Dear in Christ Mr writer,
Thank you for your protestant defense of this doctrine. We Catholics would disagree respectfully and charitably with much of what you said.
You said:
The "Eucharist" isn't any presence. It's zero, or an idol, without Christ
My answer:
The eucharist to a Catholic is Christ so the eucharist is not Without Christ in any sense. I am not sure how you got that idea my brother
You said:
To the contrary: God became man, and Christ became Spirit, to relate to you and i in our human nature directly, presently, anytime, and immediately.
In addition: there appears 2 b no such thing as "sacraments" in the apostles' teaching
My answer:
Your right, God became man in Christ Jesus to relate to us in human nature directly, presently, and anytime. But the question is how Christ applies that relationship to us. He does it in many ways, through spiritual prayer, faith, trust in him and he applies it to us in the most real and intimate form in the Eucharist where we are at union with him at both the upper room and Calvary and present to us today.The sacraments definitely are in the bible, and the eucharist is one of them.
You said;
No offence dear Athanasius (i really mean that), but this sounds to me like gibberish
My response:
No offense taken Mr Writer. However what sounds like gibberish to you was clearly and unanimously taught by all the Father s of the church for the first 900 years. They read scriptures and preached and some of them knew the apostles and they had no problem teaching the Eucharist really was the body and blood of Christ.
You said:
I realize you religion's alien to the Bible in several (not all) ways. But have u read it some, or read it simply?
What do you think of what the New Testament says?
My answer
Ahh, Ok I shall pray for you. This is what I mean by being inflammatory and insulting. This is not very Christian in attitude of you to say such things to me. I will not keep debating you Mr writer if your going to insult my religion and my knowledge of the bible. I do not do that to you.
We may disagree on interpretation and Authority but one thing both of our churches have in Common is that we believe that the scriptures are the God breathed inspired Word of God. We do read them. We are taught them. I have read the New testament. We even haver New testament bible scholars that teach and write commentaries in my religion.
However historically I would say that the Church didnt come from the Bible, the bible came from the Catholic church. So yes we Catholic would say we historically wrote the new testament, copied it, preserved it, preached on it, and declared its canon.
You said
though neither's "divine hugs" complete. Nor are any of those things anything without faith and the Spirit in the spirit of the participant
My response
The Catholic church agrees with you. We must have a living faith in Christ and we emphasize the spiritual too. We do not teach that we should go to the eucharist blind hearted. When we go to any sacrament we must examine our conscious and give thanks to the Lord for these gifts of the sacraments.
You said:
But to say or suggest that union of highest union with Christ is limited to only His Table meeting is a gross disservice to Him.
my answer
We Catholics and the Catholic Church do not teach that Christ is limited only to his table. I am sorry I confused you. He is with us in our hearts, he is with us in prayer, but in the eucharist he is with us in a special way different from those. He is with us corporeally and sacramentally and really in a spiritual but not just spiritual way. It is the equivalent of Marital intercourse. In intercourse you give you total self, your body and all to your wife for intimate and life giving union with her.
Christ Jesus in the eucharist gives us(the Church, his bride) his total self, body and blood soul and divinity under the form of bread and wine(Matt 26:26) for intimate and life giving(John 6:51) union with us.
You said:
Lastly: to suggest that Christ incarnated, lived, died, resurrected, ascended, and poured HImself out so that men's highest contact of Him would be to cannibalize Him outwardly is both grossly errant, foolish, ineffective, and utterly missing His point. In fact, it's even idolatrous (cf Jn 6:63; Mark 7:18-23; Heb 13:9; etc)
my response
Well it is very interesting that you used the phrase poured himself out because when describing the eucharist, Our lord says thats exactly what he did. Consider Matt 26:26-28
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; ? for this is my blood of the covenant, which is POURED OUT for many for the forgiveness of sins.
So yes, that is exactly what Jesus himself said at the last supper in regards to the eucharist. As far as your concern with cannibalizing Jesus. Well its interesting that you said that too. The early Pagans(1-2 Centuries) used to think that Christian fathers were cannibalizing when they received the eucharist too.
