R.C. Sproul's Objection to the Eucharist

[lagerald24]

Hey guys, I’m reading Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul’s book on Catholicism and came across an interesting argument against the Holy Eucharist and reality of Christ’s Bodily presence. Here’s the quote from his book:

“Protestants also struggle with the question of how the human nature of Christ can be in more than one place at the same time. The Roman Catholic view essentially attributes the quality of omnipresence to the physical body of Jesus. If the Mass is being celebrated simultaneously in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, then, according to Roman Catholic teaching, His physical body and blood, which are part of his human nature, not part of His divine nature, are present in more than one place at the same time. Rome says that this happens because there is a communication of power from the divine nature, which can be omnipresent, to the human nature. But once the human nature assumes the attributes of the divine nature, Rome has a problem with her own Christology. The Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the relationship of the two natures of Christ, saying that He is vera homo vera deus, that is, “truly man and truly God,” and that the two natures are in perfect unity but without mixture, confusion, separation, or division, so that each nature retains its own attributes. So, Rome needs to explain how attributing omnipresence to the body of Christ does not involve a deification of the flesh of Jesus, giving it a divine attribute. How does that not confuse the two natures of Christ?”

Would love to hear your thoughts on this issue, thanks!

 

[Chistian-ity]

That is a good question indeed

 

[AlNg]

Some Protestants will take a different line and say that since there are so many allegories and metaphors in the Bible, that this is another example of such. They will say that the words of consecration are to be taken allegorically and as a metaphor so that the Eucharist is a symbolic and metaphorical reminder of the presence of Jesus.

 

[TK421]

Hey guys, I’m reading Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul’s book on Catholicism and came across an interesting argument against the Holy Eucharist and reality of Christ’s Bodily presence. Here’s the quote from his book:

“Protestants also struggle with the question of how the human nature of Christ can be in more than one place at the same time. The Roman Catholic view essentially attributes the quality of omnipresence to the physical body of Jesus. If the Mass is being celebrated simultaneously in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, then, according to Roman Catholic teaching, His physical body and blood, which are part of his human nature, not part of His divine nature, are present in more than one place at the same time. Rome says that this happens because there is a communication of power from the divine nature, which can be omnipresent, to the human nature. But once the human nature assumes the attributes of the divine nature, Rome has a problem with her own Christology. The Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the relationship of the two natures of Christ, saying that He is vera homo vera deus, that is, “truly man and truly God,” and that the two natures are in perfect unity but without mixture, confusion, separation, or division, so that each nature retains its own attributes. So, Rome needs to explain how attributing omnipresence to the body of Christ does not involve a deification of the flesh of Jesus, giving it a divine attribute. How does that not confuse the two natures of Christ?”

Would love to hear your thoughts on this issue, thanks!

Jesus has a glorified body after the Resurrection, as opposed to the bodies we currently have. Also, his flesh isn’t omnipresent; it is present in many places at once.

Peace.

 

[TK421]

Some Protestants will take a different line and say that since there are so many allegories and metaphors in the Bible, that this is another example of such. They will say that the words of consecration are to be taken allegorically and as a metaphor so that the Eucharist is a symbolic and metaphorical reminder of the presence of Jesus.

It’s not a good argument, because why would so many disciples have abandoned him after what he said if he was speaking allegorically? Jesus re-stated what he said with more explicit language, and this was a hard teaching, especially for orthodox Jews.

Peace.

 

[Gorgias]

If the Mass is being celebrated simultaneously in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, then, according to Roman Catholic teaching, His physical body and blood, which are part of his human nature, not part of His divine nature, are present in more than one place at the same time.

It’s present in sacramental mode, not in the ordinary mode of physical objects. So, yeah – no problem with multiple presences in sacramental mode.

So, Rome needs to explain how attributing omnipresence to the body of Christ does not involve a deification of the flesh of Jesus, giving it a divine attribute.

His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are not “omnipresent” in the way Sproul wants to suggest. They’re truly present, but sacramentally. The fact that it’s a sacramental presence and not in the mode that you are where you are and I am where I am at this moment, is why the definition works (and Sproul’s argument does not).

 

[fhansen]

Wow! What irrefutable logic, such great use of hyper-rationalism applied to supernatural truths. Well, leave it to a Calvinist I guess; their theology already strays about the furthest from Christianity as it is IMO. There’s nothing about Jesus Christ that isn’t deity. And for that matter, Jesus, in His body, transcended natural laws before and after His death and resurrection.

 

[Chistian-ity]

Good answer to a good question :+1:t2:

 

[AlNg]

why would so many disciples have abandoned him after what he said if he was speaking allegorically?

I suppose they may have some answer for that. Perhaps they might say that the disciples failed to understand the metaphor properly, just as some people did not understand the parables. Or perhaps the story of the disciples leaving is itself a metaphor of sorts.
The problem that some people bring up is that there are too many stories in the Bible that are taken figuratively. For example, it is related in Genesis that God was walking in a garden. Another story is that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. That seems like a lot of women for one man to handle. Catholics have the Church to guide them as to the interpretation, but non-Catholics have several different sources that they rely upon and these sources oftentimes differ with the Catholic viewpoint.

 

[ZMystiCat]

And for that matter, Jesus, in His body, transcended natural laws before and after His death and resurrection.

