Real Presence - Body & Blood

  • Thread starter Thread starter BeluvdLily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BeluvdLily

Guest
I’m sure this has probably been asked and explained on here before and I am going to search old posts but I’m just wondering if someone can give me an explanation of the Eucharist from a Catholic point of view.

What I mean is, my DH and I are in RCIA. My husband seems to be a bit hung up on the Eucharist right now and questioning if the Catholic Church is for him due to the belief that the bread and wine is really Christ’s body and blood.

We come from a Protestant background and have always viewed Communion as a more symbolic thing, i.e. “do this in remembrance of me” which I know is said at the Mass.

I guess what bothers us or is hanging us up is believing that the Eucharist is really Christ’s flesh and blood. What would be the point of actually consuming His flesh and blood? I can understand it from a viewpoint of consuming the actual substance of Christ but actual flesh and blood just seems a strange concept to us.

I ask this question with all due respect and hope that someone can explain this in a fashion to where we both feel comfortable with it. I know that it is biblically based. I just think we are getting hung up on this and perhaps taking it in some wrong way.

Any help would be appreciated.

Amie
 
I’m a former Protestant, also in RCIA currently. I have done tons of research, and this was among the first things I read. Whereas many times I need several references to believe something, this one didn’t take much.

Briefly, in John 6:30, Jesus is asked for a sign from the people. He tells them the Father gave the bread and it is of life. The people asked for the bread. Jesus told them he was the bread. After he said this, they complained! They asked, he answered, they complained. In verses 53-58, he specifically says in each of those verses that he is the Son of Man, and that his body is the bread of life, and that to have life we must eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Here was the clincher for me—he’d already clarified it a few times by this point. The people were saying, “You can’t be serious.” And Jesus said, “Oh, I am very serious about this.” (Ok, so that’s the Akanke version, but … anyway) So in verse 66, those who could not accept what Jesus was saying, left! Jesus didn’t go running after them either. He let them choose.

As it is a Sacrament, it gives life. In the book Lord, Have Mercy by Scott Hahn, you can read on page 44,
A sacrament is an outward sign of an inward reality. We can say further, as in another classic definition, that a sacrament of the New Covenant is “an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.” Grace is God’s life, which He shares with us through these actions that Christ has entrusted to His Church.
Click to expand...
John 6:53 confirms this,
So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
Click to expand...
 
40.png
BeluvdLily:
I’m sure this has probably been asked and explained on here before and I am going to search old posts but I’m just wondering if someone can give me an explanation of the Eucharist from a Catholic point of view.

What I mean is, my DH and I are in RCIA. My husband seems to be a bit hung up on the Eucharist right now and questioning if the Catholic Church is for him due to the belief that the bread and wine is really Christ’s body and blood.

We come from a Protestant background and have always viewed Communion as a more symbolic thing, i.e. “do this in remembrance of me” which I know is said at the Mass.

I guess what bothers us or is hanging us up is believing that the Eucharist is really Christ’s flesh and blood. What would be the point of actually consuming His flesh and blood? I can understand it from a viewpoint of consuming the actual substance of Christ but actual flesh and blood just seems a strange concept to us.

I ask this question with all due respect and hope that someone can explain this in a fashion to where we both feel comfortable with it. I know that it is biblically based. I just think we are getting hung up on this and perhaps taking it in some wrong way.

Any help would be appreciated.

Amie
Click to expand...
I would recommend considering the possibility that the “flesh” and “blood” of Jesus includes, but is not limited to, the “flesh” and “blood” of Homo sapiens.
 
1] The Eucharist (as the Priesthood) was given to us at the Last Supper. Christ and the Apostles were remembering the first Passover with a meal, prayers etc that were explicit in Jewish tradition. Part of that tradition was “you have to eat the Lamb”. The Jews (apostles) would have understood this.

