The Meaning of Christian Priesthood

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and God created man in His own image, and God saw everything He had made, and behold, it was very good.  Yet in spite of such glorious and auspicious beginnings, man could not carry on more than a brief moment before the terrible ignominy of sin had torn asunder his relationship with the loving Creator to whom he owed his very being.  Since that time, the life of every human being has been driven by the great, often misunderstood longing to cross the threshold that sin has wrought and return to the loving embrace of Our Father.  The means to this reconciliation, somehow revealed by God to those first transgressors, has been handed down since the time of Cain and Abel, and so all men everywhere have always known that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus has the priest always been the constant fixture in all cultures, punctuating every period of human history.  He – or in those places where men had exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images, she – has, in every place stood daily at service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins, until, in the fullness of time, God sent forth His Son to become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Therein lies the distinctiveness, the dignity, and the importance of the priesthood of Christ, which is the priesthood of the Church of God.  Men have sought since time immemorial to turn to God, and have employed the services of the priest for just as long.  However, only when God Himself became a priest in the person of Jesus Christ could such a ministry achieve its intended end.  Jesus Christ is our high priest, and He now continues His ministry through the hands of those men whom He calls to serve in His person at His Altar.  While Christ serves in the Holy of Holies of Heaven, the men of the ordained priesthood perpetuate His ministry on earth, making present to the people of God His one, eternal offering to the Father.  They serve not as priests in their own right, but by participating mystically in His one eternal priesthood, and as such, a true appreciation, and any real understanding at all, of the ordained priesthood can only be found in an appreciation and understanding of Christ Himself.

Comparing the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite

As we move forward into the second decade of the 3rd millennium, there is, in the midst of discouragement, a lot of hope for the Church. The primary sign of hope is an ever growing - even rapidly growing - mass of dedicated, orthodox young people seeking to live for Christ and His Church. It is also the case that many of these are found to be more traditional in their approach to prayer and Liturgy. This has prompted a good deal of discussion over the Liturgy and how it is best celebrated. In particular, with Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum authorizing more widespread use of the "traditional Latin Mass" or the "Tridentine Mass" as it is variously called, it's not uncommon to find oneself in a discussion over the merits of this "older" Liturgical rite. I thought it worthwhile to take the time to try to bring a little bit of light to the subject. Before I begin, there are a few preliminary points worth mentioning.

First, it's very important that we speak of both rites of the Mass with the reverence and respect due to the Holy Sacrifice. Whichever rite is celebrated, it is still the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the greatest act in which a human person can participate. It would be grievously problematic to speak contemptuously of either.  It is my belief that part of this involves what we call these various rites. While no disrespect may be intended in using terms such as the "Traditional Latin Mass," the "Tridentine Mass," the "Novus Ordo," or the "Pauline Mass," they are not consistent with the way the Holy Father wishes us to view these Liturgies. He has declared that from henceforth the "Tridentine Mass" is to be referred to as the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and the "Novus Ordo" as the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Pope Benedict's reasoning for this is very important: both of these Liturgies are fully and entirely an expression of the Liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, differentiated only by their form. This is critically linked to a key concept that Benedict has stressed throughout his ecclesiastical career: that the Church's traditions and Liturgies exist in a unbroken continuity and that we must view things through a hermeneutic of continuity rather than one of rupture. When we give the Mass a name like the "Novus Ordo," we are speaking of it as if it were something new and thereby do not give it the full respect it deserves as an authentic development of the Liturgy instituted by Christ. Similarly, when we say something like "Traditional Latin Mass" about the Extraordinary Form, we present it as though it is something old and replaceable, or indeed, replaced.

Second, in no way do I consider the Ordinary Form to be superior to the Extraordinary Form - nor the other way around. It is my belief that each is superior in its own ways and inferior in others. All people considering this question should keep in mind that the decision to reform the Liturgy in the first place was made in an Ecumenical Council under the mantle of the Holy Spirit. The decision was not made for no reason, but because to at least some degree, a reform was necessary. This does not in any way imply that the Liturgy in use at the time of this decision was bad. Rather, it simply means that 500 years of doctrinal development and cultural change - some for the better, some for the worse - left the Liturgy in need of some adjustments. Indeed, these two factors have prompted the reform of the Liturgy at various points throughout history, some reforms being more substantial and others more of the character of minor tweakings.

