Ask An Apologist Answer: Wrong? (Because I'm confused now...)

[davidmammola]

Both sides can be correct here when we properly understand what they mean.

BOTTOM LINE: If by “physically” one means “bodily” (including a glorified body) then of course Jesus is present physically in the Eucharist.

If by “physically” one is referring to physical properties (“accidents”) then no, it is quite clear that He is not since Catholicism teaches that the accidents remain those of bread and wine (in normal circumstances).

 

[Atemi]

Both sides can be correct here when we properly understand what they mean.

Well I said:

“The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is indeed physically present in the Eucharist”

I said this and the Catholics here came after me.

I do not understand why so many Catholics are so afraid of Catholic teaching. They will even attack those who repeat it back to them.

I am not even Catholic anymore, and I am defending “correct” RC teaching.

LOL.

Go figure.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Well I said:

“The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is indeed physically present in the Eucharist”

I said this and the Catholics here came after me.

I do not understand why so many Catholics are so afraid of Catholic teaching. They will even attack those who repeat it back to them.

I am not even Catholic anymore, and I am defending “correct” RC teaching.

LOL.

Go figure.

I don’t know if you feel that I have “come after” you, but I will reiterate: A teaching may be true, but incomplete, which can leave it open to misinterpretation and lead to error. That is why I prefer more complete teachings.

Here are some other incomplete truths. Can you see how asserting them (to the exclusion of the complete teachings) can lead to error.

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is spirtually present in the Eucharist.

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus was a man like us.

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus died.

tee

 

[tdgesq]

If you have better credentials to know what Trent teaches than those I cite, then please present them.

How about reading what the Church actually teaches in the dogmatic decrees of Trent and the CCC. They don’t use the word “substantial” for the fun of it. That term has a very precise meaning in Scholastic philosophy, whereas the term “physical” does not. I don’t have a problem using that word so long as what is being referred to is the substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood, except for the potential confusion it creates as to the precise philosophical meaning of “substance.” Which is exactly what you’ve exploited.

By the way, if you had taken a first year logic course you would know that your appeal to authority argument is a basic fallacy. One of the first informal fallacies that is taught. You just make yourself look foolish by continuing to pretend like it holds any weight in a debate. Especially since the use of the term “physical” by those authors is wildly different from your meat-eating use of the term.

Until then, I go with what the RCC taught me and what many, many educated, intelligent, and respectable Catholics understand Transubstantiation to mean.

Your problem is with your brethren, not me.

Nope. I’m certain my problem is with you and not with my brethren who have shown here that they understand the orthodox teaching of transubstantiation. Perhaps if you would take the time to study the dogmatic teachings of the Church on transubstantiation, you wouldn’t so badly mischaracterize the many educated and intelligent Catholics as you have.

The arguments that have been presented are that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist.

I quote you:

“Jesus is present in the Eucharist sacramentally and not physically.”

**Is that what Trent said?

Is that what the Catechism says?**

Actually that is a quote of Fr. Serpa that I quoted. Misquoting others seems to be a singular talent of yours. I can see that we need another Logic 101 lesson. Trent nor the CCC state that Jesus is not physically present in the Eucharist. Trent and the CCC also do not state that babies come from the pumpkin patch and that cows fly. So I guess using your reasoning those things must be true as well. This is basic stuff Atemi.

What do many educated, intelligent, well catechised, and respectable Catholics say Trent says?

I already provided that.

I have absolutely no reason to reject them and believe you.

No you haven’t. You’ve done a google search on some terms you were interested in and then quoted them without reading or understanding them. It’s easy to demonstrate. Some of the articles you linked to are fantastic. Entirely orthodox, until you get to them and do the select-a-cut-and-paste. I’ll give some more to the readers here in a little while.

All my quotes are accurate and all the links are accurate.

You are right about the EWTN quote. It is there and I somehow missed it. I apologize for that accusation. Although it doesn’t change the fact the article is not about transubstantiation at all. It is entitled “Jesus Christ, the Person.”

