Objections to the Mass and Eucharist

[WJL]

I got into a debate with a non-Christian recently. The conversation ended up becoming about the Catholic Mass. The person I was debating said, “Christianity has a placebo (fake) human sacrifice in the mass when the congregation imagines that the priest has sacrificed Jesus on the alter by pronouncing words over pieces of bread. It also has placebo cannibalism in the communion ritual: ‘eat my body and drink my blood’. It all harks back to earlier forms of religious expression.”

Being unsure as to how to answer this objection, I asked some members of Catholic Answers on another thread how to answer this. patrick457 responded with this:

I think Jimmy Akin recently addressed the idea of Eucharist as a sort of cannibalism in Catholic Answers Live. Let me see if I can summarize and repeat one of his points he made while adding a bit more besides - there isn’t really much to add:

We need to check first what exactly ‘cannibalism’ means. Cannibalism doesn’t exactly mean having another person inside of you (if it actually meant that, then we are all actually cannibalized at some point since we were ‘inside’ our mother’s wombs!). When someone is committing a cannibalistic act, it doesn’t just involve having one person inside of oneself, but also eating - munching, digesting - that person’s body parts. That doesn’t happen in the Eucharist, since the Eucharistic species (both the host and the wine) contain the whole Christ, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - a single host isn’t Jesus forearm or another one His left index finger, so to speak. Nor is the host just His Body or the consecrated wine just His Blood - each is the whole, 100% Jesus. Now, as soon as the accidents of bread and wine cease to appear as bread and wine, the Real Presence also vanishes: so in a sense, we’re not actually digesting Jesus or something like that.

To add a bit more:

Catholics eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood in a sacramental way. It would have been cannibalism if someone two thousand years ago, when Jesus was still here, had one day tried literally to chomp off His arm or leg or finger, but now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist as we Catholics believe, cannibalism is not possible. There is some distinction between the mortal body of Jesus (consuming of which would be cannibalistic) and His glorified body (consuming of which would be eucharistic). Jesus’ glorified body was the revelation of His true nature as the Incarnate God. When Catholics say that the bread and wine becomes the body of Jesus, they are talking about the glorified body of Christ. That is what we receive every time at communion.

Hope this helps.

I responded to the person with basically the same answer patrick457 gave. The response I received from said person was, “That theology does not seem coherent. Catholics believe that the sacrifice of Jesus on calvary is made present on the altar at the mass when the bread and wine are consecrated and they become the body and blood of Jesus. But it was Jesus’ mortal body that was sacrificed. You say that it is rather Jesus’ glorified body that is received in the communion of the bread and wine - that the bread and wine have become his glorified body. But his glorified body cannot be sacrificed on the altar nor was it sacrificed on cavalry. It is incoherent. You can now renounce Catholicism with a perfect conscience - my gift to you this day! Use this gift well and choose freedom for your mind.”

I sent this to patrick457, and he cited the Catechism regarding the Eucharist. I sent the Catechism quote to the person I was debating and he responded with, “You failed to address my point and instead spammed a catechism. Its one body and two possible states, one “mortal” and the other “glorious”. Only the mortal can be offered in sacrifice but Catholics believe that the sacrifice is made present in the mass under the appearance of bread and wine, which means that Jesus is present in his mortal state. But Jesus is no longer in his mortal state, he is “glorified”. Incoherence. You deserve Roman Catholicism and it deserves you (Is this a curse?). I hope that you will do lots of penance like you know a good Catholic should. Make sure that it really hurts and makes you really unhappy, otherwise it has no propitiatory value. Do as much penance as you can in the coming days spend your whole life in miserable penance, as much as you can every day! Just make sure that it really hurts and makes you really miserable! Be a true Catholic!”

I’m very confused about all this. I’m no expert in Catholic theology. I’m still learning and, admittedly, not very familiar with this area of theology. Could anyone help me out?

 

[Drawmack]

I got into a debate with a non-Christian recently. The conversation ended up becoming about the Catholic Mass. The person I was debating said, “Christianity has a placebo (fake) human sacrifice in the mass when the congregation imagines that the priest has sacrificed Jesus on the alter by pronouncing words over pieces of bread. It also has placebo cannibalism in the communion ritual: ‘eat my body and drink my blood’. It all harks back to earlier forms of religious expression.”

