The difference between real presence and physical presence?

[Verbum_Caro]

awfulthings9:

I think our posts crossed in cyberspace. See the way I restated it in my last post and see if that fits your explanation better. There, I’m not predicating it on his glorified nature, but on the divine power which would eventually give him his glorified nature.

Well, they “kind of” crossed in cyberspace, but I saw yours before I posted. I am just stubborn.

I agree that Christ is present by virtue of Divine Power, which is what gives us the sacraments. So, I suppose we do agree.

My point was that the fact that Christ has a Glorifed Body now, doesn’t really answer why the Eucharist is not canaballism, or how Christ can be present in His Eucharistic Presence in many tabernacles at the same time.

In fact I am contradicting (GASP! ) the old Baltimore Catechism III when it said:

Q. 883. Is Jesus Christ present whole and entire in the smallest portion of the Holy Eucharist, under the form of either bread or wine?

A. Jesus Christ is present whole and entire in the smallest portion of the Holy Eucharist under the form of either bread or wine; for His body in the Eucharist is in a glorified state, and as it partakes of the character of a spiritual substance, it requires no definite size or shape.

Huh? That could explain the Real Presence now, but not at the last supper (unless, Christ gave the disciples his resurrected body at the Last Supper – and the indications are, from St. Thomas Aquinas, Fr. Hardon, etc, that this is not the case.)

But what is really interesting is what Pope Paul VI said in The Credo of the People of God

We believe that the Mass, celebrated by the priest representing the person of Christ by virtue of the power received through the Sacrament of Orders, and offered by him in the name of Christ and the members of His Mystical Body, is the sacrifice of Calvary rendered sacramentally present on our altars. We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise** the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven**, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence.

Pope Paul VI seems to be making the distinction between Christ’s body at the Last Supper and Christ’s body at mass, with the later being “glorious”.

God Bless,
VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

awfulthings9:

I can always admit when I’m wrong. I think you made a solid case for your explanation, especially in the quote regarding consecration during the entombment. Excellent posts.

Thanks Awfulthings, but I hope I didn’t brow-beat you, especially by my last post! I didn’t see this one until after I posted.

Funny thing is that I think part of the reason many people bring up the “glorfied body” of Christ to explain the Eucharist is because of that old Baltimore Catechism. I am not entirely happy with that Question and Answer. . .as can be seen by my obsession with this topic.

Let me say that I really enjoyed our discussion. Thank you for engaging in it with me. I think these discussions are fruitful if they cause us to think more deeply on the Real Presence, and help us to be in more awe, and in more Love with Him.

As always, I only want to put forth what I believe to be authentic Magisterial teaching. If anything I said above contradicts the teaching of the Church please disregard it. It is due either to my own lack of knowledge or my inexperience in explanation. I don’t think anything I’ve stated to be contrary to the mind of the Church on this matter however, but I must state that caveat!

Thanks again Awfulthings!
God Bless you,
VC

 

[Montie_Claunch]

Verbum Caro:

Montie, usually we run into a problem because of an equivocation of the word physical.

If we use “physical” in the sense of “**physical science” **we mean that something is sense-perceptible, or at the very least, empirical. If we use “physical” in the sense of “**physical education” **we mean “of, or relating to, the body”.

Christ, really, substantially, and sacramentally present in the Eucharist is present BODILY (but under the mode of a sacrament). So, in this sense He is physically present (the “physical education” useage) [Note, that He also posesses His *own

accidents: His hair, His height, His color, His shape. . .but, as St. Thomas points out His accidents are in the sacrament by means of a substance.]

But, since, as Aquinas points out, these accidents of Christ’s body are there in the manner of a substance (and not as accidents normally are) then “Christ’s body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.” Therefore, according to the “physical science” use of the word “physcial” Christ is NOT physically present, because he is not empirically present, or sense-perceptible.

In order to avoid equivocation we could say that Christ is BODILY present but His body is not SENSIBLY present.

What do you think Montie? Does that help at all?

VC
Dear sir,
You just totally confused me. Could you re-explain it to me (Sorry for not catching it the first time)?

