This is My Body: Part III

Eventually, I will cover everything that has been written here so far. I want to. There just isn't enough time in the day to do it all at once.

In the last post, I reflected on Ryan's question as to whether Protestants long for a sacrament like the Catholic Eucharist. In this part, the question is:

Or, do most Protestants believe that even if Christ was really present in the Eucharist, that this wouldn't make any difference in their lives?

Now, this question I find fascinating, but probably for the wrong reasons. It does speak to a cynical skepticism on the part of many Protestants about the Eucharist. However, I think addressing such a thing is ultimately not useful. I think a better question would be:

Does it make any difference in the lives of Catholics if Christ is really present in the Eucharist?

This question I find much more meaningful on the subject.

Catholics should be the test subject as far as this goes. Around the world, every day, Catholics believe that they are partaking in a miracle that allows them to physically consume the re-presented sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. Does it make any difference in their lives?

I suppose the question would first have to be answered, "What would we expect to see from those who partake in this?" On the one hand, there's the idea that a miraculous 'food' is being consumed. Shouldn't that have a miraculous effect? On the other hand, many people ate miraculous food, even from the hand of Jesus; four and five thousand at a time, as the Gospels record. Yet few of those people exhibited 'miraculous' effects. But then again, very few of them had any faith in Jesus.

Therein lies the crux.

Physical interaction with Jesus is a relatively meaningless thing. Take two examples of his healings: The bleeding woman who grabbed him in the crowd, and the centurion whose son was sick and dying. In one case, Jesus physically interacted with the person. In the other, Jesus didn't even see the sick person. Yet, both were healed. What was the common thread? The faith of those seeking the healing. Touching Jesus meant nothing without faith.

I suppose this is reflected in all teachings regarding Communion as well. To those without faith, it is just a light snack, transformed or no.

And now, to the point of the matter.

Previously, I wrote about Jesus saying, "If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (Paraphrase)" If taken in connection with Catholic teaching on the subject it has often been interpretted "If you don't take part in a transformed Eucharist, you cannot obtain eternal life."

But does such an interpretation make sense in light of the requirement of faith? Not really. So then, is Jesus saying that one must partake in transformed Eucharist with faith, or is Jesus saying that one must have faith in him? My vote goes to the latter, particularly because to believe the former is to read much into the verse.

At some point in this series, I'm just going to have to break out the scripture verses and get into some nitty-gritty exegesis. Today is not the day.