Jesus physically present in Catholic Churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcdurel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
puzzleannie:
40.png
dcdurel:
While 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. QUOTE]
no, we say he is sacramentally present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under the appearances of bread and wine in the Eucharist. This is a crucial distinction.
Click to expand...
Those who state that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is not physical are in grave error. The Church teaches that the whole substance to the Eucharist becomes the body blood soul and divinty of Christ. For flesh to be present it MUST be physical. That is the only mode of presence that flesh and blood have. Thus Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is physical. The distinction between this and his normal presence is that in the Eucharist his presence is hidden, supernatural, and sacramental. This does not diminish the physical nature of that presence.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
LatinCat:
40.png
puzzleannie:
Those who state that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is not physical are in grave error. The Church teaches that the whole substance to the Eucharist becomes the body blood soul and divinty of Christ. For flesh to be present it MUST be physical. That is the only mode of presence that flesh and blood have. Thus Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is physical. The distinction between this and his normal presence is that in the Eucharist his presence is hidden, supernatural, and sacramental. This does not diminish the physical nature of that presence.
Click to expand...
(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
Click to expand...
 
40.png
LatinCat:
40.png
puzzleannie:
Those who state that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is not physical are in grave error. The Church teaches that the whole substance to the Eucharist becomes the body blood soul and divinty of Christ. For flesh to be present it MUST be physical. That is the only mode of presence that flesh and blood have. Thus Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is physical. The distinction between this and his normal presence is that in the Eucharist his presence is hidden, supernatural, and sacramental. This does not diminish the physical nature of that presence.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Flesh and blood are never spiritual. They are always physical in the normal sense of the word as we use it. They only way people can deny this fact is to change the meaning of the word “physical” from the normal meaning to an obscure meaning. As you can see by those who deny that Jesus is physically present, they all do this very thing. They all deny, change, or add to the normal meaning of the word, without exception. None of them accept the usual definition of the word physical by itself. Not one.
That shows the hidden deceit of those who claim that Jesus is not physically present in the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
dcdurel:
40.png
LatinCat:
Exactly. Flesh and blood are never spiritual. They are always physical in the normal sense of the word as we use it. They only way people can deny this fact is to change the meaning of the word “physical” from the normal meaning to an obscure meaning. As you can see by those who deny that Jesus is physically present, they all do this very thing. They all deny, change, or add to the normal meaning of the word, without exception. None of them accept the usual definition of the word physical by itself. Not one.
Click to expand...
Code: 
That shows the hidden deceit of those who claim that Jesus is not physically present in the Eucharist.
And it is a dangerous rode to walk down. First we deny the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It becomes spiritualized. We have two choices now, adopt con-substantiation, or adopt Calvin’s view, that Christ was some how present in power in the Eucharist. Then next step is to state that consubstantiation is stupid becasue two substances cannot occupy the same space. Then we deny Calvin’s view because we realize that Christ is present in power everywhere. Before we know no it we have adopted the modern evangelical view that the Eucharist is nothing more than a symbol and we might as well be handing out juice and cookies at mass. I am sorry but too many early Christians died as martyrs for their faith in the Eucharist for me to allow that to happen (romans thought Catholics were cannibals because of the Eucharist). If you deny Christ’s physical presence in the Eucharist, then you commit the crime of heresy. That simple. Now, to all the psuedo-philosophers in the room who are missusing the word “metaphysical” I would love for you to explain what you mean. Because, honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about, and that is probably because you have no idea what you are talking about. That is not the meaning of metaphysics. So please do explain. And I would like to know how something that is physical can be present non-physically. :rotfl:
Click to expand...
 
40.png
m134e5:
We say He is Sacramentally present- not physically. Physically means it can be detected with the senses (provided you have the necessary instruments to do so). There is no test that can see if a Host is a consecrated one or not- we must take it by Faith. Except in cases like the Miracle of Lanciano, there is no physical change whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Totally false. The normal definition of the word physical does NOT mean it can be detected by the senses.

