Is Jesus Biologically present in the Eucharist?

[Deacon_Ed_B]

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”.

We are not talking biology here, we are talking FAITH.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

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.

The Eucharistic miracle at Lanciano, Italy, which I have seen, is about 800 years old. It is in a reliquary above the altar with steps where a person can ascend them to take a close look. When examined by physicians, the conclusion was that it is the flesh of a human heart. This miracle was the result of a priest teaching and doubting that Jesus was really present in the Eucharist in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity. The flesh is incorrupt after 800 years.

I have seen the Eucharistic miracle at Los Teques, Venezuela, just outside of Caracas, where a bleeding host is held in repose in a monstrance where one can approach as close as he or she desires.I have spoken to people who were present at the mass when this happened at the open air pavilion at Betania, Venezuela. This happened in the early 80’s. I was there in 1995.
Miracles such as these constantly tell us of Jesus’ real presence. If you do not have faith, you will not believe. If you do,…(here words escape me because I saw through the eyes of faith).

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”.

Again, we are speaking faith, not science. If Jesus is present in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity, he is all there in the fullness of his humanity, every part, every sinew, every bone, total, real and complete.

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.

If you try to understand this from a purely human viewpoint, you will always come up with this conclusion. You either believe in the Eucharistic presence or you do not. If you have faith, no proof is necessary. If you do not have faith, no proof is enough. I accept totally that Jesus is fully, totally, completely present in the Eucharist. This is the core of everything that is Catholic. We are a Eucharistic people, who through the eyes of faith believe that Jesus is totally and completely present with everything that means and implies.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon ed B

 

[Pax_Vobiscum_57]

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.

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.”

These are both excellent answers, and useful for evangelizing. Thank you!

 

[EasterJoy]

I would not use the word “biologically”, because the Body and Blood of the Risen Lord, while physically real, is no longer a physical reality that is limited in the terms that our bodies are. The biological world has not been resurrected. On that account, biological presence is always a limited presence. Our Lord’s Presence in the Most Holy Eucharist, in contrast, is substantial and unlimited presence, presence par excellence.

I have heard a priest hear the remark, “Jesus is as real in the Eucharist as if He were standing here”, and the priest corrected with, “No. He is far more present than I am standing here with you. Our Lord’s Presence in the Eucharist has no limit, except our ability to know His presence by our senses. We know His Presence by faith alone, but there is not a presence anywhere here on earth that is more real.”

 

[Cristiano]

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…

From the Latin Edition

“sub quibus totus et integer Christus adest in sua physica «realitate» etiam corporaliter praesens”

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I would not use the word “biologically”, because the Body and Blood of the Risen Lord, while physically real, is no longer a physical reality that is limited in the terms that our bodies are. The biological world has not been resurrected. On that account, biological presence is always a limited presence. Our Lord’s Presence in the Most Holy Eucharist, in contrast, is substantial and unlimited presence, presence par excellence.

I have heard a priest hear the remark, “Jesus is as real in the Eucharist as if He were standing here”, and the priest corrected with, “No. He is far more present than I am standing here with you. Our Lord’s Presence in the Eucharist has no limit, except our ability to know His presence by our senses. We know His Presence by faith alone, but there is not a presence anywhere here on earth that is more real.”

Excellent post. Again, through faith he is totally and completely here. Our senses and intellect are limited. His are not. My only disagreement with your first paragraph is that if we read all the CCC has to say we will see that the only limit of his presence, is our ability to perceive. This also includes of necessity, his biological presence. How else could he be present in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity. Because we cannot perceive his divinity, that does not mean it is not there. Because we cannot perceive his biological presence, it does not mean it is not there. Because we cannot perceive his body and soul, does not mean he is not there. He is more real there than any of us in our own humanity, because he is GOD.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[EasterJoy]

Excellent post. Again, through faith he is totally and completely here. Our senses and intellect are limited. His are not. My only disagreement with your first paragraph is that if we read all the CCC has to say we will see that the only limit of his presence, is our ability to perceive. This also includes of necessity, his biological presence. How else could he be present in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity. Because we cannot perceive his divinity, that does not mean it is not there. Because we cannot perceive his biological presence, it does not mean it is not there. Because we cannot perceive his body and soul, does not mean he is not there. He is more real there than any of us in our own humanity, because he is GOD.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

I think I see what you mean. I was not trying to say that Jesus is no longer part of the biological world. He is still a man! What I meant was that when we use the word “biologically”, we think we know what we mean by that. Our experience of “biological life”, however, falls short of the physical reality of risen life, because all biological life we have any experience with exists within limits that don’t apply to Our Lord. For that reason, I think that using the word “biological” would be more likely to obscure than enlighten.

