A further question about the Real Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter langlob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

langlob

Guest
Hello, it’s me again. I’m new here, but you may remember I started a topic on the Real Presence about a week ago, right here. I still have at least one other question about this issue, and I figured it would be best just to start a new thread.

First off, thanks for all your answers. I understand now the error in my thinking and I can see how a consecrated host would still be subject to decay. However, this brings me to my next question. I’m a little confused about what the Church means when it teaches that Christ is really, physically present in the Eucharist. Does this mean we’re supposed to believe that the atoms which make up the consecrated host are the same atoms that made up the acutal body of Christ when He walked the earth? I fail to see how this is possible, since there wouldn’t be enough such atoms to go around. And this is further complicated by the fact that the Church teaches Christ performed the first miracle of transubstantiation at the Last Supper, when he was still in posession of His body. How could the meal be transformed into His body and blood if His body and blood remained intact with Him?

I have a feeling that I’m not understanding the doctrine of transubstantiation properly, so if so, could you please clarify for me? I just feel that - if the host truly becomes the real, physical body of Christ - then doesn’t that mean the atoms which make up the host would have to really and physically change to the same atoms which made up the actual body of the historical Christ?
 
Actually, the Church doesn’t teach that Christ is physically present. Rather, the term that is generally used is substantially present. What is present is a physical reality which retains the appearance of bread and wine but which is really Christ.

Deacon Ed
 
40.png
langlob:
Hello, it’s me again. I’m new here, but you may remember I started a topic on the Real Presence about a week ago, right here. I still have at least one other question about this issue, and I figured it would be best just to start a new thread.

First off, thanks for all your answers. I understand now the error in my thinking and I can see how a consecrated host would still be subject to decay. However, this brings me to my next question. I’m a little confused about what the Church means when it teaches that Christ is really, physically present in the Eucharist. Does this mean we’re supposed to believe that the atoms which make up the consecrated host are the same atoms that made up the acutal body of Christ when He walked the earth? I fail to see how this is possible, since there wouldn’t be enough such atoms to go around. And this is further complicated by the fact that the Church teaches Christ performed the first miracle of transubstantiation at the Last Supper, when he was still in posession of His body. How could the meal be transformed into His body and blood if His body and blood remained intact with Him?

I have a feeling that I’m not understanding the doctrine of transubstantiation properly, so if so, could you please clarify for me? I just feel that - if the host truly becomes the real, physical body of Christ - then doesn’t that mean the atoms which make up the host would have to really and physically change to the same atoms which made up the actual body of the historical Christ?
Click to expand...
as to the atoms… perhaps a scientist here could make it more understandable, but I seem to remember that if all the atoms in existence were “squished” together with no “space” around them, they would be about the size of a quarter.
scientists… where are you when we need you??

Yes, Christ held Himself in His hands. Nothing is impossible with God. Jesus has no past, and no future. He is eternally present… so the restrictions we normally think of (time, place, matter) do not apply to the One Who created them

Besides… He did say “This IS…” and that should be pretty clear, if not understandable.
 
As Deacon Ed has said, the Real Presence is substantially present. It is a sacramental presence not a physical one as we think of physicality. So, it is not cannibalism, either.

At the Last Supper Jesus gave us himself in this sacramental way as the first High Priest of the Sacrament of the Altar. He instituted the Eucharist in anticipation of his sacrificial death on the cross which he offered once to God for our redemption.

What we present at each Mass (through the words of consecration by the bishop or priest) is a re-presenting of the one sacrifice of Christ as he himself instituted it at the Last Supper, commanding his Apostles to “do this in remembrance of me.” This remembrance is not a simple remembering of a person long dead. Rather it is a rejoining in true communion with a living Person present with us.

The Christ we receive in the Eucharist is the Risen Christ, the same Christ who passed through locked doors, went to the Father, and ascended into Heaven. We are not receiving the mere flesh of Christ but the whole of Christ, Risen from the dead and present among us in the Sacrament of the Altar.
 