Catholics are certainly free to debate whether a major reform was necessary in the 1960s. Some may believe that it was not. Personally, I am of the belief that a reform may well have been necessary for one simple reason: the world changed more in the 50 years leading up to the Second Vatican Council than it had in the 1,000 years preceding that. While the Church must not change in its substance with the world - truth is not defined by culture - It does need to update some of its external approaches to better proclaim the Gospel in the individual ages in which it may find itself - the way truth is received by persons does change with culture. This is nothing new, of course; the Church has been updating it's approach based on the contemporary culture for 2,000 years. While this article is primarily focused on the Church's Liturgy, it is helpful to point out that I firmly believe that the Second Vatican Council was the antidote to many of the things that have plagued the Church for the past 40 years. John XXIII - now ranked among the Blessed, let us not forget, believed that some changes were necessary in order for the Church to effectively save souls in the 20th century. My belief, which may be the subject of a later discussion, is that without those decisions made at the Council, the Church would find herself in a far worse position today than she does. The Council's saving effects are, in my belief, only now becoming manifest because on the one hand, it takes time for any changes to bear fruit, and on the other, unfortunately the Council was not properly implemented.

I happen to be one of the results of this Council. I wouldn't be Catholic if it weren't for Vatican II and it's reforms of the Liturgy. I would suggest that many others, such as the well known scholar Dr. Scott Hahn (himself responsible for countless conversions) wouldn't be either. All that being said, it is time to bring this aroung to the Liturgy and to examine some of the different aspects of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Liturgy.

Latin versus the Vernacular

It is important to recognize the value of having a sacred language. Indeed, to this day the Jewish people cling to Hebrew as a tie to God Himself, and it is considered by many to be one of the reasons that the Jewish race and culture has survived to this day. A Sacred language also helps to add an important sense of mystery and holiness to Liturgical celebrations. It helps people to realize that what they practice and experience in the Liturgy is tied to the transcendent, and that it is set apart from what they do in the rest of their lives. This is related to the importance of having a common language. With a common language, it doesn't matter where one gos in the world, as the Liturgy will be the same. God is universal, and His Church is universal, and so there is great benefit in being able to attend Mass anywhere in the world without needing to speak the local language. It also ties the people of God together. For these reasons and others, I think that the use of Latin as a sacred and a common Liturgical language is wonderful and critical to preserve.

However, I also think that the restriction of the Liturgy to Latin alone is harmful. In the first place, this was never really the intent of the Church. Latin was originally introduced into the Liturgy precisely because it was the vernacular language at the time. Everybody knew it. It was the English of the first millenium. Latin was made the language of the Church so that everybody could understand the Liturgy. As the centuries went on, the Church expanded and the collection of languages used by Catholics became more diverse, it was helpful to maintain the use of Latin as a common language, and indeed, that sense of the sacred became imbued in it.

However, something can also be lost in excluding the vernacular from the Liturgy. When there is only Latin, the only option for most is to follow along in a missal. Not only can this be distracting (I know college professors who don't want students to bring their textbooks to class for just this reason), but more importantly, "faith comes through hearing" (as St. Paul wrote). This is why in we're not supposed to be reading along in a missal or missalette. It's one of the most common (albeit minor) Liturgical abuses today. It's better for people to hear all of the prayers, acclamations, and so forth than for them to have to read along with them. Now, prayers and acclamations can be learned. The chief problem lies in the reading of the Scriptures in Latin. Traditionally, the readings were read only in Latin with no vernacular repetition. Eventually the Church granted permission for the Gospel to be repeated in the vernacular (and this is what most older Catholics today likely remember from their childhood), but this is clunky and seriously detracts from the prayerful flow that is so important to the Extraordinary Form. One of the tremendous advantages of the Extraordinary Form is that it has the sense of a single, uninterrupted ritual of prayer, an advantage which is hampered by being unable to present some of the more appropriate portions in the vernacular.

The Ordinary Form permits all, part or none of the Mass to be said in either Latin or the vernacular, and so Masses can be offered entirely in Latin for those who would most benefit from it, entirely in the vernacular for those who would most benefit from it, and for the vast majority of us, as a combination of each, allowing the advantage of attention and hearing to be complimented by the advantages that Latin has.

