Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vico said:
I think that detail is not given, but for the glorious resurrection:
  • impassibility: “It is sown corruptible; it is raised incorruptible.” (1 Corinthians 15:42).
  • glory: “It is sown dishonorable; it is raised glorious.” (1 Corinthians 15:43; cf. Matthew 13:43; 17:2; Philippians 3:21).
  • agility: “It is sown weak; it is raised powerful.” (1 Corinthians 15:43).
  • subtlty: “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.” (1 Corinthians 15:44).
1 Corinthians 15:46-49
46 But the spiritual was not first; rather the natural and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, earthly; the second man, from heaven. 48 As was the earthly one, so also are the earthly, and as is the heavenly one, so also are the heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthly one, we shall also bear the image[c] of the heavenly one.

Catechism

989 We firmly believe, and hence we hope that, just as Christ is truly risen from the dead and lives for ever, so after death the righteous will live for ever with the risen Christ and he will raise them up on the last day.534 Our resurrection, like his own, will be the work of the Most Holy Trinity:

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells in you.535
990 The term “flesh” refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality.536 The “resurrection of the flesh” (the literal formulation of the Apostles’ Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our “mortal body” will come to life again.537​
Click to expand...
This explains things very well, especially when it says “And since faith is of things unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly, so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner.”

Which, means Jesus in Holy Communion is invisible, correct?

newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm
 
Faith1960 said:
This explains things very well, especially when it says “And since faith is of things unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly, so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner.”

Which, means Jesus in Holy Communion is invisible, correct?

newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm
Click to expand...
When you look at the Body and Blood of Christ, the Eucharist, you are looking at his resurrected flesh and blood, it looks like bread and wine.
 
Vico said:
When you look at the Body and Blood of Christ, the Eucharist, you are looking at his resurrected flesh and blood, it looks like bread and wine.
Click to expand...
But Jesus, HIMself, is invisible.
 
Faith1960 said:
Yes, but New Advent says HE is invisible.
Click to expand...
He is there entire, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the appearance of bread and wine. So since people sensually perceive the miraculous appearance of bread and wine they say Jesus Christ is invisible, or under.
 
Vico said:
He is there entire, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the appearance of bread and wine. So since people sensually perceive the miraculous appearance of bread and wine they say Jesus Christ is invisible, or under.
Click to expand...
Yes.👍
 
Vico said:
I think where people get confused is that the bread and wine are only miraculous appearances but not really there in substance.
Click to expand...
I emailed my priest about this and he said “it’s not right to say He’s invisible ( since the bread and wine can be seen), but we can say we don’t see Him as a person but under the forms of bread and wine.”
He also said the word “invisible” can be misleading.

Now I’m more confused than ever, in light of what NewAdvent said. (Post #80)
 
Faith1960 said:
I emailed my priest about this and he said “it’s not right to say He’s invisible ( since the bread and wine can be seen), but we can say we don’t see Him as a person but under the forms of bread and wine.”
He also said the word “invisible” can be misleading.

Now I’m more confused than ever, in light of what NewAdvent said. (Post #80)
Click to expand...
Not that I am an expert or anything, but I wonder if perhaps the idea of invisible is misapplied. Peter refers to the physical universe as being visible and the spiritual universe as being invisible–temporary and eternal. We see the sacrament even though it is a spiritual body made manifest as bread. So it is not invisible in the particular event of the Eucharist. But it fits in the category of things generally not seen. Peter’s statement about the visible and the invisible are generalizations but the Eucharist is a specific case that is exceptional with regard to being seen?
 
Mammoths said:
Not that I am an expert or anything, but I wonder if perhaps the idea of invisible is misapplied. Peter refers to the physical universe as being visible and the spiritual universe as being invisible–temporary and eternal. We see the sacrament even though it is a spiritual body made manifest as bread. So it is not invisible in the particular event of the Eucharist. But it fits in the category of things generally not seen. Peter’s statement about the visible and the invisible are generalizations but the Eucharist is a specific case that is exceptional with regard to being seen?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. The way I see it is the accidents are visible but Jesus is invisible, but after Fathers email, I’m wondering if I’m wrong.
 
Faith1960 said:
I emailed my priest about this and he said “it’s not right to say He’s invisible ( since the bread and wine can be seen), but we can say we don’t see Him as a person but under the forms of bread and wine.”
He also said the word “invisible” can be misleading.