The atoms of the consecrated host, if you want to put it that way, are simply part of the appearances of bread. The appearances of bread remain. The substance is changed to the body of Christ.

Don’t get hung up on analyzing the physical properties of the bread and wine after consecration. The physical properties remain the same before and after consecration–they constitute only the appearances. You can not apprehend Christ with your senses because he is hidden beneath those appearances of bread.
 
By transubstantiation, the atoms of the bread are NOT changed into the atoms of Jesus’ body - that’s the whole point 👍 : the physical accidents of the bread and wine remain the same.

In transubstantiation, it is the substance that changes (into the whole Christ: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity/Divine Nature), while the physical accidents (of bread and wine) remain the same .

Jesus’ body is NOT being gradually ‘eaten away’. His body remains glorious and un-dividable in heaven, but he gives to each of us (who receive the Eucharist) the gift of his whole self.

Eating his body and drinking his blood is the way he chose to give us this gift of his whole self and to impart his grace and life to us through the ages (see John 6). To make this possible Jesus, at the last supper, instituted the way in which he wanted this to be done: that is under the physical acidents of bread and wine.

N.B.:
substance = essence
accident = an attribute that is not essential to the nature of something; (but roughly, accidents means appearances) Catholic Encyclopedia: Accident

🙂
 
No matter how deeply you look, the elements will continue to look like bread and wine. The molecules, the atoms, the subatomic particles will continue to “look” the way they did before, but the molecules, atoms, subatomic particles are gone. They have been replaced by the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

There is no point at which, if you just look closely enough, you will see “Ah ha! I see that it is no longer bread and wine quantum particles, but Jesus!” But the reality which lies even below anything we can every observe has changed. The underlying reality was the reality of physical matter, but is now the reality of Jesus.
 
Transubstantiation, the accepted teaching of the Church, defines what actually happens at the consecration of the bread and wine during the Mass.

Transubstantiation, like the doctrine of the Trinity- 3 persons of the same substance yet one God- is the best possible way for our human minds to comprehend what cannot possibly be totally understood due to the physical limitations of our brain even when we have the Holy Spirit in us to guide us.

I guess it is just like Jesus said, “My words are spirit and they are life”- therefore stop trying to physically prove this point to yourself and just look at Jesus and say what was said at that moment to Him, “Where are we to go?”.

There is NO CHANGE in the “accidents” that the human senses can detect. The physical aspects of the bread and wine DO NOT CHANGE.

Ken
 
The same way in reverse of the Incarnation-

You believe in that don’t you?

Look at the Incarnation like you are in heaven and a doubting angel-

The second person of the Trinity has just become a human being, Jesus Christ.

“Hey - that is not God because it looks, talks, acts like one of those dirty humans”.

Ken
 
“Substance,” “essence,” “accident,” “substantially vs physically/bodily.” I have never been able to explain this to Protestants because I have never been able to explain it properly to myself. These terms always seem crystal clear to the explainers, but I submit that they aren’t so clear to those who need the explanation, like me.

The problem with all this is that if you don’t understand it, it just sounds like clever–or even not so clever–wordplay and semantics.I expect many people who don’t understand transubstantiation or don’t believe in it do so because the explanations are so confusing they just finally get so confused and muddled they just say,“Okay, sure, fine,” to the explainer, without really getting their questions answered.

And also, I’ve noticed some who try to explain Catholic doctrine can come off like they’re more interested in sounding erudite and intelligent than in being clear, whether that was their intention or not.

I have many Protestant friends who scoff that the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist means God committed suicide and practiced cannibalism on Himself, and ordered His followers to continue with the cannibalism.

Is there a clear explanation of this important doctrine that doesn’t get garbled up in confusing wordplay? Because frankly, I’ve been trying to fully grasp and believe in the Real Presence for a couple years now and have yet to have any luck, despite prayer, contemplation/adoration, etc. the more people try to explain it, it seems the more confusing it gets.

