Avoiding absurdity in preaching the Eucharest

[thinkandmull]

I think we are speaking of the resurrected body in two different senses:

1. Like a cloud (Eastern view, which Gregory the Great in Constantinople argued against)
2. That Jesus’s body now is ultra-human: lips more sensitive than the nose, capable of arousal, although protected by God from ever having the temptation (as saints have written)

Only in the first sense would it be right to say that we touch Jesus. Maybe He bi-locates and is in the Eucharist in the first sense and somewhere else in the first (as I kidna said in another post earlier)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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…[snip]…

.

Christ’s Resurrected body, his glorified body, possessed the qualities of subtly, agility, clarity. From my post 63, Thomas Aquinas says, " " The four endowments of a glorified body according to the Scholastic theologians are impassibilitas, as immunity from suffering or hurt; subtilitas, an absence of lumpish density; agilitas, a swiftness of response to spirit; and clrirtas, or lightness. Then it refers the reader to the Supplemtum of the Summa Ques 83 - 85. These explain subtlety, agility, clarity as regards resurrected bodies."
newadvent.org/summa/5.htm

This means that Christ’s will could make matter conform to his immediate will, he could be visible or invisible ( as in the Eucharistic species ). When he wills his body to be invisible and physically unnoticeable to all our senses, he does not loose his material physicality., he merely makes himself present in a way that cannot be sensed by us. So while we do not notice his touch, nor can we perceive we are touching him, nevertheless he does touch us and we do touch him.

The Council of Trent teaches that Christ is present in his total physical reality.

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml

" Peculiar Fitness Of Bread And Wine
We have now to consider the aptitude of these two symbols of bread and wine to represent those things of which we believe and confess they are the sensible signs.

In the first place, then, they signify to us Christ, as the true life of men; for our Lord Himself says: My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. As, then, the body of Christ the Lord furnishes nourishment unto eternal life to those who receive this Sacrament with purity and holiness, rightly is the matter composed chiefly of those elements by which our present life is sustained, in order that the faithful may easily understand that the mind and soul are satiated by the Communion of the precious body and blood of Christ.

These very elements serve also somewhat to suggest to men the truth of the Real Presence of the body and blood of the Lord in the Sacrament. Observing, as we do, that bread and wine are every day changed by the power of nature into human flesh and blood, we are led the more easily by this analogy to believe that the substance of the bread and wine is changed, by the heavenly benediction, into the real flesh and real blood of Christ.

This admirable change of the elements also helps to shadow forth what takes place in the soul. Although no change of the bread and wine appears externally, yet their substance is truly changed into the flesh and blood of Christ; so, in like manner, although in us nothing appears changed, yet we are renewed inwardly unto life, when we receive in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the true life.

Moreover, the body of the Church, which is one, consists of many members, and of this union nothing is more strikingly illustrative than the elements of bread and wine; for bread is made from many grains and wine is pressed from many clusters of grapes. Thus they signify that we, though many, are most closely bound together by the bond of this divine mystery and made, as it were, one body. "

" The Catholic Church firmly believes and professes that in this Sacrament the words of consecration accomplish three wondrous and admirable effects.

The first is that the true body of Christ the Lord, the same that was born of the Virgin, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is contained in this Sacrament.

The second, however repugnant it may appear to the senses, is that none of the substance of the elements remains in the Sacrament.

The third, which may be deduced from the two preceding. although the words of consecration themselves clearly express it, is that the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject. All the accidents of bread and wine we can see, but they inhere in no substance, and exist independently of any; for the substance of the bread and wine is so changed into the body and blood of our Lord that they altogether cease to be the substance of bread and wine. "

" Christ Whole And Entire Is Present In The Eucharist
Here the pastor should explain that in this Sacrament are contained not only the true body of. Christ and all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews, but also Christ whole and entire. He should point out that the word Christ designates the Godman, that is to say, one Person in whom are united the divine and human natures; that the Holy Eucharist, therefore, contains both, and whatever is included in the idea of both, the Divinity and humanity whole and entire, consisting of the soul, all the parts of the body and the blood, all of which must be believed to be in this Sacrament. In heaven the whole humanity is united to the Divinity in one hypostasis, or Person; hence it would be impious, to suppose that the body of Christ, which is contained in the Sacrament, is separated from His Divinity. "

So all the accidents of our Redeemer are physically present, though invisible to us and imperceptible to our senses: so that while we do not perceive his touch, nor do we perceive our touching him, it is nevertheless true.

