Christ Ascended Into Heaven

[ICTHUS]

I don't know Greek, Icthus.  Perhaps "inspired" was not the best word to use?  But the Church's teaching on Divine Revelation is in the documents of Vatican II, which reads in part:

"Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church."

It was this fact that I wished to convey.  I view the entire "Word of God" as "God-breathed," (God-inspired) but perhaps you (and others) make theological distinctions between Scripture and Tradition that I should be aware of but am not.

"But the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone.  Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.  Yet this Magesterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant.  It teaches only what has been handed on to it.  At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that is proposed for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from the single deposit of faith."

"It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.  Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."

From Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents edited by Austin Falnnery, O.P., New Revised Edition 1992. (underscore added)

Ave Cor Mariae, Likos

Some translations translate "theopneustos" as "inspired by God". In my humble opinion, however, it isin't the best word to use, as "theopneustos" is a compound word comprised of the word "Theou" (God) and "Pneustos" (spirit, or breath) - hence, you get "breathed out by God" - "inspired" makes it sound like God actually breathed IN Sacred Scripture. Which would lead to some rather absurd conclusions, in my humble opinion. "breathed out" keeps the meaning of the "pneustos" rather well.

With that said, I'm having trouble meshing and moulding Sacred Scripture and "other writings" together as the Word of God. What's the proof that they should be regarded as one and the same?

[ICTHUS]

Bumpity bump...

[cmotherofpirl]

*plays "devils advocate" to the so-called "Reformed" position*

Sure, the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth, but according to John 17:17, the Word of God is truth.

Thus, the Church being the pillar and foundation of Truth requires that Truth be built atop the foundation - requiring, therefore, that the Church be subordinate to the Word - which is Truth itself!!!

But since the Word came FROM the Church, and is a PART of the Church, it is not above the Church. THe Church came FIRST.

[cmotherofpirl]

Ah! Now the waters become slightly less muddy! However, could you point me to where the Catechism teaches this?

Well, if we take other writings other than Scripture as inspired, be prepared for a s..l..i...p..p..e..r..y...s..l..o..p..e!!! 

What, then, is to keep us from saying the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Phillip, or the Kama Sutra is inspired and useful for teaching doctrine?????

Scripture and Tradition

Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."

But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is

inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).

Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.

Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that such a remark means that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. It is the contradiction that arises out of their own interpretation of this verse. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."

Newman’s argument

He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be

supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

What is Tradition?

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Church (which means to its official teachers, the bishops in union with the pope). It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Handing on the faith

Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. inDouche, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).

Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.

"Commandments of men"

Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.

He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).

Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

The indefectible Church

The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

[cmotherofpirl]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

[ICTHUS]

Cmom, I see one problem with that article.

"Sacred tradition hands on in its full purity God's Word"

Implying that what is breathed out by God - Scripture - is somehow less than 100% pure God-breathed!

Maybe it would help to think of it this way...It's not that Jesus is coming back down to earth every time the Eucharist is consecrated. In the Eucharist we are participating in the self-same sacrifice of the Cross. The Eucharist is trans-historical. Therefore, we are participating in something that happened before the Ascension.

In what state, then, do we adore Christ in Eucharistic Adoration? Do we adore His Body on the Cross, or glorified?

Eucharistic adoration is not tied in with the sacrifice of the Cross, as the Sacrifice of the Mass is, so you cannot say the former.

And if you say the Latter, then Christ has come down from Heaven and is enthroned elsewhere than at the Right Hand of God the Father, thus trivialising the fact that the Bible teaches that Christ ascended into Heaven, there to remain until His second coming.

[DojoGrant]

ICTHUS,

You are being logically inconsistent. You contend that Jesus appeared in the flesh to St. Paul, and you contend that He cannot do so in the Eucharist, for He is in Heaven. But your first contention contradicts the reason you deny the second.

You cannot deny its impossibility while at the same time believing in an instance of it. If it can happen once, it can happen more than once.

Furthermore, the Mass is heavenly worship; we are joined with the saints and angels in Heaven ("We lift our hearts to the Lord") and we are on in communion with God.

This also asserts that Jesus is totally separate from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Where the Father is, so is the Son. Where the Son is, so is the Spirit. Where the Spirit is, so is the Father. Jesus Christ can be eternally present in Heaven and present here at the same time, because Jesus Christ is fully God as well as fully human. Not only that, but His body is a resurrected and glorified one, and thus you cannot maintain that it is NECESSARILY limited to the same natural laws as our own (ie, being only at one place at the same time).

[Aloysius]

i have a question. how can you hold the reformed position of the Eucharist being spiritually Jesus' body if He never said anything about His spirit being present there? He said "This is my Body... This is My Blood..." not " This is my soul and divinity" not "This is my spirit" not "I am present here" but "THIS IS ME."

furthurmore, you claim something to be impossible for Jesus, who is God. By scripture which is breathed out from God, i.e. inspired, says nothing is impossible for God.

also, the Holy Scriptures. They are 100% pure God-breathed. No matter what. however, the message interpretted from them is not always 100% pure God-breathed. if it were, we'd all have the same interpretation. Therefore God gives infallible interpretation to the Church that it can interpret an infallible Bible so that the infallible Bible's message does not become fallible.

did that make sense?

[cmotherofpirl]

Cmom, I see one problem with that article.

"Sacred tradition hands on in its full purity God's Word"

Implying that what is breathed out by God - Scripture - is somehow less than 100% pure God-breathed!

In what state, then, do we adore Christ in Eucharistic Adoration? Do we adore His Body on the Cross, or glorified?

Eucharistic adoration is not tied in with the sacrifice of the Cross, as the Sacrifice of the Mass is, so you cannot say the former.

And if you say the Latter, then Christ has come down from Heaven and is enthroned elsewhere than at the Right Hand of God the Father, thus trivialising the fact that the Bible teaches that Christ ascended into Heaven, there to remain until His second coming.

It is not implying anything.

Remember we are talking about God !

He who made the stars and other twinkly things !

You are assuming that as a mere mortal man who has a finite capacity for understanding anything, that you can actually understand the infinite greatness of God.

We can describe his attributes, we can study Jesus who reflects the Father, but understand? comprehend?

Jesus is sitting at the right hand of His Father in heaven in his glorified body, Jesus is continually present in the sacrifice on the Cross, in the same way God is continously creating/sustaining the universe. REmember God is outside of time and does,sees,creates all at once forever.

God is triune, 3 persons one God.

AS the great one C S Lewis would explain "if we can understand all of this- it wouldn't be God, it would be something of our own making."

[Adeodatus]

Icthus, I agree with the majority of people on this thread and disagree with you on the Eucharistic presence. But I’m sorry that no one has yet answered your specific question. Most people here seem to be saying, ‘God can do anything’, therefore the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ PERIOD. While I, like them, believe the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ, I think your questions are about a slightly deeper issue.

Let’s start with ‘God can do anything’. In what sense is this true? It depends what we mean by ‘anything’. If a ‘thing’ is defined as ‘whatever is not logically incoherent’, then it is true that God can do any ‘thing’. God can do anything which is not a contradiction in terms.

For example, can God make a ‘square circle’? No. Why? Because a square circle is meaningless by definition. It is not a ‘thing’. It’s a ‘nothing’. Can God make an object so heavy He couldn’t lift it himself? No. Why? Because an object so heavy that an omnipotent being couldn’t carry it is meaningless. It is a contradiction in terms. It’s not a ‘thing’; it’s a ‘nothing’. And ‘nothing’ is impossible for God. (Frank Sheed explains all this better in his books ‘Theology and Sanity’ and ‘Theology for Beginners’).

So, consider the Eucharist. Is Jesus’s natural and glorified human nature (body and soul) now at the right hand of God the Father in heaven? Yes. So is Jesus’s Body in heaven? Yes. In that case, how can the Eucharist be His Body too?

This, I think, is the nub of your question. You think the real, natural body of Jesus is in heaven, and so it can’t also be in the Eucharist simultaneously. Therefore, you conclude, the ‘Body of Christ’ in the Eucharist is more like a ‘spiritual presence’. I think this is the line of your reasoning, and I can see why you say that.

In her beliefs about the Eucharist, the Catholic Church is constrained by the Scriptures. Jesus said, ‘This is my Body’. He didn’t say, ‘This looks like my body’, or ‘This feels like my body’, or ‘This is special bread through which I will come to you spiritually’. So we have to confess that the Eucharist IS TRULY Christ’s Body. But how can it be His Body when His Body is in heaven?

The Church would say that Christ’s body in its natural mode (i.e. the same body which suffered, died, was buried, rose again glorified, appeared to the apostles, and ascended into heaven) is in heaven at the right hand of the Father. The Eucharist is the very SAME Body of Christ but ‘per modum sacramentum’ (present sacramentally, or present in the mode of a sacrament). So there is only one Body of Christ. It is present in its natural mode as glorified in heaven. But it is present sacramentally, whole and entire, in the Eucharist----in every consecrated wafer, crumb, fragment. The whole Christ is present in each morsel.

