The Real Presence: How long?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tommiatkins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tommiatkins

Guest
Hi,
I’ve been searching for some time for a clear answer to this.

How long does the Real Presence remain in the communion bread and wine after being taken?

Most answers have been contridictory or rather long winded. I was hoping for something definitive.

Cheers
 
Short answer? Normally about 15 minutes. That is how long it takes the Host and Precious Blood to break down in your stomach so that they no longer would be recognisable as bread or wine.

Once they are no longer recognisable as bread and wine the Real Presence is no longer there. I’ve never heard anyone say anything different, so I don’t know why anyone would dispute it.
 
Oh right, thanks.

Is that from a Church source or your personal interpretation?

I’m having some difficulties in the opinion.

catholicparents.org/eucharist/Transubstantiation.html
“through the words of consecration, that bread and wine is transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Yes, the bread and wine do not change in characteristics– they still look the same, taste and smell the same, and hold the same shape. However, the reality, “the what it is,” the substance does change”.

If the substance of the bread changes, how does it avoid being broken down or absorbed by the body?
 
tommiatkins said:
Oh right, thanks.

Is that from a Church source or your personal interpretation?

I’m having some difficulties in the opinion.

catholicparents.org/eucharist/Transubstantiation.html
“through the words of consecration, that bread and wine is transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Yes, the bread and wine do not change in characteristics– they still look the same, taste and smell the same, and hold the same shape. However, the reality, “the what it is,” the substance does change”.

If the substance of the bread changes, how does it avoid being broken down or absorbed by the body?
Click to expand...
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species [the bread and wine] subsist. "

Well the substance IS absorbed by our bodies (and souls) - it certainly doesn’t pass right through and out the other end of the digestive tract! Just as we absorb the natural food we eat into our bodies - its nutrients, its calories and so on all become absorbed into our own body and become part of its cells.

And in fact that’s the whole purpose of communion. Christ gives His flesh and blood to us as food and drink. In eating and drinking Him, we absorb something of Christ’s substance into ourselves, we absorb something of His divine life into ourselves (life being in the blood, as the Bible says in Leviticus, and the Eucharist being His blood).

That’s how we come into communion (unity) with Him in the sacrament, and that’s how we become part of His body - literally. Kinda neat when you think about it.
 
LilyM said:
Well the substance IS absorbed by our bodies (and souls) - it certainly doesn’t pass right through and out the other end of the digestive tract! Just as we absorb the natural food we eat into our bodies - its nutrients, its calories and so on all become absorbed into our own body and become part of its cells.

And in fact that’s the whole purpose of communion. Christ gives His flesh and blood to us as food and drink. In eating and drinking Him, we absorb something of Christ’s substance into ourselves, .
Click to expand...
Hmm. Thanks again for the answer.
It does keep up bringing more questions for me.
If the presence is absorbed from the bread as it dissolves it will surely stay longer than 15 mins. It seems that at first you were saying the prsence only *lasts *15 mins, but it isnt destroyed after this time, it is absorbed?
If the body of Christ is absorbed by us what is the body we are absorbing:
  1. The Body of Jesus as he was in 33AD?
  2. A physical but spiritual body of how he is **now **( at the right hand of the father, as it is beleived)
    3)If we are absorbing his body alongside the food, how is the substance , that is also therefore part of every part of us, not passing through the digestive tract? I assume you are aware of the processes of digestion, and also that this may be tricky to answer, but is there any theory or rulings on how the substance does not, indeed pass through? The substance is simultaniously electrolytes and the body of christ.
 
tommiatkins said:
Hmm. Thanks again for the answer.
It does keep up bringing more questions for me.
If the presence is absorbed from the bread as it dissolves it will surely stay longer than 15 mins. It seems that at first you were saying the prsence only *lasts *15 mins, but it isnt destroyed after this time, it is absorbed?
If the body of Christ is absorbed by us what is the body we are absorbing:
  1. The Body of Jesus as he was in 33AD?
  2. A physical but spiritual body of how he is **now **( at the right hand of the father, as it is beleived)
    3)If we are absorbing his body alongside the food, how is the substance , that is also therefore part of every part of us, not passing through the digestive tract? I assume you are aware of the processes of digestion, and also that this may be tricky to answer, but is there any theory or rulings on how the substance does not, indeed pass through? The substance is simultaniously electrolytes and the body of christ.
Click to expand...
A body is a purely physical and not at all a spiritual thing, there’s no such thing as a ‘spiritual body’. Humans are comprised of body AND a spirit, but the two aren’t the same thing at all.

