Eucharist Questions

[Verbum_Caro]

Sherlock:

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.

Yes, Sherlock, JimG, et al., you seem to be running into a sticky bit of equivocation of the word physical.

Shelock is using it in the sense of physical sience (i.e. sense perceptible) and others have been using it in the sense of **physical education **(i.e. of or relating to the body).

Christ, really, substantially, and sacramentally present in in the Eucharist is present BODILY (but under the mode of a sacrament). So, in this sense He is physically present. (Note, that He also posesses His own accidents: His hair, His height, His color, His shape. . .but, as St. Thomas points out His accidents are in the sacrament by means of a substance.

But, since, as Aquinas points out that these accidents of Christ’s body are there by means of a substance (and not as accidents normally are) then “Christ’s body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.” Therefore, according to Sherlocks use of “physcially” Christ is NOT physically present.

In order to avoid equivocation we could say that Christ is BODILY present but His body is not SENSIBLY present.

Sherlock:

I am NOT denying the Real Presence.

No worries, Sherlock. I knew what you were getting at. Kudos for attempting to tackle such a complex and mysterious Truth with the humilty that is required of us all.

God Bless you, keep the discussion going!
VC

 

[Sherlock]

Verbum Caro:

In order to avoid equivocation we could say that Christ is BODILY present but His body is not SENSIBLY present.

VC

Yes! Thank you for putting it so well, and in a manner that we can agree on (not that there was any real disagreemnt, but rather a confusion based on differing definitions).

God bless.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks Mr. Sherlock, no problem.

Although I cringe that I mis-typed science *and *I bolded the typo.

VC

 

[JimG]

Verbum Caro:

Christ, really, substantially, and sacramentally present in in the Eucharist is present BODILY (but under the mode of a sacrament).

Yes, I can agree with that. If we define the term “physically” to include the appearances, then Jesus is obviously not physically present in the Eucharist, since we do no perceive His physical properties.

I was only concerned that in saying he is not physically present, that we not take that to mean that he is present in spirit only. Saying that he is bodily present is fine. His body is there, as well as his soul and divinity.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Ok, Jim G, Sherlock and I are all on the same page (more or less) but how about you **katewithak? **Do you feel better about the whole physical/bodily exchange?

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Incidentally, Sherlock, your insistence (and rightly so) on the use of the term “sacramentally” present is what I was gettting at above when I pointed out that the Doctrine of the Real Presence (as a sacrament of Christ’s actual presence NOW) indicates, as Aquinas speculated, that the Disciples at the Last Supper received Christ’s MORTAL Body, MORTAL Blood, Soul and Divinity. And that we receive Christ’s GLORIFIED Body, GLORIFIED Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Aquinas even speculated that, were a consecration to have taken place during the time of Christ’s death but before His Rising, then the seperate consecrations of Body and Blood would have actually been identical signs: the Body would have only been the Body, and the Blood only the Blood.

JimG, as a note to you, what I stated above in no way attaches to the SACRIFICE of Christ since that does indeed transcend time. The Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Mass today are all the same sacrifice. The Last Supper and the Mass are sacramental and unbloody.

Thoughts?

VC

 

[oilman]

So tell me if I have this right: Christ was sacrificed once and now there is a continual offering of the sacrifice. We can’t perceive the Body and Blood with our physical senses but Christ is wholly present in the Eucharist, “veiled” in a manner of speaking, behind the bread and the wine. We must take this on faith. Am I stating the Catholic belief correctly here?

 

[RobNY]

oilman:

So tell me if I have this right: Christ was sacrificed once and now there is a continual offering of the sacrifice. We can’t perceive the Body and Blood with our physical senses but Christ is wholly present in the Eucharist, “veiled” in a manner of speaking, behind the bread and the wine. We must take this on faith. Am I stating the Catholic belief correctly here?

The bread and wine no longer exist. Try, ‘behind the accidents of the bread and the wine.’ I know, sounds nitpicky, but the bread and wine have been changed substantially into the Body and Blood of Christ-- the bread and wine have ceased to exist, and thus can’t hide Christ.

VC–
Could you please offer any critiques of my methods of exposing this subject? I’d appreciate it, because it’s not one that I’m used to, if you’ve seen any techincal misstatements or anything at all, I’d find it helpful.

Incidentally, Sherlock, your insistence (and rightly so) on the use of the term “sacramentally” present is what I was gettting at above when I pointed out that the Doctrine of the Real Presence (as a sacrament of Christ’s actual presence NOW) indicates, as Aquinas speculated, that the Disciples at the Last Supper received Christ’s MORTAL Body, MORTAL Blood, Soul and Divinity. And that we receive Christ’s GLORIFIED Body, GLORIFIED Blood, Soul and Divinity.

That’s interesting. I think I understand why Aquinas understood the Disciples to have received the mortal body and blood-- because This is my Body isn’t equal to This is what will be my body. Or something like that? Or is it a totally different point?

Aquinas even speculated that, were a consecration to have taken place during the time of Christ’s death but before His Rising, then the seperate consecrations of Body and Blood would have actually been identical signs: the Body would have only been the Body, and the Blood only the Blood.

I’m very confused by the wording here. What do you mean by ‘identical signs.’ How can they be identical when they are, one, exclusively the body, and the other, exclusively the blood? I guess I should also ask, what do you mean by identical signs, and-- wait a second. Perhaps I just got it. By this you mean, at this point, since his body hadn’t risen, it wouldn’t have been united with his Soul and Divinity… so… they wouldn’t have received them in a consecrated Eucharist? I think that’s it. So, by ‘identical sign,’ you mean that it works the same way.