 

[m134e5]

Montie Claunch:

I didn’t know there was a difference between the two. I thought that the two were the same thing when it came to the eucharist. Could someone please explain the diffrence to me so I can understand? Thanks and God bless.

I take ‘physical’ to mean it can be detected by the senses- which of course does not apply to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is more than spiritual, more than symbol- so Sacramental is the only word I can think of that explains it.

 

[USMC]

Hegesippus:

We do not chew Christ’s flesh or get little pieces of his body. You can take it too literally. The Eucharist is a symbol that makes present what it actually symbolizes. The Eucharist is still a mystery for us finite humans and we will never understand the Eucharist completely.

That is not correct. The Eucharist is not a symbol. It is the actual, literal, body and blood of Christ, united to his human soul and divinity.

It is not mystery we cannot grasp. It is very clear and understandable. At the time of the consecration, the substance actually changes and becomes the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of our Lord. After the consecration it is no longer bread or wine, as they have been literally transformed - changed - and all that remains of the bread and wine is that which appears (the “accidents”).

 

[Kevirish01]

All,

Here is something to chew on (no pun intended). This is from Pope Paul VI’s encyclical *Mysterium Fidei *paragraph #56. It was released **during **the last session of Vatican II to quell some heresies known as “Transignification” and “Transfinalization” (see paragraphs 10-12 of same encyclical) which were being proposed in place of Transubstantiation.

*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. *(my emphasis on physical).

Interesting stuff. I encourage all to read the whole encyclical.

Peace,
Kev

 

[Hegesippus]

USMC:

That is not correct. The Eucharist is not a symbol. It is the actual, literal, body and blood of Christ, united to his human soul and divinity.

It is not mystery we cannot grasp. It is very clear and understandable. At the time of the consecration, the substance actually changes and becomes the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of our Lord. After the consecration it is no longer bread or wine, as they have been literally transformed - changed - and all that remains of the bread and wine is that which appears (the “accidents”).

St. Ambrose would disagree with you

“Grant us, Lord that this sacrifice be pleasing to you since it is the symbol of our Lord’s body and blood.”

Not that he denies the real presence as seen here

“you are given the sacrament in a similitude, to be sure- but obtain the grace and the power of reality.”

Tertullian would also disagree with you

“This is my body, that is, this is the symbol of my body.”

Sainy Cyril of Jerusalem

“We did not really die, we were not really buride, we were not really crucified and raised again, but our imitation wa but in a figure, while our salvation is in reality.”

St. John Chysostom

“If you were a non-cororal being, [Christ] would have given you non-coporal gifts directly. Since, however, your soul is attached to a body, he offers you the spiritual in a sensible form.”
"

Augustine would disagree with you about the mystery aspect

“Since you are the body of Christ and His members, it is your mystery that is placed on the Lord’s table; it is your mystery that you recieve.”

Saying the Eucharist is not a mystery, as it is still called in the East, would be almost absurd. I mean bread and wine is transfigured into our Lord’s body and blood, but I do not see it. But I believe it, yet me being a human I do not comprehend out Lord in his glorified state. I mean if we all did and really comprehended the Eucharist would we ever leave it? Just like Saints Peter and John and James did not want to leave his when he was transfigured.

 

[awfulthings9]

USMC:

That is not correct. The Eucharist is not a symbol. It is the actual, literal, body and blood of Christ, united to his human soul and divinity.

It is not mystery we cannot grasp. It is very clear and understandable. At the time of the consecration, the substance actually changes and becomes the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of our Lord. After the consecration it is no longer bread or wine, as they have been literally transformed - changed - and all that remains of the bread and wine is that which appears (the “accidents”).

It’s not an either/or proposition. The Eucharist does literally and actually change into the body, blood, divinity, and humanity of Christ, but Christ allows the accidents to retain the appearance and taste of bread and wine so that the symbolic quality is not lost. While we actually receive the true presense of Christ, the appearance of bread and wine - the “appearance”, mind you - symbolize to us that we are receiving him who is the bread of life.