This is a spiritual presence of Christ. But it is also MORE than a spiritual presence. It is a REAL and sacramental presence. When we receive the host, we truly receive the body of Christ, and along with the body, the blood, soul and divinity of Christ. When we drink from the chalice, we truly receive the blood of Christ, and along with the blood, the body, soul and divinity of Christ. We truly eat and drink the WHOLE Christ. We call this a sacramental eating and drinking of Christ, because eating and drinking the Eucharist does not cause Christ’s body and blood in heaven to diminish.

This is very different from the Calvinist notion of a MERE spiritual presence of Christ. A purely spiritual presence of Christ would not necessarily linger, so after communion you could just store away or throw away the remaining bread and wine. But the sacramental presence is one which endures. The bread and wine do not stop being Christ’s body and blood until they lose the appearances of bread and wine, e.g. when the Eucharist is digested in us.

Icthus, I think we also need to distinguish the different meanings of the word ‘presence’, or the different ways in which a thing can be ‘present’. In one sense, God is present everywhere. He is in everything in the sense that He is holding all things which exist in existence. God is also spiritually present in every heart which seeks him. He is even more spiritually present in the hearts of those who have been baptised and made a new creation in Him. But a spiritual presence, no matter how great, is not the same thing as the real, sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

That’s what we mean by ‘transubstantiation’---that the consecrated bread and wine are truly the Body and Blood of Christ. It’s not about how it happens, because that is a mystery of God, but about the fact that it does happen.

I want to suggest that everything Protestants affirm positively about the Eucharist is true, but NOT the whole truth. For example, (1) the Eucharist is a symbol. True, but it’s also more than a symbol. It’s a sacrament: a symbol which effects what it signifies, i.e. it symbolises Christ’s body and blood, and it makes present Christ’s body and blood. Or, (2) the Eucharist is a spiritual presence of Christ. Absolutely! But this spiritual presence comes to us through the sacramental transformation (i.e. transubstantiation) of the bread and wine into the REAL body and blood of Christ.

Icthus, you also mentioned another issue about the Bible. I won’t say anything on that here, because my post is long enough! But could it move to another thread….?

[cmotherofpirl]

excellent answer Adeo

[ICTHUS]

Icthus, I agree with the majority of people on this thread and disagree with you on the Eucharistic presence.  But I’m sorry that no one has yet answered your specific question.  Most people here seem to be saying, ‘God can do anything’, therefore the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ PERIOD.  While I, like them, believe the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ, I think your questions are about a slightly deeper issue.

Let’s start with ‘God can do anything’.  In what sense is this true?  It depends what we mean by ‘anything’.  If a ‘thing’ is defined as ‘whatever is not logically incoherent’, then it is true that God can do any ‘thing’.  God can do anything which is not a contradiction in terms.

For example, can God make a ‘square circle’?  No.  Why?  Because a square circle is meaningless by definition.  It is not a ‘thing’.  It’s a ‘nothing’.  Can God make an object so heavy He couldn’t lift it himself?  No.  Why?  Because an object so heavy that an omnipotent being couldn’t carry it is meaningless.  It is a contradiction in terms.  It’s not a ‘thing’; it’s a ‘nothing’.  And ‘nothing’ is impossible for God.  (Frank Sheed explains all this better in his books ‘Theology and Sanity’ and ‘Theology for Beginners’).

So, consider the Eucharist.  Is Jesus’s natural and glorified human nature (body and soul) now at the right hand of God the Father in heaven?  Yes.  So is Jesus’s Body in heaven?  Yes.  In that case, how can the Eucharist be His Body too?

This, I think, is the nub of your question.  You think the real, natural body of Jesus is in heaven, and so it can’t also be in the Eucharist simultaneously.  Therefore, you conclude, the ‘Body of Christ’ in the Eucharist is more like a ‘spiritual presence’.  I think this is the line of your reasoning, and I can see why you say that.

In her beliefs about the Eucharist, the Catholic Church is constrained by the Scriptures.  Jesus said, ‘This is my Body’.  He didn’t say, ‘This looks like my body’, or ‘This feels like my body’, or ‘This is special bread through which I will come to you spiritually’.  So we have to confess that the Eucharist IS TRULY Christ’s Body.  But how can it be His Body when His Body is in heaven?

The Church would say that Christ’s body in its natural mode (i.e. the same body which suffered, died, was buried, rose again glorified, appeared to the apostles, and ascended into heaven) is in heaven at the right hand of the Father.  The Eucharist is the very SAME Body of Christ but ‘per modum sacramentum’ (present sacramentally, or present in the mode of a sacrament).  So there is only one Body of Christ.  It is present in its natural mode as glorified in heaven.  But it is present sacramentally, whole and entire, in the Eucharist----in every consecrated wafer, crumb, fragment.  The whole Christ is present in each morsel.

This is a spiritual presence of Christ.  But it is also MORE than a spiritual presence.  It is a REAL and sacramental presence.  When we receive the host, we truly receive the body of Christ, and along with the body, the blood, soul and divinity of Christ.  When we drink from the chalice, we truly receive the blood of Christ, and along with the blood, the body, soul and divinity of Christ.  We truly eat and drink the WHOLE Christ.  We call this a sacramental eating and drinking of Christ, because eating and drinking the Eucharist does not cause Christ’s body and blood in heaven to diminish. 

This is very different from the Calvinist notion of a MERE spiritual presence of Christ.  A purely spiritual presence of Christ would not necessarily linger, so after communion you could just store away or throw away the remaining bread and wine.  But the sacramental presence is one which endures.  The bread and wine do not stop being Christ’s body and blood until they lose the appearances of bread and wine, e.g. when the Eucharist is digested in us.

Icthus, I think we also need to distinguish the different meanings of the word ‘presence’, or the different ways in which a thing can be ‘present’.  In one sense, God is present everywhere.  He is in everything in the sense that He is holding all things which exist in existence.  God is also spiritually present in every heart which seeks him.  He is even more spiritually present in the hearts of those who have been baptised and made a new creation in Him.  But a spiritual presence, no matter how great, is not the same thing as the real, sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

That’s what we mean by ‘transubstantiation’---that the consecrated bread and wine are truly the Body and Blood of Christ.  It’s not about how it happens, because that is a mystery of God, but about the fact that it does happen. 

I want to suggest that everything Protestants affirm positively about the Eucharist is true, but NOT the whole truth.  For example, (1) the Eucharist is a symbol.  True, but it’s also more than a symbol.  It’s a sacrament: a symbol which effects what it signifies, i.e. it symbolises Christ’s body and blood, and it makes present Christ’s body and blood.  Or, (2) the Eucharist is a spiritual presence of Christ.  Absolutely!  But this spiritual presence comes to us through the sacramental transformation (i.e. transubstantiation) of the bread and wine into the REAL body and blood of Christ.

Icthus, you also mentioned another issue about the Bible.  I won’t say anything on that here, because my post is long enough!  But could it move to another thread….?

Also, what is the Definition of Chalcedon concerning Christ's human body. Mustbenothing brought it up, saying that Christ could not have held His Body in His hands at the Last Supper if He had a body like ours, as the Chalcedonian definition requires.

[cmotherofpirl]

Also, what is the Definition of Chalcedon concerning Christ's human body. Mustbenothing brought it up, saying that Christ could not have held His Body in His hands at the Last Supper if He had a body like ours, as the Chalcedonian definition requires.

Dearie we are talking about God.

If God stood there and said "this is my body" then it is.

Do you really think you or anybody can understand the details? If we could it would mean we are talking of a god of our own makin, not someone who created everything out of nothing.

Haver you read C S Lewis's Mere Christianity?

Jesus was the God-man : one person with two natures - human and divine joined together.

[ICTHUS]

Dearie we are talking about God.

If God stood there and said "this is my body" then it is.

Do you really think you or anybody can understand the details? If we could it would mean we are talking of a god of our own makin, not someone who created everything out of nothing.

Haver you read C S Lewis's Mere Christianity?

Jesus was the God-man : one person with two natures - human and divine joined together.

With that said, Cmom, I agree with you completely. However, here we get into an issue of consistent teaching of the Church. I'm curious to know what Chalcedon's definition was on this matter, and whether it teaches that Christ could not multiply His own body in His hands, or in any way even remotely teaches this.

[Adeodatus]

Cmom, thanks! Happy Gaudete Sunday!

Icthus, the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) defined that ‘our Lord Jesus Christ is…’

(1) complete in His deity and complete in His humanity, truly God and truly a human being;

(2) that His human nature is composed of a rational soul and a body (just like ours, except without sin);

(3) that in terms of His divinity He is consubstantial (of the same substance) with the Father;

(4) that in terms of His humanity He is consubstantial with us;

(5) and that this is the one and the same Christ… in two natures.

