Omnipresence of the Body & Blood

[GodSoldier]

During the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Priest calls Jesus off his throne at the right hand of God to be physically present as transubstantiated bread and wine.

This is done many times, at the same time, around the world at any given time.

Among other questions I have regarding the Sacrament- I would like hear your responses to the claim that this violates the teaching of the communicatio idiomatum, found in John 1:1,14.

This says that while Jesus has both Divine and Human properties, attributes of the Divine properties have no influence on the Human. This means that Christ may be all knowing and all seeing, but his physical Human body limits him from being omnipresent.

This is a significant contradiction. How can Christ’s body be present at thousands of different masses at the same time around the world?

 

[mercygate]

Because the Real Presence is the Resurrection Body – a “human” body, but not a body as we know it. Clearly, after the Resurrection, Jesus could do things with this Body that he could not do during his pre-Resurrection life: appear in a locked room, not be recognized by people who knew him, then disappear after breaking bread . . . Apparently be in two places at once: Emmaus and with the Eleven . . .

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If the physical human body of Christ could die on a cross and be resurrected 3 days later, remain on earth 40 days more, and ascend to the right hand of the Father, why couldn’t it also be present in many different locations as well on any given day?

What is more believable about one, and less believable about the other?

 

[theMutant]

First, you must remember that although Christ is one divine person, he has two natures; divine and human. Your question relates specifically to his human nature and our understanding of the limitations of our own human natures which are finite. However, we must remember that the laws of nature which limit our human nature were made by God.

Now one good definition of a miracle is God intervening into nature in a way that is different than its normal laws. People are instantly cured in ways that are simply not possible according to the known laws of nature and, because it violates these laws, we call it miraculous – because God must have intervened to make it happen. God is not only omnipresent, he is also omnipotent. This is why he can alter the laws of nature as he wills and whenever he wills.

Additionally, we must also keep in mind that Christ’s human nature is no longer like our own. It has been glorified by the Resurrection. Christ, in his human nature, entered a locked room into the presence of the Apostles without opening the door. He was able to do this because he, being God, is omnipotent and his human nature is glorified.

Taking all of these into consideration, it is no contradiction for us to believe that Christ’s glorified human nature can be really and physically present in many different locations simultaneously. Nor is it a contradiction for us to believe he exists in his entirety – body, blood, soul, and divinity – in each and every place where his physical presence exists. His presence in the Eucharist is a miraculous one.

Lastly, I have never, in all of my studies of Catholicism, encountered any teaching that states that Jesus’ divine nature has no influence on his human nature. Nor can I find any support for such a conclusion in John 1:1,14. Nor can I find any support for the conclusion that his human nature in any way limits his divine nature.

I hope that this explanation helps.

 

[mercygate]

Check this out:

newadvent.org/cathen/04169a.htm

 

[GodSoldier]

Your responses are very logical and clear. Thank you. You will find that I play devil’s advocate (lol, or Protestants advocate) from time to time. It helps me to accept or dismiss their arguments.

Who is the Vermonter that replied. I am one too!!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ayup, glad to see a Vermonter. . .but why are you soon going to be in Connecticut? You’re leaving before mud season’s over?

 

[GodSoldier]

I was totally pwned on that last question.

Let’s try two more: (It’s “own” the noob day)

QUESTION 1-
Isn’t there somewhere in Scripture that speaks of God not being allowed to be divided or decayed?

What happens to the Eucharist when we consume it? Does it digest and decay? Does the divinity enter into us, leaving the physical behind to decay?

QUESTION 2-
If the Priest has the power to call down God during the Mass into Bread and Wine… does his power not limit him to calling down God any where, at any time, into anything? Does God HAVE to respond to the priests calling?

 

[GodSoldier]

Tantum ergo:

Ayup, glad to see a Vermonter. . .but why are you soon going to be in Connecticut? You’re leaving before mud season’s over?

I have a new job waiting for me. I’ll be building/designing helicopters for Sikorsky aircraft.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross occurred “once for all”; it cannot be repeated (Heb. 9:28). Christ does not “die again” during Mass, but the very same sacrifice that occurred on Calvary is made present on the altar. That’s why the Mass is not “another” sacrifice, but a participation in the same, once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Paul reminds us that the bread and the wine really become, by a miracle of God’s grace, the actual body and blood of Jesus: “Anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27–29).

After the consecration of the bread and wine, no bread or wine remains on the altar. Only Jesus himself, under the appearance of bread and wine, remains.