Being unsure as to how to answer this objection, I asked some members of Catholic Answers on another thread how to answer this. patrick457 responded with this:

I responded to the person with basically the same answer patrick457 gave. The response I received from said person was, “That theology does not seem coherent. Catholics believe that the sacrifice of Jesus on calvary is made present on the altar at the mass when the bread and wine are consecrated and they become the body and blood of Jesus. But it was Jesus’ mortal body that was sacrificed. You say that it is rather Jesus’ glorified body that is received in the communion of the bread and wine - that the bread and wine have become his glorified body. But his glorified body cannot be sacrificed on the altar nor was it sacrificed on cavalry. It is incoherent. You can now renounce Catholicism with a perfect conscience - my gift to you this day! Use this gift well and choose freedom for your mind.”

I sent this to patrick457, and he cited the Catechism regarding the Eucharist. I sent the Catechism quote to the person I was debating and he responded with, “You failed to address my point and instead spammed a catechism. Its one body and two possible states, one “mortal” and the other “glorious”. Only the mortal can be offered in sacrifice but Catholics believe that the sacrifice is made present in the mass under the appearance of bread and wine, which means that Jesus is present in his mortal state. But Jesus is no longer in his mortal state, he is “glorified”. Incoherence. You deserve Roman Catholicism and it deserves you (Is this a curse?). I hope that you will do lots of penance like you know a good Catholic should. Make sure that it really hurts and makes you really unhappy, otherwise it has no propitiatory value. Do as much penance as you can in the coming days spend your whole life in miserable penance, as much as you can every day! Just make sure that it really hurts and makes you really miserable! Be a true Catholic!”

I’m very confused about all this. I’m no expert in Catholic theology. I’m still learning and, admittedly, not very familiar with this area of theology. Could anyone help me out?

Honestly, I think you should respond by saying something along the lines of – “I’m am attempting to have a civil, discussion, debate, exchange of ideas and you continuously launch verbal attacks and me and my beliefs. I would love to continue discussion with you as it would, at the very least, help both of us understand the other’s position. However, I am unable to do so with someone who is appearing irrational in their words. Could we please return to civil discussion?” Then have no further contact with the person until they respond civilly.

The reason I say this is that when you are involved in apologetics and either or both sides become irrational and just start attacking you get nowhere and it only serves to upset those involved. (I speak from experience because it’s an area where I’m not perfect and neither are many people on these boards.)

 

[WJL]

I agree. This individual isn’t worth talking to and I plan on ending the conversation but, I’m confused as to his objection to Catholic theology regarding the Mass, Eucharist, etc.:

Catholics believe that the sacrifice of Jesus on calvary is made present on the altar at the mass when the bread and wine are consecrated and they become the body and blood of Jesus. But it was Jesus’ mortal body that was sacrificed. You say that it is rather Jesus’ glorified body that is received in the communion of the bread and wine - that the bread and wine have become his glorified body. But his glorified body cannot be sacrificed on the altar nor was it sacrificed on cavalry. It is incoherent.

…

Its one body and two possible states, one “mortal” and the other “glorious”. Only the mortal can be offered in sacrifice but Catholics believe that the sacrifice is made present in the mass under the appearance of bread and wine, which means that Jesus is present in his mortal state. But Jesus is no longer in his mortal state, he is “glorified”. Incoherence.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi WJL

I can try to shed some possible light on this. But, first I’m sorry that you were on the receiving end of some harsh words. Second, I hope you won’t respond to the person right way, since he can wait until you do your own investigations of the issues.

The first part of the restatment of Jimmy Akin is right, when Catholic receive the Eucharist it is in a sacramental mode which makes cannibalism impossible. Christ is there in a mode where his Body can’t be diminished at all, and cannibalism diminishes the body of someone.

But, this mode doesn’t have to do with having a glorified body. It’s not because Christ has a glorified body that he can be present in the Eucharist. It is true that now that He does have a glorified body that is the way he happens to be when we receive Him now.

So, St. Thomas Aquinas says (and I think this is consistent with, or at least not against, the thinking of the Church) that the Apostles at the Last Supper received Christ’s non-glorified body. It was in a sacramental mode, but it was non-glorified.

*But his glorified body cannot be sacrificed on the altar nor was it sacrificed on cavalry. It is incoherent. *

Here we have something different. It is true that Christ had a mortal body at the Crucifixion, that’s why it could be injured and die. It is also true that Christ since the Resurrection has a glorified body that can’t be injured and can’t die. At Mass, when the priest confects the Body of Christ, the Blood of Christ is present as well because His Body and Blood are united and cannot be separated (now that He has a glorified, He can’t die, you can’t separate body form blood).

The Sacrifice of the Mass (which is a true sacrifice) doesn’t take its sacrificial nature from actually killing Christ, or injuring Him, or separating His Body from His Blood. How the Sacrifice of the Mass is a true sacrifice has been discussed quite a bit, and there are various theories. What we do know is that is not a bloody sacrifice. And, there are other kinds of sacrifice, right?

