Tuesday, May 13, 2008

"Is it just Jesus in disguise?" or, Eucharistic Docetism

The legend tells us of an encounter between the young St. Francis and a leper on the plains outside Assisi. As Francis was riding along, he saw the man, disfigured by such hideous sores that Francis almost turned to flee from him. But the love of God overcame his revulsion. This dignified young man—the son of a wealthy merchant—got down from his horse and embraced the man, and kissed his open sores.

Sometimes the story is told with a postscript. When Francis remounted his horse and turned to say good-bye to the leper, the man had vanished. The leper had been Christ in disguise.

The addition to the story gets something right, but at a deeper level it is very wrong. If the leper was Jesus and no one else, then what about the sores? What about the rags? Were they only for show, so that Jesus could teach a lesson in disguise and then pass on? But what if the leper was really a leper—a poor man suffering from a grotesque disease—and Jesus was present in him in the midst of his leprosy?

Here is the problem with the doctrine of transubstantiation, the teaching that the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper are changed by Divine power into the literal body and blood of the Lord Jesus, and so cease to be bread and wine. If this is true, then this food and drink cannot bring us to Christ, because the moment they begin to do so, they are no longer food and drink. But if we eat real bread and drink real wine, and through them really eat the flesh of the Son of God and drink His blood ... then God is really in the world, in things and in people. Then Francis met a man with a real and horrible disease, and in him he really met the Lord. Then the Word has really become Flesh. Then Christ really is the Savior of the world. Not a "savior" who would take us out of the world, but a Savior who sends us into the world (John 17:15-18). He has not come to annihilate the creation and put Himself in its place. No!—He has come to take His place in the creation, and so make it truly become itself, what He created it to be.

Because His brothers were really there craving your help, because they really were needy and weak—because it was for them that you did it, He says, you did it for Him!
“And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me’ ” (Matthew 25:40).

Because it is really bread that you break and eat, therefore you receive the Body of Christ. It must be and remain bread so that you, through it, may receive His real body into yours! If bread had to be absent for Christ to be present, then we could never meet Christ in the material things of God's creation. But it is bread, real bread!—wine, real wine! so that in it we may really meet our Lord!
“Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:14-17).

5 comments:

Colin Clout said...

As you may have guessed I have a couple of thoughts:

Regarding St. Francis: if that story was given as the ideal, I think you have a point. But would you object to Christ appearing as a leper to show that to love any leper is to love Christ?

Regarding Transubstantiation:

I suppose the first comment is why is it important that this bread and wine bring us to Christ? Certianly some things bring us to Christ, but wouldn't you object if someone said Mary's Son brings us to the Second Person of the Trinity? Why does the Eucharist have to be the first sort of thing?

And it seems that if it is the Second, we are saying Christ is in this world in a fuller way than we merely say it brings us to Christ. Other things bring us to Christ, but this Bread and this Wine do not bring us to Christ any more than Mary's Son brings us to the Second Person of the Trinity.

But I think that the criticisms that the Food only appears to be bread, the drink only appears to be wine, but we must pass through the appearances; and that Christ rather than turning Bread into Himself destroys the Bread and makes it into Himself are more substantitive.

Of the second, Aquinas is at pains to assert that the bread is not destroyed, so though that objection actually overthrows some Catholic positions, I'm not sure it does Aquinas. And also, a Catholic isn't committed to Aquinas' formulation.

So I think it would be ok to say "here is Food Itself, that is, here before you, is Christ Himself. But here is Christ Himself in a way ammenable to your desire, but here is Christ as Bread. Here is Bread which not only is contained in Christ, but contains the fullness of Christ."

Regarding the first, I think that is probably a legitimate criticism of Aquinas, but I don't know that it is a criticism of every possible Catholic position.

Colin Clout said...

I also realized the other day that for a Christian, while some persons are ends, nothing is a dead end.

Christ is an end.

But Christ is a symbol of the Father and of the Holy Spirit and of the Church.

The Holy Spirit is an end.

But the Holy Spirit is a symbol of Christ.

So perhaps it isn't true that the bread and wine bring us to Christ, but are Christ, but they are symbols of the Father and of the Spirit and of ourselves, and of the Church. Thus the real identity causes the Church, for, being Christ, it is a sign of the Church.

This, I don't think is perfect, because I think the Church is equally present in the Eucharist as Christ, but perhaps it gets at something.

Matt

Jeff Moss said...

Matt, thank you for the comments. The main point I was trying to make was this: If you can't imagine Christ being present somewhere unless other people and things are absent, you don't know Him as you ought to. He is usually present to us by means of the "stuff," the ordinary people, that we encounter daily. If we meet Him in the Supper, this must not mean that bread and wine are therefore withdrawn from that same Supper.

Your first comment, and especially your second comment, fit well with this central point even as they expand and develop what I was saying.

Anonymous said...

If you sexcams use the HD7 was a legitimately weird experience -- all still accessible.
Alliances can declare other alliances friendly,
neutral, or make use of a set of ear closed.

Feel free to surf to my website sexchat

Anonymous said...

I read this paragraph fully regarding the resemblance of newest
and previous technologies, it's remarkable article.

Look at my page online schoenen kopen