Episode 4
\nEUCHARIST I<\/span><\/p>\nLogical and Early Church Evidence
\nObjection to Catholicism<\/b><\/p>\n
A \u2013 Catholics cannot really believe that the bread and wine taken in communion are truly the\u00a0<\/i>body of Jesus Christ; our physical senses tell us that it\u2019s flour and wine.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\nPhysical objects that appear solid are mostly composed of what?<\/span><\/p>\nSpace in between atoms, composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.<\/span><\/p>\nDescribe the motion of physical objects that appear to be still?<\/span><\/p>\nElectrons are always moving. The Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger, in the 1920s, contended (quite successfully) that electrons are three-dimensional waveforms, as opposed to particles. <\/span><\/p>\nHow fast are parts of the atoms in a still object actually moving?<\/span><\/p>\nElectrons constantly move at velocities approaching the speed of light. <\/span><\/p>\nDo our physical senses give us an accurate or an inaccurate understanding of\u00a0an object\u2019s actual nature?<\/span><\/p>\nPhysical senses (without the aid of sophisticated microscopes, accompanied by even more complicated theories of physics and mathematics) cannot enable us to comprehend the fundamental properties of matter. <\/span><\/p>\nHow do Dr. Guarendi and Dr. Richard\u2019s explanation of the laws of physics\u00a0and our observations of a physical object apply to our understanding of the\u00a0nature of The Eucharist?<\/span><\/p>\nWhat \u201cappears\u201d to be so may not be that way at all. Objects that appear perfectly at rest are in fact, partially moving at velocities close to the speed of light. Likewise, what appears<\/em> to us as bread and wine can in fact be<\/em> the Body and Blood of Christ, made supernaturally present in the consecrated elements (formerly bread and wine), according to the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself: the same Jesus Who could travel through walls in His glorified body (John 20:26; cf. 1 Cor 15:51-53). According to modern physics and quantum mechanics, such things are literally possible, even in a purely physical realm. So how is there any inherent difficulty in believing in transubstantiation (\u201cchange of substance\u201d)? <\/span><\/p>\nIf our physical senses are incapable of accurately describing a natural object,\u00a0by what can we accurately describe a supernatural object?<\/span><\/p>\nThe Bible describes supernatural objects with \u201cphenomenological\u201d language (the language of appearances and simple observation). For example, in the previous example of Jesus walking through walls, the Bible doesn\u2019t attempt to delve into 20th<\/sup> century particle physics; it simply says \u201cThe doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them . . .\u201d (John 20:26). Likewise, the Bible refers to \u201cthis [what appears<\/em> to be bread] is My Body\u201d (Luke 22:19-20), and Paul equates bread and wine with the \u201cbody and blood of the Lord\u201d that can be profaned in an irreverent receiving of the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:27-30; cf. 10:14-22).<\/span><\/p>\nObjection to Catholicism<\/b><\/span><\/p>\nB \u2013 Jesus was not God because he did not look like God. He looked just like man.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\nIf we could have looked through a microscope at the embryo of Jesus Christ\u00a0in Mary\u2019s womb, would our senses have perceived God or just a human cell\u00a0reproducing? Why?<\/span><\/p>\nThe attributes of the incarnate God cannot be ascertained by conventional methods of scientific observation. Jesus wanted people to accept Who He was by faith. Hence, Jesus says to \u201cdoubting Thomas\u201d after the latter had put his hand in the wound in His side: \u201cHave you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe\u201d (John 20:29).<\/span><\/p>\nWhen Jesus was a man did people generally see a man, or did they recognize\u00a0God? Why?
