I feel that I am in a sort of dreamland when I roam around the Catholic Blogosphere, because everyone seems to know their faith and are happy to proclaim it. But when I go out into the real world it's not always evident among the Catholics I see in church or elsewhere.
The norm for Lutherans in the U.S. is alternating weeks between Holy Communion and a Morning Prayer liturgy (this alternation was also once common with Anglicans). Lutherans are split on their belief in the Real Presence.
The Real Presence is also an Anglican doctrine, though often as underappreciated by Anglicans as by Catholics. Antonia is right that it is more emphasized by us "Anglo-Catholics" than the rest of the Anglican world. Valid sacraments are based on valid orders, which Anglicans have, though we may have to agree to disagree on that point. :-)
Danny, have you been received into the Church yet? I knew you had started instruction and had been going to Mass faithfully, but I wasn't sure if you had been received or were taking communion.
Frank,
Thanks for the clarification on the Lutherans.
I haven't been recieved yet. My wife and I will be recieved in on Easter, so alas we have not been taking communion which has been difficult for us, but we understand why we have to wait until we are officially Catholics.
oohh! I get what you mean!
Sorry for my confusion.
It's just that I get a lot of Anglican exposure (living in England and all) and I know a Priest who used to be an 'Anglo-Catholic' of sorts (there are even Anglican Franciscans wandering around too...).
And my Priest friend told me that when he was an Anglican priest they used to believe that the bread & wine DID turn into the body & blood of Christ (although in reality it doesn't because they dont have true Holy Orders & therefore are unable to validly consecrate), but they none-the-less used to believe in the real presence of the Christ in their Eucharist.
But yeh, I know far far far faaaaar more Anglicans who don't believe in the real presence. I totally agree with you, from my experience the significantly VAST majority of non-Catholic Christians do not take Jesus' words in John, literally.
(which is pretty odd when you consider how literally they take other stuff from the NT).
Antonia,
In addition to having valid orders (I'm a transitional deacon, with priestly ordination, God willing, in October), I am also an Anglican Franciscan.
Blessings,
Frank
Wow, I didn't know there was such a thing as Anglican Franciscans. What order are you Frank? Is it like being a monk? How does it work?
Danny,
Francis' First Order was (and is) celibate monks, the Second Order is the "Poor Clares," or nuns. His Third Order is non-monastic, for people in their various states of life, and has historically included both clergy and laity. There are Franciscan tertiary chapters that are Catholic, Anglican, and even ecumenical. I believe the Franciscan priests at Stubenville (and elsewhere) are "TOR," that is, "Third Order Regular."
My order is Anglican, but includes members of other denominations who choose to follow the rule. It is known as the Company of Jesus. Our rule includes the Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer and other disciplines, as well as ministry in keeping with the Franciscan spirit (priestly ministry for some, various lay ministries for others). I have made the first of three annual professions of vows which will culminate in life profession. Our vows include chastity (whether in the single or married state), simplicity of life, and obedience to the rule, the abbot, and our bishop.
There are a number of lay Franciscan groups in the Anglican world. It's somewhat different in the Catholic Church: TORs are now all priests and celibate brothers. The lay Franciscan order (men and women) in the RCC is the SFO (Secular Franciscan Order).
Famous lay Franciscans have included Michelangelo and Franz Liszt.
Sorry to hijack your thread!
Peace and all good,
Frank
hehe! cool!
So, if I may ask, why is stopping you from becoming Catholic? Surely you can't follow the rule of St. Francis honestly and as he intended, unless you are in communion with the Catholic Church (i.e. the See of Peter & Rome)...?
(also, I'm not 100% sure about the valid Holy Orders thing....my understanding of that was that, you think you have valid Holy Orders, but the Vatican says you don't...and so we believe you don't...) (but I would need to research that more before I can say it with certainty...)
Also, if part of your vows include "obedience to (the rule, the abbot, and) our bishop."
That would be your local Anglican Bishop would it? (who may/may not believe in the Real Presence...?)
Antonia,
Your faith is strong and your knowledge deep! I’m afraid some of my answers may only generate more questions.
Both my Province (which, for the record, is *not* ECUSA) and my Order have doctrinal statements requiring belief in the Real Presence. I would not have taken diaconal (or ultimately priestly) or Franciscan vows otherwise. My bishop, therefore, necessarily believes in the Real Presence.