I took some Protestant friends to the “St. Peter and the Vatican” show and one asked me what a monstrance is for, and he started chuckling at the idea. And I didn’t have the weapons to adequately explain the Church’s position on that.
 
Ironically enough, I dont think there is an “easy” explaination for this. Christ referred to Himself as “the manna that comes from heaven”. “Manna”, when literally translated from Hebrew, means “what is it”, and if that isn’t the most appropriate translation for the Eucharist then I don’t know what is. This is a poor analogy, but it helps me to think outside of linear human terms of time and space.

If I take a magnifying glass, I can focus light onto a specific point. At the same time Im doing that, the light that surrounds me does not in any way diminish. How is it possible, if I am focusing that light to a particular spot, that it is not reduced elsewhere ? That is how I always encourage people to think of transsubstantiation. It is important to remember one thing in wrestling with this subject…WE HAVE TO TAKE GOD OUT OF OUR LITTLE MENTAL BOX . Im sorry Im not articulate or educated enough to offer a better explaination but I hope that my thoughts may be worth at least something.
 
Actually I think a magnifying glass/light analogy is rather good.

Of course, in trying to explain it to others–if they aren’t already predisposed to believing in the miracle of the Eucharist, you fight an uphill battle.

I was told that it helps to act as if you already believe it even if you don’t understand it, display the reverence as if you already believe it, pray, do adoration, and sooner or later you will come to truly believe in it.
 
Well, I seemed to understand transubstantiation perfectly when I was in second grade and it was first explained to me: Jesus is fully present under the appearances of bread and wine.

OK, I could understand appearances. An appearance is something that is apparent to your eyes that may not be the reality of what was there. At that time we never touched the host, and we received on the tongue only. It was easy for me to accept that Jesus was really present beneath the appearances.

As I grew older, it dawned on me that what we mean by appearances is the same thing that many people mean by ‘substance.’ Thus the confusion. Appearances consists in everything we know by sense perception—taste, touch, feel, weight, consistency, shape, size, molecular pattern, even location, place and time.

But when we speak of substance being changed, people think: substance? Substance is the matter comprising that little white wafer. But that’s not what we mean by substance. Substance is the underlying reality of something—its essence. You can’t really directly apprehend the substance of ANYTHING, even in the absence of transubstantiation. All you can apprehend are the appearances.

The appearances—the sense perceptions–normally correspond to what something is—because God created our sense perception to reflect reality.

But in transubstantiation, He suspends the rules. He takes away the substance (bread), but leaves the appearances. We can’t tell the difference because all we see is appearances.

In place of the substance removed (bread), He places Christ—the whole Christ, not a little piece of him. His whole substance, his whole body and blood, his soul, his divinity, all of him. You can only receive him whole. You can’t break him up.

But you can’t perceive him, because the remaining appearances of bread, act as a ‘cover’ for him. He is beneath those appearances, not within them.
 
Fr. John Hardon:
Normally we speak of the substance of anything as that which makes a thing what it is. With transubstantiation, however, the substance of bread and wine becomes everything which Christ is. After transub-stantiation, the physical properties of bread and wine remain. But the “itness” or “thingness” of bread and wine ceases to exist. What had been the substance of bread and wine now becomes the whole Christ, in the words of the Council of Trent, the totus Christus.
Click to expand...
Believe! As this is a true sign of faith. Trying to understand the Real Presence on an atomic level is like trying to understand the mystery of the Trinity. Faith, in the absence of knowledge is true faith and often times, God will withhold understanding and knowledge to test our faith.
 
Ya REALLY need to read John 6.

For those who are impatient, go to the 20th to the 70th verses.
 
At Mass today, I got to thinking about this thread.

We need to consider a couple of things: first, who is God? and second, who (or WHAT) are we humans?

God is INFINITE. He’s NOT just like us, only smarter and bigger. WE are created in His image, not the other way around.

And we… we are made up of atoms … so is bread and so is wine.

But what is an atom… almost entirely empty space with a very few electrical charges artfully arranged in some statistical distribution. We humans have some kind of “intelligence”… bread and wine do not.

Somehow the “statistical electrical charges” have the right combination of properties so they give the appearance of forming solids and colors and textures.

[With all that empty space … and “statistical electrical charges” and all that… one could accept that we exist only in God’s imagination…]

And Jesus is God. At least He said He was God and Christians accept that. That’s the whole notion of Christianity.

And when Jesus said that we had to eat His Body and drink His blood, most people turned away because they could not accept His words. [The famous John 6 reference… read it carefully…]

Recall, that at no time did Jesus say the words, “Just kidding”. He was serious. And those who became apostles didn’t understand how it it would be possible… but decided to hang around a while longer. AND eventually, Jesus explained it at the Last Supper, and presumably in his instructions and explanations between His Resurrection and His Ascension. We have the teaching tradition of the Church… what is called the Magisterium…

Read the last verse of John…
And for fun, buy a copy of Joan Carroll Cruz’ book “Eucharistic Miracles”… it may help fill in some of the gaps in understanding.
 
In cases like this it is best to go by what the Church officially teaches, for the official teachings are those that convey the exact meaning that have come down to us from the apostles.The real presence means that the entire person of Jesus is present, His body blood, soul and Divinty are present. The catechisms teach that His bones are present, his hair is present, his tendons are present, every part of His body is present.
Since his entire body is present, and since bodies are material , and thus, physical, and not spiritual, then we must say He is physically present. Now there is an obscure definition of physical that does not refer to material or body, but refers to what can be measured, such as weight, mass, etc. This definition means empirical, not material. Of course according to this obscure definition He cannot be physically (empirically) present. But, this is an obscure definition that people ordinarly don’t use.
The usual definition of physical refers to what is material, or bodily, or natural, or not spiritual. Thus, according to the ordinary, usual definition Jesus IS physically present, because His body certainly is material and NOT spiritual.
Since the entire person of Jesus is present, then at Eucaristic adoration Jesus can see us with his physical eyes, and He looks at us as we come near him and He hears us with His physical ears, for He is present as an entire person.
And He can get lonely in the tabernacle, waiting for people to visit Him, because He still has a human mind and human emotions, just as He got lonely while on earth, even though He had the beatific vision. He loves for us to visit Him, and talk to Him and ask His help and worship Him. He is God, but He is also a man like us.
 
Al Masetti:
when Jesus said that we had to eat His Body and drink His blood, most people turned away because they could not accept His words. [The famous John 6 reference… read it carefully…]

Recall, that at no time did Jesus say the words, “Just kidding”.
Click to expand...
Just thought that was worth repeating.
 
lol i think i’ve discovered a way to always start a huge thread!
include one of these topics in your subject line:
1.) Eucharist
2.) Mother of God/Mary
3.) Papacy/Pope/Peter/Keys of the Kingdom
4.) Faith and Works/Faith Alone?
I think those are the most popular topics 🙂 cuz im constantly seein “wham! 4 thousand posts” on like a simple question like “what does ‘Eucharist’ mean?” or something
🙂

I love Catholic Answers. You ask a question, and boy, every Catholic Answers 🙂 lol

Anyway, now I gotta throw my two cents in…which is…

I think it’s wonderful how God protects our free will and encourages our faith by concealing His infinite glory under the appearance of most humble things: bread and wine. As the gentleman that He is, He invites us to believe rather than forcing us with conclusive, measurable evidence.
I saw a quote on ewtn today (you know where they play the chant music for like 10 seconds and a quote from a saint is displayed? its called ‘seeds of faith’ prolly my favorite thing on ewtn, no joke lol) it was a quote from st. alphonus liguori that said (paraphrasing) “The most pleasing thing to God that one can do is to receive Holy Communion”

I often am encouraged that our sweet Lord derives far greater joy in dwelling in us during Communion than we do in receiving Him.
Want to make God happy?
Let Him reside in your being. 🙂
Don’t deprie our Dear Lord of that joy! Run (actually, walk reverently 🙂 ) to the Lord’s Banquet!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top