Avoiding absurdity in preaching the Eucharest

[thinkandmull]

I still don’t get what you mean Linus. We don’t touch Him with out hands but with our stomach and all. Does my stomach touch His stomach? I don’t think any of this is correct

 

[CrossofChrist]

Again someone telling me that Jesus’s body lays on my tongue. Please stop it with the sacrilegious nonesense

Well, Aquinas already addressed whether or not Jesus is present in the Eucharist as in a place. The reply was in the negative. So I guess I just don’t get why St. Thomas should have a problem with claiming the whole Christ is present under each of the species (which is a matter of faith).

 

[CrossofChrist]

Again someone telling me that Jesus’s body lays on my tongue. Please stop it with the sacrilegious nonesense

Aquinas addressed the issue of whether Christ is present in the Eucharist as in a place, and replied saying “no”. So your bi-location question poses no problem to St. Thomas.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I still don’t get what you mean Linus. We don’t touch Him with out hands but with our stomach and all. Does my stomach touch His stomach? I don’t think any of this is correct

Go back and read ch. 6 of John again. Is Jesus a lier?

" 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 ( NIV)

Fr. William Barden O.P., translator of S.T. part 1, ques 73-78, in Appendex 3 ( Blackfriars edition) says, " True, we do not touch Christ within the host ( when we hold it in our hands ); nor does he touch us, except at the time of sacramental eating ( when we consume the host) pg 213. So, in the sacramental eating Christ does touch us, and we him.

Linus2nd

 

[CrossofChrist]

Aquinas addressed the issue of whether Christ is present in the Eucharist as in a place, and replied saying “no”. So your bi-location question poses no problem to St. Thomas.

Trent’s Canon #8 on the Eucharist:

CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

 

[JimG]

Here are a couple of quotes which may help to clarify the Eucharist:

“Earlier I mentioned confusion among Catholics about the implications of Christ’s Eucharistic presence, and I posed the question: Do we receive (for instance) Christ’s head and arms and feet? Many today would be uncomfortable with an affirmative answer, which would savor, to them, of a grossly materialistic view of the Real Presence. Yet it is the right answer. Suppose we didn’t receive those parts: then the same would have to be said of all the other parts of his body. So there’d be nothing left! We would not be receiving his body.”
Source:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/realpres/transubstantiation.htm

"Jesus is therefore in the Blessed Sacrament “whole and entire: the Soul, the Body and Blood of Christ, with all their component parts. In heaven a complete human nature is united to the divine nature in one. . . person. It is a denial of the faith to suppose that in this sacrament there is anything less.”

From an article by Fr. John Hardon

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha5.htm

 

[pete_29]

No, its substance is now Jesus, but His body isn’t rubbing against our insides. We touch the accidents

Jesus said it was His Body. I’ll take Him at His Word.

 

[thinkandmull]

Saying we touch only the accidents is a legitimate position for a Catholic, and obviously the most consistent with Jesus’s privacy and decorum and modesty. That’s all folks

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Saying we touch only the accidents is a legitimate position for a Catholic, and obviously the most consistent with Jesus’s privacy and decorum and modesty. That’s all folks

Your problem is that your thinking is perverted and gross, which is what the Fathers, who wrote on the Eucharist, warned us about. Christ’s glorified flesh is not earthly flesh. His words cannot be parced away, " Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life in you. " Now if we do not touch Christ when we consume the Sacrament, then we have not consumed his flesh, we have not consumed his blood. You need to purify your thinking, you aren’t in a biology class or a health class where one is more or less forced to consider details which should be left unmentioned in public and should never be mentioned here, especially in this context. So clean up your mind.

Linus2nd .

 

[thinkandmull]

I am not the one saying we touch Jesus in communion

 

[thinkandmull]

Are you saying that the resurrected body is entirely different than our present carnal bodies? I totally disagree with people who say we will be naked in Heaven, but maybe because I think of the body in the present state in which is is capable of reproduction.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Are you saying that the resurrected body is entirely different than our present carnal bodies? I totally disagree with people who say we will be naked in Heaven, but maybe because I think of the body in the present state in which is is capable of reproduction.

The glorified body of Christ is not carnal because, among other things, it is indestructable. Likewise ours. Why don’t you read the material I have referenced? We will have no carnal desires or feelings in heaven, so, strictly speaking, there would be no need for clothes. Adam and Eve had no clothes in the Garden. Remember?

Linus2nd

 

[JimG]

Saying we touch only the accidents is a legitimate position for a Catholic, and obviously the most consistent with Jesus’s privacy and decorum and modesty. That’s all folks

We touch only the accidents of bread and wine, because those are the only accidents that we can perceive. We do not touch the accidents of Jesus. We can not perceive the accidents of Jesus, and yet he is wholly present.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We touch only the accidents of bread and wine, because those are the only accidents that we can perceive. We do not touch the accidents of Jesus. We can not perceive the accidents of Jesus, and yet he is wholly present.

If we do not touch Jesus, then how can it be said that we eat his flesh and drink his blood. In your view all we have done is to consume the accidents of bread and wine. Jesus spoke quite literally, " If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life in you. "
The " communion " you are describing is no more than a spiritual communion.

Linus2nd

 

[JimG]

If we do not touch Jesus, then how can it be said that we eat his flesh and drink his blood. In your view all we have done is to consume the accidents of bread and wine. Jesus spoke quite literally, " If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life in you. "
The " communion " you are describing is no more than a spiritual communion.

Linus2nd

Jesus is completely and fully present. We do eat his body and drink his blood. But the only way we “touch” someone is through their accidents. And we do not touch the accidents of Jesus in the Eucharist. The only accidents we are able to touch are the accidents of bread and wine, which are the only accidents that remain–and they do not inhere either in the bread and wine (which are replaced by Jesus’ body and blood), nor do they inhere in Jesus, since they are not his accidents. They do not inhere in any substance.

Yet Jesus is corporally present. The fact that we cannot perceive him with our senses is the result of transubstantiation. He is fully present under (but not in) the appearances of bread and wine.

Appearances are not the underlying reality. Appearances are what can be apprehended by our senses. In the Eucharist, the reality of Jesus replaces the reality of bread and wine, but the appearances of bread and wine remain.

If Jesus were present in the manner of accidents, then when we break a communion host in half we would be breaking Jesus body. But that is not what happens. Jesus is fully present corporally within every part of the host.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Jesus is completely and fully present. We do eat his body and drink his blood. But the only way we “touch” someone is through their accidents. And we do not touch the accidents of Jesus in the Eucharist. The only accidents we are able to touch are the accidents of bread and wine, which are the only accidents that remain–and they do not inhere either in the bread and wine (which are replaced by Jesus’ body and blood), nor do they inhere in Jesus, since they are not his accidents. They do not inhere in any substance.

Yet Jesus is corporally present. The fact that we cannot perceive him with our senses is the result of transubstantiation. He is fully present under (but not in) the appearances of bread and wine.

Appearances are not the underlying reality. Appearances are what can be apprehended by our senses. In the Eucharist, the reality of Jesus replaces the reality of bread and wine, but the appearances of bread and wine remain.

If Jesus were present in the manner of accidents, then when we break a communion host in half we would be breaking Jesus body. But that is not what happens. Jesus is fully present corporally within every part of the host.

In the Sacrament Jesus is Wholly and entirely present, his bones, his flesh, etc.This is the teaching of Trent. And these latter ( bones, flesh, etc.) are accidents which inhere in his bodly substance. And we do touch these accidents; and by doing so, we touch Jesus.

Linus2nd

 

[JimG]

In the Sacrament Jesus is Wholly and entirely present, his bones, his flesh, etc.This is the teaching of Trent. And these latter ( bones, flesh, etc.) are accidents which inhere in his bodly substance. And we do touch these accidents; and by doing so, we touch Jesus.

Linus2nd

I agree. Jesus is wholly present–his entire body, his entire soul and divinity. Accidents are what can be perceived by the senses, they are not the thing in itself. Although Jesus is wholly and bodily present, we do not perceive his accidents. We perceive only the accidents of bread and wine. In touching the accidents of bread and wine we do not “touch” Jesus because they are not his accidents and do not inhere in him.

If I lost all my sensory perceptions, I would not be able to perceive the outside world, and yet the outside world would still be there in its fullness; I would just not be perceiving it through its accidents.

Not being able to perceive the accidents of Jesus does not mean that he is not wholly and entirely and corporeally present. It just means that I do not perceive his accidents.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree. Jesus is wholly present–his entire body, his entire soul and divinity. Accidents are what can be perceived by the senses, they are not the thing in itself. Although Jesus is wholly and bodily present, we do not perceive his accidents. We perceive only the accidents of bread and wine. In touching the accidents of bread and wine we do not “touch” Jesus because they are not his accidents and do not inhere in him.

If I lost all my sensory perceptions, I would not be able to perceive the outside world, and yet the outside world would still be there in its fullness; I would just not be perceiving it through its accidents.

Not being able to perceive the accidents of Jesus does not mean that he is not wholly and entirely and corporeally present. It just means that I do not perceive his accidents.

You are having trouble understanding the difference in Christ’s bodily presence after his Resurrection and his bodily presence in the species. In both instances he is the exact same physical substantial presence, The difference is that in the species, he is invisible. But that does not keep us from " touching " him, nor him from " touching " us. We cannot feel the touch but it occurs nevertheless. How could we consume his body and blood if we did not touch him?

Linus2nd.

 

[JimG]

You are having trouble understanding the difference in Christ’s bodily presence after his Resurrection and his bodily presence in the species. In both instances he is the exact same physical substantial presence, The difference is that in the species, he is invisible. But that does not keep us from " touching " him, nor him from " touching " us. We cannot feel the touch but it occurs nevertheless. How could we consume his body and blood if we did not touch him?

Linus2nd.

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.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

I tend to agree with your angle.

In the end what do we really mean by “presence”.
We know presence is mediated by the sensible…but in the end it is the personal causality behind the sensible that we really long for isn’t it?

When I was in Papua New Guinea speaking to my parents on the staticy telephone line many years ago they were not really present sensibly (though in a virtual auditory sensible sort of way of course) … yet I was aware of their “invisible” yet real causal presence and “power”. I was comforted…and had I been in trouble they would have been able to help with tickets or money transfer even from that great distance.

Presence/touch is the ability to make a difference perhaps?
That presence doesn’t always require the normal sensible “bodily” accidentals of “presence”.