is the eucharist a sacrifice of the glorified body of Jesus or the mortal body if it is indeed one in the same sacrifice as that of Calvary ?

-- anon (anon@hotmail.com), June 20, 2003

Answers

The Eucharist, as you said, is a continuation of the one sacrifice of Calvary, and therefore is the continuing sacrifice (not re-sacrifice) of His mortal body and blood today, just as it was then.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 20, 2003.

Dear Alex,

Theology by Webster's is always risky at best. "Continual" does not mean "again and again". In fact, it means just the opposite. The pull of gravity is continual. Gravity isn't something that happens "again and again", as many separate occurrences. Rather, it is ONE CONTINUAL action which never ceases to be expressed. So it is with the sacrificial act of Jesus Christ. Jesus died once and for all time, and has chosen to perpetuate that truth - the actuality of that truth, not just the memory of it - through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Jesus is not sacrificed "again and again through the Mass. Rather, His once and for all time sacrifce of Himself is perpetuated through His Church until the end of time, that all may partake directly of His sacred body and blood, without which men cannot have life within them.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 20, 2003.

Paul if Christ is pulled down from heaven for the mass, is not Christ on the throne in the heavenlies in a glorified body ? How then can it be His mortal body that is pulled down from Heaven ? If you argue for omnipresence, then I would argue that only in a glorified body was the Lord Jesus omnipresent, yet in His mortal body He was limited by time and by space. Or do you mean to say that Christ changes His body from glorified to mortal each time the mass is performed ? Thankyou for your time

-- anon (anon@hotmail.com), June 21, 2003.

We receive the Risen Jesus in the Eucharist, all of Him.

Perhaps the following excerpt from the Catechism will help explain this:

1000. "This 'how' exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible only to faith. Yet our participation in the EUCHARIST already gives us a foretaste of Christ's transfiguration of our bodies: Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God's blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but EUCHARIST, formed of two things, the one earthly and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the EUCHARIST, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection.[St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4, 18, 4-5: PG 7/1, 1028-1029.]"

1003. "United with Christ by Baptism, believers already truly participate in the heavenly life of the risen Christ, but this life remains 'hidden with Christ in God.'[Col 3:3 ; cf. Phil 3:20 .] The Father has already 'raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.'[Eph 2:6 .] Nourished with his body in the EUCHARIST, we already belong to the Body of Christ. When we rise on the last day we 'also will appear with him in glory.'[Col 3:4 .]"

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 21, 2003.

Greetings: The catechism is not a book of the Holy Spirit the word of God is, no other boo outside of the word of God is to be used as authority.The euecharist is a teaxhing outside of truth.

-- AlexsavedbyJEsus (truthisfreedom316@yahoo.com), June 21, 2003.

Greetings: One more thing do not add to the word of God lest he reprove thee and you be found to be a liar. In due season the false frut shall be exposed. The word eucharist is not in Gods word nor does any of Gods word confirm such a teaxhing. JEsus died once, once, once!

-- AlexinChrist (truthisfreedom316@yahoo.com), June 21, 2003.

The mass is both a remembrance of Christ's passion and a stand alone expression of our individual efforts to become Christ like.

By participating at mass, we become a part of the mystical Body of Christ, his church, a full follower of His teachings.

In the theology (teaching)that Jesus' is glorified upon his resurrection, it would not be accurate to say that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of the glorified body.

I'm not sure we can accurately explain this without getting into a discussion and semanics.

Sara is 100%.

When in doubt, read the Catacism.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 21, 2003.

Dear anon,

Christ is not "pulled down from heaven" at every Mass. His Eucharistic presence never left earth. The Eucharist is His way of making Himself truly present to us on earth in a physical way, even though He ascended to the Father. That is the glorious mystery of the Eucharist - that the risen and ascended Christ remains with us in the tabernacle of every Catholic Church, and is present on a Catholic altar under the appearance of bread and wine, being worshiped and adored and received by His people, every moment of every day of every century. Christ's body in heaven is in a glorified state, but His body on earth is the same body which was sacrificed on Calvary, the same blood which stained the soil beneath the cross, and the same sacrifice which was offered at the Last Supper, BEFORE His death, which He commanded the Apostles to continue doing in perpetuity, in His remembrance. His Church obeys this direct divine command.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 22, 2003.

Alex, the Webster's dictionary is not published by Catholics, and continual = once. Also, you have a double standard: you added Webster to the Word of God. Be careful lest you be found a liar.

You wrote, "Does scripture say continual or once?"

It says both. Hebrews 10:14: "For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated."

John gives a better illustration:

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats [note present tense] this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me." John 6:51-57

The past is an eternal present; the present is an eternal past. This is very common in John. The Church today continues to do as Jesus commanded; we continue to feed on him.