And there’s no such thing as Jesus ‘as He was in 33 AD’ compared to a somehow different Jesus as He ‘is now’, He’s eternal (timeless) God incarnate, ‘the same yesterday today and forever’ as Scriptures say. He just IS.

And finally, we aren’t absorbing the body alongside the food - the Eucharist is no longer bread or wine, remember. The ‘substance’ that actually makes it bread or wine is absent. So the Eucharist isn’t electrolytes, those are just accidents of its appearance.

There is no longer food, just something that looks and behaves like it. There is only Jesus, present under the physical guise of the Eucharistic species. That’s why when the physical guise is not recognisable (eg invisible particles of the host or invisible droplets from the chalice) the Real Presence no longer attaches to them.

If the bread and wine still existed alongside Jesus it would be consubstantiation, which we don’t believe in, as opposed to transubstantiation.

As for ‘processes of digestion’ - no, the Eucharist doesn’t, not any particle of, ‘pass through’. Absorbed means absorbed - it means it DOESN’T pass through, but goes from the stomach to the body, like the calories from ice cream don’t pass through the digestive tract but are absorbed from the stomach straight into the bloodstream and are either used by the body or stored by it.

Like I said, once the Eucharist is dissolved in the stomach (after that 15 minutes) the Real Presence is no longer attached to the physical stomach contents. Whatever is in your stomach at that point no longer contains the Real Presence. Whatever passes through the rest of the digestive tract ALSO no longer contains the Real Presence.
 
I understand what you are trying to get at, but it seems to have a problem.
If Our body absorbs the physical presence and the electrolytes are actually the precence of Jesus, then he is by the process transfered to every part of the body. Our hearts our eyes our fingers our synapses our colons.

It would be indeed unseemly for this to occour, I understand that you are seperating the idea that Jesus can be present in excreta such as sweat or feaces, but if he is **actually the bread **and actually the wine, rather than the idea that by breaking bread we remember him and his actions,then I’m afraid that this simply is what happens.
 
** I understand that you are seperating the idea that Jesus can be present in excreta such as sweat or feaces,**

This is the heresy of stercoarianism, which was repudiated by one of the mediaeval councils.

** but if he is actually the bread and actually the wine, rather than the idea that by breaking bread we remember him and his actions,then I’m afraid that this simply is what happens.**

The Greek word “anemnesis” used in the Synoptics and 1 Cor 11 does not mean a mere mental rememberance. It means (as its use in the LXX) an actual making present of what is commemorated.
 
tommiatkins said:
Hi,
I’ve been searching for some time for a clear answer to this.

How long does the Real Presence remain in the communion bread and wine after being taken?

Most answers have been contridictory or rather long winded. I was hoping for something definitive.

Cheers
Click to expand...
the Real Presence remains as long as the sacred species retain the accidents of bread and wine, that is, unless and until they have been digested (usually about 15 min. after reception) or otherwise diluted, as in purifying the vessels.
 
tommiatkins said:
Hi,
I’ve been searching for some time for a clear answer to this.

How long does the Real Presence remain in the communion bread and wine after being taken?

Most answers have been contridictory or rather long winded. I was hoping for something definitive.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Not to be nitpicky, but, as Fr. Serpa frequently points out in the Ask An Apologist forum, the Eucharist is received, not taken.

I’m sure you are not trying to say otherwise, but I think it’s important for us to keep that in mind. 🙂
 
Right, this is getting a bit more confusing.

Lily says that the presence is absorbed.
Others are saying it leaves after 15 minuites after the bread is “digested”. A process which takes the elements of the food and converts them into amino acids salts, electrolytes etc.

If Lily is correct, then the presence is retained in the body, and some of it is excreted.
If Annie is correct then the presence is destroyed in the digestive process, which would bring questions of how stomach acid can destroy God.

I havnt read about stercoarianism and cant find any info on the councils decision. I’m sure they managed to cook up some opt-out for the problem, (I mean theyre hardly going to accept it 😉 ), but I would be interested in how they managed to jump the hoop.
 
tommiatkins said:
Right, this is getting a bit more confusing.

