If Christ is Present at the Mass, then who is Returning at the Second Coming?

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi Returnee,

Welcome (or re-welcome!) to the Forums!

You started a great thread here, and I’ll be interested in the discussion.

I just wanted to mention to you that it might useful to think about Jesus’s appearance to St. Paul, which took place AFTER Christ ascended. And St. Paul does indicate that he has seen the Risen Christ. . .in the same way the Apostles did. Just something to explore.

God Bless,
VC

 

[LatinCat]

itsjustdave1988:

Can you help us out then. Please cite the magisterial texts that specifically calls it a “physical presence.” Perhaps you are correct, but unless you have a magisterial texts (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, excerpt from an ecumenical council), then I don’t see any basis for your claim.

As I understand it the real presence is meta-physical in that the reality is present but under the species of bread and wine. That’s metaphysics, not physics. Sadly, the modern world does not seem to understand the distinction anymore.

So you don’t believe the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ? The metaphysical aspect of the Eucharist is the metaphysical terms we use to desrcibe the change, i.e. substance and accidents. We must remember that along with the substance of body and blood comes a physical nature. If it does not have a physical nature, then the substance is neither body nor blood. You water down the Chruch’s teaching on the Eucharist when you try to over spiritualize it like the gnostics and reformed theologians did. Ask yourself these two questions: 1) Is the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ? 2) Are body and blood physical things? Remember: It was Calvin who turned Christ’s presence in the Eucharist in to a non-physical one.

 

[LatinCat]

Returnee:

Thank you! I visit these forums often, as well as the CA main website. I don’t post usually as my knowledge of Catholicism is much more limited than many others around here. But if it’s questions you like, trust me, I have a boatload! LOL

One question I no longer have though is whether or not the Church is the one True Church. That much is no longer in question for me. It’s just the whole issue of Apologetics that gets me sometimes! It’s almost like one could study for a lifetime, and still not know everything.

And the cool thing is that the Church says that it is our responsibility to continue to educate ourselves in the faith. So, praise be Jesus, you have a life time of new wonders to discover about our Lord. I am so glad you are making your home in Rome.

 

[LatinCat]

itsjustdave1988:

Can you help us out then. Please cite the magisterial texts that specifically calls it a “physical presence.” Perhaps you are correct, but unless you have a magisterial texts (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, excerpt from an ecumenical council), then I don’t see any basis for your claim.

As I understand it the real presence is meta-physical in that the reality is present but under the species of bread and wine. That’s metaphysics, not physics. Sadly, the modern world does not seem to understand the distinction anymore. Then again, perhaps it is a matter of differing semantics.

I’ll find Church documents this evening for you. But remember, if body and blood are physical, then to be present, their presence must be physical. To do otherwise would be contrary to their nature. If their nature changes, then they become something else.

 

[Returnee]

LatinCat:

And the cool thing is that the Church says that it is our responsibility to continue to educate ourselves in the faith. So, praise be Jesus, you have a life time of new wonders to discover about our Lord. I am so glad you are making your home in Rome.

Amen!

I’m looking forward to reading (any) new responses as they accumulate. This has already started to be a good jumping off point for more good study! Gotta log off for now though.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

LatinCat:

So you don’t believe the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ?

Don’t be ridiculous. Such polemics serve no purpose.

You water down the Chruch’s teaching on the Eucharist…

Your accusations are absurd. I’ve said nothing contrary to Catholic teaching. I’ve simply asked you to provide support other than your own opinion. If you cannot, simply say so.

I’m Catholic. I find it incredible that one cannot even have a theology discussion with other Catholics without thrusting around accusations.

I cannot speak for any others, but I have not denied the physical nature of the Eucharist, but simply assert that the change occurs meta-physically, which is to say that ***Christ’s physical reality (body, blood, soul, divinity) is truly present although not in the manner which bodies are in a place. ***Meta-physical is not a denial of the physical reality, but is not strictly limited to physical reality either. Meta-physical means “beyond” physical, not contra-physical.

 

[Della]

LatinCat:

I’ll find Church documents this evening for you. But remember, if body and blood are physical, then to be present, their presence must be physical. To do otherwise would be contrary to their nature. If their nature changes, then they become something else.

Well, what I meant by my description is that Christ’s physical presence in the Eucharist is sacramental–not one that can be seen, tasted, or sensed by our physical senses. The original question dealt with why, if Christ is physically present on the altar, how can we believe that Christ is also in heaven and will one day return, which shows a lack of understanding in what the Church means by Christ’s physical presence under the appearance of bread and wine. To try to explain the whole teaching of the Church about the Eucharist might be too overwhelming for someone who doesn’t have the most basic understanding of it, if you see what I mean.