Quick Question on the Eucharist

[Philthy]

Ooh-ooh! I do!

If we look at Aquinas’ definition of a soul, that it is the organizing and guiding principle of a living entity, we can see that if Christ extends His human Soul to some form of matter

 

[thenobes]

What you have done is articulated what happens - that is far cry from truly grasping how a “human soul is transferred to a form of matter”, and an inanimate form at that.

Ha-Ha! Sounds like we can also ask how it is that when we eat and drink and digest, indeed when are very first concieved, our soul is extended to inanimate matter or matter not of us!

peace
steve

 

[thenobes]

If I may say so this sounds a little theologically suspect, as neither God the father nor the holy spirit have bodies I cannot see how they could be in the eucharist, nor does it appear to make sense as we ask the holy spirit not to come into the eucharist but to transform it into the body and blood of Christ, not that of the whole trinity. Going any further is heterodox.

Have you heard of circumincession?

CIRCUMINSESSION
The mutual immanence of the three distinct persons of the Holy Trinity. The Father is entirely in the Son, likewise in the Holy Spirit; and so is the Son in the Father and the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit in the Father and the Son. Circuminsession also identifies the mutual immanence of the two distinct natures in the one Person of Jesus Christ.

If Jesus’s Body Blood Soul and Divinity are present, so must be all the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

peace
steve

peace
steve

 

[jmj1984]

Have you heard of circumincession?

If Jesus’s Body Blood Soul and Divinity are present, so must be all the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

peace
steve

peace
steve

Doctrines of the trinity aside there are three major problems with the idea of the entire trinity being present in the eucharist:
1)Only God the son has a body, that is flesh, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit do not
2)The Holy Spirit is said to act upon these gifts to turn them into the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ not to enter and dwell in them so that the trinity resides their
3)The Holy Mass is a sacrifice offered up to God the father, it is in fact the unbloody renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary, God the Father cannot be offered up to himself nor were the other two persons of the trinity crucified on the cross.

Therefore it seems theologically certain that the trinity does not reside in the eucharist.

 

[thenobes]

Since Christ’s Divinity is present, so are the other members of the Trinity.

Doctrines of the trinity aside there are three major problems with the idea of the entire trinity being present in the eucharist:
1)Only God the son has a body, that is flesh, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit do not

True, the hypostasis is associated with the Son. However, since the Son’s Divinity resides in His Body, so do the other Persons of the Trinity.

2)The Holy Spirit is said to act upon these gifts to turn them into the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ not to enter and dwell in them so that the trinity resides there

The Holy Spirit makes the Bread and Wine to become Christ’s Body Blood Soul and Divinity. If His Divinity is there, so is the Godhead (through the 2nd Person of the Trinity.)

3)The Holy Mass is a sacrifice offered up to God the father, it is in fact the unbloody renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary, God the Father cannot be offered up to himself nor were the other two persons of the trinity crucified on the cross.

It is the Body and Blood that is offered, and it is hypostatically joined to the second Person of the Trinity. This it is not hypostatically joined to the Father, and so can be offered by the Son to the Father.

Therefore it seems theologically certain that the trinity does not reside in the eucharist.

Circumincession is a theological certainty. That Jesus’ Divinity resides in His Flesh and Blood implies that the Father and Holy Spirit reside there as well. It is His Person and not Divinity that is the subject of the Hypostasis.

peace
steve

 

[jmj1984]

Since Christ’s Divinity is present, so are the other members of the Trinity.

True, the hypostasis is associated with the Son. However, since the Son’s Divinity resides in His Body, so do the other Persons of the Trinity.

The Holy Spirit makes the Bread and Wine to become Christ’s Body Blood Soul and Divinity. If His Divinity is there, so is the Godhead (through the 2nd Person of the Trinity.)

It is the Body and Blood that is offered, and it is hypostatically joined to the second Person of the Trinity. This it is not hypostatically joined to the Father, and so can be offered by the Son to the Father.

Circumincession is a theological certainty. That Jesus’ Divinity resides in His Flesh and Blood implies that the Father and Holy Spirit reside there as well. It is His Person and not Divinity that is the subject of the Hypostasis.

peace
steve

I’m afraid you haven’t really answered the points raised or demonstrated that the trinity is present in The Blessed Sacrament.

 

[spockrates]

Sorry, but this is turning out to be more than one quick question!



