Real Presence and the Second Coming, a Contradiction?

[Wesrock]

The Church still believes in and proclaims Christ’s Parousia, his second coming at the end of time, and the full unveiling of the Church.

Christ is present in the Eucharist. He also lives in us. His presence in the Eucharist is in a sense, veiled, mysterious, and as in a figure, even if it is very real. His Parousia will be with no veil, no figure.

I think the term you are tripping up on is “second” coming, but there’s no need to. It will be his second time in an “unveiled” way. Or the final culmination of his return even if not literally the second time under any form.

 

[Vico]

Good Morning,

I’m very interested in the debate between Protestants and Catholics on a number of issues.

One of those is the Lord’s Supper and Christ’s presence. I understand the Catholic arguments in favor of the real, local presence of Christ, and I don’t agree with those Protestant theologians who insist Jesus can’t be locally present because of his human nature (not all do), but one thing I do have a hard time understanding is how Catholics (and others who hold to the real presence view) can reconcile that position with the many passages of scripture talking about Christ’s second coming as a future event. If Christ is coming again and we are all awaiting that second coming, how can he already be here in the Lord’s Supper?

Are there any convincing arguments on this point that you can point me toward or present here? Any external sources? Thanks for your time!

-Justin

Catholic belief is in Real Presence. Pope Paul VI wrote: “in His physical “reality” is bodily present, although not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place.” So, the resurrected body of Christ in the Eucharistic presence is present “not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place” (1).

(1) H.H. Pope Paul VI wrote in 1965 in Mysterium Fidei:
To avoid misunderstanding this sacramental presence which surpasses the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind[50] we must listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. This voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way Christ is made present in this Sacrament is none other than by the change of the whole substance of the bread into His Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood, and that this unique and truly wonderful change the Catholic Church rightly calls transubstantiation.[51] As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new meaning and a new finality, for they no longer remain ordinary bread and ordinary wine, but become the sign of something sacred, the sign of a spiritual food. However, the reason they take on this new significance and this new finality is simply because they contain a new “reality” which we may justly term ontological. Not that there lies under those species what was already there before, but something quite different; and that not only because of the faith of the Church, but in objective reality, since after the change of the substance or nature of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine but the appearances, under which Christ, whole and entire, in His physical “reality” is bodily present, although not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place.
papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6myster.htm

The Blessed Sacrament is Jesus Christ, so can we call the Blessed Sacrament a human person or a human being because the physical reality of Christ is corporeally present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist? No, it must be the person of the Son of God, as the Catechism states that:
468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ’s human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that “there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity.” 93 Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: “He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity.” 94

93 Council of Constantinople II (553): DS 424.
94 Council of Constantinople II (553): DS 432; cf. DS 424; Council of Ephesus, DS 255.
This includes the physical “reality” of Jesus Christ.

Here is and excerpt from the Vatican translation of Mysterium Fidei:
46. To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, (50) we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. (51) As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new “reality” which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.

 

[Bookcat]

I understand your view, but again, those passages could easily be interpreted as meaning “Christ is spiritually present with us, but his physical human body is not locally here on Earth.” That’s what a lot of people have and do argue.

They may argue that all they want.

Being always with - and coming (even if they argue such) is still beings always with and coming again. Those words remain the same no matter what one argues - such remains an apparent contradiction if one does not distinguish what is meant by the second coming.

At the Eucharist we look forward the the Second Coming of Christ as is said in the very Prayers at Mass.

The Second Coming is the Second Coming. It is a very different Coming than to the Person in prayer, or when two or three are gathered together, or being always with us or the Eucharist - it is the Second Coming - his glorious coming at the end of the world - which among other things will bring about the Resurrection.

There is no real contradiction. There there must be distinguishing to understand all the various ways Jesus is with us and comes to us…and will come again in Glory with his Angels…

 

[Polycarp1]

I agree. I don’t have a problem with difficult truths or seemingly contradictory claims, but I just don’t see the clear biblical language to support the conclusion the church is preaching here. Further, some of the early church fathers, especially Clement of Alexandria, clearly rejected the transubstantiation view. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but it makes it hard to believe.

Lots of the early Church Fathers disagreed and debated points of doctrine until the Church ruled on it. This was healthy and expected in the young Church and debates on new issues still go on today. Clement didn’t deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist but only on how the transformation of bread and wine into the body, blood of our Lord was transformed.

As you know the Catholic Church doesn’t rely on scripture alone as the sole rule of faith but also on sacred tradition as passed down orally from Christ to the Apostles and so on. The early church immediately started doing many things in the administration and conduct of the Church that weren’t set out in detail in scripture but are historically recorded in other documents produced by the early Christians.

Jesus was with the Apostles 3 years before, and 40 days after the crucifixion, but if we compiled all the direct quotes from Him it could be read in a few minutes. He was with Mary for 30 years. I am sure that during the time that He was with the Apostles and given some of incredible things he said and claimed that there would have been a lot of Q&A sessions. I would think if Jesus told me to go out and evangelize the whole world that my next question would be, “how do we do that?”

 

[cominghome1966]

The early church immediately started doing many things in the administration and conduct of the Church that weren’t set out in detail in scripture but are historically recorded in other documents produced by the early Christians.

Yes. The first thing that comes to my mind is the ruling on circumcision as recorded in Acts 15 (aka, the Council of Jerusalem). There simply was no precedence for it in the OT canon. What to make of this extra-scriptural ruling, in light of the Bible alone doctrine?

The ruling on circumcision was a legitimate development, one not based on existing scriptures. So it had to be based on something else.

As such, it serves as an excellent example of the sort of authority Jesus gave to Peter and councils.

 

[Wesrock]

I’m reading through Clement of Alexandria now, and I don’t know if I buy that he was opposed to transubstantiation. He has comments on both symbol and metaphor and truly eating the body and drinking the blood which suggests an “and” view, not an “or.”

 

[AveOTheotokos]

I think seeing a contradiction here is similar to when people misunderstand the mass as “re-crucifying Jesus”.

The crucifixion and sacrifice of Jesus happened only once. The mass doesn’t re-crucify or re-sacrifice Jesus. Rather, the mass enables us to be present at His one sacrifice and enables His one sacrifice to be truly present for all people throughout all ages.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=121768

The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross transcends time. It covers all those who lived before Good Friday and all those who came after it. The Catholic Church has never taught that it offers a NEW sacrifice at each Mass. The Mass is the SAME sacrifice offered on Calvary—extended through time and sacramentally made present in our present life situations. This has been the teaching of the Church from its earliest days:

catholic.com/library/Institution_of_the_Mass.asp

catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

So, just like the mass isn’t a re-sacrifice of Christ, but rather is us being present at His one and eternal sacrifice, the Eucharist is not a second coming of Christ, but rather it is us coming to be present at His one and eternal sacrifice.

It is not a new event, nor a 2nd, 3rd, or 5,386,452nd coming of Christ; it is a once and eternal event made present to us through the mystery of the Eucharist.

 

[jinc1019]

The Church still believes in and proclaims Christ’s Parousia, his second coming at the end of time, and the full unveiling of the Church.

Christ is present in the Eucharist. He also lives in us. His presence in the Eucharist is in a sense, veiled, mysterious, and as in a figure, even if it is very real. His Parousia will be with no veil, no figure.

I think the term you are tripping up on is “second” coming, but there’s no need to. It will be his second time in an “unveiled” way. Or the final culmination of his return even if not literally the second time under any form.

Thanks for this. I think just about everyone agrees that Christ is in some way present now on Earth. The debate is over his physical, bodily presence. Everyone acknowledges whenever two or three gather in his name, Christ is there.

 

[jinc1019]

Catholic belief is in Real Presence. Pope Paul VI wrote: “in His physical “reality” is bodily present, although not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place.” So, the resurrected body of Christ in the Eucharistic presence is present “not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place” (1).

(1) H.H. Pope Paul VI wrote in 1965 in Mysterium Fidei:
To avoid misunderstanding this sacramental presence which surpasses the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind[50] we must listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. This voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way Christ is made present in this Sacrament is none other than by the change of the whole substance of the bread into His Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood, and that this unique and truly wonderful change the Catholic Church rightly calls transubstantiation.[51] As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new meaning and a new finality, for they no longer remain ordinary bread and ordinary wine, but become the sign of something sacred, the sign of a spiritual food. However, the reason they take on this new significance and this new finality is simply because they contain a new “reality” which we may justly term ontological. Not that there lies under those species what was already there before, but something quite different; and that not only because of the faith of the Church, but in objective reality, since after the change of the substance or nature of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine but the appearances, under which Christ, whole and entire, in His physical “reality” is bodily present, although not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place.
papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6myster.htm

The Blessed Sacrament is Jesus Christ, so can we call the Blessed Sacrament a human person or a human being because the physical reality of Christ is corporeally present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist? No, it must be the person of the Son of God, as the Catechism states that:
468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ’s human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that “there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity.” 93 Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: “He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity.” 94

93 Council of Constantinople II (553): DS 424.
94 Council of Constantinople II (553): DS 432; cf. DS 424; Council of Ephesus, DS 255.
This includes the physical “reality” of Jesus Christ.

Here is and excerpt from the Vatican translation of Mysterium Fidei:
46. To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, (50) we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. (51) As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new “reality” which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.

This is a very interesting response! And I’m very appreciative of the official sources provided here.

What I’m gathering from this is the view is: Christ is physically present. His real body and blood are present. The bread and wine are no longer bread and win but the body and blood of Christ, but the body and blood of Christ, while present, are not present in the same way “bodies are in a place.” That doesn’t make much sense to me, but at least it attempts to resolve the issue I’m concerned with. Very appreciative for what you have shared here!

 

[jinc1019]

Lots of the early Church Fathers disagreed and debated points of doctrine until the Church ruled on it. This was healthy and expected in the young Church and debates on new issues still go on today. Clement didn’t deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist but only on how the transformation of bread and wine into the body, blood of our Lord was transformed.

As you know the Catholic Church doesn’t rely on scripture alone as the sole rule of faith but also on sacred tradition as passed down orally from Christ to the Apostles and so on. The early church immediately started doing many things in the administration and conduct of the Church that weren’t set out in detail in scripture but are historically recorded in other documents produced by the early Christians.

Jesus was with the Apostles 3 years before, and 40 days after the crucifixion, but if we compiled all the direct quotes from Him it could be read in a few minutes. He was with Mary for 30 years. I am sure that during the time that He was with the Apostles and given some of incredible things he said and claimed that there would have been a lot of Q&A sessions. I would think if Jesus told me to go out and evangelize the whole world that my next question would be, “how do we do that?”

All fair points, except for your argument about Clement. I’ve read his writing on this issue rather extensively. He had (relatively speaking) a lot to say about it, and his view is clearly in contradiction with the transubstantiation view.

 

[jinc1019]

Yes. The first thing that comes to my mind is the ruling on circumcision as recorded in Acts 15 (aka, the Council of Jerusalem). There simply was no precedence for it in the OT canon. What to make of this extra-scriptural ruling, in light of the Bible alone doctrine?

The ruling on circumcision was a legitimate development, one not based on existing scriptures. So it had to be based on something else.

As such, it serves as an excellent example of the sort of authority Jesus gave to Peter and councils.

This really doesn’t have anything to do with the topic at hand, but clearly lots of people disagree on this view, including all Protestants, all Oriental Orthodox, and all Eastern Orthodox churches.

 

[Bookcat]

Being always with - and coming (even if they argue such) is still beings always with and coming again. Those words remain the same no matter what one argues - such remains an apparent contradiction if one does not distinguish what is meant by the second coming.

At the Eucharist we look forward the the Second Coming of Christ as is said in the very Prayers at Mass.

The Second Coming is the Second Coming. It is a very different Coming than to the Person in prayer, or when two or three are gathered together, or being always with us or the Eucharist - it is the Second Coming - his glorious coming at the end of the world - which among other things will bring about the Resurrection.