Dictionary.com:
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.
Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.

Encarta® World English Dictionary
  1. of body: relating to the body, rather than to the mind, the soul, or the feelings
  2. real and touchable: existing in the real material world, rather than as an idea or notion, and able to be touched and seen
    physical evidence
  3. needing bodily strength: involving or needing a lot of bodily strength or energy
    hard physical work
  4. with bodily contact: involving a lot of bodily contact or aggression
    Some of the players were a little too physical.
  5. involving touching: tending to touch people or involving touching, especially in an affectionate or sexual way ( informal )
  6. not social or biological: describes sciences such as physics and chemistry that deal with nonliving things such as energy and matter
    Compact Oxford English Dictionary
    1 relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
    2 relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind.
    3 involving bodily contact or activity.
    4 relating to physics or the operation of natural forces.
    Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
    physical (BODY)
    1 connected with the body:
    physical exercise/fitness/strength/disabilities
    I’m not a very physical sort of person (= I don’t enjoy physical activities).
    See also physical at physics. Compare mental.
    2 INFORMAL violent:
    The referee stepped in because the game had started to get a bit physical.
    3 sexual:
    There was obviously a great physical attraction between them.
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
    1a. 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.
 
Webster’s Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition
  1. Of or pertaining to nature (as including all created existences); in accordance with the laws of nature; also, of or relating to natural or material things, or to the bodily structure, as opposed to things mental, moral, spiritual, or imaginary; material; natural; as, armies and navies are the physical force of a nation; the body is the physical part of man.
    Labor, in the physical world, is . . . employed in putting objects in motion. J. S. Mill.
    A society sunk in ignorance, and ruled by mere physical force. Macaulay.
  2. Of or pertaining to physics, or natural philosophy; treating of, or relating to, the causes and connections of natural phenomena; as, physical science; physical laws. Physical philosophy." Pope.
  3. Perceptible through a bodily or material organization; cognizable by the senses; external; as, the physical, opposed to chemical, characters of a mineral.
  4. Of or pertaining to physic, or the art of medicine; medicinal; curative; healing; also, cathartic; purgative. [Obs.] Physical herbs." Sir T. North.
    Merriam-Webster: "1 a : having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature <everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance – Thomas De Quincey> b : of or relating to material things.
    2 a : of or relating to natural science b (1) : of or relating to physics (2) : characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics
    3 a : of or relating to the body b : concerned or preoccupied with the body and its needs :
Note, the ONLY dictionary I could find that came close to giving your meaning was this last one. But notice, <everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance – Thomas De Quincey> is a quote from Thomas De Quincey, to give an example of the word in a sentance, it is NOT part of the definition.

But, again, the first meaning is “having material existence”, then “perceptible especially through the senses”. This first part is the perfect definition of the Body of Jesus. His body is material, it has material existence, it is NOT spiritual. It is the exact same body that He had when He walked the earth. It is not another body. His body was not left in the grave. The Church defines that it is NOT perceptible to the senses, but that still does not change the basic nature of the Body of Jesus, which is still “having material existence”. His body is NOT spiritual, it is material.
Now notice all the other definitions. They ALL start off with “relating to the body”. NONE of them, even the last one have as a primary definition the definition you gave, “it can be detected with the senses.” Even the last one has, “having material existence” as the first and primary definition, then it says, “perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature”, as the second part.

Thus, the definition of physical as “material, or relating to the body” is the normal definintion of all these dictionaries. There is **NO dictionary that has as its primary definition **“it can be detected with the senses”, the definition you gave. You entirely made it up.

All dictionaries have the primary definition as “material” or “relating to the body”. The idea that physical means “it can be detected through the senses” was not a primary definition in any dictionary, and it was only found in a few definitions.