I’m having a conversation with a Protestant who tells me this: “No, the Catholic church does not teach that eating Eucharist gives eternal life. They teach that one must be a baptized believer, and the sacraments impart grace. Ask a priest if Eucharist is necessary for eternal life and they will say no.”

Is he correct? It sounds like He is saying the Catholic Church teaches that one does not have to partake of the sacrament of the Eucharist to get to Heaven.

 

[jmcrae]

Sorry, but this is turning out to be more than one quick question!



I’m having a conversation with a Protestant who tells me this: “No, the Catholic church does not teach that eating Eucharist gives eternal life. They teach that one must be a baptized believer, and the sacraments impart grace. Ask a priest if Eucharist is necessary for eternal life and they will say no.”

Is he correct? It sounds like He is saying the Catholic Church teaches that one does not have to partake of the sacrament of the Eucharist to get to Heaven.

In the absolute sense, all that is required to get to Heaven is to die in a state of grace.

An infant who has just been baptized is in a state of grace, even though he has never received Holy Communion.

A child who has just made his First Confession is in a state of grace, even though, again, he had never received Holy Communion.

A Protestant, baptized in the Trinitarian formula, who has never committed any deliberate sin, is in a state of grace, even though he has and will never receive Holy Communion.

So, in that sense, it is not required.

However, in the life of an ordinary Catholic who lives long enough to receive First Holy Communion, one of the precepts of the faith is that we are to receive Holy Communion at least once a year during the Easter Season, because it is a means of grace for our souls, and is our “food for the journey” toward Eternal Life. We should not starve ourselves spiritually, and it is in this sense that it is required for our salvation.

 

[spockrates]

In the absolute sense, all that is required to get to Heaven is to die in a state of grace.

An infant who has just been baptized is in a state of grace, even though he has never received Holy Communion.

A child who has just made his First Confession is in a state of grace, even though, again, he had never received Holy Communion.

A Protestant, baptized in the Trinitarian formula, who has never committed any deliberate sin, is in a state of grace, even though he has and will never receive Holy Communion.

So, in that sense, it is not required.

However, in the life of an ordinary Catholic who lives long enough to receive First Holy Communion, one of the precepts of the faith is that we are to receive Holy Communion at least once a year during the Easter Season, because it is a means of grace for our souls, and is our “food for the journey” toward Eternal Life. We should not starve ourselves spiritually, and it is in this sense that it is required for our salvation.

Thanks, JM. How are you doing, my virtual friend? It seems to me that since grace is something that can be lost, then starving oneself would make it easier to become lost. Perhaps it is not required, but is highly recommended?

 

[jmcrae]

Thanks, JM. How are you doing, my virtual friend? It seems to me that since grace is something that can be lost, then starving oneself would make it easier to become lost. Perhaps it is not required, but is highly recommended?

Very, very highly recommended, indeed. If you can receive daily, I would even recommend that. “Give us this day our daily bread,” yes?

 

[spockrates]

Very, very highly recommended, indeed. If you can receive daily, I would even recommend that. “Give us this day our daily bread,” yes?

Yes. Now please, if you have time, help me understand how this teaching of the Church fits Christ’s words.

53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

(John 6)

Here is what I anticipating him saying to me when I explain what you told me: “See, the Eucharist is not required, and the Catholic Church does not believe, as Jesus said, that one who does not eat the Eucharist has no life in him (v. 53). Nor does the Catholic Church believe that eating the Eucharist is required to have Eternal life, as He says (v. 54). So Christ cannot possibly be speaking of the Eucharist in this passage, for if He is, then the Catholic Church does not even believe what He says!”

I’m having a long and thoughtful conversation with the guy at carm.org, and don’t know how I should respond.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes. Now please, if you have time, help me understand how this teaching of the Church fits Christ’s words.

53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

(John 6)

Here is what I anticipating him saying to me when I explain what you told me: “See, the Eucharist is not required, and the Catholic Church does not believe, as Jesus said, that one who does not eat the Eucharist has no life in him (v. 53). Nor does the Catholic Church believe that eating the Eucharist is required to have Eternal life, as He says (v. 54). So Christ cannot possibly be speaking of the Eucharist in this passage, for if He is, then the Catholic Church does not even believe what He says!”

I’m having a long and thoughtful conversation with the guy at carm.org, and don’t know how I should respond.

