Is Jesus physically present in the Eucharist?

[Cam-masta]

I have been doing a little research on the Eucharist. I am a new Catholic as of last Easter Vigil. Is Jesus Christ physically present in the species of bread and wine? Here is what I am thinking:

1. Jesus Christ is Sacramentally Present, under the appearences of bread and wine.
2. The accidents have stayed the same (bread and wine) and substance has changed (into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ)
3. The accidents do not change the substance, nor does the substance change the accidents.
4. This is a sacred mystery of the Faith, as the human senses cannot perceive, nor can the human mind understand fully, the reality of Christ being entirely Present. Rather, we perceive this reality by faith and reason.

Is this more or less correct? Am I leaving anything out? God Bless.
+ Cam

 

[dylanschrader]

Sounds good to me.

The trouble is that our culture thinks of material things as being “more real” than spiritual things and thus “physical” has come to mean “literal” or “real” in common parlance.

I sometimes hear people use “physically” to mean “really.”

Physical in the proper sense is a modern way of describing the “accidents” as the scholastics referred to them. Things that can be acted on physically, that is, what is sensibly perceptible, are the accidents.

Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is substantial. This is the fullest kind of presence. It means the Eucharist is Christ and nothing else, not as a manner of speaking or impersonally. The Eucharist is a Person–Christ himself.

The accidents, however, remain without their respective substances by a miracle. This is a good thing since, for one thing, it makes it a lot easier to receive Communion than if the accidents changed as well!

 

[RepentorPerish]

have the faith of a Child .

I think alot of times we try to intellectualize the sacred mysterys of the faith , we just need to step back from our thinking and just abandon ourselves to this Sacred Mystery. Have that sense of awe and wonderment that children have.

As Augustine said I dont seek to understand to believe , I believe to understand.

Its all about Him , Through him with him and In him

God bless both of you , And I pray the Lord Bless you and keep you in the Lords Love all the days of your life

 

[Timidity]

I researched this once, and the best I came up with was this…

In the study of metaphysics, people used to use terms like “accidents” and “substance”. Just like the term “instinct” was replaced in psychology by the phrase “species specific behavior”, metaphysics eventually replaced the term “accidents” with “physical” and “substance” with “metaphysical”. So if Aquinas were writing today, he might say that Christ was metaphysically present in the physical form of bread and wine.

I welcome expansions and corrections

 

[Frankk]

Cam

I would advise that you research what the early Church Fathers were saying on this subject. For example,

St Ignatius in AD110 says ‘…they abstain from the Eucharist and prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ…’

St Justin Marty AD150 writing to the Emperor '… for not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; … and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of that incarnated Jesus.

St Irenaeus and St Cyril of Jerusalem, amongst others also confirmed this fact. The point is these men were around at the time of the apostles or, certainly, their immediate successors. I think St Polycarp was ordained by St Peter. And St Ignatius was instructed by St John the Apostle. It seems, at least to me, that their views carry considerably more weight than that of later theologians, etc…

I guess it might surprise some but Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence [although he objected to the term transubstatiation].

Luther said, 'of all the fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expression as ‘It is simply bread and wine" or “Christ’s body and blood are not present”. Yet this subject is so frequently discussed by them, it is impossible that they should not at some time have let slip such an expression as “it is simply bread” or the like since they are greatly concerned not to mislead the people…Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other arguments…’ (Luther’s Works, St Louis, MI: Concordia Publishing, 1961, Volume 37,54)

 

[JimG]

Jesus is present in his complete physical and spiritual form, but we cannot perceive him because the appearances of bread and wine which remain, in effect hide him from our senses.

Jesus is entirely present under, but not within, the appearances of bread and wine. (Those appearances do not inhere in any substance, following consecration.)

Because appearances–that which is perceptible by the senses–are all that anyone can perceive of any object, we can’t really “get at” Jesus physically under this sacramental form; he is received only as an entire whole. Even if the host is broken or divided, he remains whole and entire as a unity.

 

[otjm]

I researched this once, and the best I came up with was this…

In the study of metaphysics, people used to use terms like “accidents” and “substance”. Just like the term “instinct” was replaced in psychology by the phrase “species specific behavior”, metaphysics eventually replaced the term “accidents” with “physical” and “substance” with “metaphysical”. So if Aquinas were writing today, he might say that Christ was metaphysically present in the physical form of bread and wine.

I welcome expansions and corrections

It might depend on which part of philosophy one was studying as to whether it might be from substance and accident to physicla and metaphysical, as substance and form has more to do with Aristotelian/Scholastic Philosophy, and would still be appropriate (that is, not replaced) currently.

