Tattva-viveka
The Eucharist in Catholicism
Margaret Dale - January 6, 2007 7:47 pm
In the Catholic tradition, unique among the Christian traditions, the Eucharist (the wafer after the process of the mass) is considered to be the actual body of Christ. Because of this, the Eucharist is honored in much the same way that the arcana Deities are honored - it is displayed in a beautiful holder, it is kept in a sacred place that is well protected with a light always available, it is bowed down to and prayed to. It is even taken on procession sometimes! A consistent point made by the saints is the importance of the Eucharist. To me, it seems like a combination of the arcana deity and prasadam, as it is also ingested so that each member has the opportunity for direct contact with God. Any thought?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 6, 2007 9:21 pm
This tradition is not unique to Catholic Church, Orthodox Christian Church is using a prosphora (Greek Πρόσφορο or Πρόσφορα in plural, Offering) a small loaf of bread exactly the same way. Some more details here if anyone is interested.
Syamasundara - January 7, 2007 12:35 pm
In modern Greek thank you is evxaristo, so you can see that, despite some similarities, the eucharist expresses a different concept than ours.
In the eucharist you have the sense that something you can eat is non-different from God, and the sense of the mercy in it, but the idea of offering and sacrifice is not there, or rather, you give thanks for the sacrifice God made for us. It's some kind of reflex bhakti, where you thank God for the daily bread he gives us, and for the sacrifice of his (Christ's) own life for us, but there is no direct and explicit impetus to give our own life and give God some bread as the first enjoyer. It is a univocal relationship where we just respond to God. In other words, the catholics seem to me like a child receiveing gifts for Christmas, whereas our process reminds more of a grown up son or daughter exchanging presents with their father.
Margaret Dale - January 8, 2007 1:41 am
Actually, in the process of the mass, the host is offered to God, first to make it holy and then as a sacrifice, before parishioners partake of it. Catholics and eastern orthodox point out that their mass, unlike Protestant services, has an act of direct worship in it. One line is "pray that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God," the "our" part meaning the sacrifice of the mass the priest is making on the altar and the sacrifice of each parishioner's life that they are making daily. As all Christians (as far as I know) view Jesus' sacrifice of his life as the only wholly acceptable sacrifice that can be made, catholics offer Jesus in the mass.
There are also some interesting concepts of time related to the mass. Catholic theology says that there is only one eternal offering of Jesus to the Father, and that every mass that is celebrated is actually united with a single eternal mass going on in heaven.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 8, 2007 8:11 pm
From Catholic Encyclopedia:
The modern science of comparative religion is striving, wherever it can, to discover in pagan religions "religio-historical parallels", corresponding to the theoretical and practical elements of Christianity, and thus by means of the former to give a natural explanation of the latter. Even were an analogy discernible between the Eucharistic repast and the ambrosia and nectar of the ancient Greek gods, or the haoma of the Iranians, or the soma of the ancient Hindus, we should nevertheless be very cautious not to stretch a mere analogy to a parallelism strictly so called, since the Christian Eucharist has nothing at all in common with these pagan foods, whose origin is to be found in the crassest idol- and nature-worship. What we do particularly discover is a new proof of the reasonableness of the Catholic religion, from the circumstance that Jesus Christ in a wonderfully condescending manner responds to the natural craving of the human heart after a food which nourishes unto immortality, a craving expressed in many pagan religions, by dispensing to mankind His own Flesh and Blood. All that is beautiful, all that is true in the religions of nature, Christianity has appropriated to itself, and like a concave mirror has collected the dispersed and not infrequently distorted rays of truth into their common focus and again sent them forth resplendently in perfect beams of light.
