The Eucharist or the Sacrament of Communion is recognized universally by one who actively practices a belief in Jesus as Gods son. The Eucharist,...

This is
certainly a multi-faceted and philosophical question, and it is one that begs personal
interpretation. Therefore, I would encourage you to think through how each of the questions
asked in the prompt might be addressed from your own perspective. Those questions are as
follows:

1. Is it even worth doing religious actions that are not
   understood?
2. Can everything be understood?
3. Might we not
   want to understand everything?
4. What might be more important than
   understanding?

Here, though, are some ideas to get you thinking.
In regards to the first question, it could easily be broadened to ask, "Should any action
be done if it is not understood?" which makes answering it slightly more obvious but still
applicable to the dialogue. The answer, of course, is yes. For example, most people, when they
drive to and from work, could give little to no explanation of how their cars start and how
their cars work in reverse and drive, and so on, yet there is still obvious benefit to
completing the action. Therefore, although it may or may not be better to understand the
mechanics and/or meaning behind an action, understanding does not affect the positive or
negative consequences of such an action.

The driving example is less complex
than some religious examples would be because in the case of driving, an obvious benefit can be
shown, whereas some religious actions merely seem to have internal benefits. That does not,
however, discount the benefits that those religious actions have. For instance, individual
prayer has very little obvious benefit. Yet, psychologists who have studied the effects of
prayer on the brain have consistently shown that the habit of praying decreases stress and
anxiety on the human brain.

The second question is even more simple.
Although, again, pursuit of knowledge and/or understanding may or may not in itself be a good
thing, total understanding of all things is impossible for the human. This concept is
reminiscent of the cultural idea of the "whole man" in Ancient Greek culture. As one
of the most thoughtful and formative cultures in history, the Greeks recognized that people
could have "balanced" educations insofar as they could discuss various topics with a
small amount of knowledge, but they could never fully comprehend a single topic, and, if they
could, it would be detrimental to other aspects of life.

The third and fourth
questions are considerably more difficult, as they depend much more on personal opinion.
However, it seems crucial to make the point that although understanding is neither necessary nor
completely possible, it does not mean that there is no value in pursuing
understanding.

In the original example of the Eucharist, although the ideas
are complex and debated among Christian groups, those who take part in the Eucharist would
likely defend the need to strive for understanding for two main reasons: the ability to have a
deeper personal connection with its ultimate meaning, even if it is never totally understood,
and the ability to share part of its meaning with others who are curious about that aspect of
faith. These two reasons, which would be compelling to any person of faith, assert the idea that
the pursuit of deeper understanding of difficult issues does indeed hold the most meaning when
it come to both personal and cultural influence.

Happy
writing!