Contradicitions

[mepatri]

When asked if Catholics actually eat meat on Friday if they participate in the Euchrist by ingesting the bread of communion, Fr. Vincent Serpa stated that the body of Christ is only present sacramentally. He stated:

Hi,

Jesus is present in the Eucharist sacramentally and not physically. We don’t eat a part of His body. He is present under the appearances of bread and wine. So we are not eating meat when we sacramentally receive His body and blood.

At the Last Supper Jesus was present to Apostles both physically and sacramentally. They saw His physical body before them and then received His body and blood sacramentally. He is present to us only sacramentally.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church appears to disagree with him. Which is correct?

Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states,

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. (CCC, 1376)

 

[Della]

The Church doesn’t disagree. To say that Christ is sacramentally present does not at all deny that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. The Council of Trent was defining the Real Presence by saying that the “substance” of the bread and wine are transformed. This still leaves the accidents: the appearance, taste, touch, etc., which are not transformed. This is why the Eucharist is called a “clean” or “unbloody” sacrifice. If we believed that the accidents became flesh and blood they would do that, but they don’t. It’s interesting to note that the pagans who attacked the early Church did so by accusing it of practicing cannibalism, but the Eucharist isn’t cannibalism; it is the substance that changes but not the accidents.

 

[teachccd]

In the Eucharist we consume the whole Christ: Body Blood Soul and Divinity. The actual aramaic word for body Jesus spoke at the Last Supper when He said “this is my body” literally meant everything. This is my everything. I would have to look up the word , as it escapes me at the moment but I am sure of this as I have the resources.

So, no, there is no contradiction. Father Serpa is in full compliance with Rome and the Council of Trent in the matter. The Eucharist is not meat. It is Christ… God Bless

 

[Tom]

When asked if Catholics actually eat meat on Friday if they participate in the Euchrist by ingesting the bread of communion, Fr. Vincent Serpa stated that the body of Christ is only present sacramentally. He stated:
However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church appears to disagree with him. Which is correct?

They are both correct. The problem with your idea of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus is to limit God to only His human form. Has God manifest Himself in different ways in the past? Well, God appeared as a burning bush, God appeared as a dove, God appeared as a human, God appeared as a column of smoke, each one would be considered the “body” of God would it not? Why, when God says this is “MY body, this is my blood” does anyone question that the consecrated bread and wine are not His body and blood? Is it impossible for God to be present as a piece of bread? Is God limited in His ability to manifest Himself to your understanding and approval? Is it easier to believe God appeared as a burning bush? Or a dove? Or since He was speaking in His human form does it restrict the “body” to a piece of “human” flesh. If God tells me a consecrated tree is His body, I’ll be eating toothpicks! He doesn’t need to prove it to me, He doesn’t need to explain it to me. The consecrated bread and wine are His body, blood, soul and divinity, both as a physical, and a Sacramental presence. Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

[mepatri]

Again - I direct you to the Catechism:

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. (CCC, 1376)

If you declare that the Euchrist is merely a “sacrament” as Fr. Serpa did, then you are denying the declaration of the Coucil of Trent. The very thing that makes the Euchrist the miracle that it is, is that the very substance of the bread becomes the body of Christ - His flesh. If not, there is no meaning to it. I understand the apperance remains that of the species it represents, but the question that was asked of Fr. Serpa is valid: - do Catholics actually eat meat on Friday during the celebration of the Euchrist? If not, it would seem that the true meaning of the celebration is lost.

there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord

Given this context - the context outlined by the Council of Trent, Catholics do indeed eat meat on Friday, regardless of what it looks or tastes like. It would have to be so to give meaning to the Euchrist.

 

[Catholig]

Mepatri,

I think your questions have already been sufficiently answered. The eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, but it still has the accidents of bread & wine. There is nothing physically different about the host after it has been consecrated than before - but it is God. One could then legitimately say that he didn’t eat meat because it didn’t have the physical properties thereof.

Catholig

 

[mepatri]

You have answered my question, but your answer disagrees with the Council of Trent, just as Fr. Serpa’s does. But thank you for your time anyway.

 

[Church_Militant]

Since this is a miraculous event, carried out by the power of the Holy spirit and at the command of Christ, I submit that this is not only a both/and, but that it does not in any way violate the abstinence from meat.

Furthermore, since abstinence is a discipline of the Church, even were the Eucharist to be speciously alleged as you have, the Church also has the authority to dispense the faithful accordingly.

Therefore, there is no contradiction.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[scylla]

There is a contradiction if you misrepresent Catholic understanding of those words.

A Catholic would understand the words body, blood, soul, divinity as Jesus being truly present. The stress on Him not being symbolically or spiritually there, but that the bread and wine change.
No Catholic would ever think that that means that his actual flesh is there once the bread is consecrated.
But to think that there is a contradiction would be to take the words of Catholics and misinterpret them to mean what Catholics do not mean.

If indeed someone is representing actual Catholic belief with the statement that they are eating meat with the Eucharist then Catholics should agree with the statement.
The only honest way to go about this would be to ask what is the Catholic understanding is then see if it contradicts. Not to state what Catholics believe then against Catholic objections to a misrepresentation provide a contradiction.

Unfortunately no one can honestly prove a contradiction of Catholic belief, so it is common for people to misrepresent Catholic belief to “prove” it wrong.

I invite you to examine what Catholic really believe a little closer as you will see all objections to Catholic beliefs are always based upon lies or misrepresentations. This is what led me back to the Catholic Church as the only way to attack it is to be dishonest or misinformed.
I was misinformed, which is why I initially left Catholicism, until I studied it and submitted my will to God.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[tdgesq]

If you declare that the Euchrist is merely a “sacrament” as Fr. Serpa did, then you are denying the declaration of the Coucil of Trent.

Father Serpa did not declare that the Eucharist is merely a sacrament. You did. Let’s see what the good Father really said:

Jesus is present in the Eucharist sacramentally and not physically.

He is correct. Jesus is present in the Eucharist sacramentally and not physically. Fr. Serpa never denied that Christ’s body and blood are substantially present in the bread and wine at the consecration. The “contradiction” to which you refer is one of your own making. And please don’t even try to take Father’s last sentence out of context and argue that he was claiming Christ is only present symbolically to the exclusion of the real presence.

On to your interpretation of Trent. Do you admit that Christ’s body and blood are not physically present but substantially present according to the teachings of Trent? If you do, then please demonstrate that you understand the distinction. Only then will we see why it doesn’t make sense to say that receiving communion equals eating meat. Not that it would make any difference anyway, since the Church obviously does not as part of its disciplinary rule with respect to abstinance from meat on Fridays include reception of the Eucharist.

 

[Atemi]

You have answered my question, but your answer disagrees with the Council of Trent, just as Fr. Serpa’s does. But thank you for your time anyway.

It seems to me that their position is that they eat Christ’s real flesh as commanded by the Lord, but they definitely do not eat His flesh.

How one can eat Christ’s flesh but not eat His flesh is beyond me.

Christ said “my flesh is real food.” He specifically did not use the word “body” here, but “flesh.”

The argument is always that Jesus meant what He said in John 6 literally. The argument is that the Jews correctly understood our Lord literally.

Yet now we are told not to take Him too literally…

 

[Blinky]

Fr. Serpa revised his response to make it clearer:

*Jesus is present in the Eucharist sacramentally and not physically in the sense thatwe eat a part of His body such as a finger or hair. He is present under the appearances of bread and wine. So we are not eating meat when we sacramentally receive His body and blood.

At the Last Supper Jesus was present to Apostles both physically and sacramentally. They saw His physical body before them and then received His body and blood sacramentally. He is present to us only sacramentally.*

 

[Wisdom]

HIs message is clearer now but it was not heretical to begin with.

It is important to remeber the cathechsim says he is truly present not actually present. Fr Serpa is mirroring the thoughts of St Augustine who argued the sacrament of the eucharist is not cannablism and we do not eat the actual meat and bones of Jesus all 5 foot 11 and 160 pound Jesus, We don’t say at mass I got Jesus arm oh I got his feet etc we are not canniabls. There still is a sense of mystery to this all even when we take Jesus words in a literal fashion. All sacraments are mysteries how is Jesus body, sould and divinity truly present in the sacrament? It can be partially explained but not fully explained but we can set paramters to what we know and we do not regard it as only symbol nor actual material body but he is truly present sacramentally.