Linus2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think we are speaking of the resurrected body in two different senses:

1. Like a cloud (Eastern view, which Gregory the Great in Constantinople argued against)
2. That Jesus’s body now is ultra-human: lips more sensitive than the nose, capable of arousal, although protected by God from ever having the temptation (as saints have written)

Only in the first sense would it be right to say that we touch Jesus. Maybe He bi-locates and is in the Eucharist in the first sense and somewhere else in the first (as I kidna said in another post earlier)

Your insistence on concentrating on the effects common human concupiscence in regard approach blasphemy. Would you mind getting your mind out of the gutter! Christ did not suffer from concupiscence.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia; " Like Adam, Christ (the second Adam) endured temptation only from without, inasmuch as His human nature was free from all concupiscence; but unlike Adam, He withstood the assaults of the Tempter on all points,…" newadvent.org/cathen/14504b.htm

In other words Christ could not be tempted in the manner you so grossly suggest. He could only be tempted from without.

Linus2nd

 

[JimG]

Let me clarify. I am NOT arguing for a simply “spiritual” presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He is fully, completely, wholly, totally present—body and soul, humanity and divinity, just the same as if he stood before us. In the Eucharist, he does in fact stand before us. The only reason I don’t use the word “physical” in regard to his presence, is that his accidents are not perceptible to our senses, and we define the physical as that which is perceptible to our senses.

We define as “physical” everything that is perceptible to our senses. Yet what gets into our senses is not the reality of something, not the thing itself, just our sense perceptions. That is true of everything. When I look at anything in the world, I can’t get the outside world into my senses and into my brain and my mind, except through sense perception—but sense perception is not the thing perceived.

In the Eucharist, Jesus is present under the appearances of bread and wine. The appearances of bread and wine remain. They are “physical” in that they are perceptible, yet they do not inhere in any substance. Not in the bread, because it is replaced by Jesus. Not in Jesus, because he has his own proper appearances, which are not those of bread and wine.

Jesus is fully present in his full humanity, body and soul. I use the word “corporeally” rather than physically only to emphasize that his body is really present, but his appearances (accidents) are not. The only appearances we perceive are those of bread and wine. That’s the way He designed the Eucharist.

I don’t think we disagree.

You argue that his accidents remain but he makes them invisible. Maybe so. I don’t doubt that Jesus has his own proper accidents. I don’t think there has ever been any official doctrine about Jesus’ accidents in the Eucharist being present but invisible. It seems to me that if he makes his accidents non-perceptible, they are no longer accidents—i.e., sense perceptions.

Accidents / appearances are sense perceptions from all of our senses—sight, taste, touch, smell, sound, everything that is perceptible. So why focus simply on the aspect of touch? Why not say that we see Jesus in the Eucharist although he is invisible, that we hear Jesus, although he is soundless? I quite agree that Jesus makes himself present in a way that cannot be sensed by us. You can say that nevertheless he does touch us and we touch him, but a touch that is not perceptible is not really a touch because it is not perceptible.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Let me clarify. I am NOT arguing for a simply “spiritual” presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He is fully, completely, wholly, totally present—body and soul, humanity and divinity, just the same as if he stood before us. In the Eucharist, he does in fact stand before us. The only reason I don’t use the word “physical” in regard to his presence, is that his accidents are not perceptible to our senses, and we define the physical as that which is perceptible to our senses.

