Eucharist Questions

[katewithak]

oilman:

Ok, forgive me if I appear slow but let me just try to understand this. Christ is present in the Eucharist in some mystical way but in a different way than the “with 2 or 3, He is in the midst of…” At no time does the bread and wine actually take on the physical properties of flesh and blood as we humanly perceive flesh and blood. Is this an accurate statement according to Catholic belief?

Heavens, more boxes. What we are receiving is Christ’s actual GLORIFIED Body and Blood and yes He is truly present. We do not know what the Glorified Body looks like- unlike the disciples, we were not present at the Resurrection. He is not physically present as you or I would be present as His Body is GLORIFIED. We know that after the general Resurrection, our physical bodies will also be glorified, the same bodies we are in now, but without blemish, pain, or illness. We really don’t know what that is like. How could we?

 

[RobNY]

katewithak:

Heavens, more boxes. What we are receiving is Christ’s actual GLORIFIED Body and Blood and yes He is truly present. We do not know what the Glorified Body looks like- unlike the disciples, we were not present at the Resurrection. He is not physically present as you or I would be present as His Body is GLORIFIED. We know that after the general Resurrection, our physical bodies will also be glorified, the same bodies we are in now, but without blemish, pain, or illness. We really don’t know what that is like. How could we?

I’m not sure this applies, kate. Yes, his body is glorified but it is also physical. That doesn’t quite get to it. I think it has more to do with the language of substance and accidents than with whether Jesus’ body is somehow less or differently physical due to its glorification. It is simply a fact that the Host becomes Christ, substantially at the consecration, while the accidents of the bread and wine inhere in nothing. The reason why it isn’t quite correct to say that Christ is physically present is that if you took a microscope and looked, you wouldn’t see Christ. Christ’s flesh and blood is beyond the veil, so to speak, shrouded in the accidents of the bread and wine, deeper than them, and perhaps if I may speak, with the fear of misspeaking, on a deeper than physical level (but not in such a way as to be construed to be merely a mystical presence). That doesn’t detract from the true and real and substantial presence, of course, but it requires merely a deeper understanding of a most confusing and difficult issue-- I may try to look for a topic where we discussed just this.

 

[katewithak]

RobNY:

I’m not sure this applies, kate. Yes, his body is glorified but it is also physical. That doesn’t quite get to it. I think it has more to do with the language of substance and accidents than with whether Jesus’ body is somehow less or differently physical due to its glorification. It is simply a fact that the Host becomes Christ, substantially at the consecration, while the accidents of the bread and wine inhere in nothing. The reason why it isn’t quite correct to say that Christ is physically present is that if you took a microscope and looked, you wouldn’t see Christ. Christ’s flesh and blood is beyond the veil, so to speak, shrouded in the accidents of the bread and wine, deeper than them, and perhaps if I may speak, with the fear of misspeaking, on a deeper than physical level (but not in such a way as to be construed to be merely a mystical presence). That doesn’t detract from the true and real and substantial presence, of course, but it requires merely a deeper understanding of a most confusing and difficult issue-- I may try to look for a topic where we discussed just this.

I’m still having problems understanding the terminology of accidents and appearances. But if we want to say that this is truly Christ’s Blood and truly Christ’s Body, then He would be truly present and that would include physically wouldn’t it? Even though we do not see or recognize Him. I guess what is making it harder for me are the appearances to St. Margaret Mary Alcoque. He did truly appear to her, the Vatican has approved the Sacred Heart devotion, and I believe it is a form of physical appearance, although not in the sense that we are physically present. Is that a sensible thing to say? Physically present but not in the way we as humans perceive physically, maybe? Oh help. Or the apparitions of Mary. Sort of the same thing. She is physically present, she speaks, she directs she is seen, but not in the same physical form substance we have? Perhaps physical substance is better terminaology than physical form. I think I’m in over my head here. Apologies all around.

 

[Romans5_1]

oilman:

I’m still trying to understand the belief on the Eucharist. Here are some questions I have: 1. How is it that at the Last Supper, Jesus stated the bread was His Body and the wine, His Blood, yet His physical body was still intact before them? Wouldn’t this lead one to believe He was speaking symbolically? 2. Jesus told His Disciples that He was leaving and He would be sending the Comforter in His place. Then, later, He ascends into heaven & the disciples are told that He would return in the same manner that He left. If Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist, wouldn’t that run contrary to what He had said about sending the Holy Spirit and His eventual return to earth? I definitely need some clarification. Thanks.

