Orthodox Christians and the Real Presence:

[FrKimel]

No Father, this is where you and others have confused things.

The Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ is indeed locally and really present…Either that or He’d be absent, at which point the whole exercise is silly.

What you miss is the distinction between being locally present and corporeally present.

It helps to have actually studied Aquinas, who eventually had to make that distinction for himself so that his own words made sense to him when faced with the mystical reality.

Follows the paragraph that speaks to the ordinary meaning of “locally present”…and clarifies by make it clear WHAT is present in each and every loci of Eucharistic consecration and reservation. It is located in Article 4 from the references you offer above. It also explicates the reason that one really cannot speak of Eucharist as being insubstantiate as I have seen it done on the other Orthodox venue where you are discussing real presence.

Mary, where’s the disagreement? I certainly have not stated that Christ is not present in the Eucharist: in the language of St Thomas he is present in the mode of substance; he is present sacramentally. But he is not locally present. It is because Christ’s flesh is present in the mode of substance that St Thomas is able to re-interpret the oath of Berengar and eliminate any intimation that Christ is crushed by our teeth when we commune, as well as to insist that when the species are moved the body of Christ does not move, etc., etc.:

It is not only Christ’s flesh which is present by the power of the sacramental sign under the appearances of bread, but his whole body: bones, nerves and everything else. After the bread and wine have been converted into Christ’s body and blood, their properties, including their dimensions remain. The dimensions of the bread are not converted into the dimensions of Christ’s body, only the substance of the bread into his body’s substance. It is the substance of Christ’s body and blood that is present by the power of the sacramental sign, not his dimensions. … Since the substance of Christ’s body is present by the power of the sacramental sign, whereas the dimensions are present as a real accompaniment, the body of Christ exists under its dimensions, not in the way the dimensions of a body exist exist within the dimensions of the place containing it.

Christ is only locally present in heaven. He is present to us in the Eucharist in the mode of substance. Aidan Nichols elaborates:

The dimensions of Christ’s body are in this sacrament not in the way that is normal for dimensions to be, but in the way that is natural for substance to be, and the whole nature of any substance is given to us under any part of the dimensions that contain it. The whole nature of bread is in a crumb, as in a loaf. For Thomas, our Lord is not present “locally” in his sacrament. He does not occupy the space taken up by its species; he does not move when the species are elevated liturgically in the Mass, or carried in a pyx to the sick, or raised processionally in the monstrance on the feast of Corpus Christi. (The Holy Eucharist, pp. 73-74)

We aren’t disagreeing about anything here, Mary. I don’t understand why you are busting my chops. If you disagree with Herbert McCabe’s interpretation of transubstantiation, e.g., that’s well and good; but that is an intra-Catholic debate. And that’s perhaps the most important point to be made in this thread. Catholics debate all the time about what transubstantiation means and whether it’s the most adequate way to speak of the eucharistic transformation and presence, just as Orthodox do. A little truth in advertising goes a long way …

 

[Elijahmaria]

Mary, where’s the disagreement? I certainly have not stated that Christ is not present in the Eucharist: in the language of St Thomas he is present in the mode of substance; he is present sacramentally. But he is not locally present. It is because Christ’s flesh is present in the mode of substance that St Thomas is able to re-interpret the oath of Berengar and eliminate any intimation that Christ is crushed by our teeth when we commune, as well as to insist that when the species are moved the body of Christ does not move, etc., etc.:

The correction that I was hoping to add to the discussion involves an apparently better grasp of the meaning of “locally” for St. Thomas. Locally in the context of this discussion, for St. Thomas, means corporeally. So that you have a local sacramental presence rather than a local bodily presence…and in this latter case I am using the common understanding of local, which is to be present in a place and time that is earthly and sensible.

However to have ANY of that make sense then you must speak in terms of a “substantial” presence in order to have the body, blood, soul and divinity really present at each consecration all over the world, and AS the reserved species.

The species are the most precious body and the most pure blood, not the bread and wine.

Once you speak of the substantial sacramental presence, then you are involved deeply in the discussion of transubstantiation.

It was not my intention to give offense. I realize you have formal seminary training. I also know many Catholic priests with formal seminary training who do not understand Aquinas nor have they studied him in depth, and they are most willing to say so. So I am trying to help, not hinder or insult.

M.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I am humbled from your posts Elijahmaria and mardukm, thank you.

I believe I owe FrKimel an apology here for taking offense that my faith does not have Jesus locally present in the Eucharist.

When it was not disclosed between the differences in definitions of what is “Real presence”, “Sacramental Presence”, Locally physically presence" in the Eucharist.

It appears that FrKimel and I moved suddenly from the “Change” to a real presence needing to be defined.

For this I sincerely apologize to you FrKimel for taking offense of a misunderstanding of terms and definitions.

