Is it theologically tenable to say that, since Christ is fully present in the Eucharist, that if a host is taken with the intent to use it improperly, or with evil intent, that Christ has it within His power to remove His presence so that no evil is done to His being, even though the individual has committed, and is burdened, with mortal sin? Seems like without this, we are making Christ “helpless” to protect his being against evil intentions. thanks.
As I understand it, Christ does allow himself to be abused through desecration of the Eucharist. Not that his divinity suffers in any way, but that his person is being violated with evil intent.
The Eucharist isn’t the only way people offend and violate Christ. We can do that in many ways–by taking his name in vain, by being cruel to others or neglecting others we could help, etc.
Jesus allows us humans to love him or hate him, and to show that love or hate in all the ways that people can.
The only thing I have to add to this is that I would not want to be the one to desecrate the Holy Eucharist.
Not a good thing to do at all…
He doesn’t remove Himself from the Host as at times the Hosts have bled when desecrated. “WE” are not making Christ anything. HE is in charge, not us. Those that desecrate the Hosts will have to answer to HIM, not us. God Bless, Memaw
Yes, it goes far beyond a mortal sin. It is a sacrilege.
No more helpless than he was on the cross.
I’ve often wondered, and this is a philosophical question, why wouldn’t Christ remove Himself from the sacred species if it is being abused in any manner? It seems Christ is not of much use to one who intends or doesn’t care about such abuse or desecration.
I’d say for a few reasons:
He doesn’t violate our free choices. How can we be responsible for our sins or our merits if we can’t freely choose to do them?
Since he became one of us as the Second Adam he is like us in all things but sin. As long as we can abuse our fellow human beings, Jesus will allow himself to be abused.
And he knows that if someone knowingly violates the Eucharist they know who he is and so are culpable before God. They cannot say that God was unfair to them or that they didn’t know what they were doing. On the positive side, it gives them the chance to repent of their sacrilege–a chance that their conscience might be stirred. Many a person has started out mocking and reviling Christ only to be transformed when the Holy Spirit reveals to them how bad their actions were. The thief on the cross began by taunting Christ only to be saved by him.
Why wouldn’t he just come down off of that Cross as well.
God has the power to do anything he wishes. But this idea would have to be taken to it’s extreme and it would mean that nothing Holy could ever be abused. Biblicaly we know this is not true. As the ark of the Old Covenant was abused, And the second command protects something else that God “owns” His name. Men, saints and others have died protecting the Eucharist. Was their death a prideful misunderstanding? Was it just the lack of knowledge that God would “disappear” out of his offering. Letting free will have little meaning? Or is the Eucharist a real representation of Christ. Is it his sacrifice, his suffering, his Broken Body? And does God continue to allow mankind to beat Him, insult Him, and break Him?
Yeah I’ll second that. Awful sin to commit. :mad: