Eucharist is physical presence

[banjo]

On another thread there were some troubling responses regarding the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist Jesus Christ is really, physically, materially, present under the appearances of bread and wine. After the consecration the bread is no longer bread but the body of Christ and the wine is no longer wine but the blood of Christ. This is not my opinion, this is the teaching of the Church, the teaching of Jesus in Jn 6 and the synoptic accounts of the Last Supper.

“From the encyclical Mysterium Fidei by Pope Paul VI…
Not that there lies under those species what was already there before, but something quite different; and that not only because of the faith of the Church, but in objective reality, since after the change of the substance or nature of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine but the appearances, under which Christ, whole and entire, in His physical “reality” is bodily present, although not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place.”

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6myster.htm

From the USCCB paper on the Real Presence…

1. 
   *]Does the bread cease to be bread and the wine cease to be wine?
   
   Yes. In order for the whole Christ to be present—body, blood, soul, and divinity—the bread and wine cannot remain, but must give way so that his glorified Body and Blood may be present. Thus in the Eucharist the bread ceases to be bread in substance, and becomes the Body of Christ, while the wine ceases to be wine in substance, and becomes the Blood of Christ. As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, Christ is not quoted as saying, “This bread is my body,” but “This is my body” (Summa Theologiae, III q. 78, a. 5).
   http://www.usccb.org/lent/2007/sacraments.shtml
   
   To see the entire document you will have to click on ‘Bulletin Inserts’.
   
   My only interest in posting this is to counter incorrect statements regarding the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist. I’m not trying to generate replies or initiate a discussion but only to correct misinformation.

 

[Penitant]

Amen

 

[dianaskot]

Hello Everyone-
I am the new kid on the block and have a valid question. About 2 years ago, I went to a family day called “Kingdom Bound” in Buffalo. On the first night, they offered communion and grape juice. This is mainly a non-denominational event. I accepted the bread and grape juice but felt uncomfortable about it. Was that considered a sin to accept that??? I posted the question yesterday and JIm Blackburn said that Catholics are not allowed to do this and He thought I should bring it into the forum. And I just wanted to throw this into the mix. What about an alcoholic receiving the Blood of Our Lord? That has stumped me for a while. We believe we receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Does that break the sobriety of an alcoholic? And what if the person goes to Mass everyday? My friend told me that if you receive the Body–it is as if you received all of Jesus. I am a recovering alcoholic and that is why I am asking. What about the priest–how would he handle his problem

Thanks-
Dianaskot

 

[HonConvert]

And hello from another newbie
As I understand it, in accepting communion at a given service, whether Catholic or not, you are implying that you agree with that community’s understanding of what Jesus intended the celebration of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper to be. So if a Catholic shares communion with a non-Catholic community whose Eucharistic theology is not compatible with that of the Catholic Church, he could be seen to be accepting that community’s beliefs, rather than those of the Church.

On the subject of an alcoholic receiving the Precious Blood, the Church teaches, as your friend said, that “Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace” (CCC 1390). So an alcoholic, or anyone else, who refrains from receiving the precious blood is not thereby missing out on the fullness of the sacrament.

Hope this helps.

James

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Hello Everyone-
I am the new kid on the block and have a valid question. About 2 years ago, I went to a family day called “Kingdom Bound” in Buffalo. On the first night, they offered communion and grape juice. This is mainly a non-denominational event. I accepted the bread and grape juice but felt uncomfortable about it. Was that considered a sin to accept that??? I posted the question yesterday and JIm Blackburn said that Catholics are not allowed to do this and He thought I should bring it into the forum. And I just wanted to throw this into the mix. What about an alcoholic receiving the Blood of Our Lord? That has stumped me for a while. We believe we receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Does that break the sobriety of an alcoholic? And what if the person goes to Mass everyday? My friend told me that if you receive the Body–it is as if you received all of Jesus. I am a recovering alcoholic and that is why I am asking. What about the priest–how would he handle his problem

Thanks-
Dianaskot

I was taught that Catholics should not participate in a non-Catholic religious service. At the very least it spreads scandal and at its worst a person could become confused about their faith. At the last supper Jesus instituted the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Holy Orders. We Catholics believe that it takes an ordained priest to consecrate the host to change the bread and wine into the physical body and blood of Jesus; no ordained priest, no mass, no Eucharist. Unfortuately our Protestant brothers can’t offer a valid mass.