You wrote, "The catechism is not a book of the Holy Spirit the word of God is, no other boo outside of the word of God is to be used as authority."

Ok Mr. Webster. :) The Catechism explains what the Church believes, just like the Dictionary explains what words mean. Don't bash something because it's not a Bible, or else don't write anything that's not a Bible quote, or we will accuse you of "adding words."

If you have a problem with those Catechism quotes, then please address what they say, or else stop your hands from typing. You contribute nothing by slandering a book.

Also (and this is the kicker) the word Eucharist is in the Bible. IT IS A GREEK WORD. It pops up several times, every now and then in the context of the Last Supper.

Mark 14:23 "Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it."

In Greek, it looks a little like this:

Note the fourth word. "Eucharist" means literally nothing more than to give thanks. It was already the official name of the Christian rite by the 2nd century, when it was used by Justin Martyr in his Apology.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), June 22, 2003.

So are you saying that the priest can access the non-glorified Christ through the sacrament of the Eucharist ? Is the priest working outside time and space ?

Also wondering what substance actually means if u have non fleshy flesh and non bloody blood. And why is the wine rarely given ? I thought that u need to drink the blood as well as eat the bread to have life and forgiveness of sins.

-- anon (anon@hotmail.com), June 30, 2003.

No, the priest is not working outside of time and space. Christ provided for the perpetuation of His salvific act right where it happened - IN time and space - through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The mass is not a new sacrifice; nor is it a repetition of the original sacrifice. It is the perpetuation of the original sacrifice, which means that the original sacrifice continues to be presented to the world until the end of time.

"Substance" means two things - both the external physical properties of the species used in the consecration, which do not change; and the essence of the substance, which does change into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. There is no point in trying to explain this in worldly terms. It is a phenomenon which does not exist in the world except in the Eucharist, and which cannot be explained in worldly terms. It is an act of God, which no human being can fully understand. We believe it because He said it. We do not fully understand it. It is a mystery.

The blood is not routinely offered to the congregation for logistic reasons - the difficulty in consecrating large quantities of wine and distibuting it to a large congregation. Also the likelihood of spillage when such large-scale distibution is routinely involved. The Eucharist under either of the two species is complete and entire - it is Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity, and therefore provides spiritual life and forgiveness of sins - except mortal sins, which require the Sacrament of Reconciliation for forgiveness.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 30, 2003.

Paul

that's a really good and very clear explanation.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 30, 2003.

Hi.

Here might be a reason to burn all of those Christian book stores.

"The catechism is not a book of the Holy Spirit the word of God is, no other boo[k] outside of the word of God is to be used as authority."

AlexsavedbyJesus have you a collection of commentaries on the Bible? I would be willing to answer yes. Those commentaries are sort of like entry level catechisms in the Protestant arena, yes?

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's Commentary On The Whole Bible rings a bell, yes?

rod. ... . .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 30, 2003.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not a SOURCE of Catholic doctrine. It is simply a COMPILATION of pre-existing Catholic doctrine, which the Church has received from Jesus Christ and His Apostles, by way of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. The purpose of the Catechism is not to reveal anything new to the Church, but simply to serve as a written, easy to access record of doctrine previously revealed. There is absolutely no comparison between the intended function of the Catechism and the function of Scripture in the Church. They are not even remotely similar, nor were they ever intended to be.

For Example: The Catechism states that Jesus is truly and fully present in the Eucharist. But the Church doesn't believe this BECAUSE it is in the Catechism! It is recorded in the Catechism BECAUSE the Church believes it! And the Church believes it BECAUSE it is doctrinal truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition, and traceable directly to the Apostles. Likewise every other Catholic doctrine that is RECORDED in the Catechism.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 30, 2003.

Talking of a substantial change... most Protestants believe that Jesus Christ is God, but that Jesus could not possibly be substantially present in the Eucharist.

Now, which is more farfetched? That God could be substantially present (albeit hidden) in the human nature of a man or that this man's body could be substantially present (albeit hidden) under the accidents of bread and wine?

In the first case you have the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the I AM WHO AM, immutable, all powerful, eternal, God... "somehow" taking on human nature: being conceived, born, growing, hungering, suffering, learning, obeying...dying. The eternal enters time. The unchangable...changing, Spirit taking on a body, the CREATOR becoming a creature, the immortal becoming a mortal...

The Jews and Muslims - basing themselves on some metaphysical presumptions, conclude that the incarnation is simply impossible. It is against their understanding of the principle of non contradiction.

HOWEVER, Most Protestants simply accept "on faith" that Jesus is God and man! But then they demand all sorts of reasons and proofs for belief in His presence in the Eucharist. They seem to accept the Church's authority in deciding the canon of Holy Scripture and the underpinnings of the Nicean Creed - all "on faith" but then demand "proof" for everything else!

