Looking for a little feedback here - this is going to be my response to Matt Slick’s thread concerning six questions about the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. What do you think of my response? Where does it need tweaking?
Here it is (part 1):
Hi Matt,
I’d like to give it a shot and answer your questions thus posed concerning the Eucharist. Obviously, you won’t agree with the answers, but you asked for some, so here are a few. I have always found Blaise Pascal’s thoughts on it to be most helpful: “How I hate such foolishness as not believing in the Eucharist, etc. If the Gospel is true, if Jesus Christ is God, where is the difficulty?” (Pensees, XIII:168).
Of course, I don’t speak for the Church - any errors I may make are my own.
Anyways, here’s some answers for you.
Pax Deum!
Question: "Was Jesus eating his own body and blood when he partook of the ‘Lord’s Supper’?
Answer: Yes. St. Thomas Aquinas answers in the
Summa Theologica (III, 81, 1):
"On the contrary, Jerome says (
Ad Hedib., Ep. xxx), ‘The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself the guest and banquet, is both the partaker and what is eaten.’
I answer that, Some have said that Christ during the supper gave His body and blood to His disciples, but did not partake of it Himself. But this seems improbable. Because Christ Himself was the first to fulfill what He required others to observe: hence He willed first to be baptized when imposing Baptism upon others: as we read in Acts 1:1: “Jesus began to do and to teach.” Hence He first of all took His own body and blood, and afterwards gave it to be taken by the disciples. And hence the gloss upon Ruth 3:7, “When he had eaten and drunk, says: Christ ate and drank at the supper, when He gave to the disciples the sacrament of His body and blood. Hence, ‘because the children partook [Vulgate: ‘are partakers’ (Hebrews 2:14)] of His flesh and blood, He also hath been partaker in the same.’”
Question: “Was the Eucharist the sacrificed body and blood even though when Jesus instituted it, he hadn’t yet been crucified?”
Answer: Yes. St. Thomas Aquinas answers in the
Summa Theologica (III, 73, 5):
“This sacrament was instituted during the supper, so as in the future to be a memorial of our Lord’s Passion as accomplished. Hence He said expressively: “As often as ye shall do these things”, speaking of the future.”
Question: If the Eucharist is to be worshipped, why is it that such worship is not found in the New Testament?
Answer: This question makes the assumption that every doctrine and teaching must be explicitly found in Scripture. I believe Robert Sungenis already took you to task on this here:
youtube.com/watch?v=YvbTmQ0Gu5o.
Nonetheless, the Eucharist is to be worshipped because it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. This worship is implied by St. Paul: “For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:29). If it is truly the Body and Blood of the Lord, is it not to be worshipped? Again, St. Paul writes: The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" (1 Cor 10:16). If this is so, if Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, then worship is implied.
A similar question could be raised in the same vein as your own - if the Trinity is to be worshipped, why is it that the Trinity is not found explicitly in the New Testament? But the answer is that it is, albeit indirectly and implied, though the “Trinity” is never explicitly named once.
Question: "If the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ, then doesn’t that mean that Jesus himself (eating the supper) violated Levitcal law? ‘For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off,’ (Lev. 17:14).
Answer: This is a bit of a ridiculous stretch here - but it is interesting that Christ is following what is said here when He states, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world” (John 6:51). The blood is truly the life, in a sense.
I may be wrong here, but did Christ not fulfill the Jewish Law (Matt 5:17)? It’s interesting that those who hold to sola fide would bring up Levitical Law, but it’s a good question anyways.
I listened to most of his debate with Dr. Sugnusis (sp?) who really took no prisoners! Apparently all of us Catholics are going to hell, no exceptions. At least we say that others can go to heaven. Yikes.
I’m afraid not! I’m pretty sure it actually stands for anti-Catholic Apologetics and Research Ministry. The a is silent in [a]CARM.