Real Presence – Does it Mean Cannibalism?
Mar 23rd, 2009 | By Tim A. Troutman | Category: Blog PostsI’m prone to distrust doctrinal claims that would leave the majority of Christians throughout history as heretics. A strict Memorialism, the view that the Body & Blood are spoken of the Eucharistic species in a purely figurative way, does just that; for it makes Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans and Calvinists supremely wrong about the supreme act of Christian worship.
In short, it makes almost every Christian alive, or who has ever lived, a heretic.Now I’m not about to argue against Memorialism in its entirety. Frankly, there are many other resources available if anyone wants answers to that challenge. I only intend to answer the charge of cannibalism and the supposed violation of the Jewish dietary laws by those who affirm the Real Presence.
The Jewish dietary laws specified which meats were edible: vegetarian beasts with split hoofs, sea creatures having both fins and scales, and various particular birds and insects. Anything else was de facto unclean. The laws also included a prohibition against eating blood and fat.
In a recent discussion, a Memorialist accused the Catholic Church of violating the Jewish dietary laws by her doctrine of Real Presence since, in his mind, it amounts to cannibalism. But is this doctrine, which most Christians have always held in some form, a violation of the Torah? Let’s look at Mark’s gospel for some helpful clues. In Mark 7:15 Jesus says, “Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him.” In verse 19, Jesus gives the reason and Mark explains the full implication of this radical statement, “‘For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.’ In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.”
Jesus points out that eating food is a physical process. It goes in physically, is physically digested, and then discarded. It doesn’t enter the heart and therefore does not defile. This isn’t dualism, just common sense. Now it follows that if something cannot cause spiritual harm by a purely physical process, it cannot cause spiritual benefit by a purely physical process.
The objection Memorialists raise regarding the Jewish dietary laws and the Eucharist reduces the doctrine of Real Presence to a purely physical process which is a straw-man fallacy. That is, if the reception of Christ’s Body by Christians is a purely physical process, we would be guilty of cannibalism and therefore a violation of the Jewish dietary laws. Now the contemporary Memorialists are not the first to accuse the Catholic Church of cannibalism. This unsubstantiated claim was widely used against us by the pagans of the second century. We emphatically do not hold the Eucharistic reception to be a purely physical process and we are not guilty of cannibalism because receiving the Eucharist is not the equivalent of taking a bite out of Jesus’ Arm nor of drinking His Blood from the Cross. Those things would be a violation of the Jewish dietary laws. The substance of the host has been changed into the risen Body of Christ which although fully corporeal and real, does not physically belong to this universe. The Jewish dietary laws pertain to the natural; what we are partaking of in the Eucharist is supernatural. So our reception of Christ in the Eucharist is not a mere physical event. It is an event where the supernatural meets the natural. The benefit of the Eucharist is spiritual not physical; namely: grace. We cannot receive grace via digestion. Moreover, we do not digest Christ.
From these arguments, it is clear that the doctrine of the Real Presence does not amount to cannibalism and thus does not violate the Jewish dietary laws (which Mark 7:19 abolished anyway).
Can I ask slightly unrelated question? I am looking for clarity. The Catholic Church teaches that all Trinitarian Baptisms are valid and efficacious (as far as I understand). But what about the Lord’s Supper? The Catholic Eucharist forgives venial sins according to the Catechism, but what about the Lord’s Supper in non-Catholic ecumenical bodies? Are venial sins forgiven here as well? The first time reading through the Catechism’s section on the Eucharist is mind blowing for a Presbyterian who only receives the sacrament once a month. Thanks, Jeremy
Hi Jeremy. That’s a good question. The efficacy of a non-Catholic baptism, provided proper form and matter, is an ancient question which was settled in the 3rd century. However, the efficacy of the sacrament of the Eucharist is a different issue because a non-Catholic could have the form but not the matter. That is, they could perform the ritual but if they have not valid Orders via Apostolic Succession, the Eucharist is invalid. It is possible for a non-Catholic Eucharist to be valid but illicit though. This is the case with the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius the Tenth). The Eastern Orthodox Eucharist is also valid and does forgive venial sins.
