Is Jesus Biologically present in the Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter epaget
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

epaget

Guest
Hello, a Priest the other day was teaching at a Bible Study and said that Jesus is Spiritually present in the Eucharist -that he is “truly” present -that He is “really” present -but when he went on to say that he doesn’t think Jesus is biologically present in the Eucharist, it kind of threw me off. What does the Church say in terms of the molecular/biological makeup of the Eucharist after consecration?

I was thinking that the molecular makeup could be an accident of the bread and wine and still remain after consecration, but I didn’t feel safe saying that Jesus was not there in a biological way. With transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine remain, but the essential nature changes, so I was thinking that since the molecular structures of the bread and wine are not their essences it might be safe saying Jesus is not there in a molecular way, just like you could say He is not there in terms of color, texture, or taste etc… But to say He is not there in a Biological way perplexes me; because Biology presupposes life –and I don’t want to say Jesus is not present in the Eucharist in a living way.

In any case, I’m still not sure exactly what the Priest means by “in a biological way”. I took it to mean molecular, but I’m not sure.

Any ideas?

Thanks,
Eric
 
Jesus is sacramentally and substantially present in the Eucharist, not physically or “biologically” present. If he were, we would indeed be guilty of cannibalism. The physical attributes and therefore the appearance to the senses (taste, feel, look) of bread and wine remain–molecular structure etc. the Substance changes and becomes the Substance of Jesus, so He is Substantially present. this is a change (trans in Latin), so the work is trans-substantiation (change in substance) effected sacramentally, the action of Jesus Christ the Son, through the Holy Spirit, offered to the Father. He is not “merely” spiritually present, although transubstantiation describes a spiritual reality.
 
puzzleannie said:
Jesus is sacramentally and substantially present in the Eucharist, not physically or “biologically” present. If he were, we would indeed be guilty of cannibalism. The physical attributes and therefore the appearance to the senses (taste, feel, look) of bread and wine remain–molecular structure etc. the Substance changes and becomes the Substance of Jesus, so He is Substantially present. this is a change (trans in Latin), so the work is trans-substantiation (change in substance) effected sacramentally, the action of Jesus Christ the Son, through the Holy Spirit, offered to the Father. He is not “merely” spiritually present, although transubstantiation describes a spiritual reality.
Click to expand...
As a priest once taught in a course I was taking, “The biological Jesus ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. In the Eucharist we receive his sacramental presence, a true presence, a full presence but not a biological presence.”
 
One word that throws me off is “substance” –literally, what stands under. So what is it exactly that stands under the accidents of bread and wine before the consecration? I know what stands under after -Jesus, but sometimes it is difficult to think of a substance -the mind wants to think about what is perceived through the senses. But what is it that we cannot perceive -what is under what we sense? What is that thing that holds the accidents together?

And where do we draw the line between accidents and substance? Today, many people take substance to mean the physical nature, but I don’t think this is what the doctors of our church take it to mean. I think the physical part is also accidental –like with the elements it is made out of and the structure of how they are put together, which in Aristotelian philosophy seems to be the material and formal causes. Also, it seems the efficient cause stays the same –how the bread was made to begin with. This, then, just leaves the final cause –the purpose. So are we saying with transubstantiation just the final cause changes -just the purpose changes?

This doesn’t seem right… what is substance… the formal cause? That which holds together the accidents?

Pax,

Eric
 
epaget said:
What does the Church say in terms of the molecular/biological makeup of the Eucharist after consecration?

I was thinking that the molecular makeup could be an accident of the bread and wine and still remain after consecration, but I didn’t feel safe saying that Jesus was not there in a biological way. With transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine remain, but the essential nature changes, so I was thinking that since the molecular structures of the bread and wine are not their essences it might be safe saying Jesus is not there in a molecular way, just like you could say He is not there in terms of color, texture, or taste etc… But to say He is not there in a Biological way perplexes me; because Biology presupposes life –and I don’t want to say Jesus is not present in the Eucharist in a living way.

In any case, I’m still not sure exactly what the Priest means by “in a biological way”.
Click to expand...
You have a good train of thought there, and I think you are mostly correct. When we talk about the molecules, we need to specify that the accidents of the molecules are of bread and wine, but the substance of the molecules is Jesus. The Church uses “accidents and substance” because they are very precise words. I think you are right to be wary of using “biological” because of the very point you bring up. It’s much better just to use the words that the Church uses.
 
