Crucified vs Resurrected Eucharistic Presence

[Tis_Bearself]

It is a sacramental “unbloody” re-presentation of the Crucifixion, done while Christ is sitting in Heaven at the right hand of his Father.

Did you read the Jimmy Akin article I posted?

 

[JJO]

I read the article yes and thank you for sharing it.
I am still confused by the meaning of

1. Sacramental. Yes, it is a sacrament of the Church, but in what other ways is the re-presentation present? Is the presentation not also corporal so that one could say that we are literally at the foot of the cross?
2. unbloody. As of now, I understand that this means there is no visible blood on the altar but the tortured Body of Christ is still corporally present.

On a separate note, when exactly is this re-presentation complete during the Mass because surely the same re-presentation is not there when we receive Communion?

Thanks,
Feel free to ask me to be more clear

 

[xvs]

We all receive the same body. I can assume that much. We receive more than Grace. We receive the very Author of Grace. And yes, I guess that in a way, daily communion (in state of Grace, of course) is tantamount to plenary indulgence. Probably the first plenary indulgence ever, declared by Jesus himself. Read John 6 several times and very carefully. I believe that Jesus is making a very clear promise, very striking promise to be sure, when He says “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” The Eucharistic mystery is probably the one that poses the greatest challenge to our poor limited reason, and a great deal of faith is required to believe it. Faith is, in my opinion, what moves Jesus more than anything else. See his reaction to the centurion, to the canaanite woman, to Peter’s declaration of faith in his divinity… But the most powerful and endearing emotion is elicited by the good thief, who believes that the bloodied and disfigured man hanging naked and agonizing from the cross next to his truly is the King of Heaven. What is Jesus’ reaction to his faith? “I assure you that today you will be with me in paradise.” I believe that the Eucharist is the chance Jesus gives us to express a faith such as the one that took Dismas through a shortcut to heaven.
I don’t think this is a Church declared doctrine, pretty sure is not. It’s just my personal opinion, which I will promptly change if my mother Church declares that it’s not so.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

1. Sacramental. Yes, it is a sacrament of the Church, but in what other ways is the re-presentation present? Is the presentation not also corporal so that one could say that we are literally at the foot of the cross?
2. unbloody. As of now, I understand that this means there is no visible blood on the altar but the tortured Body of Christ is still corporally present.

On a separate note, when exactly is this re-presentation complete during the Mass because surely the same re-presentation is not there when we receive Communion?

Yes we are at the foot of the cross. The USCCB explains it thus:

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

Jesus the eternal Son of God made his act of sacrifice in the presence of his Father, who lives in eternity. Jesus’ one perfect sacrifice is thus eternally present before the Father, who eternally accepts it. This means that in the Eucharist, Jesus does not sacrifice himself again and again. Rather, by the power of the Holy Spirit his one eternal sacrifice is made present once again, re-presented, so that we may share in it. Christ does not have to leave where he is in heaven to be with us. Rather, we partake of the heavenly liturgy where Christ eternally intercedes for us and presents his sacrifice to the Father and where the angels and saints constantly glorify God and give thanks for all his gifts.

“Unbloody” means that we don’t see the physical Jesus being crucified and bleeding on the altar.
Yes, the Body and Blood of Christ are still corporally present, hidden behind the appearances of bread and wine.

I don’t know what you mean by “the same re-presentation is not there when we receive Communion”. Once consecrated, the Body and Blood of Christ remain Christ. They don’t change back. But I think you know that based on your posts.
The point at the Mass when Jesus dies in the re-presentation is when the priest breaks the Host just before Holy Communion.
We then all join in Communion, partaking in the sacrifice by consuming the Body and Blood of Christ as He instructed us to do.

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico,

Is it your understanding that the one and only crucifixion of Jesus is made corporeally present at the Mass?

Yes, “corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.” (St. Pope Paul VI). The Body and Blood of Christ is a mystery of light as well as a mystery of faith. St. Pope John Paul II wrote in Mane Nobiscum Domine that

“Faith demands that we approach the Eucharist fully aware that we are approaching Christ himself. … The Eucharist is a mystery of presence, the perfect fulfilment of Jesus’ promise to remain with us until the end of the world.”

Jn 9:5: "While I am in the world, I am the light of the world”.