It is not necessary to receive Jesus in both forms to receive his whole body, blood, soul and divinity. If you think about it there are many settings where only the host is taken…troops in combat, people in the hospital, old folks homes, shut-ins etc. So, just don’t partake of the blood.

Iowa Mike

 

[dianaskot]

Thanks Mike-
I really appreciate it. I felt I knew the answer but wanted to know and hear from others.

Dianaskot

 

[dianaskot]

And hello from another newbie
As I understand it, in accepting communion at a given service, whether Catholic or not, you are implying that you agree with that community’s understanding of what Jesus intended the celebration of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper to be. So if a Catholic shares communion with a non-Catholic community whose Eucharistic theology is not compatible with that of the Catholic Church, he could be seen to be accepting that community’s beliefs, rather than those of the Church.

On the subject of an alcoholic receiving the Precious Blood, the Church teaches, as your friend said, that “Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace” (CCC 1390). So an alcoholic, or anyone else, who refrains from receiving the precious blood is not thereby missing out on the fullness of the sacrament.

Hope this helps.

James

Thanks, James-
You made my day!
God Bless-
Dianaskot

 

[reason]

… as opposed to already being everywhere and permeating everything, including yourselves?

If Jesus is God and is everywhere and in everything, why do you need to eat a wafer of bread to receive him? It would make a lot more sense as a willing, symbolic celebration.

Personally, even when I was a Catholic, I rejected this absurd idea, from the very moment the priest who used to do monthly visits to my grade school class said these things were “mysteries” that we as mere humans could never understand and we shouldn’t even try. Even as an 8 or 9 year old, I decided right then and there that this explanation was a free license to rationalize just about anything, no matter how silly and superstitious.

 

[tee_eff_em]

On another thread there were some troubling responses regarding the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist Jesus Christ is really, physically, materially, present under the appearances of bread and wine. After the consecration the bread is no longer bread but the body of Christ and the wine is no longer wine but the blood of Christ. This is not my opinion, this is the teaching of the Church, the teaching of Jesus in Jn 6 and the synoptic accounts of the Last Supper.

“From the encyclical Mysterium Fidei by Pope Paul VI…
Not that there lies under those species what was already there before, but something quite different; and that not only because of the faith of the Church, but in objective reality, since after the change of the substance or nature of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine but the appearances, under which Christ, whole and entire, in His physical “reality” is bodily present, although not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place.”

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6myster.htm

Where did they get that translation?? It is almost, but not quite the same as that posted on the Vatican website:

For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.

Personally, I’ve always been more intrigued by the bit I have emphasized than by the bit you have emphasized.

Furthermore, I believe it is a mistake to describe the real presence as "physical’, in the same way that I believe it to be a mistake to describe it as “spiritual”, or “sanguinous”, or “divine” – All of those things are true (Jesus is present body, blood, soul, and divinity) – But to emphasize one to the exclusion of others is prone to misinterpretation and error.

That is why I prefer to describe the Eucharistic presence as *real *(as does, IMHO, the Church)

My only interest in posting this is to counter incorrect statements regarding the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist. I’m not trying to generate replies or initiate a discussion but only to correct misinformation.

“oops”

:twocents:
tee

 

[Wildgraywolf]

… as opposed to already being everywhere and permeating everything, including yourselves?

If Jesus is God and is everywhere and in everything, why do you need to eat a wafer of bread to receive him?.

Because… “…He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him.” John 6:56

It would make a lot more sense as a willing, symbolic celebration…

Only if you’re thinking as men think and not as God thinks.

Personally, even when I was a Catholic, I rejected this absurd idea, from the very moment the priest who used to do monthly visits to my grade school class said these things were “mysteries” that we as mere humans could never understand and we shouldn’t even try. Even as an 8 or 9 year old, I decided right then and there that this explanation was a free license to rationalize just about anything, no matter how silly and superstitious.

Wow… Jesus seemed very straight forward about it (John 6:51-58); never mind that he repeatedly repeated himself.

 

[banjo]

Where did they get that translation?? It is almost, but not quite the same as that posted on the Vatican website:

The quote is from a papal encyclical. The pope resides at the Vatican. It seems natural they should be similar or even idential. Of course, this is just surmising on my part.

 

[Writer]

… as opposed to already being everywhere and permeating everything, including yourselves?

If Jesus is God and is everywhere and in everything, why do you need to eat a wafer of bread to receive him? It would make a lot more sense as a willing, symbolic celebration.