Their reasoning as to why it's "impossible" for Jesus to be really present under the accidents of bread and wine mirror the reasoning of the Jews and Muslims. (It would seem that their decision to accept fewer books in the bible also follows post-temple Jewish direction...)

Insofar as the truth of the Incarnation goes however, the Apostles could only "see" a man. YET They believed (without knowing how exactly) that this man was "also God". In the Gospels we see that this belief was a gift of God the Father - that "mere flesh and blood" could not reveal this to man...

This reality was both a gift of grace (faith) and a deduction: This is a man, yet more than a man... while I can't deduce divinity from miracles, the miracles makes it at lease plausible... it makes his divinity possible. It makes it no longer absolutely "unthinkable" or impossible.

And equally so, the belief of Peter in Jesus' words about his body and blood being real food and drink, was a matter of faith - not reason "alone". If you can not or will not believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, can you truly ascribe to have "faith" at all?

Think about it: What's so hard to grasp that God created heaven and earth, and that the way to heaven is His to provide - thus "salvation" is a gift which must be asked for? Seems pretty straight forward, pretty RATIONAL. So it would make perfect sense to "call on the Lord Jesus to be saved"... it really doesn't even take a leap of faith to do that.

But in the Eucharist you have to believe what you can not see and what is not immediately obvious. That's why in the Gospel of John, when ever someone misunderstands Our Lord, he ALWAYS CORRECTS THEM...except in John 6. He corrected Nicodemus about "being reborn" and he corrected the woman at the well about "living water". But he didn't correct his followers about "eating my body and drinking my blood" because he wasn't speaking metaphorically. After all, he insisted: my words are "spirit and life".

Now spirit and life are NOT METAPHORS! There is nothing MORE REAL, more SUBSTANTIAL than SPIRIT and LIFE! Yet, you can't see the spirit! You can't see Life! You see and touch only matter - and matter is not alive, it is animated - it is dust and to dust it returns.

In other words, substances are not "things" grasped by our perceptions but realities that can be known only conceptually...

Our senses capture motion, extension, color, smells, light, etc. Our minds capture cause, order, time, concepts...

Just looking at Jesus Christ you would not "see" or "feel" divinity. So he had to prove His divinity indirectly: forgiving sins, suspending laws of nature, creating ex nihilo, healing the sick, casting out demons, raising the dead, rising from the dead...

More Metaphysics: in the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, Jesus multiplied 3 loaves of bread and 2 fish into enough bread and fish to feed over 5,000 people. In this case both accidents and substances were created "ex nihilo" - from nothing! But one presumes, based on the prototypes provided by the young boy.

When Jesus walked on water and invited Peter to do the same, all the laws governing water and gravity were suspended. When he calmed the wind and sea by command, he proved that the heavens (a realm the pagans believed to be governed by the king of gods, Zeus) and the sea (a realm the pagans believed to be governed by Posidon) to be "his".

So what have we got so far? It's generally agreed by everyone that God can suspend natural laws and can create matter out of nothing. So if you believe the Gospel accounts to be true, you can reasonably deduce that this man Jesus was somehow also God. (In that he was more than a man, and he wasn't an angel (because he had a body) and "there are no gods besides Yaweh").

But just as you can't find substances by looking under a microscope, neither could you find God if you examined Jesus' body.

In the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharistic presence of the Lord Jesus, we understand the following: substance is not seen but believed to be.

God created the world - but He is not the world. In Metaphysics God is "Ipsum Esse Subsistens", In theology He is "I AM WHO AM"... we see that he can speak with Adam and Eve and can be "heard walking in the garden"... and elsewhere in the OT there are theophanies in which he suddenly "becomes" present in the world. So it's not impossible for God to "become present".

In the Gospel of John we learn of the Incarnation of the Word of God...The divine presence is localized in the human nature called Jesus of Nazareth. Deduction leads us to conclude (based on faith in the Gospel as true) that Jesus is truly man (human nature) and truly God (divine nature) but that his person is divine....

Ah, but you can't see or taste or hear "divinity" in this man. He suffered and bled and died. If you disbelieve in the existence of substances then you inevitably MUST CONCLUDE WITH THE ARIANS AND MUSLIMS THAT THE INCARNATION IS METAPHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

If you disbelieve in substances you must also conclude that Jesus can not possibly be present substantially in bread and wine.

If you believe the Gospels are true though...you can't go back to a rationalist-only position when confronted with the Eucharist!

Conclusion: most protestants are inconsistent and haven't thought through all the implications of their beliefs or lack thereof.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 30, 2003.

Fantastic post, Joe!
You're the greatest. I hope that you are doing some teaching and/or professional writing.
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 30, 2003.