It is important that we be able to use the word symbol, or sign, in conjunction with the Sacraments as they are, by their very definition, signs which confer the actual grace they signify. For more, see Sacrament in the Catechism. God, whose work is of many layers, allows the Eucharist to affect us* spiritually* through the reception of Christ, physically through the incorporation of the hosts into our bodies, and mentally through the appreciation of the symbolic nature of the appearance (though not the substance) of bread and wine.

 

[mark_e_rhodes]

Verbum Caro:

Hi Mark,

No, not quite right. Not only was there the Eucharistic Presence of Our Lord before the Passion, it was the FIRST Eucharist!

See the Catechism

The relationship of the Last Supper to the Passion to the Holy Sacrfice of the Mass is one of my favorite topics. The riches of meditating and exploring these mysteries are inexhaustible.

What do you think?
VC

First, I think this is a different topic than the multiplication of loaves in John 6. I said THAT wasn’t Eucharist. As for Holy Thursday and the institution, I agree about that being Eucharist, though it is the Church’s understanding that this was part of the Passion, no? (The event was before Good Friday but was done in anticipation of it.) The apostles did not yet understand this–leaving open the possibility that though they were AT the first Eucharist, there’s a sense in which they did not RECEIVE it (-they didn’t grasp the full range of its meaning.)
Mark

 

[USMC]

Hegesippus,

What I wrote about the Eucharist is exactly what the Church teaches. If you disagree with what I wrote, then either you don’t truly understand what the Church teaches, or you reject it.

Hegesippus:

Saying the Eucharist is not a mystery, as it is still called in the East, would be almost absurd.

I didn’t say it wasn’t a mystery. I said "it is not mystery we cannot grasp. The Trinity, for example, is a mystery we cannot fully comprehend, but the Eucharist is not. It is very understandable.

Baltimore Catechism:

*Q. 870. What is the Holy Eucharist?

A. The Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament which contains the body and blood, soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine.

Q. 871. What do we mean when we say the Sacrament which contains the Body and Blood?

A. When we say the Sacrament which contains the Body and Blood, we mean the Sacrament which is the Body and Blood, for after the Consecration there is no other substance present in the Eucharist.

Q. 872. When is the Holy Eucharist a Sacrament, and when is it a sacrifice?

A. The Holy Eucharist is a Sacrament when we receive it in Holy Communion and when it remains in the Tabernacle of the Altar. It is a sacrifice when it is offered up at Mass by the separate Consecration of the bread and wine, which signifies the separation of Our Lord’s blood from His body when He died on the Cross.

Q. 873. When did Christ institute the Holy Eucharist?

A. Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, the night before He died.

Q. 874. Who were present when our Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist?

A. When Our Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist, the twelve Apostles were present.

Q. 875. How did our Lord institute the Holy Eucharist?

A. Our Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist by taking bread, blessing, breaking, and giving to His Apostles, saying: “Take ye and eat. This is my body”; and then, by taking the cup of wine, blessing and giving it, saying to them: “Drink ye all of this. This is my blood which shall be shed for the remission of sins. Do this for a commemoration of me.”

Q. 876. What happened when our Lord said, “This is my body; this is my blood”?

A. When Our Lord said, “This is my body,” the substance of the bread was changed into the substance of His body; when He said, “This is my blood,” the substance of the wine was changed into the substance of His blood.

Q. 877. How do we prove the Real Presence, that is, that Our Lord is really and truly present in the Holy Eucharist?

A. We prove the Real Presence – that is, that Our Lord is really and truly present in the Holy Eucharist:

(1) By showing that it is possible to change one substance into another;

(2) By showing that Christ did change the substance of bread and
wine into the substance of His body and blood;

(3) By showing that He gave this power also to His Apostles and to the priests of His Church.*

continue

 

[USMC]

continuation

Baltimore Catechism:

*Q. 878. How do we know that it is possible to change one substance into another?

A. We know that it is possible to change one substance into another, because:

(1) God changed water into blood during the plagues of Egypt.

(2) Christ changed water into wine at the marriage of Cana.

(3) Our own food is daily changed into the substance of our flesh and blood; and what God does gradually, He can also do instantly by an act of His will.

