Karlo Broussard joins us to discuss the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, specifically if believing that Jesus is fully present is absurd.
Cy Kellett:
Hello and welcome to Focus, the Catholic answers podcast for living understanding and defending your Catholic faith. I am Cy Kellett, your host. And not too long ago we talked with Karlo Broussard about the Eucharist and particularly the words of institution and some Protestant arguments against the Catholic belief in the literalness of the words of consecration.
This is my body and this is my blood. This time we talk with Karlo again, but about a broader objection to the Eucharist. The objection that, look, it is just absurd to believe what you believe. And this is not just a dismissal, this is an argument with some intelligence behind it and requires of us a fair and intelligent answer. That is something Karlo is just an expert at. Welcome back, Karlo Broussard.
Karlo Broussard:
Cy Kellett, thanks for having me back, man.
Cy Kellett:
I appreciate you taking the time out because I know you’re very busy doing Sunday Catholic Word, probably it’s taking you 40, 50 hours a week to do Sunday Catholic Word podcast, but I just wanted to say Sunday Catholic Word several times at the beginning here so that people would go to sundaycatholicword.com and check it out.
If you’re going to mass on Sunday and you’re like, “I haven’t looked at the readings beforehand,” you can solve that entirely and you can have thought through them with a Catholic apologist because on each Thursday, Karlo is drawing from the scripture readings that you’ll be reading at mass on Sunday and looking at them through the eyes of a Catholic apologist. Did I get that all right? It seemed awkward the way I said it, but that was basically right, right?
Karlo Broussard:
Yep. Looking at the upcoming Sunday mass readings and highlighting those details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith, whether that detail might be addressed by our Protestant friends or a skeptic or just it comes up in apologetical discussions in some way, shape or form. Maybe it’s used as a little piece of evidence for a broader argument.
However the detail relates to apologetics, I try to highlight that for the listener so that they can get some extra food for thought from the liturgy of the word, because there are many podcasts out there who do a great job of exegeting the text of the Sunday mass readings, but very few take an apologetical approach. And so that’s kind of the flavor of Catholic Answers in this podcast. And so it’s been a lot of fun doing it and people have been enjoying
Cy Kellett:
It. sundaycatholicword.com. All right, is Catholic belief in the Eucharist absurd Carlo?
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. Well, that depends on how good the arguments that lead to the conclusion that it is absurd are. And so the objection, there’s actually a couple of different forms of the objections. So, this sort of objection, this form of objection, the belief in the Eucharist leads to absurdity can have as its target either the belief in the real presence in the Eucharist. So, there are some arguments that will target that, just the belief that Christ is truly substantially present in the Eucharist and then try to argue that it leads to absurdities. It’s sort of a reductio argument. So, if the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist were true, well then X. But then X is absurd. We can’t believe that. And so therefore Jesus ain’t really present in the Eucharist. Okay?
Now there’s also some arguments, and we’ll look at one of them in our conversation today that will target the literal interpretation of Jesus’s words to eat his flesh and drink his blood, which is related to our belief in the real presence of Christ and the Eucharist. And so that sort of objection takes the form of Jesus meant his words, eat my flesh and drink my blood literally, whether it be at the Last Supper or in John VI, well then X, right? It’s going to have this consequence here. But X is absurd, and so therefore Jesus didn’t mean his words to be taken literally. Okay? And so I listed for us to go over three of these kinds of objections. There are more, and I’m planning on writing on them and even possibly putting it in a future book. I don’t know, maybe.
Cy Kellett:
Oh, I think you do know. I think when you talk like that, I think what that means is you actually do know.
Karlo Broussard:
I’m working on it, man. We’ll see. We’ll see how Providence plays out here, and if we can find something here for a good future book, maybe a third installment of the meeting, the Protestant collection. So anyway, I was just going to list the three objections.
One objection can take that first target of the literal interpretation of Jesus’s word. So, if eat flesh were literally true, well then we wouldn’t die physically. That’s one argument. And then the other arguments are if the Eucharist were the real presence of Christ, well then God would be deceiving us. So, that’s a second kind of argument here, or objection. And then finally, if Christ were really present in the Eucharist, well then we would be guilty of cannibalism, you see?
Cy Kellett:
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
But all of these consequences of these beliefs were absurd, man. And so therefore these beliefs can’t be true. I just wanted to lay out these three different objections that we’re going to cover today, hopefully, [inaudible 00:05:20].
Cy Kellett:
If we do the first one, do you want me to read the quote from Todd Baker, the Protestant minister, or?
Karlo Broussard:
No, I don’t think so. I think we can skip his quote. So, basically what you’re referring to there is this first objection. If we interpret Jesus’ words, eat his flesh, literally then we wouldn’t die. That objection’s made by a Protestant pastor from Dallas by the name of Todd Baker from his book Exodus from Rome. And so the quote’s just sort of a lengthy articulation of that first premise where he’s talking about if eating Jesus’s flesh is to be taken literally, well then we would not die. Okay? Basically, his argument is this. Here’s a summary of his argument.
If Jesus intended the physical act of eating his flesh, well then Catholics wouldn’t die. That’s based upon what Jesus says in John 6:51, “If you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will live forever.” He’s saying, “Hey, if you interpret that literally that you have to physically eat his flesh, well then you’re going to have to interpret the live forever physically. You’re never going to die. You’re going to be currently preserved in your physical life.” But that’s absurd. Catholics obviously die. And so therefore Jesus didn’t intend a physical act of eating. He meant something else, like belief.
Now, Baker assumes here that if the cause of everlasting life is a physical act of eating Jesus’s flesh, well then the effect, everlasting life, necessarily must be a physical effect, namely the preservation of our current physical life. You see that argumentation there? If the cause of everlasting life is physical, eating the Eucharist, well then the effect everlasting life must be physical and literal as well, preservation of current physical life. And so you would never die, if we interpret Jesus’s words literally. But the question in response, Cy is, well, why is that? Why do you think if we say a physical act of eating the Eucharist, why does that necessarily entail preservation of a current physical life? Why does it necessarily entail a physical effect?
And Baker never says, he never gives us a reason for his inference. If you say physical act of eating, then physical preservation of life, right? And you never die. He never gives us a reason for that inference. And so in response we can say, well, it’s surely not the idea itself. There’s no logical connection between the two because think about it, Cy, we can conceive of a real partaking of Jesus and the Eucharist and that being a cause. Jesus willing that physical eating of the Eucharist to be a cause of us living forever in the sense of spiritually living forever in heaven. And that seems to fit the text because Jesus says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the [inaudible 00:08:07] and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” And the Greek word there for life is [foreign language 00:08:11] referring to the divine life.
We can also conceive of a real partaking of Jesus’s flesh in the Eucharist, a real act of eating the Eucharist and Jesus willing that to be a cause of us living forever, but in the sense of physically living forever at the end of time when we get our glorified bodies back in the bodily resurrection. And that seems to fit the text because Jesus said, “If you eat my flesh and drink my blood, I’m going to raise you up on the last day.” And finally, we could conceive of a real physical act of eating Jesus’s flesh in the Eucharist and Jesus willing that to be a cause of living forever in both senses, living forever in heaven, spiritually. Living forever, physically at the end of time after our bodily resurrection.
And so contrary to what Baker thinks here in this argument, a literal interpretation of Jesus’s words to eat his flesh and drink his blood does not necessarily entail a preservation of our current physical life. Or to state it differently, physical death is not incompatible with a literal interpretation of Jesus’s words to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Jesus can affirm a physical act of eating Jesus’s flesh in the Eucharist, and will that the cause be something other than our preservation of our current physical life. [inaudible 00:09:40].
Cy Kellett:
Effect, yeah, the effect of that cause.
Karlo Broussard:
Effect, that’s right. It can be something else. It can be spiritual life in heaven, or it can be physical life forever at the end of time in the glorious bodily resurrection.
Cy Kellett:
Which would seem to be what every single Catholic actually believes because-
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. That’s right.
Cy Kellett:
… I mean, Unless you’re insane, you don’t think the other thing because it’s never… Well, okay, but this pastor though does believe in eternal life and he does believe in resurrection to eternal life.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right.
Cy Kellett:
So, he believes something gets you there. What is-
Karlo Broussard:
That’s a good point because Baker in this argument side actually doesn’t follow his own interpretive principle. Because remember, his interpretive principle is physical act necessarily leads to a physical effect, right? Well, he believes, okay, so basically what he’s saying is, “Hey, if you physically eat the Eucharist, then you can’t have this spiritual effect of life in heaven. You’re going to have to be current physical life.”