Problems with the Presentation of the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass

Theologically speaking, this is one of the most areas in which I believe the Ordinary Form has the greatest advantage. The basic problem here is that the text of the Extraordinary Form can be somewhat confusing and/or ambiguous when it comes to the fact that the Mass is a Sacrifice. This may come as a surprise as this is usually the very opposite claim that is made against the Ordinary Form! To illustrate my point, consider this text (translated into English) from the Extraordnary Missal:

Accept, O Holy father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offences, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting. Amen

The problem with this otherwise profoundly beautiful prayer is that it takes place well before the Consecration of the Host. In other words, at this point the priest has bread and wine on the altar - not the Body and Blood of Christ. Certainly, there is a sense in which we do offer the unconsecrated bread and wine to God not unlike the offerings of the firstfruits in Levitical law. The Ordinary Form more explicitly refers to this point in the "Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation" prayer (which many people may be unfamiliar with if they have not attended a daily Mass), and in fact this is the point: the Ordinary Form makes it clear that at this point in the Liturgy, we are making a secondary offering to God, one of the bread and the wine, whereas the Extraordinary Form can easily give the impression that that more important Sacrifice is taking place with unconsecrated bread and wine. The language is very strong for bread and wine, with references to offering it in atonement for sins, for the dead, and so on. Bread and wine do not take away sins: the body and blood of Christ do.

This is of course only one example of the larger difficulty. In the Extraordinary Form, the concept of sacrifice appears 16 times. 12 of these occur before the consecration. In other words, the fact that what is going on here is a Sacrifice is mentioned 3 times more when bread and wine are present than when the Body and Blood of Christ is.

In the Ordinary rite, a much less confusing ratio can be found. Eucharistic prayer I is an almost identical copy of the Extraordinary Form's, and so the same problem can be found: a total of 12 mentions with only 3 coming after the Consecration. However, if one uses Eucharistic prayer IV, there are 4 mentions before and 4 after the Consecration. Eucharistic prayers II and III are less desirable, but the former of these is directed to be used only for daily Masses.

This may seem convaluted to some, but t I honestly think is a real problem. We don't offer the Father bread and wine in the Mass. The Mass is the Mass because we offer the Father the Body and Blood of Christ. Consider that many of the great spiritual writers have taught us that there is a far greater danger in presenting truth mixed with falsehood or ambiguously than in presenting pure falsehood. Pure falsehood will be recognized and rejected, but mixing truth and falsehood or presenting truth in a confusing manner can often leave a question as to just where the truth lies. In view of this, I see a real potential danger in presenting the truth that a Sacrifice is occuring in such a way that it can leave a question as to just what is being Sacrificed.

In fact, this is precisely one of the reasons that the bishops at the Second Vatican Council asked for a reform of the Liturgy. Even prior to the Council (as early as the 1950s), one very well respected Liturgist lamented that it was "well known" that the people of that time had lost the idea that the Mass was a Sacrifice, citing some of the problems mentioned here. Correcting these was one of the goals of the Liturgical reform.

Some of these prayers are worse than others. For example, another part of the offertory reads, "Come Thou, the Sanctifier, Almighty and Everlasting God, and bless + this sacrifice which is prepared for the glory of Thy holy Name." Clearly, the intent of the prayer is good and proper. The problem is that it sounds (or reads) to the average Mass-goer as though the Sacrifice has already been prepared - even while it is merely bread and wine. Whatever the intent, the way it is presented is problematic.

At the same time, the Extraordinary Form has a lot of tremendous material in the Mass of the Faithful (what is known as the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the Ordinary Form). it is much longer (in a good way), more beautiful, more rich in symbolism and and conveys the majesty of what is taking place. The extended invocations of the saints are much appreciated.

Lectionary and Liturgical Calendar

This one's pretty simple. Catholics get to hear a lot more of the Scriptures in the Ordinary Form. The Calendar is also much more clearly organized, with clearer delineations between levels of Liturgical celebrations. In the pre-Vatican II calendar, there was hardly a day without some kind of special celebration.  In the current calendar, memorials and feasts of saints seem to carry more meaning because they are not an everyday occurrence.

