The Eucharist

[AmericanFighter]

He guys I ran across a video of a typical anti-catholic rant where and one of his issues was the Eucharist saying that Catholics are idiots for believing the Eucharist is actual body and blood and calling Catholics borderline cannibals if we actually believe that and eat it. However, when I thought of the Eucharist I have always believed that it is not literal flesh but the host is blessed and holds the spirit of Christ in it when we eat it. So it is more than just figurative but we aren’t eating actual flesh but the spirit of Jesus that comes into the host and in that way participating in the sacrifice. So essentially I have had the assumption that we eat the host holds the spirit of Christ when at communion and we eat the spirit of the body and blood of Christ. Am i correct in my thought?

so in short as Catholics do we believe it is actual flesh or the spirit of Christ that enters the bread and wine so that physically and chemically it is still bread and wine but blessed and makes it spiritually the body and blood.

Thanks

 

[ProVobis]

Not only the Body and Blood of Christ, but also His Soul and Divinity.

There’s a beautiful prayer in the Offertory prayers of the older form (EF) which bring this to light.

(eius divinitas esse consortes…}

 

[Hmgbrd]

Some of Jesus’ own followers actually left him because they couldn’t reconcile themselves with the thought of actually eating his body and blood.

I take Him at his word.

 

[AmericanFighter]

Some of Jesus’ own followers actually left him because they couldn’t reconcile themselves with the thought of actually eating his body and blood.

I take Him at his word.

Yeah I had always acknowledged Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and that we wer participating in the sacrifice by eating it. but never thought of it as actual flesh in an earthly terms.

 

[Gorgias]

when I thought of the Eucharist I have always believed that it is not literal flesh but the host is blessed and holds the spirit of Christ in it when we eat it. So it is more than just figurative but we aren’t eating actual flesh but the spirit of Jesus that comes into the host and in that way participating in the sacrifice. So essentially I have had the assumption that we eat the host holds the spirit of Christ when at communion and we eat the spirit of the body and blood of Christ. Am i correct in my thought?

I think you have the right idea… but maybe, the way that you’re expressing the idea, could use a bit of refinement.

so in short as Catholics do we believe it is actual flesh or the spirit of Christ that enters the bread and wine so that physically and chemically it is still bread and wine but blessed and makes it spiritually the body and blood.

The way that Catholics express the notion is known as ‘transubstantiation.’ This is an explanation that is based on a philosophical notion: the difference between what an entity is and how it appears. In general, there’s no problem here – if a thing has the appearance of a duck (in its walk and its quack), we presume it is a duck, and we’re generally correct. However, there’s still a distinction between what it actually is and what it’s appearance is. (This is easy enough to understand: who you actually are doesn’t change, but your appearance changes as you move from childhood through puberty, to adulthood and old age.)

Here’s what the Church says about the Eucharist: the appearance never changes, so we always have the physical characteristics of bread and wine. But, what it is – that is, in philosophical terms, its ‘substance’ – changes, from the substance of bread and wine to the substance of Christ (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity). So, Christ is truly present in the Eucharist – but His presence is sacramental in its mode, not physical (that is, we cannot discern any physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist).

It’s difficult to explain simply, but it has a certain reasonable logic. Christ is present – sacramentally – but in appearance, we still experience the physical characteristics of bread and wine.

Does that help?

Thanks

 

[Ad_Orientem]

It is more than just receiving him spiritually, but it is not the same as physically digesting his human flesh in such a manner that he is separated into parts or diminished.

At the consecration, the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine, and really become Christ’s flesh and blood, although they retain the physical properties of bread and wine. Because of the unity of Christ’s person, his human soul and divinity are also present together with his body and blood. In other words, we receive the whole Christ, not just the Spirit of Christ (whether by this you mean his human soul or the Holy Spirit). But his flesh and blood are not made part of us as the meat of animals is made part of us; rather we are incorporated into him.

 

[AmericanFighter]

I think you have the right idea… but maybe, the way that you’re expressing the idea, could use a bit of refinement.

The way that Catholics express the notion is known as ‘transubstantiation.’ This is an explanation that is based on a philosophical notion: the difference between what an entity is and how it appears. In general, there’s no problem here – if a thing has the appearance of a duck (in its walk and its quack), we presume it is a duck, and we’re generally correct. However, there’s still a distinction between what it actually is and what it’s appearance is. (This is easy enough to understand: who you actually are doesn’t change, but your appearance changes as you move from childhood through puberty, to adulthood and old age.)

Here’s what the Church says about the Eucharist: the appearance never changes, so we always have the physical characteristics of bread and wine. But, what it is – that is, in philosophical terms, its ‘substance’ – changes, from the substance of bread and wine to the substance of Christ (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity). So, Christ is truly present in the Eucharist – but His presence is sacramental in its mode, not physical (that is, we cannot discern any physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist).

