Avoiding absurdity in preaching the Eucharest

[Richca]

Linus you are over-thinking the issue.

You must be the only person on Catholic.com, perhaps the whole english speaking world, who first goes to a Latin Aquinas or a German writer of Theological Manuals to define the english word “physical” as used by your average Englishman in the pews.

This is exactly the cause of the absurdities the OP speaks of but you seem unable to see this.

If we cannot see Jesus’s body then he is not physically present.
Trust me on this, don’t overthink it.
I don’t care how Aquinas (or rather somebody’s translation of Aquinas) or any theologian might define “physical” for you. They aren’t infallible on 21stC colloquial understandings of such words.

The colloquial word “physical” is not hard to understand - the Church does not have monopoly rights on its definition. THAT is the absurdity.

You need to put the books down on this one.

I would have to disagree that Jesus is not physically present in the Eucharist. The Eucharist contains the entire Christ, body, soul and divinity. Christ’s body is a physical, material reality just like any other human body though now incorruptible and immortal. Just because you can’t see something does not mean it is not physically present. Do you see the air? No, but who would deny it is not physically present?

“since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.” ( Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Holy Eucharist)

 

[Richca]

Man did I misright in that hurried post (is was leaving to go someone). The form-matter would be the substance, while after consecration we have he same matter with a new form, although not the as it was before especially since Jesus has a body, which indicates to me that perhaps the original form wasn’t anything physical at all.

Hey Linus, I read post 40 and it didnt address what I was talking about

Suppose we had the smallest particle of bread possible, and the priest consecrates it. If you say that Jesus’s is fully in the top part, and on the bottom part, then the He would be “under” a component of bread instead of bread. So when looking at this particle, this tiny bread, we would have to say one part has his arm, another his back, ect. This is a very clear insight, and shows that space must to relative someone in order for Jesus to be present. I don’t know what physics or how it could explain this a little clearer

The whole substance of the bread and wine are changed into the whole substance of the body and blood of Christ at the consecration, not the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine. The dimensive quantity along with the other accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. Transubstantiation is a change of substance, not a change of the accidents and the dimensive quanitity of the bread and wine.

One part of the body of Christ is not in one part of the consecrated host and another part of the body of Christ in another part of the host. If this were the case, the body of Christ would be in the host according to the dimensive quantity and extension of his body. Obviously, the consecrated host is much smaller than the dimensive quantity of Christ’s body. The body and blood of Christ are under the consecrated species not as if they are in a place and occupying space as the accidents of the bread and wine do after the consecration, but after the manner of substance. The entire body of Christ and its whole dimensive quantity are under the Eucharistic species but by a divine miracle the extension of the dimensive quantity of Christ’s body is withheld. Consequently, the body and blood of Christ are under the accidents of the bread and wine not as if they are in a place and occupying space; and one part of his body here and another part there. The whole substance of the body and blood of Christ are under every part of the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine after the consecration just as the whole substance of the bread and wine were under every part of the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine before the consecration.

 

[Richca]

It doesn’t matter whether Jesus body is resurrected. It is still a human body and has human characteristics and is perceptible to the senses. I think we shall fully perceive Him in heaven. He won’t be invisible to us.

But to perceive anyone or anything, we must perceive it in our senses through its accidents. Anything perceptible is perceptible through it’s accidents, whether it’s Jesus or some neighbor standing in front of you.

Touch is a sense perception. If we cannot feel it, it is because the accidents do not impinge on our senses. They do not impinge on our senses because Jesus accidents are not there, only the accidents of bread and wine.

If the accidents of bread and wine disappeared, would we suddenly perceive Jesus in his own appearances—5’10” 170 lb, dark hair, etc? I’ve read one theologian who answered the question “No” because Jesus accidents are not in the Eucharist, but in practice it’s not something to worry about, since he is present under the accidents of bread and wine and that is all that we perceive.

If by “touching” you mean something other than sense perception, then we are no longer speaking of accidents.

The accidents of the body and blood of Christ are under the eucharistic species. Indeed, the entire Christ, body, soul, and divinity are under every part of the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine. The accidents of the body and blood of Christ are not perceived by the senses in the Eucharist because by a divine miracle they are present after the manner of substance. Material substance without extension is invisible and imperceptible to the senses.

 

[JimG]

The accidents of the body and blood of Christ are under the eucharistic species. Indeed, the entire Christ, body, soul, and divinity are under every part of the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine. The accidents of the body and blood of Christ are not perceived by the senses in the Eucharist because by a divine miracle they are present after the manner of substance. Material substance without extension is invisible and imperceptible to the senses.

Yes, I agree. Christ is present whole and entire in the Eucharist—body and blood, soul and divinity, in all his component parts. He is corporeally present, not just spiritually present. He is present under the appearances of bread and wine. To quote from Mysterium Fidei which you quoted in your earlier post, he is present whole and entire in his physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.”

“Not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.” Present under the appearances of bread and wine. That is just Eucharistic doctrine. I only quibbled with the idea of “touching” because one cannot touch something which is not present in the manner in which bodies are in a place, whose accidents are not perceptible to the senses. Touch is a sense perception. Accidents or appearances are sense perceptions.

The only reason I have refrained from using the word “physical” to describe Christ in the Eucharist is that the term “physical” in common usage means precisely that which is perceptible to the senses. And Christ in the Eucharist is not perceptible to the senses. Otherwise we would not be able to receive him.

Eucharistic doctrine usually speaks in terms of substance and accidents, of reality vs appearances, not in terms of the qualities of glorified bodies, which seems to be a tangent. Substance and accidents are sufficient for the discussion. As you said, material substance without extension is not perceptible to the senses; Christ is in the Eucharist whole and entire but without extension.

 

[thinkandmull]

You can’t be serious! It is a Glorified body, it possesses only the properties of impassibility and subtlety. By impassibility a glorified body suffers no pain or loss and by subtlety the intellect has complete control of the material, it can and does " spiritualize " the material. The answer is no, and I am shocked that you would ask such a question, although, I should be used to your " carnality " by this time.

Linus2nd .

No you are the one saying that we touch Jesus instead of the accidents. The obvious question is “where” “in what manner” and “can He feel it”. Pain, loss, these are not relevant. If there is no feeling of the touch between us, like with a hug, than it is superfluous. The fact that He enters us is enough

 

[thinkandmull]

You can disagree but it wouldn’t be correct to do so. We know that Christ rose in his Glorified body. And I explained that he did indeed exercise some of properties of his subtlety, and clarity, at least. It is just that he wanted his Apostles to see him that he did not exercise them fully. Whereas in the Eucharist he exercised them fully.

Linus2nd

It is a HUGE assumption to say that Eucharest at the Last Supper was His glorified body. The possibility of time travel by divine power is a cloudy issue

 

[thinkandmull]

I think Linus is saying that Jesus’s body glorified is capable of being palpable (where you push on the skin and when released it moves back) but doesn’t have analogous sensations to our carnal bodies

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The accidents of the body and blood of Christ are under the eucharistic species. Indeed, the entire Christ, body, soul, and divinity are under every part of the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine. The accidents of the body and blood of Christ are not perceived by the senses in the Eucharist because by a divine miracle they are present after the manner of substance. Material substance without extension is invisible and imperceptible to the senses.

Thank you and glad to see you back.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No you are the one saying that we touch Jesus instead of the accidents. The obvious question is “where” “in what manner” and “can He feel it”. Pain, loss, these are not relevant. If there is no feeling of the touch between us, like with a hug, than it is superfluous. The fact that He enters us is enough

You are just being bull headed. Christ’s presence is a glorified presence, he does not want us to sense his presence for the reasons I have stated. So his " touch " is that of a glorified body exercising the power of subtlety, that is why I have referred to it as a " spiritual " touch. In the same way our " touch " of Christ is a " spiritualized " touch, because the object, Christ, is imperceptible or " spiritualized. " I use quotes because we are not to understand that Christ’s body has become a spirit, but merely to indicate that it has abstracted itself from all earthly material qualities. I use it as an analogy.

Remember Christ said he was our spiritual food. He did not say he was our bodily food. So no, he cannot " feel " our consumption of his body because that he is not our bodily food, he is not a steak we buy at the butcher shop. He is our spiritual food.

I can tell you that whenever you think of this sacrament in any carnal way, you are thinking incorrectly.

Linus2nd

 

[Richca]

No you are the one saying that we touch Jesus instead of the accidents. The obvious question is “where” “in what manner” and “can He feel it”. Pain, loss, these are not relevant. If there is no feeling of the touch between us, like with a hug, than it is superfluous. The fact that He enters us is enough

When we receive Jesus in the Eucharist in our mouths, we are receiving the entire Jesus, body, soul and divinity. I do not know how it could be reasonably said that Jesus is not perceptible to this communion. Indeed, would it not be heretical to say that Jesus is not perceptible to this communion? Do we believe we are receiving the real living Christ or not? The catholic faith and the very words of Jesus demand that we believe we are receiving the real living whole and entire Christ. We do not adore and reverence the Eucharist for nothing but because in it is contained the whole and entire Jesus Christ in an invisible but real and substantial, nonetheless, manner. Jesus is substantially present whole and entire under the eucharistic species. Again, would it not be heretical to say that Jesus is not perceptible to sacrilegious communions or blasphemies and sacrilege to the Eucharist?

 

[thinkandmull]

Not this is case: suppose that the accidents of the bread and wine have consciousness. Would they feel our touch?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It is a HUGE assumption to say that Eucharest at the Last Supper was His glorified body. The possibility of time travel by divine power is a cloudy issue

Your problem is that you have not bothered to read my references. The Roman Catechism states ( para. 26, pg 225) " …First, the one true Body of Christ, the same Body that was born of the Virgin Mary and is now seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is acutally present in the sacarment…" In heaven we know that it is Christ’s Glorified Body. that is present. And since this is the same Body that is in the sacrament, it is his Glorified Body that is present in the sacrament. Not only this but the Church often uses the phrase " Glorified Body " to refer to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, I just don’t have a particular reference at the moment.

This sacrament has nothing to do with " time travel, " we are dealing with the mystery of the power of God, who is eternal and he is making present to us in time an eternal mystery.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

Not this is case: suppose that the accidents of the bread and wine have consciousness. Would they feel our touch?

We’re talking about the Word incarnate.

Consider John 1:48:

“How do you know me?” Nathanael asked. Jesus answered, “I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you.”

 

[Richca]

Thank you and glad to see you back.

Linus2nd

Thank you Linus, I’ve been quite busy lately. Hope all is well.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, I think I have said about all I can on this subject. I have found that on these forums it is safer just to say yea or no and leave it go at that. And really what is the point of that?

Happy Easter Everyone.

Linus2nd

 

[JimG]

When we receive Jesus in the Eucharist in our mouths, we are receiving the entire Jesus, body, soul and divinity. I do not know how it could be reasonably said that Jesus is not perceptible to this communion. Indeed, would it not be heretical to say that Jesus is not perceptible to this communion? Do we believe we are receiving the real living Christ or not? The catholic faith and the very words of Jesus demand that we believe we are receiving the real living whole and entire Christ. We do not adore and reverence the Eucharist for nothing but because in it is contained the whole and entire Jesus Christ in an invisible but real and substantial, nonetheless, manner. Jesus is substantially present whole and entire under the eucharistic species. Again, would it not be heretical to say that Jesus is not perceptible to sacrilegious communions or blasphemies and sacrilege to the Eucharist?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by “perceptible.” If by perceptible you mean perceptible to our human senses, then it would be inaccurate to say that Jesus is perceptible to us in Holy Communion. It would be saying that he is present to us in the normal manner of a body, but he is not present in that manner. He is wholly present, but “not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.” Our human senses cannot perceive him.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You can disagree but it wouldn’t be correct to do so. We know that Christ rose in his Glorified body. And I explained that he did indeed exercise some of properties of his subtlety, and clarity, at least. It is just that he wanted his Apostles to see him that he did not exercise them fully. Whereas in the Eucharist he exercised them fully.

Linus2nd

I asked you to provide Resurrection examples where Jesus’s bodily accidents are imperceptible Linus.
You only provided Eucharistic ones in this thread .

We know that Christ rose in his Glorified body.

A strange way of expressing things where the later conceptualised reflection becomes the raw experience that was initially reflected upon .

Surely we know that Christ appeared in the flesh after his death - which experiences were subsequently conceptualised into a theology of rising and bodily glorification (with various properties)?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon;12835418:

Besides, the Catechism of the Council of Trent ( the Roman Catechism as Thinkandmull has kindly pointed out ) makes it perfectly clear that his accidents were indeed present in the Eucharist.

One off Catechisms (ie non-traditional) written by a small group of theologians and approved in some low-grade Papal manner don’t really cut it for me as particularly Magisterial sorry Linus.

However I would be interested in the quote with full context if it was easily available to you.
I didn’t notice TAM’s if he quoted something?
Are there any other directly Magisterial or Conciliar quotes perchance?

No, I don’t think this presence would be present as a mature body is virtually present in an ovum. Christ was quite clear, he said, " This is my body,and this is my blood…" No loyal son of the Church has ever nuanced this clear meaning.

Linus please give us a break with these Pope and Linus are one type assertions .
I welcome your personal views but lets have a decent supporting argument or quote other than your personal interpretation of Scripture.

Clearly Jesus’s last supper statements are intellectually opaque beyond our faith in his affirmation. Jesus didn’t explain how he can be present in visible bread and wine which he is standing next two. If Christ was as clear as you suggest then we would first pass have to believe in bilocation as well wouldn’t we .

And while you are right in saying that the explanation of Thomas Aquinas on these things is speculative, still they are the best explanation we have …

Ummm, I don’t think so. Its collapsing.
We have been preaching absurdities to Joe Bloggs Englishman in the pews for at least a couple of centuries … but no one, including yourself, seems to see the Emperor wearing no clothes.

I am not saying at all that a " little " Christ is present. I said that this understanding was condemned by the Church.

I am saying your homunculus comment is irrelevant and a complete non-sequitur.
It means you did not understand or answer my point if you think that is what I was saying.

No, because there was no need to do so. Trent was not teaching philosophy or science, it simply took Christ at his word, just as the Apostles and Disciples did. When Christ said, " This is my body…and…this is my blood…" Trent took him at is word and simply said that Jesus Christ is present in the Sacrament " Whole and entire. " ( Chapter III of Session 13 of the Council )

Yet not “whole” or “entire” enough to actually look like a human body in the Eucharist . Looks like something is lacking to me…

So yet another absurdity for the English language as those two words do not seem to mean what they mean in English.

Sometimes I wonder if you actually read what I post. The Catechisms are Magisterial texts. If you are looking for these words " The answer is Jesus’ bodily attributes are actually, really present, not virtually and not by concomitance. " are to be found in the actual Dogma, the answer is no. The Catechisms simply say that Jesus’ bodily attributes are actually present. Now they do not give an exhaustive list of those attributes. Linus2nd

Linus , as above, I don’t share your reverence for superceded Catechisms, of somewhat low grade Papal approval, whose former articles have been left out never to be heard of again.

And you have assumed attributes and accidents to be the same thing (or at least accidents must be included in attributes) haven’t you. Another difficulty I think.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I would have to disagree that Jesus is not physically present in the Eucharist. The Eucharist contains the entire Christ, body, soul and divinity. Christ’s body is a physical, material reality just like any other human body though now incorruptible and immortal. Just because you can’t see something does not mean it is not physically present. Do you see the air? No, but who would deny it is not physically present?

“since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.” ( Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Holy Eucharist)

Just because you can’t see something does not mean it is not physically present.

Richca the argument has gone further than this…

Linus believes something can be physically present even when that something cannot be perceived by any of the 5 senses or scientific instruments.

That to most English speakers is an absurdity as it contradicts the very definition of the English word “physical”. Such a something simply does not physically exist.

If air was not tangible how would you know it is there - why would you need to posit its physical existence at all?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The accidents of the body and blood of Christ are under the eucharistic species. Indeed, the entire Christ, body, soul, and divinity are under every part of the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine. The accidents of the body and blood of Christ are not perceived by the senses in the Eucharist because by a divine miracle they are present after the manner of substance. Material substance without extension is invisible and imperceptible to the senses.

If something has no extension then it is not **physically **present is it…at least by the English definition of that word.