"Participation"

First and foremost, the ability of the people to hear the Consecration is, in my opinion, of tremendous importance. In the Extraordinary Form, the Consecration is to be said silently. While it's easy to think of what would hopefully rare and unusual problems with this (e.g., some have complained that they want to be able to hear the Consecration to ensure that the priest is doing it properly and that they truly are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ), I simply think it is right for the people to hear it. Christ gave His Body and Blood for all, not for the apostles only. The words "This is My Body" should be heard by all, in my opinion. In fact, this is tied closely to the fact that the priest offering Mass acts in persona Christi - in the person of Christ. It is Christ who offers the Mass, and the faithful should be ever aware of this, realizing just what they are watching and, hopefully, deriving great spiritual benefit from it.

Another concern is that of the way that each form engages the participation of the faithful. There are two sides to this issue. On the one hand, all of the time the celebrant spends "on his own" in the Extraordinary Form lends itself wonderfully to silent prayer. This is very profound, and certainly greatly desirable. On the other hand, that prayer is a prayer which is in a certain sense detached from the Mass itself. The greatest prayer of all is taking place at the altar. The faithful should be engaged in this, treating it with the greatest of all reverence.

Of course, the participation called for in the Ordinary can be taken too far or overdone. At times, there is almost no room for one to join his or her personal prayer to the intentions of the Mass. This is, of course, more of a problem with the way the Mass is celebrated and not with the Ordinary Form itself, which calls for times of silence. I believe that at its core, the idea of bringing the faithful into a more "focused" - for lack of a better term - worship in the Mass is a good thing. It must simply be done in the right way.

Some Miscellaneous Points

The ad orientem celebration (when the priest offers Mass facing "away" from the people) is, in my opinion, by far the single most important difference one is likely to see when attending the Extraordinary Form. It cannot be understated what benefits come from this. First and foremost, it rightly orients the mind of the priest, bringing him to recall at every moment that each word he utters is in prayer to the Almighty and not as a statement for the faithful to hear. Second, it rightly orients the congregation, bringing them to recognize that the priest is praying to God and, indeed, offering sacrifice to Him. Of course, this can be done in the Ordinary Form, but almost never is. It is beautiful, it puts the Sacrifice, the transcendence of God, and the role of the priest all in wonderfully striking perspective. I believe it should be the exclusive posture for celebrating Mass.

The Extraordinary Form also has many other beautiful prayers, symbols, and actions that help to express the depth of what is actually taking place. More than that, because the Mass is an objective reality and not merely a collection of symbols, these truly accomplish what they represent. For example, the Extraordinary Form contains a tremendous amount of preparation. Before the Mass even begins, the priest stops before approaching the altar to ask forgiveness for his sins and to prepare to approach the altar. How wonderfully this demonstrates how serious an action he is about to undertake, and indeed, how important is it that the priest truly does prepare himself for the holy things he is about to do. It really is very beautiful and theologically profound.

In the end, I would love to see a Liturgy that combines the great elements of each of the two forms we have now. Nonetheless, we must always remember how great what it is that we do have. Whatever form of Mass you find most spiritually enriching, go!

God bless!

Apologetics on YouTube!

The Eucharist - Is it Really Jesus?

There are many different issues seperating Catholics and Protestants today. Each is extremely important in its own way. Ought we to base our doctrines on the Bible alone? Is a man saved by faith alone, or isn't he? Was Mary conceived without sin? These are clearly very important issues, and issues that are not to be taken lightly. Most of them may have an impact on our eternal destination, but if one really loves God, getting them right is important even if they didn't. With all the complexities of these issues, a person hardly knows where to begin and where to turn to determine the truth.

However, there is one doctrine that really stands out above the rest, and that is the Eucharist. The importance of the Eucharist cannot be understated. If Catholics are wrong, they are guilty of daily committing what is by far the most stupid act of idolatry in the history of man by worshipping a small piece of bread. On the other hand, if Protestants are wrong, they mock and denigrate God, and pass up the chance to be with Him every day, while Catholics have the strongest testimony to the truth of their beliefs possible: God Himself. This question, then, could be a great aid to those trying to decide who just don't have the ability or the time to go through an endless supply of theological books, documents, and arguements.

So then, the pivotal, all important question is simply, is the Eucharist really Jesus Christ? Does the evidence support this view? And is this evidence independent of other areas of disagreement, such as the authority of the Church?

Undeniably and overwhelmingly. In fact, the Bible provides all the information one could ever need to show this.

The last supper accounts provide some of the information. Matthew's gospel records this in chapter 26, starting in verse 20 when the 12 apostles sit down to eat the passover meal. It is critical to remember that this was a passover meal. The passover sacrifice was always to be an ublemished lamb (Ex. 12:5), and its bones were not to be broken (Ex. 12:46, Num. 9:12) Jesus was a passover sacrifice, and in keeping with the statutes of the Passover, He was unblemished, being without sin, and His bones were not broken (John 19:36). It is for this reason that He is called "Lamb of God." This is so important because God required that the Passover lamb be eaten in its entirety after shedding its blood (Ex. 12:8-10, 34:25, Num. 9:12) If the lamb was not eaten, the Passover sacrifice had not been kept. The Lamb of God had His blood shed on the cross, and after it must be eaten for the sacrifice to be kept. This is done through the Eucharist. In fact, the Passover sacrifice was instituted to save the firstborn sons, and sons are exactly what we become when we enter into faith with Christ (Mat. 5:9, 5:45, Luk 6:35, 20:36, John 12:36, Rom. 8:14-15, 8:23, 9:26, 2 Cor 6:18, Gal. 3:26, 4:5-6, Heb. 12:7-8). We must consume the Lamb if we, as sons, are to be saved.

The language that Jesus used at the last supper is also a big help in answering this question. As He said "Take this, and eat it, this is my body," He instructed the Apostles to "do this in remembrance of me." To our modern english ears this sounds as though the Lord simply wished the apostles to recall Him. However, the greek word which is translated as "remembrance" is very insteresting. It is anamnēsis, a word which had two important uses during the time of Christ. To the greeks, the word referred to a process by which an abstract idea moved into the material world. For example, Plato used the word to refer to the forms becoming realities to the people of this world. To the greek speaking Jews, the word had sacrificial meaning. In the greek Old Testament that was used by Christ and the apostles, the word is used to mean "memorial sacrifice" in Leviticus 24:7, Numbers 10:10, Pslam 38, and Psalm 70. In the book of Hebrews, the word is also used in a sacrificial way "There is in these sacrifices a reminder [anamnēsis] of sin year after year." (10:3) Therefore, from one standpoint Christ's words indicate the moving of His heavenly body into the material world, and from another they indicate the sacrificial nature of what He was commanding the apostles to do. In fact, even the word which is translated as "do this," poiein, carries sacrificial meaning. In the greek Old Testament, it is used 70 times in this way, such as in Exodus 29:38: "Now this is what you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar: two lambs a year old, day by day, continually." Translating Luke 22:19 most literally and according to these etymological facts would mean Jesus said, "This is my body given for you; offer this as a memorial sacrifice of me."

The Bible continues to point to this idea in 1 Corinthians 11, where Paul gives his great instruction on the Eucharist. He uses the very same words as does Luke: anamnēsis and poiein. This gives even further insight into the meaning of anamnēsis. Jesus spoke the words of the last supper in Aramaic, not greek. Paul's letter to the Corinthians is one of the earliest writings existing about the Eucharist, even earlier than Matthew. When he wrote to the Corinthians, he had to translate Christ's words into greek. Corinth was a greek city and Paul chose the word anamnēsis realizing that the Corinthians would have understood it according to the greek usage, the passing from a heavenly existence to a material existence. On the other hand, Paul was Jewish rabbi who was very familiar with the Greek Old Testament. He understood the term also in its sacrificial meaning. Paul's use of the word conveys both the sacrificial and the transcendental meaning. (In fact, the Hebrew equivalent of anamnēsis, zikaron, also carried the transcendental meaning.)

Paul's Letter the the Corinthians holds even more evidence that the Eucharist truly is the body of Christ. In chapter 10, he asks, "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." (16-17) The only way that the cup could be a participation in the blood of the Lord, and the bread a participation in his body, would be if the cup contained His blood and the bread was His body. Paul then writes, "Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons." (18-21) He speaks of eating sacrifices in the same passage as speaking of the Eucharist. He says that eating sacrifices is a participation in the altar, just as receiving the Eucharist is a participation in calvary, the altar of Christ's sacrifice. He then goes on to make the distinction between sacrifices to idols and those made to God, saying that one cannot both participate in the sacrifice of pagans and also participate in the sacrifice to God, which he has just identified as the Eucharist.