The old Catholic Encylopedia describes four things that are necessary for a true sacrifice:

• a sacrificial gift (res oblata),
• a sacrificing minister (minister legitimus),
• a sacrificial action (actio sacrificica), and
• a sacrificial end or object (finis sacrificii).

And then goes on to say that three of these things are readily apparent, and turns its attention to the fourth:

Since the three ideas, sacrificing priest, sacrificial gift, and sacrificial object, present no difficulty to the understanding, the problem is finally seen to lie entirely in the determination of the real sacrificial act (actio sacrifica), and indeed not so much in the form of this act as in the matter, since the glorified Victim, in consequence of Its impassibility, cannot be really transformed, much less destroyed. In their investigation of the idea of destruction, the post-Tridentine theologians have brought into play all their acuteness, often with brilliant results, and have elaborated a series of theories concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, of which, however, we can discuss only the most notable and important.

So, you see, there is a mystery involved here at various attempts have been made to explain it. If you feel like digging in you should read that whole article. Then, you will still have a lifetime of reading and praying and learning ahead of you.

Like I said, I’m not sure any of this is a response to the person you are talking to because I don’t think he would necessarily be ready to put the work in to try to understand all of these concepts.

VC

 

[Julian0404]

WJL,
You are letting your opponent define the arguement in a way i.e. “glorified” or “mortal” such that you cannot win. He will counter either choice with a response focused to confuse the very act of Jesus into an arguement of symantics.

“If” this opponent is a Christian, and that is doubtful given his focus on defeating the truth of Jesus sacrament instituted in the Last Supper, then as a Christian he needs to answer just one question; DO YOU BELIEVE THE WORDS OF JESUS AS FOUND IN THE BIBLE?

If he says anything except an unequivocal “YES”, then you point out Matthew 26; 26 which is the start of the Last Supper and Jesus declaring “…this is MY Body…” ; “…this is MY Blood…”.
Therefore, forgetting “glorified vs mortal”, if he believes the words of Jesus, then he must believe that Jesus gave HIS body and blood as food to the apostles at that time, on that day. “yes or no”.

If he injects the arguements such as “representation”, “allagorical”, “metaphorical” etc, just keep going back to the words " this IS MY body…" “this IS MY blood…” there is no false pretense in those commands of Jesus. HE is very clear what HE means. What gives your opponent the right to “edit” the words of Jesus or spin them into other meanings.

Your goal is to get a “yes” response to Jesus giving HIS true body and blood to the apostles, and once you get the “yes”, your response is simply through the power of the Holy Spirit we in the Catholic Church give the same and consume the same, which you have just acknowledged.

Any further debate on “how” or “process” or “action” will allow him to continue to confuse himself with falsehoods. If you get the “yes” from him, leave him with that, and let the Holy Spirit work on him with that little bit of knowledge. Simply keep repeating through the 3rd PERSON of the Holy Trinity as an answer to any “process” or “action”. You are not responsible for being able to explain the exact details that GOD has set in motion, and it is a testament to you that you have heard and believed. You can only pray that he does likewise.

If he refuses to accept the literal meaning of Jesus words in Matthew 26;26 then send him to the last chapter of Revelation Chapter 22 verses 18-19 which deals with the punishment if anyone should “…add to…” or “…take from.” the words contained in Holy Scripture.

Also, I would suggest you begin to listen to the CD’s of Scott Hahn found at www.salvationhistory.com and Father Larry Richards found at www.thereasonforourhope.com and Peter Kreeft as found in this web site, and Tim Staples.

 

[Drawmack]

If he says anything except an unequivocal “YES”, then you point out Matthew 26; 26 which is the start of the Last Supper and Jesus declaring “…this is MY Body…” ; “…this is MY Blood…”.
Therefore, forgetting “glorified vs mortal”, if he believes the words of Jesus, then he must believe that Jesus gave HIS body and blood as food to the apostles at that time, on that day. “yes or no”.

If he injects the arguements such as “representation”, “allagorical”, “metaphorical” etc, just keep going back to the words " this IS MY body…" “this IS MY blood…” there is no false pretense in those commands of Jesus. HE is very clear what HE means. What gives your opponent the right to “edit” the words of Jesus or spin them into other meanings.

So, you are claiming that we have to take every single word Jesus ever spoke as literal then right? You are asserting that nothing Jesus ever said was a quote from Scripture? You are asserting that Jesus never used parable to teach? This is what your last paragraph quoted above says. If you believe that ANY, even one, of Jesus’ words is allegorical, or a reference to OT Scripture then this is a disingenuous argument for the Real Presence.