Now I’m more confused than ever, in light of what NewAdvent said. (Post #80)
Click to expand...
Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 1965

Christ Present in the Eucharist Through Transubstantiation
  1. To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, (50) we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. (51) As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new “reality” which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.
w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium.html
 
And could someone please explain how Jesus can be the substance of the Eucharist
when it looks like bread and wine. I just know there’s some way for it to make some sense.

Could it be: Because Jesus can perform miracles?
Code: 
                Because this is a supernatural thing?

                Because Jesus is glorified, which allows Him to do things like walk through walls
                 Etc.?

                Something else?
 
Vico said:
Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 1965

Christ Present in the Eucharist Through Transubstantiation
  1. To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, (50) we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. (51) As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new “reality” which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.
w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium.html
Click to expand...
What did the pope mean by “beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality” corporally present, although not in a manner in which bodies are in a place”
 
Faith1960 said:
What did the pope mean by “beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality” corporally present, although not in a manner in which bodies are in a place”
Click to expand...
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica III, Question 75. The change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, Article 1. Whether the body of Christ be in this sacrament in very truth, or merely as in a figure or sign?:

**Objection 3. **Further, no body can be in several places at the one time. For this does not even belong to an angel; since for the same reason it could be everywhere. But Christ’s is a true body, and it is in heaven. Consequently, it seems that it is not in very truth in the sacrament of the altar, but only as in a sign.

Reply to Objection 3. Christ’s body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with the place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament. Hence we say that Christ’s body is upon many altars, not as in different places, but “sacramentally”: and thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ’s body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament, as stated above.

newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm
 
Vico said:
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica III, Question 75. The change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, Article 1. Whether the body of Christ be in this sacrament in very truth, or merely as in a figure or sign?:

**Objection 3. **Further, no body can be in several places at the one time. For this does not even belong to an angel; since for the same reason it could be everywhere. But Christ’s is a true body, and it is in heaven. Consequently, it seems that it is not in very truth in the sacrament of the altar, but only as in a sign.

Reply to Objection 3. Christ’s body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with the place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament. Hence we say that Christ’s body is upon many altars, not as in different places, but “sacramentally”: and thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ’s body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament, as stated above.

newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm
Click to expand...
Can you dumb it down for me, please?
 
Faith1960 said:
Can you dumb it down for me, please?
Click to expand...
Objection 3. A body can’t be in several places at the same time. Since Christ’s resurrected body is in heaven, it seems that Body and Blood of Christ is only symbolic.

Reply to Objection 3. Christ’s body is not in the sacrament of Eucharist the same way a body is in a place, with dimensions in proportion to the place; but in a different way which is appropriate to the Eucharist, but not symbolic, so we say that Christ’s body is present on many altars at the same time sacramentally.
 
Vico said:
Objection 3. A body can’t be in several places at the same time. Since Christ’s resurrected body is in heaven, it seems that Body and Blood of Christ is only symbolic.

Reply to Objection 3. Christ’s body is not in the sacrament of Eucharist the same way a body is in a place, with dimensions in proportion to the place; but in a different way which is appropriate to the Eucharist, but not symbolic, so we say that Christ’s body is present on many altars at the same time sacramentally.
Click to expand...
Could you please answer question # 92?
 
Vico said:
Objection 3. A body can’t be in several places at the same time. Since Christ’s resurrected body is in heaven, it seems that Body and Blood of Christ is only symbolic.

Reply to Objection 3. Christ’s body is not in the sacrament of Eucharist the same way a body is in a place, with dimensions in proportion to the place; but in a different way which is appropriate to the Eucharist, but not symbolic, so we say that Christ’s body is present on many altars at the same time sacramentally.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “sacramentally”?
 
Faith1960 said:
And could someone please explain how Jesus can be the substance of the Eucharist
when it looks like bread and wine. I just know there’s some way for it to make some sense.

Could it be: Because Jesus can perform miracles?
Code: 
                Because this is a supernatural thing?

                Because Jesus is glorified, which allows Him to do things like walk through walls
                 Etc.?

                Something else?
Click to expand...
Yes to all three. God can do any thing.
Existence itself is a miracle…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top