Eucharistic Adoration

[Duane1966]

Duane1966;14346357:

We bow to the altar, which is veneration, because what happens there, We genuflect to the tabernacle, because Christ is physically present there. We do not worship the altar.

QUOTE]

Sorry, Duane, be careful not to confuse people with inexact language.

The Real Presence is not physical. If the Blessed Sacrament species of bread decays, as all physical things do, would you say that Jesus had decayed? The ‘accidents’ - taste, appearance, texture, volume in space - are physical, but Jesus is the substance, not the accidents.

In the Catechism, the Real Presence is described thus (para 1374): ‘The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique…it is presence in the fullest sense, that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present’.

And see para 1381. ''That in this sacrament at the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be comprehended by the senses,’ says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority’.

The physical is what is perceived by the senses - sight, touch and taste - remember. But we are told that the Real Presence cannot be comprehended by the senses. It is unique, of a different order to what we knew before - in short, Jesus is present really, truly and sacramentally.

I understand all this, but is Jesus physically present in the Euchrarist in a manner that we do not understand? If yes, then what I said is true,

From Pope Paul VI:

The Physical Reality of Christ’s Body and Blood in the EucharistTo avoid misunderstanding this sacramental presence which surpasses the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind we must listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. This voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way Christ is made present in this Sacrament is none other than by the change of the whole substance of the bread into His Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood, and that this unique and truly wonderful change the Catholic Church rightly calls transubstantiation. As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new meaning and a new finality, for they no longer remain ordinary bread and ordinary wine, but become the sign of something sacred, the sign of a spiritual food. However, the reason they take on this new significance and this new finality is simply because they contain a new “reality” which we may justly term ontological. Not that there lies under those species what was already there before, but something quite different; and that not only because of the faith of the Church, but in objective reality, since after the change of the substance or nature of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine but the appearances, under which Christ, whole and entire, in His physical “reality” is bodily present,

although not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place.

– Pope Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei [emphasis added]
[Mysterium Fidei can be accessed on the Adoremus web site]

 

[paperwight66]

paperwight66;14348649:

I understand all this, but is Jesus physically present in the Euchrarist in a manner that we do not understand? If yes, then what I said is true,

From Pope Paul VI:

That was an interesting quote. But you notice that ‘reality’ is in quotation marks. In other words, the physical ‘reality’ is not the same as physical reality without quotation marks - it is of a completely new and different order.

I am concerned lest by talking of the Real Presence as physical. we give the impression that it is as normally understood in everyday life. Physical as subject to change and decay, physical as in bound by time and place, physical as in when divided, it is lessened, physical as in really chewing on real bones.

Better to stick to the definition as in the Catechism - ‘really, truly and substantially present’. No mention of physical there, you’ll notice.

 

[Duane1966]

Duane1966;14349858:

That was an interesting quote. But you notice that ‘reality’ is in quotation marks. In other words, the physical ‘reality’ is not the same as physical reality without quotation marks - it is of a completely new and different order.

I am concerned lest by talking of the Real Presence as physical. we give the impression that it is as normally understood in everyday life. Physical as subject to change and decay, physical as in bound by time and place, physical as in when divided, it is lessened, physical as in really chewing on real bones.

Better to stick to the definition as in the Catechism - ‘really, truly and substantially present’. No mention of physical there, you’ll notice.

Correct. But Christ is physically there, just in a manner that we cannot understand. When I touch the Eucharist, am I in some sense touching Christ with my tongue?

 

[rcwitness]

The symbolism is actually amazing too! We “break” the bread when we chew, in order to digest and be nourished, just as we “broke” His body when we crucified Him, in order to receive Reconciliation with God.

 

[paperwight66]

paperwight66;14349891:

Correct. But Christ is physically there, just in a manner that we cannot understand. When I touch the Eucharist, am I in some sense touching Christ with my tongue?

I would say ‘in some sense’ is correct. Whereas to say ‘literally’ would be incorrect.

 

[Duane1966]

Duane1966;14349895:

I would say ‘in some sense’ is correct. Whereas to say ‘literally’ would be incorrect.

So then the Eucharist does not transubstantiate in your opinion? Is my tongue still touching bread, or does it just look like bread, and is actually touching something else? What is my tongue actually touching?

 

[commenter]

I understand this to mean that we should make our lives and all that we are an offering to God and serve Him with all that we have. This is quite a high calling. I don’t know if this is considered adoration or not. I guess it is like you said - “practice adoration through the totality of our lives.”

To explain why I, personally, practice Eucharistic Adoration, I would return again to Moses at the Burning Bush. Sure, Moses would go on to adore God through the totality of his life. But I bet part of the totality of his life was specific adoration, whether it be at the burning bush, or at other times and places, in other objects such the Presence in the cloud. His life was not totally changed by that one Holy Hour in front of the Burning Bush, but those Holy Hours were part of making up the totality of his life. I bet he was more prayerful, more caring to others, more obedient to God in general, as a result of adoration times.

 

[PJM]

That is an apt comparison.

Thanks and GBY

 

[PJM]

Well that is looking at it from the perspective that I think it supports. And several things involved have to be understood for that view, such as:

● The Manna was venerated (under the conditions God commanded)

● The Manna was inferior to the Eucharist

An d dear friend, is that not what my post indicates:shrug:

Thanks and GBY