However, Christ goes on to declare a New Covenant (the only time the word or the action appears in the New Testament). His words are quite clear, “…this is…” not this resembles, or this is symbolic of. He also says “… which will be given up for you…”.
If the bread and wine were only symbolic, was His death on the Cross also symbolic? No

2] The events which preceeded the gift of the Eucharist include the feeding of the multitudes. Notice how each main event in Salvation History includes food. (from the forbidden fruit to the words instructing us to eat His flesh.)

3] One can hardly read John 6 without noticing that Christ 4 TIMES tells us that we must eat His flesh. It is not a mental ingestion of His Word… the greek word for eat means to gnaw, to chew… not to contemplate.

4] Those who heard His words found difficulty with them… and many walked away. Jesus did not change His words to be symbolic, and thus bring them back. The words were then what we hear today at Mass.

5] Paul (the favorite Apostle of the Protestants 😉 ) also admonished the early Christians to take the Lord’s Supper only if they recognized what it truly is./… the real flesh… the real blood, of the Lord… or else bring the sin/curse of the Body of the Lord upon themselves. Two things… first his emphasis that this is the Real Presence, not something symbolic. and second… if it is, and it is, and if Christ has assended into Heaven, and He did… then by who and how was the unleavened bread and the wine to become the Real Presence. The answer is the power of the ministerial priesthood in the celebration of the Mass found only in the Catholic Church.

6] Satan hates the Catholic Church most of all. Jesus first came to us as a defenseless baby - so small and fragile. He comes to us each time at Mass in an even more fragile form in the host. How awesome and trusting God is.

No priests… no Eucharist… no Eucharist, No Church. God will not let that happen, and we must pray for our good priests

To you and your spouse… welcome home and Merry Christmas
 
You might be interested in reading what Scott Hahn says about it in his conversion story. Scroll down to the section entitled “Teacher at a Presbyterian Seminary”.
chnetwork.org/scotthconv.htm
I can understand it from a viewpoint of consuming the actual substance of Christ but actual flesh and blood just seems a strange concept to us.
Click to expand...
One thing you must remember is that Christ is entirely present in heaven Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. If Christ’s Body and Blood was seperated from His Soul Christ would be dead (as He was from the end of His Passion until His Resurrection). Christ conquered death by His Resurrection and will always be united to His Body. So to receive Christ you’d have to receive Him entirely: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Maybe some of these links will help:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=426645&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2005&Author=&Keyword=cannibal&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=6&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha1a.htm
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha5.htm
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha3.htm

I also recommend this book:
catholicbkpub.com/ONLINE_CAT/DETAIL/b_detail.asp?IM_ISBN=0899421067

May God bless you.
 
Dear Amie,

Personally, I love considering “the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament”

The manna that “came down from heaven” and “was eaten daily by the people” (but only what they could eat in one day! I LOVE that part!!) and Christ does, if we literally consume Him, physically AND spiritually (body, blood, soul and divinity) become a part of US!!! HOW AWESOME!!!

It IS the fulfilment of the Old Testament!

I know this is a little “colloquial” but - “You are what you eat” takes on a whole new meaning when it comes to consuming the Holy Eucharist!!

God bless and BELIEVE because it IS what the one true church of God Himself teaches infallibly!

That, concerning some doctrine/dogma with just about every honest Catholic, needs to be enough.

Blessings and WELCOME!!
Angel
 
Hi Amie,

There are so many approaches to questions about the Eucharist. You might want to consider this aspect: God did not need to become Incarnate to save us, but He did. He became one of us, took on our nature. While God was always present spiritually in His creation, in the fullness of time He chose to become, in some sense, more fully present. The Son did not preach His gospel from clouds, but as a real man. God saved and sanctified His earthly creation not from afar, but by joining with it completely. Running throughout the Christian message is the fact that God desires complete union with us. He desires to abide in each person (and the full and entire person, not just one part of the person!), and we in Him.

In the Protestant view, that complete joining ended when Christ ascended. After that, in this view, Christ is no longer joined to His earthly creation, but is only present spiritually, no different than how it was in the Old Testament. God entered into His creation, and then left again.