I don’t think you do!

 

[Romans5_1]

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

 

[YADA]

Oilman,

You asked about the Jewish people and if they were required to ‘eat’ in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testamnet). Tes, they were. The celebration of the Passover was like the Sacrafice of the Mass. Our Jewish brethren do not celebrate the Passover each year as a symbolic representation of what occurred in Egypt. When they celebrate the Passover, they are made ‘present’ at that one time event. It is not time travel in that they are taken back in time, nor is that event moved to the present time but that they are present at an event that stands outside of time. They are required to eat the Paschal meal. Jesus made a new covenant, Jesus became the Pascal Lamb at the Last Supper.

Do not forget that St. Paul says that to present oneself for the “Cup of Blessing and the Bread that is Broken” unworthily is to eat and drink to our “death”, pretty strong words for something that is only ‘symbolic.’ Also, he called it 'participation in the Body and Blood" not a participation in the *symbol *of Christ’s body and blood. Scripture is very clear that this is a life or death action that carries an extreme responsibilty of participation.

Hope that helps and doesn’t muddy the waters for you, God Bless…

 

[krysianka]

johnshelby:

you think it’s hard to imagine Jesus in the bread and before them
at the same time… imagine this, He is in the host i consume,
wholly… not part of Him, but Jesus, completely… and in the host
the person behind and before me takes… it’s only
possible because He is God…

I know that this post is way down the list now, but I have to point out that Jesus is not “In” the bread. A combination of bread and Jesus would be consubstantiation (con=with). The Catholic Church correctly maintains that during the consecration, the bread becomes Jesus Christ body, blood, soul, and divinity. The wine likewise. This is called transubstantiation. It is different from consubstantiation, which some non-Catholic Christians subscribe to. ewtn.com/library/Theology/Euchtheol.HTM

 

[NonDenom]

I know that this post is way down the list now, but I have to point out that Jesus is not “In” the bread. A combination of bread and Jesus would be consubstantiation (con=with). The Catholic Church correctly maintains that during the consecration, the bread becomes Jesus Christ body, blood, soul, and divinity. The wine likewise. This is called transubstantiation. It is different from consubstantiation, which some non-Catholic Christians subscribe to. ewtn.com/library/Theology/Euchtheol.HTM

Hi
Sorry if I seem slow to understand, but I want to get this right.
The bread does in fact become the flesh of Jesus and the wine does in fact become the blood of Jesus. He is therefore being eaten by people when they take part in communion.
Thanks.

 

[Sherlock]

Romans5:1:

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

That’s right. Our “flesh” (human understanding) is simply not going to be able to completely understand this mystery, but the “spirit” accepts it in faith.

You’re not going to suggest that “flesh” here refers to Jesus’s flesh are you? Because if you are, that’s a very weak argument. First, it doesn’t make sense for Jesus to repeatedly tell the listeners that they have to eat his flesh, only to do a complete about-face. Secondly, the flesh of Jesus IS very, very profitable—in fact, it’s kinda the point of the whole Redemption of mankind.

Why do so many want to make Jesus into a liar? And what part of “this IS my body” is unclear?

 

[Sherlock]

katewithak:

I’m still having problems understanding the terminology of accidents and appearances. But if we want to say that this is truly Christ’s Blood and truly Christ’s Body, then He would be truly present and that would include physically wouldn’t it? Even though we do not see or recognize Him. I guess what is making it harder for me are the appearances to St. Margaret Mary Alcoque. He did truly appear to her, the Vatican has approved the Sacred Heart devotion, and I believe it is a form of physical appearance, although not in the sense that we are physically present. Is that a sensible thing to say? Physically present but not in the way we as humans perceive physically, maybe? Oh help. Or the apparitions of Mary. Sort of the same thing. She is physically present, she speaks, she directs she is seen, but not in the same physical form substance we have? Perhaps physical substance is better terminaology than physical form. I think I’m in over my head here. Apologies all around.

A better way of thinking of it is as a sacramental presence.It IS what it signifies. But “physically present” isn’t quite accurate—we don’t see a vision or apparition of the person Jesus when the priest consecrates the bread and wine. What Rob was explaining about the accidents was accurate (thanks Rob).