From the Catholic Answers Library

So. . .to go to #2 first, the priest isn’t “Calling down” God from anywhere. The sacrifice of the Mass is the same, identical, sacrifice of Jesus for us, once for all. So priests neither “call down” God for a given Mass, nor for anything else.

To approach #1, Jesus’s body and blood, soul and divinity, are present under the APPEARANCE of bread and wine. When we receive Jesus’s transfigured body and blood under those appearances (what are sometimes referred to as “accidents”), we receive His body and blood but taste and digest bread and wine. So it isn’t Jesus’ body that is digested, but bread and wine. While we have indeed partaken of body and blood, we are not cannibals.

 

[JimG]

GodSoldier:

How can Christ’s body be present at thousands of different masses at the same time around the world?

This may not be particularly helpful, but I view Christ’s presence in the Eucharist not so much as an omnipresence (i.e. physically present everywhere) as a singularity—or at least analogous to a physical singularity such as the interior of a black hole, where spatial and time dimensions become meaningless.

I think of the central event of our salvation—the crucifixion of the Son of God—as creating a singularity so powerful that it pierces through space and time, enabling it to appear as simultaneous to numerous observers at different times and places throughout history. The substance of each consecrated host is the same—Jesus; he has only one body. The appearances—of bread and wine—are multiple, but Jesus is one. That is why, in receiving the one body, we are united with one another in a nearly physical way. Think of the multiple consecrated hosts being drawn together into one, because in fact they are really only one body of Christ.

(I don’t ever expect to see a formal definition in those terms, but it is helpful to me.)

 

[GodSoldier]

Tantum ergo:

From the Catholic Answers Library

So. . .to go to #2 first, the priest isn’t “Calling down” God from anywhere. The sacrifice of the Mass is the same, identical, sacrifice of Jesus for us, once for all. So priests neither “call down” God for a given Mass, nor for anything else.

To approach #1, Jesus’s body and blood, soul and divinity, are present under the APPEARANCE of bread and wine. When we receive Jesus’s transfigured body and blood under those appearances (what are sometimes referred to as “accidents”), we receive His body and blood but taste and digest bread and wine. So it isn’t Jesus’ body that is digested, but bread and wine. While we have indeed partaken of body and blood, we are not cannibals.

The Last Supper was prior to the Crucifixion. There He told the twelve of the sacrifice that was going to be. The sacrifice was not made there. It seems that the Sac. of the Eucharist is then a celebration of the Last Supper, not of the Crucifixion.

But Jesus did say, “Do this in REMEMBRANCE of Me…” He told the disciples to remember how he gave up his body and blood for the world. The breaking of bread was a symbol of this. He did not transform it there into His real body.

He wants us to remember His sacrifice, not to repeat it. For his work was finished, once and for all on the cross.

I think he has suffered enough for us that we dont’ need to have a sacrifice on the altar at Mass.

 

[theMutant]

GodSoldier:

The Last Supper was prior to the Crucifixion. There He told the twelve of the sacrifice that was going to be. The sacrifice was not made there. It seems that the Sac. of the Eucharist is then a celebration of the Last Supper, not of the Crucifixion.

But Jesus did say, “Do this in REMEMBRANCE of Me…” He told the disciples to remember how he gave up his body and blood for the world. The breaking of bread was a symbol of this. He did not transform it there into His real body.

He wants us to remember His sacrifice, not to repeat it. For his work was finished, once and for all on the cross.

I think he has suffered enough for us that we dont’ need to have a sacrifice on the altar at Mass.

But remember that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. Now, one of the requirements of the Passover is that you had to eat the lamb. Just as we must now eat the Lamb who is, as St. Paul stated, our Passover Sacrifice. Also, just because the Last Supper was before the Resurrection doesn’t necessarily mean that what Jesus offered and gave to the Apostles was not His real Body and Blood. My previous post regarding the glorified state of His body after the resurrection was merely to point out that God has unlimited power (omnipotence) over matter and was able to glorify it. If God can do that to the point of resurrecting a dead body and glorifying it so that it is no longer limited by the normal laws of nature, then He can certainly do so at any point.

Unless you are teaching that the power of God is limited, you must admit the possibility that the Human nature of Jesus could be physically present sitting at the table of the Last Supper and also in the outward appearance of bread and wine He was holding. Catholics do not believe that God’s power and authority is limited in any way which is why we believe Christ when He said that what looked like bread and wine were, in fact, His Body and Blood and when He told the crowds that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have His life within us.

The Jews understood His words to be literal which is why so many of them turned away from Him. Additionally, the Early Church (those taught by the Apostles themselves) clearly believed the same as the Catholic Church does today.