We define as “physical” everything that is perceptible to our senses. Yet what gets into our senses is not the reality of something, not the thing itself, just our sense perceptions. That is true of everything. When I look at anything in the world, I can’t get the outside world into my senses and into my brain and my mind, except through sense perception—but sense perception is not the thing perceived.

In the Eucharist, Jesus is present under the appearances of bread and wine. The appearances of bread and wine remain. They are “physical” in that they are perceptible, yet they do not inhere in any substance. Not in the bread, because it is replaced by Jesus. Not in Jesus, because he has his own proper appearances, which are not those of bread and wine.

Jesus is fully present in his full humanity, body and soul. I use the word “corporeally” rather than physically only to emphasize that his body is really present, but his appearances (accidents) are not. The only appearances we perceive are those of bread and wine. That’s the way He designed the Eucharist.

I don’t think we disagree.

You argue that his accidents remain but he makes them invisible. Maybe so. I don’t doubt that Jesus has his own proper accidents. I don’t think there has ever been any official doctrine about Jesus’ accidents in the Eucharist being present but invisible. It seems to me that if he makes his accidents non-perceptible, they are no longer accidents—i.e., sense perceptions.

Accidents / appearances are sense perceptions from all of our senses—sight, taste, touch, smell, sound, everything that is perceptible. So why focus simply on the aspect of touch? Why not say that we see Jesus in the Eucharist although he is invisible, that we hear Jesus, although he is soundless? I quite agree that Jesus makes himself present in a way that cannot be sensed by us. You can say that nevertheless he does touch us and we touch him, but a touch that is not perceptible is not really a touch because it is not perceptible.

If you go back and read posts 40-44 you will find the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Real Presence describes Christ’s presence as physical ( becuause his accidents, as you say, are physical ) and invisible.

I have insisted on the sense of touch because that would be the sense involved in consuming Christ’s body and blood. But it would be a touch akin to a " spiritual " touch which we could not feel.

Will be gone a few weeks.

Linus2nd

 

[JimG]

Well, there is no doubt that the sense of touch is involved in the Eucharist. We taste and touch the accidents of bread and wine.

Anyway, have a good trip

 

[Blue_Horizon]

.
This means that Christ’s will could make matter conform to his immediate will, he could be visible or invisible ( as in the Eucharistic species ). When he wills his body to be invisible and physically unnoticeable to all our senses, he does not loose his material physicality., he merely makes himself present in a way that cannot be sensed by us. So while we do not notice his touch, nor can we perceive we are touching him, nevertheless he does touch us and we do touch him.

Linus2nd.

Linus where did you get this Modernist New Age “scientific” “application” of Aquinas’s principles from exactly? It makes a mockery of both science and theology to my ears.

If Aquinas used the word “invisible” in this context I humbly suggest the word means something quite different from what it means today.

Lets take apart what you are either personally applying or somewhat uncritically repeating - perhaps from some less than well translated ancient tomb.

To modern ears something is “invisible” when it cannot be seen by sight (or perhaps additionally makes no noise) … but it is always assumed such a thing is always sensible at least to the sense of touch or an instrument that resolves to one of the human senses. Even the invisible man supported clothing.

But if you are actually using the word “invisible” to mean not able to be sensibly perceived at all then I suggest you are using completely the wrong word to explain whatever phenomenon you are trying to explain.

Because of this blurring of the meaning of the word “invisible” you have somehow come to the conclusion that Jesus is unseen in the Eucharist by much the same mechanism that he could make himself unseen in the Resurrection…

I find this easy assumption untenable. I believe the mechanisms at first glance are very different and I do not know where you source your theology that the mechanism is to be, first cab off the rank, assumed the same. Can you provide a ref for this view?

I hold a contrary first impression on this issue. If we take the normal Joe Bloggs definition of “physical” (apprehensible to the senses) then clearly Jesus’s body is NOT physically present at the Eucharist but IS physically present in his Resurrrected appearances to the disciples - it was not a hologram.