\n<\/span><\/p>\nThose who did not have doubt or serious sin and spiritual \u201cblindness\u201d (John 9:39-41) often regarded Him as God, in faith; for example, the blind man healed by Jesus, who worshiped Him (John 9:35-38), and \u201cdoubting Thomas,\u201d after Jesus appeared to him (John 20:28). The ones who were blind assumed that He was not only just <\/em>a man, but also a quite sinful one (John 9:24; cf. Matt 12:22-27, 38-42).<\/span><\/p>\nWhat prevents humans from recognizing God in any form, such as Jesus the\u00a0Man, or Jesus in the Eucharist?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nLack of faith, and excessive doubt and cynicism. Signs, wonders, and miracles (and by extension, \u201cscientific proof\u201d) do not suffice for many hard-hearted people anyway:<\/span><\/p>\n. . . If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.\u00a0(Luke 16:31)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nIn John 6, we see that unbelief and lack of faith and skepticism kept \u201cmany of his disciples\u201d (6:60) from believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and actually forsaking the Lord (6:66), because it was a \u201chard saying\u201d (6:60). Jesus appealed to His ascension, which was an even greater, and more visible miracle (6:62) thus seemingly implying: \u201cif you can\u2019t believe this<\/em> miracle, how, then, will you be able to believe in that<\/em> one; yet you will see that with your own eyes.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nIf we cannot use our senses to determine if something is God or not, what\u00a0can we use? Why?<\/span><\/p>\nFaith and the sure word of revelation; also our internal God-given sense of the holiness that Jesus exhibited in His life, and the trustworthy reports of those who were eyewitnesses of His glory (Luke 1:1-2; Acts 1:1-3). See the previous three answers.<\/span><\/p>\nWhat is wrong with using natural law to explain the \u201csuper\u201d natural?<\/span><\/p>\nNothing whatsoever! We can utilize that which we know and understand, in order to comprehend (by analogy or parallel) supernatural things that are mysteries to us. Jesus did the same, by using agricultural metaphors in His parables, to reveal the truths of spirituality. Our Lord even compared the unwillingness of the Pharisees and Sadducees to use the same reasoning they use with regard to natural meteorological events of the weather, and apply it to spiritual matters:<\/span><\/p>\nMatthew 16:1-4<\/strong>\u00a0And the Pharisees and Sad\u2019ducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered them, \u201cWhen it is evening, you say, `It will be fair weather; for the sky is red.\u2019 And in the morning, `It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.\u2019 You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah.\u201d So he left them and departed.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nObjection to Catholicism<\/b><\/span><\/p>\nC \u2013 The Eucharist is just a memorial or symbolic meal. That it is the real body and blood of\u00a0<\/i>Christ, is something made up by the Catholic Church over the centuries.<\/i>
\n<\/span><\/p>\nExplain how John 6 refutes this objection?<\/span><\/p>\nJesus uses extremely literal language in John 6:51-58:<\/span><\/p>\n51:<\/em> I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.\u201d
\n52:<\/em> The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, \u201cHow can this man give us his flesh to eat?\u201d
\n53:<\/em> So Jesus said to them, \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
\n54:<\/em> he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
\n55:<\/em> For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
\n56:<\/em> He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
\n57:<\/em> As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
\n58:<\/em> This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nIf this were intended as mere symbolic or figurative language, it seems that it was the least likely to convey that meaning, of any language imaginable. How could it be any more literal than it is? How Jesus reacted to the doubts of the hearers (see related information above), also reinforces this interpretation.<\/span><\/p>\nHow do the writings of the Early Church Fathers refute this objection?<\/span>
\n
\nIn the early second century (before 110 A.D.), St. Ignatius of Antioch held that \u201cthe Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.\u201d (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7,1) In the middle of the same century, St. Justin Martyr distinguishes the Eucharist from \u201ccommon\u201d bread and drink and calls it \u201cboth the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.\u201d (First Apology<\/em>, 66,2) A little later, St. Irenaeus writes, \u201cThe bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of (the) Lord, and the cup His Blood.\u201d (Against Heresies<\/em>, 4,18,4 \/ 4,33,2; cf. 4,18,5).<\/span>
\n
\nSt. John Chrysostom speaks of the priest as the representative of God in the Mass, exercising solely His power and grace, in order to \u201ctransform the gifts\u201d which \u201cbecome the Body and Blood of Christ.\u201d (Homilies on Judas, 1,6) Elsewhere he equates the Eucharist with Christ\u2019s \u201cblood-stained\u201d Body, \u201cpierced by a lance.\u201d (Homilies on 1 Corinthians, 24).<\/span>
\n
\nSt. Augustine, the greatest of the Fathers, writes that \u201cChrist was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said \u2018This is My Body.'\u201d (Explanations of the Psalms, 33,1,10) He expressly sanctions adoration of the consecrated Host:
\n<\/span><\/p>\nHe took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that flesh unless first he adores it . . . we do sin by not adoring. (Explanations of the Psalms, 98,9)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nWhen Christ says \u201cI will be with you always, even until the end of the\u00a0world,\u201d why do Catholics believe this promise to be the literal physical