Hi Eric - Joe here - I’m glad you have joined CAF - Welcome! For everybody else’s benefit, I was at this Bible study too.

Eric, you had asked about the word “substance” - I found this in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm

I agree with SpiritHound that it is best to use the words the Church uses, but … my answer to the title question is "Yes. Jesus IS biologically present in the Eucharist."

(how could we say “no” without denying the living bodily presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?)

I was taught in school that Jesus is present in the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine. If I were to attempt to explain the mystery of the Eucharist, I would say the “accidents” of bread and wine after the consecration are basically illusions. Bread and wine are what our senses detect, but there is no bread there and there is no wine there. There is only Jesus.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, starting with paragraph 1373
 
Whatever the terms are, the point is that the Jesus in heaven is the same Jesus in the Eucharist – body, blood, soul, and divinity – and that what I believe is the “substance” that the Church refers to; the rest is accident.

It is an interesting part of the Church history that the primitive Christians are being accused of cannibalism because they say they eat the flesh and blood of their God – and yes, they do, true flesh and true blood; actually, true whole Man and God with every part intact.

Didn’t Jesus refuse to clarify himself when a great number of his followers were scandalized by his words and left him, instead he emphasized even more that what they heard is what it really is?
 
puzzleannie,

You say:

“Jesus is sacramentally and substantially present in the Eucharist, not physically or “biologically” present.”

I answer:

How does this square with Paul VI’s statement in Mysterium Fidei - (not busting on you, just trying to understand the whole “physical” thing):

46.* 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.*

God bless,
Kev
 
Depends on what you mean by the term “physically” present.

If you mean that somewhere under the appearance of the consecrated bread (or consecrated wine) there is a part that is Jesus’ head, hands, feet etc, then that is the error of physicalism that puzzleannie rightly noted is contrary to Church teachings. Thus when we break (or chew) the conscrated host, or gulp down a mouthful of the conscrated wine, we don’t leave a portion of Jesus behind on the paten or in the chalice.

So Pope Paul VI correctly represents Catholic Tradition when he wrote that Jesus is corporeally present in the Sacred Body and Precious Blood of the Eucharist. Jesus is truly present in each portion of the consecrated species. Since Jesus is human and divine, his presence in the consecrated species includes both his human and divine natures. His human nature cannot be separated from his corporeal (or physical) self, yet as the Pope wrote, this corporeal presence is not in the manner we humans are accustomed to thinking on earth.
 
I find it helpful to muse on the Last Supper.
Plainly, when Jesus said ‘This is My Body - This is My Blood’ to the Apostles, He must have meant a Presence which was beyond their usual ways of understanding. His physical, temporal body was still there sitting at the head of the table. He hadn’t literally given them pieces of that to eat.
Dare I say that sometimes we can be too literal in our understanding of the Eucharist and the Real Presence?
At the Last Supper, Jesus’s physical, biological body was not given to the Apostles. So how can It be given today? It must be in a wholly different manner.
 
I think the best answer to this question is found in ghe Catechism of the Catholic Church.

**Paragraph # 1373 says:"The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend. In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really and substantially contained." This presence is called real - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be real too, but because 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."

Paragraph # 1377 says, “The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. * Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts,* in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.”**

Because of what is said in the parts which I have italicized and underlined, my own conclusion is that Jesus is also biologically present. I anyone has any documented and referenced information to the contrary, I would welcome it, as I certainly do not want to be in error about this most Blessed Sacrament.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
puzzleannie said:
Jesus is sacramentally and substantially present in the Eucharist, not physically or “biologically” present. If he were, we would indeed be guilty of cannibalism. The physical attributes and therefore the appearance to the senses (taste, feel, look) of bread and wine remain–molecular structure etc. the Substance changes and becomes the Substance of Jesus, so He is Substantially present. this is a change (trans in Latin), so the work is trans-substantiation (change in substance) effected sacramentally, the action of Jesus Christ the Son, through the Holy Spirit, offered to the Father. He is not “merely” spiritually present, although transubstantiation describes a spiritual reality.
Click to expand...
Theophagy is part of our religion. Cannibalism is to eat parts of flesh, not the whole living being. We eat the whole living being.
 
urban-hermit said:
I agree with SpiritHound that it is best to use the words the Church uses, but … my answer to the title question is "Yes. Jesus IS biologically present in the Eucharist."