We do not believe that He suffers on our altars - that is heresy according to Catholic teaching. Revelation reveals that Christ is in heaven, eternally presenting Himself as the Passover Lamb who was slain for us. It is this presence of Christ - the Risen, Glorified Lord of all Creation – the Lamb of God - who becomes present on our altars.

 

[GodSoldier]

I just don’t see how you cannot believe that the one-time sacrifice of God’s only Son was enough to fulfill God’s plan for us.

What is sacrifice without suffering? It it an empty act. The re-presentation of Jesus’ sacrifice on the altar cannot compare to the original one since he is Glorified and without ability to suffer. Any work or act we do as men cannot compare to Jesus’ gift to us. Our attempts at righteousness are “filfthy rags” before God.

Millenia of Tradition based on tradition created has only served to make people more focused on the acts than the meaning. The chuch never taught me the meaning of the sacraments… just to do them, because it is tradition.

I know more about God’s grace and Jesus’ sacrifice now after a month of reading Scripture and reflecting on Him than I ever gained in 23 years going to Catholic church. The chuch has so many prayers and creeds to recite- but so many Catholics say them without knowing their real intent or meaning.

The Chuch may be in Christ- but it puts him back behind the veil as did the Jews. Christ should be forefront- with every one of us. Clear to see and love. Not put out of reach an unattainible unless all the traditional sacraments are made.

Doesn’t God want us to have a child-like love and adoration for him? Not a fearfull, scared, and afraid respect.

I doubt, following the law of the Church, a Catholic has ever gone directly to heaven. The only man without sin was Christ (and you claim Mary). The rest have gone to purgatory- where they will sit for who knows how long?

Was Christ’s message… believe in me and you shall be saved? Or Believe in me, but you will never be able to do enough in Gods eyes to be worthy of Him, without first spending a short eternity in purgatory? Seems like an empty reward for a lifes devotion to Christ to me.

angry

The Catholic Chuch in summary: “God’s only beloved Son, Jesus Christ, lived, sacrificed, died, and was resurrected for you; But did not do enough to save you. You can devote your life to Him and his Word- follow every command of the Church- but you will still most likely be in sin when you die- and thus, unworthy of heaven. Come, join us!”

 

[theMutant]

GodSoldier:

I just don’t see how you cannot believe that the one-time sacrifice of God’s only Son was enough to fulfill God’s plan for us.

Here you demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches about the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is not “another” sacrifice made because the Cross wasn’t sufficient. It is our joining in the eternal heavenly presentation of that one completely sufficient Sacrifice.

GodSoldier:

What is sacrifice without suffering? It it an empty act. The re-presentation of Jesus’ sacrifice on the altar cannot compare to the original one since he is Glorified and without ability to suffer. Any work or act we do as men cannot compare to Jesus’ gift to us. Our attempts at righteousness are “filfthy rags” before God.

Again, you confirm Catholic teaching while you think you are refuting it. For the Sacrifice is not an additional sacrifice or a work of men. It is the work of Christ Himself - the very same work He made on the Cross. Therefore, it presents the very same suffering He endured on the Cross because it is that suffering which He is eternally presenting before the Father in heaven. However, He does not have to endure that suffering again because He did so perfectly, once for all. The Council of Trent was very clear on this point. Nothing we do has any merit before God outside of the Cross and it is only through the Grace Christ won for us on the Cross that we can, in any small way, please God. Remember that the term “re-presentation” only refers to our experience in time. We were not present at Calvary. In is our re-presentation that is joined with the one eternal presentation which Christ is making in Heaven.

GodSoldier:

Millenia of Tradition based on tradition created has only served to make people more focused on the acts than the meaning. The chuch never taught me the meaning of the sacraments… just to do them, because it is tradition.

I will not deny that formal teaching institutions in the Catholic Church have done an abysmal job in regard to teaching the faithful the essentials of the faith. This is one of the primary reasons that the Chuch is in such turmoil; especially in the the “civilized” West. However, if you were to take the time to read the actual Church documents, if you were to examine the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, the Roman Catechism that was published as a result of that Council and the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will find in-depth explanations of the meanings of the Sacraments, the Biblical basis for all of them, and the historical references showing that these beliefs have been held since the earliest days of the Church.

GodSoldier:

I know more about God’s grace and Jesus’ sacrifice now after a month of reading Scripture and reflecting on Him than I ever gained in 23 years going to Catholic church. The chuch has so many prayers and creeds to recite- but so many Catholics say them without knowing their real intent or meaning.

