Confusion over the Eucharist

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The sections you will want to review on the Most Holy Eucharist are contained in the CCC, paragraphs 1322 through 1421. The section which deals with the real presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity is contained in paragraph # 1374. . In so far as the differentiation which protestants make between literally present and physically present, I ask How can Jesus, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, God become man, not be physically present. To say that he is not physically present, but only substantially present, is another heresy which was condemned in the earliest Church. This heresy taught that Jesus was not really physically present, but only appeared that way. If this is true, then the passion and crucifixion would have been a phantasm and not real. i.e., it only appeared that way, because they claim that God cannot suffer and that physical matter is evil and God would not become Incarnate and take on evil flesh. I think it’s Gnosticism, but I am not 100% sure. Such a statement on their part goes back to a heretical teaching condemned almost 1200 years earlier, which protestant reformers used to try and refute the teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, so as to "make it appear as if they did what was correct. As if 1500 years of Catholic Church teaching and dogma were wrong. Jesus himself said We would have the Holy Spirit with us till the end of time and the gates of hell shall not prevail. It seems as though the gates are still trying
Deacon Ed B

 

[holdencaulfield]

The sections you will want to review on the Most Holy Eucharist are contained in the CCC, paragraphs 1322 through 1421. The section which deals with the real presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity is contained in paragraph # 1374. . In so far as the differentiation which protestants make between literally present and physically present, I ask How can Jesus, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, God become man, not be physically present. To say that he is not physically present, but only substantially present, is another heresy which was condemned in the earliest Church. This heresy taught that Jesus was not really physically present, but only appeared that way. If this is true, then the passion and crucifixion would have been a phantasm and not real. i.e., it only appeared that way, because they claim that God cannot suffer and that physical matter is evil and God would not become Incarnate and take on evil flesh. I think it’s Gnosticism, but I am not 100% sure. Such a statement on their part goes back to a heretical teaching condemned almost 1200 years earlier, which protestant reformers used to try and refute the teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, so as to "make it appear as if they did what was correct. As if 1500 years of Catholic Church teaching and dogma were wrong. Jesus himself said We would have the Holy Spirit with us till the end of time and the gates of hell shall not prevail. It seems as though the gates are still trying
Deacon Ed B

This is true the heresy of Consubstantiation.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

This is true the heresy of Consubstantiation.

My first reaction to this answer was thats correct. After I have had a chance to reflect upon it, you were wrong and I was wrong with my reaction. Here’s why.

The heresy of consubstantiation says that bread and wine are still present as well as the physical presence of Jesus is the fullness of the body, blood, soul and divinity.

Because Agnosticism teaches that the Jesus of 2000 years ago, wasn’t real, but only a phantasm,this in itself denies the incarnation as well as the true, real, physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity. In other words, if it is a phantasm, anything about it is only an illusion and not real. If the appearance of Jesus is not real, than neither could the true presence be real. Thus the term*** “literally” ***i.e., in spirit", but not physically, i.e., because they believe in the phantasm, not the real presence of the living, breathing, real Jesus, in the fullness of body, blood, soul and divinity.

I hope that with this explanation you can see the importance of terminology used in dogma and the understanding of how certain words can play such an important part in the true meaning. It is insidious how some of those, who try to chip away at our core dogmas can do it in such small pieces at a time and are patient for their end result… I hope this helped.

You really had me going into the recesses of my mind to dogma classes I had in the 1960’s to answer this one. God Bless
Deacon Ed B

 

[holdencaulfield]

My first reaction to this answer was thats correct. After I have had a chance to reflect upon it, you were wrong and I was wrong with my reaction. Here’s why.

The heresy of consubstantiation says that bread and wine are still present as well as the physical presence of Jesus is the fullness of the body, blood, soul and divinity.

Because Agnosticism teaches that the Jesus of 2000 years ago, wasn’t real, but only a phantasm,this in itself denies the incarnation as well as the true, real, physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity. In other words, if it is a phantasm, anything about it is only an illusion and not real. If the appearance of Jesus is not real, than neither could the true presence be real. Thus the term*** “literally” ***i.e., in spirit", but not physically, i.e., because they believe in the phantasm, not the real presence of the living, breathing, real Jesus, in the fullness of body, blood, soul and divinity.