Jesus is certainly telling us that the Eucharist gives us life, in this passage. And for normal situations (not talking about the newly baptized baby or the sinless Protestant any more), the Eucharist is certainly our source of spiritual and eternal life. It is, in fact, not an “it” at all, but a Person - Christ Himself, the Source of the Sacraments and of our spiritual and our physical life - the very Word that spoke the Creation into existence.

When you go to Confession to root out all of the dead stuff from your soul, you have to replace all that dead stuff with life, so you go and receive Holy Communion after going to Confession, to fill the place where the sin used to be, with Christ’s life - His Grace.

Right?

PS: good luck to you on CARM; it can be a very frustrating experience to post on there. You are one brave guy.

 

[promethius]

Very, very highly recommended, indeed. If you can receive daily, I would even recommend that. “Give us this day our daily bread,” yes?

Required, actually. But just as no nursing child would have been required to eat roast lamb in Judaism, no child is required to participate in the Eucharist (which they are too young to understand and therefore present themselves worthily to now). By the same right that the parents put forth their word to raise a child catholic and therefore baptise the baby, the same right that Jewish parents circumcised their children and ate the lamb on behalf of those who were too young, the Christian parents raise the child until they are fit to consume the Eucharist.

The church is not kidding when it says we are REQUIRED to receive the Eucharist once a year. That’s not a highly recommended. If you are of age, you are to comport yourself to receive once a year (no negotiation on that one!)

 

[jmcrae]

Required, actually. But just as no nursing child would have been required to eat roast lamb in Judaism, no child is required to participate in the Eucharist (which they are too young to understand and therefore present themselves worthily to now). By the same right that the parents put forth their word to raise a child catholic and therefore baptise the baby, the same right that Jewish parents circumcised their children and ate the lamb on behalf of those who were too young, the Christian parents raise the child until they are fit to consume the Eucharist.

The church is not kidding when it says we are REQUIRED to receive the Eucharist once a year. That’s not a highly recommended. If you are of age, you are to comport yourself to receive once a year (no negotiation on that one!)

Well said.

 

[spockrates]

Jesus is certainly telling us that the Eucharist gives us life, in this passage. And for normal situations (not talking about the newly baptized baby or the sinless Protestant any more), the Eucharist is certainly our source of spiritual and eternal life. It is, in fact, not an “it” at all, but a Person - Christ Himself, the Source of the Sacraments and of our spiritual and our physical life - the very Word that spoke the Creation into existence.

When you go to Confession to root out all of the dead stuff from your soul, you have to replace all that dead stuff with life, so you go and receive Holy Communion after going to Confession, to fill the place where the sin used to be, with Christ’s life - His Grace.

Right?

I suppose you are right, but I’m having trouble understanding how. When I read these words of Christ,

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

(John 6:53)

I hear Him saying that the one who does not eat the Eucharist, has NO LIFE in him (Christ’s words, not mine). You seem to be saying that this is not the case, and someone who never receives the Eucharist can possibly have life in her. So I’m confused.

PS: good luck to you on CARM; it can be a very frustrating experience to post on there. You are one brave guy.

Brave? Hardly! It does not take much courage to do what I enjoy. I do enjoy the dialog, especially when others disagree with me. Like Socrates, I’m usually the one who ends up driving them to their wit’s end! There is a small Catholic group there, which has more courage than I. They are a minority, and put up with a lot of abuse, and many of them do not seem to have the knowledge to the Bible than an ex-Evangelical like myself has.



I’m actually there trying to see if there is any truth to their criticisms that the Catholic Church does not speak the truth. I want to make sure I’m making the right decision before I take the next step and become a “revert.”

 

[jmcrae]

I suppose you are right, but I’m having trouble understanding how. When I read these words of Christ,

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

(John 6:53)

I hear Him saying that the one who does not eat the Eucharist, has NO LIFE in him (Christ’s words, not mine). You seem to be saying that this is not the case, and someone who never receives the Eucharist can possibly have life in her. So I’m confused.

We are talking about exceptional circumstances in those cases.

Would your Protestant friend agree that King David was “saved” without knowing Jesus by name, or explicitly being a Christian?

If King David could be “saved” does that mean that people today should think that they can reject Christ, learn only as much as King David was able to know, and still be saved?

Just because there can be exceptions to a rule does not mean that those of us who know and understand the rule can be exempted from it.

I’m actually there trying to see if there is any truth to their criticisms that the Catholic Church does not speak the truth. I want to make sure I’m making the right decision before I take the next step and become a “revert.”