 

[Sherlock]

NonDenom:

Hi
Sorry if I seem slow to understand, but I want to get this right.
The bread does in fact become the flesh of Jesus and the wine does in fact become the blood of Jesus. He is therefore being eaten by people when they take part in communion.
Thanks.

Yes—just as the Jews were required to eat the Passover Lamb, so Jesus tells us to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

It’s not cannibalism, if that’s what you’re thinking—we are partaking of a divine glorified body, not a mortal human one. And we aren’t eating a “part” of Jesus (which is the case with cannibalism), we’re partaking of his whole body, blood, soul and divinity.

 

[Pedro]

oilman:

When we speak of the Mass being a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, it is just another way of saying that it is that same sacrifice made present to us now. Not a different sacrifice, but the same one.

the sacrefice of Jesus was not a single instant occurance in time, but rather an eternal sacrifice which is represented at the mass. We do not resacrifice Him but we enter into His eternal sacrifice.

So let me get this straight: Jesus death was the once and for all final sacrifice. Then He rose from the dead and is now seated on the right hand of the Father, glorified in heaven. So is it that He is in a state of eternal sacrifice or is it that the sacrifice is done and complete and what we now have is the eternal RESULT of that final sacifice? I hope I’m not confusing the issue but I am just trying to make sense of this all. I realize these are great mysteries of which we can only understand in part but I need some basic clarity of these mysteries before I can consider embracing them as truth.

To better understand the eternal nature of Christ’s sacrifice, we must first understand sacrifice from the point of view of the OT Jews. A sacrifice had 2 parts - the first part was the killing of the sacrificial victim and the spilling of it’s blood, and the second part was the offering of that victim to God. So for example, during the Day of Atonement sacrifice, the first part would be the killing of the victim by priest, followed by the second part where the high priest would enter the Holy of Holies of the temple to offer the victim to God.

Jesus was killed on the cross on Calvary 2000 years ago. The killing part of Jesus’ sacrifice is done, never to be repeated again. So what about the offering part of the sacrifice? This is what scripture has to say about this:

Hebrews 9:24-26
"24For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. "

Jesus made the offering of Himself as sacrificial victim to God in heaven, and that is why His sacrifice is an eternal sacrifice that trancends time and space. The killing part of the sacrifice happened once on Earth, but the offering part is eternal because it was done in heaven. Jesus eternally offers Himself to the Father, which is why scripture calls him “the eternal high priest” and also “the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world”. He sits in glory at the right hand of the Father in heaven, but He also appears as “a Lamb that seemed to have been slain” in Rev. 5:6.

The Eucharist is a re-presentation (making present again) of the Body and Blood of the Lamb in heaven. During the last supper, Jesus pre-presented the Body and Blood of the Lamb in heaven to the apostles. Both are participations in the same eternal sacrifice in heaven.

 

[katewithak]

Sherlock:

Yes—just as the Jews were required to eat the Passover Lamb, so Jesus tells us to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

It’s not cannibalism, if that’s what you’re thinking—we are partaking of a divine glorified body, not a mortal human one. And we aren’t eating a “part” of Jesus (which is the case with cannibalism), we’re partaking of his whole body, blood, soul and divinity.

Pardon me, this is probably a really dumb question, in fact I’m sure that it is, but I can’t help it. I understand that this is trans and not con substantiation. I also understand that what we receive is complete, His whole body, blood, soul and divinity. And yet many are saying He is not there physically. And yet we know He resurrected and ascended in Heaven, and we know He was in His own physical, but glorified body for Thomas touched Him and so forth, and He ate fish with the disciples which He would not have done if He had no physical body, and that we also will do so with our glorified bodies. So if He is not physically present in the Eucharist, but He has resurrected and ascended, where did His physical body go?

 

[katewithak]

Sherlock:

Yes—just as the Jews were required to eat the Passover Lamb, so Jesus tells us to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

It’s not cannibalism, if that’s what you’re thinking—we are partaking of a divine glorified body, not a mortal human one. And we aren’t eating a “part” of Jesus (which is the case with cannibalism), we’re partaking of his whole body, blood, soul and divinity.

I found this from the Carmelites:
carm.org/doctrine/Jesus_resurrection.htm
It discusses that His was truly a physical body of flesh and bones wheHe Resurrected. I have no difficulty with that. The part I do not understand is how in the Eucharist we receive all of Him, His complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, but not His physical Body. It would seem to say then that somehow He has seperated himself in two- His physical body from His spiritual body and I don’t think that is possible, actually.

 

[Sherlock]

katewithak:

Pardon me, this is probably a really dumb question, in fact I’m sure that it is, but I can’t help it. I understand that this is trans and not con substantiation. I also understand that what we receive is complete, His whole body, blood, soul and divinity. And yet many are saying He is not there physically. And yet we know He resurrected and ascended in Heaven, and we know He was in His own physical, but glorified body for Thomas touched Him and so forth, and He ate fish with the disciples which He would not have done if He had no physical body, and that we also will do so with our glorified bodies. So if He is not physically present in the Eucharist, but He has resurrected and ascended, where did His physical body go?

Katewithak,

The term “physically present” usually means “sense-perceptible”. We don’t apprehend Jesus with our senses in the Eucharist; we apprehend him with faith. )Think of the line in Aquinas’s hymn “Tantum Ergo”—“What our senses fail to fathom, let us grasp with faith’s consent”. This is what is meant by Jesus in the John 6 discourse when he says that the “flesh profiteth nothing”—this is not something our flesh (senses, human understanding) is able to discern. We see this great mystery with the eyes of faith. Jesus WAS physically present to Thomas (sense-perceptible), and yes, He ate fish. His is a glorified body. The Creed answers your question “where did His physical body go?” by asserting that He ascended into heaven. Hope that helps.

 

[RobNY]

katewithak:

Pardon me, this is probably a really dumb question, in fact I’m sure that it is, but I can’t help it. I understand that this is trans and not con substantiation. I also understand that what we receive is complete, His whole body, blood, soul and divinity. And yet many are saying He is not there physically. And yet we know He resurrected and ascended in Heaven, and we know He was in His own physical, but glorified body for Thomas touched Him and so forth, and He ate fish with the disciples which He would not have done if He had no physical body, and that we also will do so with our glorified bodies. So if He is not physically present in the Eucharist, but He has resurrected and ascended, where did His physical body go?

“He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.”

Thus the most holy and ancient Nicene Creed professes.
Romans5:1:

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

“The flesh,” versus, “my flesh,” should be a very important distinction. "The flesh,’ as in the weaknesses of human flesh, cannot avail to understand this, almost identical in the way that Jesus speaks to Peter:
Matt 16:17

17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

It is by contrast that Jesus’ flesh is most effective for us, because it is by His Incarnation, Cross and Resurrection that he has set us free. (Not to step on your toes Sherlock, just trying to clarify the same point.)

katewithak:

I’m still having problems understanding the terminology of accidents and appearances. But if we want to say that this is truly Christ’s Blood and truly Christ’s Body, then He would be truly present and that would include physically wouldn’t it?

Not necessarily. Check this thread for some more stuff, I’ll be summarizing and quoting certain points. First we must understand the philosophical terms accident and *substance. *An accident is anything, a characteristic, of a substance that makes it accessible to us. These can be quality, quantity, etc… there are things we sense and use to discern what the substance is. There there is the substance. Literally, “that which stands beneath it.” Try to picture substance. Actually. Don’t. You can’t. Without accidents you can’t perceive the substance. But it is not the accidents that make up what something ‘is.’ It is the substance.

Now, with the Eucharist what happens is the “bread stuff” goes away at the words of institution and “God stuff - Christ stuff” replaces it but the “Christ stuff”

At this point he made a slight mistake, so I’ll continue, but the accidents of the bread and wine remain, yet they inhere in nothing.

To say it another way. What the *is *of the bread is, becomes the is of God/Christ.

This is difficult stuff, don’t worry if it’s hard to get. None of us *really *get it.

I found this from the Carmelites:
carm.org/doctrine/Jesus_resurrection.htm

That’s so cute. Hehe. Don’t let them hear you call them Carmelites. By the way, I also suggest that you don’t frequent their site for information on Catholicism, I believe they consider us a cult.

It discusses that His was truly a physical body of flesh and bones wheHe Resurrected. I have no difficulty with that. The part I do not understand is how in the Eucharist we receive all of Him, His complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, but not His physical Body.

Well, it depends on what the meaning of is is. Did my substance/accident discussion above help?

It would seem to say then that somehow He has seperated himself in two- His physical body from His spiritual body and I don’t think that is possible, actually.

Spot on. Christ is united. But I think you’re getting a bit caught up on the physical aspect. Now, I say this to put this out there-- I’d like Sherlock and anyone else to comment. As it is technically wrong to say that Christ is physically present, would there be any reasons to say technically that he is not spiritually present? I doubt it, but I’m wondering.

 

[katewithak]

them

hear you call them Carmelites. By the way, I also suggest that you don’t frequent their site for information on Catholicism, I believe they consider us a cult.

QUOTE]
Bummer, sorry. But it did say www.carm.org. I didn’t look for the little o before carm. How embarrassing. Sorry. But actually what they said there was the truth- Christ did ascend body and soul. Funny I hit a non Catholic site and the theology for my part was correct. Am I lucky or what?

 

[RobNY]

It would seem to say then that somehow He has seperated himself in two- His physical body from His spiritual body and I don’t think that is possible, actually.

Spot on. Christ is united. But I think you’re getting a bit caught up on the physical aspect. Now, I say this to put this out there-- I’d like Sherlock and anyone else to comment. As it is technically wrong to say that Christ is physically present, would there be any reasons to say technically that he is not spiritually present? I doubt it, but I’m wondering.

Alright, I was in the middle of my guitar warm up and I found the solution. And it’s also the reaosn why Christ is spiritually present.

As a matter of course, the consecration effects the change of the bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ. Right. Now, due to Christ’s hypostatic union, we receive not only the Body and Blood, but Christ’s undivisible nature such that we also receive him Soul and Divinity. It is incorrect to say that we receive Christ physically inasmuch that we receive him sacramentally and substantially, under the veil of the accidents of bread and wine. It is correct to say we receive him spiritually because his Soul and Divinity are indivisibly bound to his Body and Blood.

 

[JimG]

katewithak:

I found this from the Carmelites:
carm.org/doctrine/Jesus_resurrection.htm
It discusses that His was truly a physical body of flesh and bones wheHe Resurrected. I have no difficulty with that. The part I do not understand is how in the Eucharist we receive all of Him, His complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, but not His physical Body. It would seem to say then that somehow He has seperated himself in two- His physical body from His spiritual body and I don’t think that is possible, actually.

There has been some discussion about saying that Jesus is present “sacramentally” rather than “physically.”

The terms are not mutually exclusive. As it applies to the Eucharist, a sacramental presence is a physical presence but under the appearances of bread and wine.

Jesus’ physical appearances are not perceptible to us in the Eucharist because they are hidden under (not *in *)the appearances of bread and wine.

The appearances of bread and wine remain, but they do not inhere in any subject. They do not inhere in the bread, which is gone. They do not inhere in Jesus body; he does not “take on” the appearance of a small white wafer.

The bread is gone; its appearances remain. Jesus is present whole and entire within each particle of bread or drop of wine. He cannot be divided, physically or otherwise.

(And the term “within” is used metaphorically in the preceding paragraph–to make it clear that I am not talking consubstantiation here.)

 

[Sherlock]

JimG:

There has been some discussion about saying that Jesus is present “sacramentally” rather than “physically.”

The terms are not mutually exclusive. As it applies to the Eucharist, a sacramental presence is a physical presence but under the appearances of bread and wine.

Jesus’ physical appearances are not perceptible to us in the Eucharist because they are hidden under (not *in *)the appearances of bread and wine.

The appearances of bread and wine remain, but they do not inhere in any subject. They do not inhere in the bread, which is gone. They do not inhere in Jesus body; he does not “take on” the appearance of a small white wafer.

The bread is gone; its appearances remain. Jesus is present whole and entire within each particle of bread or drop of wine. He cannot be divided, physically or otherwise.

(And the term “within” is used metaphorically in the preceding paragraph–to make it clear that I am not talking consubstantiation here.)

It depends upon your definition of “physically present”, then. I am understanding that to mean, “sense-perceptible”. By that definition, then no, Jesus is NOT physically present: I don’t see him, smell him, and the nerves in my tongue do not sense presence of a man in my mouth, but a wafer. I am NOT denying the Real Presence. Again, my very orthodox (and very theologically astute) priest corrected a parishioner who had used “physically present” when mentioning the Real Presence in a bulletin article. But otherwise, your points are well expressed, and I particularly appreciate your pointing out that the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in Jesus’s body. They are accidents without a subject.