Now you may have known all that and still have your question. I don’t know of a definite pronouncement on this issue but I would humbly suggest that since the communion service of the Protestant community is not valid per qualifications above, it does not operate in the sacramental way that a Catholic Eucharist does in absolving venial sins. Now, the nuances between venial and mortal sins and how they are forgiven for those outside the ordinary walls of the Catholic Church is a complex issue and most likely is best answered with a humble deference to God’s unfathomable mercy. He works in ways we do not understand and I can only assume that those Protestants who approach the Eucharist with sincerity, especially those in a state of invincible ignorance, may by some special providence be granted a pardon in a similar way. The point of distinction though is that the communion itself is not a valid sacrament and therefore ex opere operato does not apply.
Is this helpful?
Yes, very helpful and much easier than researching myself:) Where does the Catholic Church get the idea of the Eucharist being valid via legitimate Apostolic Succession? I def see the problems with sola scriptura and do not hold to it any more, so I’m not necessarily looking for a Scripture reference, but I am interested in where the RCC gets this teaching. I know this probably requires a long answer, any links you can give me to read would be appreciated. This is one thing I cannot answer when I’ve talked with my evangelical/Reformed friends about my leaning towards Rome. Thanks, Jeremy
Jeremy,
In order to answer this question, we need to start with an understanding of the Church herself as a sacramental entity; i.e. she has a divine right to exist and to do what she is commissioned to do. The Church does not merely consist of a group of people with good intentions.
The Eucharistic worship is at the heart of what “she is commissioned to do” because it is at the heart of her mission to save lost souls and to worship the Triune God. But by what authority does she perform this action? A sacrament is instituted by Christ, as you know, and Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Specifically, He told His disciples, “Do this in memory of Me.” Who could do that? Who did He give authority? Could Mary Magdalene? Could other ordinary lay persons? No. It was given to the apostles.
So, to understand the Eucharist as valid only at the hands of those with valid Orders, we must start with the sacrament of Holy Orders. We will get into more depth on this subject when we formerly tackle Apostolic Succession but that is a few months away.
In the first generation, the Church knew that only those to whom authority had been given (the apostles) could rightly “Do this in memory of Me.” And the second generation knew that it belonged only to those whom the apostles had ordained as successors. In fact, from the earliest times, the Church has understood the Eucharist to properly belong to the bishop. It was only as a matter of practicality in the 3rd and 4th century that it became ordinary for Presbyters to celebrate. The Church understood then and now, that they perform this action under delegated authority from the bishop, whose proper duty it is.
So if one can perform this action without valid Apostolic Succession, what criteria could be used to determine its validity? What would be the principle difference in me doing it and an ordained Presbyterian minister? He has been duly ordained by a Presbytery, but who have they been ordained by? The question is, on whose authority do we perform this action? The sacrament is performed on the authority of Christ through apostolic succession.
I appreciate it. Most of this is new to be, I had never heard that Priest performs mass through authority delegated to them by a Bishop. I’ll process it. It would be more consistent (in my understanding) if valid baptism also required legitimate holy orders. I’m still not sure I understand what you’re saying in terms of where these sacraments differ in terms of validity. Why would the baptism of a baby in the Episcopal Church by a woman be valid, but not her administering the Eucharist? Nobody gave her authority to do either.
I am only questioning the difference between these sacraments. The Catholic Church’s position actually draws me to the Catholic Church. In a weird way I really respect that I am barred from the table as I am not Catholic. Our generation starts churches in their basements using coke at potato chips. I’m glad that the Catholic Church offers a way out of the madness.
Again, I really appreciate y’all’s website. I’ve talked with several priests over the past two years about the Church, but it is more helpful for me to talk with people that get how I’m viewing things from a Reformed Perspective. Peace in Him, Jeremy
Jeremy,
Excellent question. This is where the infallible authority of Tradition comes in. Part of the argument of St. Cyprian of Carthage & the Northern African Synod on Re-Baptism was that Baptism was a sacrament of forgiveness of sins and as such belongs exclusively to the Church. From this it seems to follow that those outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church, whether heretical or schismatic, cannot perform a valid baptism. What I gather from your question reminds me of this argument – if the Eucharist is done by special prerogative of the Church – why isn’t the same true of baptism? It’s a fair question.