But yet he believes that the spiritual, that the life Jesus is talking about is living forever in heaven. He believes in that spiritual effect, and he also believes that belief in Christ will be the cause of that spiritual effect. But I would assume, and I think it’s safe to assume that he would also believe that belief in Christ would involve a physical verbal act of professing faith in Christ.
Cy Kellett:
Well, because Christ himself says that, “Confess with your… ” Isn’t that-
Karlo Broussard:
St. Paul. You’re thinking of Saint Paul.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. Saint Paul. Right.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. Inspired by the Holy Spirit in Romans, chapter 10. “Confess with your mouth and you shall be saved.” So, if Baker believes that belief in Christ involves the physical act of professing faith in Christ and that being a cause of the spiritual effect of life in heaven, well wait a minute. If the physical act of professing faith in Jesus can be a cause of a spiritual effect, namely life in heaven, well then why couldn’t the physical act of eating Jesus’s flesh in the Eucharist be a cause of a spiritual effect, namely life in heaven? You see?
And to state it differently, if the physical act of professing faith in Christ does not demand a physical effect, namely preservation of our current physical life, well then why would the physical act of eating Jesus in the Eucharist demand a physical effect, namely preservation of our current physical life? You see how it’s a bit arbitrary?
Cy Kellett:
Yes.
Karlo Broussard:
He’s allowing the physical act of belief of professing faith in Christ to bring about a spiritual effect, but he’s not allowing the physical act of eating Jesus’s flesh in the Eucharist to bring about a spiritual effect. So, there’s some special pleading going on here. It’s an arbitrary standard. And so he is not only guilty of a double standard here, not for me, but for thee, kind of thing. But he’s also not following his own interpretive principle, allowing a spiritual effect, everlasting life, to come from a physical act of professing faith in Christ. So, if that’s the case, well then physical act of eating Jesus in the Eucharist is fair game, baby.
Cy Kellett:
Okay, so what about the second objection then? God would be deceiving us. If we take these words literally, this is my body, this is my blood, and then God’s deceiving us.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. So, if Jesus were really present in the Eucharist under the appearance of bread, which is what we profess as Catholics along with our Orthodox brethren and many other Christians, well then God would be deceiving us. The late Norman Geisler and Ralph McKenzie in their book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals Agreements and Differences, I think is the subtitle. They make this argument in their book. And actually St. Thomas Aquinas deals with this very objection in the third part of his Summa Theologiae in question 75 and his great Treatise on the Eucharist, article five and his response to the objection two.
And basically what Aquinas says there is number one, first of all, he says, there’s no deception. Here are two reasons. Number one, the senses are not being deceived. Our senses are capturing what they’re naturally directed to or ordered toward capturing, namely color, size, shape, taste, smell, material quantity of bread and wine. And that’s what we see. That’s what we taste. That’s what we’re feeling, right? So, our senses are capturing exactly what they’re meant to capture, all of these qualities of bread and wine.
Now, somebody might say, “Well, doesn’t the intellect normally arrive at the knowledge of a substance by way of what we see and what appears to our senses?” Normally and ordinarily, yes, that is true, but there is no deception in the Eucharist. And here’s the reason why, and Aquinas does this beautifully, Cy. The intellect perceives what that object is in front of us after the words of consecration correctly. Not by its own natural power, not ordinarily, but via faith. And it’s through the gift of faith that the intellect is able to not be deceived and actually perceive correctly what the object is, what the reality of the thing held in Father’s hand is.
And so Aquinas states it like this. “The intellect whose proper object is substance, nature, reality, essence is preserved by faith from deception.” So, here’s an analogy, Cy. Consider this. We take Jesus Christ. If we’re looking at Jesus Christ, man, he’s walking on the face of the earth. We’re with the apostles, we’re seeing him with our senses. We are sensing that man, Jesus Christ, we’re touching him, we’re feeling him, we’re hearing him. Now, should we say that God is deceiving us because we know that’s God made man, but yet he appears to be only a man?
Cy Kellett:
Only a man. Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. If we’re relying based upon our senses alone, we’re going to just automatically conclude that’s a man right there and that ain’t God. But the reason why it’s not deception, the reason why the incarnation is not deception is because through the gift of faith, the intellect is able to penetrate and perceive correctly the very nature of the person standing before us, that is Jesus Christ, the second person of the blessed Trinity who is divine, IE God.
