More Eucharist Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter CollegeKid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CollegeKid

Guest
Yesterday I was reading an article on Catholic Online about how many Catholics don’t fully understand/accept the Real Presence of the Eucharist and how bishops are trying to come up with better ways to teach this doctrine clearly. I was confused because one of the bishops was saying that Catholics need to understand that though Christ is “not present physically” in the Eucharist he is present “sacramentally,” and that the bread and wine really are his body, blood, soul, and divinity, and so on. I thought as Catholics we do believe He is present physically, though the accidents of bread and wine remain. Anyone have any ideas on what this bishop was trying to say?
 
40.png
CollegeKid:
Yesterday I was reading an article on Catholic Online about how many Catholics don’t fully understand/accept the Real Presence of the Eucharist and how bishops are trying to come up with better ways to teach this doctrine clearly. I was confused because one of the bishops was saying that Catholics need to understand that though Christ is “not present physically” in the Eucharist he is present “sacramentally,” and that the bread and wine really are his body, blood, soul, and divinity, and so on. I thought as Catholics we do believe He is present physically, though the accidents of bread and wine remain. Anyone have any ideas on what this bishop was trying to say?
Click to expand...
I have no idea… I mean, It’s called the “REAL PRESENCE” for a reason! Who was this bishop?
 
I hope you misunderstood the article you read. But you probably got it right as to what the bishop said. This is sad. I can say with the full teaching office of the Church that we do believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucherist. If one does not believe this one is not truly Catholic dispite what they may tell you to the contrary.

Who was this bishop?
 
CollegeKid said:
catholic.org/cathcom/international_story.php?id=17224

there’s the link. You’ll notice it said that some of the bishops were saying that it “needs to be clarified” that there “is a change in substance but not in phsycical matter.” What’s the difference?
Click to expand...

Hmm…
perhaps by physical matter they mean the “accidents”?

Do you speak Spanish or Italian? I’ve found that if someone comprehends the distinction between the verbs “to be” in those languages (ser/estar and essere/stare) it is really easy to explain this.
 
40.png
CollegeKid:
Yesterday I was reading an article on Catholic Online about how many Catholics don’t fully understand/accept the Real Presence of the Eucharist and how bishops are trying to come up with better ways to teach this doctrine clearly. I was confused because one of the bishops was saying that Catholics need to understand that though Christ is “not present physically” in the Eucharist he is present “sacramentally,” and that the bread and wine really are his body, blood, soul, and divinity, and so on. I thought as Catholics we do believe He is present physically, though the accidents of bread and wine remain. Anyone have any ideas on what this bishop was trying to say?
Click to expand...
I don’t know, right, I don’t know what he meant!! Maybe you can provide a link to the article so other can read it as well.

However, perhaps he meant something like…

The physical “accidents” of Christ’s human body are not present. Likely he meant that Christ is not there “physically” because the bread and wine are there “physically” instead. That’s what makes Eucharistic miracles(you know what I mean, like Lanciano, Ferrara, Macerata, etc.) special, because the appearance of bread and wine ceased to exist, and the flesh and blood was “physically” there instead of the bread and wine.

That’s just what first comes to mind. It’s unlikely that if the particular Bishop was wanting to increase lay Catholics understanding of the Real Presence, he would probably care about their faithful Catholic understanding of it, not some bizzare watered-down version of it.
 
Nigerian Bishop Joseph Bagobiri of Kafanchan called on the synod to develop a “theology of presence” so that the faithful are not confused and know that Christ is present sacramentally but not physically in the Eucharist.

The problem, he said, is that in trying to teach about the real presence the church must confront “the delicate line of demarcation between that which is real and that which is only a representation of the reality.”

There’s the other part I mentioned. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks.
 
from that article:
In Africa there are different problems, including the need for the church to distinguish between the real presence of the Eucharist and the worship of idols in animist religions.

Nigerian Bishop Joseph Bagobiri of Kafanchan called on the synod to develop a “theology of presence” so that the faithful are not confused and know that Christ is present sacramentally but not physically in the Eucharist.

The problem, he said, is that in trying to teach about the real presence the church must confront “the delicate line of demarcation between that which is real and that which is only a representation of the reality.”
Click to expand...
“That which is real” = the essence, or sub-stance of something.
The “stance” (not an English word, I know) is the appearance… the accidents in this case.
 
Reformed Rob:
However, perhaps he meant something like…

The physical “accidents” of Christ’s human body are not present. Likely he meant that Christ is not there “physically” because the bread and wine are there “physically” instead. That’s what makes Eucharistic miracles(you know what I mean, like Lanciano, Ferrara, Macerata, etc.) special, because the appearance of bread and wine ceased to exist, and the flesh and blood was “physically” there instead of the bread and wine.
Click to expand...
Great explanation… that is what I am thinking too.
 
CZ, actually I think “stance” is an english word, e.g., “what’s your ‘stance’ on affirmative action?”
 
Ok, thanks for the link, at the time I was going to be the 1st responder, but I see I took too long typing.
 
40.png
CollegeKid:
CZ, actually I think “stance” is an english word, e.g., “what’s your ‘stance’ on affirmative action?”
Click to expand...
LOL, you are correct, but what I mean is different than “stance” as an position. I am trying to take a word straight from Latin and insert it into English but it looks like the slot is already filled. 🙂
 
Rob, I’m just curious: you’re Presbyterian (and Reformed), but more often than not it seems you’re on these forums trying to help us Catholics better understand our faith. Why don’t you argue with us more? I don’t mean this sarcastically in any way, that’s an honest question.
 
40.png
CollegeKid:
CZ, actually I think “stance” is an english word, e.g., “what’s your ‘stance’ on affirmative action?”
Click to expand...
I would suggest that you ask for a dictionary for Christmas.

The word comes from Old French (that’s called the etymology of the word) estance, (standing) position, and that from Vulgar Latin stantia which is derived from Latin, ultimately from stare, to stand.

To understand what the bishop was speaking of, you might try investigating the terms “substance” and “accident” in Philosophy.
 
40.png
jdavidparrott:
I hope you misunderstood the article you read. But you probably got it right as to what the bishop said. This is sad. I can say with the full teaching office of the Church that we do believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucherist. If one does not believe this one is not truly Catholic dispite what they may tell you to the contrary.

Who was this bishop?
Click to expand...
Actually, if you read carefully what the Church actually says about the Eucharist, you might find that the bishop knows more than you think.

The true peresence and the physical presence are not exactly identical. the form of bread and wine remains, while substance changes into the Body, Blood, Soul and divinity of Christ.

You might also read the Resurrection accounts in the New Testament; Christ’s resurrected body was not the same as His mortal, pre-death body. Or rather, it was the same, and yet not the same. He told Thomas to stick his fingers into a wound, and yet He passed through locked doors, and disappeared from the midst of people gathered with Him.
 
40.png
CollegeKid:
Rob, I’m just curious: you’re Presbyterian (and Reformed), but more often than not it seems you’re on these forums trying to help us Catholics better understand our faith. Why don’t you argue with us more? I don’t mean this sarcastically in any way, that’s an honest question.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair question, I don’t mind!!

I’m at a particular point in my “journey,” and thus far I’m not in good standing with my Presbyterian denomination. I want to make it clear in a thread somewhere, maybe in the water cooler soon, but I just haven’t done it yet.

Yeah, I know my name and posts can be contradictory at times. That will change. I’m not in the “middle of the road” nope, I think perhaps you can tell where I’m at by my posts???
I’m just slow with big steps sometimes. I guess I can just sum it up by saying** I’m trying to understand what should be my faith.**

Thanks for asking!!
 
Hi OTM! when I posted my reply the link to the article was not up yet. It did give me a sinking feeling at first when I read the original question. All was better after I read the article.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CollegeKid
CZ, actually I think “stance” is an english word, e.g., “what’s your ‘stance’ on affirmative action?”

I would suggest that you ask for a dictionary for Christmas.

The word comes from Old French (that’s called the etymology of the word) estance, (standing) position, and that from Vulgar Latin stantia which is derived from Latin, ultimately from stare, to stand.

To understand what the bishop was speaking of, you might try investigating the terms “substance” and “accident” in Philosophy.

OTM, no offense, but your manner here seems to be a little snide. I respect your opinion and your insight, but I don’t appreciate being talked down to when I’m only seeking honest answers.
 
from the article said:
“The catechism that has developed on this in the Western culture is too rational and too philosophical. We can’t ask too much of the simple people, who have no theological formation,” he said.
Click to expand...

Well, I’m not sure if I agree with that. I knew many devout people from the 1950’s who were ‘simple people’ and simply had no problem with belief in the Real Presence.

I think perhaps the problem is more of an overwhelming materialism which simply leaves no room for the supernatural or even the philosophical.

One might say that Christ’s physical presence in the Eucharist is merely a physical presence under the appearances of bread and wine.

Some seem to think–incorrectly–that there is simply no physical Christ present in the Eucharist at all. Others believe–also incorrectly–that what we perceive as bread and wine somehow becomes flesh and blood at the molecular level.

The ‘matter’ that we perceive in the Eucharist cannot be other than “bread and wine.” Or rather, the appearances of bread and wine, since the substance has changed. But the appearances–to use an analogy from physics-- are the “event horizon” beyond which we cannot peer, and within which Christ resides in His entirety.
 
It has been foretold by messages aledged to be through the Blessed Virgin Mary that in order to promote One World Order and One World Government and One World Religion, that Satan has infiltrated the Church and soon a Pope would declare that Jesus is not present in the Eucharist and that the Mass is not a sacrifice and that priests can marry.
A friend told me, (I have not verified it), that the Bishops Synod was discussing, (if I have it right.), whether the altar used in the mass should be described as a sacrificial altar or the Lord’s banquet table.
Perhaps what you are inquiring about is an opening volley in this foretold schism to come.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top