 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Steve seeking understanding
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| First Name: | Steve | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Pentecostal, Baptist, Anglican |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25th, 2007 05:21 pm |
|
To all,
I'm just throwinf this question out. Perhaps it has been addressed somewhere else but I haven't found it. I’d like to ask a question in order to get some clarification.
Let me preface the question with the following: As someone who is currently Protestant but looking with much interest into the Catholic Church, I am quite comfortable (actually more comfortable) with an understanding of the Eucharist that embraces the Real Presence of Christ. In fact, this was one of the first Catholic beacons to catch my attention in the course of my travels across Protestant landscapes.
So, my question…
If Christ is really present in the Eucharist – in what sense is he present? For example, how exactly would Catholics explain that the Eucharist is not related to cannibalism? This of course, was an common accusation directed towards early Christians. When the bread and wine are transformed – in what sense do they become the body and blood of Christ? After looking at some suggested resources, I read that it is of course different than literally eating human flesh… but at the same time the resources are adamant that it is not mere metaphorical or symbolic eating of the body of Christ. The term that I see used is sacramental presence. What exactly does this mean? Do the elements become the divine and human body of Jesus Christ of Nazareth – which in my mind amounts to cannibalism? Do the elements become the resurrected or ‘spiritual body’ (that Paul talks about in 1 Cor. 15) of Christ? If so, in what sense is the Eucharist a participation in the suffering of Christ and in what sense participation in the risen Christ? Can it be both? [Equating the bread and the wine to the risen Christ was, I believe, one of Calvin’s concerns with transubstantiation. He believed that this understanding of the Eucharist was too literal and therefore would amount to the same thing as the parousia – the Second Coming. For Calvin – the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is too close to having a 2nd coming occur every Sabbath].
Or... Is the question of whether it is his pre-resurrected or post-resurrected body an unnecessary dichotomy. Perhaps the Eucharist ‘simply’ offers a union with the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ.
Do the elements become the body and the blood in the same sense that the second person of the Trinity became a human being? (Or was he always such – but this is a different question) Is it something like the Incarnation where the elements are still very much bread and wine but yet the full presence of the risen and crucified Son of God is also present there in the elements as well?
I know – so many questions. But if anyone could begin helping me with some of these questions I would be grateful.
Basic Question: What does it mean for Christ to be present in the Eucharist in a sacramental sense? How is this different from cannibalism?
Many thanks,
Steve
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1790 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 26th, 2007 01:32 am |
|
If Christ is really present in the Eucharist – in what sense is he present? For example, how exactly would Catholics explain that the Eucharist is not related to cannibalism? This of course, was an common accusation directed towards early Christians. When the bread and wine are transformed – in what sense do they become the body and blood of Christ? After looking at some suggested resources, I read that it is of course different than literally eating human flesh… but at the same time the resources are adamant that it is not mere metaphorical or symbolic eating of the body of Christ. The term that I see used is sacramental presence. What exactly does this mean?
It looks to me like you’ve researched this topic pretty well, Steve. Let me work through your list point by point.
Yes, cannibalism was a common accusation back in the early days of Christianity. I also find the question fairly common with inquirers. In other words, you aren’t alone in your quandary.
Yes, the official terminology for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is “sacramental presence.” A couple of months ago, in a similar context, I referred to it as a “spiritual presence,” as opposed to a “material presence,” and this raised some eyebrows. I was making a distinction that others apparently were not making, because I was not using “spiritual presence” in the sense of “symbolic presence.”
You continue:
Do the elements become the divine and human body of Jesus Christ of Nazareth – which in my mind amounts to cannibalism?
Since Jesus’ body is material, one could not refer to it as divine. The person of Jesus is divine, but his humanity, including his body, is strictly human. The two natures are not intermixed but distinct; this is a dogma affirmed by the Council of Chalcedon and dating in seed back to Nicea. In other words, Christ’s humanity is not divine, and his divinity is not human, but the two exist harmoniously in a single theandric being. Therefore, his physical body is human only.
However…
Do the elements become the resurrected or ‘spiritual body’ (that Paul talks about in 1 Cor. 15) of Christ? If so, in what sense is the Eucharist a participation in the suffering of Christ and in what sense participation in the risen Christ? Can it be both?
