Jesus physically present in Catholic Churches

[LatinCat]

tee_eff_em:

LatinCat:

(without conceding that the only mode of presence that flesh and blood have is physical)

I have yet to see the Church use the words “physical” or “supernatural” to refer to the real presence.

If pressed, I would use the word “metaphysical”

:twocents:
tee
Here you go. You try to replace Christ’s physical presence in the Eucharist with a “metaphysical” one. And that isn’t even the correct use of the term metaphysical. HMMM.

 

[tee_eff_em]

LatinCat:

tee_eff_em:

Here you go. You try to replace Christ’s physical presence in the Eucharist with a “metaphysical” one. And that isn’t even the correct use of the term metaphysical. HMMM.

That’s it!!?? :whacky:

You know, I believed you the first time when you said you [post=1376661]didn’t understand what “metaphysical” meant[/post]…

tee

 

[LatinCat]

tee_eff_em:

LatinCat:

That

's it!!?? :whacky:

You know, I believed you the first time when you said you [post=1376661]didn’t understand what “metaphysical” meant[/post]…

tee
Then enlighten me, he who knows better than the Church.

 

[laurel47]

dcdurel:

While Jesus is present everywhere, since He is God, and while he is present where 2 or 3 are gathered, and He is present even in Protestant Churches, and He is present in the readings, etc. it is only in the Eucharist that He is physically present, that is, He is present not only in His Divinity but also He is present in His humanity, with His body and soul. Father Hardon points out that when Jesus walked the earth in Isreal, people were not healed, either physically or spiritually until they came in contact with His physical presence. He says this is because all graces come to us through His humanity, even though they originate in His divinity.

Since Jesus is present in the tabernacle with His body, blood, soul and divinity we say He is physically present, since physical refers to material, body, natural. Thus when we approach Jesus in the Eucharist we can expect many more miracles than when we come to Him only in His Divinity, just as many more miracles were worked when the people of Israel came into His physical presence when He walked the earth visibly.

It has been my experience that this is true. That is, I have experienced many more miracles during Eucharistic adoration, then when praying at places where He was not physically present.

Has anyone else noticed this also?

I noticed that when you ask from God you do hear from him, I remember when my brother died , I asked the Lord for a sign and out of the dead silence a wind came up and it was so very gentle, I knew that this was my answer , laurel

 

[tee_eff_em]

**

LatinCat:

Then enlighten me, he who knows better than the Church.

FTR: I don’t claim to know better than the Church – I only claim that you have misrepresented my position. However if I am to take what you have written as representative, then: Yes, I will (reluctantly) claim that my (meagre) understanding of metaphysics is better than yours.

[post=1381204]You said:[/post]

LatinCat:

You try to replace Christ’s physical presence in the Eucharist with a “metaphysical” one.

I “replace” nothing. You have yet to show that the Church even describes Christ’s presence in the Eucharist as “physical” (and unless or until you do, [post=1381204]your statement[/post] is begging the question). You also fail to show that I deny Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is “physical”. (Though I do prefer ([post=1371000]cite[/post] [post=1372398]cite[/post] [post=1374312]cite[/post] [post=1374676]cite[/post] [post=1377684]cite[/post]) to describe Christ’s presence in the Eucharist as “real”, as (I believe) does the Church)

I aver you are not able to show I have denied Christ’s presence as “physical”, as I aver I have not done so. [post=1381204]You may want to say[/post] that by describing Christ’s presence as “metaphysical” I am denying the “physical”. I aver that I am not. In analogy: If two people drink of the same cup, and one describes the taste as “fruit” and the other as “apple”, does the latter “deny” or “replace” the “fruit”-ness of the taste? Or does he merely describe it differently and, perhaps, more completely?

I can’t even guess why you have a problem with the word “metaphysical” – Do you think it is an *<ahem> *accident that the Church uses metaphysical terms wrt the Eucharist? Do you think (or: think *I *think) it means “non-physical”? Or what?

tee

 

[LatinCat]

**

FTR: I don’t claim to know better than the Church – I only claim that you have misrepresented my position. However if I am to take what you have written as representative, then: Yes, I will (reluctantly) claim that my (meagre) understanding of metaphysics is better than yours.

[post=1381204]You said:[/post]
I “replace” nothing. You have yet to show that the Church even describes Christ’s presence in the Eucharist as “physical” (and unless or until you do, [post=1381204]your statement[/post] is begging the question). You also fail to show that I deny Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is “physical”. (Though I do prefer ([post=1371000]cite[/post] [post=1372398]cite[/post] [post=1374312]cite[/post] [post=1374676]cite[/post] [post=1377684]cite[/post]) to describe Christ’s presence in the Eucharist as “real”, as (I believe) does the Church)

I aver you are not able to show I have denied Christ’s presence as “physical”, as I aver I have not done so. [post=1381204]You may want to say[/post] that by describing Christ’s presence as “metaphysical” I am denying the “physical”. I aver that I am not. In analogy: If two people drink of the same cup, and one describes the taste as “fruit” and the other as “apple”, does the latter “deny” or “replace” the “fruit”-ness of the taste? Or does he merely describe it differently and, perhaps, more completely?

I can’t even guess why you have a problem with the word “metaphysical” – Do you think it is an *<ahem> *accident that the Church uses metaphysical terms wrt the Eucharist? Do you think (or: think *I *think) it means “non-physical”? Or what?

tee
sorry for being logical

 

[tee_eff_em]

LatinCat:

sorry for being logical

No need to apologize if you have been? But if so, you’ve not expressed it well.

Which part of what I’ve written defies logic?

tee