Pope St. Stephen argued on the weight of the unbroken tradition received from the apostles that baptism cannot be repeated and was valid as long as the proper form and matter was used. (St. Augustine later concurred. You might be interested to read his treatise On Baptism).
In Acts 8:14-17, Peter and John are sent to Samaria because the Christians there had only been baptized (by Philip the deacon) and had not received the Holy Spirit. From this it follows that 1) At least deacons could baptize 2) Apostles could do some things that even deacons couldn’t. The sacrament in this passage is Confirmation of course, but it shows that baptism did not belong to apostles/bishops alone even from the earliest Church.
Tertullian says, “Of giving it, the chief priest (who is the bishop) has the right: in the next place, the presbyters and deacons, yet not without the bishop’s authority, on account of the honour of the Church, which being preserved, peace is preserved. Beside these, even laymen have the right; for what is equally received can be equally given.” (On Baptism ch17)
So this demonstrates that laymen could perform the sacrament even in the early Church although it was never the norm.
Jeremy,
If you want a book, Zizioulas’s Eucharist Bishop Church is a good place to start.
My answer would be that the Eucharist is a corporate event, whereas Baptism only makes a member of the corporation. And just because I have authority (in theory) to say “yes, you are welcome to come to our community, to come to our Eucharist” it does not imply that I have the authority to create a new community by instituting a new Eucharist of my own. If I baptize, I am (by the act) inviting the one baptized to come to the Eucharistic celebration of the one people under the one Bishop. If I hold a Mass, I’m establishing a new eucharistic community (I hate that language) and hence a new Church, and a new Christ.
Of course, I shouldn’t usually invite whoever by baptizing them. But in an emergency it might be necessary–for instance if someone was dying.
Regarding Protestant Eucharists: That’s a tricky question because the Catholic Church has said that Protestants are in some way Christian. But we are then (seemingly) left saying that either the Christian faith is optionally Eucharistic–which is nonsense it is the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanses us from all sin, and it is through His Flesh that we have access to the Holy of Holies–or that it is optionally One–which is also manifestly nonsense. In my opinion, this tension between the Eucharist and the unity of the Church on the one hand, and the fact that Protestants are indeed Christian on the other hasn’t been satisfactorily resolved.
Tim,
I think you got at exactly what I was asking. It seems like your saying that Scripture and tradition affirm exceptions to the norm concerning the sacrament of baptism whereas such exceptions for the Eucharist are not to be found (if so not affirmed by RCC). This makes sense in that being a one time regenerating ordiance, the unity of the Church is not disturbed nearly as dramatically as it would be with the Eucharist, which if fully valid in any administration by anybody, it would erode the bonds of Church unity.
I’ll think it over. I get part of what your saying, but I’m sure part of me needs to trust and not fear the Catholic Church. I’ve been told for a long time that the Catholic Church “just makes stuff up” in their so called “tradition” in order to give defense of their own heresies. I had become Catholic enough in my theology to begin RCIA last fall, but after walking in the Church, I realized I still couldn’t trust it on a personal level. I think that is slowly changing, and I pray that God will let me know if and when is the right time. One reason I also love this website is that I don’t hate the Reformed faith, I still love it, which I think many of you can relate to. I asked my wife yesterday if I could be both, but she said she didn’t think that would work out. I’m taking an elective on C.S. Lewis through RTS virtual, I’m sure I’ll be shooting y’all some questions. I’m very interested in the question of where he would have gone had he lived to see the Church of England ordain women. I think he would have left, but I’m not sure where he would have gone. My wife is telling me I’m becoming too obsessed with this site, so I’m going to sign off and hang out with her. Thanks for reading and thanks for your thoughtul responses to my questions.
Peace in Jesus, Jeremy
“In my opinion, this tension between the Eucharist and the unity of the Church on the one hand, and the fact that Protestants are indeed Christian on the other hasn’t been satisfactorily resolved.”
