How might one go about answering such an objection to Eucharistic Adoration? Thanks in advance.Christ is not in a tabernacle made with Human hands, nor is he in a piece of bread made with human hands. He is in heaven where he sits at the right hand of the Father.
Matthew 24:23-26 “At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect–if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time. So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.
We might add to that ‘here he is , in the tabernacle’; or, ‘here he is, in the monstrance’. Don’t believe it.
Thanks, that does help, but how do we get from the belief that it is Christ’s body and blood, to belief that it is the whole Christ–body, blood soul and divinity, such that it may be worshiped?That passage refers to when Jesus comes again. The scripture is telling us not to believe someone is Jesus by saying it, we will know. This is supposed to be a warning of the anti-christ. Christ began the institutution of the Eucharist at the last supper. Where he said that it is him!
Hope this helps!
From the Gospel of John chapter 6.Thanks, that does help, but how do we get from the belief that it is Christ’s body and blood, to belief that it is the whole Christ–body, blood soul and divinity, such that it may be worshiped?
Am I correct that we can take Jesus’s words “I am the bread of life” and “I am the bread that came down from heaven” to mean that when we “eat his flesh” we eat “him” completely and totally? In other words, we take these phrases, in conjunction with the mandate to eat his flesh, as equating Jesus’s flesh to Jesus’s whole being?From the Gospel of John chapter 6.
Not sure what you mean by “completely and totally”. Can you clarify?Am I correct that we can take Jesus’s words “I am the bread of life” and “I am the bread that came down from heaven” to mean that when we “eat his flesh” we eat “him” completely and totally? In other words, we take these phrases, in conjunction with the mandate to eat his flesh, as equating Jesus’s flesh to Jesus’s whole being?
As in, we are not merely eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but eating and drinking the whole Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity. Body, blood, soul and divinity.Not sure what you mean by “completely and totally”. Can you clarify?
I don’t think a logical progress is needed. Your “eat me” and “drink me” are contained in the first statement. All that is required is to understand the meaning of the command. No logical progression is required.As in, we are not merely eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but eating and drinking the whole Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity. Body, blood, soul and divinity.
I’m trying to figure out the logical transition between the command to “eat my flesh and drink my blood” to “eat me” or “drink me”. Does that make sense?
Here’s what bothers me about this line of thinking:Our Lord fed His Apostles Himself under the appearances of bread and wine in the manner that they would then perpetuate this Memorial Sacrifice through the ages until He comes in glory. Had He cut a piece of His arm and fed it to them, that would, indeed, be cannibalism - as is sometimes charged against Catholics and Orthodox. But in the sacramental institution of the Eucharist the Apostles were given the fullness of the Crucified and Resurrected Flesh of Our Lord Christ under the appearances of bread and wine they received - just as Catholics and Orthodox continue to do through the succession of the Apostles. Christ, in saving us, gave the Father nothing but the fullness of Himself. Likewise, He gives us nothing but Himself in the Eucharist.
Hi SonofMonica,As in, we are not merely eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but eating and drinking the whole Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity. Body, blood, soul and divinity.
I’m trying to figure out the logical transition between the command to “eat my flesh and drink my blood” to “eat me” or “drink me”. Does that make sense?
SoM,Here’s what bothers me about this line of thinking:
- Your propose that Catholics should read the words “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” and say, if this were literally true, it would be cannibalism, therefore the passage of scripture should be taken to mean that we eat the whole Christ, sacramentally, not just his flesh or blood.
Well, of course, this isn’t my own proposition, but is how the Church sees the Reality of Who it is we consume in the Eucharist. We do eat His Flesh and Blood in a sacramental manner (IT is literally Christ in a sacramental manner), i.e., it isn’t Christ in His pre-resurrection body Who is made present, but Christ in His Glorified Body is made fully and really present in the Eucharist.Here’s what bothers me about this line of thinking:
Do you get the rub that potentially exists? I know there are smarter people here than me and you’re probably one of them. So are we just as guilty of not taking Christ at his word as Protestants? Just trying to connect the dots.
- Protestants read the words “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” and they say, if this were literally true, it would be cannibalism, therefore the passage of scripture is metaphoric and the elements of Holy Communion are merely symbolic.
- Your propose that Catholics should read the words “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” and say, if this were literally true, it would be cannibalism, therefore the passage of scripture should be taken to mean that we eat the whole Christ, sacramentally, not just his flesh or blood.
". . .to say that in the Eucharist the bread and wine remain what they are but acquire a new signification would contradict the logic of the Incarnation. Christ was not simply a prophet who pointed out the way to the Father; he was the way to the Father. He did not just communicate the truth about God, he was the Word of God. The believer comes to the Father not by the way and the truth that are signified by Christ, but through Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and the life. Analogously, if the bread and wine were to remain bread and wine, they would point us toward the Death and Resurrection of Christ and toward the Son of God, they would signify him and what he did, but they would not be his presence and the presence of his action among us. . . .
