Eucharist- Sacramental vs. Literal presence of Jesus?

[BarbaraTherese]

To the CAF member who sent me the PM alerting me to this thread…I have your emails but just at the moment, here in Bethany, there is a major crisis underway and I can do is sit and wait and oh how I wish I could have cigarette but I just wont let myself…
I am now in contact with CAF moderation on a few points…
…also other nonCAF members - sometime lurkers it could be said…and also others previously unaware of CAF …

The email you sent to my Yahoo email is quite spot on…re read it and know you are perfectly correct and I will email you back as soon as I very can…

 

[Deacon_Ed]

The Church is very careful in her use of terms to define the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. A “literal” presence would be a physical body that takes up space – height, weight, width, scent, skin color and so on. That is a physical presence. The Church, however, teaches that Jesus is “substantially” present under the forms of bread and wine. This means that the essence of Jesus is what is present. St. Thomas Aquinas uses the several terms that simply mean that where the substance of Jesus is he is.

Eucharistic miracles are exceptional cases where the substantial presence does, in some way, become a physical presence. However, we should not confuse the exceptional for the normal. Under normal circumstances Jesus is substantially present under the forms of bread and wine, not physically present.

Deacon Ed

 

[Brendan]

Correct Deacon Ed,

To be “physically” present is to be subject to physics ( weight, mass, height, color etc)

The Church defines these, correctly, as “Accidents”, elements that are used to describe a Substance, but are not Substantial themselves.

Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist as He is not subject to physical examination.

Rather, His Substance, what He truly IS, is present.

Thus He is Substantially present in the Eucharist.

When my parish priest Elevates the Host, I do not see the Physics of Christ, but rather his Substance in Sacrament.

Yes, there are times where God chooses to have the physics correspond more to the Substance, but those are exceptional, and even then they are still incomplete ( heart tissue instead of a full heart incased in a full living, human body - which is what Christ’s physical presence is.)

 

[japhy]

To be “physically” present is to be subject to physics ( weight, mass, height, color etc). The Church defines these, correctly, as “Accidents”, elements that are used to describe a Substance, but are not Substantial themselves. Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist as He is not subject to physical examination. Rather, His Substance, what He truly IS, is present.

Reading that, I have come to consider something. Christ’s appearance during his Passion and Crucifixion, in the words of Isaiah, “was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men” (Isaiah 52:14). Christ’s physical appearance was deformed and broken by the torture he endured, but it was in that physical deformation that Christ’s substance and true nature and being shined forth. The crucifixion changed Christ’s appearance, but not his substance.

Now Christ comes to us, “his form beyond that of the sons of men”, in the Eucharist, in his very substance.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The Church is very careful in her use of terms to define the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. A “literal” presence would be a physical body that takes up space – height, weight, width, scent, skin color and so on. That is a physical presence. The Church, however, teaches that Jesus is “substantially” present under the forms of bread and wine. This means that the essence of Jesus is what is present. St. Thomas Aquinas uses the several terms that simply mean that where the substance of Jesus is he is.

Deacon Ed,

I think you might be able to refine this more. It is true that the Church teaches that by virtue of the sacrament Christ’s substance becomes present (i.e. through a change of substance), but it is common teaching (and I think representative of the mind of the Church, or at least, not counter to it) that by virtue of natural concomitance some of Christ’s accidents are also present.

You mentioned that his height, weight, width, and skin color, etc are not present – but I would disagree. I think St. Thomas (and others) teach that Christ does have his dimensive accidents (height, width) and other qualitative accidents – skin color, eye color, etc – as those are intrinsic properties of his body.

These accidents of Christ’s body are not perceptible to the senses however, and are present in the manner of substance, but nonetheless present.

Its a subtle point, but crucial. It protects the reality of the real presence.

Thoughts?
VC

 

[RyanML]

Deacon Ed,

I think you might be able to refine this more. It is true that the Church teaches that by virtue of the sacrament Christ’s substance becomes present (i.e. through a change of substance), but it is common teaching (and I think representative of the mind of the Church, or at least, not counter to it) that by virtue of natural concomitance some of Christ’s accidents are also present.

You mentioned that his height, weight, width, and skin color, etc are not present – but I would disagree. I think St. Thomas (and others) teach that Christ does have his dimensive accidents (height, width) and other qualitative accidents – skin color, eye color, etc – as those are intrinsic properties of his body.

These accidents of Christ’s body are not perceptible to the senses however, and are present in the manner of substance, but nonetheless present.

Its a subtle point, but crucial. It protects the reality of the real presence.