 

[Bluegoat]

It sounds to me like he is saying that the mortal and glorified body are two seperate things. This isn’t the case, the mortal body is taken up and transformed into the glorified body, but nothing is lost from it.

If you said this, he might go on to say it is just another form of cannibalism. I have never really understood why that is offensive. The reasons we have taboos against cannibalism don’t apply here, and of course they aren’t even universal in human societies.

 

[Lancer]

Here is what* Abbot Anscar Vonier, OSB* (Benedictine Monastery, Buckfast Abbey, UK) says in his book,*** A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist* **(Zaccheus Press 2003):

“We may, then consider Christ’s person in three phases: His mortality, from the moment of His birth to His death on the Cross; His immortality, from the Resurrection in saecula saeculorum (forever and ever);** in between comes His death**, which lasted but a short time, yet which, in spite of that great severance between Body and Soul, between Flesh and Blood, is** one of the three periods under which the Person of Christ is known to our faith**.” pg.85

"In virtue of the sacrament, the Eucharist contains, not the mortal Christ, nor even the dying Christ, nor does it contain the glorious Christ; but it contains the Christ directly after His death. “For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come.” [1Cor 11:26] pg. 86

He goes on to say…

"…but in virtue of concomitance we have also the whole third phase in the Christ-personality, His glorious life."…“Such, then, is** the content of the Eucharistic sacrament**. Christ in the state of Victim before God, His Body and Blood a sacrifice if sweet savor to the Lord. [The Father]” pg. 87

I would add that just before the priest presents Our Lord to the congregation “…Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world…”…he does something called…“By this mingling…” in which he takes a small particle of the Blessed Host and drops it into the Cup of Salvation…thus symbolically uniting the body and blood of Christ which represents the Resurrection of Christ (earlier consecrated as separate entities for his death on Calvary).

Yes…this is surely a mystery and to be at peace with what the Our Lord Jesus said 2000+ years ago and what he is still saying now through his visible Head (the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him via the Magisterium) is a great gift of grace from His Holy Spirit…that not all receive or accept. Yes, we and many others…can and do say to Our Lord Jesus today what was said to Him 2000+ years ago…

John 6:60-70 (English Standard Version)

The Words of Eternal Life

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said,** “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” **

61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.”

Pax Christi

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Lancer,

I think it is good to bring up Abbot Vonier, who can be very helpful here. Note that what he is saying is that the Eucharist as a sacrament makes this sacrificed Christ present (and all the sacraments do so, but the Eucharist in a more realistic and obvious fashion).

But, because this sacrament is Christ himself, we also have his Real Presence. And that Real Presence is one of the three phases of Christ’s life as Christ lived it. So, when the Eucharist was celebrated at the Last Supper the sacrament represented the sacrificed dead Christ (even before Calvary) and the Real Presence entails that the mortal, living, non-glorified, passible Body is present. After the Resurrection, and in our own time, the sacrament still represents the sacrificed dead Christ and the Real Presence entails that the immortal, living, glorified, impassible Body is present.

Significantly, if the Eucharist was celebrated while Christ was in the tomb, both the sacramental representation and the Real Presence would coincide. The sacrament would have still represented the sacrificed, dead Christ (it always does) and the Real Presence would have entailed a mortal, non-glorified, passible, dead body present.

VC

 

[NHInsider]

WJL,
You are letting your opponent define the arguement in a way i.e. “glorified” or “mortal” such that you cannot win.
“If” this opponent is a Christian, and that is doubtful given his focus on defeating the truth of Jesus sacrament instituted in the Last Supper, then as a Christian he needs to answer just one question; DO YOU BELIEVE THE WORDS OF JESUS AS FOUND IN THE BIBLE?.

OP’s opponent, as I recall from the original thread, is a self-professed pagan.

 

[LovingtheLamb]

Perhaps you might also talk about that scripture in Revelation 13:8 where Christ is called the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” To me, this indicates a certain timelessness in the sacrifice/immolation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity. It’s almost as if this verse tells us that the sacrifice stretches back into time whereas the Eucharist makes a way for the Incarnate flesh of God to stretch forward into time and be applied to his Church, which is notably the mystical “body” of the aforementioned Christ.

Perhaps I’m speculating here (and if I’ve stated something that has unintended heterodox implications, then I freely accept correction), but this seems to free the Sacrifice of the Mass from disputations concerning glorified vs. mortal flesh.