 

[JJO]

“The point at the Mass when Jesus dies in the re-presentation is when the priest breaks the Host just before Holy Communion.”
What happens to the Eucharist after this? Clearly Jesus doesn’t stay dead

 

[JJO]

Is it your understanding that the one and only crucifixion of Jesus is made corporeally present, {although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place} during Eucharistic adoration also?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Jesus isn’t dead while all of this is going on. Jesus has been resurrected, ascended, and is sitting at the right hand of the Father while simultaneously present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which commemorates His death. As the USCCB reference I posted describes, his sacrifice is eternally ongoing and being eternally presented to the Father. We commemorate it and participate in it by going to Mass.

 

[xvs]

The eternally begotten Son of the Father assumed a human nature while keeping his divine nature. Jesus enters human history with his divinity concealed (though He reveals it at will to perform miracles and speak with God’s authority) and, when he dies, he dies only in his human nature. Obviously the eternal Logos cannot die in the divine nature. But the one person who dies is both human and divine. Suffers and dies in his human nature only once in history (like everybody else, except Lazarus and a couple more), while at the same time, the same Person who is both human and divine, in His divine nature offers His sacrifice, which is also human and divine, to the Father in eternity.

It is the same one and only sacrifice that is twofold, because the Priest that offers it and the Victim that’s offered (who are the same person) has a twofold nature. So when we participate in the Holy Mass we are truly at the foot of the cross but only witnessing the divine fold of the sacrifice that is being offered to the Father in eternity, which is the fold that is bloodless and where the victim does not die.

The rubrics of the mass should not be literally interpreted as historical events, but as signs that symbolize or “memorialize” them. For example, you cannot say things like “Jesus dies when the host is broken,” though you may well say that the breaking of the bread symbolizes the historical death of Jesus. I think that is why the Holy Mass is both true sacrifice (the eternal fold) and a memorial of the historical sacrifice.

All human words fail to describe anything eternal, so it’s no surprise that the word “representation” can be confusing. To be honest, I don’t like it very much, unless it comes with the explanation that representation really means that the sacrifice is made present to us.

Heaven (or eternity) is not a place far away. It’s all ‘around’ us, cause it is the dimension that contains our time/space dimension. The way I like to see it is that Catholic priests validly ordained have this amazing power to open up portals to the eternal dimension, and that’s what they do when they celebrate the Holy Mass. Once eternity can be made present to us, we can witness the Sacrifice of Calvary that happened once in historical times but the same sacrifice stays going on in eternity.

 

[xvs]

One clarification, though: any priest validly ordained has this power, and ‘validly ordained’ means that he has been ordained by a bishop with apostolic succession. And ‘apostolic succession’ means that the bishop that ordained him was ordained by a bishop that was ordained by another bishop that was ordained by another bishop, and so on and so forth, until you can say that the bishop was ordained by one of the twelve. I believe that bishops in the Orthodox church have this succession. And I heard that it’s possible that some in the Anglican Church might have it, but cannot celebrate valid mass because they just don’t believe the same we believe about it.

And one caveat: I am not trying to repeat teachings of the Church that I read somewhere. These are all my personal theological elucubrations and conclusions that I’ve made from studying and meditating upon the teachings of the Church, and I feel very confident that they don’t go against any declared doctrine.
I’m a lay person who studied philosophy and theology for over seven years, though I never got an official degree.

 

[xvs]

Hi JJO,
I think I might have already replied this question with a response to one of your later comments.
Let me know.
Peace!

 

[Vico]

Is it your understanding that the one and only crucifixion of Jesus is made corporeally present, {although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place} during Eucharistic adoration also?

Yes. Unlike the Lutherans the Catholic belief is that the Real Presence continues after the Mass (or Divine Liturgy).

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

No. “Jesus being crucified” isn’t present. “The sacrifice Jesus made to the Father” is, though

Hi Gorgias,

Can you explain this more? My understanding is that the presence of Christ as He was dying on the cross is brought to the present moment at the Mass without a re-crucifixion. Is this correct or incorrect?

The Eucharist isn’t the memorial of Christ’s death – it’s the memorial of Christ’s death and resurrection. (See the catechism beginning at #1322; it makes this assertion over and again.)

So, the Eucharist isn’t Christ’s broken body on the cross – it’s His glorified body, in sacramental mode!

We don’t go back to the cross and offer His dead body to God – rather, we re-present the sacrifice Christ made of himself to the Father.

