Confused?

[JohnSou]

In the September issue of This Rock I found two statements rather confusing, and I was hoping someone could clarify them for me. Under LETTERS on pg. 6 in James Kidd’s retort, he states:

“3. While it is true that the Church does not teach that Christ is physically *present *[emphasis added] in the Eucharist …”
It was my understanding that Jesus is present to us in many forms: “Whenever two or more are gathered in my name” (Matt. 18:20); in Holy Scripture when proclaimed in the Sacred Liturgy; in the form of a validly ordained priest as “persona Christi”; and, par excellence, in the Blessed Sacrament. But in the latter form, the consecrated Eucharist is the true and real Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine (i.e., fully the flesh and person of Jesus contained within). Moreover, The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1324) affirms: “… For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself.” So what is meant by Christ not being *physically *present in the Eucharist? This appears to be contradictory to the above.

Under** Quick Questions** on pg. 45 (in the answer to the third question), it states: “The SSPX Mass, through gravely illicit, is valid …” How could a mass that’s gravely illicit (unlawful) still be “valid” (having legal force) in the context of it being sacramentally valid?

Thanks for your help.

 

[chrisg93]

I’m confused also.

My guess in reference to the Eucharist they mean that Jesus is not present with two arms, two legs and so forth.

My guess in reference to the SSPX Mass they mean that it is illicit for the priest to perform it or for a Catholic to attend it, but if done by an ordained priest then it is a valid sacrifice of the Mass.

But you are correct that they are fuzzy Q & A. Good of you to catch it.

 

[JimG]

With regard to the Eucharist I think the intent was to distinguish Jesus’ sacramental presence from a purely physical presence–that is, spread out in space like a body.

In some sense you might say that a sacramental presence includes a physical presence but only under the appearances of bread and wine.

The communion host is like a hologram. If you break it in half, you do not break Christ in half. He is present whole and entire in both halves. No matter how many pieces you break the host into, Christ is present whole and entire in each piece. In this respect, although Christ is present totally–body and blood, soul and divinity, it is not like a physical presence, because Christ cannot be broken or divided.

Illicit = unlawful. It should not be done. But,
valid means that consecration and transubstantiation really takes place.

JimG

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

(3. While it is true that the Church does not teach that Christ is physically *present *[emphasis added] in the Eucharist …")

Christ is Truly, Really and Substantially, Present in the Blessed Sacrament. What many people mean by “physically *present” *is that through our senses we cannot perceive his physical Body and Blood. The Blessed Sacrament does not look like or taste like meat or blood in it’s physical properties.

Under** Quick Questions** on pg. 45 (in the answer to the third question), it states: “The SSPX Mass, through gravely illicit, is valid …” How could a mass that’s gravely illicit (unlawful) still be “valid” (having legal force) in the context of it being sacramentally valid?

It would be refering specifically to the Sacrament of the Eucharist as being valid. The celebration of the Mass being gravely illicit because the priest (SSPX) does not have the permission of the local Bishop to celebrate Mass in his diocese.

 

[martino]

I believe that the magazine will have to print either a correction or clarification on the statement. Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist.