Do I miss something here? Why the Eucharist is never mentioned in such a detailed book as the book of Hebrews?
closed as not a real question by Caleb♦ Apr 7 at 7:52
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.
The Eucharist as taught by the Catholic church isn't completely Bible-proof. It is true that Jesus said "This is my blood" and "This is my body" during the last supper with His disciples and that they celebrated that rite, of course. However, they were intended to be a symbol for all future believers and a reminder of Christ's sacrifice. In fact, the belief in transubstantiation has no biblical support, if I may. The belief that Jesus's death is literally repeated each time one celebrates the Eucharist isn't something a sound believer in the Bible can support.
Hebrews is a letter directed to Jewish Christians in danger of apostasy (Hebrews 2:1), explaining the sacrifice of Christ with particular emphasis on themes in the Old Testament that would have been very familiar to the audience. It is not intended to be comprehensive ("I have written to you rather briefly", Hebrews 13:22), but it does mean to explore in-depth a particular theme. That theme is not the Eucharist, but the High Priesthood.
The author invokes Melchizedek and the High Priesthood, and stresses the importance of Christ's precious blood, in comparison to the blood of animals. He calls the bloody sacrifices that came before, now abolished, mere shadows of Christ's perpetual sacrifice. The High Priesthood of Christ is the primary message, and it's directed to those who have lost clear sight of even basic teachings:
So he would prefer to discuss the basics, but the problem, he judges, has now advanced far beyond the basics, and can only be remedied by detailed discussion of the High Priesthood of Christ.
Not all teachings will be repeated in all books, and the books will have different themes and will emphasize different points. For example, the following teaching is also not present in Hebrews:
Apparently, there is something very important about not eating the bread, not drinking the cup. Does "drinking" mean that you should not try to have faith if you are unworthy? That you should not do good if you are unworthy? Or that you should starve until you are worthy? No, it means you must literally not drink and eat something (Someone, Catholics might say), because "proclaiming the death of the Lord" with His blood on your own hands is going to end badly for you. Where is this vital teaching in Hebrews? Nowhere, because in Hebrews something else was at issue: Jewish Christians focused on bloody sacrifices, and losing sight of the sacrifice of the High Priest.
For the record, some Catholics do use Hebrews to talk extensively on the subject of the Eucharist. I found, for example, "The Eucharist as the Meal of Melchizedek". Two relevant paragraphs can be found in that document by searching for "clean priesthood" and "brick in the face".
It is by implication.
Melchizedek is supposed to be Christ (his name means, "my king is righteousness" after all) and the references to the meeting with Abraham will have undoubtedly brought up the memory of the story from Genesis where Abraham and "The King of Peace" (for he was king of Salem, which translates to "Peace") share "bread and wine". Such a reference would not have been missed by the audience listening to the book of Hebrews.