Defining the Real Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Atreyu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Atreyu

Guest
I wonder how accurate my following description of the Real Presence is? Please go easy on me…

The Real Presence in the Eucharist means that the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ is literally spiritually present in the bread and wine, instead of the substance of the bread and wine. In other words, Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity are not present in the bread and wine as they were present in his carnal body. When we receive the Eucharist, we do not eat a bit of leg or arm. Rather, it is his full spiritual body, blood, soul and divinity that we eat.
The bits in italics are the bits I’m not so sure about. Thanks in advance for any comments!
 
This is how the Catechism defines it:

**1374 **The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a *substantial *presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”
 
This is how the Catechism defines it:

**1374 **The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a *substantial *presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”
Yeah I already read that, and it didn’t really help me. I’m trying to understand what Augustine of Hippo meant, when he said in his Exposition on Psalm 99 (chapter 8):
And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But doth the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.” . . . But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, “Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him.” Some disciples of His, about seventy? were offended, and said, “This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritu ally [sic] what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.
I think my original definition above is wrong, but I’m simply trying to understand the teaching better.
 
I’m sorry my post wasn’t helpful --sometimes the Catechism is hard to grasp because what it’s trying to communicate is so profound. The Eucharist is completely Jesus, the glorified, resurrected and ascended Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine. It is spiritual and physical because Jesus is spiritual and physical.
 
Your definition of the Real Presence was quite close to that of the Catechism. In my view, to fully, adequately, completely define the Real Presence is almost beyond possibility. At the end of the day, it’s a matter of faith, and faith is a gift of a loving God. Catholics are quite frequently criticised for our belief in the Real Presence, particularly the blood and flesh aspect of it. Such criticism is evidence of a total misunderstanding of the Real Presence. Again, I reference the gift of faith. There is no way you can prove the Real Presence scientifically, as you could say, Newton’s Law or some other aspect of science. I won’t say a Protestant Communion Service is a mockery, it isn’t. Reverently done, it can be quite beautiful. The difference is, and this is what’s so significant. At Mass, Our Lord is there- Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
 
:twocents:

I am reluctant to attempt to describe the Real Presence by vocabulary other than that used by the Magisterium of the Church, especially in such a short discourse as given above. (I likewise realize this is (regretfully) probably of no assistance in helping you to *understand *the teaching or any particular exposition on it.) That is, I prefer to describe Christ’s presence in the sacrament as *real *or *substantial *and kind of leave it at that.

To emphasize the *spiritual *aspect of Christ’s presence, as above, is to leave oneself open to misinterpretation and error (primarily: the error of consubstantiation). Likewise, to emphasize the *physical *aspect of Christ’s presence (which is a legitimate truth) can also leave opening for error.

There is room for both teachings, indeed both are truth – But I think it best that neither be presented in isolation nor to the exclusion of the other.

:twocents:

tee
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top