In the Catholic view (also Orthodox, and some Protestants), once God entered into His creation by joining with it completely, He did not then leave and go back to the OT situation. He remains in His creation in this new, “fuller” presence. He does this through the Eucharist, where He continues to remain joined with His people by continuing to give Himself to us in a manner “fuller”, that is, more encompassing, than just spiritually. We are both body and spirit, and He gives Himself to us, unites Himself to us, in both Body and Spirit.

I think if you look at it from this perspective, the notion of a symbolic-only Eucharist reveals itself to be a great error, for it suggests that God only truly values one part of our nature (which He created, after all!). The reason Christ comes to us in every aspect of our nature is the same reason that we will receive actual bodies at resurrection of the dead. God isn’t kidding about our nature being a union of body and soul.

I’m not sure if I’ve contributed more smoke or light to your question. I did my best to keep the smoke to a minimum! 🙂
 
Mike (and others):

Thanks so much for your explanations. References to "body, blood, soul and dvinity were helping me but there was something in yours, Mike, that really clicked for me and I’m hoping it will for my husband too when he reads it.

Such a nice explanation and to me a logical way of looking at it also. I’ve not heard it explained that way and as I was just taking Real Presence on faith, my husband likes answers! lol. I knew it was a matter of hitting on an explanation that we could relate to and make sense of. There are so many different ways to express the same idea but I really appreciate all the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Any other explanations are also welcome. It’s just a new concept to us, of course, but I love the Catholic Church so much and want to be able to understand what I’m doing and why. Can’t wait until the day when we’re accepted into the Church!

Amie
 
“In the Eucharist—a supernatural transformation—a substantial change occurs without accidental alteration. Thus, the properties of bread and wine continue after consecration, but their essence and substance cease to exist, replaced by the substance of the true and actual Body and Blood of Christ. It is this disjunction from the natural laws of physics which causes many to stumble (see John 6:60-69). See chart below.”

We can usually change the accidents of something (apples to applesauce) without changing the substance (apple). In the eucharist, the accidents do not change but the substance does. As an analogy, consider being able to create an orange from the subtance of an apple. The orange would actually appear to be an orange (taste, smell, appearance) but would be made from an apple. This is, of course, impossible for us, but it is possible for God.

In transubstantiation, the substance of the bread and wine are replaced with that of Jesus’ body and blood, so as to enable us to eat them without being “grossed out”, but in actuality we are consuming his substance.
 
40.png
BeluvdLily:
Mike (and others):

Thanks so much for your explanations. References to "body, blood, soul and dvinity were helping me but there was something in yours, Mike, that really clicked for me and I’m hoping it will for my husband too when he reads it.

Such a nice explanation and to me a logical way of looking at it also. I’ve not heard it explained that way and as I was just taking Real Presence on faith, my husband likes answers! lol. I knew it was a matter of hitting on an explanation that we could relate to and make sense of. There are so many different ways to express the same idea but I really appreciate all the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Any other explanations are also welcome. It’s just a new concept to us, of course, but I love the Catholic Church so much and want to be able to understand what I’m doing and why. Can’t wait until the day when we’re accepted into the Church!

Amie
Click to expand...
Now I’ll let you into a little secret. I’ve never thought of the Real Presence in this way before. The entire explanation I gave you just “came to me” when I read your question. A flash of inspiration, perhaps? I find that that happens to me now and then, where I’ll suddenly understand some aspect of the faith in a totally new way.

So if I have been a tool to bring your and/or your husband closer to the truth, I rejoice in the priviledge God has granted me. Have a joyous and peace-filled Christmas!
 
I also clicked with Mike’s reply, and also with Madia’s:

“One thing you must remember is that Christ is entirely present in heaven Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. If Christ’s Body and Blood was seperated from His Soul Christ would be dead (as He was from the end of His Passion until His Resurrection). Christ conquered death by His Resurrection and will always be united to His Body. So to receive Christ you’d have to receive Him entirely: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.”

Even though I completely believe in transubstantiation, I never quite understood “body, blood, soul, and divinity”, and this explanation was an ah-ha moment for me.
 
Dear Arnie,
I am a cradle Catholic, but I have been studying the Eucharist recently to sharpen my apologetic skills, so your question really hit home to me. Outside Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the concept of the real presence is a REALLY alien concept. I would suggest looking at these apologetics books:

This is the first of a series and discussed the Eucharist as one topic:
shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-B0279.html?L+scstore+vbvh9955ffa2f8a2+1137742527

This is later in the series and solely devoted to the Eucharist:
shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-B0108.html?L+scstore+vbvh9955ffa2f8a2+1137742527

All of the previous answers have been really good and I would add three other aspects.
  1. The idea of the real presence goes back as far as one can read the church fathers. The above apologetics books show this.
  2. Look at the resurrection appearances of Jesus. He has a body, can eat, but can also walk thru walls and do other “unphysical” things. Jesus’ resurrected body appears to defy our known physical laws. Transubstantiation does not seem so outlandish in light of these appearances.
  3. Jesus says this is my body, this is my blood in all 4 Gospels. John 6 is particularly vivid. If it were mere symbolism, why did all 4 evangelists make such a point of it?
Keep working on this. It is so wonderful that you just can’t afford to miss it!
Mulus
 
All I have to say is that Jesus said :
“This IS my body… This IS my blood…”

It is not just a symbol. There is a documented 30 times when a host has actually taken on the flesh and blood. Scientists have studied it and can’t say anything. Thats the cool thing about the church… we can actually consume His Body and His Blood. Kinda cool…
 
Here is a great article on this site, with a discussion on the Real Presence, and the typical objections. See if this addresses your concerns.
 
One of the earliest problems faced by the early Christians(1-3 centuries) was the belief by the Romans that they practiced canibalism. Most Orthodox Jews were also were repulsed by the idea. The belief that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ is as old as the Church Lutherans believe in the real presence, except for them it is the communicants belief that makes the miraculous change occur when the host is eaten, not before.
 
40.png
jpjd:
I also clicked with Mike’s reply, and also with Madia’s:

“One thing you must remember is that Christ is entirely present in heaven Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. If Christ’s Body and Blood was seperated from His Soul Christ would be dead (as He was from the end of His Passion until His Resurrection). Christ conquered death by His Resurrection and will always be united to His Body. So to receive Christ you’d have to receive Him entirely: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.”

Even though I completely believe in transubstantiation, I never quite understood “body, blood, soul, and divinity”, and this explanation was an ah-ha moment for me.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
jpjd:
I also clicked with Mike’s reply, and also with Madia’s:

“One thing you must remember is that Christ is entirely present in heaven Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. If Christ’s Body and Blood was seperated from His Soul Christ would be dead (as He was from the end of His Passion until His Resurrection). Christ conquered death by His Resurrection and will always be united to His Body. So to receive Christ you’d have to receive Him entirely: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.”

Even though I completely believe in transubstantiation, I never quite understood “body, blood, soul, and divinity”, and this explanation was an ah-ha moment for me.
Click to expand...
Thats why The Episcopal , the PolishNationalCatholic and others don’t teach transubstantiation. We believe that christ is presence in the eucharist body,soul and divinity. But naming it means we understand it. We teach that the eucharist is a very holy mystery above all human understanding only God knows how. We believe it as faith. Some accept it some don’t.
 
In the gospel where Christ teaches the people about having to eat his flesh and drink his blood they say “This is a hard teaching, who can bear it” . At that oportunity Christ clarifies himself and lays it on plain and tuff. He doesn’t soft soap it and many leave his following after that. Christ didn’t want to loose any due to a lack of understanding. It is the body and blood, soul and divinity of our lord. I would not, Not get baptized because you are your husband has doubts, it took me about 10 years after being converted to grow any real faith in this area and it did require prayer, fasting and time in front of the blesed sacrament. I used to bow out of respect for the church when entering in. Now I feel like I should fall on the floor and worship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top