Since no one else has posted a book that deals with Eucharistic practice in the early church, I’ll throw out John Howard Yoder’s “Body Politics.” Yoder is an Anabaptist who taught theology at Notre Dame, and he looks at five practices of the early church, including the Eucharist, with particular attention to the economic, social and eschatological implications of these practices. Yoder is not writing from a Roman Catholic perspective, but neither is he a Protestant.

An excellent, concise illustration.

Gnawing, munching, or feeding on flesh doesn’t sound vegetarian, although anyone who would accuse Catholics of cannibalism for receiving communion certainly would not believe in transubstantiation or the Real Presence, so the accusation would have to be that Catholics think they are engaging in cannibalism, and since Catholics don’t think they are, that would be erroneous too.

Also an important point, though some people might not know that Catholics don’t think what they are doing is cannibalism. And some Catholics’ description of the Eucharist would give them plenty of opportunity for misinterpretation. The first oath that Beregarius had to swear is a theological disaster but you will occasionally find the self-appointed ‘orthodox’ defending it, even if Thomas was quite embarrassed by it.

I mentioned this somewhere before, but can’t find it so that I can quote myself. In any case, there is a footnote in NAB to John 6:54 (“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”) that says:

Eats: the verb used in these verses is not the classical Greek verb used of human eating, but that of animal eating: “munch,” “gnaw.” This may be part of John’s emphasis on the reality of the flesh and blood of Jesus (cf John 6:55), but the same verb eventually became the ordinary verb in Greek meaning “eat.”

If memory serves me correctly, Raymond Brown in his Anchor Bible volumes on John translates the the verse something along the lines of, “Whoever feeds on my flesh . . . . ”

Gnawing, munching, or feeding on flesh doesn’t sound vegetarian, although anyone who would accuse Catholics of cannibalism for receiving communion certainly would not believe in transubstantiation or the Real Presence, so the accusation would have to be that Catholics think they are engaging in cannibalism, and since Catholics don’t think they are, that would be erroneous too.

Just having some fun with a thought experiment. I completely agree that to argue that the Eucharist is not vegetarian is a misunderstanding of Real Presence. Since it is the Body and Blood of the risen Christ that we eat and drink, it would be inappropriate for the meal to include meat. But given the fact that both the Jews in John 7 and later the Romans misunderstood what became the Eucharist as cannibalism, it is not only Protestants who are guilty of this “realism.”

The Passover meal from which it developed in the cultural and social tradition of Israel was decidedly not vegetarian, and one could argue that in the sense that we eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Passover Lamb, the Eucharist is not a vegetarian meal either.

While Passover was/is definitely not vegetarian, the Eucharist has obviously developed into a meatless meal. And while one could certainly argue that the Eucharist is not vegetarian because we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ (and I’ve heard that before), I would argue that this is not a proper understanding of the sacrament, at least from a Catholic perspective. It’s the kind of “realism” that inspired the debates on the Real Presence in the first place, suggesting that we are eating the corpse of the dead Jesus. In fact, if we went this route, we’d have to say not only that the Eucharist is not vegetarian, but that it is cannibalistic. Meat eating involves the consumption of corpses. The Eucharist does not.

I find it interesting that you consider the Eucharist to be a vegetarian meal. The Passover meal from which it developed in the cultural and social tradition of Israel was decidedly not vegetarian, and one could argue that in the sense that we eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Passover Lamb, the Eucharist is not a vegetarian meal either.

MZ;

I’m not sure why you see the narrative reflecting a middle class church. Whatever the socio-economic status of early Christians, it is hardly reasonable for them to have used wafers for their Eucharistic celebrations. “The breaking of bread” in Acts 2:42 seems most clearly to refer to sharing of a meal in connection with a gathering of the faithful, which even poor people must be able do. It might even be more likely for the poor to gather and share a meal as the devoted themselves to the apostle’s teachings. As for the police state, again it seems that a more decentralized government is reflected in the narrative, where Rome steps in at the threat of violence and insurrection, but could care less about people going on about religious experiences.

M.Z.,

The matzo I buy is made of flower and water only, since I usually tend to think of buying it during Passover when it is in prominent displays. That is also the time to buy kosher Coke or Pepsi, which is made with real sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup. (Whoever thought that sugar as an ingredient would be a selling point?) Also Fox’s U-bet Chocolate Syrup is available in a kosher-for-Passover formula with sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup — a must if you want to make authentic egg creams.

I would be interested to know more about the evolution of Eucharistic celebrations in the early church. Can anyone recommend a good book or two?