 

[urban-hermit]

New Thread:

What is the “substance” of the Eucharist?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=244139

 

[m134e5]

From the Latin Edition

“sub quibus totus et integer Christus adest in sua physica «realitate» etiam corporaliter praesens”

Latin edition or not, it doesn’t matter. The word physical can have multiple meanings. One meaning is that it pertains to matter. Ok, I’ll buy that- the Body of Christ is matter, although it is glorified and can take on the form of other matter- in that sense it is physical. Physical can also mean that it can be detected with the senses (theoretically at least- it may be too small or it may not have properties that we as humans can detect- but it can be naturally detectable, at least in theory). In that sense, it is not physical- there’s nothing naturally detectable about it- unless God works an unusual miracle- which He has on more than one occasion.

 

[Cristiano]

Latin edition or not, it doesn’t matter…

You were the one that made specific reference to what was said in the original document in Latin.

… The word physical can have multiple meanings. One meaning is that it pertains to matter. Ok, I’ll buy that- the Body of Christ is matter, although it is glorified and can take on the form of other matter- in that sense it is physical. Physical can also mean that it can be detected with the senses (theoretically at least- it may be too small or it may not have properties that we as humans can detect- but it can be naturally detectable, at least in theory). In that sense, it is not physical- there’s nothing naturally detectable about it- unless God works an unusual miracle- which He has on more than one occasion.

By definition all miracles are unusual and highly improbable.

Here it seems to me that we can refine the definition of physical until it can be used to match what we are to demonstrate. I do not have anything against it. As a physicist a look at the definition of physical in a very specific manner. Within the definition I use, physical is something that may causes effects on the observable world even when not directly observable (e.g. angular momentum of a sub-atomic particle). The impact of the Eucharist has been observed and attributed to it even if it still looks like bread and wine (corporaliter praesens). To me that is physical presence.

I general would just stick to the last posts by EasterJoy and Deacon Ed because they give a much better insight of how limiting is this kind of thinking can become.

 

[urban-hermit]

Latin edition or not, it doesn’t matter. The word physical can have multiple meanings. One meaning is that it pertains to matter. Ok, I’ll buy that- the Body of Christ is matter, although it is glorified and can take on the form of other matter- in that sense it is physical. Physical can also mean that it can be detected with the senses (theoretically at least- it may be too small or it may not have properties that we as humans can detect- but it can be naturally detectable, at least in theory). In that sense, it is not physical- there’s nothing naturally detectable about it- unless God works an unusual miracle- which He has on more than one occasion.

Your alternate definition of physical does not appear in the dictionaries I consulted.

phys·i·cal
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit. See Synonyms at bodily.
b. Involving or characterized by vigorous bodily activity: a physical dance performance.
c. Slang Involving or characterized by violence: “A real cop would get physical” TV Guide.
2. Of or relating to material things: our physical environment.
3. Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.
n.
A physical examination.

---

[Middle English phisical, medical, from Medieval Latin physiclis, from Latin physica, physics; see physics.]

---

physi·cali·ty (-kl-t) n.
physi·cal·ly adv.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

========================================

physical
Adjective

1. of the body, as distinguished from the mind or spirit
2. of material things or nature: the physical world
3. of or concerned with matter and energy
4. of or relating to physics

physically adv

Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Physical can also mean that it can be detected with the senses (theoretically at least- it may be too small or it may not have properties that we as humans can detect- **but it can be naturally detectable, at least in theory). **In that sense, it is not physical- there’s nothing naturally detectable about it- unless God works an unusual miracle- which He has on more than one occasion.

With the Eucharist, we are not discussing the natural. We are discussing the **SUPERNATURAL. ** This is why our natural body senses fail. Try as you might, the finite cannot comprehend the infinite.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon ed B

 

[SacredHeartFan]

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

When we say that the accidents of bread and wine remain, we are saying that it only looks like bread and wine to our weak minds. It is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus. No trace of bread or wine remain. If you were to take a DNA test (which would be sacralige so don’t get any ideas) it would have human DNA not the makeup of bread and wine.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

If you were to take a DNA test (which would be sacralige so don’t get any ideas) it would have human DNA not the makeup of bread and wine.

**NOT SO. ** Human DNA is accident, not substance. or essence. It would only show bread and wine, which it is not. Remember, we are talking faith, not science. This absolutely takes nothing away from the real, total, complete and any other descriptive term you could use, presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity.
Prayers and blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I would not use the word “biologically”, because the Body and Blood of the Risen Lord, while physically real, is no longer a physical reality that is limited in the terms that our bodies are. The biological world has not been resurrected. On that account, biological presence is always a limited presence. Our Lord’s Presence in the Most Holy Eucharist, in contrast, is substantial and unlimited presence, presence par excellence.

I second this explanation of the truth of the Real Presence!

Why is it that people forget the “transformed and glorified” part of the first of two people in heaven bodily? (The other being Mother Mary.)

I have heard a priest hear the remark, “Jesus is as real in the Eucharist as if He were standing here”, and the priest corrected with, “No. He is far more present than I am standing here with you. Our Lord’s Presence in the Eucharist has no limit, except our ability to know His presence by our senses. We know His Presence by faith alone, but there is not a presence anywhere here on earth that is more real.”

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I have heard a priest hear the remark, “Jesus is as real in the Eucharist as if He were standing here”, and the priest corrected with, “No. He is far more present than I am standing here with you. Our Lord’s Presence in the Eucharist has no limit, except our ability to know His presence by our senses. We know His Presence by faith alone, but there is not a presence anywhere here on earth that is more real.”

Thank you, thank you. This is what I have been trying to get across
Our human languages are totally inadequate in trying to describe God. .
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[JimG]

the only limit of his presence, is our ability to perceive. This also includes of necessity, his biological presence. How else could he be present in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity. Because we cannot perceive his divinity, that does not mean it is not there. Because we cannot perceive his biological presence, it does not mean it is not there. Because we cannot perceive his body and soul, does not mean he is not there. He is more real there than any of us in our own humanity, because he is GOD.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

I agree. We assert that in the Eucharist Jesus is wholly present: body, blood, soul, divinity, all of him.

That doesn’t mean that we can test the Eucharist species by any means and find evidences of his DNA or tissues. Scientific instruments and all our senses respond only to accidents, not to substance!

Be he is still entirely present, only hidden by the accidents (and this includes all of what we would call the ‘physical properties’) of bread and wine.

If I were to send any object beyond the ‘event horizon’ of a black hole, you could not tell it was there. There is no way that you can perceive what is ‘inside’ the black hole, because none of the ‘accidents’ by which you would be able to perceive it can or will ever be perceptible outside the event horizon. But every thing that went in is still there.

That’s just an analogy. The point is the Christ’s presence in the Eucharist includes all of him, his entire body, his entire blood, his entire soul and divinity. You can never receive a piece of him, nor can you ‘break him up’ by dividing the host. He is entirely and wholly present in the smallest particle or the smallest drop. But the accidents of bread and wine preven us from perceiving him.

 

[GailMac]

Well, folks, this is where I come in!

I am a convert and one of the defining moments of my conversion experience is one that will remain with me for the rest of my life. I wasn’t even in RCIA yet and had gone into a church just to see what it was all about. The Mass was a complete mystery and I was a clueless traveler seeking God. It was a regular daily mass and the place was large, dark and hardly anyone else was there. The altar itself was about 30 feet away and I was sitting off to one side just to make sure no one really saw me - I wasn’t ready at all to start answering questions and thought I’d be politely asked to leave if you guys n gals…well, let’s just say it was a very awkward moment for me.
Anyway, the priest got to the part where he makes what I know now is the elevation and said “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!” and I looked up and went “O my God that really is You!” The ground nearly shook! It was a more profound experience than giving birth for the first time! I can’t fairly compare it to any other thing on earth either. There aren’t words for what welled up in me on that day or on many of the days that followed. God touched me in a very deep place in my soul and I came alive! Well it doesn’t sound like much in the telling, but it was a life changing moment for me. After that I would’ve walked on hot coals to get to the Eucharist. I was practically clueless by comparison to all that I know now about the Mass, the Church the Sacraments, etc. but **the one thing **I needed to know, God gave me.
I was truely blessed to have that experience as I now also know for many catholics, it is a purely academic or intellectual exercise to beleive in the real presence or worse, merely I"'ve been told to believe so therefore I will believe" kind of exercise because you can’t be catholic and NOT believe. I’m a very lucky gal. No doubt about it.

Anyway, that’s enough form me.

Here’s some stuff that may help with the biological aspect and it comes from info about the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy. the link to it follows:

"In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon. …In conclusion, it may be said that Science, when called upon to testify, has given a certain and thorough response as regards the authenticity of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano."

OOOOOPs the pictures didn’t stick. Rats! You’ll have to go to the website. Sorry.

Peace,

Gail

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

[GailMac]

P.S. If memeory serves me well, didn’t Catholic Answers do a show on the Miracle of Lanciano? Perhaps it is still in the archives.

Peace,

Gail

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Gail, thank you for this. i too referred to the miracle of Lanciano. My error was that I said it was 800 years ago, instead of in the 800"s. Thank you for this. I have been to Lanciano twice and have witnessed it from inches from my eyes. It is most humbling.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B