Margaret Dale - January 8, 2007 11:27 pm
From Catholic Encyclopedia:
The modern science of comparative religion is striving, wherever it can, to discover in pagan religions "religio-historical parallels", corresponding to the theoretical and practical elements of Christianity, and thus by means of the former to give a natural explanation of the latter. Even were an analogy discernible between the Eucharistic repast and the ambrosia and nectar of the ancient Greek gods, or the haoma of the Iranians, or the soma of the ancient Hindus, we should nevertheless be very cautious not to stretch a mere analogy to a parallelism strictly so called, since the Christian Eucharist has nothing at all in common with these pagan foods, whose origin is to be found in the crassest idol- and nature-worship. What we do particularly discover is a new proof of the reasonableness of the Catholic religion, from the circumstance that Jesus Christ in a wonderfully condescending manner responds to the natural craving of the human heart after a food which nourishes unto immortality, a craving expressed in many pagan religions, by dispensing to mankind His own Flesh and Blood. All that is beautiful, all that is true in the religions of nature, Christianity has appropriated to itself, and like a concave mirror has collected the dispersed and not infrequently distorted rays of truth into their common focus and again sent them forth resplendently in perfect beams of light.
That seems rather elitist of the Catholics....
Babhru Das - January 9, 2007 4:05 am
That seems rather elitist of the Catholics....
Well, I'd be a little surprised if there weren't some apologetic strain in many of the entries in such a document. I think that makes it more Roman Catholic and less catholic. I don't pretend that I understand much of Catholic doctrine or practice, having grown up in a Methodist family, with an agnostic father. However, I think we could also assert that, although some may find something apparently analogous in the Eucharist and prasadam, there's no real comparison at all, as discussed above.
Vinode Vani Dasa - January 9, 2007 5:24 am
The Catholic communion involves the process of transubstantiation, in which the articles offered in the mass--bread and wine--change substance from ordinary materials into the body of Christ. This practice reflects the act of Christ at the last supper, in which he offered bread and wine to his disciples, saying that they were his body and his blood. Thus while the "accidents"--i.e. outward appearances--of the bread and wine remain the same, they are considered after the eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ himself. Practitioners take part in the eucharist as a communion with Christ, based on the scriptural reference from John: ""Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you … he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him." As the practice was set forth by Christ himself, it is the centerpiece of the mass.
So the real question here is: if the eucharist is a means to commune with Christ, what is the definition of communion?
Robertnewman - January 9, 2007 7:35 pm
I think we could also assert that, although some may find something apparently analogous in the Eucharist and prasadam, there's no real comparison at all, as discussed above.
I disagree. The Eucharist and prasadam are both forms of spiritualized food, the partaking of which is a core spiritual practice in the corresponding tradition. Naturally the details of ritual and theology differ, but the essence is the same, viewed in this way.
Margaret Dale - January 9, 2007 7:51 pm
I disagree. The Eucharist and prasadam are both forms of spiritualized food, the partaking of which is a core spiritual practice in the corresponding tradition. Naturally the details of ritual and theology differ, but the essence is the same, viewed in this way.
I agree with Robert. I don't think that we can dismiss the similarities just because the catholic church chooses to deny them.
Babhru Das - January 9, 2007 8:52 pm
Okay, I can accept your corrections, at least to a degree. Perhaps the difference is in the profundity of the Christian and Vaishnava conceptions of Godhead. Although I grew up Methodist (and was very active when I was 9-11 in a Presbyterian church, until I found out in 6th-grade Sunday school just how anti-Catholic their teachings are), I chose to be an Episcopalian in high school, largely because the minister at the church I attended had a very ecumenical spirit (this was the early '60s). I do clearly remember him offering the wine and host on the altar before administering communion. (I also remember watching him polish off the leftover wine afterward every Sunday. 
) And I also remember that Catholics are supposed to confess their sins and become absolved of their consequences before taking communion. Considering things such as that, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the rest of the theology developed around the sacrament of communion, I'll concede that the Christians' communion may not always be an empty ritual, and that my earlier remark could have more carefully considered. Perhaps, as with honoring prasadam, the benefit may be measured in part by considering the consciousness of the communicant. I'm willing to be quiet and listen.
At the same time, I think we need to bear in mind those differences and not reach to far to make parallels.
Audarya-lila Dasa - January 9, 2007 9:13 pm
My wife is a Catholic, so I have quite a bit of experience with the Eucharistic ritual and the theological significance behind it. There are similarities but there are also significant differences between the Eucahrist and Prasadam which may be worth exploring.
The first and most glaring differnce between the traditions is that Eucharist can only be consecrated (offered as sacrifice) by an ordained priest, whereas in our tradition anyone can sincerely make an offering to Krsna and he will accept it and the general assembly of devotees will honor the remnants of such an offering as Prasadam.