There is no real contradiction. There there must be distinguishing to understand all the various ways Jesus is with us and comes to us…and will come again in Glory with his Angels…

That is what the second coming involves…

See all the texts in Scripture -it is a very very particular event at the end of the world and the judgment and resurrection etc.

 

[jinc1019]

I’m reading through Clement of Alexandria now, and I don’t know if I buy that he was opposed to transubstantiation. He has comments on both symbol and metaphor and truly eating the body and drinking the blood which suggests an “and” view, not an “or.”

I’m not sure what specifically you’re reading, but it’s pretty clear he denied that the bread and wine transform into the body and blood. He likely believed in a spiritual presence similar to John Calvin. I won’t get into specifics because that’s not the topic of the thread, but I’d encourage you to read more on that. Lots of scholars acknowledge that was his view. I’m not saying all early church fathers rejected transubstantiation; many had a view that could be called that. For instance, Justin Matyr seems to be much closer to the transubstantiation view.

 

[jinc1019]

I think seeing a contradiction here is similar to when people misunderstand the mass as “re-crucifying Jesus”.

The crucifixion and sacrifice of Jesus happened only once. The mass doesn’t re-crucify or re-sacrifice Jesus. Rather, the mass enables us to be present at His one sacrifice and enables His one sacrifice to be truly present for all people throughout all ages.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=121768

So, just like the mass isn’t a re-sacrifice of Christ, but rather is us being present at His one and eternal sacrifice, the Eucharist is not a second coming of Christ, but rather it is us coming to be present at His one and eternal sacrifice.

It is not a new event, nor a 2nd, 3rd, or 5,386,452nd coming of Christ; it is a once and eternal event made present to us through the mystery of the Eucharist.

This is interesting. I’ve heard that view in regards to the sacrifice of the Mass many times, but I’ve never heard it applied to this issue, and I didn’t really think about it that way.

Not everyone agrees with your assessment, by the way. Scott Hahn, it appears, wrote a small book alleging the early church did believe the Eucharist was another coming, not just a connection to Calvary. It’s called “Come Again: The Real Presence as Parousia.”

Your short little argument here is more persuasive than his book, by the way

 

[jinc1019]

Being always with - and coming (even if they argue such) is still beings always with and coming again. Those words remain the same no matter what one argues - such remains an apparent contradiction if one does not distinguish what is meant by the second coming.

At the Eucharist we look forward the the Second Coming of Christ as is said in the very Prayers at Mass.

The Second Coming is the Second Coming. It is a very different Coming than to the Person in prayer, or when two or three are gathered together, or being always with us or the Eucharist - it is the Second Coming - his glorious coming at the end of the world - which among other things will bring about the Resurrection.

There is no real contradiction. There there must be distinguishing to understand all the various ways Jesus is with us and comes to us…and will come again in Glory with his Angels…

That is what the second coming involves…

See all the texts in Scripture -it is a very very particular event at the end of the world and the judgment and resurrection etc.

I don’t disagree with you. The issue is about his physical body. The Catholic view is his physical body is made present. He’s here, on the communion table. If he’s physically here, then how can he physically come again? You’re starting with the assumption the transubstantiation view is correct and working from there, but that won’t work if you’re dealing with people who reject that view entirely. Of course, if you believe in transubstantiation, then those passages of scripture dealing with the Parousia MUST mean a different WAY Christ physically comes, but if you don’t necessarily start with that view, then it’s not nearly as clear.

 

[Usagi]

This is a very interesting response! And I’m very appreciative of the official sources provided here.

What I’m gathering from this is the view is: Christ is physically present. His real body and blood are present. The bread and wine are no longer bread and win but the body and blood of Christ, but the body and blood of Christ, while present, are not present in the same way “bodies are in a place.” That doesn’t make much sense to me, but at least it attempts to resolve the issue I’m concerned with. Very appreciative for what you have shared here!