This hits the nail on the head. Yes, the Eucharist consists of the resurrected and glorified body of Christ, who is in heaven at the right hand of the Father. You see Paul’s words, “spiritual body”: this is why I spoke of a “spiritual presence,” even though we know it is his body. Because it is not his physical body any more; that body is dead. The resurrected body is a spiritual body, no longer material.
And with this rightly comes the question: how, then, can we relate this back to Christ suffering on the cross? Yes, it can be both, because it deals with the same person. That person suffered in time, but lives in eternity. The suffering was human suffering, the life in heaven is a human life, and it is all held together by divine power, because Christ is the Son of God.
For Calvin – the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is too close to having a 2nd coming occur every Sabbath.
It is Catholic doctrine that in a sacramental way this is exactly what happens. Compare Hebrews 12:18–24 with Revelation 5 and similar passages. The Mass is described by the Fathers of the Church as heaven on earth, a sort of time warp that allows us a glimpse into eternity, where God stoops down and whispers to us the secrets of heaven. Recommended reading: The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth, by Scott Hahn.
So can the Mass be a participation in both the cross and the glory of Christ? Yes. Jesus made this point when he said, “Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is glorified” (John 13:31). He said this at the beginning of his passion, not afterward. Again, we can see in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 that the passion and the glory both transcend the change of state: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” They transcend time and categories because in the process the many are made one in charity, which is the hallmark of heaven.
Do the elements become the body and the blood in the same sense that the second person of the Trinity became a human being?
Yes. The Eucharist is considered an extension of the Incarnation. It is different that the flesh and blood Jesus bore as man, but it remains his body and blood in a sacramental sense. If it is not he, it is nothing, and we are left with no real communion.
Is it something like the Incarnation where the elements are still very much bread and wine but yet the full presence of the risen and crucified Son of God is also present there in the elements as well?
No. This is the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, wherein the Body and Blood of Christ are present together with the substances of bread and wine. The Catholic doctrine is of transubstantiation, wherein the substances of bread and wine are no longer present, but only their appearances; the substances is Christ.
Let us examine this further from the point of view of the hypostatic union — the means whereby the Son of God is joined to a human nature. There is one person, the divine Person of God the Son. But this one Person has now two natures, one divine and the other human. There are then two intellects (one human and one divine) and two wills (human and divine), and a soul as well as the Spirit of God — and also there is a body, which is human. All this is bound into a single being we call Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
In the same manner, we have the commingling of the divine and the human in the Eucharist: one Person, a soul and the Spirit, and the body and blood. The physical appearances are of bread and wine; this gives it substance and allows us to “take and eat.” But what we eat is Christ, in his “spiritual body,” his divinity as well as his humanity.
The Fathers of the Church had a saying, “What is not assumed is not redeemed.” Christ had to be human in order to offer his sacrifice for human beings. He had to be divine in order to make that sacrifice “work.” He had to become available to us in some way to provide the link to each individual. The Eucharist fulfills all these requirements and brings us to intimate union with God.
David
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 770 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 26th, 2007 11:22 am |
|
Hi David,
FYI, I copied you out for a reference. I never know what might come up for Q&A in RCIA meetings. Thanks. 
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
Steve seeking understanding
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| First Name: | Steve | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Pentecostal, Baptist, Anglican |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22nd, 2007 12:30 pm |
|
Thank you for your reply David.
Your response was helpful but I am still left with a variety of quesitons. How is it that sacramental presence excludes the possibility that this is still bread and wine? With Christ we have divine presence and full human presence. One of the great 'scandals' and of the Incarnation is in its realisation of what the Gnostics could not think possible. Divinity and humanity together in one person. To me - this is one of the most glorious aspects of Christian faith - that God, while completely sovereign, does not destroy or completely stand over against his creation but desires to bring it to its fulness. "Grace does not destroy nature but perfects it." Is this not what happens in the sacrament of marriage? Christ is sacramentally present, yet we do not cease being man and wife. Why is it different when we speak of the Eucharist? Why in this case must the bread and wine cease being bread and wine? To be honest - it sounds a little bit Gnostic to me.
This is an odd point for me to make since one of the main reasons I began to look towards the Catholic church was due to the many Gnostic overtones I felt are prevailing in Protestant thought and practice. But I still do not feel at peace with this aspect of transubstantiation. I have no qualms with miracles at all. I guess my concerns are more theological than practical. It is not a matter of 'can God do this' - of course he can. It just doesn't seem to fit the bigger picture - when understood this way, it seems that the Eucharist stands disconnected from the Incarnation rather than intimately connected to it.
And second. It seems to me that you affirm the idea that it is the 'spiritual body' of the risen Christ. So, during Mass you are feasting on the spiritual body of the risen Christ? Is that correct? I shtat sacramental presence? This would be different from Calvin's doctrine of the Eucharist, since for Calvin what you have is real spiritual presence but not the presence of Christ's spiritual body. With Calvin it would seem that you have real Spritual presence accompanying the bread and the wine.
I am sorry if I appear to be rambling but these are some of the thoughts that have crossed my mind since reading your response.
Peace,
Steven
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 272 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22nd, 2007 03:38 pm |
|
Hi Steve, I just ran across your question and thought I would add to David's wonderfully detailed answer.
Cannibalism is defined as eating dead flesh. Catholics are eating LIVING flesh. We really do consume the living flesh and blood of Jesus.
Eucharistic miracles have occurred where what proved to be heart flesh took the place of a consecrated host, or human blood where there was consecrated wine. You may want to get a hold of a book on Eucharistic miracles – “Eucharistic Miracles” by Joan Carroll Cruz is one.
The details of transubstantiation can be confusing as any mystery is if we delve into them beyond our capacity to understand. Perhaps if you read more about the miraculous side, it will help a lot.
Hey your experiences with this difficulty aren’t unusual. Jesus' followers deserted Him, saying "this is a hard saying", after He told them "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." [John 53]. Jesus meant what He said about real flesh and blood. The hearers understood what He meant and were so shocked, that many left him at the time. To Jesus' question, "...are you leaving too?” Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." [John 68]
I don't know the details of how this Living Presence looks like bread and wine still, presenting all the same characteristics while still really is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus but it is the only occurrence described as "Transubstantiation." This exclusive situation makes it hard to draw analogies.
God Bless you! Tina
Last edited on Tue May 22nd, 2007 03:39 pm by Tina in Ashburn
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1790 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22nd, 2007 08:49 pm |
|
OK, Steve, let me see if I have your points correctly.
Your first concern is that it seems inconsistent that Christ’s human incarnation should contain both body and soul as well as divinity, but his Eucharistic incarnation should be wholly spiritual, lacking a material dimension.
Yet the Eucharist is “material” enough to be in a specifiable place, to be held and eaten. It exhibits all the properties of matter, even if we speak of mere “appearances.” I think this problem can be laid at the feet of the poverty of human concepts and language in expressing the reality of the Eucharist.
The theology behind the word “transubstantiation” is based on classical Greek philosophy, most notably that of Aristotle. It must be understood in that context. We need, therefore, to understand its concepts of “substance” and “accident” and take into account that while “transubstantiation” is the official terminology of the Church, this does not guarantee that it is entirely accurate or sufficiently clear in describing what takes place at the consecration of the elements of the Eucharist. It’s simply the best our theologians have been able to come up with in the 2,000 years they have been working on it.
Frankly, Steve, even today we do not know what “matter” is. We can describe its properties, but we cannot say what it is in itself. Currently there are numerous scientific theories that suppose a number of different scenarios and concepts; this suggests that matter is going to be undefinable for a long time to come.
And if this is so, how do we dare approach a comprehensive “definition” of the Eucharist? The bottom line seems to be that, in spite of centuries of pondering the mystery, the Catholic Church is no closer to telling us what the Eucharist is than science is to telling us what matter is. The Eucharist is, after all, a mystery.
Your second question is whether the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is different from that proposed by John Calvin, given that I am using the idea of a “spiritual body” in my presentation.
The official description of the presence of the risen and glorified Christ in the Eucharist is that it is a “sacramental presence.” This tells nothing about its properties. My suggestion that we look to St. Paul’s description of the risen and glorified human body as a “spiritual body” does little more. It appears that Paul simply used this oxymoron for lack of a better term. He was attempting to express the inexpressible. But it is scriptural and therefore authoritative.
As to Calvin’s theory: according to what I have read, he appears to have believed that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is symbolic, not real, and that the bread and wine remain simply bread and wine.
My own history includes a Methodist upbringing. The Methodists I was associated with followed Zwingli’s idea that the Eucharistic presence of Christ has nothing at all to do with the Eucharistic elements, but resides in the assembled congregation. Is this what Jesus meant when he told the assembled apostles, “This is my body… This is my blood”? What was his “this”?