We are taught to offer everthing we do, offer, give away, eat to Krsna and thereby our contact with matter is negated and our experience is with living a life of giving and honoring Krsna's remnants in every aspect of our lives - so in that way, our concept of Krsna Pasadam is very broad and universal.
The Catholic concept of Eucharist is a universal sacrifice where all practicioners take part in the universal offering of Mass. It does not extend into all facets of life and it is also only to be partken in if one is 'pure'. For the Catholic to participate in the Mass and take Eucharist without having first participated in the ritual of confession is against church doctrine. Eucharist is only for card carrying members of the Catholic church who have the same profession of faith - in that way Christs mercy in giving his body and blood is limited. Our concept is quite different - Krsna reaches out to anyone and everyone regardless of their purity or lack thereof.
The one area where there is significant similarity is that Catholics do believe that the Eucharist is literally the body of Christ and that by taking it they become spiritualized. I disagree with Syamasundara regarding Catholic practice because the Catholic is very much called to 'take up their own cross' and to live a life of sacrifice, dedication and service to Christ. This service plays itself out in the daily life of the Catholic in various ways. First is participating honoring all holy days of obligation. The devout Catholic is called to honestly assess their behavior and to confess their sins regularly and work with their priest to improve their life and practice. The Catholic is called to pray daily, read scripture and to share their faith with everyone they meet. They are called to live a spiritual life of dedication and to live as servants of Christ. Just because a large portion of 'practicing' Catholics don't live up to the standard doesn't mean that the theology and practice for serious Catholics is lacking. At any rate, I think for the devout Catholic the relationship is very much one of giving, not just acknowledgement and taking.
There are quite a few really good books and the depth of spirituality that Catholics are called to participate in. Try reading 'Dark night of the Soul' by St. John of the Cross - that is an excellent book that would certainly deepen most peoples appreciation of the possibilities of a live dedicated to Christ.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 9, 2007 10:59 pm
The first and most glaring differnce between the traditions is that Eucharist can only be consecrated (offered as sacrifice) by an ordained priest, whereas in our tradition anyone can sincerely make an offering to Krsna and he will accept it and the general assembly of devotees will honor the remnants of such an offering as Prasadam.
In my opinion offering of food to Deity is a limb of pancaratra-vidhi which requires diksa. I realize that our sampradaya takes a little different approach to that, but generally speaking cooking and offering traditionally can be done only by priests (brahmana).
Bhrigu - January 10, 2007 6:13 am
I would agree with Nandatanuja here. In fact, in the Caitanya-bhagavata Mahaprabhu goes even further and says that he will not even accept water from someone who does not chant 100 000 names (64 rounds), something Srila Sarsvati Thakur used to emphasise. Fortunately, our later acharyas have been more lenient, but I would still say that it is not that just anyone can make an offering that will then become prasadam in our tradition either.
Audarya-lila Dasa - January 10, 2007 2:43 pm
patram pushpam phalam toyum - if Krsna says that is one offers, with love and devotion, a leaf, flower, fruit or water that he will accept it - then I think it's safe to say the application is universal. I know a traditionalist will say it is not possible to offer anything with love in a conditioned state and by such 'prove' the point that you are both making - but I personally think that intention and sincerity is everything. I know Bhakti Pramode Puri Maharaja wouldn't accept food from Srila Prabhupada's 'western converts' at first due to an even stricter interpretation - but he later realized his error in this way of thinking.
At any rate - I hear you both and I agree to a certain extent - I mean the offerings in the temple are performed by devotees who have panchratrika diksha and not by those who are not 'ordained' in such a fashion. That is the standard in all temples as far as I am aware. On the other hand the very beginnner is taught to make an offering to Krsna and the verse I cited above is used to encourage such a person and ensure them that Krsna will indeed accept their offering. If Krsna accepts it then what shall we call the remnants?
Guru-nistha Das - January 10, 2007 5:02 pm
patram pushpam phalam toyum - if Krsna says that is one offers, with love and devotion, a leaf, flower, fruit or water that he will accept it - then I think it's safe to say the application is universal.