This is why I keep on saying that those who insist Jesus is not physically present are all deceitful. They try to give as a primary definition, “it can be detected by the senses” which is an obscure definition, not usually found in most dictionaries, and never is it given before the usual definition of “material” or “relating to the body”. Never, never, never.

Thus it is an absolute lie to say that the usual meaning of physical is “it can be detected through the senses”

Everytime you get into a discussion of the physical presence of Jesus, this lie will surface over and over and over, without exception.

Those using this lie will evade, deny, and jump around the truth that the primary definition of physical is “relating to the body”, or “have material existence”. Quote dictionaries. Do not let them get away with lying.
 
Then they will try to say the word physical MUST include all meanings. Since when? Do we say the word “body” must include all other meanings, and not just the meaning refering to our human body. For example, one definition of “body” is : “the sound box or pipe of a musical instrument.”
Do we say that in the Eucharist the body of Jesus is not present because “body” also means “the sound box or pipe of a musical instrument” and we must include all definitions, and thus the body of Jesus is not present. Of course not. We use the definition appropriate to the subject. Thus, when we use the word “physical” with the Eucharist, we use the meaning appropriate to the subject matter, and in this case it refers to the body of Jesus “having material existence” and “relating to a body”. We don’t go off on an obscure definition having to do with scientific measurement and “detectible to the senses”

Again, those who try to change the meaning of the word “physical” are extremely deceitful. Do not trust them. Use common sense, use standard dictionaries, Church definitions of “substantially present”, “unique presence”, “man”, “body” to bring out their lies, deceit and trickery.
 
Sister Briege McKenna travels all over the world and gives talks about The Eucharist. Her book “Miracles Do Happen” talk about the wonderful miracles that have taken place during Mass.

Once, when I attended a place of pilgrimage I physically felt the sustaining power of Our Lord after receiving him in Holy Communion.This proved to me the wonderful practice of fasting before reception of Holy Communion. Awesome isn’t He?
 
Tee eff em, Let us clarify terms. When you say that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist, what do you mean by physicallity? Do you simply mean that his presence is intangible? When I refer to physicallity, I am not disucussing tangibility. What I am saying is that since Christ’s body is a physical thing, then its presence is physical, even though it is hidden beneath the accidence of bread and wine. Thus I am trying to uphold to thruth that the Eucharist really is Jesus’s body and blood. I think that you are trying to uphold the truth that Chirst’s presence in the Eucharist is not a natural one. But whatever terms we use, we must avoid the error of spiritualizing the Eucharist like Calvin did.
 
40.png
LatinCat:
Tee eff em, Let us clarify terms.
Click to expand...
Latin Cat, By all means, let us clarify terms. And by “terms” I here mean not just vocabulary, but the terms of debate, the primary one being:
40.png
LatinCat:
When you say that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist…
Click to expand...
I do ***not ***say that. (Re-read what I have written, if you don’t believe me)
Thank you.

What I ***do ***say is that the Church describes Christ’s Eucharistic presence as “real”, not as “physical”, and I trust she has reasons for doing so.

Were I to speculate as to her reasons (and I would have to speculate, not having studied the matter in great detail), I would guess it is because “real” is used in a technical and metaphysical sense which encompasses more than just the physical. Christ is present substantially (another technical metaphysical term). Christ is present body, blood, soul, and divinity.

To describe Christ’s Eucharistic Presence as merely physical is to describe it incompletely, and may open the door to error. In just the same way that I would not describe Christ’s Eucharistic presence as “spiritual” – I cannot deny he is spiritually present (body, blood, soul, and divinity), but rather recognize that such description is incomplete and open to misinterpretation.

But I’m just speculating about that.

tee
 
40.png
tee_eff_em:
Latin Cat, By all means, let us clarify terms. And by “terms” I here mean not just vocabulary, but the terms of debate, the primary one being:

I do ***not ***say that. (Re-read what I have written, if you don’t believe me)
Thank you.

What I ***do ***say is that the Church describes Christ’s Eucharistic presence as “real”, not as “physical”, and I trust she has reasons for doing so.

