Eucharist- Sacramental vs. Literal presence of Jesus?

[Shana]

I was watching the DVD “Common Ground: What Protestants and Catholics can Learn From Each Other” and the priest interviewed, Fr. John Riccardo, said something about the Eucharist that confused me. He said that Jesus is present sacramentally rather than literally in the Eucharist. Then he added that if Jesus were to walk into the Church we would all be on our faces. He seemed very orthodox, I just misunderstand what the difference between “sacramentally present” and “literally present”. The DVD was theologically approved, here’s what it said:

THEOLOGICALLY APPROVED:

Fr. Riccardo’s explanations of Catholicism are in complete accord with the Church’s magisterial teachings on faith and morals.

– Robert Fastiggi Ph.D.
Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit

I think I understand somewhat but I’d like better clarification on this question. Thank you!

 

[RyanML]

I was watching the DVD “Common Ground: What Protestants and Catholics can Learn From Each Other” and the priest interviewed, Fr. John Riccardo, said something about the Eucharist that confused me. He said that Jesus is present sacramentally rather than literally in the Eucharist. Then he added that if Jesus were to walk into the Church we would all be on our faces. He seemed very orthodox, I just misunderstand what the difference between “sacramentally present” and “literally present”. The DVD was theologically approved, here’s what it said:

THEOLOGICALLY APPROVED:

Fr. Riccardo’s explanations of Catholicism are in complete accord with the Church’s magisterial teachings on faith and morals.

– Robert Fastiggi Ph.D.
Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit

I think I understand somewhat but I’d like better clarification on this question. Thank you!

A priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter once asked me if Jesus was physically present in the Blessed Sacrament. Of course, I said yes, He is. Wrong, replied the priest! Our Lord is truely and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist but exactly HOW that is so is a mystery. The philosophical definition of transubstantiation is an attempt to explain this but is by no means exhaustive. At the consecration, the host does not literally turn into a body of flesh and bones with blood and veins. When we receive Holy Communion we are not biting into Jesus or chewing on Him in a literal sense where we could cause Him pain. And yet, when we receive the Eucharist we are indeed feeding on Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity! It’s a Mystery, as the Eastern Churches like to say ! God bless!

 

[Phemie]

A priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter once asked me if Jesus was physically present in the Blessed Sacrament. Of course, I said yes, He is. Wrong, replied the priest! Our Lord is truely and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist but exactly HOW that is so is a mystery. The philosophical definition of transubstantiation is an attempt to explain this but is by no means exhaustive. At the consecration, the host does not literally turn into a body of flesh and bones with blood and veins. When we receive Holy Communion we are not biting into Jesus or chewing on Him in a literal sense where we could cause Him pain. And yet, when we receive the Eucharist we are indeed feeding on Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity! It’s a Mystery, as the Eastern Churches like to say ! God bless!

That’s similar to how it was explained to me too: Jesus’ physical body is seated at the right hand of the Father. His sacramental presence in the Eucharist is something else, but just as much his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

 

[MarieVeronica]

Hmmm… I wonder how these priests would feel about the Vatican’s “Eucharistic Miracles” exhibition… which is currently traveling around the world… and is available to ANY parish in the U.S.?

I saw it on “EWTN Live” (hosted by Father Mitch Pacwa)… last night (Wednesday, January 07, 2009).

In one of the 126 Eucharistic Miracles featured… a Host changed into human flesh and bled. The “flesh” was examined by doctors, and found to be the tissue of a human heart; and still LIVING tissue. If a Host, changed into LIVING human heart tissue… ISN’T a “physical” Presence… than what is it?

Here is the link. You can contact them… to find out how to get the exhibit to visit your own parish.

therealpresence.org/eucha…r/engl_mir.htm

 

[puzzleannie]

Our Lord is truly, wholly, essentially, substantially and sacramentally present in the consecrated sacred species. He is not literally present or physically present. We don’t consume bits of flesh, fingernails, organs. Please research the many past threads on this topic and do not stop until you understand the difference between “substance” and “accidents”.

 

[MarieVeronica]

But is my question valid?

If a Host, changed into LIVING human heart tissue… ISN’T a “physical” Presence… than what is it?

 

[RyanML]

Hmmm… I wonder how these priests would feel about the Vatican’s “Eucharistic Miracles” exhibition… which is currently traveling around the world… and is available to ANY parish in the U.S.?

I saw it on “EWTN Live” (hosted by Father Mitch Pacwa)… last night (Wednesday, January 07, 2009).