You are correct that the Vatican rejects the validity of Anglican Orders. This is why Anglican priests becoming Catholic priests under the Pastoral Provision are re-ordained “sub conditione”. Pope Leo XIII in 1896 wrote a Pastoral Letter declaring this, though it was not an infallible pronouncement. It is interesting, though, that in interfaith dialogues between Canterbury and Rome, validity of orders has not been as big an issue as other doctrinal problems. It is also interesting that Orthodoxy has no problem with Anglican Orders, and Anglican priests acceding to Orthodoxy (at least in some branches) are not re-ordained.
Many non-RC Christians have followed St. Francis’ Rule (not to mention St. Benedict’s) over the years. Even among RC Franciscans, the Rule has been adapted to local need. Francis’ original Rule does mention the Pope. The Anglican understanding of this is that Francis, living where and when he did (a fellow countryman of yours!) would necessarily have obeyed the Pope as his bishop and patriarch, but that the spirit of the Franciscan charism involves obedience to one’s own bishop and church, not necessarily the Bishop of Rome.
So, why I am not a (Roman) Catholic? I was a cradle RC, baptized and confirmed. At the age of 17, I was converted to Christ while attending a Baptist church. I remained a Baptist for about 15 years, including several as an ordained minister. Several years ago I found myself missing the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, and after much study discerned that Anglicanism was the true “middle way” for me. I believe Anglicanism is an expression of the “one, holy, catholic [universal], and apostolic Church.”
Which brings us back to the divisions made evident by our understanding of the Eucharist. Technically, according to the teachings of Rome, I am “apostate.” I cannot receive communion in your church, nor you (as a faithful RC) in mine. The greatest irony, perhaps, is that I believe in the Real Presence as an Anglican, but did not as a RC (granted, I was only a teenager when I left, but I think you understand my point). Following Christ led me into the Baptist church, while desiring to receive Him in the Eucharist led me into Anglicanism; however, I am not able to share His Body and Blood with my RC brothers and sisters.
May Christ be glorified in all things, and may He soon heal the divisions among His children.
Frank
Hi Frank,
Thanks for your reply to my questions.
If I may respond to some of the points you brought up...
I don't quite see the Anglican Franciscan's re-interpretation of St. Francis references to the Pope as logical.
It is not historically honest to suggest that, for St. Francis, the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Assisi are synonymous.
The distinction between the authority held by the Pope, and the authority of one's local Bishop is extremly clear and no Catholic would suggest that they are on par.
When St. Francis called for unwavering obedience to the Pope....he meant the Pope.
I can't understand how one could suggest that this means exactly the same thing as being obedient to a (non-Catholic) Bishop, amd totally rejecting all obedience to the Pope...
As an example, when St. Francis' first rule of the Friars Minor was written he and his followers set out for Rome to seek the approval of the Holy See, although as yet no such official approval
was obligatory.
That fact that St. Francis went straight to Pope Innocent III and not to his local Bishop (Bishop Guido of Assisi) illustrates the importance that St. Francis' placed on obedience to the Holy See, and on the Holy See's approval.
Further, this shows that, if anything, obedience to the See of Peter should come ABOVE obedience to one's local Bishop.
Okay, so that was my point number one.
Secondly, I am saddened for you that you left the Full Truth and accepted a "middle way", which expresses only a middle number of Truths.
Does the Anglican Church believe that the “one, holy, catholic [universal], and apostolic Church” is a visible communion of people, as the Catholic Church does?
My final point is to do with the reasons you are unable to recieve communion in a Catholic Church. I am sure you are well versed on the Catholic teaching but I would just like to add my own thoughts.
"Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" (Acts 9:4): Christ & His Church are inextricably linked - Christ being the head & the Church being His body.
One can not therefore claim to have the right to recieve communion simply because one believes in Jesus' true presence in the Eucharist, if one does not believe in His True Presence also in His body, the Church He instituted in AD33.
One can not make up the rules as one pleases. A schism in 1534 (which is where Anglicanism started) rejected essential Truths professed by Christ's Body, and so has no right to legitimatly claim to be in communion with His body, and thus to be able to visibly express that communion. (...by recieving the Eucharist in a Catholic Church).
I really admire you for being a Franciscan, as St. Francis is an exceptional role-model.
I hope I have not said anything which offends you, & I very much look forward to hearing your reply.