. . .it is the very material and bodily quality of the Incarnation that calls for Transubstantiation in the Eucharist. If Christ is to be present in the sacrament, he must be present in his divine and human natures, in his soul and body. And if his body is to be present, the bread cannot be. The one thing cannot be two material substances, both bread and a human body, not even the glorified human body of Christ. If it is the one it cannot be the other. The two bodily natures exclude one another, and it is the bodily presence of Christ that is specifically emphasized in the words of consecration. The body of Christ is not with the bread but takes the place of the bread in the change we call Transubstantiation. If we deny this change, we deny the bodily presence of the glorified Christ, and hence we deny the presence of Christ. Without Transubstantiation the sacramental presence of Christ would not occur."
In Protestantism it is the community giving meaning to the bread and wine, rather than Christ Himself Who gave (and gives) the meaning in His words of institution, and Who gives nothing but Himself (not something besides Himself) and unites us to all that He Is - not to something that is Him plus something else. Eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood is not belief in Him, but HIM - a far better Gift.“Protestants who do not believe in the Real Presence view the bread and wine used in the Eucharist to be given additional meaning in the same way. Once the bread and wine is consecrated, the bread takes on the additional meaning of being Christ’s body, and the wine takes on the additional meaning of being Christ’s blood. The bread and wine don’t literally change but instead take on a higher meaning within the context of the sacrament. Once the Eucharist is consumed and the sacrament is complete, the bread and wine lose the additional meanings they had during the ceremony and become simply bread and wine again.”
Ah, so sacramentally speaking, the bread is now the body only. But speaking in reality, Christ’s body is inseparable from his blood and the soul and the divinity. Okay, but if only the body is sacramentally present, then is it more correct to say that we are worshiping Christ’s body when we worship the Sacrament, but since his body is connected to his blood, soul and divinity, we are indirectly worshiping the whole Christ?Hi SonofMonica,
Yes, it does makes sense. The Church holds that Christ’s command to “eat my flesh” was coupled with Christ providing a means by which this may be accomplished – namely the sacrament of Holy Communion. Through the power of the sacrament bread is changed into the body of Christ, but into His body only, as is signified by the words of the sacrament.
It really is His real body however, and so those things that are intrinsically linked with His Body are also present. Since Christ’s Body now has blood, His Blood is also present. And since His Body and Blood comprise a living man His soul is also present. And, since wherever Christ’s Body, or Blood, or Soul are His Divinity is, His Divinity is also present.
Any help?
VC
Please take a look at 1 Corinthians, Chapter 15. Be sure to read the footnotes for verses 35-58. If possible, let me know your thoughts.Here’s what bothers me about this line of thinking:
- Your propose that Catholics should read the words “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” and say, if this were literally true, it would be cannibalism, therefore the passage of scripture should be taken to mean that we eat the whole Christ, sacramentally, not just his flesh or blood.
Are you saying that because Christ has a “resurrection body” that we should logically deduce that his body and his blood are inseparable from his soul and divinity? I think I see that in there.Please take a look at 1 Corinthians, Chapter 15. Be sure to read the footnotes for verses 35-58. If possible, let me know your thoughts.
Blessings,
granny
Please share these websites with family and friends.
Well, that is what Jesus said. My question for your doubting friends is “Don’t you believe Jesus’ own words right from the bible?”Am I correct that we can take Jesus’s words “I am the bread of life” and “I am the bread that came down from heaven” to mean that when we “eat his flesh” we eat “him” completely and totally?
Well, I think what Jesus didn’t say (but may certainly be implied) is “When you eat my flesh, you eat all of me.” That is the final connection I’m attempting to make. Does that make sense?Well, that is what Jesus said. My question for your doubting friends is “Don’t you believe Jesus’ own words right from the bible?”
Yes, if by that you mean that which pertains to the words of the sacrament – if you are talking solely about the conversion itself. The words themselves indicate that bread is changed only into the Body of Christ. But we should also note that the sacrament contains more than the Body. . (i.e. the Blood, Soul and Divinity).Ah, so sacramentally speaking, the bread is now the body only.
Yes, now this is so (in respect to His Body, Blood, and Soul). His Divinity was never separable.But speaking in reality, Christ’s body is inseparable from his blood and the soul and the divinity.
Not quite. It wouldn’t be very accurate, in my opinion, to say that only His Body is sacramentally present. The whole Christ is sacramentally present. The distinction is only that the Body is made sacramentally prsent by the power of the words, and the Blood and Soul is made sacramentally present through concomitance (the connection).Okay, but if only the body is sacramentally present, then is it more correct to say that we are worshiping Christ’s body when we worship the Sacrament, but since his body is connected to his blood, soul and divinity, we are indirectly worshiping the whole Christ?