For the record; after transubstantiation the Catholic Church calls this Presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity “REAL”. Yet it is a “REALITY” that the Church subscribes to from the “Substantial” body and blood presence of Jesus Christ that cannot be measured.

This immeasurable “substantial presence” is a mystery that transubstantiation never attempts to define of Jesus being “locally” present in “ONLY” one time and in “ONLY” one place as If Jesus cannot be knowwhere else present. This limits God to being only an Angel who can only be in one time in one place yet time does not restrict the angels movement of travel.

The Church rightly calls this “Real presence” of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity a Sacrament which does not place a “Local” time limit and or a “Local” space limit for God to be present anywhere.

Although this is a subject of interest and discussion which relates to what has already transpired after “Transubstantiation” ( substantial change) has occurred.

Thanks for all of your (name removed by moderator)ut it is informative.

Peace be with you

 

[Elijahmaria]

I believe I owe FrKimel an apology here for taking offense that my faith does not have Jesus locally present in the Eucharist.

Peace be with you

I am so happy you were able to see that in some part you over-reacted. It speaks well of you.

Always remember that the teachings of Aquinas are only designed to address very specific questions. His thoughts on these matters were never meant to substitute for faith or the language of faith and simple truth.

Father Kimel and others that he has mentioned advance along the road toward a language of faith and simple truth and they are well worth our humble attention.

I do believe that none of us are able to answer the questions that St. Thomas answers without the help of St. Thomas, who has very carefully and methodically thought things through and made adjustments in his own thinking and included them in his work as it goes along. The teachings of St. Thomas are still being excavated from the historic pressures and overlay of later scholastic glosses, and in this Father Kimel is quite right. There are still those who try to do better than St. Thomas. I do not think they succeed well at all, and I am not alone in that thinking. So in this kind of forum it is not good to become too emotionally invested in something someone else says. I know from hard experience we often make things worse rather than better, regardless of our intentions.

In Christ,

M.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I am so happy you were able to see that in some part you over-reacted. It speaks well of you.

Always remember that the teachings of Aquinas are only designed to address very specific questions. His thoughts on these matters were never meant to substitute for faith or the language of faith and simple truth.

Father Kimel and others that he has mentioned advance along the road toward a language of faith and simple truth and they are well worth our humble attention.

I do believe that none of us are able to answer the questions that St. Thomas answers without the help of St. Thomas, who has very carefully and methodically thought things through and made adjustments in his own thinking and included them in his work as it goes along. The teachings of St. Thomas are still being excavated from the historic pressures and overlay of later scholastic glosses, and in this Father Kimel is quite right. There are still those who try to do better than St. Thomas. I do not think they succeed well at all, and I am not alone in that thinking. So in this kind of forum it is not good to become too emotionally invested in something someone else says. I know from hard experience we often make things worse rather than better, regardless of our intentions.

In Christ,

M.

Your point is well taken; I have read St.Thomas and still cannot grasp him including St.Augustine for that matter. One thing is for sure is that Thomas Aquinas is a Catholic Saint which confirms for me that our Faith in the Eucharist does not conflict.

I find this dichotomy existing between Orthodoxy and when I share my Catholic faith with another not holding to my Faith, who informs me, what I share is not what my Catholic faith teaches, indirectly applying Catholic writings to conflict or contradict my Catholic faith with what the Catholic Church teaches.

I play the safe ground here by not entering into undiscovered territory, but only relate to what the Church has already revealed and teaches. This has been my whole discussion.

I realize here that terminology in discussion such as these with Orthodoxy are very important to define and inform from which definition of the terms that one is applying, so that a true dialogue can exist.

Thanks for your excellent (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[FrKimel]

I believe I owe FrKimel an apology here for taking offense that my faith does not have Jesus locally present in the Eucharist.

An apology was not necessary but gladly accepted. Take care.

 

[FrKimel]

For those who might be interested in the very fallible reflections of an Orthodox believer struggling to learn and articulate the Orthodox understanding of the eucharistic change, you might find these postings of mine in a thread at Monachos of interest:

goo.gl/zihIW

goo.gl/rGQzU

goo.gl/siOfi

I think that pretty much brings my contributions to this thread to closure. I bid each of you a most holy Lent.

Yours in Christ,
Fr Aidan

 

[Jerome_Fan]

For those who might be interested in the very fallible reflections of an Orthodox believer struggling to learn and articulate the Orthodox understanding of the eucharistic change, you might find these postings of mine in a thread at Monachos of interest:

goo.gl/zihIW

goo.gl/rGQzU

goo.gl/siOfi

I think that pretty much brings my contributions to this thread to closure. I bid each of you a most holy Lent.

Yours in Christ,
Fr Aidan

Father Aidan, some churches, even in Lent, only give out the Body but not the Blood at Holy Communion. Since Our Blessed Lord said “Unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood you will have no life in you” doesn’t this mean that we should be receiving both kinds? I would very much appreciate your comments.

