Eucharist - Scriptures say it cannot be Christ?

[brb3]

what mystery are you referring to? There is no need to posit a mystery of how Christ could at the same time be both resurrected and non-resurrected.

VC

The mystery of the Trinity. The Passion of the Cross. Agape Love

The human mind cannot fully comprehend these mysteries … we must approach not in knowledge, but Faith.

 

[grannymh]

i do have an idea of what it means, and can understand the idea behind the Catholic belief. the body contains the blood, so one can simply consume the Eucharistic wafer and eat the body and drink the blood at once.

What I am hearing is that you are describing a natural body. Catholics receive the Divine Jesus Who is not limited by space and time like we are. Thus, Jesus can be substantially present as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity in both the Consecrated Bread and Wine.

“elements” here simply meaning the bread and the wine. which for Protestant are symbols of Christ’s body and blood, and for Catholics are His actual body and blood through transsubstantiation.

After the Bread is consecrated with a blessing according to Matthew 26: 26-28, it is Jesus substantially present just as it happened in Matthew 26:26-28. The Apostles were able to eat the Sacred Bread because the texture of bread was apparent. Catholics follow Matthew 26: 26-28. The Priest takes the bread. He says the blessing. Jesus becomes substantially present under the sign of the bread’s texture.

what i don’t understand is why Catholics do not take the wine and the bread, as Christ was clear the the wine was His shed Blood, not the blood still in His body. Christ’s body was broken on the cross for us, and His shed Blood, which left His body, is the precious blood which cleanses us from sin, and purchases us from sin, and the world.

This sounds like Christ’s natural body. In His Divinity, Christ is wholly present under the sign of bread and also under the sign of wine.

Christ gave both bread and wine to His disciples at the last supper. why modern Catholics imitating and following Christ would not take the same two, distinct elements during communion (meaning bread and wine both) is not understood to me, as i read Scripture, and look at what Christ does and commands, and how the disicples respond.

the wine was His shed blood, poured out for the remission of sins, by which He has purchased us- not the blood still in His body. so why a Catholic would take the host and not the wine remains something i can not fathom. i can respect it, but i can not understand it.

Here is the problem with elements. The texture of the bread and the texture of the wine are distinct but Christ is not divided into two distinct sections. His natural blood was separated from His natural body at death. In a way, the separation of bread and wine reminds us that Christ truly died for us. But we believe that Christ conquered death through His Resurrection and He is now present wholly as God.

My apology for not being able to explain it better. I can only tell you that when I receive the Catholic Eucharist, I know deep in my soul that I have received Jesus.

There is amazing comfort in this mystery.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites are from a program which is being run in a number of Catholic Dioceses. Suggestion: pass the two links to someone who is on the fence about coming back to the Catholic Church or who is thinking about joining. The second link gives general information.

www.CatholicsComeHomeRockford.org

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thus, Jesus can be substantially present as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity in both the Consecrated Bread and Wine.

grannymh,

But, at the same time, we have to be careful not lose sight of the fact that Christ’s body is present as well – and although it is the body of a Divine Person, it is still a body.

The Apostles were able to eat the Sacred Bread because the texture of bread was apparent. Catholics follow Matthew 26: 26-28. The Priest takes the bread. He says the blessing. Jesus becomes substantially present under the sign of the bread’s texture.

That is brilliant, really. I have never heard that specific phraseology “texture of bread”. Did you come up with that on your own? It is quite good, in my opinion. Furthermore your phrase “under the sign of the bread’s texture” is wonderful. It highlights the sacramental signification. There is good reason, I think, to speak of the accidents of bread as a whole new reality – the sign of the sacrament. They mediate the presence of Christ, and His presence is where they are, although not as a body is in a place.

In a way, the separation of bread and wine reminds us that Christ truly died for us.

Good point! Although, I think we might have to go further than that. Since we are dealing with a sacrament I think it might be more than a reminder of the separation of body and blood. Mysteriously, that dual consecration seems to effect the sacrifice.

Thank you for such a thoughtful post.
VC

P.S. I’ve noticed that you often append things (especially links) to your posts. Have you considered putting the links in your “signature”. That way they will automatically be appended to each post. You can find that option in your Profile tools.

 

[grannymh]

grannymh,

That is brilliant, really. I have never heard that specific phraseology “texture of bread”. Did you come up with that on your own? It is quite good, in my opinion. Furthermore your phrase “under the sign of the bread’s texture” is wonderful. It highlights the sacramental signification. There is good reason, I think, to speak of the accidents of bread as a whole new reality – the sign of the sacrament. They mediate the presence of Christ, and His presence is where they are, although not as a body is in a place.

I came up with the pharseology as a practical demonstration of substance and accidents.