And so just like the incarnation is not a deception where we have a reality, namely God-
Cy Kellett:
Great point.
Karlo Broussard:
… even though we’re sensing something else, so to the Eucharist is not a deception because we’re able to perceive the reality by virtue of faith, even though we’re sensing something else. We’re sensing bread, but the intellect knows it’s Jesus in light of the gift of faith.
Cy Kellett:
Wonderful, Karlo. I love the use of the incarnation there because again, that’s something we all agree on. This is God incarnate, and nobody who saw him walking down the street just knew that by their sensory experience, you could not know that by your sense. And yet he’s not deceiving anyone.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right.
Cy Kellett:
Because there’s no deception in him.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. If that ain’t deception, well then the Eucharist ain’t deception.
Cy Kellett:
It’s also weird to make the argument that God is deceiving you when he literally tells you exactly what he’s doing. In what way is it deception to say, “This is my body,” and then it’s his body? That’s the opposite of deception. That’s as clear as can be.
Karlo Broussard:
Well, this argument is trying to say, “Well, that’s the reason why it’s got to be a symbol. Because if you take the literal approach, then you’re ending up in the absurd conclusion of deception, which is absurd,” right? God cannot deceive. And so this argument says the only interpretation is that it’s symbolic, purely figurative and not literal. But of course we’re trying to respond and say no, there actually is no deception involved. And so the literal interpretation of Jesus’s words does not demand that absurd conclusion.
Cy Kellett:
All right, now this one, the final absurdity, I honestly have no idea. If somebody said to me, “Why aren’t you just cannibals, then?” I wouldn’t know what to say.
Karlo Broussard:
It’s pretty hard, man, because you know what’s difficult? Recently I was doing a retreat for a second grade, first communion class and this question always comes. Up when you start talking to kids about eating Jesus’s flesh and drinking his blood, they have that instinctual revulsion to it like, “Oh, that’s gross.” And so cannibalism is right there in their little second grade minds, and so it’s an important question that we need to consider. So, here’s the way we can respond here or begin to respond.
The objection wrongly assumes that Christ’s body is present in the Eucharist under a mode that is required for cannibalism. The question becomes, well, what is such a mode? Well, let’s think about what cannibalism entails, Cy. First of all, it involves eating pieces of a body. Okay?
Cy Kellett:
Yes.
Karlo Broussard:
You’re taking off chunks or pieces of a body, and I apologize for the graphic imagery there. Now that in turn entails affecting the body whose flesh you are eating and from which you’re taking pieces off. So, those two are corollaries of one another. You’re taking pieces off a body and thereby affecting the body. It also involves the shedding of blood when flesh is being broken off, torn off and ripped off of the body. And it also involves taking in at least some nutrients from the flesh when you digest that flesh.
So, notice that’s what cannibalism entails. For cannibalism to occur, a body would have to be present under the mode such that when you eat the flesh, pieces of it are being plucked off from the body, that the body’s being affected when you’re eating pieces of the body. That whenever you’re eating pieces of the body, blood is being shed, and that you’re digesting pieces of the body and thereby taking in whatever nutrients are present there. In order for cannibalism to occur, you’re going to have to have a body present in such a way that those things can happen.
Now, Cy, this is the mode of Christ’s bodily present currently as he’s taking up space in his resurrected body, somewhere in the physical cosmos. This was the mode of his bodily presence as he was sitting there at table in the upper room, in the presence of the apostles. That’s the mode of his bodily presence that would be subject to cannibalism. That mode of bodily presence would allow for pieces being broken off and a body being affected and the shedding of blood and nutrients from the pieces of the body. And here’s the key, Cy. That is not the mode of Christ’s bodily presence in the Eucharist. So, you see how there’s a conflation of one mode of bodily presence that makes it available for cannibalism and a different mode of bodily presence, which is in the Eucharist, which is not the other mode.
The bodily presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, there are no pieces of Jesus’s body being plucked off when we eat the Eucharist. And thereby when we eat Jesus’s body in the Eucharist, we’re not affecting Jesus’s glorified body in any way whatsoever. He’s not saying, “Ouch, ooh, ow, that hurts,” right? Nor is there any shedding of blood from Christ when we’re eating his body in the Eucharist, and we’re not extracting and digesting nutrients from Jesus’s flesh. The only thing that’s affected when we eat the Eucharist is the physical appearances of bread and wine. And when those physical appearances cease to exist, the real presence of Jesus’s body and blood ceases to be present. And so therefore, Cy, the belief in the real presence of Jesus’s body and blood in the Eucharist doesn’t entail the absurdity of cannibalism.
