Eucharist only sacramentally present?

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

avonlise

Guest
My husband and I just read this in our church bulletin, and we both have an uneasy feeling about it. Are we correct in feeling this way?

"To deal with this requires both faith and an understanding of what is involved in the sacrament of Eucharist. Jesus is not physically present in the Eucharist, but sacramentally present. Truly present, but sacramentally. When a Eucharistic minister drops a Host, Jesus doesn’t cry, “ouch”. The presence is not symbolic only, like a wedding ring is symbolic. It is a real presence in the unique reality of sacrament. Of course, it is a miracle., but is is not a miracle that would have us participate in cannibalism. It is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, but present sacramentally.

Comments???
 
It’s certainly the way it’s been presented to us by various priests: Christ’s in physical form ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. His true presence in the sacrament of Eucharist is a sacramental presence and biting the Host does not see us biting into any part of his physical body.
 
This is the way Christ’s Presence is explained by the Church. It in no way denies the Real Presence only the mode of presence.
 
Sacramental presence is correct. But what does sacramental presence mean? To me it means this: Jesus is present whole and entire, body and blood, soul and divinity, his entire person (which includes bodily presence) under the appearances of bread and wine.

That is sacramental presence.

If the bulletin was trying to say that the preence of Jesus does not inhere in what we perceive to be the “physical” aspects of the communion host, that’s fine. But I think it is a mistake to try to imply that Jesus is not fully present in the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine.
 
I wouldn’t say it’s “only” sacramentally present – as in “merely” sacramentally present – but the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the presence of his Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, is not akin to having a “chunk” or “piece” of Jesus, which is why “physical” isn’t an appropriate term. The presence of Jesus, in the Eucharist, is beyond a mere physical presence, because it is the glorified Body and Blood which we receive. It is more than physical, because it is infinite in abundance.

I agree that saying it’s not a physical presence can be damaging, to the point where “sacramental presence” can sound like we mean less than physical, but that’s not what it really means. This is where catechesis is really necessary.

The Blessed Sacrament is the absolute real presence of Jesus, in a sacramental and substantial way. It transcends a mere “physical” presence and a mere “spiritual” presence. It is super-natural and yet substantial.
 
Phemie said:
His true presence in the sacrament of Eucharist is a sacramental presence and biting the Host does not see us biting into any part of his physical body.
Click to expand...
This is true; but it is true because biting into the host is something that affects only the accidents (what we can perceive by our senses), not the substance of Jesus’ body, which remains whole and entire under the appearances of the host, no matter what we do to the host.
 
japhy said:
I wouldn’t say it’s “only” sacramentally present – as in “merely” sacramentally present – but the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the presence of his Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, is not akin to having a “chunk” or “piece” of Jesus, which is why “physical” isn’t an appropriate term. The presence of Jesus, in the Eucharist, is beyond a mere physical presence, because it is the glorified Body and Blood which we receive. It is more than physical, because it is infinite in abundance.

I agree that saying it’s not a physical presence can be damaging, to the point where “sacramental presence” can sound like we mean less than physical, but that’s not what it really means. This is where catechesis is really necessary.

The Blessed Sacrament is the absolute real presence of Jesus, in a sacramental and substantial way. It transcends a mere “physical” presence and a mere “spiritual” presence. It is super-natural and yet substantial.
Click to expand...
Well explained:thumbsup:
 
MarieVeronica said:
You might want to take a look at this site… and perhaps, share it with your parish. God bless.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html
Click to expand...
The site begins with a listing of Eucharistic miracles. These are wonderful evidence of God at work demonstrating the real presence in a miraculous manner.

But it is good to keep in mind that Eucharistic miracles are miracles precisely because in them, the appearances DO change, miraculously. But in the Eucharist as we normally experience it, appearances do NOT change, yet the body of Christ remains wholly present under the appearances of bread and wine.
 
as quoted your bulletin is correct
Jesus is NOT physically present, to claim this is to completely misunderstand and misrepresent the doctrine of transubstantiation and would indeed, as has been charged against us many times, make us cannibals. he is truly, substantially, sacramentally present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the sacred host and precious blood, under the physical appearance and properties (accidents) of bread and wine.

Eucharistic miracles are specific events which even if substantiated occurred at discrete times to certain individuals to strengthen the faith of those persons, and cannot be used to deny the doctrine of transubstantiation, as many are wont to do

the bulletin is correct as cited, and does not use the words “merely” or “only” so don’t put words in the writers mouth. if the bulletin is not being quoted accurately it is up to OP to make corrections
 
the bulletin is quoted EXACTLY as it was printed. the Eucharist miracles i’ve not only read, but seen, that is why i’m having a hard time with what was written.
 
Even if the language is technically correct, why was this in the bulletin? Do the people in your parish believe too strongly in the Real Presence and needed to be corrected? Were people not receiving Communion because they though they were hurting Jesus? Really. The big problem is a lack of faith in the Real Presence, not too much credulity. It was the scoffers and disbelievers in John, chapter six that made the accusation of cannibalism – as well as the pagan Romans.
 