Personally, even when I was a Catholic, I rejected this absurd idea, from the very moment the priest who used to do monthly visits to my grade school class said these things were “mysteries” that we as mere humans could never understand and we shouldn’t even try. Even as an 8 or 9 year old, I decided right then and there that this explanation was a free license to rationalize just about anything, no matter how silly and superstitious.

Putting aside the sixth chapter of John for the sake of debate, how do you reconcile I Corinthians 11:29 with your position? If it is a symbol alone, why would one’s spiritual condition be so important for Saint Paul to issue this stern warning? Symbols, if taken unworthily, seldom result in illness, wouldn’t you say? If God says that something is changed, do you simply retort in the negative–because it is more than your mind is comfortable with? I suggest that you are placing your sense of reason above God’s Word and Tradition.

 

[Ignatius]

… as opposed to already being everywhere and permeating everything, including yourselves?

If Jesus is God and is everywhere and in everything, why do . . . . .

According to your misguided logic then “If Jesus is God and is everywhere” then He wouldn’t incarnate in the flesh either. You see the fallacy in that logic?
Of course He did come to us in the flesh and He does come to us in the Eucharist. Both for the same reason, so that, as He said " He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I in him. And I will raise him up on the last day." Use a heavenly perspective and, rather than worldly scepticism, and increase Faith.

God bless.

 

[mikew262]

I’m a cradle Catholic, with 7 yrs of Catholic school and I was an altar boy. I still struggle with the concept that the bread and wine are actually the body and blood for Christ, as do alot of other Catholics IMO. I always pray for guidance on this issue from God.

Why do I struggle? I’m not sure, maybe it’s a combination of weak faith, using common sense vs. blind faith, and after reading John 6, how it could be interpreted that Christ being in the Eucharist is spiritual and not physical.

Reasons why on the 3rd point:

54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.— My first impression is this means that we need to accept Christ and everything he stands for, his word is real, and if we do accept him then he will reside in us spiritually and we in him. Not that the bread and wine actually turn into him. IAW, Christ is using the flesh and blood as symbols for accepting him and also maybe as a hint about his upcoming suffering.

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life.
This kind of reinforces what I said above. Christ talks about “spirit” here and says the words he has spoken to the apostles are Spirit, and they are life, not the flesh.

Do you see why me and many others including other Catholics have a problem accepting transubstantiation? Yes, we should accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on this and trust what they say is true, I understand that.

Besides saying the Church said so or Christ said so and leaving it at that, pls poke holes in my rationale above. I’m certainly not trying damage anybody’s faith here, but I have some doubts, so i’m looking for somebody to convince me.

 

[tee_eff_em]

The quote is from a papal encyclical. The pope resides at the Vatican. It seems natural they should be similar or even idential. Of course, this is just surmising on my part.

Correction: The quote is from an English translation of a papal encyclical. The pope resides at the Vatican, so given a choice of differing translations, I’d sooner take the one from the Vatican website than one from an unknown source.

If we look to the Latin standard:
Non enim sub praedictis speciebus iam latet quod prius erat, sed aliud omnino; et quidem non tantum ob fidei Ecclesiae aestimationem, sed ipsa re, cum conversa substantia seu natura partis et vini in corpus et sanguinem Christi, nihil panis et vini maneat eisi solae species; sub quibus totus et integer Christus adest in sua physica «realitate» etiam corporaliter praesens, licet non comodo quo corpora adsunt in loco.

The 3 words I’ve emphasized, (respectively) “physical”, “bodily”, “bodies” – I find it interesting that the first, physica/“physical” (which is the word in the thread title that piqued my interest in the first place), is from the Greek. This is, of course, the language of the Gospels, but more telling in this instance, I think, is that it is the language of Aristotle and of metaphysics.

tee

 

[banjo]

Correction: The quote is from an English translation of a papal encyclical. The pope resides at the Vatican, so given a choice of differing translations, I’d sooner take the one from the Vatican website than one from an unknown source.

If we look to the Latin standard:Non enim sub praedictis speciebus iam latet quod prius erat, sed aliud omnino; et quidem non tantum ob fidei Ecclesiae aestimationem, sed ipsa re, cum conversa substantia seu natura partis et vini in corpus et sanguinem Christi, nihil panis et vini maneat eisi solae species; sub quibus totus et integer Christus adest in sua physica «realitate» etiam corporaliter praesens, licet non comodo quo corpora adsunt in loco.The 3 words I’ve emphasized, (respectively) “physical”, “bodily”, “bodies” – I find it interesting that the first, physica/“physical” (which is the word in the thread title that piqued my interest in the first place), is from the Greek. This is, of course, the language of the Gospels, but more telling in this instance, I think, is that it is the language of Aristotle and of metaphysics.

tee

So the quote is an English translation of a papal encyclical. Since it communicates the same information is that important?