And the reason is because that in the Eucharist, Jesus’s bodily presence is there in a different mode than the mode of presence that’s necessary for cannibalism. And what I mean by mode, Cy, is just a different way of existing. It’s a different way of existing. So, Jesus’ body and his glorified body right now, his body’s taken up space. His left arm is in a spatial location that his right arm is not. His right arm is in a spatial location that his left arm is not. That’s his proper mode of bodily presence, his proper way of bodily presence of existing in his body. The presence or the mode or way of existing of his body in the Eucharist is something entirely different than that, and therefore not meeting that requirement or condition for cannibalism.
Cy Kellett:
Okay, I’m trying to remember this from your argument, but I just want to get the basic idea before we go that I believe you conclude with, which is, but what if it is cannibalism to take Jesus literally? Then taking him figuratively would also cause a problem in that case.
Karlo Broussard:
Oh, yeah. Yeah. That’s actually a good point because if you think about it, if cannibalism were immoral in an absolute sense whatsoever, regardless of the mode of presence of flesh. If that were immoral in an absolute sense, well then even the figurative interpretation would be problematic because Jesus would be commanding us to symbolically eat his body and blood.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, to do something immoral.
Karlo Broussard:
Right, right. That’d be kind of like Jesus commanding us, I don’t know, stick the middle finger or something, right?
Cy Kellett:
Yes, but just symbolically stick the… Yeah. Right.
Karlo Broussard:
Right. I mean, that’s a symbol that entails something immoral. And of course, we couldn’t command and tell people, “Hey, do the symbol of the immoral thing,” that’s in itself immoral.
Cy Kellett:
Right.
Karlo Broussard:
And so if cannibalism were immoral, well then surely in an absolute sense, then surely Jesus could not command us to even symbolically do that immoral thing. And so the objection from cannibalism, that is belief in the real presence would lead to the absurdity of cannibalism, cuts two ways. It actually disproves even the figurative interpretation of Jesus’s words. So, that’s yet another problem. But the bottom line is that belief in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist does not lead to the absurdity of cannibalism because the way or the mode of Jesus’s bodily presence in the Eucharist is not the type of bodily presence that’s required for cannibalism.
Cy Kellett:
As we did last time, we can kind of conclude by saying you could possibly make other arguments that Catholic belief about the Eucharist is absurd, but these arguments ain’t going to do it. You’re going to have to come up with something else.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. So, we can say in conclusion that our Protestant friends cannot say that our belief in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist is absurd based on these reasons. These are reasons that are out of bounds now. We have shown that these are not reasons to think that belief in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is absurd.
And like you said, there are others, and maybe in the future we’ll get to some of those other reasons that Protestants will give, but at least these reasons do not succeed in showing that belief in the real presence of Christ and the Eucharist is absurd.
Cy Kellett:
Thank you, Karlo.
Karlo Broussard:
Thank you, Cy.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, I just appreciate it like crazy. It’s very, very helpful. I always worry when I listen to these, am I going to be able to remember it when this comes up for me? But I think I got this one now, especially with the word mode for that last one, that helps me.
Karlo Broussard:
Good.
Cy Kellett:
I appreciate it. Hey, check out Karlo’s podcast, Sunday Catholic Word, sundaycatholicword.com, and thanks for being here with us. Wherever you’re listening, if you would give us the five stars, you click the five stars there, and then write something nice about the podcast, about how brilliant it is or how informative or how it helps your Catholic faith, whatever, because that helps to grow the podcast. Just make sure it’s true. We’re not asking you to lie for us, but that would be very helpful.
If you want to support us financially, you can always do so by going to givecatholic.com. And as always, if you’d like to communicate with us, maybe you’ve got an idea for a future episode with Karlo. Maybe you’ve got an idea that comes from these two Eucharistic episodes we’ve recently done with Karlo and another challenge you want to present him, that would be fine. Or any other reason you want to communicate, just focus@catholic.com. We’ll see you next time, God willing, right here on Catholic Answers Focus.