Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Description of the Eucharist.....



Please read this carefully.  I will share with you in a later post where 
this came from. I would like for you all to read it and give it your 
best shot to identify it, or at least give some clue as to where and/or 
when it might have been written.
SLG


"No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that 
what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters 
of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in 
accordance with the principles given us by Christ.

We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were 
ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ 
our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the 
Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates 
for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate 
Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of
 thanksgiving.

The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, 
handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. 
They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this 
in memory of me. This is my body. In the same way he took the cup,
 he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this 
command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly 
reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the
 poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise 
the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through 
the Holy Spirit.

On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, 
whether they live in the city or the outlying districts. The recollections 
of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as 
there is time.   When the reader has finished, the president of the 
assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the 
examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we 
all stand up together and pray.

On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and 
water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and 
gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give 
assent by saying, “Amen”. The eucharist is distributed, everyone
present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who 
are absent.

The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and 
they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in 
the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and 
widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether 
because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a 
word, he takes care of all who are in need.

We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the
first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and 
chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that 
same day our savior Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For 
he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his 
apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we 
have passed on for your consideration."

5 comments:

  1. I relate to the nuts and bolts explanation of the Mass. I trust,hope and have faith that my Faith will be stronger as I wrestle with the question of the Eucharist. I'd like to hear dialouge ,a reply and heartfelt-NO OFFENSE TO CITING THE CATCHECHISM but hopefully someone can express this in lay terms, answers to the following questions.
    Would Jesus really exclude anyone from sharing Communion even if their Faith and belief were "only as big as a mustard seed'?

    As a Catholic and cradle Catholic at that, am I a hypocrite to have doubts and continue to receive the Eucharist?

    Per the above reading ,unless one is totally in belief about what the Eucharist is and who is a candidate to receive it he /she should not participate in the Eucharist (and this somewhat implies the Mass in general) . Did I interpret this correctly? If so is the only person that attends Mass the sinless,the one without doubt, the one who has everything figured out?

    I know that if this were the case the churches would be empty or should be, if we are honest so help me out with this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous—

    It sounds like you have difficulties, not doubts. Everyone has difficulty really understanding the Eucharist--that is why it is a mystery. I read the above piece to mean that one must give the assent of faith to what the Church teaches, and then it lays out what the Church teaches very clearly—the Real and Substantial presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. That doesn't mean we understand it all (we never will) or that it doesn't perplex us (it certainly does) but that Catholics accept the teaching of the Church and act on that teaching.

    It's a bit like the man who asked Jesus to heal his son, "if He could." When Jesus replied that all is possible for those who believe, the man cried out, "Lord! I believe! Help my unbelief!" That's pretty much how it is, I think, with the Eucharist--we believe, but our faith needs to grow. I think the piece quoted merely makes it clear that those who come to the Eucharist give the assent of faith to the Real and Substantial Presence, and not see the Eucharist as merely a symbol. It's an affirmation that Catholics do indeed believe that Jesus is present, body and blood, soul and divinity, in the Blessed Sacrament, even though we can't see Him. (And by the way, the quotation is not from the Catechism.)

    As one child once put it: the crucifix looks like Jesus, but it isn't. The Eucharist doesn't look like Jesus, but it is.

    Another thing--I think we confuse belief with understanding and certainty. That which we know for certain we do not believe.; we cannot "know" the truth of the Eucharist (or of God, for that matter) in the sense that we know physical realities. We cannot be certain in the same way we are certain of our bank balance or the color of our car that Christ is truly and substantially present in the Eucharist just as He is in Heaven--but we give the assent of faith, and that is what belief is. Not lack of questioning, not absolute certainty but assent and action on that assent. Modern people think “Let me understand, and then I will believe.” That is backwards. St. Augustine put it the other way: believe so that you may understand.

    So, no you are not a hypocrite. You're wrestling with faith and that is EXACTLY what you are supposed to do. And no, I don't read this to say only the sinless and the certain should receive communion. The Eucharist is medicine for the soul and it's for all us poor sinners, so long as we give the assent of faith, prepare ourselves through prayer and confession, and do not knowingly receive in a state of unrepented mortal sin. Check out this blog for one man's take on how the Church truly is a hospital for sinners...

    http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-i-love-about-catholic-church-8.html

    Martha

    ReplyDelete
  3. Martha,
    I have yet to visit blogspot mentioned but I wanted to thank you for encouragement immediately while it is fresh on my mind. The reference to "i believe--just help my unbelief" came to mind while composing my questions so your mention of this brings comfort.
    "we confuse belief with understanding and certainty" Your explanation of this and subsequent mention of St. Augustines quote helps.."my unbelief".
    Thank you too for the permission to "wrestle". The "real or percieved exclusivity" of participation in the Eucharist is an issue ..for me. In the meantime TODAY I am grateful and perhaps a bit more wise TBTG.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I too had difficulty with transsubstantiation until I read something that helped: the author noted that if God could say "let there be light" and there WAS light, then why couldn't he say "this is my body" and it BE his body? One is no more absurd than the other.
    The text is "a famous passage from the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr (Cap. 66-67: PG 6, 427-431) ... used in the Roman Catholic Office of Readings for the third Sunday of Easter with the accompanying biblical reading of Revelation 6:1-17). Reflecting (on) the way the Eucharist was celebrated in Rome about 150 AD, only about 55 years after the last New Testament books, it makes clear several important things:

    1) the Eucharist was interpreted in a very realistic way in the early church

    2) it was the principal, weekly worship celebration of the Christian Church

    3) it took place on Sunday, not on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath

    4) the meaning of the Eucharist and manner of its celebration was handed down by the apostles."
    --MKJ

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous #1 (We need blog names here...) Here's something else to consider. The Eucharist has been a hard teaching and divisive since the beginning. When Jesus taught it, many (most?) of his followers left because it was too hard to take. When Jesus asked His disciples whether they would leave too, Peter replied "Where else would we go? You have the words of eternal life." I'm not sure Peter actually understood the teaching either, at least, not until after the resurrection, but he gave his assent of faith, and ultimately understood it very, very well. Truth has a way of separating, of dividing as well as of uniting. Martha

    ReplyDelete