Here’s language from another one of your articles:

Now, I don’t think that people no longer believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, but our world has changed in the last 40 years. It used to be the case that priests and nuns would drill the basic doctrines of the church so that everyone could recite them at will. The Baltimore Catechism said this about the Eucharist: “238. Q. What is the Holy Eucharist? A. The Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament which contains the body and blood, soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. 241. Q. How did our Lord institute the Holy Eucharist? A. Our Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist by taking bread, blessing, breaking, and giving to His Apostles, saying: Take ye and eat. This is My body; and then by taking the cup of wine, blessing and giving it, saying to them: Drink ye all of this. This is My blood which shall be shed for the remission of Sins. Do this for a commemoration of Me. 242. Q. What happened when our Lord said, This is My body; this is My blood? A. When our Lord said, This is My body, the substance of the bread was changed into the substance of His body; when He said, This is My blood, the substance of the wine was changed into the substance of His blood.” How many of you remember those questions and answers?

Suffice it to say, not one of these articles uses the word “physical” or “physically” in a way that is different from what is meant by the precise philosophical term “substantial.”

 

[tdgesq]

Can you please highlight the above section of text that says that Jesus Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist.

I cannot seem to find it.

It isn’t there, just like it isn’t there that bowling balls aren’t made out of Rice Krispies. Tell me this Atemi, how is the use of the term “physically present” used in the articles you quoted different from the use of the term “substantially present” that the CCC and Trent use? Please explicate the difference between the two terms and how these authors meant something different by it.

What I claim it is?

Yes. What you claim the Church teaches on the subject. Look at your posts earlier in this thread if you are confused about what I’m asking.

I don’t claim anything. I don’t even believe in this stuff.

I’m obviously not asking about your own subjective belief as that wasn’t what you posted about. Stop being silly.

You said Christ is present in the Eucharist sacramentally and not physically.

No, Fr. Serpa did and I quoted him. He is correct, unless of course you want to by fiat define “physical” as identical to “substantial.”

Please give us one good reason why we should believe you but not them on what the RCC teaches?

False dichotomy. You should believe them as they appear to teach in the articles the same thing I and others have been saying all along. If you had read the articles and fairly quoted them you would know that. Although imprecise and not the language of the CCC or Trent, they do not appear to be using the word “physically” any differently than the word “substantially.”

Maybe we should just take a break from this considering how upset you are getting.

Lol! I’m over my initial annoyance at having you send me on a fool’s errand to read all of the articles you cut and pasted from. Now that I’ve read them, it’s actually kind of fun posting the parts you “missed.” Lot’s more to come. I haven’t even posted the best ones yet.

 

[JimG]

masterjedi747:

We don’t eat a part of His body.

Japhy:

That much at least is correct. We’re not eating Jesus’s finger or Jesus’s tibia or Jesus’s calf muscle. The Eucharist is the whole Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

This is quite right. We consume Jesus’ in his entirety, not in bits and pieces. The sacramental presence of Jesus includes his totality—his entire body and blood, all of his person and nature, but under the appearances of bread and wine. It is in fact impossible to divide him up by breaking or consuming the Eucharistic species. He is always present in this sacrament as an entirety. We get hung up by thinking, incorrectly, that we consume a piece of Jesus. We never receive or consume a piece of Jesus. We always receive him in his entirety.

If you want to define sacramental presence as a physical presence under the appearance of bread and wine, that would be OK, as long as you realize that being physically present in a sacramental manner means that you can never subdivide him into parts.

 

[jimmy]

Your argument is ultimately that a man’s bones and sinews are not physical. Or is your argument that Jesus is not a man?

No, my arguement is that there is a distinction between Christ as He walked the earth and Christ as He is in the Eucharist. Christ is entirely present in the Eucharist, in every part, but it is not in the same sense that He was present as He walked the earth. If you want to call it physical when you say that Christ is present in His whole being, including all His parts, that is fine with me. But you must realize that there is a distinction as mentioned.