Q. 879. Are these changes exactly the same as the changes that take place in the Holy Eucharist?

A. These changes are not exactly the same as the changes that take place in the Holy Eucharist, for in these changes the appearance also is changed, but in the Holy Eucharist only the substance is changed while the appearance remains the same.

Q. 880. How do we show that Christ did change bread and wine into the substance of His body and blood?

A. We show that Christ did change bread and wine into the substance of His body and blood:

(1) From the words by which He promised the Holy Eucharist;

(2) From the words by which He instituted the Holy Eucharist;

(3) From the constant use of the Holy Eucharist in the Church since the time of the Apostles;

(4) From the impossibility of denying the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, without likewise denying all that Christ has taught and done; for we have stronger proofs for the Holy Eucharist than for any other Christian truth.

Q. 881. Is Jesus Christ whole and entire both under the form of bread and under the form of wine?

A. Jesus Christ is whole and entire both under the form of bread and under the form of wine.

Q. 882. How do we know that under the appearance of bread we receive also Christ’s blood; and under the appearance of wine we receive also Christ’s body?

A. We know that under the appearance of bread we receive also Christ’s blood, and under the appearance of wine we receive also Christ’s body; because in the Holy Eucharist we receive the living body of Our Lord, and a living body cannot exist without blood, nor can living blood exist without a body.

Q. 883. Is Jesus Christ present whole and entire in the smallest portion of the Holy Eucharist, under the form of either bread or wine?

A. Jesus Christ is present whole and entire in the smallest portion of the Holy Eucharist under the form of either bread or wine; for His body in the Eucharist is in a glorified state, and as it partakes of the character of a spiritual substance, it requires no definite size or shape.

Q. 884. Did anything remain of the bread and wine after their substance had been changed into the substance of the body and blood of our Lord?

A. After the substance of the bread and wine had been changed into the substance of the body and blood of Our Lord, there remained only the appearances of bread and wine.

Q. 885. What do you mean by the appearances of bread and wine?

A. By the appearances of bread and wine I mean the figure, the color, the taste, and whatever appears to the senses.

Q. 886. What is this change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord called?

A. This change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Our Lord is called Transubstantiation.END*

Decrees of the Council of Trent:

*THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST:

“If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST:

“If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 8).*

If any of the quotes you provided contradict the above clear explanation, I would question the translation of the quotes, since, as the saying goes, “the translator is a trader”. And I would bet that you took those quotes either from a Protestant website or from a liberal (heretical) Catholic website.

 

[Redbandito]

Remember also that the Eucharist is Christ’s GLORIFIED body. There is a difference. Remember that when Jesus was resurrected, he could literally walk through walls in His glorified body. It is still a body, but the obviously it had some “physical” differences from his crucified body.

 

[dcdurel]

In cases like this it is best to go by what the Church officially teaches, for the official teachings are those that convey the exact meaning that have come down to us from the apostles.The real presence means that the entire person of Jesus is present, His body blood, soul and Divinty are present. The catechisms teach that His bones are present, his hair is present, his tendons are present, every part of His body is present.
Since his entire body is present, and since bodies are material , and thus, physical, and not spiritual, then we must say He is physically present. Now there is an obscure definition of physical that does not refer to material or body, but refers to what can be measured, such as weight, mass, etc. This definition means empirical, not material. Of course according to this obscure definition He cannot be physically (empirically) present. But, this is an obscure definition that people ordinarly don’t use.
The usual definition of physical refers to what is material, or bodily, or natural, or not spiritual. Thus, according to the ordinary, usual definition Jesus IS physically present, because His body certainly is material and NOT spiritual.
Since the entire person of Jesus is present, then at Eucaristic adoration Jesus can see us with his physical eyes, and He looks at us as we come near him and He hears us with His physical ears, for He is present as an entire person.
And He can get lonely in the tabernacle, waiting for people to visit Him, because He still has a human mind and human emotions, just as He got lonely while on earth, even though He had the beatific vision. He loves for us to visit Him, and talk to Him and ask His help and worship Him. He is God, but He is also a man like us.