It’s difficult to explain simply, but it has a certain reasonable logic. Christ is present – sacramentally – but in appearance, we still experience the physical characteristics of bread and wine.

Does that help?

Thanks

that is great thanks. this was essentially my understanding but it was a little fuzzy the way you put it clears things up for me thanks!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Great question.

Jesus says, “my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink” John 6:55

St Ignatius of Antioch 108AD SAYS,

"“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.

The church teaches that it is really and truly Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity. The accidents of bread and wine remain, but the substance is truly transformed into Christ.

This is why we can adore the blessed sacrament in the monstrance. Because it is Christ there.

If Christ was not there we would not have adoration, nor would we kneel before the Eucharist.

Fr Barron explains it very well in his Catholicism series.

youtu.be/NDVLBUK5FGw

 

[Micosil]

…]

Fr Barron explains it very well in his Catholicism series.

youtu.be/NDVLBUK5FGw

Fr. Barron in the video, though he is bishop Barron now.

 

[golfcrickah]

He guys I ran across a video of a typical anti-catholic rant where and one of his issues was the Eucharist saying that Catholics are idiots for believing the Eucharist is actual body and blood and calling Catholics borderline cannibals if we actually believe that and eat it. However, when I thought of the Eucharist I have always believed that it is not literal flesh but the host is blessed and holds the spirit of Christ in it when we eat it. So it is more than just figurative but we aren’t eating actual flesh but the spirit of Jesus that comes into the host and in that way participating in the sacrifice. So essentially I have had the assumption that we eat the host holds the spirit of Christ when at communion and we eat the spirit of the body and blood of Christ. Am i correct in my thought?

so in short as Catholics do we believe it is actual flesh or the spirit of Christ that enters the bread and wine so that physically and chemically it is still bread and wine but blessed and makes it spiritually the body and blood.

Thanks

I would surmise that after inspecting yourself before attendance the holy spirit could work in conjunction with your progression of faith after recieving the host.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Fr. Barron in the video, though he is bishop Barron now.

Ah yes of course!!! Old habits die hard!

 

[Joe_5859]

that is great thanks. this was essentially my understanding but it was a little fuzzy the way you put it clears things up for me thanks!

Gorgias put it well. We need to be careful how we phrase it because Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is more than just a spiritual presence. He is fully present, Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity. And yet, it is a sacramental presence, not a fleshy one.

The early Christians got accused of cannibalism for the same misunderstanding by outsiders.

 

[ProVobis]

He guys I ran across a video of a typical anti-catholic rant where and one of his issues was the Eucharist saying that Catholics are idiots for believing the Eucharist is actual body and blood …

Lutherans and some other non-Catholic denominations also believe this but in a different way (generally). Where Catholics refer to it as Transubstantiation (substance changes), others refer to it as Consubstantiation (where bread and wine become the Body and Blood simultaneously). Does that make sense?

 

[Faith1960]

Gorgias put it well. We need to be careful how we phrase it because Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is more than just a spiritual presence. He is fully present, Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity. And yet, it is a sacramental presence, not a fleshy one.

The early Christians got accused of cannibalism for the same misunderstanding by outsiders.

Can you explain the difference between a sacramental presence and a fleshy one?

 

[Joe_5859]

Can you explain the difference between a sacramental presence and a fleshy one?

That is the concept that is difficult for us to get our mind around!

If the Eucharist were a fleshy presence, then the bread and wine would turn into physical flesh and blood. But (with the exception of Eucharistic miracles) that doesn’t happen). Instead, as St. Thomas Aquinas puts it, the substance changes while the accidents of bread and wine remain the same. So it still looks like bread an wine. If you did a chemical analysis, it would still behave exactly as bread and wine would. But it is no longer bread and wine but Jesus.

Does that help? It is a good question. I will have to spend more time thinking on how best to answer it.

 

[johnnykins]

He guys I ran across a video of a typical anti-catholic rant where and one of his issues was the Eucharist saying that Catholics are idiots for believing the Eucharist is actual body and blood and calling Catholics borderline cannibals if we actually believe that and eat it. However, when I thought of the Eucharist I have always believed that it is not literal flesh but the host is blessed and holds the spirit of Christ in it when we eat it. So it is more than just figurative but we aren’t eating actual flesh but the spirit of Jesus that comes into the host and in that way participating in the sacrifice. So essentially I have had the assumption that we eat the host holds the spirit of Christ when at communion and we eat the spirit of the body and blood of Christ. Am i correct in my thought?

so in short as Catholics do we believe it is actual flesh or the spirit of Christ that enters the bread and wine so that physically and chemically it is still bread and wine but blessed and makes it spiritually the body and blood.

Thanks

Is the ranter an idiot for believing there is One God in three persons? That’s a contradiction in terms.
Is he an idiot for believing that God become man?
Is he an idiot for believing God caused a virgin to conceive without human intervention?
Is he an idiot for believing in miraculous cures? Raisings from the dead? A resurrection? An ascension into heaven? A Holy Spirit coming down? All the other miracles?

In fact, from a purely scientific POV, Christianity is idiotic. These folks are willing to believe all sorts of miracles if they took place a couple thousand or more years ago…but, a miracle in our midst and we must be idiots!! The fact of the matter is we believe God is unknowable in His totality…that He has power beyond the natural…that He did become human…and that He did tell us to eat His Body and drink His Blood… Seems like we should do what He says…

It is Catholic Dogma that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine and become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. It still looks like bread and wine…but “it ain’t.”

It is not just that the Spirit enters the elements…the elements actually change in a mystical way…that is why we adore the consecrated gifts…they are the Body of Christ. That’s why Protestants get so upset over it. They can accept all miracles described in the Bible except the one happening today - transubstantiation - the substance change from material bread and wine to the substance of Christ in His totality.

 

[Faith1960]

I think you have the right idea… but maybe, the way that you’re expressing the idea, could use a bit of refinement.

The way that Catholics express the notion is known as ‘transubstantiation.’ This is an explanation that is based on a philosophical notion: the difference between what an entity is and how it appears. In general, there’s no problem here – if a thing has the appearance of a duck (in its walk and its quack), we presume it is a duck, and we’re generally correct. However, there’s still a distinction between what it actually is and what it’s appearance is. (This is easy enough to understand: who you actually are doesn’t change, but your appearance changes as you move from childhood through puberty, to adulthood and old age.)

Here’s what the Church says about the Eucharist: the appearance never changes, so we always have the physical characteristics of bread and wine. But, what it is – that is, in philosophical terms, its ‘substance’ – changes, from the substance of bread and wine to the substance of Christ (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity). So, Christ is truly present in the Eucharist – but His presence is sacramental in its mode, not physical (that is, we cannot discern any physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist).

It’s difficult to explain simply, but it has a certain reasonable logic. Christ is present – sacramentally – but in appearance, we still experience the physical characteristics of bread and wine.

Does that help?

Thanks

What do you mean by saying Hes present sacramentally?

 

[Gorgias]

What do you mean by saying Hes present sacramentally?

This document does a nice job of explaining the ‘modes of presence’ of Christ in the Liturgy.

In short, though, what I’m saying is that he’s there in substance not in his (human) accidents, and that he’s there in sacrament (visible sign of invisible reality) not in the mode in which we’re used to seeing created things (visible accidents that are naturally part of the invisible reality).

In other words, Christ’s body is in heaven (in a natural way) and on every altar where the Eucharist is celebrated (in a sacramental way).

 

[Vico]

He guys I ran across a video of a typical anti-catholic rant where and one of his issues was the Eucharist saying that Catholics are idiots for believing the Eucharist is actual body and blood and calling Catholics borderline cannibals if we actually believe that and eat it. However, when I thought of the Eucharist I have always believed that it is not literal flesh but the host is blessed and holds the spirit of Christ in it when we eat it. So it is more than just figurative but we aren’t eating actual flesh but the spirit of Jesus that comes into the host and in that way participating in the sacrifice. So essentially I have had the assumption that we eat the host holds the spirit of Christ when at communion and we eat the spirit of the body and blood of Christ. Am i correct in my thought?

so in short as Catholics do we believe it is actual flesh or the spirit of Christ that enters the bread and wine so that physically and chemically it is still bread and wine but blessed and makes it spiritually the body and blood.

Thanks

You said “we aren’t eating actual flesh” and blood, but actually we are. Transubstantiation means that what we receive actually is that, but appears to be bread and wine.

 

[Gorgias]

AmericanFighter:

as Catholics do we believe it is actual flesh or the spirit of Christ that enters the bread and wine so that physically and chemically it is still bread and wine but blessed and makes it spiritually the body and blood.

You said “we aren’t eating actual flesh” and blood, but actually we are. Transubstantiation means that what we receive actually is that, but appears to be bread and wine.

The issue here is terminology. AmericanFighter, it seems, is using the phrase “actual flesh” to mean “physically and chemically” flesh, and contrasting that to not “physically and chemically” but “spiritually body and blood.”

Telling him it actually is, without either you or he defining what you mean by ‘actually’, doesn’t really answer the question. Leaving the terms ‘actual’ and ‘spiritual’ out there undefined doesn’t get to the meat of AF’s question (so to speak).

We believe that it is the Real Presence of Christ, but that presence isn’t in the physically-perceptible characteristics of ‘flesh’ and ‘blood’. It is ‘actually’ the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, but it is the substance of Christ, present in a sacramental mode.

That means that it’s not just a ‘spiritual’ thing, but a real thing. We’re used to ‘real’ physical things to have the appearance of the thing that they are; but in this case, the ‘real’ presence of Christ in the Eucharist has the appearances of bread and wine.

Does that help, AmericanFighter?