Also, if I may still persue this...I don't really understand your actual reasons for not returning to the Catholic Church?
Is it just the fact that you felt unfulfilled by it as a teenager..?
Many thanks! I em enjoying conversing with you! We have a group of Anglican Franciscans in my home-town and although I have often wanted to speak with them, I have never really had the opportunity.
God Bless,
Antonia
-x-
ps- Danny, I hope it's okay if we continue the discussion..?!
Antonia,
I think this is a good, thoughtful, and most importantly civil discussion so far. I have no problems with it's continuence.
I always enjoy Frank's comments (as well as yours) and I know that whatever conversation happens it will be well stated and in the boundries of Christian civility. I also know that good conversation such as this can be very informative.
I too would also like to hear more of Frank's reasoning on leaving the Catholic Church and what has kept him from returning.
Antonia,
I am not suggesting that Francis saw Assisi and Rome as synonymous. But you hit on the heart of the matter when you brought up the issue of authority. In Anglicanism, as in the Eastern Churches, authority is collegial. I believe the spirit (not the letter) of the Franciscan charism is obedience to proper authority, not any one specific authority (such as the Pope for those in the RCC).
I can understand your belief that it is not possible to be a Franciscan outside of the RCC or papal authority. I think that question is contingent on and subordinate to a greater question, that is, whether it is possible to be “catholic” outside of the RCC or papal authority. My answer is an unreserved, “yes!”
Do I believe in the Church Visible? Absolutely! I saw this communion at my diaconal ordination, meeting clergy from all over North America who are lifting up Christ in their communities. I saw this communion last night as I assisted at the altar and ministered the Precious Blood to the students at our college Eucharist. And at all sorts of moments in between I can see Christ’s Body at work.
It’s interesting to me that you used Saul’s persecution of the Church to illustrate the link between Christ and His Body. In 2000 years, how many Christians have been persecuted and martyred that were not in communion with Rome? My point is that all who have been baptized into Christ are the Church, His Body. At baptism we receive the Holy Spirit, and our bodies are His temple. My communion with those saints living and dead is based on that indwelling, not on communion with Rome or the Pope.
As to my leaving the RCC, it was not done in anger or dissatisfaction per se. While baptized and confirmed, I had not begun to follow Christ as a disciple. I was drawn to the Baptist tradition because of the powerful teaching of God’s Word which, sadly, was absent from the RC parishes I attended. My desire for a deeper knowledge of Christ in His Word led me to the Baptist tradition. My desire for a deeper knowledge of Christ in the Eucharist led me to Anglicanism. And my desire for a deeper knowledge of Christ in prayer and service led me to the Franciscan Way.
It is true that one cannot receive Christ without receiving His Church—but I have done both. You and I (and Danny, and all those baptized into Christ) are His Church. As a young RC, I had the Church (in an institutional sense) without Christ, but now I have both. The RCC is part of God’s Holy Church, but I cannot accept her claims to be ALL of that Church. For one thing, the issue of Eastern Orthodoxy gives lie to that claim. The teaching of Rome on the Eastern Church seems to be something like, “the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church, unless it also includes the Orthodox Church.” The fact that Rome has opened the door to God’s Spirit working through the Churches of the East (including their priesthood and Eucharist) contradicts the idea of “extra ecclesiam nulla sales,” if by “ecclesiam” you mean the Church of Rome only.
I am not saddened that my journey has led me to become an Anglican and a Franciscan, for that has been the source of great joy and peace, and by God’s grace, being conformed more to Christ. I also rejoice for your devotion to Christ in the Eucharist and through His Body as found in the RCC. I am only saddened that God’s family cannot presently be united in its sacrifices “for the life of the world.”
Danny,
Last night (college Eucharist) was my first time assisting as deacon at St. Peter’s, and it was a great joy. There were over 20 former EUC students there. Fr. Michael and Fr. Eric send their best. Fr. Jim Hampson, the last remaining active priest at St. John’s, is coming over to St. Peter’s starting this week. And St. Peter’s hopes to find a fourth priest to work with college students and single adults, possibly from this year’s TESM graduating class; Fr. Eric is going up there in February to interview candidates.
Every blessing to you both,
Frank
Hey thanks a lot for your reply! It was very informative for me & I enjoyed reading it!
Just one thing I wanted to point out....
