The Eucharist: The Body of Christ? ("Respectful Dialogue" thread)

The Catholic Church teaches that in the Eucharist, the communion wafer and the altar wine are transformed and really become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Have you ever met anyone who has found this Catholic doctrine to be a bit hard to take?

If so, you shouldn't be surprised. When Jesus spoke about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6, his words met with less than an enthusiastic reception. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (V 52). "This is a hard saying who can listen to it?" (V60). In fact so many of his disciples abandoned him over this that Jesus had to ask the twelve if they also planned to quit. It is interesting that Jesus did not run after his disciples saying, "Don't go — I was just speaking metaphorically!"

How did the early Church interpret these challenging words of Jesus? Interesting fact. One charge the pagan Romans lodged against the Christians was cannibalism. Why? You guessed it. They heard that this sect regularly met to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Did the early Christians say: "wait a minute, it's only a symbol!"? Not at all. When trying to explain the Eucharist to the Roman Emperor around 155AD, St. Justin did not mince his words: "For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him . . . is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

Not many Christians questioned the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist till the Middle Ages. In trying to explain how bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, several theologians went astray and needed to be corrected by Church authority. Then St. Thomas Aquinas came along and offered an explanation that became classic. In all change that we observe in this life, he teaches, appearances change, but deep down, the essence of a thing stays the same. Example: if, in a fit of mid-life crisis, I traded my mini-van for a Ferrari, abandoned my wife and 5 kids to be beach bum, got tanned, bleached my hair blonde, spiked it, buffed up at the gym, and took a trip to the plastic surgeon, I'd look a lot different on the surface. But for all my trouble, deep down I'd still substantially be the same ole guy as when I started.

St. Thomas said the Eucharist is the one instance of change we encounter in this world that is exactly the opposite. The appearances of bread and wine stay the same, but the very essence or substance of these realities, which can't be viewed by a microscope, is totally transformed. What was once bread and wine are now Christ's body and blood. A handy word was coined to describe this unique change. Transformation of the "sub-stance", what "stands-under" the surface, came to be called "transubstantiation."

What makes this happen? The power of God's Spirit and Word. After praying for the Spirit to come (epiklesis), the priest, who stands in the place of Christ, repeats the words of the God-man: "This is my Body, This is my Blood." Sounds to me like Genesis 1: the mighty wind (read "Spirit") whips over the surface of the water and God's Word resounds. "Let there be light" and there was light. It is no harder to believe in the Eucharist than to believe in Creation.

But why did Jesus arrange for this transformation of bread and wine? Because he intended another kind of transformation. The bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ which are, in turn, meant to transform us. Ever hear the phrase: "you are what you eat?" The Lord desires us to be transformed from a motley crew of imperfect individuals into the Body of Christ, come to full stature.

Our evangelical brethren speak often of an intimate, personal relationship with Jesus. But I ask you, how much more personal and intimate can you get? We receive the Lord's body into our physical body that we may become Him whom we receive!

Such an awesome gift deserves its own feast. And that's why, back in the days of Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis of Assisi, the Pope decided to institute the Feast of Corpus Christi.

The church was either built on Jesus or Peter. Take your pick.

Of course it was "built" on Jesus. I don't think you'll find a thoughtful edumicated Calflick who will disagree.

It's about metaphorical and analogical language, I think. I will need help imagining that the "original" behind what we get in the Synoptics is NOT, "You are Cephas and on this Cephas ..." ( an analogy in which IHS is not part of the structure but its builder.)

And besides while we distinguish between Petra and Petros, John seems ot have no difficulty saying Cephas means Petros.

While in terms of either analogy Paul would be a rock built into the Church, still he speaks of us and of himself as contributing to the building. If we try to apply the same analogous schema across every instance where the Church as building is mentioned, we are stuck with rocks which are also housing contractors.

So the kind of foundation which Peter supplies is different, because the metaphorical schema is different, from that which our Lord is, He being, after all, both foundation, corner stone, head of the corner, and head, which makes no sense unless we admit that there are different irreconcilable analogies in play.

It's late and I'm tired. So I'm not going to be super rigorous. I hope that's okay. Maybe my slovenliness will provide good ground for questions, as garbage, rightly applied, makes gardens grow.

You are asking questions which give me great delight. That's entirely subjective, I suppose, but I'm grateful and when I wake up at around 2:00 because Clint the super cat is chewing on my toes, I will think of your posts.

My first "essay" in the sense of "attempt": From our POV we have the "I am the bread" discourse, and we have the Synoptic Institution narratives and Paul's narrative (I delivered to you ...) and his remarks.

Leaving aside the question of covenantal blood and communion in two kinds (and I think no one on our side would deny that communion in both kinds is the ideal enactment of the sacrament) we have a lot of lingo about sarx and soma. But we should not ignore the sweeping and comprehensive character of "I am the bread ..."