This is not necessarily a tension between the Eucharist and unity of the Church on one hand and the fact that Protestants are Christian on another but, more precisely, a matter of the Fullness of the Faith, which Protestants, although seemingly Christian, do not have even as regards their beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist (as the Catholic Faith since the days of the early church professed it to be — and do take note that only the fully initiate then could take part in the celebration and even the catechumens of the Church could not themselves partake in the Celebration — how much more those separated from the Church?) and its Celebration — for even insofar as the latter is concerned, among other things, theirs is not a valid Holy Orders as that in the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church.
Double post. Please delete the first one (which contains some mistakes).
Let me offer some points in addition to Tim’s. Christ is our High Priest. And as our High Priest he has called some men to administer the sacraments to the people, as representatives of Him. To quote from a Lutheran source:
I don’t know if this is really relevant, but it’s interesting to see some of the different translations of Justin Martyr’s First Apology. In part 67, he writes (according to this translation) that in the Sunday worship when bread and wine is brought forth to the president, he (that is; the president) “sends up prayers and thanksgivings to the best of his ability, and the congregation assents, saying the Amen.” (My emphasis) But this is, AFAIK, not a direct translation of the words. Fr Timothy Finigan writes:
If Justin Martyr had these ideas this early, I’m pretty sure that it was very common knowledge amongst the early Christians. And if the bishops (and their priests), as “descendants” of the Apostles, represents Christ — then it all makes sense to me.
And that the priests “performs mass through authority delegated to them by a Bishop” is pretty explicit in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. He writes to the Smyrnaeans: “You should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorizes.”
Roma,
I don’t of course mean that Protestants should be allowed to receive communion at Catholic churches. I mean simply that 1) Our access to Christ is through the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the heart of our faith. 2) The Eucharist is one, under one bishop. 3) Protestants are not under the bishop and do not have the Eucharist. 4) Protestants are indeed Christian. These four statements seem to me to be in tension. I can reconcile them with “Christ isn’t bound to the Eucharist, he can operate outside it.” If we said “Christ generally doesn’t act outside the Eucharist, but occasionally He does, I don’t know about this individual case” we aren’t making a statement about how we relate to Christ.
But if we can say Protestants are separated brethren, if we (as Fr. Neuhaus has) that it would be nice if someone like Bonhoeffer could be cannonized, if we can say, as the Pope does by including Bach music in his masses, that Bach was writing Christian music, yet none of the Protestants have the Eucharist, we mean that the Christian faith is only optionally Eucharistic. That christendom is not created and defined by the Eucharist. In short, we say that the Evangelicals who say that Christendom is in our hearts, or in our thoughts are correct, and that internal faith may be confirmed by the Eucharist, but our faith isn’t in the Eucharist.
Also, there is the problem that at least Lutherans and some Anglicans really do believe in the Physical presence of Christ.
I’ll grant you that, to a limited extent, Lutherans and some Anglicans believe in a sort of Real Presence that we Catholics do; however, not all protestants (especially in how increasingly diverse protestantism has become these days) actually do.
Yet, I must point out that there have been unique instances where a Protestant who faithfully believes as we actually do concerning the Holy Eucharist has been given that very sacrament upon their deathbed.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that all manner of Protestants should be welcomed at the very table we partake of the wedding feast since, again, not all really genuinely believe as we Catholics do.
The Holy Eucharist (that which we Catholics affirm as the very Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus Christ Himself) should not be taken so lightly so as to treat it as some sort of appetizer that all such people are welcomed to.
Matthew,
But we are then (seemingly) left saying that either the Christian faith is optionally Eucharistic … or that it is optionally One ….”