Here is the same passage from the Vatican website:

For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...uments/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html

The other was not taken from an unknown source but from papal encyclicals online…the emphasized portions convey the same meaning.

If you wish to entertain some intrigue with the Greek and the fact that Aristotle was a Greek…well, that’s your choice. The bottom line is that the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the teaching of the Church.

You may have the last word.

 

[banjo]

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life.
This kind of reinforces what I said above. Christ talks about “spirit” here and says the words he has spoken to the apostles are Spirit, and they are life, not the flesh.

Do you see why me and many others including other Catholics have a problem accepting transubstantiation? Yes, we should accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on this and trust what they say is true, I understand that.

Besides saying the Church said so or Christ said so and leaving it at that, pls poke holes in my rationale above. I’m certainly not trying damage anybody’s faith here, but I have some doubts, so i’m looking for somebody to convince me.

From the Navarre Bible commentary on Jn6:63.
“Jesus says that we cannot accept this mystery if we think of it in too human a way, in other words, by just seeking to indulge our senses or having too earthbound a view of things. Only someone who listens to his words and receives them as God’s revelation, which is “spirit and life”, is in in a position to accept them.”

I can’t see why our Lord would spend so much time repeatedly insisting that we were to eat His flesh and drink His blood only to turn around and say in effect, “This is all spiritual, you don’t have to eat My flesh and drink My blood.”
In addition to that He then turns to His apostles and ask them if they were going to leave also.

To me, also a cradle Catholic, it comes down to faith. I don’t know if Peter and the others understood what Jesus was saying but they had faith. Perhaps you should pray for an increase in faith as I do for myself.

 

[tee_eff_em]

So the quote is an English translation of a papal encyclical. Since it communicates the same information is that important?

Here is the same passage from the Vatican website:

[Elided – tee_eff_em]

Um, yes, I know – That’s why [post=1978595]I quoted it back in my first post[/post]…?

The other was not taken from an unknown source but from papal encyclicals online…the emphasized portions convey the same meaning.

Yes, you’d told us where it came from. But I still don’t know who translated it? I repeat, given a choice, I’ll take the translation provided by the Vatican over a translation provided by a stranger any day. It is important because the quality among translations can vary widely. Some translations can even be erroneous.

If you wish to entertain some intrigue with the Greek and the fact that Aristotle was a Greek…well, that’s your choice. The bottom line is that the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the teaching of the Church.

The bottom line is: The Church does not offer that teaching in a vacuum – The physical, sanguinous, spiritual, divine presence of Chirst in the Eucharist – That is the teaching of the Church.

tee

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I think it is a gift from God to have the eyes of faith to accept the words of Jesus and in your heart assent to the literal truth of transubstantiation.

I would be surprised if people came to this realization through exegesis of scripture. I hope so; I hope this is the case. Maybe reading the words of scripture might help some particularly if the humbly pray.

I believe in His Real Presence and it is no merit of mine, but wholly a gift. I think prayer is the answer if this teaching is troubling.

 

[StRaphael]

The Real Presence of Christ has been confirmed by several Eucharistic miracles:

1. 8th Century - A Lanciano, Italy priest began to doubt the Real Presence but upon consecration the bread turned to flesh (cardiac tissue) and the wine turned to type AB blood.
2. 1263 - A Bolsena-Orvieta, Italy priest began to doubt the Real Presence but blood began to issue from the host upon consecration, thereby leading Pope Urban IV to commission the Feast of Corpus Christi. The 1930 Cascia, Italy miracle of the blood-stained page is commemorated in Corpus Christi.
3. 1333 - On the Feast of the Assumption a nine-year-old girl, Imelda Lambertini, was praying when a host appeared in mid-air before her. After the priest gave her Holy Communion, she went into ecstasy and died and her body, which has not decayed at all, is in the church of San Sigismondo by the University of Bologna, Italy. Pope St. Pius X named Blessed Imelda Lambertini the Protectress of First Holy Communion.
4. 1345 - A woman from Amsterdam, Holland threw the Eucharist into the fire overnight but it was not burnt.

Many other examples could be cited! Praise God!