 

[jimmy]

First of all, I never said otherwise.

Secondly, it was Christ Himself who said that we must gnaw on His flesh correct?

I may not agree with the RCC’s interpretation of that verse, but it doesn’t seem you are talking our Lord at His word.

As I mentioned, there is a distinction in Christ as He walked the earth and Christ as He is in the Eucharist. It can be said to be Christs flesh in the Eucharist but it is in a different sense.

To make it clear, the Eucharist is Christ and nothing else. There is no bread, only the accidents of bread. I have not denied any of this and I wouldn’t deny any of it.

Well thank you for the insult. I do not recall insulting you, but if that is what you feel is necessary for your apologetic, then I am familiar with that territory.

It is amazing that someone is called arrogant for defending Catholic teaching.

Wow.

That is your problem if you feel insulted, you should watch the way you argue. You sound arrogant with your approach.

Now the charges of implying my ignorance come out. Thank you again.

I am sorry, but I was a Catholic for most of my life and I am more than familiar with RC teaching and practice.

Do you assume that all the other Catholics here know Catholicism better than you?

Not necessarily, but I assume that you know more about your faith than I do. You are not a Catholic therefore you should not claim to know all about Catholic faith.

Just as most Catholics don’t know their faith, an even larger amount of ex Catholics know nothing about the Catholic faith.

Yet you expect different from others?

No, I never assume any Catholic knows more about Catholicism than I do, as the majority of Catholics do not know what the RCC even teaches.

---

typical know it all attitude.***

 

[jimmy]

I don’t know if you feel that I have “come after” you, but I will reiterate: A teaching may be true, but incomplete, which can leave it open to misinterpretation and lead to error. That is why I prefer more complete teachings.

Here are some other incomplete truths. Can you see how asserting them (to the exclusion of the complete teachings) can lead to error.

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is spirtually present in the Eucharist.

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus was a man like us.

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus died.

tee

Haha, I saw the first one before reading the first two paragraphs and I was about to start defending from Atemi’s position.

 

[Atemi]

No, my arguement is that there is a distinction between Christ as He walked the earth and Christ as He is in the Eucharist. Christ is entirely present in the Eucharist, in every part, but it is not in the same sense that He was present as He walked the earth. If you want to call it physical when you say that Christ is present in His whole being, including all His parts, that is fine with me. But you must realize that there is a distinction as mentioned.

Hello Jimmy,

I really could care less about all the distinctions. I am no longer Catholic and have no care about fiddling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I am over that.

All I pointed out is that the RCC taught me that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist and the tabernacle when placed there.

That’s it.

It is everyone who wrangles over every syllable, not me. I do think insisting that He is truly present bodily, but not physically present is foolishness that only seeks to confuse even Catholics. This whole thread is proof of that.

 

[Atemi]

---

typical know it all attitude.***

LOL.

Ditto, Jimmy.

 

[jimmy]

Hello Jimmy,

I really could care less about all the distinctions. I am no longer Catholic and have no care about fiddling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I am over that.

All I pointed out is that the RCC taught me that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist and the tabernacle when placed there.

That’s it.

It is everyone who wrangles over every syllable, not me. I do think insisting that He is truly present bodily, but not physically present is foolishness that only seeks to confuse even Catholics. This whole thread is proof of that.

It is not very confusing at all. The people on this thread understand it fine.

 

[tdgesq]

I really could care less about all the distinctions. I am no longer Catholic and have no care about fiddling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I am over that.

All I pointed out is that the RCC taught me that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist and the tabernacle when placed there.

That’s it.

It is everyone who wrangles over every syllable, not me. I do think insisting that He is truly present bodily, but not physically present is foolishness that only seeks to confuse even Catholics. This whole thread is proof of that.

Interesting, since earlier you were so concerned about making sure that we got the definition of “physically” correct:

If you want to define “physically” present in some other fashion using twisting semantic arguments, that is your business. The word means something outside of our own personal definitions.

And why shouldn’t you be? I agree with you here. Whenever we discuss transubstantion it is at great peril to our own understanding that we decide to use terms that the Church doesn’t use in its own dogmatic definitions. I’m sorry if while you were Catholic you were taught that Christ is physically present without any accompanying explanation as to what this means in Catholic dogmatic theology - ie. substantially present. I think you have at least in this regard made an important point.

The only place I could find that uses the word “physical” in a dogmatic context with relation to transubstantiation is in Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma at page 383 where he talks about the sacramental accidents:

“The Sacramental Accidents retain their physical reality after the change of the substance. (Sent. certa.)” (emphasis added).

Since accidents include the things we see, taste and touch (like quantity and quality) it is no wonder that one would conclude that if Christ’s body and blood are physically present it would be like my physical arm or a piece of prime rib that we eat. That is why I believe the word physical here is only used with respect to the sacramental accidents, the bread and the wine. This is also why I agree with Fr. Serpa’s analysis.

 

[jimmy]

If you want to define “physically” present in some other fashion using twisting semantic arguments, that is your business. The word means something outside of our own personal definitions.

Words mean only as much as we make them mean. They are created by man. Therefore a definition is very important and the definitions are not fixed. They are understood diferently by different people and at different times.

 

[guanophore]

A whole and true body is present in the Eucharist.

If you want to define “physically” present in some other fashion using twisting semantic arguments, that is your business. The word means something outside of our own personal definitions.

Good for you Atemi! You have realized why it is so important to have a magesterium!

I always wonder why so many devout Catholics really do not like their own church’s teachings.

Because they are the teachings of Jesus, and some of them are hard teachings, and difficult to obey. Jesus is still asking the question “will you, also, leave?”

 

[guanophore]

I always wonder why so many devout Catholics really do not like their own church’s teachings.

Maybe it is because persons such as yourself, who are zealous for faith, have refused the call to teach them?

 

[guanophore]

Hello Jimmy,

I really could care less about all the distinctions. I am no longer Catholic and have no care about fiddling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I am over that.

All I pointed out is that the RCC taught me that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist and the tabernacle when placed there.

That’s it.

It is everyone who wrangles over every syllable, not me. I do think insisting that He is truly present bodily, but not physically present is foolishness that only seeks to confuse even Catholics. This whole thread is proof of that.

So, Atemi. Why ARE you here? Are you wanting to correct the errors of Catholics who don’t know what they believe? If you are over it, what brought you back in to a Catholic community?

 

[guanophore]

Gunger;2019111:

Regardless, the bottom line on this issue is simple, and is well put by Fr. Serpa: Jesus asks for our trust. John 6 illustrates the need for this trust in the Eucharist-- indeed, the command for it, and even a detailed discussion of what transubstantiation consists of. What we KNOW, and what Fr. Serpa said, is what Jesus promised. We are asked…ironically in the context of this discussion…to have faith in that promise.

Pray on the mystery. As a Catholic you are invited to receive the Body of Christ (see 1 Corinthians). And rejoice at having the living Christ within you. G.

Gunger, Atemi is a poorly catechized cradle catholic who has left the sacramental life of the church and become a zealous protestant. Atemi rejects the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the teaching of the Magesterium. As such, I don’t think it is a good idea to encourage Atemi to receive the Eucharist, as this would be sacriligious, and could result in being guilty of the body and blood of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

Atemi, you should avoid arrogance. You sound arrogant. You should assume that the Catholics on this forum know their own faith far better than you, a non-Catholic, know Catholicism.

Jimmy, Atemi is very angry at the Catholic Church, but under that I think is a lot of hurt. I am not sure why Atemi is here, but I suspect it is an effort to get some of that hurt healed. Atemi was raised Catholic, and left. Working out the reasons for leaving is what I think we are witnessing.