Lily says that the presence is absorbed.
Others are saying it leaves after 15 minuites after the bread is “digested”. A process which takes the elements of the food and converts them into amino acids salts, electrolytes etc. …
Click to expand...
1- The Host is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus
2- It looks like bread but it is not
3- When we eat we do not absorb it as in regular food, because regular food becomes part of our nature while that would be impossible given the divine nature of Jesus
4- When we eat it we get to share into His divinity and that sharing will feed our soul.
5- Once the accident of bread ceases to exist (digestion of the accident) God is not present anymore (substance gone) out of His choice and not of our power. The leftover accidents and substance are those of excrement.
5- At this point you should have noticed the intellectual limitation of thinking of communion as mere food. It is transcendent from our simplistic concept of nutrition.
tommiatkins said:
…If Annie is correct then the presence is destroyed in the digestive process, which would bring questions of how stomach acid can destroy God…
Click to expand...
The acid cannot destroy God, in the same manner the priest cannot create God in the Eucharist. It is about change of substance or “transubstantiation” not creation or destruction.
 
Thanks for the reply. Is that the coucil decison you are quoting or some other church teaching?

The answer seems to be firming up a bit.
The bread is ordinary bread, the wine ordinary wine, the preist says the words and it transforms , by Gods will, into jesus’s actual body, that looks and is mollecularly identical to ordinary wafers, however although these are measurably and positively provably identical to being the same as the bread molecules it was, it contains or actually is the actual blood and flesh of Jesus Christ.
The real and actual substance of Jesus is digested and at the point where it would be absorbed into the body it is removed , again by Gods will, to avoid being excreted out, yet remains somehow absorbed. Its invisible particals, Lily says, has the invisible presence removed, we absorb something and yet nothing of Jesus, it goes from the stomach to the body and is removed after 15 min’s, not destroyed, although the particals transform, as god wishes.
Any remaining substances, not containing the presence may make themselves invididually atom by atom to the sweat ducts and colon.
The removed substance returns back up to Jesus in heaven and rejoins his body to the tune of 5 grammes X 300 million catholics = 1,500 tonnes of flesh and blood per communion.

Simple when you think about it really. I am starting to be baffled why anyone would have a problem with it.

Thanks for the answers.
 
tommiatkins said:
Thanks for the reply. Is that the coucil decison you are quoting or some other church teaching?

The answer seems to be firming up a bit.
The bread is ordinary bread, the wine ordinary wine, the preist says the words and it transforms , by Gods will, into jesus’s actual body, that looks and is mollecularly identical to ordinary wafers, however although these are measurably and positively provably identical to being the same as the bread molecules it was, it contains or actually is the actual blood and flesh of Jesus Christ.
The real and actual substance of Jesus is digested and at the point where it would be absorbed into the body it is removed , again by Gods will, to avoid being excreted out, yet remains somehow absorbed. Its invisible particals, Lily says, has the invisible presence removed, we absorb something and yet nothing of Jesus, it goes from the stomach to the body and is removed after 15 min’s, not destroyed, although the particals transform, as god wishes.
Any remaining substances, not containing the presence may make themselves invididually atom by atom to the sweat ducts and colon.
The removed substance returns back up to Jesus in heaven and rejoins his body to the tune of 5 grammes X 300 million catholics = 1,500 tonnes of flesh and blood per communion.

Simple when you think about it really. I am starting to be baffled why anyone would have a problem with it.

Thanks for the answers.
Click to expand...
Your comments could have some consistency if Jesus were just human. I think that you should do a little bit more searching for the concepts of Jesus’ Glorified Body, Transubstantiation, and priest acting in personae Christi. Going into a discussion of those topics would be a complete departure from the OP. If you use the search tool you will find a lot of information. Finally do not forget that God is almighty and that the mysteries are so because of limited human intelligence.
 
tommiatkins said:
Hi,
I’ve been searching for some time for a clear answer to this.

How long does the Real Presence remain in the communion bread and wine after being taken?

Most answers have been contridictory or rather long winded. I was hoping for something definitive.

Cheers
Click to expand...
It becomes apart of us and gives us the strength to carry on each day! 👍 This is what my priest told me when I asked and it makes alot of sense and it is very comforting.
 
As a Catholic who happens to be a medical student I simply couldn’t help jumping in on this, and offering my two cents. After reading the posts by the originating party it strikes me that he/she is most likely not at all interested in strengthening his/her understanding of the digestive aspects of transubstantiation. Indeed it would seem that he/she is more interested in attempting to sew confusion or doubts by using rough medical knowledge to propose the almost blasphemous idea that we digest, destroy, and then excrete a portion of our Blessed Savior. If I am wrong in this conclusion, I offer my apology in advance.

I believe the mistake being made is attempting to understand or disprove a matter of faith via the tools of modern medical science. Faith and science are not poor companions, however, one must know which tool to pick up for the task at hand. When I go into the lab I know that I use my imperfect human senses to view the world which God has created in His perfection. My understanding of science and the human body is a weak attempt to see the working of God without the benefit of His omniscience.

