The Body of Christ

On this Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ, it’s good to remember the words of Saint Thomas Aquinas:

This is the humble attitude with which we should both enter the church building (because the Blessed Sacrament is reserved there) and approach the Blessed Sacrament at Holy Communion.

The reason for our humility is that the glorified and risen Lord is present here in the Bread of Angels. The Eucharist is not a manmade symbol for an absent reality, a mere reminder of times past.

Rather, as Saint Thomas prayed in his Prayer after Communion: “I thank You, Lord, Almighty Father, Everlasting God, for having been pleased, through no merit of mine, but of Your great mercy alone, to feed me, a sinner, and Your unworthy servant, with the precious Body and Blood of Your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.” The Blessed Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Son of God. It is the only thing worthy of the worship that is given to God alone for that very reason.

How different would the attitude be in our churches if Christ’s Real Presence were taken seriously? Rather than trying to make our churches like movie houses or secular meeting spaces or – worse – copying other religions, perhaps we could make them houses of the Blessed Sacrament, oases of the guaranteed presence of Christ in a secular world.

The celebration of the Eucharist is not a closed, feel-good moment, private to our parish or even to our family. Eucharistic Prayer I says very clearly: “by the hands of your holy angel this offering may be born to your altar in heaven in the sight of your divine majesty so as we receive communion at this altar. . .we may be filled with every grace and blessing.” We join the liturgy of Heaven that showers its grace upon earth.

We need to be personally close to Christ for our spiritual survival, but this is not at all an individualistic concept. As John Paul II exhorted us: “The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in this sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet him in adoration, in contemplation full of faith and open to make amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world.”

So alongside our reaching for an ever deeper appreciation and awe for the Body and Blood of Christ – which is already countercultural in our confused time – we have to learn something about the effects of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.

One of them is that “our unity is the fruit of Calvary, and results from the Mass’s application to us of the fruits of the Passion, with a view to our final redemption.”(Henri de Lubac) So being Christian depends on our actually being open to the mystery at the heart of our redemption, the life, death and resurrection of Christ. In fact, our whole approach to the Body and Blood of Christ will be a good indicator of whether we even grasp the central mystery of our faith in love.

Relearning our faith so that it is not individualized (the Protestant position), but rather something that, as Christ’s own Church, joins us more deeply to Christ and each other is predicated on our approaching the Blessed Sacrament as Thomas Aquinas did. The individualism that we have been schooled in for years – and that comes to us in TV shows, in the speeches of politicians, in how we conceive of school and work – will take serious effort to overcome.

It represents a grave distortion of the social way of life for which we were created. Vatican II taught the simple truth that: “God, Who has fatherly concern for everyone, has willed that all men should constitute one family and treat one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

We cannot expect to steep ourselves in the individualism of the culture and then regard our subsequent attitudes as Catholic. These are two irreconcilable realities. And to think otherwise is to imagine that there is no particular truth in Catholicism.

To deny the Church as the Body of Christ is to deny who Jesus Christ is, the one who is God incarnate and present among us in a special way, as we celebrate today.

Becareful not to misunderstand Augustine here. When Augustine says ‘Catholic,” it is no different than saying the universal body of Christ. In the 4th century, there wasn’t even a Roman Catholic Church at all. You had individual churches spread across the world, with no “Papal” figure claiming sovereign authority. This actually wouldn’t properly happen until after “Pope” Gregory the First. Thus, when you read the word “Catholic” and read “Roman Catholic,” you’re making the same mistake the Papists do in reading into ancient texts your own meaning, rather than trying to draw meaning from the text itself. (Augustine interprets Augustine).

As for the footstool thing. It is goofy, but the end result is that he saw the “footstool” as a prediction of Jesus Christ:

“And the Scripture tells me, “the earth is My footstool.”... For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary.”

This is essentially a complicated way of taking the word “footstool,” linking it to the Earth being defined as the footstool, taking the humanity of Christ which is made of the dust of the Earth, and therefore it is Christ who is worshipped.

You do him an injustice to read him uncarefully, no matter how goofy this particular reading is of Psalm 99.

You wrote:

“Augustine doesn’t believe you and neither do I...”

Augustine does believe just as I do.

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Exp. of the Psalms 33:1:10)

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Ser. 227)

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (Ser. 272)

“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16, 30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body.” (Ser. 232)

Here are more quotes (some may be repeats):

“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)

“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)

“How this [’And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)

“Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED.” (Letters 98:9)

“Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him.” (City of God 10:20)

“By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof.” (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)

“Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church.” (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)

“But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death.” (Sermons 172:2)

“...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” (Psalms 98:9)

“Augustine does believe just as I do.”

All Christians believe it. After all, this way of speaking is completely biblical. Christ instituted Himself, though obviously Christ did not believe He was really drinking and eating His own body. You’re just assuming that all Christians mean what you mean when they say it. Here’s your quote from Sermon 227, for example, in context. From Augustine’s perspective, it is not just Christ on the altar, but all Christians:

“That bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be. In this loaf of bread you are given clearly to understand how much you should love unity.” (Augustine, Serm. 227)

Notice how the little snippets from your website leave out all this context. Augustine then makes it clear that this is only symbolic. The body of Christ and His church are not actually consumed. Here’s more support, from sermon 227 which you quoted:

“What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don’t see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end.” (Augustine, Ser. 227)

This has already been dealt with before, in much greater detail, in one of my previous posts. Please address it before making further assertions of this kind.

1 Cor 11:27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

The verses above forever mean that any pat answers about the bread and the cup are out of line.

First, it isn't "just" bread and wine. There is something very powerful going on in communion, and anyone not recognizing that are not being honest with the scripture.

Second, Just as when Jesus said whoever comes to me will never hunger...It was spiritual... makes me worry. I want to affirm that "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and in Truth."

Spiritual does NOT mean symbolic, allegorical, double entendre, or any convention of language that results in a conclusion that "it isn't real".

If spirit is poetic license for "not real", then one is arguing that God is not real, for the bible clearly says "God is Spirit."

Iscool, perhaps Alamo-girl will bless us with her explanation how Eden was actually a heavenly, spiritual place.

“No, Christ knew exactly what He was saying and passed it onto the Apostles in exactly that way. It was His flesh and blood. That’s exactly what Christ said.”

No, Christ said that the work of God is to believe on Him. He also said that the cup filled with the “fruit of the vine,” which He said was blood, is “this fruit of the vine” that He will drink again when He is reunited with the Apostles in His Father’s Kingdom:

Mat 26:27-29 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (29) But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

I’m going to have to take Christ’s word that He was really holding “fruit of the vine” in His hand after He supposedly transformed it into blood.

Augustine concurs that we ought to take it spiritually: “Why dost thou ready thine teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.”

This is simply the most natural reading of Christ’s discourse.

"1 Cor 11:27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep." ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1Co 11:25-26 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. (26) For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. After the consecration, the bread is still bread, and the wine is still wine. "If ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till He come." By "shew," He means the ancient practice of celebrating the Lord's Supper "in remembrance" of Christ's death. The latter verses make it clear that the celebration is a sacred one, and should not be treated the way the Corinthians did as any old supper: 1Co 11:19-22 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (20) When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. (21) For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. (22) What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. The word you translated as "recognizing" is actually "mē diakrinōn," which is "discern" or "discriminate." IOW, to tell the difference between the Lord's Supper and any ordinary supper, which was their abuse of what Christ established.

Repost, the greek lettering made the other one messed up:

“1 Cor 11:27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.” -————————————————————————————————

1Co 11:25-26 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. (26) For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

After the consecration, the bread is still bread, and the wine is still wine, as Paul makes clear. “If ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till He come.” By “shew,” He means the ancient practice of celebrating the Lord’s Supper “in remembrance” of Christ’s death.

The latter verses make it clear that the celebration is a sacred one, and should not be treated the way the Corinthians did as any old supper:

1Co 11:19-22 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (20) When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. (21) For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. (22) What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

The word you translated as “recognizing” is actually a Greek word more properly understood as “discern” or “discriminate.” IOW, to tell the difference between the Lord’s Supper and any ordinary supper, which was their abuse of what Christ established.

STOP speculating and read what Christ actually said!:

Joh 6:26-29 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. (27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. (28) Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? (29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Presumably, when Christ says “labour... for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life,” it refers literally to the Eucharist. But then the Jews ask him “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” in response to this statement; instead of answering “Get a Priest to feed you bits of my body!”, Christ replies “believe on him whom he hath sent.” Thus, to believe is to eat His body and blood, just as faith joins you to His body. Not literally, but spiritually.

Augustine favors this view, commenting on the same lines of scripture:

“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.” (Augustine, Tractate 25)

In response to the Jews walking away, since they took him literally (the Roman Catholic view), Christ replies, as if to explain:

Joh 6:61-63 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? (62) What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? (63) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Christ declares that His body is returning to “where He was before.” This He does to draw them from the carnal sense and to think spiritually. He continues, “the spirit... quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.” Christ points them back to the faith He commanded previously in verse 29, and does not encourage them to take a bite out of Him right then and there. If the “flesh” profiteth nothing for meat and drink, and if the flesh that did profit was crucified on the cross, resurrected, and then taken up to heaven and glorified, how does it follow that eating Christ’s flesh and blood literally actually does profit? Therefore, the “profit” is in the clear command Christ gave to believe. “Why dost thou prepare thine teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.”

I’ll also add that Christ also offers to the Samaritan woman “living water,” by which a person should drink and have everlasting life. Yet, the RCC does not offer a sacrament of living water for people to drink.

Joh 4:10-14 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. (11) The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? (12) Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? (13) Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: (14) But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Christ speaks of drinking this living water, yet did not actually give her literal water nor ever prescribed it. What He commanded was faith and spiritual worship, which you see later in His discourse with the woman. Augustine makes the same observation, connecting John 6 with John 4.

“You expected, I believe, again to eat bread, again to sit down, again to be gorged. But He had said, Not the meat which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life, in the same manner as it was said to that Samaritan woman: If you knew who it is that asks of you drink, you would perhaps have asked of Him, and He would give you living water. When she said, Whence have you, since you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep? He answered the Samaritan woman: If you knew who it is that asks of you drink, you would have asked of Him, and He would give you water, whereof whoso drinks shall thirst no more; for whoso drinks of this water shall thirst again. And she was glad and would receive, as if no more to suffer thirst of body, being wearied with the labor of drawing water. And so, during a conversation of this kind, He comes to spiritual drink. Entirely in this manner also here.” (Augustine, Tractate 25)

Therefore, your position exists by taking a few words of scripture out of context, but ignoring the entire chapter and almost the entire book of John, which everywhere points the believer to faith for gaining eternal life, and not physically eating or drinking flesh, blood or water to have eternal life. Christ Himself explains to His apostles the true meaning of His discourse, of which the RCC utterly ignores.

I see you are a one-, maybe, two-note violinist?

For the third (yes, third) time you have pointed out that there are many unsavory spin-off progeny to the Reformation. For the third (yes, third) time, I agreeing with you.

However, that is not the trump card you think it is. There are still Orthodox Protestants in abundance, and you seem to determined to ignore them. You know, . . . People like John Sproule, John MacArthur, JR, etc., . . . . Scholars who equal the cream of the Roman Catholic Church for erudition and prolific teaching and writing.

I simply do not agree that the Roman Catholic Church did not “authorize” the Books of the New Testament canon. Rather, it recognized the books that had been widely accepted throughout the Christian Church for over a century. That “loose assortment of believers” to which you snidely refer, are, in fact, the Body of Christ on earth.

We will similiarly have to disagree on the issue of tradition. I do not wholesale deny or reject all traditions that have come down to us. However, I filter them through the lens of Scripture on the one hand, and I never regard them as salvific (Sola Scriptura; Solo Christo), on the other.

Moving on, if you are trying to imply that only Roman Catholics (vice Protestants) care for the widow, the orphan, the prisoner, etc, then that assertion is so ludicrous as to be risible. If you are earnestly making that assertion, you lose all credibility at this point. If you are not making that point, then why did you raise it in the midst of this online exchange? (I thought you were better than that.)

Finally, while, by all means, I give St. Euodias high marks, he and I will have to agree to disagree on the nature of the Eucharist. (I can work that out with him in Heaven, I believe.) Hint: What he wrote is not Scripture.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.