Eucharist Question

[AngelRose81]

My husband and I were talking last night about the Eucharist. He was reading John 6 and I was explaing to him that Jesus didn’t stop the people from walking away when he said we must eat his flesh, etc. I told him that as Cathoilcs, we believe that the bread & wine changes into the body & blood during the consecration at Mass.

He said he doesn’t believe that and his theory is that as soon as it is** consumed** (by the person receiving) that that is when it becomes the actual body & bood. He says that’s why he can’t understand Eucharistic adoration. I’ve never heard anyone approach the Eucharist in this way and I wasn’t sure how to respond to it. Have any of you had anyone tell you they think this?

BTW, DH isn’t Catholic, but he’s coming around, the Eucharist is the only thing that he is having trouble accepting so keep him in your prayers!!

 

[dylanschrader]

The theory your husband seems to be propounding seems to be along the lines of certain Protestant sacramentologies wherein the sacraments are thought to be only subjectively efficacious, that is, effective only because of the disposition of the one receiving them.

Certainly, what he is proposing is directly contrary to the Catholic view for a number of reasons:

1. The Church has always believed and has defined (at Trent among others) that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist remains as long as the species of bread and wine remain. Thus, the practice of worshiping of the Blessed Sacrament is right because it is the worship of Christ himself.
2. The Eucharist can only be confected by a validly ordained priest. If transubstantiation occurred at the moment of reception, the validity of the sacrament would depend on the one receiving it. The minister of the sacrament is the priest, not anybody else.

Perhaps he doesn’t understand what Catholics mean when they refer to the substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, equating it with a kind of “spiritual” or even “subjective” presence. In any case, it can be hard to understand the nature of the sacraments, and especially the Eucharist.

If he feels up to it, reading Ecclesia de Eucharistia could be good because it underlines the importance of the Eucharist and re-iterates the doctrine of the Real Presence in no uncertain terms, e.g., it says:

There remains the boundary indicated by Paul VI: “Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, must firmly maintain that in objective reality, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the consecration, so that the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus from that moment on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine”.

Good luck! We’ll keep praying.

 

[1ke]

Chist said “this is my Body” and “this is my Blood” while still holding the elements in his hand. He consecrated the bread & wine, the elements became the Body & Blood, and he held them up and proclaimed them to be the Body & Blood-- then he gave it to them to eat and drink.

That alone is sufficient to refute your husband’s assertion that the Eucharist does not become the Body & Blood until it’s consumed.

Refer to the Last Supper discourses for the sequence of events, not John 6.

 

[Seminarian_Matt]

As the previous commentor said, Christ said “This is my Body” and held it up. The consecrated elements are truly Christ. The Church has always, always, always taught this. You could research Councils and documents for hundreds of years and find this taught. Therefore, your husband is believing in a heretical idea. I hope and pray that you will be able to guide him to the truth which is transubstantiation.

“Since Christ Himself has said, ‘This is My Body’ who shall dare to doubt that it is His Body?” – Saint Cyril of Jerusalem

For more information on the Eucharist, you may wish to see the Church documents linked to from the bottom of one of my webpages:

freewebs.com/acatholiclife/faqontheeucharist.htm

Your question brings to mind the story of St. Anthony and a horse. It is a great testament to the Real Presence. I would remind him of it: acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2006/06/memorial-of-st-anthony-of-padua.html

Also, has he heard of Eucharistic Miracles? These confirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I especially like the Miracle of Lanciano:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

My husband and I were talking last night about the Eucharist. He was reading John 6 and I was explaing to him that Jesus didn’t stop the people from walking away when he said we must eat his flesh, etc. I told him that as Cathoilcs, we believe that the bread & wine changes into the body & blood during the consecration at Mass.

He said he doesn’t believe that and his theory is that as soon as it is** consumed** (by the person receiving) that that is when it becomes the actual body & bood. He says that’s why he can’t understand Eucharistic adoration. I’ve never heard anyone approach the Eucharist in this way and I wasn’t sure how to respond to it. Have any of you had anyone tell you they think this?

BTW, DH isn’t Catholic, but he’s coming around, the Eucharist is the only thing that he is having trouble accepting so keep him in your prayers!!

Some Protestants do believe as he does. That the bread and wine (grape juice) become the Body and Blood of Christ by the faith of the believer when they receive them.

 

[NoPlaceLikeRome]

Tell him Christ said “Take this all of you and eat it, this is My Body,” not “This will be My Body very soon.”