So Jesus has a human nature just like ours (except without sin), and that nature is now glorified and at the right hand of the Father in heaven. Icthus, your problem with the Eucharist (in your own words) is that Christ (1) could not have held His Body in His hands at the Last Supper if He had a body like ours; and He (2) could not multiply His own body in His hands. I think these are 2 ways you’ve expressed the same thought: How could Christ have His Body and yet make more of His own Body which He then held in His hands at the Eucharist?

At a merely natural level, it seems scientifically possible to grow me an extra ear on the back of laboratory mouse. So I, a mere human, could hold in my hands a part of my body created de novo. The Eucharist is not like this! Christ does not make ‘more’ of His flesh to give us. He does not give us an extra leg or organ He has miraculously grown and hidden in the shape of bread. What He does do is to give us Himself, WHOLE and ENTIRE. This already should alert you to the notion that the Eucharist is miracle and a mystery. And if you will read my reply to you carefully, you will see that I distinguished between 2 ‘modes’ of Christ’s Body being present. In its ‘natural mode’, it is in heaven, at the right hand of the Father. In its ‘sacramental mode’ it is present to us everywhere the Eucharist is validly celebrated, for all time, from the Last Supper till Christ will come again and the sacraments will cease. Because we are talking about ‘modes’, it is the VERY SAME Body in heaven which is received sacramentally in the Eucharist. It has to be the SAME Body, otherwise there is no point in eating it. But because it is a SACRAMENTAL eating, our eating the host at Mass doesn’t make Jesus’s big toe in heaven disappear.

Icthus, you’re also curious about what Chalcedon would have thought about all this. Just to refresh our memories, Chalcedon settled the dispute between 2 patriarchs, Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople. The dispute was about whether Our Lord Jesus Christ was one person or two persons, whether He was truly divine and truly human. Interestingly enough, the issue of the Eucharist was brought up by BOTH Cyril and Nestorius.

St Cyril said that Christ’s words at the Last Supper, ‘This is my body, this is my blood’, indicate that the visible objects are not types or symbols, but have been transformed through God’s ineffable power into His Body and Blood (Commentary on Matthew, 26, 27). He also says that God ‘infuses life-giving power into the offerings and transmutes them into the virtue of His own Flesh’ (Commentary on Luke, 22, 19). Nestorius also believed that in the Eucharist, what we receive is Christ’s Body and Blood, which are of one substance with our own, i.e. of a human nature like our own (Book of Heracleides, 39).

So Cyril and Nestorius were agreed that there is a real conversion in the Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Christ. What divided them was Nestorius’s ideas on two ‘persons’ in Christ.

For Cyril, there is one person Christ, divine and human. Nestorius uses language suggesting there are 2 persons, God the Son and a man, united in a loose union. St Cyril tells Nestorius that if he (Nestorius) thinks that the flesh and blood belong to the human person Jesus, and not to the divine person, God the Son, then for Nestorius the Eucharist has been deprived of its life-giving force and is cannibalism, eating the body of a man who is not God (Against Nestorius, 4, 5-6; Third Letter to Nestorius, 7). For Cyril eating flesh is of no use in itself, but because this Flesh in the Eucharist is the Flesh of God (i.e. the conclusion of the Chalcedonian formulation), then this Flesh is life-giving and can save us. This is the whole point of the definition of the Council of Chalcedon: that Jesus’s human nature is just like ours, but also it is the human nature of the Son of God, and so it is life-giving. Eating the Eucharist is thus life-giving because it is eating the Body of Christ, the Son of God. The funny thing is that Nestorius and Cyril were BOTH agreed on the Eucharist, and Cyril has to show that Nestorius’s other beliefs make his Eucharistic beliefs inconsistent.

And it gets even better…. The Council of Chalcedon received Cyril’s letters to Nestorius ‘as in agreement with the Faith… for the sake of refuting the follies of Nestorius and for the instruction of those who, in religious zeal, seek understanding of the saving Creed’. So Chalcedon accepted Cyril’s teaching on the Eucharist as in perfect accord with the Council’s own teaching on the two natures of Christ united in the one person. It all fits together beautifully: Christ’s human nature is like ours (except without sin), but because it is His human nature, eating His Body and Blood gives us life. And His Body is present to us ‘per modum sacramentum’ (in a sacramental mode), not in its natural mode, which is why Christ miraculously held His own Body, whole and entire, in His sacred hands at the Last Supper.

The Church's teaching on this is consistent, but she is also saying that the Eucharist is a great mystery, and how all these things happen is hidden from us. All we know is what the Bible tells us, that 'the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh' (John 6.51), and although many left Jesus because they could not accept His teaching, the Catholic response is that of our first Pope: '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 6.68-69).