(how could we say “no” without denying the living bodily presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?)
Click to expand...
no Jesus is not biologically present in the Eucharist. He is present sacramentally and substantially, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity entire and undivided. that is the precise terminology. “biologically” and “illusion” are not the precise terms chosen by the Church to teach this mystery.
 
Cristiano said:
Theophagy is part of our religion. Cannibalism is to eat parts of flesh, not the whole living being. We eat the whole living being.
Click to expand...
we eat and drink the entire, whole undivided glorified Body and Blood, with the Soul and Divinity, of Our Lord. please stick with the Church’s terminology, no need to invent our own
 
puzzleannie said:
Jesus is sacramentally and substantially present in the Eucharist, not physically or “biologically” present. If he were, we would indeed be guilty of cannibalism. .
Click to expand...
Please reconcile this with the following:
***“Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. The man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the Father who has life sent me, and I have life because of the Father, so the man who feeds on me will have life because of me.” John 6:53-57
Also, please see post # 12 on this thread.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
puzzleannie said:
we eat and drink the entire, whole undivided glorified Body and Blood, with the Soul and Divinity, of Our Lord. please stick with the Church’s terminology, no need to invent our own
Click to expand...
Which terminology did I invent?:confused:
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
Please reconcile this with the following:
***“Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. The man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the Father who has life sent me, and I have life because of the Father, so the man who feeds on me will have life because of me.” John 6:53-57
Click to expand...
If you make a scientific study on a consecrated host, (I assume) you will scientifically conclude that it is bread. Biology is science. We just have better words to use that “biologically”.
 
Spirithound said:
If you make a scientific study on a consecrated host, (I assume) you will scientifically conclude that it is bread. Biology is science. We just have better words to use than “biologically”.
Click to expand...
I agree “biologically” is a confusing word in this case. “Bodily presence” is also confusing in this case, in a similar way. It refers to a physical reality which we can not see.

Here is another question:

At the Bible study, I took issue with what I felt was a spiritual explanation of the Eucharist. I said that Jesus’ FLESH is present in the Eucharist. I was told “but not the actual tissues”.

To my thinking, the tissues of the body are what makes up our flesh… which led me to believe that what was actually being said to me was either an unintentional contradiction of Jesus’ bodily Eucharistic presence, or perhaps an unintentional yet serious mis-statement of what the Church teaches about the Eucharistic presence, which might confuse others as well.

Can anyone help me interpret the bold phrase above in such a way that it would be a true statement?

The only way I could figure it could be true would be if Jesus in His glorified body does not have “tissues” which make up His flesh anymore. Do we know if that is the case?
 
Kevirish01 said:
puzzleannie,

You say:

“Jesus is sacramentally and substantially present in the Eucharist, not physically or “biologically” present.”

I answer:

How does this square with Paul VI’s statement in Mysterium Fidei - (not busting on you, just trying to understand the whole “physical” thing):

46.* 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.

God bless,
Kev
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I would call it “physical ‘reality’”. Papal texts such as this one are translations from Latin, and I think sometimes things don’t translate as well from the Romance languages into English. I may be diving into areas of philosophy that are beyond what I know, but I don’t see how “physical reality” can be up for debate, except about the definition of the word “physical”. I define “physical” as ‘being detectable by the senses’. I know I’m limiting the definition more than what dictionaries typically do- I guess that’s the only place where there can be a debate- but the real presence is a major area in apologetics and I think it’s best to keep these terms as simple as possible. Something may be too small or subtle for human senses- or any creature’s senses- to detect- but that doesn’t mean that those natural properties aren’t there. Jesus’ Eucharistic presence is very real- but I am not sure it is a physical presence (it has become a physical, tangible presence at times, but that doesn’t typically happen). The ‘accidents’- that is, the physical make-up- of bread and wine still remain, seemingly unchanged as they have truly become the Most Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top