In one of the 126 Eucharistic Miracles featured… a Host changed into human flesh and bled. The “flesh” was examined by doctors, and found to be the tissue of a human heart; and still LIVING tissue. If a Host, changed into LIVING human heart tissue… ISN’T a “physical” Presence… than what is it?

Here is the link. You can contact them… to find out how to get the exhibit to visit your own parish.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

The Lord uses Eucharistic Miracles to emphasize the reality of His Real Presence. You could say it is divine hyperbole ! It’s like the language used in the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, when he uses a very literal term meaning to chew or gnaw on His flesh. Our Lord didn’t mean for us to eat His raw flesh off the bones but the extreme language was used to emphasize the reality of what He was saying. This host that turned to actual flesh (Lanciano?) if you were to consume it, you would be eating literal flesh. But obviously this is not the norm. The norm is for Our Lord to give himself under the appearance of bread and wine. In this sense we can say that Jesus is not literally present and we do not eat His literal flesh and blood. But He is truely and substantially present.

 

[puzzleannie]

But is my question valid?

If a Host, changed into LIVING human heart tissue… ISN’T a “physical” Presence… than what is it?

the Host is not changed into living human heart tissue. The bread and wine are transubstantiated, the only word the completely and wholly conveys the reality of what happens, in that the accidents of bread and wine remain, but their very substance has changed, and the substance is (not contains, not represents, but IS) now the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. You are getting bogged down on what is observable to the senses and by extent to scientific measurements that improve on the senses, thinking these comprise the sum total of the nature of the thing, and ignoring the essential substance of a thing

the Eucharistic miracles reported from time to time are localized phenomena allowed by God in order to strengthen the faith of the individuals who witness them. They are miracles, and occur after transubstantiation has occured through the sacramental means, and are observable by the senses, in order to convey a reality not discernable through the senses. They are not therefore the ordinary way in which Christ becomes and is present in the sacrament.

 

[RyanML]

the Host is not changed into living human heart tissue. The bread and wine are transubstantiated, the only word the completely and wholly conveys the reality of what happens, in that the accidents of bread and wine remain, but their very substance has changed, and the substance is (not contains, not represents, but IS) now the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. You are getting bogged down on what is observable to the senses and by extent to scientific measurements that improve on the senses, thinking these comprise the sum total of the nature of the thing, and ignoring the essential substance of a thing

That’s a very good explanation, puzzleannie Okay so maybe the Trinity is a bit tougher to figure out

 

[MarieVeronica]

In this sense we can say that Jesus is not literally present and we do not eat His literal flesh and blood.

Ryan, I thank you for trying to explain it to me. I admit… I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

But this just doesn’t sound right to me. Please bear with me.

If we say the Lord is not “literally” present… but He IS “truly” present… well, isn’t that a contradiction? There is little (if any) difference in the meanings of the two words “true” and “literal”. They convey the same meaning… don’t they?

My 3rd grade English teacher… Mrs. Nau… would conk me on the head for this. Sr. Owen Marie, my religion teacher… would be right behind her, waiting for her turn. lol.

 

[MarieVeronica]

Annie, ok. Thanks for clarifying.

I am aware that the change into human heart tissue was miraculous, and not a common occurance. But it just seemed to me, that Our Lord worked these miracles to make a point… that He IS present.

What I don’t understand is the difference between “literally present” and “truly present”.

O Lord, thank You for making me “childlike” in my faith. This is waaaaaaaaay over my lil’ head. lol.

God bless you all for putting up with me.

 

[RyanML]

Ryan, I thank you for trying to explain it to me. I admit… I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

But this just doesn’t sound right to me. Please bear with me.

If we say the Lord is not “literally” present… but He IS “truly” present… well, isn’t that a contradiction? There is little (if any) difference in the meanings of the two words “true” and “literal”. They convey the same meaning… don’t they?

My 3rd grade English teacher… Mrs. Nau… would conk me on the head for this. Sr. Owen Marie, my religion teacher… would be right behind her, waiting for her turn. lol.

In the context of the discussion, I use literal and physical interchangeably. And I assume that is what the priest in the DVD meant. Our Lord is not physically present because there is no physical change in the bread and the wine after the consecration. But, as puzzleannie says, there is a substantial change which comes about through supernatural means. So…to my mind, our best philosophical explanations will fall short and we come back around to knowing by faith and admiting that it is a Mystery we can never fully understand. God bless!

 

[sancte_joseph]

I think the priest saying that just confused people. Because transubstansiation explains (sorta) the mystery that is the sacrament.

and it says that only the appearence of bread and wine are there but it is completly the body blood soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus.

