For Catholics regarding the Eucharist?

Question

I answered a question which refers to Jesus breaking bread/wine at the last supper...Jesus does not (correct me with verse if I'm wrong) mention when he says "Do this in memory of me" the church at all. The Vatican imposed their own interpretation to mean "the church" but Jesus did not refer to it.

In other words, if you are home with your family and want to honor the Eucharist in privacy and your heart is genuine, do you honestly believe that God would find that abhorrent?

CJ - please stop, that is nonsense, you must know about symbolism

anonymous- thank you, i appreciate the bit of history, but I believe my post was clear as to "church vs. home" breaking of the bread. Why do you need a minister to perform this ritual, If I want to crack a piece of bread with some wine and do it "in memory of Him" without visiting a church, why would that be wrong? That is what I thought was the obvious gist of my question. thanks

Sentinal - thank you, very nicely put and i agree, the intimacy they shared goes beyond words

Answer 1

Yes but there is an awful lot that Jesus said that is not down in black and white,we tend to forget I suppose the intimacy that existed between Jesus and the Apostles,what I mean is this,a married couple many times will not have to speak the obvious for the other to know exactly what is meant, add this to the fact that reason dictates that the Apostles knew or came to know exactly what Jesus wanted them to do and they followed this faithfully, and I dare say they did not take notes about everything.
Another fact exists in dealing with scripture,faith and tradition and this is the use of reason,common sense and being atuned to the promptings of the Holy Spirit who speaks His wisdom to the church.

Answer 2

Not a problem. However, there is a difference between commemorating the Last Supper and celebrating the Eucharist. For Catholics, "Eucharist" is not just a memorial but an actual change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Catholics teach that Christianity is best realized in community and that only in community does the bread and wine become the Eucharist, through the invocation of the Holy Spirit by the official representatives of the Church, priests.

Yes, it is unarguably Catholic doctrine, or doctrine that Protestants rejected, depending on your POV. Martin Luther sincerely wanted to reform a corrupt Church, but ended up struggling to avoid becoming just another heretic. He had to undermine the authority of the hierarchy, and that included delegitimizing the apparent intercessory capabilities of the priesthood. And if the priest had no such capabilities, he wasn't doing anything meaningful, therefore there was nothing substantially different between unconsecrated and consecrated bread. He disempowered priests but couldn't re-empower the community in the process because he had turned a sacrament into a mere memorial.

Originally, it was understood that the Eucharist was consecrated by the Holy Spirit in the presence of the community, presided over by the episcopos, the leader of the community. An individual could not spontaneously declare that the Eucharist was present or there would be chaos. So it was important that the invocation be solemn. In time this developed into the unfortunate idea that a priest had special faculties that ordinary people didn't have to perform the invocation. The community idea had faded and the priest became a necessary service provider. This in part led to the Protestant Reformation, and all the misunderstandings since.

If you are asking why Catholics can't take the Eucharist home with them, part of the answer is that community celebration is important and the idea of personally "possessing" God is not Christian. Families are microcosms and models of the greater community, but the greater community can smooth out the rough edges and peculiarities in each family. The more mundane answer is that one can dishonor the Eucharist as easily as honor it.

To return to the family table, "honoring" the Eucharist at a distance (i.e. with the understanding that the bread at hand is merely bread) is admirable. But the Catholic understanding is that Eucharist is truly present only in community. Even when viaticum is brought to shut-ins, they receive it with an understanding of their relationship to the rest of the community.

Answer 3

At the Last Supper, Jesus said, “Take this bread. It is my body.” Then he said, “Take this and drink. This is my blood. Do this in memory of me.”

We believe that this command and all commands of Jesus Christ are addressed to all Christians, the entire Church, the Body of Christ.

Catholics believe this was the First Eucharist, that through a miracle the bread and wine actually became the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Catholics reenact the Last Supper during every Mass, where God, acting through the priest, changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

This is a great sacrament of thanksgiving and unity of Catholics.

By the way, the Orthodox, Lutheran and many Anglican Churches also believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

For more information, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 1322 and following: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art3.htm

With love in Christ.

Answer 4

I am wondering why you address this question to Catholics because there are two different answers depending on whether you are Catholic or Protestant. If you want to know the Catholic teaching on the matter, then yes, you can certainly break bread in your home and offer a symbolic prayer, but you will not have the Eucharist as we define it, as the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. This is because only an ordained priest through the succession of the Apostles has the authority and power to consecrate the Eucharist and bring about the transubstantiation of the bread and wine to the Body and Blood. Yes, you can receive the consecrated Eucharist in your home through the visit of a Eucharistic minister (a person who volunteers to minister to the homebound by bringing the sacrament consecrated by the priest to a person's home). As other answerers have mentioned, the Catholic Church is the church of the early Christians (all Christians were Catholic until the 1500's except a few heretical sects). In the earliest of times, people did celebrate the Eucharist in their homes, but the priests and bishops gathered there with the people and consecrated the bread and wine.

