Eucharist and Meat

  • Thread starter Thread starter jzmckay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jzmckay

Guest
I have a question that might be considered by some to be strange, but I’ve asked many Catholics about it and have not found a satisfying answer.

According to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the bread in the Eucharist literally becomes the Body of Christ (and moreover the bread becomes absent). According to church discipline, there are some days in the year (which used to be all Fridays) when we are to abstain from meat. If the Eucharist is actually the Body (and therefore flesh) of Christ, is it not, in some real sense, “meat”? I realize that it still appears to us as bread in the way we perceive it, but if it is really meat, shouldn’t that be the deciding factor? After all, if we manufactured meat that somehow was flavored and textured to look like bread (sort of the opposite of tofu), it still wouldn’t be okay to eat during a fast, correct? Anyhow, if the bread in the Eucharist is truly meat, how can we partake of communion on days when we are to abstain from meat?

How does church doctrine deal with this? I know this is a strange question, but I have been curious about it ever since a friend of mine posed it to me.
 
40.png
jzmckay:
I have a question that might be considered by some to be strange, but I’ve asked many Catholics about it and have not found a satisfying answer.

According to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the bread in the Eucharist literally becomes the Body of Christ (and moreover the bread becomes absent). According to church discipline, there are some days in the year (which used to be all Fridays) when we are to abstain from meat. If the Eucharist is actually the Body (and therefore flesh) of Christ, is it not, in some real sense, “meat”? I realize that it still appears to us as bread in the way we perceive it, but if it is really meat, shouldn’t that be the deciding factor? After all, if we manufactured meat that somehow was flavored and textured to look like bread (sort of the opposite of tofu), it still wouldn’t be okay to eat during a fast, correct? Anyhow, if the bread in the Eucharist is truly meat, how can we partake of communion on days when we are to abstain from meat?

How does church doctrine deal with this? I know this is a strange question, but I have been curious about it ever since a friend of mine posed it to me.
Click to expand...
This interpretation would mean that Catholics are doing something worse than eating meat on a Friday, they are being cannibals :eek:, which we most certainly are not doing by receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. It is interesting to note that the early Romans accused Christians of this very thing, as do modern day anti-Catholics because they too do not understand what the Eucharist really is.

When we receive the Eucharist we are receiving the risen Christ–the Jesus that passed through doors and yet could eat fish, not the pre-risen and pre-glorified flesh of Jesus. We receive Jesus in a sacramental way not in a merely physical way, so we are not eating meat but receiving Christ. The appearance, taste, and texture of the accidents of bread and wine have nothing to do with it. Exactly how we are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ is a mystery of God, one which we can only use our poor words to attempt to describe.
 
40.png
jzmckay:
I According to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the bread in the Eucharist literally becomes the Body of Christ (and moreover the bread becomes absent). .
Click to expand...
you have misstated the doctrine of transubstantiation, a common error. According to the doctrine, in the valid consecration of bread and wine the substance changes and bread and wine are no longer present on the altar, but the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are sacramentally present. The accidents (physical appearances and attributes) of bread and wine remain, that is, the aspects discernable by the human senses. Therefore the problem of consuming the physical accidents of meat does not arise.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
you have misstated the doctrine of transubstantiation, a common error. According to the doctrine, in the valid consecration of bread and wine the substance changes and bread and wine are no longer present on the altar, but the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are sacramentally present. The accidents (physical appearances and attributes) of bread and wine remain, that is, the aspects discernable by the human senses. Therefore the problem of consuming the physical accidents of meat does not arise.
Click to expand...
I don’t see where the poster misstated the doctrine, at least in the section that you quoted. He said “literally becomes the Body of Christ”, not “physically becomes the Body of Christ” (which I would agree is a misstatement). What exactly did he misstate?
 
We don’t know that Christ’s glorified body is composed of “meat”, or even if it is possible for “meat” to exist in heaven. Since “meat” is a physical substance, and since Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is not physical (although it is definitely Real), it would seem that there is no “meat” in the Eucharist.
 
Jzmckay,

Welcome to the forums! You asked a very interesting question and I think you’ve gotten some good answers to it. I commend you for thinking about these things. The more we think about, ask about, but mostly pray about Christ’s presence in the Eucharist (especially if we actually pray in His presence before the tabernacle) the deeper our devotion, love, and awe will grow.