I hope that with this explanation you can see the importance of terminology used in dogma and the understanding of how certain words can play such an important part in the true meaning. It is insidious how some of those, who try to chip away at our core dogmas can do it in such small pieces at a time and are patient for their end result… I hope this helped.

You really had me going into the recesses of my mind to dogma classes I had in the 1960’s to answer this one. God Bless
Deacon Ed B

You are right, good point.

 

[St_Aloysius]

The Church professes a belief in transubstantiation:

That is, the going from one substance to another. The Eucharistic materials, in their innermost reality, are transformed into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord. But the accidents (physical traits) remain, though they too are substantially his Body and Blood.

Consubstantiation says the physical elements remain in substance alongside of the Body and Blood–and at the end of the mass, or service, return to the form of ordinary bread and wine.

 

[Dauphin]

Could you please show me this in the Canons and Catechism, per chance? There are a few Catholics in a thread in the Non-Catholic Religions forum that hold on to the belief that Christ is “literally present” but not “physically present.” I think some fraternal correction is in order, yes?

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

I think you’re referring to me. I’ve since been corrected. Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. Flesh and Blood are by their very nature physical things. We cannot sense this physical presence because it is not accompanied by the physical properties (accidents) of Flesh and Blood. The physical properties are those of bread and wine. The Eucharist is, however, the full Christ, which includes His true, physical body - present in a unique, sacramental way.

The Church, however, typically avoids using the term “physical” simply because it gives rise to the sort of confusion we’ve seen on this thread. It can give the impression of cannibalism - which consumption of the Eucharist is not.

I’m sure this explanation isn’t perfect, but it’s the best I can do with my current understanding. I’ve learned a great deal of humility in approaching this topic since I categorically stated things that aren’t true about the Eucharist (ie. no physical presence). I’m convinced that God has used this opportunity to both inform me concerning Catholic doctrine, and also to teach me a virtue.

Looking back, if it weren’t for CAF, I probably wouldn’t even know what Transubstantiation is. I was raised Catholic, you see.

 

[SenorSalsa]

what exactly is meant by the “accidents of bread and wine” still existing? I think thats what i meant to say back in post 3, but worded terribly and thus spun this into a topic of trans vs. consubstantion.

btw, holdenclaufield, Catcher in the Rye is a fantastic book.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The terms accident and substance are metaphysical terms. Substance is that which makes a thing what is is. i.e., the essence of that thing. Accident describes the object. e.g., accidents of bread are wheat, and whatever makes up that item as bread. The substance is what the finished product is. (Since I had metaphysics way back in the early 60’s, don’t pounce on me for being slightly off) We can consider humanness and know that what makes us human is the rational immortal soul. Accidents of a human are arms - 2, legs - 2, etc. We can still lose arms, legs, eyes, etc. but our humanness remains. I hope this helps with the understanding of the term. In other words, an accident is descriptive, but not what makes a thing what it is.
Deacon Ed B

 

[holdencaulfield]

The terms accident and substance are metaphysical terms. Substance is that which makes a thing what is is. i.e., the essence of that thing. Accident describes the object. e.g., accidents of bread are wheat, and whatever makes up that item as bread. The substance is what the finished product is. (Since I had metaphysics way back in the early 60’s, don’t pounce on me for being slightly off) We can consider humanness and know that what makes us human is the rational immortal soul. Accidents of a human are arms - 2, legs - 2, etc. We can still lose arms, legs, eyes, etc. but our humanness remains. I hope this helps with the understanding of the term. In other words, an accident is descriptive, but not what makes a thing what it is.
Deacon Ed B

Nice point.

 

[SenorSalsa]

The terms accident and substance are metaphysical terms. Substance is that which makes a thing what is is. i.e., the essence of that thing. Accident describes the object. e.g., accidents of bread are wheat, and whatever makes up that item as bread. The substance is what the finished product is. (Since I had metaphysics way back in the early 60’s, don’t pounce on me for being slightly off) We can consider humanness and know that what makes us human is the rational immortal soul. Accidents of a human are arms - 2, legs - 2, etc. We can still lose arms, legs, eyes, etc. but our humanness remains. I hope this helps with the understanding of the term. In other words, an accident is descriptive, but not what makes a thing what it is.
Deacon Ed B

ok, yeah thats what i was trying to say. only i did it poorly

 