In chapter 11 Paul continues to discuss the Eucharist, strengthening the case even further. In verse 27, he says that "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." The only way that one might profane the body of the Lord would be if the Eucharist really were His body. Paul then goes on to explicitly say that the Eucharist is the body of the Lord, as he warns that, "anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." (29) Lastly, in verse 30, he says that many were sick and dying from committing this sin. This is very reminiscent of the Jews who died from touching the Ark of the Covenant, where the Lord truly dwelt, because they were impure with sin.

Even given all of this, the most strong evidence that the Eucharist is truly Christ's body may be found in John chapter 6. This chapter overflows with Christ speaking of eating His body and drinking His blood. Those who reject that the Eucharist really is Christ make one criticism of this passage. They say that the context shows Christ is speaking symbolically. In the beginning of chapter 6, Jesus feeds the 5,000 with his maraculous bread. Then , in verse 34, the people ask Jesus to always give them this bread. Christ then replies that He is the bread of life, and in verse 35 says that those who come to Him will never go hungry. This context, some say, shows that Jesus' references to eating Him are merely symbolic.

However, the passage clearly shows that this is not the case. After Christ speaks of giving the people His flesh, the desciples ask "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (52) Here they are interpreting Jesus' words to mean He will give them His literal body to eat. Instead of correcting them, Jesus uses even more direct and strong language. First, he makes the well-known statement, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." (53) He then continues in verse 57 to say, "Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who eats me will live because of me." The greek word used in this verse, trogon, is not the standard word for eating, but actually conveys the idea of chewing. Christ does not then simply say that we must eat his body, but that we must chew His body. Chewing is not symbolic. After this, the desciples question Jesus again, asking, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (60) Jesus does not ease their fears by clarifying that He is speaking symbolically, but rather says that the fallen nature of flesh cannot comprehend spiritual truths, and that the desciples must think spiritually, and listen to His words of truth: "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." (61-63)

Some claim that Christ's statement that "the words I have spoen to you are spirit" is a claim that the words are symbolic. However, in asking the question "does this offend you," Christ affirms His previous statements. Moreso, the fact is that the word "spirit" is not interpreted as meaning"symbolic" anywhere else in the Bible. More importantly, and perhaps most importantly of all, immediately after this we are told that many stopped following Jesus after this. If the Eucharist is not the body of Christ, then Jesus allowed many desciples to walk away from Him, and to walk away from eternal life, simply because of a misunderstanding. Twice the desciples voiced their concern over His statement that they must eat, even chew, His flesh, and twice He reaffirmed His words, even letting many leave Him instead of clarifying further. In fact, there are other Bible passages where Christ does correct such a misunderstanding, as He does in Matthew 16:5. He does not even call them back as they start to leave. Instead, He turns to the apostles and asks, "Do you want to leave too?"(67)

The biggest problem with the idea that Christ is speaking symbolically in John 6 is that the statement to eat someone's flesh was a Semitic expression which meant to persecute and betray them. Just as we have expressions today, like "its raining cats and dogs," or "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse," the Semitic peoples did, too. This was one of them. In fact, The Bible uses this expression several times. Psalm 27:2 says, "When evil men advance against me to devour my flesh, when my enemies and my foes attack me, they will stumble and fall. " In Micah 3:2-3, the prophet writes, "Listen, you leaders of Jacob, you rulers of the house of Israel. Should you not know justice, you who hate good and love evil; who tear the skin from my people and the flesh from their bones; who eat my people's flesh..." Isaiah uses the form of speach in chapters 9 and 49 as well. If Christ was speaking symbolically, He would have been telling the desciples that if they did not persecute and betray Him, they would have no life in them. The Jews who followed Christ would not have gotten the symbolic meaning oout of Jesus' statements that we do today.

There is in fact far more evidence that the Eucharist is indeed the body of Christ than I have presented here. The early Church fathers were unaninmous in their belief that the Eucharist was the body of Christ, many of them even using language that is similar to the language of transubstantiation. Those men who learned directly from Peter and Paul, men such as Ignatius of Antioch, deemed the opinions of those who did not confess the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ to be heretodox. On top of all of this are the many Eucharistic miracles that have occured over the centuries, such as the breathtaking miracle of Lanciano. In these miracles, hosts have visibly become flesh during consecrations What's more, the blood types of all of them have been the same, AB, the same as the blood that was found on the Shroud of Turin. However, even discounting all of this, the fact is that the Holy Bible itself shows clearly and inarguably that the Holy Eucharist is indeed the body of Jesus Christ, our Lord and our God.