Were I to speculate as to her reasons (and I would have to speculate, not having studied the matter in great detail), I would guess it is because “real” is used in a technical and metaphysical sense which encompasses more than just the physical. Christ is present substantially (another technical metaphysical term). Christ is present body, blood, soul, and divinity.

To describe Christ’s Eucharistic Presence as merely physical is to describe it incompletely, and may open the door to error. In just the same way that I would not describe Christ’s Eucharistic presence as “spiritual” – I cannot deny he is spiritually present (body, blood, soul, and divinity), but rather recognize that such description is incomplete and open to misinterpretation.

But I’m just speculating about that.

tee
Click to expand...
You claim that the presence is metaphysical but this is a misunderstanding of the term metaphysics. Metaphysics is the science of being. And this study or science describes things that are both physical and non-physical. When we discuss metaphysics with regard to the Eucharist, we talking about the scientific terms used to desrcibe the issue, i.e. substance, accidence, transubstantiation. Now, you point out that the substance of the Eucharist is transformed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. That is correct. You then go on to point out that the term substance is a metaphysical one. But when we say this we mean that the term is metaphysical because it is a term that comes from the science of being, not because the substance of the Eucharist is not physical. I would clarify my position by saying that Christ is both physically and spiritually present in the Eucharist. Physically, because his body and blood are present. Spiritually because his soul and divinity are present. And I would say the terms we use to describe the Eucharist can be described as metaphysical, not becasue they deny a physical presence, but because the terms have to do with the science of being that describes both physical and spiritual realities, also known as metaphysics. Btw, if the substance is not physical, then is is neither body, nor blood, because both body and blood are of a physical substance.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
40.png
dcdurel:
While 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. QUOTE]
no, we say he is sacramentally present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under the appearances of bread and wine in the Eucharist. This is a crucial distinction.
Click to expand...
I thought that the Transubstanciation (sp) requires that the actual Body and Blood of Christ is there?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
LatinCat:
You claim that the presence is metaphysical but this is a misunderstanding of the term metaphysics. Metaphysics is the science of being. And this study or science describes things that are both physical and non-physical. When we discuss metaphysics with regard to the Eucharist, we talking about the scientific terms used to desrcibe the issue, i.e. substance, accidence, transubstantiation. Now, you point out that the substance of the Eucharist is transformed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. That is correct.
Click to expand...
I did not point that out. That neither makes sense nor is that correct.

What might I say, if I thought you were reading my words?
I might say: “The substance of the Eucharist is the substance of Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity.”
I might say: “The substance of the bread is transubstantiated into the substance of Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity.”
I might say any number of things, and I would try to be correct about them, but I am losing confidence that you would receive them.
40.png
LatinCat:
You then go on to point out that the term substance is a metaphysical one. But when we say this we mean that the term is metaphysical because it is a term that comes from the science of being, not because the substance of the Eucharist is not physical. I would clarify my position by saying that Christ is both physically and spiritually present in the Eucharist. Physically, because his body and blood are present. Spiritually because his soul and divinity are present. And I would say the terms we use to describe the Eucharist can be described as metaphysical, not becasue they deny a physical presence, but because the terms have to do with the science of being that describes both physical and spiritual realities, also known as metaphysics. Btw, if the substance is not physical, then is is neither body, nor blood, because both body and blood are of a physical substance.
Click to expand...
I
do
not
deny
Christ
is
physically
present
in
the
Eucharist.

And I will not play the strawman to you. You may read what I have written and respond to it, and I may respond in kind. But if you wish only to talk to yourself, please refrain from putting words into my mouth. Thanks.

tee
 
40.png
LatinCat:
I am gonna see if the apologists can settle this for us.
Click to expand...
Do you include me in “us”? Settle what!??

:confused:

If you disagree with something I’ve written, or think something I have written conflicts with the Church, **show me the words you have a problem with. **Use the little “quote” button. I’ll try to explain.