 

[FrKimel]

Jerome Fan, as you know the Orthodox Church practices communion in both kinds and believes that this should and must be the normative practice of the Church, in accordance with the institution of Christ and the binding tradition of the ancient Church. There may be situations where communion in both kinds is not possible, but the exception cannot be made into the rule or common practice, so the Orthodox Church teaches. Thus the 1727 Synod of Constantinople:

Therefore we acknowledge that at the invocation of the priest that ineffable mystery is consecrated, and the living and with-God-united body itself of our Savior and His blood itself are really and substantially present, and that the whole without being in any way impaired is eaten by those who partake and is BLOODLESSLY SACRIFICED. And we believe without any doubt that in the reception and communion of this, even though it be in ONE KIND ONLY, the WHOLE AND COMPLETE CHRIST is present; nevertheless according to the ancient tradition which has prevailed in the Catholic Church we have received that Communion is made by all the faithful, both clergy and laity, individually in both kinds, and not the laity in one kind and the priests in both, as is done in the innovation which the Latins have wrongly made.

 

[FrKimel]

Jerome Fan, as you know the Orthodox Church practices communion in both kinds and believes that this should and must be the normative practice of the Church, in accordance with the institution of Christ and the binding tradition of the ancient Church. There may be situations where communion in both kinds is not possible, but the exception cannot be made into the rule or common practice, so the Orthodox Church teaches. Thus the 1727 Synod of Constantinople:

Therefore we acknowledge that at the invocation of the priest that ineffable mystery is consecrated, and the living and with-God-united body itself of our Savior and His blood itself are really and substantially present, and that the whole without being in any way impaired is eaten by those who partake and is BLOODLESSLY SACRIFICED. And we believe without any doubt that in the reception and communion of this, even though it be in ONE KIND ONLY, the WHOLE AND COMPLETE CHRIST is present; nevertheless according to the ancient tradition which has prevailed in the Catholic Church we have received that Communion is made by all the faithful, both clergy and laity, individually in both kinds, and not the laity in one kind and the priests in both, as is done in the innovation which the Latins have wrongly made.

 

[Jerome_Fan]

Jerome Fan, as you know the Orthodox Church practices communion in both kinds and believes that this should and must be the normative practice of the Church, in accordance with the institution of Christ and the binding tradition of the ancient Church. There may be situations where communion in both kinds is not possible, but the exception cannot be made into the rule or common practice, so the Orthodox Church teaches. Thus the 1727 Synod of Constantinople:

Thank you for this. Where we go to Mass in Spain, it is normal to receive the Body only. We also attend a Latin Rite Mass in England, which also only gives Communion in the one kind. Our family worry that we are not receiving properly. If the priest only gives Communion to the laity in one kind, have we properly received? Also, what can we do about this? For instance, in Spain, it is widespread not to give the Blood at Communion. It is a worry.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thank you for this. Where we go to Mass in Spain, it is normal to receive the Body only. We also attend a Latin Rite Mass in England, which also only gives Communion in the one kind. Our family worry that we are not receiving properly. If the priest only gives Communion to the laity in one kind, have we properly received? Also, what can we do about this? For instance, in Spain, it is widespread not to give the Blood at Communion. It is a worry.

According to the Catholic Church (you are Catholic, right?), only partaking of the Body is fine, because even the smallest particle of the Body also contains the Blood and vice-versa. That being said, I did not know that this was still common practice, as in America, the wine is offered to the laity.

 

[johnnykins]

Father Aidan, some churches, even in Lent, only give out the Body but not the Blood at Holy Communion. Since Our Blessed Lord said “Unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood you will have no life in you” doesn’t this mean that we should be receiving both kinds? I would very much appreciate your comments.

Fear not Jerome Fan, for even as Fr. Kimel notes from the Synod he quotes, you receive the entire Christ in either species. Whether the Orthodox are too rigid in their insistence on the ancient practice, or the Latin Rite Catholics are too unconstrained by antiquity, the fact is both the Catholics and Orthodox believe you receive the entire Christ.

Further, as Catholics we believe the Church today is the same as the ancient Church with the same Holy Spirit guiding it and so that whether in praxis or doctrine, it does not fail. Tradition is certainly important, but it is no ossified relic of antiquity; it is a living breathing inspiration of God.

 

[Jerome_Fan]

Fear not Jerome Fan, for even as Fr. Kimel notes from the Synod he quotes, you receive the entire Christ in either species. Whether the Orthodox are too rigid in their insistence on the ancient practice, or the Latin Rite Catholics are too unconstrained by antiquity, the fact is both the Catholics and Orthodox believe you receive the entire Christ.

Further, as Catholics we believe the Church today is the same as the ancient Church with the same Holy Spirit guiding it and so that whether in praxis or doctrine, it does not fail. Tradition is certainly important, but it is no ossified relic of antiquity; it is a living breathing inspiration of God.

Thank you. This is most reassuring. God bless.