All the teachings of the Catholic Church are supported by the Bible and by the history of the early Christians. In fact, the main passage that gives the Vatican its authority to, as you say, impose its own interpretation is in John 14:16-17 where Jesus, speaking to the Apostles about what to do after he is crucified, tells them that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide them and the Spirit will stay with them forever. These are the Apostles who began the early Church, yes, the Church that Scriptures refer to, yes, the Church that became known as the Catholic Church as early as the year 110 and the Church that remains today with an unbroken line of succession of bishops from the Apostles, including the Pope, who is in line from Peter, the first among the Apostles. The Holy Spirit remains with the Church to guide it.

Jesus said in Matthew 16, "Simon, son of John, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give you the keys to the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth, I will bind in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth I will loose in heaven, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." Jesus is giving Simon a new name, Peter, which means Rock (he is calling him Rock) and putting him in charge of the Church. He is telling him to establish how the Church will operate on earth and telling him that his actions will be held up in heaven. This is why the Vatican has authority - it is in the Bible and was clearly understood by the first Christians and by all Christians until the Prostestant reformation 1500 years later.

At this time, Luther and Calvin broke away from the Church and began their own teachings. Even they upheld belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Today, many Protestant churches deny the Presence in the Eucharist, even though Jesus said in John 6:52 "The bread that I will give IS my FLESH for the life of the world, " and John 6:55, "He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath everlasting life."

Now, CJ, Jesus gives us His flesh and blood under the appearance of bread and wine. It looks like bread, it tastes like bread, but through a miracle that God gives us in the Eucharist, we are able to be unified (be In Communion) with Christ through His Sacred Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. If you think that is cannibalism, then you are missing the whole point of John 6.

If you are Protestant, and you do believe that the Eucharist is symbolic, then there seems to be no difference in breaking bread in your home. It would not be abhorrent because, since you are not a successor of the Apostles, you are not able to consecrate the Eucharist and your celebration is entirely symbolic. Various Protestant churches may have their own teachings on this, and I can't speak for them.

Answer 5

The tenet is that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Transformed by the actions of an ordained priest. The weekly obligation came about because people were afraid to accept communion. They felt they were unworthy to do so. Receiving Communion became so rare that the Church had to institute a weekly obligation in order for more people to participate on a more regular basis.

Answer 6

When Jesus said "Do this in memory of me", he was speaking to his apostles. They in turn did as they were told, and passed on the power to consecrate the Eucharist through Apostolic Tradition. Before the Reformation, there was only one Church, and all Christians were Catholics (excepting a few heretic sects). I don't understand what you are asking in the second question - what exactly could one do which would be abhorrent to God (yes, the Eucharist can be desecrated and God would find that abhorrent, but I don't get your meaning here). Hope that clarifies things for you.

Answer 7

I haven't read "Do this in memory of me" personally but I'm not a fervant reader of the Bible but I can tell you from experience that when I went to a Mesaonic Jewish Passover they said exactly that when they talked about how important it was to continue the Passover.

Here it is. (Luke 22:19)
Catholic bible says: "Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me."

KJV says: 1"And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

So it's there. My Jewish friends believe he didn't mean to continue the Eucharist but to continue the Passover after he had passed because he made the new covenant and didn't want us to follow all the laws of the Old Testament.

If you have anymore questions regarding Catholicism please contact me at [e-mail]

Answer 8

Jesus is present to us in many ways. "Where two or more gather in My name, I am there with you.
The Eucharist is one way that we experience the presence of Christ. When Jesus said, "Do this in memory of Me," He was addressing the Apostles, the first Bishops of the Church. He did not say this to the thousands that he fed or to the many others He helped and taught. He specifically choose these men and the women present, to hear what He as saying so that they would carry out His command.
In the beginning of the Church, the Eucharist was celebrated in family homes with those designated to do so (the first priests) as the leaders of the service.

Answer 9

I won't get into the obvious errors in the false doctrine of Transubstantiation, you can see the source below for that.

First, the "church" mentioned in the New Testament was not in reference to a building but to the Christians who were added to the "church" following their baptism. Hence, put simply, the church is the people, not the building. Bearing this in mind, the commandment to "do this in memory of me" was given to the apostles and disciples, in other words, the church (people).

Also note that the only day mentioned in the Word of God for eating the Lord’s supper is the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). The first day of the week is Sunday, the day Jesus Christ arose from the dead (Luke 24:1). It is the day the church began for Pentecost came on the first day of the week (Leviticus 23:1-17; Acts 2). It is the day Christians met to worship (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10). Since every week has a first day, then the Lord’s supper should be eaten every first day of every week. The command, “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8), meant that the Jews were to remember every sabbath day. In the same way, the example of eating the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week teaches us to do it every first day of every week.

Therefore we know who the commandment was given to: the church (people) and when they were to partake of the Lord's Supper, the first day of the week (and since every week has a Sunday, it should be observed EVERY Sunday.)

See source for information on the Lord's Supper as well as the false doctrine mentioned above.

Answer 10

No, I don't believe it's abhorrent. I think you have the right idea, in fact. Honoring the Eucharist is about what's in your heart, not what an institution imposes as the "truth".