1 Apr 2024

Thy Teeth Shall Not Do Him Violence, Nor Thy Bowels Contain His Glorious Body!

 
Juan de Juanes:  
Christ the Saviour with the Eucharist (1545-1550)
 
And after he had given thanks, Jesus broke the bread, and said: 
'Take, eat! This is my body, which is broken for you ...' [1]


I. 
 
Just for the record, I am not now and nor have I ever been a member of the Christian Church and so Holy Communion (or Mass) is not something I have personal experience or knowledge of. Thus, the question surrounding what happens to the sacremental bread (or host) once it has been consecrated and consumed as the body of Christ, is not really a great concern to me. 
 
However, for those who take these matters very seriously indeed and believe the miraculous teaching of transubstantiation - which is central to the Eucharist - to be literally true and not merely a symbolic act, the suggestion that Christ's holy flesh might have an excremental fate is problematic to say the least and has been the topic of fierce theological and philosophical debate going back many centuries.
 
 
II. 
 
Following the widespread religious, cultural, and social upeaval triggered by the Reformation, this really rather odd debate became heated once more and 17th-century English poet John Milton was particulary horrified by the thought that Christ could be eaten and subject to the natural processes of digestion:
 
"The Mass brings down Christ's holy body from its supreme exaltation at the right hand of God. It drags it back to the earth, though it has suffered every pain and hardship already, to a state of humiliation even more wretched and degrading than before: to be broken once more and crushed to the ground, even by the fangs of brutes. Then, when it has been driven through all the stomach's filthy channels, it shoots it out - one shudders even to mention it - into the latrine." [2]  

This passage not only exposes Milton's coprophobia, but makes his opposition to what is known as stercoranism equally clear.
 
For outraged Puritans like Milton, the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation simply could not be true as this would not only mean that Mass is a form of cannibalism and utterly alien to reason - which is bad enough - but that it results in something so repulsive as to be blasphemous: Christ's flesh turned to shit.  
 
 
III. 
 
Whilst early Church theologians were prepared to accept that the sacramental elements of Christ's body were digested and excreted, later Catholic thinkers did what they could to repudiate this idea; declaring, for example, that whilst Christ is indeed present in the consecrated bread and wine, that is only before they are consumed and lose their appearance.   
 
In other words, when  the sacramental forms of bread and wine are changed, the substantial presence of Christ ceases to be. 

Despite this attempt to reassure, however, still the fear of stercoranism persisted, although, for me, it's a positively healthy thing to recognise that the holy spirit returns at last to that from which it arises; i.e., base matter. 
 
For whilst the marrying of shit and divinity may cause horror in the minds of some, there are compelling philosophical reasons eschatology should always include a scatological component and that's why what might otherwise seem to be an arcane (and insane) discussion over the status of the bread and wine used in the mass is still vital.    
 
Ultimately, we all unite in shit even if we do not all cleave together in the body of Christ. And that's what Holy Communion teaches us: paradise is regained in death; a festive return to the actual, as Nietzsche describes it [3].   
 
 
Notes
 
[1] First Epistle to the Corinthians 11: 24.
 
[2] John Milton, Complete Poetry and Essential Prose, ed. William Kerrigan, John Peter Rumrich, and Stephen M. Fallon (Modern Library, 2007), p. 1290. 
      Despite what Milton warns here and elsewhere in his prose writings about worshipping a wafer and cannibalising the body of Christ, communion is given prominence in Paradise Lost (1667) and an astonishing vision of transubstantiation on a cosmic scale is imagined. Push comes to shove, I prefer the playful poet over the angry puritan reformer.
      Readers interested in this topic might like to see the excellent essay by Regina M. Schwartz, 'Real Hunger: Milton's Vision of the Eucharist', in Religion & Literature, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Autumn, 1999), pp. 1-17. The essay is conveniently availble on JSTOR: click here
 
[3] See Nietzsche, Kritische Studienausgabe, Volume 9, 11 [70], where, in a note written in 1881, he says that we shouldn't think of our return to the realm of inanimate matter (the 'dead world') as a regression, but, rather, as a joyous form of reconciliation with what is actual. 
 

1 comment:

  1. Fascinating/subversive post on the place of the 'scatological' in the 'eschatological' (even if it involves a sliver of etymological sleight-of-hand - or in this context, 'foul play/bullshit')).

    As a matter of theological hygiene, it's important to point out the basic distinction between the Catholic/literalistic view of Eucharistic transubstantiation, viz the view that the sacraments of bread and wine are 'substantially' (i.e. literally) transformed in the ceremony into the blood and body of the Nazarene) and the Protestant 'consubstantiation' view that posits a symbolic contiguity only in which they co-exist.

    This doesn't mean that Milton wasn't a coprophobe, but the theological backstory is evidently a lot more complex than that. See Bev Byford's paper on the topic for the bigger picture: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1111&context=draftings . Interested readers may also care to explore Jung's famous vision, at the age of 12, of a celestial turd falling on Basel Cathedral (which may imply that Jehovah himself in some sense gives a shit in this domain); see this Peter Malakoff blog: https://www.petermalakoff.com/misericords.

    ReplyDelete