Is Christ physically present in the Eucharist?

[Harpazo]

I didn’t want to derail a thread, so I pulled this from the thread entitled [
If anyone could help clarify what the two of us are discussing, it would be of great help. Is Christ truly, physically present in the Eucharist? I was under the impression that He was/is, it’s what I’ve read. If this is not what the Church teaches, then I will be forced to abandon the Catholic Church.

My apologies if this is not the right place for it.

**“Can a person get to heaven without “swimming the Tiber”?”
**](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3374383#post3374383)

The true presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. Everything that IS Christ is present in the Eucharist - His entire substance. That is worthy of worship and adoration.

Exactly.

When we consume the Eucharist, we are not eating a piece of dead flesh, but are instead eating the true, glorified, sacramental Body of the Lord. The presence is well beyond our comprehension and outside of what words can perfectly express, but it is real nonetheless.

Who said we were eating His dead flesh?

It is in complete conformity. You will never find a council of the Church that uses the word “physical” to describe Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is not a piece of dead flesh.

Christ himself said it in St. John 6. Again, no one said it was dead flesh, it is His glorified flesh

If a church father referred to the Eucharist as the physical body of Christ, he was using theological language that was later abandoned by the Church, but was expressing the same essential truth. That being said, none of the quotes you provide use that language. No Church father has ever argued that the Eucharist is a piece of dead flesh, to my knowledge. The presence of Christ is much more profound than that.

It is the same language that has always been used, nothing becomes “outdated.” Again, Christ himself said that we must eat His flesh and blood in order to have eternal life. If He’s not physically there, then why would he say such things, and why would the Holy Fathers of the Church write about it as if He did say such things?

Expressed properly in thomistic terms, Christ is not physically, but instead is sacramentally present.

This is the crux of the situation. Not every Catholic is Latin. Latin Catholics make up only 1/23 of the Catholic Church. The other 22 are Eastern Churches. Not everyone in the Church uses Thomistic terms.

You know what Sacrament means, right? It’s Latin for the Greek word “Mysterion,” which means Mystery. Yes, it is a mystery, but Christ is physically there in the Eucharist. The God of the Universe comes down in the form of bread and wine. Why do you think Christ’s disciples walked away? They knew what He was saying, and it offended them for Him to ask them to eat His body and blood.

I think you misunderstand what the Church teaches. We’re speaking the same about the Eucharist, using different avenues of explaining it. Substantially means “of a corporal or material nature: real, true and tangible.” So, therefore, Christ’s body and blood are truly, really, tangibly and physically and materially there.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Dauphin]

I think we’re in complete agreement on this.

I think we both agree that if the Eucharist was brought to a scientist for examination, that scientist would not be able to conclude, by examining Its physical properties, that It is the Body and Blood of Christ. That’s what I’m trying to say.

The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not something that can be discerned by scientific means through a physical examination. It is instead a sacramental presence which can only be realized through the eyes of faith.

We’re just using differnt language to describe this. I feel that my language is more accurate and more close to the terms in which the Church expresses the real presence. Don’t use frightening and provocative language that you would “leave” the Catholic Church. There’s absolutely no cause for that.

 

[Didi]

The Catholic Church has always taken Jesus at His word, which is why the Holy Eucharist is defined as the “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity” of Jesus Christ.

Jesus clearly stated at the Last Supper “This is my body.” And in John 6:55-56: “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.”

What has helped me in my understanding is that God’s word doesn’t just say something, it does something: “…so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but shall accompolish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” (Isaiah 54:11)

When He said “Let there be light” there was light. When He said “This is my body” it became His body.

I wasn’t involved in the other discussion, so this may be information that was already shared. Hope this helps! God bless.

 

[Dauphin]

Who said we were eating His dead flesh?

I think your words accidentally implied this. Physical flesh is dead unless it is attached physically to a Body.

Christ himself said it in St. John 6. Again, no one said it was dead flesh, it is His glorified flesh

But not His physical flesh in the strict sense of the term. If we examined the Eucharist under a microscope, we would only be able to detect bread.

It is the same language that has always been used, nothing becomes “outdated.” Again, Christ himself said that we must eat His flesh and blood in order to have eternal life. If He’s not physically there, then why would he say such things, and why would the Holy Fathers of the Church write about it as if He did say such things?

Please correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t think that the Church has ever used “physical” to describe Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. It has only ever treated it as a true, real, and substantive presence.

This is the crux of the situation. Not every Catholic is Latin. Latin Catholics make up only 1/23 of the Catholic Church. The other 22 are Eastern Churches. Not everyone in the Church uses Thomistic terms.

You have a point, but I feel that unified theolgical language is important, especially when talking to Non-Catholics. The use of the term “physical” can be confusing for someone used to the way the Latin Church discusses the Eucharist.

You know what Sacrament means, right? It’s Latin for the Greek word “Mysterion,” which means Mystery. Yes, it is a mystery, but Christ is physically there in the Eucharist.

Again, if in this you are not denying that the Eucharist cannot be determined to be the Body and Blood of Christ through scientific examination, then you are correct. I feel, however, that the language is innacurate and open to easy misinterpretation.