JimG, as a note to you, what I stated above in no way attaches to the SACRIFICE of Christ since that does indeed transcend time. The Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Mass today are all the same sacrifice. The Last Supper and the Mass are sacramental and unbloody.

The presence of the body is sacramental, so it always calls on Christ’s body as is. Yet, the sacrifiice of Christ is one… I think I’ve grasped this… so the reference point, so to speak, is always back to (or foward to, in the case of the Last Supper?) Calvary. I.e., the reference point for the consecration is, “This is my Body,” which always refers back to Christ’s body in the state it is now, and the reference point for the sacrifice is always back/fowards to the sacrifice. Excuse my poor terminology, it’s my first time grappling with this.

Please discuss as much as you’d like.

 

[Sherlock]

oilman:

So tell me if I have this right: Christ was sacrificed once and now there is a continual offering of the sacrifice. We can’t perceive the Body and Blood with our physical senses but Christ is wholly present in the Eucharist, “veiled” in a manner of speaking, behind the bread and the wine. We must take this on faith. Am I stating the Catholic belief correctly here?

That’s it in a nutshell. The sacrifice of the Mass is just that—a sacrifice. That’s why there’s an altar there, because that’s what altars are for (makes me wonder why some Protestant churches have them!). But we aren’t “re-sacrificing” Jesus, as some Protestants claim we do. We are re-presenting the SAME sacrifice, the eternal sacrifice, in a non-bloody manner.

I think you might find Scott Hahn’s book, “The Lamb’s Supper” helpful.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

RobNY:

I’m very confused by the wording here. What do you mean by ‘identical signs.’ How can they be identical when they are, one, exclusively the body, and the other, exclusively the blood? I guess I should also ask, what do you mean by identical signs, and-- wait a second. Perhaps I just got it. By this you mean, at this point, since his body hadn’t risen, it wouldn’t have been united with his Soul and Divinity… so… they wouldn’t have received them in a consecrated Eucharist? I think that’s it. So, by ‘identical sign,’ you mean that it works the same way.
.

Ah Rob, it’s my fault for using imprecise (or perhaps unclear) language when I said “identical signs”. I meant “identical” as in the property of “identity”: a one to one relationship. In other words, at the above mentioned hypothetical consecration after Christ’s death and before His rising, the body would ONLY be the body and the blood would ONLY be the blood, there would be no “concomitance” with each other (as there is now, and ever shall be, His Body and Blood can never again be separated as He has died “once for all”) Furthermore, there would be no concomitance of his Body and Blood with His Soul (as is now, since He is a living Man), nor with His Divinity (as is now by virtue of the Hypostatic Union – although note that Christ’s soul was never disunited from His divinity, since death did not disrupt the Hypostatic union – the joining of His two natures in His Person.)

So, I think you understood what I was getting at when you said “exclusively the Body” and “exclusively the Blood”, even despite my bad use of the word “identical”.

Do you see how this protects the full meaning of the REAL presence: that is a sacramental presence of Christ as He actually and really IS. Both we, and the Apostles at the Last Supper, received Him Body, Blood, Soul, and Divnity. But they received Him Mortal Body, Mortal Blood, Soul and Divinity. Whereas we receive Him Glorified Body, Glorified Blood, Soul and Divinity. Truly the Real Presence of Christ.

What do you think RobNY?
VC

 

[oilman]

As I consider all of this, another question comes to mind. I can see the parallel made between the Passover lamb in the Old Testament and the Body of Christ but I am unclear on the blood and the wine. Wasn’t it prohibited to drink blood in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament? If that is the case, how is it acceptable to drink the Blood of Christ? Please don’t think I am trying to argue here, I just don’t understand.

 

[Philthy]

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.

Hmmm. Where exactly are we to go with this verse? The flesh profiteth nothing??? :bigyikes: What about " the Word made…FLESH" - did that accomplish nothing? Heaven forbid! The “made fleshness” ie, the Incarnation, is the CENTRAL event of salvation history. How could anyone who claims to be Christian deny that?
Obviously when Christ said “the flesh protiteth not” he was not referring to HIS flesh, but our own.

Phil

 

[AquinasXVI]

Oilman:

Great question. I don’t have a great theological treatise here but let me give it a layman’s response.

The priest Melchizedek offered bread and wine to God in the OT. This is the prefigurement of the priests we have and the Lit. of the Eucharist of the Holy Mass.

Christ’s holy death can be looked upon as a threshing of blood from his flesh, a violent separation of blood from his body…the piercing of the lance that brought water and blood out of his body…so his death is well represented by the separate species of bread and wine.

Christ says I am the vine, you are the branches…so his blood feeds our blood. I particularly like the prayer of the priest when he places a drop of water in the wine prior to the Consecration—with the mingling of this water may we share in the divinity of Christ and the sharing of Christ to our humanity. The water elegantly represent the baptized Christians and the wine honorably represent Christ the ‘Vine.’

Hope this helps a bit.

in XT.

 

[Philthy]

oilman:

So tell me if I have this right: Christ was sacrificed once and now there is a continual offering of the sacrifice.

Yes. The term is “eternal sacrifice”. Being eternal, it can be applied throughout time: past, present and future.

oilman:

We can’t perceive the Body and Blood with our physical senses but Christ is wholly present in the Eucharist, “veiled” in a manner of speaking, behind the bread and the wine.

veiled by the accidents/appearance of bread and wine (which no longer exist)

oilman:

We must take this on faith. Am I stating the Catholic belief correctly here?

sounds pretty good. It is an impossibly complex topic.

Phil