The second line of this verse of the Gita (9.26) says, "tad aham bhakty-upahrtam asnami prayatatmanah"
"I acept that offering of devotion from one in pure consciousness", so that makes me side with Nanda-TAnuja, but at the same time, there are people who are in pure consciousness and are not initiated brahmanas.
It can be argued what that pure consciousness is, but if it means a liberated state, then surely Krsna does not accept personally just anyone's offering...
Audarya-lila Dasa - January 10, 2007 6:35 pm
The intent of my post comparing and contrasting the Eucharistic offering with the Gaudiya concept of Prasadam was to try to look at the similarities and differences. The interesting turn of events based on my rather liberal interpretation of the definition of Krsna Prasadam wasn't foreseen by me of course - but it is good to think deeply on these issues and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of all the devotees in this sanga.
Srila Prabhupada makes the point in his commentary that this verse shows the universality of Krsna bhakti and that no one is barred regardless of social status and that there are no barriers to bhakti based on qualification.
Srila Prabhupada also mentions the stress of the verse on bhakti as does Guru Maharaja in his commentary. Srila Prabhupada says that the intention of the person doing the offering is all important. Krsna is not in need of anything and in this verse he is pointing out that he accepts the devotion of whoever is doing the offering. Srila Prabhupada mentions the concept of 'pure devotee' and it is certainly mentioned in this verse in terms of the concept of pure consciousness - but his interpretation seems very liberal and seems to me to be based upon conscious intent rather than ritual purity or anything related to it. In fact, at the very beginning of his commentary he dismisses that concept by stating the universality of the verse and that it applies to anyone and everyone and hence the door is open for all.
Of course, I realize that the issue with both the participation in the Eucharist and the offering of bhoga and honoring of Prasadam are based on faith and in that sense it is only universal in the sense that no one is barred from that faith. By the very definition however, those who are lacking in faith are not participating even if going through the external ritual.
The word Catholic literally means universal and my point really was to compare and contrast the concept within the Roman Catholic church and the concept within our sampradaya, particularly as it is applied practically within the two traditions in terms of the Eucharist and Prasadam, since that is the topic of dicussion at hand.
Even if I concede the point that Krsna doesn't accept just anyone's offering even when it is given with sincerity - there are other differences in the practices worth noting as well. In the Catholic church the Eucharist can only be administered by a Eucharistic minister and it can only be participated in by those with a clean conscience. Prasadam on the other hand is to be distributed far and wide to anyone and everyone and is considered an entry point into the culture of bhakti.
The whole concept of who Krsna will accept offerings from is already being discussed on another thread. I think the idea is fairly clear - it is based on our sincerity and surrender. Bhakti must start somewhere. When Krsna says to make an offering to him and a person develops faith in those instructions and sincerely makes an offering to him I have firm faith that Krsna will accept it (even if we are talking about Krsna as God and not Gopala). If I didn't believe that I wouldn't tell anyone that. I remember my initial contact with devotees. When I purchased a set of Srila Prabhpuada's books I clearly remember the devotee I purchased them from telling me to put a picture of Krsna on an altar and make an sincere offering to him of fruits, flowers or water and that he would accept such an offering from me. I followed that instruction and I still have faith in those instructions and would not hesitate to repeat them to other new comers to the tradition.
Robertnewman - January 10, 2007 7:54 pm
I believe that in Catholic theology the effective channel of grace, at least where the sacraments are concerned, is the institution of the Church itself as the earthly representative of Christ. Considering this, it makes sense that only an ordained priest can administer the Eucharist. The Vaisnava idea of guru parampara is clearly different, but not as radically different as in Protestantism, which places the focus on each person's direct relationship with God and denies or drastically downplays personal or institutional mediation.
Syamasundara - January 10, 2007 10:23 pm
I couldn't find the thread Audarya lila is referring to, so I'm giving my two bits at the risk of repeating what I already wrote there.
As a devotee once told me, Krsna is not a coin-operated machine when it comes to prasada. There is so much more to it.
A few thoughts that come to my mind are, what about those Indians who buy those coconut and lamp kits outside a temple to have them offered by the priest? What if the pujari is just doing it for the donation, whereas the devotee who bought the offering is filled with bhakti? Who will Krsna consider despite the medium?
