Eucharist

[daugher-of-Mary]

How do you answer a brother-in-law who says his objection to transubstantiation is that "Jesus did not tear off a piece of his flesh and give it to his apostles to eat at the last supper"?

[thessalonian]

Well the answer I think has to do with "literal" and literal. The Church does not teach that Jesus prescence is a physical prescence in the Eucharist. But that it is a real prescence. A sacramental one.


From jimmyakin.org:

Ludwig Ott, when discussing the theology of the Eucharist, points out that the accidents of Christ's body and blood are also present within the consecrated species, but not as extended in space. It seems that extension of something's or someone's accidents in space is what gives it a "physical" presence, which is why we talk of Christ's body and blood, soul and divinity being "really, truly" present but not "physically" present.


In other words while Christ is really and truly present he is so under the form of bread and wine. Thus it is not human flesh that we consume. In this sense it is figurative as Augustine recognizes in city of God. Nor is it bread and wine for that matter. These things are symbolic of a part of the meaning of the sacrament.

Further it should be noted for your friend that Christ was not speaking present tense in John 6 for he says "the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world". The bread had not been given until one year later during the passover in which his blood was shed for our sins. His body and blood are given to us in the palitable form of bread and wine.

I hope that helps.

Blessings

[StColette]

I believe he is thinking that since it's the True Presence, the Body and Blood of Christ, then it must be in canabalistic form. It's not. The bread and wine keeps it's accidents. Meaning the bread and wine keep the taste, touch, and appearance of bread. However it is the substance of the bread and wine that becomes the Body and Blood of Christ.

[phatcatholic]

to answer the charge of cannibalism:

if we look at the [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cannibalism"][b]definition of cannibalism[/b][/url], we find that the following phrase is central to it: "eating the flesh of human beings". this phrase, while one sentence, actually says three things:

[b]1. [/b]the flesh of a human being is being [i][b]eaten[/b][/i], as opposed to washed or marked on, or some other [i][b]action[/b][/i].
[b]2. [/b]what is being eaten is [i][b]flesh[/b][/i], as opposed to bone or grass, or some other [i][b]substance[/b][/i].
[b]3. [/b]the flesh being eaten is of a [i][b]human being[/b][/i], as opposed to flesh of an animal or a fish, or some other [i][b]creature[/b][/i].

these three statements comprise the essence of cannibalism. thus, in order for the Eucharistic celebration to be cannibalistic, it must fulfill these requirements. however, it fulfills none of them.

in cannibalism, the substance is flesh, the flesh is of a human being, and the action made upon the substance is "eating." in the Eucharistic celebration, the substance is Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity. this substance is not of a mere human being, but of Jesus Christ, who is True God and True Man. finally, there is no action made upon the substance. instead, the action is made upon bread and wine. put another way, in consuming the Eucharistic elements, the physical mechanisms of eating injure only the accidents of bread and wine. the process of consuming the host doesn't involve ripping and tearing Christ's body, despite its substantial presence.

thus, the Eucharistic celebration defies cannibalism on all levels.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[daugher-of-Mary]

Alright. Two more questions...Thessalonian, do you have any idea where I might find the matter you referenced in City of God? And the next question I anticipate is, so were there two Christs present at the Last Supper?

I know these questions sound a little silly, but my brother-in-law is from another country and we have the language barrier problem, so it is hard to talk basic theology, let alone trying to explain Transubstantiation. Plus the fact that I'm a baby apologist. I know the pertinent Scriptures and arguments, but have a very hard time pulling it all together.

[thessalonian]

Sorry, thought it was city of God. ref below.

St Augustine on John 6:53.

"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you (John 6:53). This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the suffering of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."

On Christina Doctrine, Bk 3, Ch. 16.(Note 16).

Interesting you should bring up your second point. Augustine says with regard to the last supper "he held himself with his own hands" I'll look the ref up for this if you need it.

It's a mystery of God that there are not multiple Christ's in multiple Eucharists or one is not recieving him twice with the bread and the wine. The answer is no and it is related to the sacramental rather than physical nature of the real prescence.

The questions are not silly at all. They are well anticipated.

I hope that helps.

Blessings

Edited July 25, 2005 by thessalonian

[daugher-of-Mary]

THANKS! That was a big help!

[phatcatholic]

also, protestants like to point out that Christ couldn't be present in the Eucharist b/c he now sits at the right hand of the father (cf. [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Hebrews+1%3A3§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=heb&NavGo=1&NavCurrentChapter=1"][b]Heb 1:3[/b][/url]). but, we see from his post-resurrection appearances that he now possesses a body that is not bound by the confines of space, or place, or our laws of physics (eg: he is always suddenly [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Luke+24%3A36%3B+John+20%3A19%2C26%3B+John+21%3A4%3B+1+Cor+15%3A5-8§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=1co&NavGo=15&NavCurrentChapter=15"][b]appearing[/b][/url] and [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Luke+24%3A31%3B+Acts+1%3A9§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq="][b]disappearing[/b][/url]). so, nothing prohibits him from making himself present on earth while maintaining his seat at the right hand of the father.

Edited July 26, 2005 by phatcatholic

[daugher-of-Mary]

awesome! another anticipated question answered... ya'll are wonderful