If Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist then why don't we get healed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gabrielle_S
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gabrielle_S

Guest
Since Jesus healed all who came to him and never told anyone that their suffering was redemtive or that it would bring them closer to God or anything like that, then why would we not experience the same type of physical healing when we receive Jesus in the Eucharist?

Thank you and God Bless you.
Gabrielle
 
You can be healed of many things. Make sure you are in a state of grace and receiving the Eucharist in a worth manner. Confession is essential to be free of mortal sin, otherwise you are eating condemnation and the opposite of healing. With so many not likely in a state of grace and not believeing the True Presence, is it any wonder that few are healed?

Colossians
Chapter 1
24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church, nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/colossians/colossians1.htm
 
There have been such miracles…Why do you think Viaticum is part of the Sacrament of the Sick? 🙂
 
You are also purified of all non-mortal (venial) sins when you partake of the Eucharists in a state of Grace. That’s pretty good healing!
 
Actually as I thnk about this more, while miracles can happen, Jesus was also man when he healed people, and according to the Bible he4 did it to convince people that the KIngdom of God was at hand, repent and turn to God. There was no Bible, tradition, Church, etc.

Jesus does not currently have a physical presence on earth. His plan has turned to other means for people to hear the Word of God. His presence in the Eucharist, and the way people’s faith grows to accept the grace of God has been established through the Word, prayer, etc…
 
Theresa of Avila said that “life was like a night spent at an uncomfortable inn.” We are not meant to be here forever, healed of every ill. We are on our journey home, and the Eucharist is the Bread of Life so that we might live forever, but not in this lifetime.
 
From Fr. Corapi: “You will receive only the graces that you are capable of receiving.”

If you wonder why you are not getting more, it is probably because you are not ready to receive more. And to receive total grace, you will have to be in heaven (except for Mary, who was Full of Grace)
 
40.png
awalt:
Jesus does not currently have a physical presence on earth. His plan has turned to other means for people to hear the Word of God. His presence in the Eucharist…
Well, if He is substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine… that sounds like a physical presence on Earth to me…
 
40.png
MrS:
From Fr. Corapi: “You will receive only the graces that you are capable of receiving.”

If you wonder why you are not getting more, it is probably because you are not ready to receive more. And to receive total grace, you will have to be in heaven (except for Mary, who was Full of Grace)
Is this like in the Gospels, when Jesus returns to Nazareth, and the people are all like “hey, isn’t this the carpenter, Joseph’s son? who do you think you are?” And Jesus, amazed at their lack of faith, did not (or was not able to?) perform mighty deeds there, except for a few healings. cf. Mark 6:1-6.
 
40.png
Scullinius:
Well, if He is substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine… that sounds like a physical presence on Earth to me…
The Magisterium does not use the term “physical presence.” Rather the term “sacramental presence” is used. It’s true that the whole Christ is present as Holy Eucharist: divinity and humanity. God as God is present everywhere in the world, but God as man is present as Holy Eucharist.
 
The term “physical reality” has been used by the magisterium so I think it is right to say that Christ is physically present.

THE REAL PRESENCE IS A *PHYSICAL *PRESENCE by Fr Regis Scanlon, OFM Cap, spiritual director for the Missionaries of Charity founded by Blessed Teresa of Calcutta
newoxfordreview.org/2002/feb02/regisscanlon.html

In answer to the original post, I don’t know but I don’t think Jesus physically healed every person who came to him.
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
The term “physical reality” has been used by the magisterium so I think it is right to say that Christ is physically present.

THE REAL PRESENCE IS A *PHYSICAL *PRESENCE by Fr Regis Scanlon, OFM Cap, spiritual director for the Missionaries of Charity founded by Blessed Teresa of Calcutta
newoxfordreview.org/2002/feb02/regisscanlon.html

In answer to the original post, I don’t know but I don’t think Jesus physically healed every person who came to him.
When we receive Jesus Christ in Holy Communion we actually receive the whole Christ, humanity and divinity. The substance of the bread and wine change. What was bread and what was wine no longer exist. However the appearances remain. Remember, we are not cannibals. We don’t metabolize the flesh of Christ. * Sacramental presence* is more accurate than physical presence.