 

[otjm]

Jesus is present in his complete physical and spiritual form, but we cannot perceive him because the appearances of bread and wine which remain, in effect hide him from our senses.

Jesus is entirely present under, but not within, the appearances of bread and wine. (Those appearances do not inhere in any substance, following consecration.)

Because appearances–that which is perceptible by the senses–are all that anyone can perceive of any object, we can’t really “get at” Jesus physically under this sacramental form; he is received only as an entire whole. Even if the host is broken or divided, he remains whole and entire as a unity.

It might be more correct to say that it is His ressurected form (I prefer body). His resurrected body was at the same time similar to, and yet different from, His physical body before the Ressurection.

Christ raised several from the dead, but none of them were resurrected. Only he was resurrected. Reading the Gospel and Acts accounts of His resrrection may make it clearer.

 

[JimG]

It might be more correct to say that it is His ressurected form (I prefer body). His resurrected body was at the same time similar to, and yet different from, His physical body before the Ressurection.

Christ raised several from the dead, but none of them were resurrected. Only he was resurrected. Reading the Gospel and Acts accounts of His resrrection may make it clearer.

I have no problem with putting the matter in that way. His resurrected body is, nevertheless, his actual physical body. And it is his body, as well as his entire person, which is present in the Eucharist in its entirety, hidden under the appearances of bread and wine.

 

[otjm]

His resurrected body is, nevertheless, his actual physical body.

Actually, no; it is His resurrected body. To say it is His physical body is to border on implying that the same body that went into the grave came out the other end. His resurrected body was somehow the same and yet different. It could pass through walls; it may have been able to bilocate; and people who had been with Him for three years did not recognize Him when they first met Him. The body we will have at the final resurrection is a perfected body; that is, it is us, but not us with our physical body, and all its attendant imperfections. It is a resurrected body, and the Church does make a distinction.

We eat His flesh; but not as you and I understand flesh, but as the Apostles experienced Him. He wasn’t a ghost (He proved that twice - once with Thomas and once on the lake shore when He ate); but Lazarus was not resurrected but simply brought back to life. Christ was not simply brought back to life, but resurrected.

His body was not physical as we understand the term to mean, and we don’t have much better language to work with the issue than the Apostles did.

About the only other thing we can say is that it is His glorified body.

 

[JimG]

Yes, I understand that it was his glorified and resurrected body. Yet it was, and is, his body, and human bodies, even glorified and resurrected, are physical in nature.

The tomb, was after all, empty. The body that was placed there was resurrected. His body was transformed, but still His, just as ours will still be ours, at the resurrection.

In heaven we will be restored the preternatural gifts which were lost by original sin. We too will be able to pass through walls. Yet, even in heaven, after the resurrection, we will be creatures composed of body and soul, matter and spirit. We will still have physical bodies and spiritual souls.

 

[dylanschrader]

Yes, I understand that it was his glorified and resurrected body. Yet it was, and is, his body, and human bodies, even glorified and resurrected, are physical in nature.

The tomb, was after all, empty. The body that was placed there was resurrected. His body was transformed, but still His, just as ours will still be ours, at the resurrection.

In heaven we will be restored the preternatural gifts which were lost by original sin. We too will be able to pass through walls. Yet, even in heaven, after the resurrection, we will be creatures composed of body and soul, matter and spirit. We will still have physical bodies and spiritual souls.

Yes.

We will have the same bodies as on earth, but because of the perfect subjection of the body to the soul which is its form, our bodies will have certain properties (e.g., the inability to suffer) that they do not have now.

If ‘physical’ is synonymous with ‘material,’ then it seems appropriate to say that the resurrected body is physical.

One explanation (Aquinas) is this:

1. In the Blessed Sacrament the accidents of Christ’s Body and Blood are present but only in the mode of substance.
2. The accidents of bread and wine are present but only in the mode of being extended.

What this means is that the quantitas dimensiva, the accidents, of Christ’s Body is present but is not present properly. That is, in the Eucharist he has his natural appearance in substance but it is not expressed. In other words, he has in the Eucharist, for example, the ability to take up space in three dimensions because this is a real property of his Body, but in actual fact he does not take up space in three dimensions in the Eucharist.

The converse is true of the accidents of bread and wine. These appearances are expressed without any substance underlying them by a miracle.

It gets complicated talking about accidents having substances themselves, in a sense, so I recommend reading Summa Theologica III 76, 4.