[merle]

The terms accident and substance are metaphysical terms. Substance is that which makes a thing what is is. i.e., the essence of that thing. Accident describes the object. e.g., accidents of bread are wheat, and whatever makes up that item as bread. The substance is what the finished product is. (Since I had metaphysics way back in the early 60’s, don’t pounce on me for being slightly off) We can consider humanness and know that what makes us human is the rational immortal soul. Accidents of a human are arms - 2, legs - 2, etc. We can still lose arms, legs, eyes, etc. but our humanness remains. I hope this helps with the understanding of the term. In other words, an accident is descriptive, but not what makes a thing what it is.
Deacon Ed B

I am sorry for the length of this reply/post.

Ok. I have been reading this thread and this finally has me feeling confident in what I have believed for some time. (I think.)

Also. I am supposed to write my nephew a letter about Holy Communion, as he is about to receive his first. So I want to get this right.

We had a priest, when I was in college, who allowed us to ask questions during some of his homilies. He was/is a great and intelligent man. Though it was embarrassing to speak up in front of the whole congregation about the subject. I asked him once at Mass about the Eucharist. I remember when I was younger when I would chew the skin on my fingers. I would ask myself why the Host did not taste like flesh. Why did the consecrated wine taste like slightly-off grape juice? So I asked the ever puzzling question that my non-Catholic friends always prompted me with. A question that I never really could answer. Are the wafers and the wine we take at Communion really flesh and blood? That is, if we were to have some sort of analyzation done on them(as sacrilegious as it sounds), would they be determined to be made up of human membranous tissue and cells or of wheat and fermented grape juice. For most of my life, in the most logical(and faithless) part of my brain crept that same question many, many times. Do I have to believe that I am eating a human in order to be a Catholic, I thought. I believe in God. I believe in the Holy Catholic Church. At least, I thought I did. These were the thoughts I was plagued with before I asked the question at that Mass.

I have to admit. Most of what I have read on the subject(including what has been posted here) has been either too high brow for my understanding or so vague to the point of causing me to have more questions, rather than to have given me an answer.

So back to my priest’s answer. Which, I think, is very similar to the one Deacon Ed B has given. He said a bunch of stuff. But the word that stuck with me was “essence”. The bread and the wine, once consecrated, take on the essence of Christ. It challenges the mind to think on an illogical and very spiritual level. Similar to the Trinity. It had once again forced me to think of what is possible through our Lord rather than what is earthily possible. Come to think of it. I speak daily with God in my mind. That is not very logical either. As Catholics we have a faith that is indescribable but very real to us. I guess it is upon that faith that we draw a realization that what seems impossible and illogical to us has no merit or consequence to what God is capable of. I have for some time now believed that, that is why the Eucharist is the heart of our Christian faith. Because if we believe that, if it is possible to really receive Christ through a physical source, then we truly believe that anything is possible with God and, indeed, we truly believe in God, Himself.

Now. Am I wrong with what I have stated? Is there anything that I should rethink or discover about Catholicism in respect of the Eucharist. I do not want to teach my children and my nephew anything that is false.

thanks!

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

What I would state is this. The Eucharist is more than just essence. Through the miracle of transubstantiation, the bread and wine actually change from bread and wine into the real body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. While the accidents of bread and wine remain, it is no longer bread and wine. This is something we accept on faith. Read the Gospel of John, chapter 6. Here we have the teaching of Jesus, that if we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we shall have life everlasting. The gospel even says that some of his followers said, “we can no longer take this sort of teaching, and they walked away. " Then look at what Jesus did. He let them walk away instead on going after them and saying, wait, you misunderstood me. He let them go and was even prepared to let the 12 go, as he then turned to them and said, “Are you going to leave me too?” This shows how much he meant what he said. Shortly after, at the last supper, he took bread and said, This is my Body”, Taking the cup of wine he said,“This is my Blood” He then gave to command, “Do this in memory of me”. This is what we as Catholics have been doing for 2000 years. This Eucharist, the body and blood of Jesus, is the very core of our faith as Catholics, and contains the entire sum and substance of our faith. Think of it, one Eucharistic sacrifice contains more merit and grace than all the combined sacrifices of the Old Testament. This is sour faith. Love it, live it, be proud of it.
Deacon Ed B