The God of the Universe comes down in the form of bread and wine. Why do you think Christ’s disciples walked away? They knew what He was saying, and it offended them for Him to ask them to eat His body and blood.

I agree. The substance of His Body and Blood.

I think you misunderstand what the Church teaches. We’re speaking the same about the Eucharist, using different avenues of explaining it. Substantially means “of a corporal or material nature: real, true and tangible.” So, therefore, Christ’s body and blood are truly, really, tangibly and physically and materially there.

No, substantially does not mean physically. This is a point I can’t emphasize enough. If the Eucharist is the physical Body of Christ, then a scientist could determine that. The fact that Christ’s presence is not physical does not make in any less real or tangible.

 

[Caesar]

It is entirely correct to say that Christ is present physically in the Eucharist.

One of the (many) errors of Luther concerned the Eucharist. The heretic Luther taught, as many protestants still believe, that Christ was spiritually present but not physically- rather the Eucharist was still physically bread and wine.

This is incorrect. At the moment of consecration the the bread and wine cease to exist. Let there be no contradiction between saying that Christ is present in the Eucharist physically and sacramentally.

Try to understand it this way. The substance- what the Eucharist is- becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. Not figuratively, but literally. Yet, the Eucharist retains the temporal properties of Bread and Wine.

 

[Caesar]

This would be too long to post, but I suggest that anyone interested in this topic should read the following excerpts from the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas:

**Question 75 - The change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ

Question 76 - The way in which Christ is in this sacrament
**

 

[Dauphin]

It is entirely correct to say that Christ is present physically in the Eucharist.

One of the (many) errors of Luther concerned the Eucharist. The heretic Luther taught, as many protestants still believe, that Christ was spiritually present but not physically- rather the Eucharist was still physically bread and wine.

This is incorrect. At the moment of consecration the the bread and wine cease to exist. Let there be no contradiction between saying that Christ is present in the Eucharist physically and sacramentally.

Try to understand it this way. The substance- what the Eucharist is- becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. Not figuratively, but literally. Yet, the Eucharist retains the temporal properties of Bread and Wine.

Perhaps this was a misunderstanding on my part. I only meant to present what the Church says about the Eucharist. Can you direct me to a Church document which says that Christ is present physically in the Eucharist? I’m curious as to how a physical presence is possible without any physical properties.

 

[Caesar]

I would also suggest reading Lesson 22 of the Baltimore Catechism, in particular Question 242.

 

[Caesar]

Perhaps this was a misunderstanding on my part. I only meant to present what the Church says about the Eucharist. Can you direct me to a Church document which says that Christ is present physically in the Eucharist? I’m curious as to how a physical presence is possible without any physical properties.

But here we come upon a common mistake. Unfortunately I find the English language is inadequate to express such things (especially since I am not poetically gifted), but let me attempt to say it this way- the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not negated by the physical appearance or properties of the Sacrament (bread and wine).

 

[Dauphin]

But here we come upon a common mistake. Unfortunately I find the English language is inadequate to express such things (especially since I am not poetically gifted), but let me attempt to say it this way- the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not negated by the physical appearance or properties of the Sacrament (bread and wine).

I can accept that, but I still think the use of the word “physical” is confusing, and I have yet to find a single source (including the two you provided) that refers explicitly to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist as a physical one. If fact, the Council of Trent’s definitions seem to carefully avoid referring to it as such.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I would say it may be *true *to say Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, but it is *incomplete *(and therefore open to misinterpretation) to say so.

In fact, I *have *said so on at least [thread=101966]one[/thread] [thread=137767]two[/thread] [thread=139981]three[/thread] occassions.

:twocents:
tee

 

[Dauphin]

I want to point out that I got my view right here on the Catholic Answers Forum. It isn’t something that I invented, but is instead what Fr. Vincent Serpa has taught on the following threads in the Ask an Apoligist forum:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=139964&highlight=Eucharist+physical

“All we know is that Jesus insisted in the necessity of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. This the Apostles did at the Last Supper. They obviously were not trying to consume His body as He physically sat in their presence. They consumed His flesh and blood under the appearances of bread and wine. When we say that they sacramentally consumed His body and blood, we clearly understand what they were NOT doing. No one was gnawing on any part of His physical person. Yet by His own statement, they were receiving His body and blood.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=58022&highlight=Eucharist+physical

“…the fact remains that the apprearances under which the Lord is present are physical or we would not be able to see them or touch them or taste them.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=6623&highlight=Eucharist+physical

“We don’t say that He is physically present in order to avoid giving the impression that we are consuming body parts. He is sacramentally present.”

This is what I’m trying to express. In a strict scholastic sense, I suppose it is appropriate to say that His presence is physical, but I have never known the Church to officially refer to it in this way.

 

[Cosmo23]

We know Christ is present in the host by the gift of faith which is given by the Holy Spirit!! If someone is doubting the real presence go sit in Eucharistic adoration for an hour everyday, for a week and then they will know, And if they still doubt, then I would have to say their heart is cold indeed. Praise be the Lord in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar!!! I was a skinhead for 18 years and the Eucharist thawed my heart, and turned it back from black to red!!!