A Convert's Thoughts on the Eucharist.

First, one is struck by the contradiction involved in the protestant interpretation of the 6th chapter of John's gospel. Of all the times a literal translation would be appropriate, here is the most obvious. There is really no other way of reading the chapter except to conclude that Jesus really meant for us to eat his body and drink his blood.

Second, the very fact that Jesus seems to be telling us to be cannibals requires the chapter to be interpreted, as well as believed literally. It requires someone who is in the know to figure out what Jesus meant by eating his body and drinking his blood, since literal cannibalism is not an option. Who better to do this than the apostles and their successors? That is why without a teaching authority, their can be no church. That is why the development of doctrine is a reality. Only the church has the authority to figure this out for us. If we all came up with our own interpretations, they would be some true, some false, some a mixture of truth and falsity (which is worse, sometimes, than pure falsity).

Third, what struck me back then, sub-consciously, and now more and more bats me over the head consciously, is the sheer audacity of the doctrine. I was at Mass on the feast of the Immaculate Conception yesterday, and during the consecration was running in my mind a fictional dialogue between an outraged atheist and myself. The imaginary atheist was railing at the thought of all of us sitting there in silent wonder at the miracle of the true presence of Christ in our midst under the form of bread and wine. And after his rant was done, I smiled at him and said, "Yes, it's outrageous, isn't it?" and that was all that needed to be said.








BLOGGER