But you maintain Jesus did invisibility acts at his Resurrection appearances. That is, he became like the invisible man. I don’t accept this. Even the invisible man is still physically present when he is invisible. No, I believe that when Jesus entered sealed rooms or disappeared from sight he was no longer there at all…or suddenly just there.

Likewise speaking of Jesus’s body as “invisible” in the Eucharist doesn’t make sense and isn’t at all helpful to modern ears. He is not physically apprehensible in any way at all. It is a completely different mode both from “invisibility” and from the Resurrected body.

Provide your sources if you still hold otherwise .

“When he wills his body to be invisible and physically unnoticeable to all our senses, he does not loose his material physicality.”

So this statement is an absurdity in preaching the Eucharist to pious Englishman Joe Bloggs in the pew sorry. Why does he have to learn an arcane terminology from 900 years ago to get some preaching nourishment?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus where did you get this Modernist New Age “scientific” “application” of Aquinas’s principles from exactly? It makes a mockery of both science and theology to my ears.

If Aquinas used the word “invisible” in this context I humbly suggest the word means something quite different from what it means today.

Lets take apart what you are either personally applying or somewhat uncritically repeating - perhaps from some less than well translated ancient tomb.

To modern ears something is “invisible” when it cannot be seen by sight (or perhaps additionally makes no noise) … but it is always assumed such a thing is always sensible at least to the sense of touch or an instrument that resolves to one of the human senses. Even the invisible man supported clothing.

But if you are actually using the word “invisible” to mean not able to be sensibly perceived at all then I suggest you are using completely the wrong word to explain whatever phenomenon you are trying to explain.

Because of this blurring of the meaning of the word “invisible” you have somehow come to the conclusion that Jesus is unseen in the Eucharist by much the same mechanism that he could make himself unseen in the Resurrection…

I find this easy assumption untenable. I believe the mechanisms at first glance are very different and I do not know where you source your theology that the mechanism is to be, first cab off the rank, assumed the same. Can you provide a ref for this view?

I hold a contrary first impression on this issue. If we take the normal Joe Bloggs definition of “physical” (apprehensible to the senses) then clearly Jesus’s body is NOT physically present at the Eucharist but IS physically present in his Resurrrected appearances to the disciples - it was not a hologram.

But you maintain Jesus did invisibility acts at his Resurrection appearances. That is, he became like the invisible man. I don’t accept this. Even the invisible man is still physically present when he is invisible. No, I believe that when Jesus entered sealed rooms or disappeared from sight he was no longer there at all…or suddenly just there.

Likewise speaking of Jesus’s body as “invisible” in the Eucharist doesn’t make sense and isn’t at all helpful to modern ears. He is not physically apprehensible in any way at all. It is a completely different mode both from “invisibility” and from the Resurrected body.

Provide your sources if you still hold otherwise .

So this statement is an absurdity in preaching the Eucharist to pious Englishman Joe Bloggs in the pew sorry. Why does he have to learn an arcane terminology from 900 years ago to get some preaching nourishment?

Either you are open to the truth or you are not. I have explained all this before. My references are listed in posts 40-44 and 63. As far as Christ’s ability to make his body, including his clothing, invisible, that is covered in post 63. You also need to be aware that Trent, the Catechism of Trent, and our current Catechism use the term ’ invisible. ’ Yes, Christ rose from the dead with a Glorified body. And this is the power over matter he uses in the Eucharist. He is the author of science, are you going to accuse him of being unable to do things science cannot explain? Should he apologize to you and scinece because he has done things ( miracles ) that do not fit into scientific categories?

As far as the my use of the word ’ touch ’ is concerned, that stems from an argument with Thinkandmull who stated that we cannot touch Christ. I disagreed and pointed him to a sentence in the Catholic Encylopedia which proves my statement. I further stated that if we cannot touch Jesrus, then we cannot consume his body and blood. That should have been obvious. You will find this reference in my last post to Thinkandmull. It can also be found somewhere in posts 40-44 ( I think 42 ).