You said
"The RCC is part of God’s Holy Church, but I cannot accept her claims to be ALL of that Church."
The ROMAN Catholic Church doesn't claim to be ALL of the Catholic Church either!
The Catholic Church consists of two Churches; The Western Church and the Eastern Church (most famously described as the "two lungs of the Catholic Church" by JP2).
The Western Church consists entirely of the Latin Rite (aka: The Roman Rite aka: the RCC).
However, the Easten Church is JUST as valid as the Western Church, and consists of about 21 Rites.
BOTH the Western and the Eastern Rites are subject to the Supreme Pontiff.
The Orthodox Church is entirely separate and schismed off the Church in 1054.
A number of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches used to be part of the Orthodox Church, but over the years they have come back to the Catholic Church they left in 1054.
I am sure there is a sound logical reason why the Catholic Church accepts that the Eucharist celebrated in the Orthodox Church is valid.
Unfortunatly at the moment I do not have the knowledge to coherently explain why, but will certainly ask my Priest and I will let you know when I do!
Thanks again for the discussion! :)
ps- Apologies for my deleted posts above. My computer wasnt responding so I thought the posts didn't go through!
Antonia,
I understand computer problems. And I do understand the difference between Eastern-Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy, sorry I wasn't more precise.
Blessings,
Frank
Frank,
It's great to hear that you are helping out with the college ministry at St. Peter's!! Laura and I miss everyone very much!
I am overjoyed to hear that Fr. Hampson is coming over to St. Peter's. I was distressed to hear that he had stayed along with Bishop Hathaway, but I'm relieved that he is now safe at St. Peter's. I wish Bishop Hathaway would make the move as well, but I fear that isn't going to happen.
I constantly pray for everyone at St. Peter's and their ministry there. It's very good to hear that the college group is in good hands!
Blessings,
Danny
Hey, Danny. Thanks for your prayers.
Antonia, more on the distinction between Eastern-Rite Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy: I had always understand JP2's use of that phrase ("breathe with both lungs") to refer to Eastern Orthodoxy. As I recall, he stated his prayer that Europe in particular would breath with both lungs. To me, this seems to refer to Orthodoxy and not Eastern-Rite, because as you point out, the Latin Rite and Eastern Rite already are two rites (actually several) in one Church. My brief internet searching seems to be inconclusive, with people interpreting it both ways; I would speculate this may be because many people don't understand the distinction. The phrase did not originate with JP2 apparently, and has been used in various contexts. Do you know the document the pope used it in?
Blessings,
Frank
I've always thought of it as meaning the Latin rite and the Eastern rite of the Catholic Churhc and not referring to the Orthodox Church.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/HilarionEurope2.php
At least one Orthodox bishop thinks it refers to Orthodoxy, even saying that the statement has Russian roots!
As I mentioned before, if JP2's statement referred to the Eastern-Rite churches, it was already a reality, as they are one with Rome. In my mind, it makes more sense as a prayer for healing the Great Schism.
Once again, foiled by computers. The end of that link is HilarionEurope2.php
Here is the quote of JP2's that Antonia was referring too. It defintely means that the two lungs of the Catholic Church are the West(Latin-Rite(Roman)) and the East(Eastern-Rite (not to be confused with Eastern Orthodox)).
"The universal Church needs a synergy between the particular [Catholic] Churches of East and West so that she may breathe with her two lungs, in the hope of one day doing so in perfect communion between the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern [Orthodox] Churches. Therefore, we cannot but rejoice that the Eastern [Catholic] Churches have in recent times taken root in America alongside the Latin Churches present there from the beginning, thus making the catholicity of the Lord's Church appear more clearly."
Thanks, Danny. This makes a lot more sense. As I understand it, the Eastern-Rite Catholic churches have been a bone of contention with the Orthodox, because where they have existed in historically Orthodox lands they are viewed as encroaching on Orthodox "turf." They were referred to pejoratively as "Uniate" churches.
You do see more Byzantine-rite and other Eastern-rite Catholic parishes in the U.S. these days. Speaking of which, an Orthodox priest once told me that the U.S. is the only country in the world where Orthodox bishops from different jurisdictions have significant overlap (Greek, Russian, Antiochian, OCA). This is another turf war that is trying to be resolved. Why is it not surprising that the U.S. is an ecclesiastical mess?
Sorry to get further off the beaten path, but thanks for the quote!
Post a Comment