I think we don’t have to choose between those two claims. Imagine a child who has no use of his legs. Someone then begins a dilemma with , “Either the use of legs is optional to human life, or ….” We can see that the term ‘optional’ is not the right word to use in this situation. It treats a human being (i.e. a living substance) like an automobile or a washing machine, that comes with options or accessories. It thus mistakenly treats legs as either essential or merely optional. And that is a false dilemma. A person can survive without legs (see here for example), but that does not mean that legs are merely optional for humans. There is a true sense in which properly functioning legs and arms are necessary in order to flourish as a human. The Church likewise is a Body, a living organism. The sacraments are necessary for persons to enter her and to flourish with her. The sacraments are not optional. But that does not mean that there are two Bodies: those Christians who share the Eucharist and those Christians who don’t. Rather, it means that there are varying degrees of flourishing and communion within that one Body. A baptized believer who does not have the Eucharist is like a man with no legs. Can he survive? Yes. Does that mean that legs are merely optional? No. The Eucharist is essential for full communion, but not for imperfect communion. I wrote about these various degrees of communion here.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
When we consider communities the analogy of legs may be sufficient (though I don’t believe so). But when we consider an individual, legs are not analogy to the Eucharist. The Eucharist isn’t a part of me, like legs are, it is something external to me, on which I depend. Namely, it is food. But man cannot live without bread. And by calling Protestants communities Christian–and specifically by saying that Protestants can be and are holy–we seem to be saying that Protestants are living men who never eat. Or else we are saying that there is some other Food besides the Eucharist.
Similarly, I don’t think the analogy of legs works for the community either. The Eucharist isn’t a part of the community any more than it is a part of an individual. The Eucharist constitutes the community and makes them one. Without the Eucharist, a community is just a philosophy club, or a unChristian religous meeting–unChristian because there is no Christ. But maybe that’s what the term “eccleastical community” is trying to get at.
In Charitate Christi,
Matt
Matt,
I was not suggesting that our need for limbs is analogous in every respect to our need for the Eucharist. I used the analogy of limbs to show that the dilemma between *merely optional* and *absolutely essential* is a false dilemma.
But man cannot live without bread. And by calling Protestants communities Christian–and specifically by saying that Protestants can be and are holy–we seem to be saying that Protestants are living men who never eat.
Let me offer a counterexample. Consider a person who is baptized in the Catholic Church as a baby, but is paralyzed and has a severe form of mental retardation, and never develops a mental capacity beyond that of a 1 year-old. He never receives the Eucharist. This person lives to be 65, and then dies. Must this man lose the sanctifying grace he received in baptism, because he could not receive the Eucharist for 65 years? If you say, “No, because he cannot sin”, then the issue is penance, not the Eucharist. And Protestants who (as Protestants, though with invincible ignorance about the Catholic Church) have perfect contrition for their post-baptismal sins, receive the effects of the sacrament of penance, by desire. Otherwise, no Protestant who committed a mortal sin after baptism could be saved, without becoming Catholic and receiving the sacrament of penance.
There is one Body, but even those outside this Body may (and do) enjoy some of the effects of the Soul of this Body, including sanctifying grace and salvation. Catechumens are not yet members of the Church, but they receive the effects of baptism by desire, and may be saved if they die as a Catechumen. The Church has always believed this, and she has always understood “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” with this qualification. Likewise, the necessity of the Eucharist must also be understood with the proper qualifications.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Well, I’m perhaps more Eastern–I would prefer that he be communed. But still, I suppose it isn’t necessary.
The issue of Catechumens is a red-herring. Catechumens are a part of the Catholic community, Protestants are not. And the Catechumen is looking forward to the Eucharist, whereas the Protestant isn’t.
All,
Just out of curiosity… if Protestants are indeed Christian, what is the argument of keeping them from the Table at a Catholic Church, especially if they do believe in the Real Presence? I am curious because the definitions of the “Christianness” of Protestants seem to vary in the above opinions. Is there any case (even hypothetical) in which you might argue that a Protestant brother should be allowed to partake from the Table?
Thanks all.
Caleb
Because Catholics believe that the Celebration of the Eucharist is a Sign of the Reality of the Oneness of Faith, Life & Worship (above all else, as had been mentioned earlier, we Catholics fervently & emphatically believe that the Holy Eucharist is in fact the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Our Lord Himself, as did the Christians of the early church), members of churches not yet fully united with the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church (i.e., the Catholic Church) are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires special permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4).