We should already be on our faces or at least on our KNEES when the Lord is present in the Blessed Sacramen (the word IN used for lack of a better word)

GOD BLESS

 

[MarieVeronica]

We should already be on our faces or at least on our KNEES when the Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament

I agree… wholeheartedly. And attempt to do this, always… in His Presence… as I hope we all do. Thank you, “sancte joseph”. Your reply was comforting. God bless you.

 

[SMHW]

While I understand what the priest was trying to say I think “literally” is probably not the best choice of words.

 

[jmcrae]

At the moment of transubstantiation, the substance of what appears to be bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. You can pray to it and talk to it, and it will hear you and respond to you as Jesus hears you and responds to you. But if you put it under a microscope, it retains the physical characteristics of bread and wine.

There isn’t any kind of material change - it’s a spiritual change that is absolutely real in time and space, but just not physical. It’s also a symbol, of course, but it is not only a symbol.

 

[japhy]

In the sense that you are not eating a finger or rib of Jesus, it is not “literally” Jesus. But the fact (mystery!) remains that the Eucharist, while it is perceived by the senses to be bread and wine is actually the glorified Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

We are really eating and consuming the flesh of our Lord, we just aren’t literally ripping his flesh with our teeth.

But you must avoid thinking that this presence is a figure of speech or a symbolic way of describing some other presence of Christ. Christ is present in many ways, but not by the same means. The Eucharist is the sustained sacramental presence (meaning he’s there even when the sacrament is in the tabernacle) of Christ as God and Man. It really is Jesus Christ, all of him. Because there is no way for our human minds to grasp his complete and real presence in what appears to be a fragment of bread or a drop of wine, we can’t understand it “literally”.

That’s why the philosophical terms of “accidents” and “substance” are employed by the Church in her definition of the mystery.

 

[DixitDominus]

That’s similar to how it was explained to me too: Jesus’ physical body is seated at the right hand of the Father. His sacramental presence in the Eucharist is something else, but just as much his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Pope Paul VI disagrees with you.

“We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence.” (Solemni Hac Liturgia, 24)

 

[paperwight]

Umm, to my reading, these words of Pope Paul 6th actually reinforce the previous posters, though, and mean the opposite of how you see them.

Just as Jesus was present at the Last Supper in two ways, seated at the table, but at the same time, present in the bread and wine, He can be present at Mass without leaving the right hand of the Father.
In other words, He can be present in different places in different ways. Being present in one ‘dimension’, for want of a better word, doesn’t mean He is any less present elsewhere. Well, of course, He’s God. Now that He’s ascended, He is no longer physical, in the usual sense of the word. How can He be? He’d then be bounded by time and space, and as the Communists used to taunt, be visible to their rockets and be damaged by them.

 

[ASD]

Pope Paul VI disagrees with you.
…changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence." (Solemni Hac Liturgia, 24)

I have heard local catechists say, with emphasis, that we receive the Body of the risen Christ, not the man Jesus of Nazareth. That of course, obviates any discussion of flesh, biology, etc.

If that formulation is correct, then arguably the OF is more clear than EF on this point:

OF:

P: Corpus Christi. A: Amen.

P: The Body of Christ. A: Amen.

EF:

P: Corpus Dómini nostri Jesu Christi custódiat ánimam meam in vitam ætérnam. Amen.

P: May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve my soul unto life everlasting. Amen.

Perhaps for a different thread:

I was watching the DVD “Common Ground: What Protestants and Catholics can Learn From Each Other” and the priest interviewed, Fr. John Riccardo, said something about the Eucharist … He seemed very orthodox,…

Well, OK. But he sure drops the ball on at least one question:

Q: What can Catholics learn from Protestants? A: Worship!

I think he’s referring to Praise Bands, loud, demonstrative participation, etc. If I understand him correctly, then I would say he’s off by about 180 degrees.

Like, What’s the one thing Protestants could learn from Catholics? Worship! As Bp. Fultun Sheen put it in Calvary and the Mass:

[T]he Mass is to us the crowning act of Christian worship. A pulpit in which the words of our Lord are repeated does not unite us to Him…In the Catholic Church the altar [of sacrifice], and not the pulpit or the choir or the organ, is the center of worship, for there is re-enacted the memorial of His Passion.

I often learn from non-Catholics. But not about worship. So, I wish Fr. Riccardo had forcefully asserted these Catholic ideas to his Protestant friend:

We’re made for unity with God. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which makes Calvary present before us, foreshadows that unity in a way that Praise Bands and Bible-based sermons, whatever their merits, do not.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar