Confused Regarding the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Antonius_Lupus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Antonius_Lupus

Guest
Hi,

In receiving the Eucharist we are not receiving the Lord’s body as physcially present, but as sacramentally present. We are not eating a toe or finger nail. The Lord is truly present under the phsyical appearance of bread and wine. This is not cannibalism. It it the Eucharist and there is nothing to which it can be compared.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

I am utterly lost here. I thought that in taking the Eucharist, we are actually eating the physical flesh and blood of Christ.

What does Father Vincent mean???
 
The Eucharist is Jesus’ entire Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, whole, indivisible, and entire, and alive, not dead.

I believe this is what Father is getting at, here.
 
Could you elucidate a little further please? :confused:
It’s hard to explain. I keep trying to say it and it keeps coming out wrong. I’m going to try this again.

Okay - when we consume the Eucharist, to our bare senses it seems as though we are eating a wafer of bread. Right?

When you eat something, it gets divided and destroyed.

BUT, what is really happening is that we are being mystically united with the living Jesus Christ in a physical way, but we aren’t actually eating Him (that is, we’re not dividing and destroying Him) - rather, the closest analogy I can think of is marriage, where the man and woman become one.

In the Eucharist, we are becoming one with Jesus, spiritually, physically, Sacramentally, and in every possible way. He comes inside of us, and at the same time, we are also taken inside of Him, with no harm being done to Him (or to us) at all.

This doesn’t mean, though, that the Eucharist is merely spiritual, or merely symbolic. It’s really Jesus. But what seems to our bare senses like “eating” is actually a mystical union that is not only spiritual, but also physical - and not only physical, but also spiritual.

I hope this helps.
 
1373 “Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us,” is present in many ways to his Church:197 in his word, in his Church’s prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"199 in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,199 in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."200

1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.204
And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.205
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).
 
Hi,

In receiving the Eucharist we are not receiving the Lord’s body as physcially present, but as sacramentally present. We are not eating a toe or finger nail. The Lord is truly present under the phsyical appearance of bread and wine. This is not cannibalism. It it the Eucharist and there is nothing to which it can be compared.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

I am utterly lost here. I thought that in taking the Eucharist, we are actually eating the physical flesh and blood of Christ.

What does Father Vincent mean???
I think that physical body may be an ambiguous term for many, To me, as a scientist, it’s literal meaning would be those properties of the body that are determinable by physics and other scientific means. That is what St Thomas Acquinas calls the accidents, which are not present in the Eucharist.
 
The Eucharist contains the Glorified Christ in His entirety. As mentioned, body, blood, soul and divinity. It is indeed a mystery, and by definition, does not assure you of a mathematically or scientifically elaborate explanation. Faith does not involve either of those. Have faith, dear brother!
 
I am utterly lost here. I thought that in taking the Eucharist, we are actually eating the physical flesh and blood of Christ.

What does Father Vincent mean???
Christ’s physical body died, and through his resurrection he recieved a glorified body. What the Eucharist is, what we are eating, is not the physical body that died, but the glorified body that was resurrected.

It’s really beyond our human comprehension. That’s why we call it a mystery of our faith.
 
I think that physical body may be an ambiguous term for many, To me, as a scientist, it’s literal meaning would be those properties of the body that are determinable by physics and other scientific means. That is what St Thomas Acquinas calls the accidents, which are not present in the Eucharist.
This is exactyl right. The ‘accidents’ or appearances, are precisely those qualities that are apparent to any of our senses, or by extension, to any scientific instrument. These appearances remain. Because we only know the world through sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, appearances are all that we can get at. The substance of anything, in the philosophical sense, can not be directly perceived.

The doctrine teaches that under those appearances, Christ becomes present whole and entire, which includes his corporal body and blood. But we can’t subdivide him, injure him, or cannibalize him. Because all we can touch are the appearances–the sacred host, for example. And whenever it is divided, we don’t divide Christ. He remains whole and entire under the appearance of even the smallest particle of the bread or wine.
 
I was confused by Fr. Vincent Serpa’s answer also! I believe I may still be a bit confused. Haven’t there been instances where the Eucharist was dropped and it bled? Or the priest consecrating the host was doubtful and and the same thing happened? Also, wasn’t there a case of the Eucharist changing into visible flesh and it was tested? Or are these just stories? Suddenly I feel so ignorant!
 
Haven’t there been instances where the Eucharist was dropped and it bled? Or the priest consecrating the host was doubtful and and the same thing happened? Also, wasn’t there a case of the Eucharist changing into visible flesh and it was tested? Or are these just stories? Suddenly I feel so ignorant!
These are not just stories. Try reading “Eucharistic Miracles” by Joan Carroll Cruz. You will be amazed.
The Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano is the one I think you are referring to where the flesh was tested, It was found to be human striated muscular tissue of the myocardium (heart wall), type AB, and to be absolutley free of any agents used for preserving flesh. This happened in the 8th century. The testing occurred in 1971.
 
1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”

"wholly and entirely" “truly, really, and substantially” “not intended to exclude” "as if"
With all due respect, these do not seem to leave room for opinion or speculation
 
Hello,

I see in the ask an apologist section, our beloved Fr. Serpa wrote:

“Christ becomes present in the Sacrament of the Altar by the transformation of the whole substance of the bread into His Body and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood.”

I don’t mean any disrespect to Fr. Serpa and I deeply appreciate what he does for us every day! I just don’t want people (including myself) to have any misunderstanding and I wanted to see if any of you had some insight.

I’ve always believed that the substance of the bread is transformed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ and that the substance of the wine is also transformed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, i.e. that there is never a separate existence of his body from his blood during the mass, that the whole and living Christ is present in each species that a separation of his body and his blood would equate to a dead Christ which is not what we receive. I thought that the separate mention of his body (associated with what used to be bread) and his blood (associated with what used to be wine) was only to symbolize and make present the once and only death of Christ on the cross at Calvary for the salvation of us all. Am I correct?

from the catechism:

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.205

Thanks and God bless,
Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ
 
The Church teaches that Christ is present whole and entire under each species.

It is also the received doctrine of the Fathers that the Eucharist is contained in all its integrity either in the consecrated bread or in the chalice. St. Augustine, who may be taken as a sample of the rest, says that “each one receives Christ the Lord entire under each particle.” [Aug. De consec. dist.]

That is why we can receive Communion under the form of bread only, and yet receive the whole Sacrament just as fully as if we received both forms.
 
Without any disagreement with the Church’s teaching that the Eucharist - either the Host or the Cup - is the Body, Blood, Sould and Divinity of Christ - one might also remember that at the Last Supper, Christ did not say “This is My Body, Blood… Divinity”; he said “This is my Body”… ans when He took the Cup…“This is my Blood”…

There has been a lot of poor catechesis, and a lot of no catechesis at all about the Eucharist over the last 30 years or so (although this has been changing), and at times in a rush to correct that problem, we sometimes go at it in a way that lamost makes the Church seem wrong when one if presented the Host at Communion and the one distributing says “The Body of Christ”.

Just a thought…
 
If you need some insight on God’s love for us and the blessings of communion please see the following web site, and let me know what you think. I know it’s still under construction but enough is finished to help you - I think.
Code:
  web site:    [www.visionofeucharist.com](www.visionofeucharist.com)
Your brother in Christ,

Steve
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top