Della,

An excellent post as always. 👍 But, I am going to interject one small point if you will allow me to. Although it is definitely correct and accurate to say that we receive Christ’s glorified body in the Eucharist – we want to be careful not to posit His glorified body as the reason why we can receive it, or the reason why it is not “meat” or cannablism. You later point out that we receive Christ’s body sacramentally and this is of prime importance, but you seem to contrast this with not receiving Christ pre-glorified or pre-resurrected. The problem is, of course, that the Apostles did receive Christ in His pre-glorified and pre-resurrected body at the last supper.

So the focus should be on the sacramental mode of Christ’s presence, not the fact that he happens to now have glorified flesh. In other words, the sacrament always presents us with the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ (the whole Christ) – but depending on when that sacramental change takes place (either before or after the ressurection) Christ’s body is either mortal or glorified.

Do you understand what I am getting at? What do you think?

VociMike,

Do you see how the above consideration (i.e. the fact that the Apostles receive the Eucharistic Christ before his resurrection) might cause you to want clarify your analysis?

What I mean is this: Christ’s glorified body in Heaven IS PHYSICAL. Remember what happend to St. Thomas the Apostle? Christ ate after His resurrection (although certainly not for nutritive reasons). We believe in the bodily resurrection from the dead. Christ is now as we hope to someday be. So He does have a physical body, its just that the physical nature and properties of that body are different than a mortal, natural body. But, it is still a physical body.

But, you are correct to stress that Christ is not present in the Eucharist in a fleshy way. He is present in a real, substantial, sacramental way.

Is is because Christ is present in a real, substantial, but sacramental way that we are able to consume the whole Christ, without diminishing Him (we diminish meat when we eat it, by taking a bite) or becoming canibals.

So yes, when we receive Christ we recieve him BODY (real glorified body), Blood, Soul and Divinity. But we receive the whole Christ – not just parts of Him at a time (which is what would happen were we to eat a body in a normal way.)

What do you think about all this?

As always, I defer to the teaching of the Church on this matter, and any error should be ascribed to my own lack of understanding or poor powers of communication.

God Bless,
VC
 
Jesus said “I Am the Living Bread that came down from heaven”, not “I Am the Living Steak that came down from heaven”.
 
Fidei Defensor:
Jesus said “I Am the Living Bread that came down from heaven”, not “I Am the Living Steak that came down from heaven”.
Click to expand...
Too bad Jesus wasn’t German. Then we could have brats and beer instead of bread and wine. :tiphat:
 
Verbum Caro said:
Jzmckay,It is because Christ is present in a real, substantial, but sacramental way that we are able to consume the whole Christ, without diminishing Him (we diminish meat when we eat it, by taking a bite) or becoming canibals.

So yes, when we receive Christ we recieve him BODY (real glorified body), Blood, Soul and Divinity. But we receive the whole Christ – not just parts of Him at a time (which is what would happen were we to eat a body in a normal way.)VC
Click to expand...

I agree with this. We receive the whole Christ–whole and entire–we do not metabolize him! Under the species of bread or wine He is present only in His entirety, never divided. Never can be divided, and consequently, cannot be metabolized. This is quite different than eating a meal, in which the food is divided, metabolized, and changed. This does not happen with the Eucharist. As long as the eucharistic elements are present, Jesus is present in his entirety.
 
40.png
VociMike:
I don’t see where the poster misstated the doctrine, at least in the section that you quoted. He said “literally becomes the Body of Christ”, not “physically becomes the Body of Christ” (which I would agree is a misstatement). What exactly did he misstate?
Click to expand...
this misstatement lies in the assumption that “literally present” means “assuming the physical accidents of flesh and blood”, since that was OPs clear assumption, this was a misstatemnt. Post above re: metabolizing is a very important point as well.
 
Thank you to everyone for your responses! Once again, I know it is a strange question, but I appreciate your taking it seriously.

You have given me much to think about, and I will need some time to reflect on the responses. I admit that I was aware of the “cannibalistic” connotations of the question I was asking, although I wasn’t particularly interested in that point.

However, now that you mention it, can anyone point me to something that might give a more detailed response to the charge of cannibalism? I certainly don’t agree with that interpretation of the Eucharist, but I would like to know more about how such charges are rebutted. Is there an official church teaching that addresses this point? I am especially interested in the point about the Last Supper, when Christ’s body was not yet glorified and thus it seems that the Eucharist could only have been transformed into literal flesh.

Thanks again!
 
 
40.png
jzmckay:
I have a question that might be considered by some to be strange, but I’ve asked many Catholics about it and have not found a satisfying answer.

