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

[Atemi]

Atemi, you have misinterpreted things. Christ is not physically present as in you are chewing on the flesh of a human.

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.

Christ is substantially present. What the council of Trent declares is that Christ is ‘really, truely, and substantially’ present in the Eucharist. That is not the same as saying Christ is physically present. To say that Christ is physically present would be to say that you hold Christ as He is in heaven. Christ is physically present in heaven. There is no such thing as accidents with a physical presence, you see what it is. A physical presence would also mean that Christ would loss Himself, He would be eaten. None of the councils teach that Christ is ‘physically’ present. To say that Christ is substantially present is to say that Christ in His very essence, ‘body, blood, soul, and divinity’ is present in the Eucharist. The council of Trent is infallible, the catechism is not. If its catechism contradicts the council then it is wrong.

Saying Christ is present bodily but not physically is a mess of words that only serve to confuse.

Is or is not Christ’s body a physical body?

A true human body that is not physical?

No.

If so, however, one must then redefine the word “physical.” That is unacceptable.

Atemi, you should avoid arrogance. You sound arrogant.

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.

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

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?

Please.

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.

This is not an insult, but the reality readily recognized by wise Catholics already. I pray you are a wise Catholic.

 

[Atemi]

Atemi, you misinterpreted the catechism of Trent text. The purpose of the text was to say that Christ is entirely present in the Eucharist without exception.

Of course. I never said otherwise.

But what was the Catechism clear about WHAT was present?

Bones, sinews, etc…

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

I don’t know at this point.

I have already quoted a respectable Catholic source (EWTN) that is emphatic on this point of Christ’s physical presence in the Eucharist:

“We know that although Christ is spiritually present as God everywhere around us, He is also physically present nearby in His Body and Blood, God and man. In every tabernacle in every Catholic Church in the world, this same infinite, eternal, omnipotent and all-loving God/man is really physically present just as He was after the Resurrection. He is available to us. We can enter His physical presence and be as close to him as the Apostles were during His life. Whereas they saw Him with their eyes, we can see Him with the eyes of faith. We need only enter a Catholic Church and we enter the physical presence of the mighty king, Lord of the Universe who lived as a humble village carpenter, suffered, died and rose again for us.”

ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/incaa3.htm

Surely they know more about Catholicism than I do.

 

[tdgesq]

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.

Saying Christ is present bodily but not physically is a mess of words that only serve to confuse.

Is or is not Christ’s body a physical body?

A true human body that is not physical?

No.

If so, however, one must then redefine the word “physical.” That is unacceptable

Lol. Another thread on this topic? Fr. Serpa was correct in what he said. He did not deny that the body and blood of Jesus are substantially present in the bread and wine, unless of course you choose to read the last sentence in isolation without considering the context of the entire post.

Atemi, no matter how much you protest “physical” is not the same thing as “substantial” in the terminology of Aquinas, which is what Trent was referring to. The substantial form of something alone is by definition immaterial. If you want to chalk the entire ontological scheme of the Scholastics up to nonsense, then fine. But but don’t go around conflating concepts, pretending like you understand what Trent is referring to when it uses terms like “substance.”

 

[tdgesq]

Of course. I never said otherwise.

But what was the Catechism clear about WHAT was present?

Bones, sinews, etc…

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

The substantial form of bones and sinews are not physical in the way you are expressing it. You’re just wrong here. To understand what Trent is saying you first have to understand the metaphysic it is operating under. Again, it’s fine if you disagree with the metaphysics of Aquinas, but what you are doing is attributing a meaning to these words that Trent never did. It would also be nice if you would quote the actual dogmatic decrees of Trent. I don’t have a copy of that catechism.

 

[Atemi]

The substantial form of bones and sinews are not physical in the way you are expressing it. You’re just wrong here. To understand what Trent is saying you first have to understand the metaphysic it is operating under. Again, it’s fine if you disagree with the metaphysics of Aquinas, but what you are doing is attributing a meaning to these words that Trent never did. It would also be nice if you would quote the actual dogmatic decrees of Trent. I don’t have a copy of that catechism.

So EWTN does not understand Trent, but you do?

I ask that sincerely.

 

[tdgesq]

So EWTN does not understand Trent, but you do?

I ask that sincerely.

I will have to go to the link to see everything that was said (which I will have to do tomorrow since it’s midnight here), so I will reserve judgment for now but will give you an answer tomorrow. Just like everyone else, EWTN does get it wrong sometimes.