Jesus did not teach us to cannibalize him but he did teach us to eat the eucharist which was his very flesh and blood(Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-21; John 6:48-58; 1 Cor 10:16-22; 1 Cor 11: 23-31). We catholics do not teach cannibalism when teaching the eucharist.
Cannibalism denotes actually eating, metabolizing, and digesting natural human flesh. If Jesus told his apostles to eat his body and then began to rip off his arm and flesh and tried to give it to them this way, then it would be cannibalism. We do not digest and metabolize Christ body like normal food because it isnt his body in the natural order its his body in the supernatural order, a miracle.
We teach that Christ gave us his real Body and blood under the form or appearances of bread and wine. There is nothing like this in nature it is a profound mystery of faith. Catholic answers answered this better than I could. There website is
www.catholic.com Here is what they had to say
Q: Your doctrine of the Eucharist sounds like cannibalism. ?
A: Catholics don't believe Jesus' presence in the Eucharist is such that the consumption of the Host entails cannibalism. Christ's body and blood aren't present naturally, but supernaturally, under the appearances of bread and wine. This mode of presence rules out cannibalism. It's accurate to say that while Christ's presence is real and substantial, the mode of consumption, the way in which we eat his body and drink his blood, is, in a sense, spiritual (though not merely symbolic).
When the host is consumed, the physical process of eating affects only the accidents of bread, not the substance of Christ's body and blood, which are beyond our power to injure.?Catholics, then, truly unite themselves spiritually to Christ who is really, substantially present, and they do so in a way which involves the bodily act of eating, even though the physical aspects of this process affect only the sign or accidents of bread.?
I hope that helps. I understand that many people have a problem with this. Heck when Jesus told his apostles he would give them his flesh and blood to eat many of his followers had a problem with this. They would say How can this man give us his flesh to eat?(John 6:52). For many the eucharist was a Hard saying that couldnt be endured(John 6:60).
They walked away eventually rejecting Jesus because of his eucharistic teachings(John 6:66). Will you walk away in denial too? Are will you follow Peter who accepted this doctrine on faith(John 6:68). Will you walk away from the historic Christian outlook attested to by all the fathers and never questioned in the early church?
Remember just like believeing in the eucharist, many people had a heard time believing that Jesus was God. Many would look at him and say he is Palestinian Jew, how can he be the creator of the universe, the Logos? But indeed God did humble himself to come to us under humble and simple forms and appearances. The Eucharist is Jesus who comes to us again under another humble form, the form of bread and wine. Amen.
You said
Jesus gave his body and blood in His crucifixion
My answer:
Yes he did, Amen! Now he gives us the same Body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine as a sharing in his once for all sacrifice(1 Cor 10:16-18). He applies his sacrifice to us this way because he is the typological fulfillment of the Jewish passover Lamb(John 1:29).
You said:
of course neither the Lord nor apostles ever used the term "eucharist" to specifically name His Table
My answer:
Catholics and other christians use the term eucharist to describe the Lord supper for this reason; The word eucharist in Greek means Thanksgiving. Jesus when he had the last supper Gave thanks(Matt 26:27). We believe that the Eucharist is Jesus. Jesus to Catholics is our Thanksgiving. We give thanks to the Father for the Son and his sacrifice and his real presence in the eucharist. I hope that helped.
You said:
"Do this in remembrance of Me" (Lk 22:19).......But He's absent physically.
my response:
It is more than just a mere memorial. the Jews would actually see passover as transcending time and would believe that they really take part in it when they celebrated it although it was historically years ago that it happened. It was far more than a mere memorial as the word itself has deeper meanings in their culture. Jesus fulfilled this.
So we transcend time when we celebrate the eucharist and we actually take part in the sacrifice of the Cross through the sacrifice of the upper room which he gave us his real body and blood under the form of bread and wine.
this post was too long and must be continued on th next post. See my next post as a continuation: