Catholic high school theology teacher possibly teaching Euchariatic heresy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maximilian75

Guest
We are going over the Sacraments in my religion class and when we began to talk about the Mass and the Eucharist he began making distinctions between the ‘physical’ presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and the ‘real’ presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I have always been taught that the Eucharist is all of Jesus, body blood soul and divinity. Is he wrong and if he is how can I rebutt his statements? Thank you.
 
There is a difference between the Real Presence and physical presence. The host is not tendons and veins and bones.
 
Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Jesus present in the Eucharist.
At the same time it still looks, tastes and feels like a small bit of bread. This is what we mean when we say that the ‘accidents’ don’t change.
I think this is what your theology teacher meant.
 
TheLittleLady said:
There is a difference between the Real Presence and physical presence. The host is not tendons and veins and bones.
Click to expand...
The term I learned was “Sacramental Presence,” which is no less real, i.e., “Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity” – but not physical presence in the biological sense (“tendons, bones.”).
 
But then how does one exPlain Euchariatic miracles in which the Host bleeds? Does God just choose to reveal the presence of Christ physically sometimes?
 
It seems he was trying to say simply what St. Thomas Aquinas says here in the Summa–ie Christ’s body is not locally present (it is at the right hand of the Father), but sacramentally present. Physical presence would imply local presence, I think.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article5

Here’s an excerpt:

As stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 3; Article 3), Christ’s body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ’s body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ’s body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ’s body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ’s body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ’s body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ’s body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body.
 
Last edited:
That there is a difference between Christ in the Eucharist and Christ on the earth incarnate… Which I always thought were one and the same
 
But even if we cannot detect it with mortal senses, isint the Eucharist still Christs physical body?
 
Your RIGHT,

speak to him privately [with a witness would be a good idea]
Testify to this reality:

Mt. 26: 26-28
Mk. 14: 22-24
Lk 22: 17:20
All of John 6: but 47-58
1at Cor 11:23-30

Jn 6: 47-58
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
he who 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 food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [WHICH DESCRIBES PRECISELY WHAT HAPPENS IN CATHOLIC HC] . This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

1 Cor 11:23-30
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[MORTAL SIN]

Q{ How can a person CONDEMN themselves for eating whaytIs JUST bread and wine?

GBY
 
@PJM
I don’t think he is trying to say that Jesus is not present in the Eucharist… But rather that Jesus presence on the earth in the Incarnation is different than that in the Eucharist, which Inhave always thought is the same.
 
Last edited:
From Fr. John Hardon:

Shortly after Trent, Pope St. Pius V authorized the publication of the Roman Catechism which built on the Council of Trent and explained its teachings for the pastors of the Church.

Regarding the Real Presence, the pastors were told to explain that “in this sacrament is contained not only the true Body of Christ-and that means everything that goes to make up a true body, such as bones, nerves, and so on-but also Christ whole and entire.” Consequently the Eucharist contains Jesus Christ in the fullness of his divinity and the completeness of his humanity.

Source
 
Jesus is present whole and entire in the Eucharist: every part of him—his whole body and blood, his soul and divinity. He is all there.

We get hung up on the word “physical.” It is important to note that what we perceive as the “physical” are the accidents or appearances of things. The appearances of bread and wine remain, but not the bread and wine in itself. The accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in Jesus; He does not become a small white wafer. But he becomes present in his entirety under those appearances.

All of the physical sciences are in fact a study of the appearances of things because the appearances or accidents are all that we can get into our sensory system. We never come into direct contact with substance itself.
 
I would presume that this is an analysis of the doctrine of the Eucharistic presence using the historical paradigm of Ratramnus, Radbertus and Berengarius of Tours. These three were always a backdrop I used when I was doing a mere survey course that included Eucharist rather than the course I taught specifically and exclusively on the Eucharist. One can thereby weave the various permutations together quite well, including along the way a few add-on elements from the Councils on the one hand and Aquinas on the one hand and the Reformers on the other hand…as well as the praxis of the East.
 
It is not physical presense but physical appearance which is related to the accidents
 
Make sure before you correct a teacher. Ask him to explain it, have the Catechism there and together read the section on the Real Presence.
 
Maximilian75 said:
But even if we cannot detect it with mortal senses, isint the Eucharist still Christs physical body?
Click to expand...
I think it’s in the language but alas I am not a theologian.

It is not his physical body obviously because the accidents are still in the form of bread and wine, only the substance changes. The physicality of it is in the sense that we can touch and see the accidents.

Real Presence is still the most apt in describing the Eucharist - the accidents become the true Body and Blood of Jesus by transubstantiation. The physical appearance of Christ remains a mystery to us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top