Thanks John. Actually I don't think the post is well polished enough to publish.

To do it justice I'd have to make a paragraph describing Arianism and Islamic apologetics vis a vis the Incarnation. Then I'd have to make note of Luther, Calvin, and Zwilligi's abysmal lack of philosophical training *(and lack of systematic theology for that matter).

For example, in the 1200's, Thomas Aquinas studied for nearly a decade before being approved as a "doctor" - yet 300 years later (after the black plague wiped out the best of the best from the high middle ages), Luther was given his "theology degree" after 2 short years with the Augustinians! Doh!

Until modern times Protestants have simply not had access to Catholic theology and philosophy - nor to "the great books" program of studies.

Islam inherited Greek philosophy - which returned to the West in the 1200's through northern Italy (and was the chief threat and boon of the Church and western civilization during Thomas' years.) The Latin Averoist branch of philosophers de-linked theology from philosophy, thus leading the way to the rise of western anti-Catholic and ultimately anti-Christian philosophers such as the atheists and masons.

So to do justice to the arguement you have to show the history of ideas and ideas' fruition: culture. Then you have to show how ideas have practical consequences...philosophical presuppositions inevitably lead to theological heresy, novelty, or schism.

After this, it's important to quickly take the Jews, Muslims and Protestants (all of whom have "scriptures" without a single teaching authority to officially interpret them) at their word - and show how they all missed the boat.

I think my post from above was a quick stab at this but really didn't do justice to the complexity of the issue at stake.

I just wanted to show quickly why it is inconsistent for Protestants to accept the Incarnation of the 2nd person of the Trinity, but then balk at the possibility of his substantial presence in the Eucharist!

Much more could be said that I left unsaid.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 01, 2003.

OK, one more quick connection. Protestants believe in the resurrection of the dead... that's in the Nicean creed after all, right? Well? How is it possible? They don't quibble about mechanics of how it will be possible for God to "raise the dead" or how a human soul whose body died in 120 AD and is totally annihilated (eaten, corrupted, burnt, dispersed...) could possibly become "enfleshed" again in "its own body"!

Yet when dealing with the mystery of the Eucharist they want to know how it's possible for the sacrifice of Calvary to be time-less!

Another case of swallowing the camel then straining at the gnat!

Of course, if you accept the reality that substances exist, and that the Spirit is what gives life... and that life is form of matter - and the principle of order...it becomes conceivable that resurrection via the power of God is entirely likely and possible "in the new heavens and new earth".

Why? Well because to be completely human our soul must ensoul a body. And created but once in time, it is the soul not of a generic body, but of "its own body".

Now the body - matter - what is it? Molecules are groups of atoms. And what are atoms? Fields of energy? Whatever they "are" they're NOT "solid little balls"! OK, so what exactly are these little fields of energy? What is energy?

The smaller you go, the less "real and solid" it all becomes! But it all holds together somehow... there is an order, a system of laws which organizes and maintains this symphony of the visible universe...

In the visible world there are accidents - what we see, what we can perceive with our senses... but these are sustained by the sub- stratum, a parameter of inteligibility, which the Greeks deduced to exist. Wood burns - and becomes ash. Therefore the accidents are lost, yet something remains - what happens? Substantial change!

Those little fields, grouped in constellations (molecules) which group in galaxies of chemicals and universes of living beings are accidents - and the order which keeps them what they are is substantial. Take it away, and "all hell breaks loose" - death, things fall apart.

Put that substance back in place and presumably, (with God's help) all the pieces could be pulled back together again. Isaiah's vision of the bones....

So in Jesus Christ, there are "accidents" of a normal Man - and presumably also a human soul which "informs" that matter. But none of this precludes the possibility that there is also a divine nature and person also substantially present! If matter is the result in time of the action of a form or substance, then Jesus' miracles, ex nihilo creation, etc. point to the hidden existence of "something" supporting these "works" - something more than a man...

So again, we see that substances play a role in our every day existence, that they can point our minds to the possibilities of Resurrection, and of Incarnation, and finally, of the hidden substance of Jesus beneath the signs (atoms, molecules, chemicals) of bread and wine.

Again, what is harder to believe? That God can possibly become a man without ceasing to be God, or that this Man could be substantially present "body, blood, soul and divinity" under the accidental appearance of bread and wine?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 01, 2003.

Thanks for more good stuff, Joe.
Let me correct a misimpression of what I said last time. I wasn't saying that your previous message was a polished gem, ready to be published. Rather, I was making the general observation that you have proved, time and again, that you have great knowledge of orthodox Catholic truth ... and that you have a gift of expressing it in laymen's terms (and thus communicating it well). For these reasons, I encourage you to write and/or to teach.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.