If that is so, then you must not have paid much attention in Church where there is far more Scripture read during the Mass than anything else. Additionally, the Catholic Church has always taught that ignorance of the Scriptures is ignroance of Christ.

I address Biblical and Early Church teachings regarding the nature of the Church herself in posts 37 through 60 of this thread.

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=17067

I discuss the Biblical basis for Catholicism’s teachings on Justification in post 90-95 of this thread.

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=5393

---

(continued…)

 

[theMutant]

(continued from post #15)

GodSoldier:

The Chuch may be in Christ- but it puts him back behind the veil as did the Jews. Christ should be forefront- with every one of us. Clear to see and love. Not put out of reach an unattainible unless all the traditional sacraments are made.

I don’t understand how you can say this when no Catholic is separated from Christ in any way. Additionally, as I point out in those other threads, Christ himself established the Sacraments as the normative way to receive the Graces He entrusted to the Church. However, even with the establishment of the Sacraments, the Church teaches that He grants Grace as He wills and can do so in ways not revealed. In those cases, we entrust souls directly to His care. In the case of practicing Catholics, our care is also entrusted directly to His care and He cares for us in the manner He has chosen and has revealed to us through the Apostles – through the Sacraments.

GodSoldier:

Doesn’t God want us to have a child-like love and adoration for him? Not a fearfull, scared, and afraid respect.

This is a typical misconception – that Catholics are taught to be afraid. However, as Paul pointed out, we are to come to Christ as children but to have a mature faith. I don’t go to Confession because I fear God (other than the proper fear one has of offending an all-loving Father) but because I have nothing to fear from Him. I kneel before His Real Presence in the Eucharist because I love, respect, and adore Him and I believe what He has said in the Scripture.

GodSoldier:

I doubt, following the law of the Church, a Catholic has ever gone directly to heaven. The only man without sin was Christ (and you claim Mary). The rest have gone to purgatory- where they will sit for who knows how long?

Then you judge where you should not and, indeed, where even the Church does not. For there is no revelation about who is and is not in Purgatory. I know that I am not good enough to enter directly into heaven for nothing unclean can enter into heaven and I am a sinner. Because my sins have been forgiven through Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross of Salvation, I have hope to enter heaven. Therefore, I look forward to Purgatory where my sinfulness will be burned away as through fire - as it says in the Scriptures. Then my soul will be clean and I will be able to enter into heaven.

GodSoldier:

Was Christ’s message… believe in me and you shall be saved? Or Believe in me, but you will never be able to do enough in Gods eyes to be worthy of Him, without first spending a short eternity in purgatory? Seems like an empty reward for a lifes devotion to Christ to me.

If I were truly able to fully devote my life to Christ to the extent that He deserves, then I would surely go straight to heaven and this is the teaching of the Catholic Church. However, I know too much about my own sinfulness to believe that I am so good as to deserve such a reward. No, I’ll be content to lean on the promises of Christ that He will forgive the sins of those who repent and will not deny them before His Father in heaven. Howver, does this mean that I don’t have to do anything? That I can just say “I believe” and keep on sinning with the full assurance that I will get to heaven? I have yet to have anyone successfully show me THAT in the Bible. No. I will strive to live a good life and be a holy person. And when I fail (and I will fail many times throughout my life) I will strive to repent and implore the loving forgiveness of God.

GodSoldier:

The Catholic Chuch in summary: “God’s only beloved Son, Jesus Christ, lived, sacrificed, died, and was resurrected for you; But did not do enough to save you. You can devote your life to Him and his Word- follow every command of the Church- but you will still most likely be in sin when you die- and thus, unworthy of heaven. Come, join us!”

Yes, just as Paul repeatedly said when he told us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. When he said that he continued to pummel his own body so that, after having preached to others he would not be found unworthy before God. When he said that he did these things to make up for what was lacking in Christ’s Sacrifice. And what exactly was lacking? Only one thing. The application of that perfect Grace from the perfect Sacrifice of our perfect God into our imperfect and sinful souls. Yes. I remain a sinner and I do not boast because of anything I do that I am somehow worthy of heaven in spite of my sinfulness. Again Paul tells us that to do so is not proper. It is only through the Grace of God that I will ever get into heaven and not because I was somehow “worthy” of it.

What a peaceful thought. Thank you for reminding me of it.

 

[theMutant]

GodSoldier:

Your responses are very logical and clear. Thank you. You will find that I play devil’s advocate (lol, or Protestants advocate) from time to time. It helps me to accept or dismiss their arguments.

I missed this post previously. In this case, I assume that you probably do understand the Catholic teaching but were posting the “devil’s advocate” argument against what had been posted.