Responding to a Protestant Claim about the Eucharist

[omgriley]

I was reading some Protestant arguments against the Real Presence in the Eucharist (trying to find a best argument someone would have for rejecting the doctrine). Nearly all of them were pretty easily refutable.

One however I found to be a little confusing, and I’m not quite sure how to answer this. The argument essentially boils down to Christ couldn’t be physically present in the Eurcharist because that would require his physical body to in multiple places at any given moment always.

This is the exact quoted argument…

Orthodox Christianity (not Eastern Orthodox) holds to the “Hypostatic Union” of Christ. This means that we believe that Christ is fully God and fully man. This was most acutely defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Important for our conversation is that Christ had to be fully man to fully redeem us. Christ could not be a mixture of God and man, or he could only represent other mixtures of God and man. He is/was one person with two complete natures. These nature do not intermingle (they are “without confusion”). In other words, his human nature does not infect or corrupt his divine nature. And his divine nature does not infect or corrupt his human nature. This is called the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties or attributes). The attributes of one nature cannot communicate (transfer/share) with another nature. Christ’s humanity did not become divinitized. It remained complete and perfect humanity (with all its limitations). The natures can communicate with the Person, but not with each other. Therefore, the attribute of omnipresence (present everywhere) cannot communicate to his humanity to make his humanity omnipresent. If it did, we lose our representative High Priest, since we don’t have this attribute communicated to our nature. Christ must always remain as we are in order to be the Priest and Pioneer of our faith. What does all of this mean? Christ’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass. In this sense, I believe that any real physical presence view denies the definition of Chalcedon and the principles therein.

Any takers?

 

[rinnie]

I was reading some Protestant arguments against the Real Presence in the Eucharist (trying to find a best argument someone would have for rejecting the doctrine). Nearly all of them were pretty easily refutable.

One however I found to be a little confusing, and I’m not quite sure how to answer this. The argument essentially boils down to Christ couldn’t be physically present in the Eurcharist because that would require his physical body to in multiple places at any given moment always.

This is the exact quoted argument…

Any takers?

We believe it because Jesus told us this is my body that is given up for you. Where can anyone put any demands on God on what he can and cannot do?

And does that mean Jesus cannot hear my prayers and your prayers ? This argument does not make sense to me.

 

[cstheriot]

I was reading some Protestant arguments against the Real Presence in the Eucharist (trying to find a best argument someone would have for rejecting the doctrine). Nearly all of them were pretty easily refutable.

One however I found to be a little confusing, and I’m not quite sure how to answer this. The argument essentially boils down to Christ couldn’t be physically present in the Eurcharist because that would require his physical body to in multiple places at any given moment always.

This is the exact quoted argument…

Any takers?

So, if you open the Bible and read John Chapter 6, you see Jesus being quite clear about the Eucharist. He is very clear that we will have to eat his body and drink his blood. Not figurative, as we can see because people left him and he let them go.

I don’t have enough time to write a big explanation about it, but I think you should look into the book “Jesus and the Jewish Root of the Eucharist”. It is by Brant Pitre and is an excellent source of information about who and what the Eucharist really is. I would highly advise reading it. It will make you fall in love with the Eucharist in a whole new way. (plus answer your question)

God bless!

 

[GKC]

As I understand it, Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist, and particularly not present, as in a place. The presence is substantial, not physical The substance at the altar is transubstantiated into the real (not the physical) substance of Christ, and it does not mean that small pieces of the Body fly into the ciboria wherever the sacrament is confected, but that the substance there is changed, substantially, not physically. The accidents remain.

Aquinas made some observations on the point.

 

[USMC_Convert]

ITS CALLED A MIRACLE!!! It is beyond our understanding, so ask them then, by their understanding the feeding of the 5,000 could never have happened because several fish and a couple pieces of bread cannot be any more than they actually are. They can’t feed 5,000 people and still have left overs because it’s not physically possible for them to multiply and be in more places (baskets/mouths) than they actually are!

In the feeding of the 5,000 God, Jesus, is showing us nothing is impossible with God. He is showing us that if He can feed 5,000 people with a little fish and bread then certainly He can feed every human being on the planet with His own body. Or do they think God is limited in what He can do?

What about walking on water? Jesus as a man could not walk on water, so I guess that never happened. This is literally one of the most ridiculous arguments against the Eucharist I have ever heard. Then you might as well deny all of the miracles because Jesus as a man cannot do them, right???

 

[tm21]

Christ, even at the last supper, is substantially present in the Eucharist in his resurrected and glorified body. He is NOT present in his earthly body. Also, in the Eucharist, Jesus is not quantitatively present, such that if we break the Eucharist in half, we are breaking Jesus’ body in half. He is fully present in every particle of the Eucharist or drop of the consecrated wine.

 

[Memaw]

We believe it because Jesus told us this is my body that is given up for you. Where can anyone put any demands on God on what he can and cannot do?