Also, there is another story I heard about Govindaji in Jaipur, which could explain things although I really don't understand it. There was this prostitute who had a change of heart and an awakening of devotion and Govindaji appeared in her dream and told her to offer a big chunk of her earnings as a prostitute to him, which she did. The pujari refused at first but Govinda told him to accept in another dream. Then the pujari, or pujaris, had a wet dream after eating the prasada, and they protested to Govinda because in one night they spoiled all their sattvik vows, and Govinda replied he told him to make the offerings, but not to partake of the remnants... (gotta love him)
So, maybe it is like that. Everyone is encouraged to offer whatever they eat (yad asnasi... tat kurusva mad arpanam), after all, what could we tell them, eat bhoga the rest of the time? However that is for their own consumption and redemption, whereas when it comes to mass distribution it is important that it is a bhahmana who everything happens through. But this makes little sense considering what our philosophy says on bhakti and/or prasada.
On a much lighter note, one of the biggest differences between Krsna prasada and the wafer of the Eucharist is the taste!
Swami - January 12, 2007 10:02 pm
In my opinion offering of food to Deity is a limb of pancaratra-vidhi which requires diksa. I realize that our sampradaya takes a little different approach to that, but generally speaking cooking and offering traditionally can be done only by priests (brahmana).
In our sampradaya anyone who recives diska can worship the deity, and all the members receive diska at some point. Arcana is a limb of bhakti open to all who are eligible for bhakti and have received the mantra of the diety they choose to worship. So this is quite different and more open than restriting the deity worship to a male priestly class, as is done in Catholicism.
Anuraga Das - February 3, 2014 5:25 pm
I know that this post is old but I couldnt help but comment on it and will go a bit off track. Raising myself catholic I found alot of similarities between the Gaudiya Vaishnavism and Catholicism (only to a certain extent). I dont really like comparing nor mixing ideas but I do find it can be helpful for some to compare and differentiate to help them in their devotional mind frame and grow from that point. To the first question she was asking I see more the holy name being more in common with the idea of the Eucharist of Catholicism and Orthodoxy compared to Prasadam and Deity Worship. Here is why. We know that the holy name is non different from their Lordship Sri Sri Radha Krsna. It is God fully present in sound. I find it so mysterious and so unexplainable that it never fails to amaze me. Wow. God present in sound, his name...Sorry back to topic.
Within that branch of Christianity the Eucharist is given not only to the male priest (like Guru Maharaj explained where alot of the rituals are restricted to the priestly class) but to all the followers who were baptized and accept Christ as their savior. So in the same way Sri Guru imparts the mercy of chanting the holy name to those who are faithful. Sraddha. Now this is a little idea which I havent told anyone til now (I may regret it later on perhaps) that helps me realize and appreciate Krsna Nama even more.
When I began to chant after my initiation I found it easier to hear and chant the name. I also began to understand the meaning of Sri Krsna being present in his name and is the essence of our life. After some meditation while doing japa one night I came to a "realization" that while we see within that path of Christianity where people are having a "direct relationship with Christ" in that moment during the Eucharist, Gaudiyas are also experiencing a type of Eucharist with the holy name as well . However ours is more intimate. It is without rituals, ceremonial procession, or external qualifications. It is directly in the mood of Vrindavan (well thinking about it... it depends on the heart and conception of the devotee. The name stays the same, eternal. It is us who may understand it differently.) The name isnt something material where we see in the Eucharist where the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ. The name is eternal fully divine and without flaw. Without a tinge of matter. The source of Everything is present within the sound and is dancing along with Radha. They are together and then they separate from each other.
Hare Krsna Hare Krsna....Hare Rama Hare Rama (embracing one another)
Krsna Krsna Hare Hare ... Rama Rama Hare Hare (being in Separation from each other)
The very philosophy taught by Sri Gaura Krsna is literally present in the name. I remember listening to a lecture of Guru Maharaj where he explained that we should chant for the pleasure of their lordships. Not for us. So following in that same idea we should understand that our Japa is our time serving Radha and Krsna intimately hosting their dance within our heart. That is the true Eucharist.
I also read a post by Syamasundara where he explained that Radha is like a ribbon wrapped around Krsna (in a topic of Damodarastakam). We can also see it in that way and see the beauty of the name.
I hope I didnt offend anyone.
Your Servant Anuraga Dasa