And a sincere note for you as well. It is not easy to understand and make sense of all of the mysteries of the Eucharist. Try to explain the Hypostatic Union or the Trinity even to another Christian! Be patient and try to understand what is being said in this thread. You may still reject it at the end of the day, but most of us here are trying to in good faith to give the orthodox Catholic understanding.

 

[Atemi]

All you have a problem with really is respectable Catholics and Catholic authorites, not me. I don’t even believe in the RC Real Presence, yet I find myself defending the fact that the Church teaches that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist.

LOL.

If we cannot believe that all these decent, extremely well catechised Catholics know what Trent teaches, then none of us do. If anyone here has better qualifications in understanding what Trent teaches than all these folks and more, then please present them.

Actually, if anyone here has a better resume than Fr. Hardon alone, and can prove that he doesn’t know what he is talking about, then please step forward…

"The substance of bread and wine becomes everything which makes Christ, Christ…everything which is Christ, the whole Christ…Does this include the physical properties of Christ? Yes. Does it include the physical organs? Yes. It is Christ, whole and entire.”
(Fr. John Hardon, Advanced Catechists Course, Explanations of Questions, Vol II: The Sacraments)

"When we pray before the Blessed Sacrament, we are adoring Christ in the fullness of His human nature, including His physical properties, which include His heart of flesh, now glorified but living and, we may add, pulsating out of love for us.”
(Fr. John Hardon, Advanced Catechists Course, Explanations of Questions, Vol II: The Sacraments)

“Since the Eucharist is simply and unequivocally Jesus Christ, then He is present in the Eucharist with the fullness of His humanity and this means also with His physical, human heart.”
(Fr. John Hardon, cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a021.html)

“The important aspect of this is the fact that we have in the Holy Eucharist not only the physical Christ in His human and divine natures and therefore His heart of flesh substantially united to the Word of God”
(Fr. John Hardon, cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a021.html)

“the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian in all places in every age”
(The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper)

“Christ is physically present in the Eucharist”
(Fr. Michael Sliney, Homepage - Regnum Christi)

"A Basilian monk, having suffered doubt in the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, prayed for relief…What he beheld as he consecrated the bread and wine caused his hands to shake, indeed his whole body…he slowly turned around to the people…The host had turned into flesh, the wine had turned into blood.”
(This Is My Body, This Is My Blood, Miracles of the Eucharist; (Westlake Village, CA; Journeys of Faith, 1986). Pg. 20.)

“So the totus Christus is the entire Christ, His physical properties, His intellect, His will, both human and divine, His entire divine self as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity” (Understanding the Eucharist - The Real Presence: Christ's Body)

“Jesus is really, truly, fully and physically present in the Eucharist”
(Fr. Thomas Washburn, members.aol.com/tomwas/memory1.htm)

“he is truly and physically present in our midst”
(Fr. Thomas Washburn, members.aol.com/tomwas/memory1.htm)

“On the last page of that Encyclical he wrote this beautiful tribute to our Blessed Mother showing the unbroken link that has to exist between her and Christ who is physically present in the Eucharist”
(Our Lady and the Eucharist)

“our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume” (scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html)

“We realize more clearly that the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ are as truly present as they are in heaven, or as they were when he labored in his workshop in Nazareth.”
(Catholic.net - Catholics on the net)

“Divine power changes bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, and he dwells physically on earth in every tabernacle, and comes physically into us in Holy Communion.”
(Catholic.net - Catholics on the net)

 

[Atemi]

I will have to go to the link to see everything that was said (which I will have to do tomorrow since it’s midnight here), so I will reserve judgment for now but will give you an answer tomorrow. Just like everyone else, EWTN does get it wrong sometimes.

As do many well meaning Catholics…even here on Catholic Answers.

And a sincere note for you as well. It is not easy to understand and make sense of all of the mysteries of the Eucharist. Try to explain the Hypostatic Union or the Trinity even to another Christian! Be patient and try to understand what is being said in this thread.

I have done no less. Actually, by doing so I have already been vilified quite well.

LOL.

The name calling didn’t take long at all.

It seems people don’t want to understand what I post, but want me to understand what they post.

I see.

You may still reject it at the end of the day, but most of us here are trying to in good faith to give the orthodox Catholic understanding.

And I have posted nothing less than orthodox Catholic thought…and I am not even Catholic anymore.