So we have two tings going on here. First we have what might be thought of as the "fleshly scandal". Sarx and soma are very clunky things. Flesh is, well corpulent or smooth or rough, something most of us desired to touch and to have touch us when hormones were the principle source of authority in out lives. Somata -- well, you must understand that I drive by through the UVA grounds to get to the church where I pray the Rosary and participate in the Mass. So, especially now that Spring is here, Soma and all its glory - as minifested by the excessively nubile gal students and the manifestly hormone-rich guy students - impresses itself on me with all its highly unspiritual (not to say anti-Spiritual) power. I mean, can I get a "hubba-hubba" here? The male menopausal hot flash is a terrible thing, "depend upon it, sir".

And our Lord chooses these notoriously (the world over, I would bet) concepts, flesh and body, for what he is talking about in the places I mentioned.

So, in support of our giving extra "intensity" or something to the kind of "presence" in the Sacrament, I would just say that Jesus uses the most scandalous and troublesome words in the discourses that are clearly (the Synoptics) or possibly (I am the bread) related to the Eucharist.

For the faithful, the concept of "Spirit" and Spiritual" is especially thrilling - just as the wind before a thunderstorm is thrilling. But if we examine the thrill, isn;t it the case that part of it is that the usually so subtle as to be easily ignored air suddenly becomes an invisible power? (We just had devastating tornadoes down the road in Richmond. Pray for those people, please.) My wife and I took our two Great Pyrenees for a walk during the height of a hurricane, and it was stupid, dangerous, and ... WONDERFUL!

But usually and to most people "Spiritual" means something unreal, just as we don't think about the air, unless it's making trouble. When the Gentiles say, "We're with you in Spirit," what they really mean is, "We're not with you at all, but we may think of you if we get bored with whatever we're doing."

So, in terms of the argument, all tis is to say the real deal is not in the verb eimi. It is rather in the rest of the sentence. The "I" of "I am the bread ..." is the same as that of the "there am I in the midst". The eimi (or estin) is, I daresay, I ain't lookin' now) the same.

But the whole overall thing is more urgently awkward and bulky and in the way when soma and sarx are added to the Eimi.

Despite the continuing and deplorable animosity here, we all know and have felt Our Lord's presence when we gather for either formal or informal prayer. When I "read my office" I am "together" with Catholics all over the world, even though I am alone with the cats. And so I am confident, whatever my feelings and experience, that IHS is with me -- and with every Xtian of whatever persuasion who is reading his Bible or saying her prayers and listening for the footfall of the Word.

But in the sacrament, as we pray and as I receive it OR as I "visit" it, there is a concreteness, a "klunkiness", a fullness such as one might expect from the real live "in the flesh" presence of somebody in the room.

In terms of a kind of head-game intellectual problem, I say again that the flesh and body Jesus "currently" has are "Resurrected" flesh and body. And Paul says "it is raised a spiritual body", which as far as I'm concerned is about as illuminating as saying "dry water" or "glowing black". All I know to do in the face of such language is to say, "Yes sir; whatever, sir," and trust that one day God will give me such understanding as is right for me. But I mention this here to take the raw carnality out of what we profess. It is, we think and say, 'Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity," but it is a spiritual Body and Blood.

Then. of course, there are the Eucharistic miracles. It is of the nature of miracles that they would be so preposterous as to be easily deniable. But from our POV, it seems that once in a while GOd decides to give a little boost to the notion that some wonderful, and incomprehensible change takes place in the Eucharist and that in "a special way", indeed a unique way, Jesus is "there" as He is not "there" in any other case this side of the parousia.

This is not meant to be a persuasive argument but rather a presentation of HOW we think what we think. I hope it is informative.

GOOD POINTS:

Since we are told to “hate every false way,” I therefore do not recognize the church of Rome to be the church Christ founded because of its many errors which contradict the word of God...

Mariology.

Transubstantiation.

Priests viewed as “another Christ.”

Purgatory.

Limbo.

Viewing the pope as “infallible” in matters of religion.

Baptismal regeneration.

Seven sacraments instead of the two prescribed in Scripture.

The conceit of the Council of Trent.

The abomination of the mass which seeks to sacrifice Christ again as if His work on the cross is not complete and sufficient.

Prayers to assorted dead people.

Putting the traditions of men ahead of God’s word in Scripture.

The erroneous belief that our confident “presumption of salvation” is a sin.

Believing a magisterium on earth contains all God’s truth when that magisterium clearly denies so much of Scripture.

A “celibate” priestcraft.

Presuming men can forgive sins on earth.

Believing Mary is a “co-mediator.”

The list goes on...

By our fruits we are known.

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.