And does that mean Jesus cannot hear my prayers and your prayers ? This argument does not make sense to me.

Me either!! Wasn’t Jesus present in all the Communions received by the Apostles at the last supper? If HE can be in 12, why not 12,000 or more. Isn’t that what Our Lord wanted for His Church?? We can’t put limits on God. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Lorenz_Michael]

May help to ask him if he has become part of the body of Christ and how that is similarly made possible.

Peace+
michaEl?

 

[Todd977]

From Pope Paul VI’s Credo of the People of God, underlining mine:
Sacrifice of Calvary

1. We believe that the Mass, celebrated by the priest representing the person of Christ by virtue of the power received through the Sacrament of Orders, and offered by him in the name of Christ and the members of His Mystical Body, is the sacrifice of Calvary rendered sacramentally present on our altars. We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence.(35)

Transubstantiation

1. Christ cannot be thus present in this sacrament except by the change into His body of the reality itself of the bread and the change into His blood of the reality itself of the wine, leaving unchanged only the properties of the bread and wine which our senses perceive. This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation. Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine,(36) as the Lord willed it, in order to give Himself to us as food and to associate us with the unity of His Mystical Body.(37)
2. The unique and indivisible existence of the Lord glorious in heaven is not multiplied, but is rendered present by the sacrament in the many places on earth where Mass is celebrated. And this existence remains present, after the sacrifice, in the Blessed Sacrament which is, in the tabernacle, the living heart of each of our churches. And it is our very sweet duty to honor and adore in the blessed Host which our eyes see, the Incarnate Word whom they cannot see, and who, without leaving heaven, is made present before us. (source)

 

[Ron_in_minden]

Didn’t Jesus say, wherever two or three are gathered in my name there I am? Boom. Problem solved. He is God after all.

 

[Augustine3]

I was reading some Protestant arguments against the Real Presence in the Eucharist (trying to find a best argument someone would have for rejecting the doctrine). Nearly all of them were pretty easily refutable.

One however I found to be a little confusing, and I’m not quite sure how to answer this. The argument essentially boils down to Christ couldn’t be physically present in the Eurcharist because that would require his physical body to in multiple places at any given moment always.

This is the exact quoted argument…

Any takers?

What does your friend believe on the night of the last supper when Jesus said “this is my body”? Does your friend believe the bread actually became the body of Christ?

 

[Kliska]

As I understand it, Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist, and particularly not present, as in a place. The presence is substantial, not physical The substance at the altar is transubstantiated into the real (not the physical) substance of Christ, and it does not mean that small pieces of the Body fly into the ciboria wherever the sacrament is confected, but that the substance there is changed, substantially, not physically. The accidents remain.

Aquinas made some observations on the point.

This is the way I’ve come to understand the Catholic teaching after researching it from “the outside” of the CC.

 

[GKC]

This is the way I’ve come to understand the Catholic teaching after researching it from “the outside” of the CC.

And, it’s always possible, from outside or in, to get a wrong impression, make a wrong assumption, see something a little out of focus. Especially when dealing with a subject the very nature of which is beyond human grasp, save in some form of analogical accommodation to our human limitations.

 

[Kliska]

And, it’s always possible, from outside or in, to get a wrong impression, make a wrong assumption, see something a little out of focus. Especially when dealing with a subject the very nature of which is beyond human grasp, save in some form of analogical accommodation to our human limitations.

Agreed.

 

[PluniaZ]

It is not in the property of human nature to vanish out of sight either:

“30 And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight.” Luke 24:30-31

Nor is it the property of human nature to be able to pass through closed doors:

"19 Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you." John 20:19

Clearly the glorified resurrected body of Jesus possesses attributes that our fleshy bodies do not have.

 

[PluniaZ]

Aquinas says:

Article 5. Whether Christ’s body is in this sacrament as in a place?

Objection 1. It seems that Christ’s body is in this sacrament as in a place. Because, to be in a place definitively or circumscriptively belongs to being in a place. But Christ’s body seems to be definitively in this sacrament, because it is so present where the species of the bread and wine are, that it is nowhere else upon the altar: likewise it seems to be there circumscriptively, because it is so contained under the species of the consecrated host, that it neither exceeds it nor is exceeded by it. Therefore Christ’s body is in this sacrament as in a place.

Objection 2. Further, the place of the bread and wine is not empty, because nature abhors a vacuum; nor is the substance of the bread there, as stated above (III:75:2); but only the body of Christ is there. Consequently the body of Christ fills that place. But whatever fills a place is there locally. Therefore the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (Article 4), the body of Christ is in this sacrament with its dimensive quantity, and with all its accidents. But to be in a place is an accident of a body; hence “where” is numbered among the nine kinds of accidents. Therefore Christ’s body is in this sacrament locally.

On the contrary, The place and the object placed must be equal, as is clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv). But the place, where this sacrament is, is much less than the body of Christ. Therefore Christ’s body is not in this sacrament as in a place.

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 3; Article 3), Christ’s body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ’s body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ’s body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ’s body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ’s body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ’s body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ’s body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body.

Hence in no way is Christ’s body locally in this sacrament.

Reply to Objection 1. Christ’s body is not in this sacrament definitively, because then it would be only on the particular altar where this sacrament is performed: whereas it is in heaven under its own species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species. Likewise it is evident that it is not in this sacrament circumscriptively, because it is not there according to the commensuration of its own quantity, as stated above. But that it is not outside the superficies of the sacrament, nor on any other part of the altar, is due not to its being there definitively or circumscriptively, but to its being there by consecration and conversion of the bread and wine, as stated above (Article 1; 15, 2, sqq.).

Reply to Objection 2. The place in which Christ’s body is, is not empty; nor yet is it properly filled with the substance of Christ’s body, which is not there locally, as stated above; but it is filled with the sacramental species, which have to fill the place either because of the nature of dimensions, or at least miraculously, as they also subsist miraculously after the fashion of substance.

Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (Article 4), the accidents of Christ’s body are in this sacrament by real concomitance. And therefore those accidents of Christ’s body which are intrinsic to it are in this sacrament. But to be in a place is an accident when compared with the extrinsic container. And therefore it is not necessary for Christ to be in this sacrament as in a place.

newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article5

 

[omgriley]

First, to everyone who took time out of their day to respond to my question, and to share your thoughts, I am extremely grateful. Thank you!

This person was coming from a angle in which he already rejected the doctrine of the Real Presence. I think what the gentlemen was hung up on was the concept of Christ’s physical body being present, i.e. Christ’s physical glorified body.

Upon further reflection it seems that this argument assumes that because Christ was fully man, that He could not practically act outside the limits of a typical human, or what human nature would permit.

Naturally, on it’s face, this is absurd.

 

[benhur]

We believe it because Jesus told us this is my body that is given up for you. Where can anyone put any demands on God on what he can and cannot do?

And does that mean Jesus cannot hear my prayers and your prayers ? This argument does not make sense to me.

Hi rinnie,

While Christ says, “this is my body”, He then goes on to call the cup, “fruit of the vine” shortly after consecration. Of course one could say it is both, but then spiritual symbolism and transubstantiation both can fit that bill.

Somehow Jesus heard us and knew us (man) before the incarnation, so His body does not limit his divine nature to continue to do so.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

First, to everyone who took time out of their day to respond to my question, and to share your thoughts, I am extremely grateful. Thank you!

This person was coming from a angle in which he already rejected the doctrine of the Real Presence. I think what the gentlemen was hung up on was the concept of Christ’s physical body being present, i.e. Christ’s physical glorified body.

Upon further reflection it seems that this argument assumes that because Christ was fully man, that He could not practically act outside the limits of a typical human, or what human nature would permit.

Naturally, on it’s face, this is absurd.

Hi o,

not sure anything is absurd and appreciate your thread.

Just wondering , could Jesus be in two places at the same time in His spiritual body ? It seems it was advantages for Him to depart, even ascend , so that the Holy Ghost could do that for Him, minus a body. Not sure that a fleshly body, even a glorified one, is necessary for our spiritual sustenance anymore.

Again, is there any record of Christ manifesting Himself physically as a man, even an apparition, in more than one place at a time, OT or NT ?

Blessings

 

[benhur]

So, if you open the Bible and read John Chapter 6, you see Jesus being quite clear about the Eucharist. He is very clear that we will have to eat his body and drink his blood. Not figurative, as we can see because people left him and he let them go.

I don’t have enough time to write a big explanation about it, but I think you should look into the book “Jesus and the Jewish Root of the Eucharist”. It is by Brant Pitre and is an excellent source of information about who and what the Eucharist really is. I would highly advise reading it. It will make you fall in love with the Eucharist in a whole new way. (plus answer your question)

God bless!

Hic,

Beg to differ that John 6 is “quite clear” about a literal interpretation of eating…for we still die when eating Him, though He said we would not.

Everything fits just as well under spiritual symbolism, and as St. Augustine says somewhere, “leave your teeth and bellies behind” , for we eat by faith, and that with our spirits, as in understanding.

Understand folks try to put it in or defend/explain with Jewish roots. Alas they be like protestants , where you get multiple viewpoints.

The Passover was for remembrance and thanksgiving…they eat/participate with food elements as symbols, achieving a spiritual and historical understanding by bringing the past into the present…the Lord inhabiting their praises, even being “present” in Spirit during the festivities.

They eat the lamb, but have no referencing it to the same animal that was sacrificed in the original Passover, except by symbolic representation. No miracle is needed, again and again.(yet I would say anytime the Lord gets thru our flesh and invades our spirit with understanding, even thanksgiving, that is a miracle)

Blessings