As far as the Protestants go, Canon 844 § 4 states that non-Catholics who belong to those churches which have a valid Eucharist, true Eucharistic faith and valid Penance can receive our Lord under:
a. danger of death, or, other grave necessity,
b. the norms of the diocesan bishop, or, the conference of bishops are complied with
c. cannot approach a minister of his or her own community
d. asks on his or her own for it,
e. manifests Catholic faith in the sacraments
f. properly disposed.
In other words, we Catholics take reception of the Holy Eucharist very seriously (as St. Paul’s own remarks in 1st Corinthians 11:27-28, for example, would suggest a similar seriousness concerning its reception) so much so that we have such restrictions on who, exactly, can receive it.
Thanks. d. is a bit vague…. could you expound?
I am learning.
Also, does the same apply to Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox or does Cannon 844 apply only to Protestants?
Caleb
Caleb, if I can add something: the Protestants who believe in the “Real Presence” believe it in a different way and with some qualifications that are explicitly anathematized by Trent; namely: that the bread and wine continue to exist along side of the Body and Blood. There is no Protestant denomination that has an acceptable doctrine of the Eucharist. A Protestant may privately assent to Transubstantiation, and some Anglicans do, but it is not consistent with their confessional beliefs. If you believe that privately, you should be a Catholic publicly.
Canon 844 regards any Christian, not just those who have a valid Eucharist. (Only Catholic, Orthodox and a few schismatic or quasi schismatic groups have a valid Eucharist). As for the Eastern Orthodox, from our perspective, they are permitted to receive the Eucharist at any time. Their own bishops, however, usually don’t allow them to receive.
d. above is worded in the canon “who spontaneously ask for them”. I’m not a canon lawyer, but I’d guess it’s just insisting that the reception be voluntary, not coerced in any way.
Correction: § 4 (as I read it) regards any Christian. The canon 844 is talking about Orthodox but it appears to me that § 4 shifts gears temporarily and speaks of “other Christians.”
Matthew,
The issue of Catechumens is a red-herring. Catechumens are a part of the Catholic community, Protestants are not.
In order to evaluate whether such a claim is true or not, we would need to know exactly what “part of the Catholic community” means. A Catechumen is not a member of the Catholic Church. Mystici Corporis 22 lists the three conditions for membership in the Church:
Catechumens do not meet the first condition: baptism.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
“Canon 844 regards any Christian, not just those who have a valid Eucharist. ”
Note the significance of the key phrasing: “…provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.
Bryan,
I agree that Catechumens are not in the Church. But if the Church is a city: Catechumens are like residents who are applying for citizenship–or if they are not yet residents, they are at least beginning to imigrate. Protestants on the other hand, though citizens of the city by their baptism, are not residents.
The cannibalism concept was the cause of a very long discussion between Roman chruch divines at one time. They even went so far as to try to determine what happened to the Lord Jesus once He was digested. Did He become ——? Oh of course not they concluded. You can read about this and other Roman Church teachings as compared to the Bible in my new book, Escape From Paganism, How A Roman Catholic Can Be Saved. You can preview the book at http://www.escapefrompaganism.com.
One more thing, what about human sacrifice? Do you understand that the inquistion was just this? It was the sacrifice of “heretics” to satisfy the demand of God. In Spain and Portugal until the end of the 1820’s all kinds of religious ritual was carried out, including a mass, when an “auto de fe” was carried out. An auto de fe (act of faith) was a torturous death that was supposedly an act by the condemned person that would make him/her right with God.
Visit my site and preview my book. I think you might find it interesting.
Larry Ball
Larry, sorry for the delay in response. Our spam filters didn’t like your comment. Christ is not digested which you would have discovered if you read the article. I’d like to see some evidence for what you say was a long discussion in the Roman Church on this issue.
The inquisition was absolutely nothing related to human sacrifice to appease God. You need to back up your claims (and no I won’t read your book). These claims are outlandish enough to warrant me not reading your book. If you have some evidence to give me reason to take a more serious look, I’m all ears.