Yeah, I find the objection a bit weird at its core. Jesus walked on water, instantly transfigured, teleported, and levitated. None of these are humanly possible. I’m not sure why multi-location is suddenly an insurmountable problem. (Actually, IIRC, the objection is grounded in the debates between Luther and Zwingli, with the objection being particularly of Zwingli. At least that’s the earliest context I’ve heard it in.)

Well, leave it to a Calvinist I guess; their theology already strays about the furthest from Christianity as it is IMO

Well, that kind of depends. Their soteriology is really out there, and by nature of their soteriology their view of God and anthropology is quite disturbing, but they do traditionally accept things like infant baptism, existence of sacraments, a type of Real Presence, Mary being the Mother of God, Mary’s perpetual virginity, respect for Tradition, etc. Their ideas of the Church are also a lot closer to Catholicism than what is often found in Evangelicalism. Personally, moving from Pentecostalism to Presbyterianism in college was pretty important on my path to Catholicism, since it broke down a lot of the main barriers I had to Catholicism, even if not all of them.

 

[adf417]

It’s present in sacramental mode , not in the ordinary mode of physical objects. So, yeah – no problem with multiple presences in sacramental mode.

…a concept Protestants actually profess when they say Jesus hears our prayers simultaneously throughout the world.

Peace!!!

 

[Gorgias]

…a concept Protestants actually profess when they say Jesus hears our prayers simultaneously throughout the world.

Right, except that they’d claim that this proceeds from His divine nature. The objection Sproul attempts to make is that the theology of the Eucharist conflicts with the “limitations” of Jesus’ human nature…

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Wow! What irrefutable logic, such great use of hyper-rationalism applied to supernatural truths. Well, leave it to a Calvinist I guess; their theology already strays about the furthest from Christianity as it is IMO. There’s nothing about Jesus Christ that isn’t deity. And for that matter, Jesus, in His body, transcended natural laws before and after His death and resurrection.

This was precisely my thought too. Jesus is God. His human nature doesn’t get separated out and forced to behave by limited human, earthly laws of physics.

I’m baffled as to how anyone could even think the original argument was any good at all, much less leave the Church en masse over it.

 

[stoplooklisten]

I’m baffled as to how anyone could even think the original argument was any good at all, much less leave the Church en masse over it.

I think that the argument in the OP is R.C. Sproul’s alone and it would be difficult to find it anyplace else.

God was present in a holy way in the Old Testament Tabernacle built under Moses and in the Old Testament Temple first built under King Solomon. Things should be better under the new covenant than under the old covenant. Could we not rejoice that things are better now and God’s holy Presence is found now not only in one place such as in the Temple at Jerusalem but in the Tabernacles of the One, True Church all over the world?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I would hope we would rejoice in that, and also rejoice that our God has chosen to be present with us in such an intimate way in the Eucharist, as opposed to the OT when God did not reveal himself to very many people and you pretty much had to be a high level priest or a special chosen person to interact personally with God.

 

[stoplooklisten]

I would hope we would rejoice in that, and also rejoice that our God has chosen to be present with us in such an intimate way in the Eucharist, as opposed to the OT when God did not reveal himself to very many people and you pretty much had to be a high level priest or a special chosen person to interact personally with God.

Good point. God’s Holy Presence is now found not only in the many Catholic Church tabernacles around the world but on the tongues of every communicant of the Holy Eucharist. At large Catholic Mass events, this can be 100’s and 1000’s of people at a time.

 

[commenter]

I’m reading Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul’s book on Catholicism

What’s the title?

 

[fhansen]

Well, that kind of depends. Their soteriology is really out there, and by nature of their soteriology their view of God and anthropology is quite disturbing, but they do traditionally accept things like infant baptism, existence of sacraments, a type of Real Presence, Mary being the Mother of God, Mary’s perpetual virginity, respect for Tradition, etc. Their ideas of the Church are also a lot closer to Catholicism than what is often found in Evangelicalism. Personally, moving from Pentecostalism to Presbyterianism in college was pretty important on my path to Catholicism, since it broke down a lot of the main barriers I had to Catholicism, even if not all of them.

I tend to overreact a bit whenever I contemplate TULIP-and in practice I think most of the errant JC’s theological descendants don’t precisely practice everything he preached anyway-and I can admit to appreciating what I know of Presbyterianism as well-to a point .

I also tend to react to the obligatory Catholic-bashing attempted by some of the Church’s ignorant opponents in their less-than-full-understanding of the faith.

 

[Gorgias]

lagerald24:

I’m reading Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul’s book on Catholicism

What’s the title?

“Why They’re Wrong”…?

(Sorry… couldn’t avoid it… )

 

[OddBird]

It’s present in sacramental mode , not in the ordinary mode of physical objects. So, yeah – no problem with multiple presences in sacramental mode.

This.

By the way (even if I’ll probably get burned alive for saying this) I don’t get how “Calvinist” theologians do not understand the sacramental mode of the Real Presence.

When Calvin explains what happens at consecration - how the “signifiers”, the bread and wine, change “signifieds” (not “bread” and “wine” any longer, but “Body” and “Blood”), it’s really not that far away from the idea that a different substance becomes present under the same accidents.

Actually, theologians, including reputable francophone Catholic dogmaticians like Fr Bernard Sesbouë, have convincingly argued that what Calvin described was basically Aquinas’ understanding of the transsubstantiation, just told in different words.

I sometimes think Calvinist theologians have an ingrained habit of misreading Calvin, and that he would probably be horrified if he saw what has become of his legacy.