\npresence of Jesus and not the Holy Spirit?<\/span><\/p>\nBecause right before He said this (Matt 28:20) He also urged His disciples to \u201cobserve all that I have commanded you\u201d. The Eucharist was precisely what Christians do (in obedience to the command at the Last Supper) to bring remembrance to Jesus\u2019 presence on earth; and not only remembrance, but Real Presence. Paul said that in observing the Eucharist, we \u201cproclaim the Lord\u2019s death until he comes\u201d (1 Cor 11:26). John 6:53-54,58 intimately connects the Eucharist with both spiritual and eternal life. John 6:56 makes reception of the Eucharist a necessity for Jesus to \u201cabide\u201d in believers, and vice versa (cf. John 14:23, 15:4-7). <\/span><\/p>\nOne of the objections against the early Christians was that during their\u00a0worship services they were practicing cannibalism. How does this historical
\nfact reinforce the Early Church belief in the true presence?<\/span><\/p>\nIt shows that the early Christians were taking Jesus literally (John 6; Last Supper utterances about the bread and the wine being His Body and Blood). But the pagans (like the skeptics who disbelieved in John 6) did not understand the distinction between physical cannibalism and a spiritual, sacramental Real Presence. <\/span><\/p>\nExplain how John 1:1 (\u201cIn the beginning was the Word\u2026\u201d) and John 1:14\u00a0(\u201cAnd The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us\u2026\u201d) reflects the
\nCatholic Mass and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.<\/span><\/p>\nThis involves the intimate connection between the incarnation and the Eucharist (both entail physical presence of God Himself). Catholic convert Thomas Howard elaborates: <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\nSacrament, recalling and presenting the Incarnation itself, is not so much supernatural as quintessentially natural, because it restores to nature its true function of being full of God . . . Indeed heaven and earth are full of His glory. Nature is the God-bearer, so to speak . . . In the Sacrament, bread, which is already a metaphor, is taken and raised to a dignity beyond mere metaphor . . . one step away from the Incarnation itself . . . It is a scandal. God is not man, any more than bread is flesh. But faith overrides the implacable prudence of logic and chemistry . . .<\/span><\/p>\nThis mystery . . . may be held only in faith, even though it, like the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension, exists quite apart from faith. `out there\u2019 in the real world.\u00a0(Evangelical is Not Enough<\/em>, Nashville: Nelson, 1984, 110-112)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/b><\/span>Objection to Catholicism<\/b><\/span><\/p>\nD \u2013 Catholics just pick and choose the writings of the Early Church Fathers in an attempt to\u00a0<\/i>prove that the early Christians believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.\u00a0<\/i>There were other writers who said it was only symbolic.<\/i>
\n<\/span><\/p>\nWhat is the best way to refute this objection?<\/span><\/p>\nBy citing the judgment of Protestant Church historians, who themselves do not believe the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist (hence cannot be accused of bias in favor of patristic support for the doctrine), yet accurately report what the Fathers believed. For example, the well known Protestant historian Philip Schaff: <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\nThe doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy . . . . till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century . . .<\/span><\/p>\nIn general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim\u2026\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n[Augustine] at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper . . . He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements.<\/span><\/p>\nAugustine . . . on the other hand, he calls the celebration of the communion \u2018verissimum sacrificium\u2019 of the body of Christ. The church, he says, offers (\u2018immolat\u2019) to God the sacrifice of thanks in the body of Christ. [City of God<\/em>, 10,20]<\/span><\/p>\n(History of the Christian Church<\/em>, v.3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig. 1910, 492, 500, 507)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nWhat did Luther say about the true presence of the Eucharist?<\/span><\/p>\nIt is enough for me that Christ\u2019s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Before I would drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts, I would rather have pure blood with the Pope.\u00a0(Early 1520s; in Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther<\/em>, translated by Robert C. Schultz, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, 376; Luther\u2019s Works<\/em>, [edited by Jaroslav Pelikan] 37, 317)<\/span>
\n
\nThe glory of our God is precisely that for our sakes he comes down to the very depths, into human flesh, into the bread, into our mouth, our heart, our body.\u00a0(in Althaus, ibid<\/em>., 398; Luther\u2019s Works<\/em> , 37, 71 ff.)<\/span>
\n
\n. . . Zwingli, Karlstadt, Oecolampadius . . . called him a baked God, a God made of bread, a God made of wine, a roasted God, etc. They called us cannibals, blood-drinkers, man-eaters . . . even the papists have never taught such things, as they clearly know . . .<\/span>
\n
\nFor this is . . . how it was accepted in the true, ancient Christian church of fifteen hundred years ago . . . When you receive the bread from the altar, . . . you are receiving the entire body of the Lord; . . .\u00a0(Brief Confession Concerning the Holy Sacrament<\/em>, September 1544; Luther\u2019s Works<\/i>, 38, 291-292)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nWhat symbol in the catacombs and ancient churches reinforced the early\u00a0Church\u2019s belief in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist?<\/span><\/p>\nThe famous symbol of the fish, and depictions of three of Jesus\u2019 miracles related to food: the feeding of the 5,000 with fish and bread, the banquet of seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee with the raised Jesus, and the miracle of the wedding at Cana (changing water into wine).