It’s a subtle nuance, but it’s critical: Christ died once and for all of us. We don’t need to re-enact the crucifixion. The offering of himself to the Father, though, is an eternal event, and since Christ commanded us to memorialize it, we do exactly that, at each Mass. We make present his body, blood, soul and divinity, and we re-present the sacrifice of self that Jesus made, and which is the source of our salvation.

Does this help?

It is a sacramental “unbloody” re-presentation of the Crucifixion

I would nuance this by saying that it’s a re-presentation of the sacrifice Christ made, and not of the crucifixion per se. “Crucifixion” was merely the means – it’s the sacrifice Christ freely made of himself that we offer back to the Father.

Is the presentation not also corporal so that one could say that we are literally at the foot of the cross?

No. We don’t go back to the cross: we join ourselves to the eternal Christ now in glory.

but the tortured Body of Christ is still corporally present.

No, that doesn’t make sense. If it were the “tortured, dying body”, then it would be a presentation of a sacrifice that hadn’t yet been made. If it were the “dead body on the cross”, then it wouldn’t include the soul of Christ (since the soul and body are separated at death). It can only be the glorified Christ.

when exactly is this re-presentation complete during the Mass because surely the same re-presentation is not there when we receive Communion?

Christ is certainly present sacramentally in the Eucharist at the conclusion of the Eucharistic prayer. He continues to be sacramentally present while the accidents of bread and wine are present.

Not sure why you’re claiming that “the same re-presentation is not there when we receive Communion”. Why do you think that this is so?

 

[Gorgias]

And yes, I guess that in a way, daily communion (in state of Grace, of course) is tantamount to plenary indulgence.

Nope. Reception of grace does not wipe away the temporal punishment due to sin. (It does, however, provide forgiveness of venial sin.)

I believe that Jesus is making a very clear promise, very striking promise to be sure, when He says “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

This doesn’t imply that purgation will be unnecessary for those who consume the Eucharist, though. You’d need to demonstrate that this is the case, if you wanted to prove that claim.

What is Jesus’ reaction to his faith? “I assure you that today you will be with me in paradise.”

In Catholic terms, the good thief had just declared his faith and received the graces of baptism through a so-called “baptism of desire.” Therefore, he attains to heaven. That’s a different situation than that of an already-baptized Catholic who has sinned venially and then received communion.

I believe that the Eucharist is the chance Jesus gives us to express a faith such as the one that took Dismas through a shortcut to heaven.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.” (Mt 7:21)

“From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.” (CCC, #1128).

In other words, mere reception of the Eucharist doesn’t guarantee effects – the fruits which the recipient receives as a result of his communion are dependent on his personal disposition. So… I think it’s pretty clear that “mother Church has declared” that your assertion “is not so”.

Yes we are at the foot of the cross. The USCCB explains it thus

Just wanted to point out that the citation you gave doesn’t make this claim. It’s the sacrifice that’s re-presented, not the cross, and we certainly don’t travel back in time (although that’s a popular way to express it poetically).

 

[Gorgias]

“The point at the Mass when Jesus dies in the re-presentation is when the priest breaks the Host just before Holy Communion.”

No! NO!!!

Jesus does not die in the Mass!! In fact, the whole point of the fraction rite is to place a piece of the host into the chalice with the Precious Blood – in other words, it’s an assertion that He is not dead (after all, a body separated from blood is dead, but this shows that His body and blood are not separated, and He is not dead)!

As the USCCB reference I posted describes, his sacrifice is eternally ongoing and being eternally presented to the Father.

Yes!
It’s the sacrifice, not the crucifixion, that we memorialize!

And I heard that it’s possible that some in the Anglican Church might have it, but cannot celebrate valid mass because they just don’t believe the same we believe about it.

Actually, a Catholic priest who leaves the Church and goes Anglican is capable of celebrating a valid but illicit Eucharist.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Jesus does not die in the Mass !!

First of all, you’re quoting me, not JJO.

Second of all, I said “in the re-presentation” and made VERY CLEAR in my post that Jesus was alive the entire time. I don’t appreciate being quoted out of context.

The USCCB page I posted explains all this in great detail, so please don’t act like some big theological error was committed.

The idea that the death of Jesus is commemorated when the priest breaks the host goes back hundreds of years. We just went over that on another thread. We are NOT saying that Jesus literally dies in the Mass. He’s been continually alive since the Resurrection and we all know that.

Here is an example (Based on 16th century writings by Goffine, skip over all the “Latin must be retained” at the beginning as Goffine did not write that)

The Traditional Latin Mass: A Reenactment of Christ’s Last Days on Earth

Latin must be retained because vernacular is always subjected to changes, would give rise to false interpretations, diminish reverence for the Most Holy Sacrifice, and might endanger the faith itself. Editor’s Note: Knowing that many devout souls are trying to bring back the Latin Tridentine...

remnantnewspaper.com

It is quite possible to be observing the sacrifice of Jesus while realizing that He is still resurrected and alive. The USCCB says the same. I don’t know why you’re having an issue with this.

In any event, I’m leaving this thread because like I said, the quoting out of context and having people post obviously without reading the things I am posting in full is bothersome.
I hope the OP can sort out whatever question he still has.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

From the Eucharistic Prayer III

Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial
of the saving Passion of your Son, his wondrous Resurrection
and Ascension into heaven, and as we look forward to his second coming,
we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.

We are offering to the Father the “living sacrifice” of Jesus in the wine and bread which are now the body and blood of Jesus.

 

[porthos11]

1.) At the words of consecration, the crucified Christ is physically present, but when we receive the Eucharist, we receive the risen and glorified Christ, not Jesus in his suffering on the cross. Is part 1.) correct so far?
2.) If 1.) is correct, at what point in the Mass is the crucified Christ no longer present but the risen Christ? i.e. at what point do we behold not Christ in physical suffering but as risen Lord?

Many thanks,
JJO

The thread is a bit derailed but

On 1, No this is not correct. From the moment of consecration Jesus is present whole, alive, glorified, and entire under both species.

On 2, The Mass is anamnesis, the making present of the entire Paschal event. The Sacrifice, Jesus’ death is made present in the separate consecration of the bread and wine and his Resurrection is commemorated in the mingling and his Ascension in the very fact of his being alive in the Eucharistic species. But at no point is Jesus dead then alive in the Species themselves.

We should not think of the Mass in such a linear manner

 

[Gorgias]

First of all, you’re quoting me, not JJO.

I know. I didn’t want you to feel I was piling on. Notice that I used the quotes that he did, and didn’t make it seem like they were his words.

Second of all, I said “in the re-presentation ” and made VERY CLEAR in my post that Jesus was alive the entire time. I don’t appreciate being quoted out of context.

Hmm… let’s see:

The point at the Mass when Jesus dies in the re-presentation is when the priest breaks the Host just before Holy Communion.

Hmm… sure looks like you’re saying that Jesus dies in the re-presentation. The re-presentation happens during the Mass. If you’re not saying that Jesus dies during the Mass, you’re sure doing a good imitation of it!

The USCCB page I posted explains all this in great detail, so please don’t act like some big theological error was committed.

The USCCB page doesn’t say that Jesus dies in the re-presentation. If they do, and I’ve missed it, could you quote it to me? I’d be quite surprised to see it …

The idea that the death of Jesus is commemorated when the priest breaks the host goes back hundreds of years.

The point – which the catechism drives home, again and again – is that we’re not just commemorating “the death of Jesus”, but rather “the death and resurrection of Jesus”. That’s a rather important part to miss, wouldn’t you say?

It is quite possible to be observing the sacrifice of Jesus while realizing that He is still resurrected and alive. The USCCB says the same. I don’t know why you’re having an issue with this.

Because “the sacrifice of Jesus” is what Jesus offered to God. That’s distinct from His dead (or dying) body on the cross, which is the assertion being made here.

In any event, I’m leaving this thread because like I said, the quoting out of context

If you say so. Given that it was a direct quote, and that the quote in context says exactly what you say it doesn’t say, though…

having people post obviously without reading the things I am posting in full

Have a blessed evening, Bear.

 

[JJO]

Hi Porthos,

If “From the moment of consecration Jesus is present whole, alive, glorified, and entire under both species.”, then can Eucharistic Adoration not also be called the Holy Sacrifice since there has been no change at all in the Eucharist.

on 2, you say "Jesus’ death is made present ". Is this a corporal presence yes? I assume this would have to be the presence of Jesus as He was on the cross (obviously without a cross also present)?

you also say that "his Resurrection is commemorated in the mingling ". By commemorated, do you also mean that the Resurrected Body of Christ is physically present?

I understand Jesus never dies in the Mass but the Eucharist can’t always be the physically suffering Body of Christ I assume, such as in adoration.

Does this make sense?

Julian