Accidents are simply signs or characteristics. They are color, size, taste, texture, hot, cold, etc. They do not exist in nature unless they are characteristics of a substance. We see red apples. But we never see red by itself hanging from a tree. Texture can describe the appearance and feel of something. But rough or smooth isn’t separate from the item.

In Transubstantiation, the signs or accidents do not change. They remain the signs or accidents of bread, nothing more. We do not adore the bread even symbolically. We adore Christ, Himself, Who exists substantially in the validly consecrated host.
His presence is in place of the substance of the bread while the accidents remain as is. Because Jesus is God, His presence is not limited by nature. Thus, the accidents or characteristics do remain while the substance is changed. Divine Revelation trumps.

Technically, I would not speak of the accidents of bread as a whole new reality because there is nothing different about the bread’s color, taste, texture, etc. The new reality is the Real Presence.

I am not sure what was meant by “…His presence is where they are, although not as a body is in a place.” Are you referring to how long Jesus is present?

Jesus is present as long as the characteristics of bread are intact. In other words, Catholics believe that the bread and wine, once validly consecrated, do not cease to be the Real Presence of Jesus until the appearances of bread and wine are gone. This is why there is often a larger host consecrated with the rest of the normal size hosts. This larger one is placed behind glass in a vessel called a monstrance, so that Jesus can be adored in addition to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Or as those who do go to Eucharistic Adoration say: Jesus is there for an one-on-one conversation.

One other thing. In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, there is another layer of meaning to the dual consecration of bread and wine. Jesus died in a bloody manner on the cross once and for all. Does consecration effect that sacrifice? Do Catholics re-sacrifice Christ? Of course not. That sacrifice of salvation is re-presented today in an unbloody manner according to Melchizedek who offered bread and wine to God.

Death can be seen as a separation of body and blood. While the bread and wine can be seen as a similar separation, it is very important to remember that this is an unbloody separation which is not meant to be the same as the bloody one on the cross. Yet, Christ on the cross is the same Christ present in the Eucharist. How this happens is a deep mystery similar to the mystery of Christ being True God and True Man. While it is frustrating not to know how everything happens, it is comforting to know that Christ exists substantially in the Eucharist totally independent of our brain power.

P.S. I’ve noticed that you often append things (especially links) to your posts. Have you considered putting the links in your “signature”. That way they will automatically be appended to each post. You can find that option in your Profile tools.

Thank you for the worthwhile suggestion. However, I change my “signature” quite often – sometimes making it up on the spot. Because the current "Catholics Come Home program is so important, I have been using it quite a bit.

I found that the videos on the websites are a good introduction to the practical side of Catholicism. This is good information for those who are thinking about becoming Catholic. Note: Those who are not fond of Catholics may be surprised by these links.

Blessings,
granny

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Technically, I would not speak of the accidents of bread as a whole new reality because there is nothing different about the bread’s color, taste, texture, etc. The new reality is the Real Presence.

Yes, clearly so with regard to the accidents of bread in themselves – there is no change. But they do take on a new relation. They are no longer related in any way to their own substance (since that substance no longer exists) and they don’t inhere in any substance whatsoever. But, they are related in some way to the Body of Christ, and that relationship is sacramental. That is what I meant when I said they take on a new reality – that they now mediate to us the presence of Christ. As Aquinas says:

“the accidents of the bread remain in this sacrament, in order that the body of Christ may be seen under them, and not under its proper species”

. And again,

“Christ’s flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine.”

And again

“sensible things are required for the sacraments”.

Thus those accidents of bread, that “sensible thing” has now become an essential component of the sacrament.

However, it wasn’t an important point, just my own musings on your phraseology “sign of the bread”.

I am not sure what was meant by “…His presence is where they are, although not as a body is in a place.” Are you referring to how long Jesus is present?

No. Again, it is Aquinas’ language:

“Christ’s body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with the place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament.”

That phrase – that crucial phrase – “not as a body is in a place” resonates throughout the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist. See, for instance, the encylical *Mysterium Fidei: *

Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.

It means that the dimensive quantity of Christ’s body is not related to the dimensive quantity of place – i.e. the way things are located in space.

VC

 

[grannymh]

Yes, clearly so with regard to the accidents of bread in themselves – there is no change. But they do take on a new relation. They are no longer related in any way to their own substance (since that substance no longer exists) and they don’t inhere in any substance whatsoever. But, they are related in some way to the Body of Christ, and that relationship is sacramental. That is what I meant when I said they take on a new reality – that they now mediate to us the presence of Christ. As Aquinas says: . And again, And again Thus those accidents of bread, that “sensible thing” has now become an essential component of the sacrament. However, it wasn’t an important point, just my own musings on your phraseology “sign of the bread”…

Briefly, because I need to go back to sleep. When I read the above from a Protestant viewpoint, I can understand some of their misunderstandings about components and/or elements in the sensory realm.

Are the following quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas and what would be the link? If so, I think mediate is being used in a different context than that perceived by a Protestant.

The other thing I am trying to remember is the information on “outward” signs of the Sacraments. When I see how you are using “sign of the Sacrament”, I understand that in a Protestant meaning. However, when going back to Sacraments, and looking at sign as the “outward” sign does make a difference.

Recently, I read a very interesting essay attacking the Catholic Eucharist. What struck me were the half/facts or half/definitions of Catholic beliefs. What is really scary is that the average Catholic under the age of 50-55 would not be able to respond with the full facts or full definitions. Furthermore, the cleverness of scripture dueling would clobber most young people.

I appreciate being able to discuss all this with you and will return to the rest of the post after the weekend.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Are the following quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas and what would be the link?

Yes, they are all quotes from the *Summa Theologica. *In order, they are:III, 75, 6
III, 75, 5
III, 60, 4
III, 75, 1 (ad. 3)
Note, though, that the numbering of the articles in Question 75 might differ in different translations. But, if you put those numbers into this “summa cite” page , you should find them.

The last quote is from the encyclical Mysterium Fidei which you can fin on the Vatican site, here.

If so, I think mediate is being used in a different context than that perceived by a Protestant.

Could you share an example of the protestant use of the word mediate?

The other thing I am trying to remember is the information on “outward” signs of the Sacraments. When I see how you are using “sign of the Sacrament”, I understand that in a Protestant meaning. However, when going back to Sacraments, and looking at sign as the “outward” sign does make a difference.

I certainly attempt to only use “sign” in the Catholic sense!

By the by, I think your thoughts on the sacrificial nature of the Mass to be well done. I’ll note, though, when I said that the dual consecration seems to effect the sacrifice, I was speaking of the dual consecration as efficaciously representing the Sacrifice of Calvary. Again see *Mysterium Fidei: *

The Lord is immolated in an unbloody way in the Sacrifice of the Mass and He re-presents the sacrifice of the Cross and applies its salvific power at the moment when he becomes sacramentally present— through the words of consecration—as the spiritual food of the faithful, under the appearances of bread and wine.

Or, as from the Synod of Bishops General Assembly in 2004, on the Eucharist, speaking about the dual consecration:

At this moment, indeed, the sacramental Sacrifice is accomplished.

Thanks!
VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

For those following the thread still, I just want to round up a train of thought.

I disagreed with FCEGM on the subject of what the Apostles received at the last supper,

I think a conclusion that should be drawn from this is that at the Last Supper the Apostles did not receive Christ’s crucified and resurrected body – as that wasn’t the Body He had at that moment. Because of that, I would have to respectfully disagree with this part of FCEGM’s earlier post:

FCEGM:

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.

po18guy, pointed out the God is outside of time, and suggested that Christ could have given His Glorified Body before He was glorified:

God, Who is outside of time, and Who instituted time to give meaning and regulation to the life of the human body, could give His resurrected body to man before it had occurred in earthly time. Christ has always been resurrected in eternity.

I disagree that this was the case (although I refrain from speculating on whether or not its possible). I think it could cause some problems with the intelligibility of Christ’s Incarnation and the Passion, and it seems, to me, to make things unnecessarily complicated.

brb3 brought up another possibility, which I hadn’t heard before:

I was taught several years ago that we receive BOTH the glorified & non-glorified Christ in the Bread & Wine.

To which I replied:

While one could speak of receiving the Christ who has suffered and is glorified in Heaven, we couldn’t say that Christ is at the same time, right now, with a glorified body and a non-glorified body.

grannymh asked for some elaboration:

Would you kindly give all the Scripture citations (including Pauls’) for all of the “conclusions”? Thank you.

I didn’t give much a response to that, as far as scripture went. But I did want to point out that Aquinas says explicitly that the Apostles received the passible (non-glorified, non-resurrected) Body at the Last Supper (and gives excellent reasons for it):

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. (III, 81, 3)

I believe a similar thought can be found in Pope Paul VI’s Apostolic Letter Solemni Hac Liturgia (Credo of the People of God):

We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven

One of my main lines of thought is that there isn’t often good reason given for Christ giving His glorified Body to the Apostles at the Last Supper, and there is a very good reason that He wouldn’t – the doctrine of the Real Presence. Giving His mortal Body to the Apostles would be eminently consistent with the Real Presence, i.e. how Christ really is, at the moment. Then: passible, ready to suffer, mortal, at the table; Now: impassible, immortal, glorified, and in Heaven.

VC