\n<\/span><\/p>\nEpisode 5
\nEUCHARIST II<\/span><\/p>\nScriptural Evidence<\/p>\n
REVIEW of EPISODE 4 \u2013 EUCHARIST I<\/p>\n
Objection to Catholicism<\/b><\/span><\/p>\nA \u2013 The Catholic Church invented this crazy idea that Jesus\u2019 body and blood are really\u00a0<\/i>present in the Eucharist. It\u2019s really nuts to think that a priest can pray over a wafer and\u00a0<\/i>turn it miraculously into Jesus Christ.<\/i>
\n<\/span><\/p>\nIf the Catholic claim that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist is true, who is\u00a0the only person that could be responsible for the miracle of it?<\/span><\/p>\nJesus Himself! If that is how He decided to miraculously become physically present again, after His earthly sojourn, then we can hardly object, seeing that it is hardly any different in essence than the Incarnation itself: God becoming man. On the other hand, if it is false doctrine, no priest could \u201cconjure\u201d up Jesus\u2019 presence, because they are dealing with the omnipotent God, and He is not to be trifled with or manipulated. <\/span><\/p>\nHow early in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and in what context,\u00a0can you find the concept of transubstantiation?<\/span><\/p>\nSt. Justin Martyr, First Apology<\/i>, 66:5 (complete; emphasis added):<\/span><\/p>\nAnd this food is called among us [eucharistia<\/em>] [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.<\/strong><\/b> For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, \u201cThis do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;\u201d and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, \u201cThis is My blood;\u201d and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nObjection to Catholicism<\/b><\/span><\/p>\nB \u2013 The concept of the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not in the Bible.<\/i>
\n<\/span><\/p>\nWith respect to the consecration of the Eucharist, what is the significance of\u00a0the Bible\u2019s mentioning Melchizedek?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nPsalm 110:4:<\/strong><\/b> The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, \u201cYou are a priest for ever after the order of Melchiz\u2019edek.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nWhen we trace the origin of this back, we find some very interesting things:<\/span><\/p>\nGenesis 14:18:<\/strong><\/b> And Mel-chiz\u2019edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.<\/span><\/p>\nLeviticus 23:12-14:<\/strong><\/b> And on the day when you wave the sheaf, you shall offer a male lamb a year old without blemish as a burnt offering to the LORD. And the cereal offering with it shall be two tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, to be offered by fire to the LORD, a pleasing odor; and the drink offering with it shall be of wine, a fourth of a hin. And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. (cf. also Hebrews 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:1-28)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nWhat was the function of the Old Testament priest?<\/span><\/p>\nThe priest presided over and performed ritual sacrifices of bulls and other things, in order to atone for the sins of the people. <\/span><\/p>\nHow did Christ\u2019s actions and words at the Last Supper parallel the Old\u00a0Testament priestly sacrifice for people\u2019s sins?<\/span><\/p>\nThe Last Supper was actually a Passover meal, in which lamb and bread and wine were consumed, and was for the purpose of the people remembering how God had physically delivered them from bondage in Egypt. Jesus used this symbolism to introduce the notion of the Eucharist: now bread and wine were to be transubstantiated into His Body and Blood and His followers would be spiritually delivered by His sacrifice as the \u201clamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world\u201d (John 1:29). And they were to remember this in the Eucharist henceforth, just as the Jews observed the Passover rite in remembrance. <\/span><\/p>\nAlthough Christ lifts up the bread at the Last Supper what does he say the\u00a0bread is? (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22-23, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-25)<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cThis is My body\u201d \u2013 as opposed to \u201cthis represents My body\u201d or \u201cthis contains my Body\u201d or \u201cMy Body is present with, in, and under the bread\u201d, or \u201cthis is a symbol to help you remember My Body,\u201d etc.<\/span><\/p>\nWhen Christ prays over the bread and wine at the last supper, what words\u00a0does he use that can be implied to mean that the bread and wine are only
\nsymbolic of his body and blood?<\/span><\/p>\nNone can be reasonably interpreted that way. The closest (so some believe) is \u201cdo this in remembrance of me.\u201d But in the Hebrew mind that didn\u2018t imply that it was a mere recollection or mental image or pleasing nostalgia; but rather, the reality being made present here and now<\/em>, just as the Jews regarded Passover. <\/span><\/p>\nWhat did St. Augustine say Jesus held in his hands at the Last Supper?<\/span><\/p>\nHis own Body: \u201cChrist was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said \u2018This is My Body.'\u201d (Explanations of the Psalms<\/em>, 33,1,10)<\/span><\/p>\nAt the Last Supper to what everlasting Old Testament concept did Jesus\u00a0relate the cup of wine?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThe covenant between God and His people: <\/span><\/p>\nMatthew 26:28:<\/strong><\/b> for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.<\/span><\/p>\n
![\"EucharistJesus\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/04\/EucharistJesus.jpg\")
<\/p>\n