Did you see my post #10? It mentions some of the ways in which Christ’s Body in the Eucharist is not exactly present in the usual way – the way “bodies are in a place,” as you quote.

What would you describe as a “spiritual” vs. “physical” presence? I have a feeling that some of the differences between Catholics and mainline Protestants on this issue could be put to bed if we could reconcile that distinction.

Really, the key distinctive component of transubstantiation that sets it apart from other explanations of the Real Presence seems to be not so much the presence of the Body and Blood (which, following Jesus’ words, surely have to be there in some sense if we agree that He was speaking of a real change) as the definitive absence of anything that can properly be called “bread” or “wine.”

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t disagree with you. The issue is about his physical body. The Catholic view is his physical body is made present. He’s here, on the communion table. If he’s physically here, then how can he physically come again? You’re starting with the assumption the transubstantiation view is correct and working from there, but that won’t work if you’re dealing with people who reject that view entirely. Of course, if you believe in transubstantiation, then those passages of scripture dealing with the Parousia MUST mean a different WAY Christ physically comes, but if you don’t necessarily start with that view, then it’s not nearly as clear.

Without getting into the details of the Eucharist…

Again simply put where in Scripture does it say that the second coming means simply his body is present?

It is a narrowing of what is meant by the Second Coming plain and simple.

Reducing Scripture into a meaning that is not meant.

And missing what Scripture means.

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t disagree with you. The issue is about his physical body. The Catholic view is his physical body is made present.

Read the post I just posted now.

To add importantly-

Jesus Christ the Risen Lord - appeared to his disciples for many days - and then what?

He* ascended *- right?

(setting aside discussing the Eucharist for a moment).

Yes.

Did he come again?

Yes.

Jesus - the same Risen Lord appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus.

The same Risen Lord - appeared not only to the 11 and then the many prior to ascending.

But LATER a good time later - after ascending he appeared to Saul - who was to become Paul.

A second coming.

If one wishes to reduce the meaning of that teaching into simply to the bodily presence of the Risen Lord.

But again that is not what Scripture and the Church means.

The coming again - to Paul and of course the Eucharistic Presence of the Lord are not the coming again meant by the term “the second coming” …the Parousia.

The Parousia does not simply mean a coming again of the bodily presence of the Lord Jesus.

If it did then the Parousia…the second coming… happened on the way to Damascus…

 

[Wesrock]

I don’t disagree with you. The issue is about his physical body. The Catholic view is his physical body is made present. He’s here, on the communion table. If he’s physically here, then how can he physically come again? You’re starting with the assumption the transubstantiation view is correct and working from there, but that won’t work if you’re dealing with people who reject that view entirely. Of course, if you believe in transubstantiation, then those passages of scripture dealing with the Parousia MUST mean a different WAY Christ physically comes, but if you don’t necessarily start with that view, then it’s not nearly as clear.

I think you nailed it when you said Christ’s Parousia is a different way of coming. In the Eucharist he is there but veiled in the mystery of the sacrament. His second coming will be unveiled, no mystery, and as in a place.

I understand you saying some Protestants might be confused, but there’s no actual contradiction in the Catholic understanding.

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t disagree with you. The issue is about his physical body. The Catholic view is his physical body is made present.

Read the post I just posted now.

To add importantly-

Jesus Christ the Risen Lord - appeared to his disciples for many days - and then what?

He* ascended *- right?

(setting aside discussing the Eucharist for a moment).

Yes.

Did he come again?

Yes.

Jesus - the same Risen Lord appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus.

The same Risen Lord - appeared not only to the 11 and then the many prior to ascending.

But LATER a good time later - after ascending he appeared to Saul - who was to become Paul.

A second coming.

If one wishes to reduce the meaning of that teaching into simply to the bodily presence of the Risen Lord.

But again that is not what Scripture and the Church means.

The coming again - to Paul and of course the Eucharistic Presence of the Lord are not the coming again meant by the term “the second coming” …the Parousia.

The Parousia does not simply mean a coming again of the bodily presence of the Lord Jesus.

If it did then the Parousia…the second coming… happened on the way to Damascus…