Sleep well.

 

[tdgesq]

All you have a problem with really is respectable Catholics and Catholic authorites, not me. I don’t even believe in the RC Real Presence, yet I find myself defending the fact that the Church teaches that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist.

Where? None of the “Catholic authorities” you quote constitute dogma of the Church. The best you could ever hope for is that a learned Catholic mistakenly taught something contrary to Trent. But you haven’t even done that.

If we cannot believe that all these decent, extremely well catechised Catholics know what Trent teaches, then none of us do. If anyone here has better qualifications in understanding what Trent teaches than all these folks and more, then please present them.

This is a fallacy. You need to deal with the arguments that are presented to you, not make fallacious appeals to authority that we all must believe what someone else believes because of his credentials. Nevertheless, you badly mischaracterize Fr. Hardon as well as the rest of the “authorities” I examined that you cite.

I resent having taken the time to read through here what you presented only to find that you have given bad or irrelevant links, ignored the relevant portions of the material, and otherwise done a blatant and shameless cut and paste job. Why would you do this? Your credibility is now shot with me, as I’m sure it will be with others who read this.

The link to EWTN does not contain the language you quoted. I do not appreciate you wasting my time by directing me to an irrelevant link.

The topic that Fr. Hardon was dealing with was not transubstantiation. He did not anywhere comment on the teachings of Trent. The article is about “the intimate relationship between the Eucharist and the Sacred Heart.” The only thing I might take exception with him on is his confusing use of the word “physical.” On the other hand, he is obviously not using it in the unorthodox way that you insist upon. I welcome anyone to read the article and check for themselves: cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a021.html

“the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian in all places in every age”
(The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper)

This is not referring to transubstantiation, it is referring to the re-presentation of the one sacrifice of Christ on Calvary at the Eucharist. I agree, the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian. So what? This is not a comment on the mode of Christ’s presence within the communion elements. And this article makes this abundantly clear, but you chose to ignore it. Here is what the relevant portion of the article has to say about transubstantiation:

Transubstantiation
The Roman Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language… . .
Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.
Jesus (omnipotent God) said: “This is my body; this is my blood.” And again Jesus said: “I am the bread of life;” “My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;” “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood …;” etc.
Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.
From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.
Similar to all of God’s Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood. . . .
Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts–sight, taste, smell, touch–do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! “Transubstantiation” merely labels it.

This is what you’ve been told here multiple times already. It is apparent that the accidents of the bread remain while only the substance is changed. This is what Trent means by “substantial.” It is obviously not the same thing as - say - my physical arm - wherein all of the accidents that inhere in it are that of a physical arm. The mode of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is not what you claim it is, it is what Fr. Serpa claims it is.

Now give me one good reason why I should waste more of my time looking at the rest of your “authorities.”

 

[Sixtus]

Jesus is present in the Eucharist sacramentally and not physically. We don’t eat a part of His body. He is present under the appearances of bread and wine. So we are not eating meat when we sacramentally receive His body and blood.

At the Last Supper Jesus was present to Apostles both physically and sacramentally. They saw His physical body before them and then received His body and blood sacramentally. He is present to us only sacramentally.

They lied

Jesus did not say ‘unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of man sacramentally’. No He did not say that. He said ‘unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of man’. That is what He said.

He speaks the truth on that you can depend.

 

[jamannor]

I’m not sure that Atemi is giving you what you think he/she is. In fact, I’m nearly positive you are both thinking the exact same thing, yet you are kind of being pretty rude about it. Atema is just asserting that Christ is present in his Body and his Blood, with his Soul and his Divinity. This is a church teaching. I don’t think he is believing that when you take the Eucharist that you are taking a single part of his physical body, but instead you are ingesting Christ whole and entire, God and Man. What a great mystery. Anyways, lets get a long.

Peace,

Jerry

 

[Atemi]

Where? None of the “Catholic authorities” you quote constitute dogma of the Church. The best you could ever hope for is that a learned Catholic mistakenly taught something contrary to Trent. But you haven’t even done that.

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

I will look at them.

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.

This is a fallacy. You need to deal with the arguments that are presented to you, not make fallacious appeals to authority that we all must believe what someone else believes because of his credentials.

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?**

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.

Nevertheless, you badly mischaracterize Fr. Hardon as well as the rest of the “authorities” I examined that you cite.

LOL.

If quoting them word for word and providing links to them is “mischaracterizing,” then I am guilty!

I resent having taken the time to read through here what you presented only to find that you have given bad or irrelevant links, ignored the relevant portions of the material, and otherwise done a blatant and shameless cut and paste job. Why would you do this? Your credibility is now shot with me, as I’m sure it will be with others who read this.

I am not on this earth to please you but to serve the Lord. I do that by telling the truth.

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

They all agree that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist.

I am sorry that that RC teaching is so offensive to you. How is that my fault?

The link to EWTN does not contain the language you quoted. I do not appreciate you wasting my time by directing me to an irrelevant link.

Word for word.

Wow.

The topic that Fr. Hardon was dealing with was not transubstantiation.

He is speaking about nothing but the sacrament.

He did not anywhere comment on the teachings of Trent. The article is about “the intimate relationship between the Eucharist and the Sacred Heart.” The only thing I might take exception with him on is his confusing use of the word “physical.”

So he is confused but you are not?

How on earth are any of us to believe that?

Seriously.

This is not referring to transubstantiation, it is referring to the re-presentation of the one sacrifice of Christ on Calvary at the Eucharist. I agree, the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian. So what?

Please explain how you have a sacrifice of Christ without Christ.

What else about the sacrifice is physically present?

The cross? The nails?

What?

Continued in Part 2…

 

[Atemi]

This is not a comment on the mode of Christ’s presence within the communion elements. And this article makes this abundantly clear, but you chose to ignore it. Here is what the relevant portion of the article has to say about transubstantiation:

Transubstantiation
The Roman Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language… . .
Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.
Jesus (omnipotent God) said: “This is my body; this is my blood.” And again Jesus said: “I am the bread of life;” “My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;” “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood …;” etc.
Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.
From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.
Similar to all of God’s Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood. . . .
Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts–sight, taste, smell, touch–do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! “Transubstantiation” merely labels it.

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.

This is what you’ve been told here multiple times already. It is apparent that the accidents of the bread remain while only the substance is changed. This is what Trent means by “substantial.” It is obviously not the same thing as - say - my physical arm - wherein all of the accidents that inhere in it are that of a physical arm. The mode of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is not what you claim it is, it is what Fr. Serpa claims it is.

What I claim it is?

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

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

I have shown clearly that many educated, respectable, and very well catechised Catholics say otherwise.

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

For the life of me, I can’t think of one.

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

 

[Atemi]

I’m not sure that Atemi is giving you what you think he/she is. In fact, I’m nearly positive you are both thinking the exact same thing, yet you are kind of being pretty rude about it. Atema is just asserting that Christ is present in his Body and his Blood, with his Soul and his Divinity. This is a church teaching. I don’t think he is believing that when you take the Eucharist that you are taking a single part of his physical body, but instead you are ingesting Christ whole and entire, God and Man.

Agreed.

Nowhere do I claim that the RCC teaches that Christ is ingested in parts.

My only claim is that it is indeed RC teaching that Christ is physically present in the consecrated Eucharist.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I [post=2018977]repeat[/post]:

I will give you a dollar if you can find the word *physical *or *physically *next to the word *present *or *presence *(either order) in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

tee

 

[jamannor]

I [post=2018977]repeat[/post]:

I will give you a dollar if you can find the word *physical *or *physically *next to the word *present *or *presence *(either order) in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

tee

tee, he is using the word physically, but he means sacrementally. Christ is not there just physically, and not there just spiriturally. Christ is there sacrementally. If He was there just physically it would mean that it only contains His blood and body. If he was there only spiritually then it would contain only his soul and divinity, and not His body or blood. His sacremental and substantial presence though contains his body, blood, soul and divinity. Substantial means that the host we receive is truely Chirst. He is not in the bread but after the consecretion there is no bread. I think everyone who is so excited to shove all these teachings down Atema’s throat should step back and see that he does agree with church teaching. Atema isn’t saying that his soul and divinity aren’t present, he just is insisting that his blood and body are there. Which they are! Using the term physically just doesn’t give the Eucharist the credit it deserves. But it doesn’t go against it either. As proven Christ is there. Physically the bread and wine transforms sacrementally into Christ’s entire body, blood, soul and divinity.

Jerry

P.S. this all started over our need to describe what sacrementally meant. I agree at first I didn’t understand what Father Serpa was getting at, but I agree now that he was correct.

 

[DallasCatholic]

tee, he is using the word physically, but he means sacrementally. Christ is not there just physically, and not there just spiriturally. Christ is there sacrementally. If He was there just physically it would mean that it only contains His blood and body. If he was there only spiritually then it would contain only his soul and divinity, and not His body or blood. His sacremental and substantial presence though contains his body, blood, soul and divinity. Substantial means that the host we receive is truely Chirst. He is not in the bread but after the consecretion there is no bread. I think everyone who is so excited to shove all these teachings down Atema’s throat should step back and see that he does agree with church teaching. Atema isn’t saying that his soul and divinity aren’t present, he just is insisting that his blood and body are there. Which they are! Using the term physically just doesn’t give the Eucharist the credit it deserves. But it doesn’t go against it either. As proven Christ is there. Physically the bread and wine transforms sacrementally into Christ’s entire body, blood, soul and divinity.

Jerry

P.S. this all started over our need to describe what sacrementally meant. I agree at first I didn’t understand what Father Serpa was getting at, but I agree now that he was correct.

Jerry,
You might want to read the other threads that Atemi has posted on this subject. Based on the posts that I have read and, in some cases responded to uncharitably, Atemi seems to reject transubstantiation. Again, based on all of Atemi’s posts I think that you are incorrect in your assumption that “he is saying physically but he means sacramentally”. For example earlier Atemi posted:

Saying Christ is present bodily but not physically is a mess of words that only serve to confuse.

Is or is not Christ’s body a physical body?

A true human body that is not physical?

No.

If so, however, one must then redefine the word “physical.” That is unacceptable.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Christ is not there just physically, and not there just spiriturally. Christ is there sacrementally. If He was there just physically it would mean that it only contains His blood and body. If he was there only spiritually then it would contain only his soul and divinity, and not His body or blood. His sacremental and substantial presence though contains his body, blood, soul and divinity. Substantial means that the host we receive is truely Chirst. He is not in the bread but after the consecretion there is no bread.

[Whether anyone is [mis]using the word “physically” to mean “sacramentally” I shall not address here]

I know. My point, if I do have one (and undoubtedly poorly expressed), in this and similar threads I have participated in is: To describe the Eucharistic presence as *physical *is to describe it *incompletely *and is open to erroneous interpretation. That is why I prefer to use the vocabulary of the Church, typically: *real *presence or *substantial *presence (And the Church does use those words in technical specific ways – There is no way to express this *without *technical language).

In the same way, I would object to any Catholic describing the Eucharistic presence as *spiritual *-- That is *true *(body, blood, soul, and divinity), but incomplete. The Church does not express this teaching in a vacuum.

tee

 

[jamannor]

And the Church does use those words in technical specific ways – There is no way to express this *without *technical language).

I agree with you 100% . It’s just to confusing if you try. At least I finnally understand what father was trying to say in the start of things. Sometimes, I hear words and I’m like wait, I thought I understood it, to go back later and realize that yup I did just never used that word before. Also, I wasn’t trying to critize you (although sometimes when I write it sounds like it, sorry!) for trying to get him not to use the word physically. I just thought it would be more helpful to describe exactly what you meant, versus going around in a circle.

Jerry

 

[jamannor]

Jerry,
You might want to read the other threads that Atemi has posted on this subject. Based on the posts that I have read and, in some cases responded to uncharitably, Atemi seems to reject transubstantiation. Again, based on all of Atemi’s posts I think that you are incorrect in your assumption that “he is saying physically but he means sacramentally”. For example earlier Atemi posted:

I have read his other posts. And I agree that he shouldn’t prbobably be using the word physcically, because the definition is skewed. But he is agreeing with the chuch teaching if you ask him. He beleivies that his body, blood, divinity, and soul are all present in the Eucharist. He said that in his last post when he aggreed with me. That means he does beleive in transubstantiation. I could be very well wrong, and I guess we’ll have to wait to see how he responds, but for some reason (I’m gulible a lot of times so it wouldn’t surprise me if I was wrong.) I think he does agree.

I also found this that helps too to describe why it’s important for Christ’s sacramental presence…

Christ’s sacramental presence is necessary because Jesus did not rise from the dead in the same way as He raised Lazarus from the dead. Jesus resuscitated Lazarus, who was raised to die again, but Jesus Himself was resurrected into a new and eternal existence called “risen life.” The Holy Eucharist is Jesus’ risen life, His glorified body.