I’m taking a break from posting for awhile.

Linus2nd.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Either you are open to the truth or you are not. I have explained all this before. My references are listed in posts 40-44 and 63. As far as Christ’s ability to make his body, including his clothing, invisible, that is covered in post 63. You also need to be aware that Trent, the Catechism of Trent, and our current Catechism use the term ’ invisible. ’ Yes, Christ rose from the dead with a Glorified body. And this is the power over matter he uses in the Eucharist. He is the author of science, are you going to accuse him of being unable to do things science cannot explain? Should he apologize to you and scinece because he has done things ( miracles ) that do not fit into scientific categories?

Linus2nd.

I am open to the truth Linus - but not necessarily your personal interpretation of it.

You are doing your usual thing of not answering directly but referring people to your collected works which invariably are generic and do not relate to the precise point being discussed.

You will have to forgive me for not being overly persuaded by a single “Catechism” be it Trent or any other.

I am more interested in Trent. Would you be so kind as to provide the actual ref and quote you are referring to?

Of course it didn’t use the modern English word “invisible” did it?
That is the issue and the point I am making.

We have already found that the word “physical” is problematic for Joe Bloggs in the pew listening to fundamentalist transliterations of that word from Aquinas that are indeed absurd…the word simply doesn’t mean what Aquinas meant.

I am fairly certain the same will be found for the word “invisible” used to translate whatever Aquinas/Trent meant by the equiv Latin word. (your “collected works” 42/44 certainly prove that). But I will wait for your specific refs first, maybe I will be proven wrong. I am not holding my breath, it always the same…philosophic/theological absurdities in modern English are often to an assumption of simplistic conceptual equivalence between Latin and English words over time.

Just because the English word may indeed have may have come from the Latin root…surely its naiive to think the range of meanings will perfectly or even mostly coincide by that reason alone.

Regardless of all that, I find it difficult to accept that Aquinas or Trent used the word invisible to mean the same thing both wrt to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and in the Resurrection appearances. What are your refs?

 

[fred_conty]

Blue Horizon,
we live in an ocean of air. We live in it and touch it all the time. Yet we don’t see it with our eye.

Now the line of reason could go…but we have an instrument that will show us air and therefore it is not invisible. Oh but yes it is, to our naked eye it is. Even if we add smoke to see it’s presence, it is still thru the instrumentality of the smoke we see, not the invisible air itself.

The same holds for seeing him in the Eucharist…with our naked eye we cannot see him tho he is there. If we had an added divine instrument of the power of glory, then we would see him in the Eucharist. But without this divine instrument of the power of glory, we cannot see him.

St. Paul alludes to this power of glory in one of his letters.
And the Church also teaches it as well. That without it we cannot see God.

So it is quite true to say Christ is invisible to our eye yet still is present physically.

Here is a validated story about the Eucharist.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Rome1.pdf

May Jesus bless you.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am open to the truth Linus - but not necessarily your personal interpretation of it.

You are doing your usual thing of not answering directly but referring people to your collected works which invariably are generic and do not relate to the precise point being discussed.

You will have to forgive me for not being overly persuaded by a single “Catechism” be it Trent or any other.

I am more interested in Trent. Would you be so kind as to provide the actual ref and quote you are referring to?

Of course it didn’t use the modern English word “invisible” did it?
That is the issue and the point I am making.

We have already found that the word “physical” is problematic for Joe Bloggs in the pew listening to fundamentalist transliterations of that word from Aquinas that are indeed absurd…the word simply doesn’t mean what Aquinas meant.

I am fairly certain the same will be found for the word “invisible” used to translate whatever Aquinas/Trent meant by the equiv Latin word. (your “collected works” 42/44 certainly prove that). But I will wait for your specific refs first, maybe I will be proven wrong. I am not holding my breath, it always the same…philosophic/theological absurdities in modern English are often to an assumption of simplistic conceptual equivalence between Latin and English words over time.

Just because the English word may indeed have may have come from the Latin root…surely its naiive to think the range of meanings will perfectly or even mostly coincide by that reason alone.

Regardless of all that, I find it difficult to accept that Aquinas or Trent used the word invisible to mean the same thing both wrt to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and in the Resurrection appearances. What are your refs?

You seem to be the only one left who disagrees. As I told you I am not posting for awhile, mainly I tired of pointless debating with people who are not open to reason and who are too lazy to follow the sources they have been given.

My sources are the Council of Trent, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the S.T., part 3, on the Real Presence and the Resurrection of Christ , and the Supplement on the Resurrection. Now you can read them all for yourself.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

Your insistence on concentrating on the effects common human concupiscence in regard approach blasphemy. Would you mind getting your mind out of the gutter! Christ did not suffer from concupiscence.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia; " Like Adam, Christ (the second Adam) endured temptation only from without, inasmuch as His human nature was free from all concupiscence; but unlike Adam, He withstood the assaults of the Tempter on all points,…" newadvent.org/cathen/14504b.htm

In other words Christ could not be tempted in the manner you so grossly suggest. He could only be tempted from without.

Linus2nd

I said He was NOT tempted. I am the one trying to avoid blasphemy. Because of this conversation when I receive communion I think to myself if I am touching Jesus, and than if He feels my tongue, throat ect touching Him. It is really weird. I am simply insisting that we examine the doctrine carefully to avoid this

 

[thinkandmull]

Linus, neither Old Catholic Encyclopedia nor Aquinas are infallible. Also, it is heresy to say the Eucharist contains clothing as well as His Body. I suppose we can argue that there is another mystery BESIDES transubstantiation were His clothing surrounds part of the Eucharist, although this is a new idea. Still the thought that my tongue, throat, esophagus, and stomach are touch His face head and feet, and He can feel this, and just disturbing.

“The second, however repugnant it may appear to the senses, is that none of the substance of the elements remains in the Sacrament.”

When Trent says this we have to understand that the substance and the matter are together and THAT is what makes is SOMETHING at all. So it is not contrary to Trent to say that our senses are correct the whole time. They sense bread matter. But not “bread”

 

[Aloysium]

The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, made so by God.
I cannot even begin to comprehend how my partaking of the Eucharist is experienced by the incarnate Word of God.
I’m reminded of Mystici Corporis Christi Encyclical Of Pope Pius XII:

For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the Beatific Vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love. O marvelous condescension of divine love for us! O inestimable dispensation of boundless charity! In the crib, on the Cross, in the unending glory of the Father, Christ has all the members of the Church present before Him and united to Him in a much clearer and more loving manner than that of a mother who clasps her child to her breast, or than that with which a man knows and loves himself.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon,
we live in an ocean of air. We live in it and touch it all the time. Yet we don’t see it with our eye.

Now the line of reason could go…but we have an instrument that will show us air and therefore it is not invisible. Oh but yes it is, to our naked eye it is. Even if we add smoke to see it’s presence, it is still thru the instrumentality of the smoke we see, not the invisible air itself.

The same holds for seeing him in the Eucharist…with our naked eye we cannot see him tho he is there. If we had an added divine instrument of the power of glory, then we would see him in the Eucharist. But without this divine instrument of the power of glory, we cannot see him.

St. Paul alludes to this power of glory in one of his letters.
And the Church also teaches it as well. That without it we cannot see God.

So it is quite true to say Christ is invisible to our eye yet still is present physically.

Here is a validated story about the Eucharist.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Rome1.pdf

May Jesus bless you.

Fred you have so completely misunderstood my point it prob isn’t worth taking this further with you sorry.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You seem to be the only one left who disagrees. As I told you I am not posting for awhile, mainly I tired of pointless debating with people who are not open to reason and who are too lazy to follow the sources they have been given.

My sources are the Council of Trent, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the S.T., part 3, on the Real Presence and the Resurrection of Christ , and the Supplement on the Resurrection. Now you can read them all for yourself.

Linus2nd

And again you fail to engage, Linus - pointing people to generic “arguments” that don’t actually relate to the point under discussion.

“You seem to be the only one left who disagrees.”

I have never been one for assuming silence means consent Linus. That leads to the “Emporers new clothes” and to absurdities in preaching where the poor faithful come to mass not for the brilliance of the preaching but for Jesus’s sake despite the preacher.

A bit like visiting a beloved parent with Alzheimer’s I suppose.
That is a pretty common experience for many thinking Catholics.

Perhaps I am the only one devoted enough to you to gently suggest that you forgot to put your (theological) trouser’s on this morning .

So I would like you to explain how Jesus’s invisibility in Easter appearances can in any way be the same mode as that of Jesus in the Eucharist.
I think it pretty clear, regardless of how one defines “invisible” that the modes are very different.

Please quote your sources for this assertion if you really do mean it?

BTW you have to give up this obsession to always have the last word on any topic.
You say you are not posting for a while - yet you have to come back and say something that isn’t really worth saying at all .

 

[fred_conty]

Fred you have so completely misunderstood my point it prob isn’t worth taking this further with you sorry.

We both have misunderstood each others point.

like the saying goes… If I disagree with it or dislike it, then it must be wrong.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

May God’s face shine on you.

 

[CarolSue]

I don’t often post at CAF, although I read a great deal here. But this thread saddens me with the misunderstanding, not only of the Eucharist, but of God. The insistence on doctrine conforming to any individual’s limited understanding was countered to me in the signature line of member pete 29: **Be careful not to create God in your image.
**Amen!

Let’s say we are shrunk into tiny people, and we celebrate a mass with a priest, and he raises the host after consecration. Let’s say this host is the smallest particle that bread can be. To divide it further would result in two things that are not bread. Can we say that **all **of Jesus’s body is in the right part of the host as the priest holds it up? If Aquinas would say yes, than he would believe in infinite bi-locations.

Bi-location? Have you never known that God is omni-present? Is omnipotent God to be confined to a box limited to the reaches of the finite human mind?

What sort of body can be present in the Eucharist? Answer: The type that could make itself present in the midst of a locked room (moments after having been miles away in Emmaus) and sit down to dinner with real, tangible food. Not spirit, but real flesh and blood. The glorified body of the Incarnate God.

We occasionally refer to Eucharistic miracles, where consecrated bread literally becomes flesh and wine literally becomes blood. Indeed, these are “extraordinary” miracles – but an “ordinary” miracle occurs at every Consecration. It’s called a “mystery” because our finite minds cannot fully comprehend the how and why of it, but faith assures us of its truth.

Flesh and blood is the creation of God, so what can limit what God can do with the flesh into which he made himself incarnate? Receiving the Body of Christ isn’t about our “touching” his limbs, but about Him touching us, inviting us to become Him as we go out into the world.

HERE is a link to an article you might find helpful on the reality of the living Christ in the sacrament.

 

[thinkandmull]

I’ve been the one saying it is about spiritual touching-healing, not physical touch. It was Aquinas who said there is no bilocation, so at least we can say that is a fair question of philosophy

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’ve been the one saying it is about spiritual touching-healing, not physical touch. It was Aquinas who said there is no bilocation, so at least we can say that is a fair question of philosophy

I think Linus’s point is that it is more than just spiritual.
If it isn’t then Catholic belief in the Real Presence seems to be much the same as High Protestantism.

Catholic theology holds that the true essence of a thing is found in its “substance”, not its sensible accidents (only in the Eucharist are they strangely separated).

In the Eucharist, if we hold that the substance of Christ is present within the sensible boundaries of the Consecrated Bread…then when we touch the sensible object we are truly touching Jesus.

This would seem to be a half way point that avoids both the “Physicalist” (a heresy) claim of cannibalism and the spiritual, symbolism only claim (also a heresy) of Protestantism.