Just don’t quote my words, then ask me to defend something they do not say.

tee
 
And just to show I can take my own medicine, [post=1372398]way back here[/post], I said:
40.png
tee_eff_em:
  • **dcdurel **asserts that by “substantially present” the Church means “physically present”, but has yet to support such.
Click to expand...
I now believe I mischaracterized dcdurel’s assertion. I retract my statement, and apologize to him.

tee
 
40.png
tee_eff_em:
Do you include me in “us”? Settle what!??

:confused:

If you disagree with something I’ve written, or think something I have written conflicts with the Church, **show me the words you have a problem with. **Use the little “quote” button. I’ll try to explain.

Just don’t quote my words, then ask me to defend something they do not say.

tee
Click to expand...
Don’t get all testy now. I am just trying to help you see a philosphical error that you are making by denying the phyiscal presence of a physical thing. Ever heard of he law of not contradition? A thing cannot A and not A in the same relationship and at the same time. Christ’s body and blood cannot be physical and not physical at the same time. Such is absurd. And the Church never teaches anything absurd. The other error I am trying to help everyone in this thread see is the error of misusing the term “metaphysical”. I am sorry if this upsets you, but that was not my intention. No need to abandon Christian Charity on your part. 😦
 
Someone wrote:

**dcdurel **asserts that by “substantially present” the Church means “physically present”, but has yet to support such.

“Substantial presence” means more than just physically present, but it certainly includes physical presence. Physical presence means that Jesus is bodily present. Substantial presence is more precise and means that Jesus, “God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.” Thus, it makes it clear that Jesus is not partially present, or present only in His humanity, (which can’t occur anyway) but both in His humanity and in His divinity in His entirety.

Again “substantial present” means “Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church: paragraph 1374

Thus, in the Eucharist Jesus is not only spiritually present in His divinity, but He is present as man, with His body, thus wholly and entirely present.

The definition of physical, when in context of persons, is
"Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit."

This is the definition given over and over in dictionaries. This is not MY definition. It is the standard use of the term physical when refering to persons. We use this term all the time. If I told my brother that I had a conversation with my sister yesterday, and he said, “I though she was in Italy?”, I would say, “I didn’t converse with her physically, it was a phone conversation”, he would know exactly what I meant. He would know that I meant she was not present with me as a person, in her bodily presence. We use the term “physical” in regards to people to refer to their bodily presence. This is the usualy meaning of the term “physical” when applied to people. This is the usual meaning given in most dictionaries. And it is always the term given in dictionaries when refering to people.

Thus, when we say someone is physically present, we mean they are bodily present, and not just present in mind or spirit.

Thus, since substantial presence means Jesus is present bodily in addition to His divinity, then this is the exact same meaning in normal conversation as saying Jesus is physically present, since we understand that when Jesus is present bodily, He is always present in His divinity.

Physically present, by the standard definition in dictionaries, when referring to persons, means bodily present.

**Thus, when we say Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist, we mean, using the standard, usual definition in dictionaries, that Jesus is bodily present in the Eucharist. **

The fact that we can’t perceive Jesus by the senses has nothing to do with the standard definition, in which physical means “relating to the body”. The standard, usual definition in dictionaries, when referring to persons, does NOT mean “what appears to the senses”, or “that which can be measured”.

This is the lie that all those who deny the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist use. They always, always, always, change the usual definition from “relating to the body”, to “that which can be measured” or "what appears to the senses"
 
40.png
LatinCat:
Don’t get all testy now. I am just trying to help you see a philosphical error that you are making by denying the phyiscal presence of a physical thing.
…
No need to abandon Christian Charity on your part. 😦
Click to expand...
In the name of Christian Charity on your part, I beg you to show me my error:

Tell Me When I Denied The Physical Presence Of A Physical Thing?

Please.

And if you cannot tell me when I did so, I beg you, in Christian Charity, to stop attributing such to me.

tee
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top