Neither of these approaches provides any sacramentality to the Eucharist, but turns all into a will-of-the-wisp “spiritual” presence of Christ in somewhat the same way that Protestantism in general transforms the idea of “church” into an invisible “spiritual” entity that ultimately has no meaning or use outside of polemics against the Catholic Church. But then that is why you are here, looking at the Catholic perspective, isn’t it?
Now I want to focus on a point of my own. You speak of “feasting on the spiritual body of the risen Christ.” This leaves out of the picture his soul, divinity and person. Let us remember that the Eucharist is Christ, a personal entity, God incarnate, not just “elements.” As Tina says, we are not dealing with dead body parts in the Eucharist.
And I think this statement is the key to all the rest: we are told by Jesus himself that we must have faith that what he says is true , and that the Eucharist is he himself.
Notice, for example, how he answers the crowd in John 6:29, only to have them miss his point entirely in v. 30, so he explains further in vv.35–36, and they continue to be scandalized in vv. 41–42. In the end, Jesus has no alternative but to pronounce the sentence in vv. 61–64: “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.”
Contrary to Protestant belief, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” does not mean that he is now contradicting his previous statement, “The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” In context, it means that the crowd is still trying to understand him on the natural level, as if he were speaking of gross cannibalism, where he is speaking to them on the supernatural level. St. Paul often uses “spirit” and “flesh” in the same way (e.g., Romans 8:1–17; Galatians 5:16–25; 1 Corinthians 3:1–3).
Attempting to overanalyze will produce no real “definition” because God is not susceptible to definition. Ultimately, what we must look to are Christ’s words at the last supper: “This is my body; this is my blood.” What is this? We do not know. We can say what he said and describe some of its properties, but in the end all we can do is believe and adore.
David
|
|
|
pamflute
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Tampa, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 24 |
| First Name: | Pam | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist to Presbyterian to United Methodist to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26th, 2007 08:46 am |
|
David:
Your thoughts are similiar to mine. I probably feel closer to the Orthodox definition of the Eucharist than the Catholic one in this regard. I think that too much explaining of what it is clearly a mystery can cloud the issue - we are in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and that is a mystery to be enjoyed to the utmost extent! As a new Catholic, I still get excited by this mystery and hope it never goes away! I hope I will always find it incomprehensible, and wonderful. As John Chrystostom says "You see Him, you touch Him, you taste Him!" I couldn't have said it better myself!
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1790 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26th, 2007 10:11 am |
|
Hi, Pam. Hey, you need to update your profile info.
My point in offering two very divergent points of view in this thread is to point to a “middle way” between the extremes of overanalyzing and mystifying. We can know certain things about the Eucharist because they are revealed. On the other hand, prying into every nook and cranny of a revealed truth is not really a good idea because we can so easily wander off the path and end up denying what we need to believe. I also think that experience is the best teacher of mysteries.
David
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27th, 2007 03:23 pm |
|
To all,
I'm just throwinf this question out. Perhaps it has been addressed somewhere else but I haven't found it. I’d like to ask a question in order to get some clarification.
I'll certainly give it a shot. Sometimes I find that answering these questions helps me clarify it in my own mind.
Let me preface the question with the following: As someone who is currently Protestant but looking with much interest into the Catholic Church, I am quite comfortable (actually more comfortable) with an understanding of the Eucharist that embraces the Real Presence of Christ. In fact, this was one of the first Catholic beacons to catch my attention in the course of my travels across Protestant landscapes.
I've found that most Protestants believe in a "Real" presence. They just don't mean a "Real" and "Material" presence. Jesus is Truly present in the Holy Eucharist in a material although Sacramental manner.
So, my question…
If Christ is really present in the Eucharist – in what sense is he present?
Jesus is Truly present in the Holy Eucharist in a material although Sacramental manner.
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203
For example, how exactly would Catholics explain that the Eucharist is not related to cannibalism?
John 6
35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.
The Eucharist is Jesus Flesh and Blood under the guise of bread and wine.
John 6
56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
We separate the flesh from the blood to symbolize the type of death He endured. But the flesh and blood are united when the Priest dips the bread into the wine to symbolize that which truly occurs, the resurrection of the Lord.
John 6
64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.