The Bulletin is correct in a sense. Jesus is present "sacramentally " and not exactly physically. The reason being that saying physically brings to mind the earthly body and that isn’t how Jesus is present in the Eucharist. He is presence is real and it is his glorified body , blood , soul and divinity .

Paul VI used these words in Mysterium Fidei to describe the real, true presence-
Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.
Click to expand...
Since Christ’s physical reality which is outside of time and place is a mystery to us and not simply defined you can see that using physical is not the correct terminology to describe it.

The Eucharistic Miracles are wonderful mysteries.They have their own separate purpose and should not be confused with our understanding of Christ’s Real Prescence in the Eucharist.
 
The problem with using the term “physically present” with respect to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, is that we then tend to think of physical presence in the way that you or I are physically present at Mass. We can see, feel, touch our bodies.

But Christ is present under the appearances of bread and wine. Touching, breaking, or chewing the host does not cause us to touch, break or chew the substance of the body of Christ.

The problem with making a big issue of excluding the term “physical presence” is that tends to give the impression of a spiritual presence only. But Christ is present fully: body, blood, soul, divinity, his entire person. Our senses are not able to perceive or touch him because the appearances of bread and wine prevent it. Those appearances, which do not inhere in any substance after the consecration, are all that is perceptible to us. But beneath the appearances, Christ is wholly present --including corporeally present.
 
I think the language used is exactly in line with Church teaching.

The real question at hand is, what does “physically present” even mean? Depending on the answer to that, one could argue that Christ is or is not physically present, but in either case he is sacramentally present.
 
Hello,

The problem is that the English language is at times not very good to describe certain ideas. Indeed, this is the problem with every language. What we have with the word ‘physical’ is the same situation we have with the word ‘love’. It can have more than one, sometimes contradictory, meaning.

If one says that they love their spouse, does this just mean a romantic physical attraction - or does it mean that they deeper kind of love. When I say I love my friends, it doesn’t mean I want to marry them - especially the ones of the same gender.

Physical also has several meanings that are lumped into one word. While the word physical is not the best word to use - substantial is a better choice - to say the Jesus is not physically present in the Eucharist is just as poor of a choice of words.

I agree with the words of Pope Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei:

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.
 
JMJ_coder said:
Hello,

The problem is that the English language is at times not very good to describe certain ideas. Indeed, this is the problem with every language. What we have with the word ‘physical’ is the same situation we have with the word ‘love’. It can have more than one, sometimes contradictory, meaning.

If one says that they love their spouse, does this just mean a romantic physical attraction - or does it mean that they deeper kind of love. When I say I love my friends, it doesn’t mean I want to marry them - especially the ones of the same gender.

Physical also has several meanings that are lumped into one word. While the word physical is not the best word to use - substantial is a better choice - to say the Jesus is not physically present in the Eucharist is just as poor of a choice of words.

I agree with the words of Pope Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei:

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.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting that quote form Pope Paul VI, which sums it up quite well.

For us, “physicality” always entails the accidents belonging to a substance. So when we speak of something being physical, the implication is that we can perceive the accidents which properly belong to it.

In the Eucharist, we cannot perceive the accidents belonging to Christ. Neither does He “take on” the accidents of bread and wine. So “physical” is not really the proper term, although he is wholly bodily present!
 
Hello,
JimG said:
Thanks for posting that quote form Pope Paul VI, which sums it up quite well.

For us, “physicality” always entails the accidents belonging to a substance. So when we speak of something being physical, the implication is that we can perceive the accidents which properly belong to it.

In the Eucharist, we cannot perceive the accidents belonging to Christ. Neither does He “take on” the accidents of bread and wine. So “physical” is not really the proper term, although he is wholly bodily present!
Click to expand...
Like I said, its a verbal blackhole in this situation, a linguistical singularity. It is not entirely proper to say the He is physically present for the reasons you noted (we can’t take a microscope and see His DNA, for instance). And, it is not entirely proper to say the He is not physically present (for in one sense of the word that denies the Real Presence).

The best English word, I think, is substantial. He is substantially present in the Eucharist.
 
Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says… verbatim.

“Do this in remembrance of Me”

(1357) We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of His sacrifice. In so doing, we offer the Father what He has Himself given us: the gifts of His creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.

“(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”.

(1375) It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and the of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares: “It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but He Who was crucified for us, Christ Himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. ‘This is My Body’, he says. This word transforms the things offered".

And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

"Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed… Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.”

(1376) The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His body that He was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This change the Holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.

(1377) The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.
(Ok, this is me again. :D) I did not find the phrase.. “Jesus is not physically present in the Eucharist, but sacramentally present” (the words used in the parish bulletin of the OP).. any place, in the text of the Catechism (which is the official teaching of the Catholic Church).. but several times, the words "really".. "truly".. "wholly".. "entirely" and "substantially".
 
G_S said:
Even if the language is technically correct, why was this in the bulletin? Do the people in your parish believe too strongly in the Real Presence and needed to be corrected? Were people not receiving Communion because they though they were hurting Jesus? Really. The big problem is a lack of faith in the Real Presence, not too much credulity. It was the scoffers and disbelievers in John, chapter six that made the accusation of cannibalism – as well as the pagan Romans.
Click to expand...
Why was it in the bulletin? It is called catechesis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top