P
PeteZaHut
Guest
As long as I am trying my best to believe in it, and as long as I don’t deny that transubstantiation occurs, is that enough?
- Status
S
Spencerian
Guest
Hi.
Christ had plenty of followers until He told them that salvation would require them to drink of His Blood and eat of His Body.
But a few stuck around, even if they, too, were a bit confused and even grossed out about it. That’s what faith is.
Your faith is sound so long as you continue to discern transubstantiation (as well as any other Catholic doctrine or dogma). We’re not forced to understand, only to accept the teaching* in order *to understand it.
Do continue to believe in the Real Presence, rather than trying to understand the mechanisms.
T
tinalewis
Guest
My take on this:
We don’t have to know the mechanics of how transubstantiation happens, but we do have to open ourselves, our minds and hearts, to its effects. When that happens, the questions of “what” or “how” are moot. We just know.
We don’t have to know the mechanics of how transubstantiation happens, but we do have to open ourselves, our minds and hearts, to its effects. When that happens, the questions of “what” or “how” are moot. We just know.
M
manualman
Guest
If you can honestly say that you have a difficulty with it, but haven’t progressed to the point where honesty would require you to say you actively DISbelieve it, I think you’re OK.
Maybe you haven’t had it properly explained. Is your difficulty in accepting that Christ really is physically present or is it more theologically technical?
Maybe you haven’t had it properly explained. Is your difficulty in accepting that Christ really is physically present or is it more theologically technical?
P
PeteZaHut
Guest
No, I understand it and everything. I just think I’m being worrisome that I had done something wrong. I guess there is always some level of doubt in believing, or else it would be knowing.
I
IrishAm
Guest
“Lord, I believe. Help me with my unbelief.”
A
agapewolf
Guest
Clarification on a semantics issue. Christ is not physically present. He is sacramentally present.
The difference is this: physical presence would be hands, feet, eyes, etc.
Sacramental is the real substantial presence.
M
manualman
Guest
That seems like a false dilemma to me. BOTH are true. The host is physical. It is physically the flesh and blood of Christ. The “accidents” are not changed (that which can be perceived by mere senses), but the actual substance has. That’s not just a spiritual reality, it is a physical one too. It no longer IS bread made of wheat. Still looks like it and tastes that way, but now it IS the body of Christ.
B
Brendan
Guest
No, Agapewolf is correct.
Physics deals with accidents, what can be measured. Substance belongs in the realm of metaphysics.
The physics of Christ are that of a human male with a resurrected body. Christ has a certain mass, reflectes (or emits) certain wavelenths of light etc…
All of those are the physical qualities of Christ, but are not present in the Eucharist. If I place the Host on a scale, the physics would not register the mass of an adult male. Under a spectometer, it does not emit the light a resurrected body does.
So the physical existance (what it looks like, what it weights) of the Host is that of Bread. The metaphysical existace (what is really is) is that of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.
P
polgas733
Guest
Lanciano, Eucharistic Miracle
www.miraclerosarymission.org/lanciano.html
I hope this clears any doubts
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Hi Brendan, I’ve a few thoughts to contribute to your discussion.
Brendan:
Thoughts?
VC
But, Brendan, that wasn’t exactly what agapewolf said:
Contrast this with St. Thomas Aquinas:
So, a corporeal (bodily) presence, which would be a “physical presence” as agapewolf seemed to mean it (hands, feet, eyes) can most certainly be present in the Eucharist.
Exactly true, but it seemed to me that agapewolf wasn’t speaking of physics as an empirical science. Physics as a science can only deal with accidents that are measurable. But, note, that accidents aren’t always measurable. Its possible for an accident not to be observable since “accident” means something that depends on another thing to uphold its existence.
But this doesn’t necessarily mean that Christ doesn’t have accidents in the Eucharist. Rather it could mean (as Aquinas holds, and I believe consistent with the mind of the Church) that the accidents of Christ (of Christ, not the accidents of the bread) exist in the Eucharist but in an entirely different mode than accidents normally exist and are thus unobservable.
Thoughts?
VC
M
manualman
Guest
OK, I can accept that the word “physical” comes from the scientific word “physics” and accept the later clarification. But the comeback to my original response sounded perilously close to saying the Christ was only symbolically or spiritually present in the host. Not so. The host IS the body of Christ. When I receive it, the body of Christ IS on my tongue.
- Status