Thoughts?
VC

Sometimes I think that we can get so involved in trying to explain the unexplainable. We know by faith that Our Lord is present in the forms of bread and wine, but how this happens is a mystery. “The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ.” CCC, 1333. And this is also the understanding that the East gives to transubstantiation or Metousiosis, that it only expresses what is changed not how it is changed. I do not think such explanations are necessary to protect the reality of the Real Presence. The East has never has such philosophical understandings of the Eucharist and yet they have always maintained a true doctrine about the Sacrament. For this none can understand but God, as an Orthodox catechism states. God bless!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Sometimes I think that we can get so involved in trying to explain the unexplainable. We know by faith that Our Lord is present in the forms of bread and wine, but how this happens is a mystery.

Certainly a danger. I agree that we don’t know how it happens.

Still, there are things that we can say about the change, however haltingly. Modest inquiry into the nature of Christ’s presence can serve to increase our love for him there.

VC

 

[RyanML]

I like how John Damascene puts it: "It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God. But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable. (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.)

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Ryan,

That’s a great passage! Thank you for sharing that with us.

VC

 

[japhy]

I think St. Thomas (and others) teach that Christ [in the Eucharist, you mean?] does have his dimensive accidents (height, width) and other qualitative accidents – skin color, eye color, etc – as those are intrinsic properties of his body. These accidents of Christ’s body are not perceptible to the senses however, and are present in the manner of substance, but nonetheless present.

I don’t understand how an accident can be present, imperceptible to the senses, and not manifested according to their nature.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
But is my question valid?

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

**Well, it’s not the physical presence of Jesus, that’s for sure.

The Body and Blood of Christ exist under the appearances of bread and wine.

If the appearance of the Bread or the Wine ceases for any reason, then the Body and Blood of Christ no longer inhere to them.**

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I don’t understand how an accident can be present, imperceptible to the senses, and not manifested according to their nature.

It’s not easy to grasp. It is true that the accidents of Christ’s body in the Eucharist are present in a very unique way, or mode. Part of the difficulty we run into is that we try to imagine what its like, but imagination can’t help us in these waters.

But it is possible to make some steps towards understanding it.

For instance, you said that you didn’t understand how an accident can be present and yet imperceptible to the senses. Is is true that accidents must be perceptible to the senses? I think it might be more accurate to say that our senses are ordered in such a way as to normally perceive accidents… But, our lack of perception in this case doesn’t mean a lack of accidents.

Try this exercise – when we say Christ’s body is present, what does that mean if you were to say only the substance of his body is present? How can you have a body without some accidental properties, such as the head being attached to a neck, or eyes of certain size or color?

The whole Christ would have the accidental properties that are intrinsic to him.

Any help?
VC

 

[japhy]

For instance, you said that you didn’t understand how an accident can be present and yet imperceptible to the senses. Is is true that accidents must be perceptible to the senses? I think it might be more accurate to say that our senses are ordered in such a way as to normally perceive accidents… But, our lack of perception in this case doesn’t mean a lack of accidents.

I thought a “sensible” object was so-called because it is perceptible by the senses, and that the accidents of an object are those sensible characteristics of it, whereas the substance of an object is that which is intelligible about it. (I’ve been listening to a few lectures on Augustine and neo-platonist thought.)

For what reason do you think it might be “more accurate to say that our senses are ordered in such a way as to normally perceive accidents” rather than that accidents are those things which are sensible?

How can you have a body without some accidental properties…?

Perhaps in the same way that you can have all the accidents of a substance without the substance itself (i.e. the “bread” and “wine” of the Eucharist).

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi japhy,

For what reason do you think it might be “more accurate to say that our senses are ordered in such a way as to normally perceive accidents” rather than that accidents are those things which are sensible?

I would describe as such because it targets the intrinsic distinction between substance and accident rather than relying on the subjective, and I think secondary, consideration about accidents being perceptible to our senses. This way you can talk about substance as that which inheres in nothing, and accidents as that which inhere in the substance as a subject.

japhy:

Perhaps in the same way that you can have all the accidents of a substance without the substance itself (i.e. the “bread” and “wine” of the Eucharist).

Although that is also a difficult concept to grasp (accidents of bread without a substance in which it inheres) it doesn’t quite answer the question regarding Christ’s substance without Christ’s accidents.

Look at it this way: Christ’s body is composed of substance, as well as accidents intrinsic to it. If Christ’s body is truly present, then by natural concomitance those intrinsic accidents are also present. Perhaps what causes some confusion is that we often think that because transubstantiation describes the change of substance into substance that only the substance becomes present. But that is not necessarily the case. The substance becomes present by virtue of the change but the accidents become present by virtue of natural connection.

I’d be happy to continue our discussion if you think it might be helpful. Have you read Aquinas’ treatment of the topic?

VC

 

[Cristiano]

I am sorry but I think that here we are going off the tangent one more time because of the limited intellectual human capabilities. I believe that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist, he said so and I have not seen any Church document to the contrary.

I think that the major intellectual limit here is the equivalent of trying to explain kairos in term of kronos, it cannot be done. The same thing is to try to explain the physical presence of a glorified body in terms of our bodies and limited understanding of physics.

For example look at the history of x-rays and n-rays. The x-rays are light but we cannot see them, does that make them unphysical? Did they exist before people understood them?

On the contrary, look at the history of the n-rays and all the discussion used to prove that they were physical. Do they exist? No! they were a fluke.

Is cold fusion physical or not?

At which order of magnitude do we investigate the accidents?

The point is that sacramental presence transcends physical presence, it does not replace it or eliminate it. We have to stop acting dumb and taking away from this great mystery of our faith in order to see how much we can confine Jesus to a place and time.

God is infinite and almighty, just deal with it!

 

[SMHW]

The Church is very careful in her use of terms to define the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. A “literal” presence would be a physical body that takes up space – height, weight, width, scent, skin color and so on. That is a physical presence.

I am curious Deacon Ed. Does the Church officially define “literal presence” to mean “physical presence”? If so, where?

If not, then it seems to me we are running into the problem that always eventually occurs with words. There is a limit to how far back we can nest the definitions of terms used to define the terms used to define supernatural realities. At some point we just have to have a common understanding of what words mean.

I’m not sure we (at least those of us posting here) all have a common understanding of “literal” or “literal presence”.

 

[Ruthie]

“Accident” is another problem word; one of many words that have a separate Catholic meaning. In this context, it does not mean what my dictionary says.

Here’s what the Catholic Dictionary says:

ACCIDENT. That which is not of the essence of something. In logic a predicable accident is a predicate incidentally attributed to a subject. In metaphysical philosophy, a predicamental accident is a category of being whose nature is not to exist in itself but in another as in a subject. It is not a thing but the mode of a thing. Of the nine categories of accident, relation, quality, and quantity are the most important. (Etym. Latin accidens, a happening; something that is added; chance; nonessential quality; from accidere, to come to pass, happen, befall.)

         One of the definitions of *essence* in my dictionary is "a fundamental nature or quality."

I think we can agree that the fundamental nature of the Host is the Real Presence. That makes the appearance and taste of bread and wine the accident, because it’s not the essence of the Sacrament.

God bless us all,

Ruthie the word freak

 

[MarieVeronica]

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.

But doesn’t this statement, seem to put certain “conditions” on Our Lord’s ability to be BOTH seated next to His Father in Heaven… AND truly present in the Most Blessed Sacrament, in all the Tabernacles of the world? I mean, even some of the saints were reported to have “bi-located”. And they were mere humans! Jesus is God… so He can do anything! He can certainly be truly, really present in multiple locations at one time.

The following is from Fr. John Hardon S.J.; I found this to be a really complete and well phrased explanation of the Real Presence:

"The simplest way to express what Christ asks us to believe about the Real Presence is that the Eucharist is really He. The Real Presence is the real Jesus. We are to believe that the Eucharist began in the womb of the Virgin Mary; that the flesh which the Son of God received from His Mother at the Incarnation is the same flesh into which He changed bread at the Last Supper; that the blood He received from His Mother is the same blood into which He changed wine at the Last Supper. Had she not given Him His flesh and blood there could not be a Eucharist.

We are to believe that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ - simply, without qualification. It is God become man in the fullness of His divine nature, in the fullness of His human nature, in the fullness of His body and soul, in the fullness of everything that makes Jesus Jesus. He is in the Eucharist with His human mind and will united with the Divinity, with His hands and feet, His face and features, with His eyes and lips and ears and nostrils, with His affections and emotions and, with emphasis, with His living, pulsating, physical Sacred Heart. That is what our Catholic Faith demands of us that we believe. If we believe this, we are Catholic. If we do not, we are not, no matter what people may think we are".

To read more…
therealpresence.org/eucharst/realpres/a12.html

And, here is more Papal wisdom on the subject:

Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (1950):

“Some even say that the doctrine of transubstantiation, based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance, should be so modified that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be reduced to a kind of symbolism, whereby the consecrated species would be merely efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful members of His Mystical Body.”

Pope Paul VI, Mysterium fidei (1965):

“This presence is called “real”—by which it is not intended to exclude all 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, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present”.

Pope John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994):

CCC 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.”

God bless.