In other words, although His material Flesh and Blood are important, the most important is the Life of the Spirit which is conveyed by this Sacrament:
John 6
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
I don't know what good that would do to rebut an accusation of cannibalism, but that will dazzle them a while at least.
This of course, was an common accusation directed towards early Christians.
Did any early Christians ever contradict this accusation? Sounds like an accurate description of what we are doing to me.
Psalms 33
9 O taste, and see that the Lord is sweet: blessed is the man that hopeth in him.
John 6
33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world.
When the bread and wine are transformed – in what sense do they become the body and blood of Christ?
Answered above, I think. Material and Sacramental. Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under the guise of bread and wine.
After looking at some suggested resources, I read that it is of course different than literally eating human flesh… but at the same time the resources are adamant that it is not mere metaphorical or symbolic eating of the body of Christ. The term that I see used is sacramental presence. What exactly does this mean?
Sacrament- to make holy, to make sacred, a sacred mystery in Eastern Rite and Orthodox worship
Do the elements become the divine and human body of Jesus Christ of Nazareth – which in my mind amounts to cannibalism?
Yes.
Do the elements become the resurrected or ‘spiritual body’ (that Paul talks about in 1 Cor. 15) of Christ?
The entire Mystery of Christ is made present in the Sacrifice of the Mass (see above #1374), but I believe the Eucharist Itself is the Crucified Body of Christ as the Catechism also says:
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190
If so, in what sense is the Eucharist a participation in the suffering of Christ
The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Union (# 1391). We participate in His birth, life, suffering, death and resurrection during the Mass.
and in what sense participation in the risen Christ?
1391....Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me."
We receive life by participation in His death.
1 Corinthians 11
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
Can it be both?
Yes.
[Equating the bread and the wine to the risen Christ was, I believe, one of Calvin’s concerns with transubstantiation. He believed that this understanding of the Eucharist was too literal and therefore would amount to the same thing as the parousia – the Second Coming. For Calvin – the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is too close to having a 2nd coming occur every Sabbath].
He was absolutely correct. That is exactly how we understand it.
1200 From the first community of Jerusalem until the parousia, it is the same Paschal mystery that the Churches of God, faithful to the apostolic faith, celebrate in every place. The mystery celebrated in the liturgy is one, but the forms of its celebration are diverse.
Every Eucharist is Parousia, the Lord's coming, and yet the Eucharist is even more truly the tensed yearning that he would reveal his hidden Glory.
Ratzinger
Or... Is the question of whether it is his pre-resurrected or post-resurrected body an unnecessary dichotomy. Perhaps the Eucharist ‘simply’ offers a union with the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ.
How about just union with the Lord?
Do the elements become the body and the blood in the same sense that the second person of the Trinity became a human being?
Yes.
(Or was he always such – but this is a different question) Is it something like the Incarnation where the elements are still very much bread and wine but yet the full presence of the risen and crucified Son of God is also present there in the elements as well?
Nope. Only the appearance of bread and wine remain.
I know – so many questions. But if anyone could begin helping me with some of these questions I would be grateful.
Basic Question: What does it mean for Christ to be present in the Eucharist in a sacramental sense? How is this different from cannibalism?
I hope that helps.
P.S.
You also asked:
Your response was helpful but I am still left with a variety of quesitons. How is it that sacramental presence excludes the possibility that this is still bread and wine? With Christ we have divine presence and full human presence. One of the great 'scandals' and of the Incarnation is in its realisation of what the Gnostics could not think possible. Divinity and humanity together in one person. To me - this is one of the most glorious aspects of Christian faith - that God, while completely sovereign, does not destroy or completely stand over against his creation but desires to bring it to its fulness. "Grace does not destroy nature but perfects it." Is this not what happens in the sacrament of marriage? Christ is sacramentally present, yet we do not cease being man and wife. Why is it different when we speak of the Eucharist? Why in this case must the bread and wine cease being bread and wine? To be honest - it sounds a little bit Gnostic to me
The Divine does not replace the material in this mystery. It is more akin to the miracle of Canna where Jesus turns water into wine. One material is turned into another.
In this case, bread and wine become flesh and blood. The Spiritual (Soul and Divinity) elements come with Jesus' flesh and blood.
The Gnostics would still disagree with this mystery because flesh and blood is still united to Soul and Divinity.
Any help?
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Current time is 05:24 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