 

[Catholig]

You have answered my question, but your answer disagrees with the Council of Trent, just as Fr. Serpa’s does. But thank you for your time anyway.

Mepatri,

I do not see how my position at all contradicts the Council of Trent for I do believe that once the host has been consecrated it becomes Jesus. I am simply saying that because it still retains the accidents of bread one could legitimately say that they didn’t consume meat.

I simply think that this is another ploy, and not a real question. You aren’t seeking answers, for you already believe you have them. No, you are seeking to show supposed errors, and contradictions within the Faith that don’t exist. You are seeking to condemn a priest, who is correct. Show me, how I disagree with the council of trent - please.

Catholig

 

[puzzleannie]

the CCC uses the proper term, transubstantiation, to define the Doctrine of the Real Presence, and elucidates what Fr Serpa means by “sacramentally present”. Fr did not say “only” sacrametnally present, he corrected the error of poster who was confused about “physical presence” vs Real Presence or sacramental presence. The CCC says the same thing in more detail as Fr. Serpa answered.

 

[DallasCatholic]

You have answered my question, but your answer disagrees with the Council of Trent, just as Fr. Serpa’s does. But thank you for your time anyway.

The question has been answered by several people who have explained how the answer does NOT disagree at all with the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent, Fr. Serpa and the Cathechism all clearly agree. Because you apparently do not understand the term “sacramentally present” you assume a definition that is in agreement with your own presentiments. Perhaps you could explain exactly which part of what Fr. Serpa says is in disagreement with the Council of Trent?

 

[cpayne]

From reading all the above, I have a suggestion: I think the original poster misunderstands the word “substance” (from the CC) as “physical stuff.” A better understanding of that particular term might clear up some of the verbal confusion.

 

[mepatri]

I guess what I’m saying is that you can’t have it both ways. If Jesus’ body is not actually present as more than just a sacrement, then the statement by the council of Trent is to be discounted as false (since it is clear that the declaration states the true substance of Jesus’ body - even though it appears as bread, is being consumed) and there is really no miracle at all taking place since the practice is merely sacramental in nature. However, if Jesus’ body is indeed present in its true form under the appearance of bread, then catholics are indeed ingesting Christ’s body parts. This is why the only reasonable inerpretation of the scripture is a spirtual and symbolic one.

It’s important to remember the context of the event. Jesus stated that “the flesh profits nothing.” He also stated that "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. He said this in the context of the spirit. He knew (being a Jew) that the Jewish people believed that if they broke bread together and each ate of the same loaf, that they shared a common bond. Jesus used the bread as an example that one needs to “consume” Him, that He may be in us, and we in Him.

The last supper taken out of context with denial of the spirtual aspect of Jesus’ words opens a complicated and unbelievable senario that is contradictory to other scripture passages and is difficult to reconcile. It’s difficulities are explained away as “sacramental”, or “a mystery” when direct questions are raised. God is not a God of confusion. I believe that when God stated “Come, let us reason together” He asserted his belief in the power of reason, not “mystery”.

 

[DallasCatholic]

It seems to me that their position is that they eat Christ’s real flesh as commanded by the Lord, but they definitely do not eat His flesh.

How one can eat Christ’s flesh but not eat His flesh is beyond me.

Christ said “my flesh is real food.” He specifically did not use the word “body” here, but “flesh.”

The argument is always that Jesus meant what He said in John 6 literally. The argument is that the Jews correctly understood our Lord literally.

Yet now we are told not to take Him too literally…

I’m confused…are you saying that Protestants take John 6 literally? If you have read any of these responses AND you understand transubstantiation, then you know that in taking Holy Communion a Catholic does indeed eat Christ’s body and blood (which would include flesh)…so exactly which part is it that we are not taking literally?

 

[cpayne]

The idea of “ingesting Christ’s body parts” has already been sufficiently answered. However, I do have a question for you: Since Jesus said, “Unless you eat My flesh, you have no life in you,” and also said, “The flesh profits nothing,” do you think maybe Christ was just contradicting Himself?

If you do not think Christ contradicted Himself, then His statement, “The flesh profits nothing,” does not seem really relevant to the current question, does it?