I think you would be more likely to achieve this goal by going to Mass regularly, and reading the Catechism. I don’t see how arguing with non-believers is going to get you anywhere.

 

[spockrates]

We are talking about exceptional circumstances in those cases.

Would your Protestant friend agree that King David was “saved” without knowing Jesus by name, or explicitly being a Christian?

If King David could be “saved” does that mean that people today should think that they can reject Christ, learn only as much as King David was able to know, and still be saved?

Just because there can be exceptions to a rule does not mean that those of us who know and understand the rule can be exempted from it.

Yes, that makes good sense. Thank you!

I think you would be more likely to achieve this goal by going to Mass regularly, and reading the Catechism. I don’t see how arguing with non-believers is going to get you anywhere.

I am going to Mass weekly, now and do have a copy of the Catechism. I think I understand the Bible well enough to not become duped. I have spent enough time here at CAF as my current user, and previously as an Evangelical under a different user name, to appreciate the Catholic interpretation of Scripture. I think I have a good grasp of why Catholics believe the biblical passages say one thing, and Protestants say the same passages mean something altogether different. My weakness is the holes in my understanding of Catholic doctrine (such as my questions in this discussion thread), but I know when to seek clarification from more knowledgeable Catholics like yourself. Thank you for being here! I would appreciate your prayers, if you feel moved to intercede for me. Peace be with you, JM!

 

[thenobes]

I’m afraid you haven’t really answered the points raised or demonstrated that the trinity is present in The Blessed Sacrament.

Alright,
Jesus said specifically that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him (CGospel of John). Also the Church believes that the Holy Spirit is in Each of Them and They are also in the Holy Spirit (the reference escapes me at the moment.

You, however are correct if you are saying, as I believe you are, that the Father and the Holy Spirit are not present by Hypostasis to Christ’s Body and Blood. So the presence is a spritual one, which is something that one can say occurs everywhere, since God is everywhere,

However the assimilation of Jesus, Body Blood, Soul and Divinity by us, makes the Trinity present in a special way by communication through the full Hypostasis of Christ.

Other than that point, you are quite correct.

peace
steve

 

[thenobes]

Hi, Spockrates,

I’ve sometimes tangled with the folks at carm, and I believe the best you a Catholic can do there is to show the Catholic position is possible, if not plausible. That combined with an unfailing attitude of loving concern for the listeners, apologizing when one loses one’s cool, may be the most persuasive tack.

Yes. Now please, if you have time, help me understand how this teaching of the Church fits Christ’s words.

53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
(John 6)

One point to note is that Christ is, in v 53, speaking to those Jews who have directly questioned His statements, and who may very well understand exactly what He means. In any case He is not making a clearly general statement here.

After that, v 54, and later more strongly, He does make the statement that he who eats His Body and drinks His Blood has eternal life, and He will raise him up on the last day. However, He does not say what would in general happen to those who do not eat His Body and drink His Blood (except to those Jews questioning Him at the time.)

Here is what I anticipating him saying to me when I explain what you told me: “See, the Eucharist is not required, and the Catholic Church does not believe, as Jesus said, that one who does not eat the Eucharist has no life in him (v. 53). Nor does the Catholic Church believe that eating the Eucharist is required to have Eternal life, as He says (v. 54). So Christ cannot possibly be speaking of the Eucharist in this passage, for if He is, then the Catholic Church does not even believe what He says!”

One could respond with the argument above, then one could add also the point that Augustine makes, that one does not really eat of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord if one receives physically only, without the added participation of the Spirit. To eat to the participation of the Spirit requires a living faith.

Thus, to eat, does not automatically give one eternal life, one must eat with faith.

Lastly, eternal life is the Life of God; that is, it is not that we immediately live forever, but that we are in communion with the Life of God, which has no beginning or end.

I’m having a long and thoughtful conversation with the guy at carm.org, and don’t know how I should respond.

Acknowledge that he may have a point, but that there are reasonable counterpoints.

peace
steve

 

[Phage0070]

Quick question if anyone is still paying attention to this topic: Is there any way of defining what the “essence” of something is other than just starting to think of it a different way, or using it to symbolize something else? It seems that the only sense in which the Eucharist would transubstantiate is through symbolism.

To put it another way, how would you determine if transubstantiation occurred successfully or if it hadn’t happened?