From Envoy July/August 2000:
(www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.4/letters.htm)
In her letter “Form over Substance?”, Mrs. Deborah Cochran expresses understandable concern and confusion over Fr. Brian Wilson’s statement that the bread and wine really and sacramentally “but not physically” become the Body and Blood of Christ. At first, it may sound like a denial of the Real Presence. However, Fr. Wilson is technically correct.

This traditional formulation of doctrine goes back at least to St. Thomas Aquinas. The term “physically” (Gk. phusike) is used here in its strict philosophical sense to mean “in a natural way or manner.” Neither the Body nor the Blood of Christ come to be at the consecration in the way in which flesh and blood ordinarily come to be by any natural cause or process. They come to be by the spoken words of the priest, that is, sacramentally, not physically. Even at the Last Supper, Our Lord’s Body and Blood were physically present in Him, but not physically present in the bread and wine He consecrated, at least not in the same sense.

Once the Body and Blood come to be in this sacramental, non-physical way, they are present under the accidents of bread and wine in a real, true and substantial way.
Kevin G. Long, Director
Leonine Institute for Advanced Catholic Studies
Arlington, VA

Mysterium Fidei No 46:
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.

Paul VI points to a physical “reality” (his quotes), not a physical presence. The Magisterial quote was physical “reality” * not physical reality. Completing the quote from the Fr. Regis link that you referenced makes this clear. * Physical presence conveys the notion that something is there present in space and time.
 
Cannabilism is only wrong when you are killing a man and then eating him – because that’s murder – or when you eat the flesh of a man already dead unnecessarily (so if that’s the only food available then I think it would be permitted). Cannabilism ISTM applies only to men who are not gloriously resurrected. Jesus’ flesh and blood is indestructible. Even if the accidents changed along with the substance, you wouldn’t be able to metabolize HIs flesh and blood in a way that destroys it in any way or breaks it down. So the “cannabilism” charge does not get it’s foot off the ground. I even heard anti-Catholic apologist James White say that it is not a good argument against the Eucharist.

I don’t understand why some people seem to be so intent on denying that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist. Are you saying that His physical reality is present but He is not physically present. That does not make any sense. If His physical reality is present then how could He not be physically present?

So you do affirm that He is corporally present?

I don’t get what the difference is between ‘physical “reality”’ and ‘physical reality.’ I highly doubt that by putting “reality” in quotes that the Pontiff were meaning to cast doubt on the fact that Christ is present in His physical reality. If he were meaning to do that then it would be “physical” that would be placed under quotes, not “reality”
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
I don’t understand why some people seem to be so intent on denying that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist. Are you saying that His physical reality is present but He is not physically present. That does not make any sense. If His physical reality is present then how could He not be physically present?

So you do affirm that He is corporally present?

I don’t get what the difference is between ‘physical “reality”’ and ‘physical reality.’ I highly doubt that by putting “reality” in quotes that the Pontiff were meaning to cast doubt on the fact that Christ is present in His physical reality. If he were meaning to do that then it would be “physical” that would be placed under quotes, not “reality”
Pope John Paul’s Ecclesia de Eucharistia (April 17,2003) No 15. reads in full:

The sacramental re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice, crowned by the resurrection, in the Mass involves a most special presence which—in the words of Paul VI—“is called ‘real’ not as a way of excluding all other types of presence as if they were ‘not real’, but because it is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present”. This sets forth once more the perennially valid teaching of the Council of Trent: “the consecration of the bread and wine effects the change of the whole substance of the bead into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. And the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called this change transubstantiation”. Truly the Eucharist is a mysterium fidei, a mystery which surpasses our understanding and can only be received in faith, as is often brought out in the catechesis of the Church Fathers regarding this divine sacrament: “Do not see—Saint Cyril of Jerusalem exhorts—in the bread and wine merely natural elements, because the Lord has expressly said that they are his body and his blood: faith assures you of this, though your senses suggest otherwise”.

The early Christians were unjustly accused of cannibalism. This shows that they understood the Holy Eucharist was indeed Jesus Christ, not a mere symbol. The Church uses the terms substance and accidents when describing transubstantiation. We should use these terms that the Church uses and not insist on using the term physical presence. In doing so we are being faithful to the language of the Church. Those who insist on using the term physical presence seem to me to be on the verge of unjustly calling out others as heretics who do not use this term.

If Venerable Paul VI wanted to use the expression physical reality then he would have. Instead he used the term physical “reality”. Language has limits. Paul VI used “reality” instead of reality because it was the closest approximation that he could express in words.
 
Gabrielle S:
Since Jesus healed all who came to him and never told anyone that their suffering was redemtive or that it would bring them closer to God or anything like that, then why would we not experience the same type of physical healing when we receive Jesus in the Eucharist?
Thank you and God Bless you.
Gabrielle
There are countless instances of Eucharistic healing.
 
When they brought a lame man to Jesus, Jesus said to him “Your sins are forgiven.” Then some got all excited about His saying that so Jesus eventually told the man to pick up him mat and walk.
(paraphrased by me based on Mark 2:1-12)

Spiritual healing is more important to Jesus than physical healing. Sometimes He does both…
 
Gabrielle S:
then why would we not experience the same type of physical healing when we receive Jesus in the Eucharist?
Here is one.

My dad had cancer and the doctors could not find the cancer’s exact location. They finally decided to check the bone marrow, which is a very painful test. It’s not uncommon for a farmer to have bone marrow cancer, because of pesticides. Before the he was tested he was able to attend a Mass.

He said this prayer before receiving Jesus.

"Jesus either heal me or give me the grace to take up my cross."

While receiving the precious Blood he experienced a warmth go through his entire body. He took the bone marrow test and it came back negative. Then everything that showed he had cancer came back negative. Thank you, Jesus

To God give the glory!
 
paz,

You didn’t answer my question which is fine if you don’t want to answer it.

If you believe that Jesus is corporally present in the Eucharist, I wouldn’t call you a heretic. But if you deny it, then I think it would be heresy. If you’re for using the language the Church uses then you should be for saying that Jesus is present in His physical reality and not make much-a-do-about-nothing over “reality” being in quotes.

:gopray:
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
paz,

You didn’t answer my question which is fine if you don’t want to answer it.

If you believe that Jesus is corporally present in the Eucharist, I wouldn’t call you a heretic. But if you deny it, then I think it would be heresy. If you’re for using the language the Church uses then you should be for saying that Jesus is present in His physical reality and not make much-a-do-about-nothing over “reality” being in quotes.

:gopray:
Yes, Jesus Christ, God-become-man, is corporally present as Holy Eucharist. The Church affirms this. I affirm what the Church affirms. However, this is a Sacramental presence, not a physical presence. The topic being discussed is not my faith but rather what the Church teaches and how she describes this type presence. It is a reality which is beyond the human mind to comprehend. Neverthless, we should be as accurate as possible when describing this presence.
 
Gabrielle S:
Since Jesus healed all who came to him and never told anyone that their suffering was redemtive or that it would bring them closer to God or anything like that, then why would we not experience the same type of physical healing when we receive Jesus in the Eucharist?

Thank you and God Bless you.
Gabrielle
I have asked this before as well, I was told that sometimes (as hard s this is for us to understand on some levels) its more important to be ‘spiritually healed’ through the sacraments, than physically healed…it was explained to me that given, our state of ‘sins’ and the origin of sin, etc, sometimes physical healing doesn’t always take place.
That in itself is a whole ‘other’ debate, so to speak.
Sometimes ofcourse we dont understand this, and most likely wont.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top