According to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the bread in the Eucharist literally becomes the Body of Christ (and moreover the bread becomes absent). According to church discipline, there are some days in the year (which used to be all Fridays) when we are to abstain from meat. If the Eucharist is actually the Body (and therefore flesh) of Christ, is it not, in some real sense, “meat”? I realize that it still appears to us as bread in the way we perceive it, but if it is really meat, shouldn’t that be the deciding factor? After all, if we manufactured meat that somehow was flavored and textured to look like bread (sort of the opposite of tofu), it still wouldn’t be okay to eat during a fast, correct? Anyhow, if the bread in the Eucharist is truly meat, how can we partake of communion on days when we are to abstain from meat?

How does church doctrine deal with this? I know this is a strange question, but I have been curious about it ever since a friend of mine posed it to me.
Click to expand...
I am sure that their is an implied exception for recieving the body of Christ. The discipline of not eating meat only extends to animal products. Finally, the discipline of not eating meat is just that, a discipline and not a doctirne of the Chruch.
 
40.png
jzmckay:
I am especially interested in the point about the Last Supper, when Christ’s body was not yet glorified and thus it seems that the Eucharist could only have been transformed into literal flesh.
Click to expand...
As was mentioned before, the fact that Christ’s body is glorified is NOT the reason that we can receive it in the Eucharist. The reason we can receive it without being cannibalisistic is that we receive Jesus whole and entire under the appearances of bread and wine–that is, we receive him sacramentally.

The Eucharist, which we can also call the Paschal Mystery, has the quality of transcending space and time. So no matter where or when we receive the Eucharist, we receive the very same, one and only body of Christ. His real presence is hidden beneath the various individual appearances of bread and wine–in numerous hosts and chalices throughout history and across the planet. BUT–Jesus himself is never multiplied, never divided. He remains one. Breaking the host does not break his flesh. Chewing the host does not tear his flesh.
 
There is also an element to the Eucharist that is the Prefect Sacrifice - we are participating in the ultimate sacrifice to God, where Christ is the Priest and sacrifice, and we share in the sacrifice as the new Passover (where the Jews ate the lamb, and were commanded by God to do so).

Sacrifice lies at the center of authentic love and thus at the center of Catholic worship. It is the heart of what the Eucharist celebrates; it is what the Eucharist makes present and continues down through history. However, as Pope Benedict says in “The Spirit of the Liturgy” (pp 27-28), for most people of our day the true meaning of sacrifice is “buried under the debris of endless misunderstandings.” We tend to see sacrifice in terms of destruction and loss, rather than understanding it as the way to gain close communion with God.

“The One Holy Living Sacrifice” - it’s a different issue entirely than our beliefs that we should abstain from meat as a form of penance.
 
40.png
jzmckay:
I am especially interested in the point about the Last Supper, when Christ’s body was not yet glorified and thus it seems that the Eucharist could only have been transformed into literal flesh.

Thanks again!
Click to expand...
again this problem arises in a failure to accept Jesus as fully human and fully divine, with divine abilities, which means the actions of Holy Week to the Ascension while experienced by the disciples and described in terms of earthly time, in historical linear context, are because Jesus is fully divine, outside time so yes, Jesus through the consecration during the last Supper - echoed in the encounter on the road to Emaus during the “breaking of the bread” could and did render himself really sacramentally present in the species of bread and wine. Jesus willingly assumed human form and limitations and entered history, but being divine is not bound by human limitations or by linear time.
 
Verbum Caro said:
Jdevotion, love, and awe will grow.

The problem is, of course, that the Apostles did receive Christ in His pre-glorified and pre-resurrected body at the last supper.
Click to expand...

Now I’m confused…I was taught that the Apostles, like us, received Christ’s glorified and resurrected body, even though that hadn’t occurred yet…is this not true? I can’t find anything in the CCC…
 
40.png
Elzee:
Now I’m confused…I was taught that the Apostles, like us, received Christ’s glorified and resurrected body, even though that hadn’t occurred yet…is this not true? I can’t find anything in the CCC…
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s true. The last supper, crucifixion, and resurrection are all connected to each other through the Paschal Sacrifice, without regard to time or space. Wherever the Eucharist is, all are present, or rather, we in receiving the Eucharist, are present at those events.
 
40.png
Elzee:
Now I’m confused…I was taught that the Apostles, like us, received Christ’s glorified and resurrected body, even though that hadn’t occurred yet…is this not true? I can’t find anything in the CCC…
Click to expand...
Elzee, (warning long post ahead! I hope you can slog through it, but I wanted to do your question justice)

Thank you so much for following up on this point – I don’t want to confuse you!

Before I continue, let me say two premilinary, and important things:
  1. we are discussing a great mystery, and so I try to approach it with as much humilty as I am capable. We cannot exhaust the infinite treasures of the Eucharist, nor can we totally grasp God’s miraculous design. But, although it is a mystery, the Eucharist is not a muddle, and so we can reason, discuss, ponder, attempt to understand as much as we are able, etc. Hopefully this leads us to even greater adoration.
  2. I do my best to represent a) the teaching of the Church and/or b) at least the main current of orthodox thought. In either case my main concern is fidelity to magesterial teaching of the Church. I may stray from this either through my own lack of knowledge, or my ineptitude at communicating the Chruch’s teaching. In either case, you should reject it, and hold fast to the Church’s teaching. I appreciate any and all correction.
Ok, the premiliarlies are dispensed with.

Elzee, I also want to point out that I am not attempting to contradict JimG’s excellent observation above. Although I don’t want to speak for him, I think that he was pointing out the important mystical transcendence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice – that in a certain respect it does transcend time and space, and so not only are the Last Supper, Calvary and Resurrection represented, but so too is all of Salvation History.

However, I think you are asking about my previous discussion regarding the nature of Christ’s Body in the Eucharist, in relation to when temporally the Sacrament is celebrated.

This is a important question, and I think that when we explore it, and think about it, and read what the great minds of the Church have written on it we can grow in are awe of the Sacrament of Sacraments.

It is also a subject that I have become personally interested in. Namely because I had often hear as an “explanation” for the fact of Christ’s Body being in many places at once that is possible because Chirst has a glorified body, “which doesn’t obey the laws of physics as we know them” or some such.

But this explanation seem somewhat lacking to me, since it seemed to run into problems when one contemplated the first Eucharist at the last supper, when Christ *did not have a glorified body. *If you try to work around this and say that it was Christ’s glorified Body from the future (or that it was outside of time) then you have done some damage to the doctrine of the Real Presence, because we have always asserted that Christ is giving us His Body (Blood, Soul and Divinity) now. Do you understand what I mean? Did Christs body exist outside of time and inside of time? (note: I am not speaking of the sacrifice – which was anticipated at the Last Supper, and is Re-Presented at Mass)

The answer is no. He had a real, human, mortal Body. He had to, otherwise He would not have been passable or capable of udergoing the Passion. He wouldn’t have been able to suffer, die, and be buried.

I want to direct you to my previous posts on this subject at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=786097#post786097

There I quote Fr. Hardon from an the article Easter and the Euchasrist saying:
At the Last Supper, when Christ pronounced the words, “This is my Body” this is the chalice of my Blood,” the Body and Blood that were to be nailed to the Cross and shed on Calvary. . . Since the Resurrection of Christ, the Holy Eucharist is indeed the true, living Body and Blood of Christ. But it is now the Risen Christ in His glorified humanity.
Click to expand...
[continued]
 
[continued from above]

I was intrigued by this quote from Fr. Hardon, and so I wanted to see what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say and I found this:
For it is manifest that the same body of Christ which was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received by them under the sacramental species. But as seen in its own species it was not impassible; nay more, it was ready for the Passion. Therefore, neither was Christ’s body impassible when given under the sacramental species.
Click to expand...
(Part III, Q. 81, Art. 3 of the Summa)

You can read the whole of St. Thomas’ article here.

Note that Aquinas continues to point out that while Christ did give the Apostles at the Last Supper his MORTAL and passable body, He gave it to them in an IMPASSABLE manner, i.e. SACRAMENTALLY. (Which is why they didn’t cause Him to bleed when they ate the Real Presence).

So far so good?

No let’s be clear – we receive Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in every Eucharist (whether it be Last Supper, or now). But now Christ’s Body and Blood are glorified. And we are receive the Living Christ, as He is now, seated at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.

But then, they would have received the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity as He was then, with a mortal and passable body (although received it as we do now, in an immortal and sacramental manner).

So you see, although we *do *receive Christ in His glorified Body, that is not the reason why we can receive Him. The reason why is because we receive Him sacramentally (The nature of the Sacramental, and Real Presence of Christ, is another topic and one worth reading, discussing, studying in its own right).

[continued again!]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top