The fact that I could examine an unconsecrated host in a laboratory and find the same chemical composition, the same molecular structure, and the same physical characteristics as I would in a consecrated host (not that I would ever perform such a sacrilege) does nothing whatsoever to diminish my faith in the real presence. Intellectuals (even those who are not Catholic) usually understand the distinct types of information the faculties of science and the faculties of faith lead us toward. Just because Christ became a real man in a historical period of time and chooses to become truly present in the Eucharist does not mean that all aspects of Christ are knowable via the senses and therefore science. There will always be transcendent aspects of any faith or religion which involves a divine being which modern technology, science, and medicine will be completely incapable of explaining.

I again apologize if this has fallen into the category of ‘long winded’, but sometimes a thorough answer is the only thing that will suffice.

Absit invidia,

Victoria
 
vikvak01 said:
As a Catholic who happens to be a medical student I simply couldn’t help jumping in on this, and offering my two cents. After reading the posts by the originating party it strikes me that he/she is most likely not at all interested in strengthening his/her understanding of the digestive aspects of transubstantiation. Indeed it would seem that he/she is more interested in attempting to sew confusion or doubts by using rough medical knowledge to propose the almost blasphemous idea that we digest, destroy, and then excrete a portion of our Blessed Savior. If I am wrong in this conclusion, I offer my apology in advance.

I believe the mistake being made is attempting to understand or disprove a matter of faith via the tools of modern medical science. Faith and science are not poor companions, however, one must know which tool to pick up for the task at hand. When I go into the lab I know that I use my imperfect human senses to view the world which God has created in His perfection. My understanding of science and the human body is a weak attempt to see the working of God without the benefit of His omniscience.

The fact that I could examine an unconsecrated host in a laboratory and find the same chemical composition, the same molecular structure, and the same physical characteristics as I would in a consecrated host (not that I would ever perform such a sacrilege) does nothing whatsoever to diminish my faith in the real presence. Intellectuals (even those who are not Catholic) usually understand the distinct types of information the faculties of science and the faculties of faith lead us toward. Just because Christ became a real man in a historical period of time and chooses to become truly present in the Eucharist does not mean that all aspects of Christ are knowable via the senses and therefore science. There will always be transcendent aspects of any faith or religion which involves a divine being which modern technology, science, and medicine will be completely incapable of explaining.

I again apologize if this has fallen into the category of ‘long winded’, but sometimes a thorough answer is the only thing that will suffice.

Absit invidia,

Victoria
Click to expand...
👍
EXCELENT!
 
Thats a extended response, which I see as saying.
“as a learned person I can see nothing happens to the bread and can measure nothing happening, but it obviously does happen , because thats what the church says, we cant explain it and we don’t have to”

The molecules don’t change they are simply changed whilst unchanged.
If you were to chemically analyze the consecrated host, it would be identical in every way to bread…but its actually Jesus.
We know it’s Jesus not because we can see or feel or even chemically prove it is, but we know because the Apostles told us Jesus told us “this is my blood”.

Thats all fine. But based on the knowledge that the flesh is real and being digested, (and a lot of catholics are saying they are absorbing the host),what is the process that stops the host from exiting the body. Lets use tears as a example.

The receiver intakes the wine. The wine becomes blood. The wine is wine only in its chemical composition and atomic structure. The polymers are absorbed, (filling the person with the holy spirit-as it is said) and a certain proportion of the real presence will end up in the tear ducts. A catholic crying soon after communion, perhaps with joy over her love of Jesus, will be expelling the host from the body in her tears.

To avoid this,the presence has to leave the body or avoid contact with the body.Literally vanishing completely at the picosecond of digestion.I still cant find from the church,anything at all about how this process occurs or even if it does occur. Most answers seem to be accepting absorption but shuddering even at the thought of excretion

Speculating here, but the reason may be that to even consider this question is heresy. So it’s not considered.

Apparently someone in medieval times made a ruling on it, but what that was or what evidences they used are elusive. They’re also MEDIEVAL! Without the benefits of modern biology, people in antiquity simply put food into their mouths and didn’t know anything about how it interacts with the body. Well, OK they didn’t know.but we do know now, and there at least ought to be some theory on how it happens.
 
tommiatkins said:
Thats all fine. But based on the knowledge that the flesh is real and being digested, (and a lot of catholics are saying they are absorbing the host),what is the process that stops the host from exiting the body. Lets use tears as a example.

The receiver intakes the wine. The wine becomes blood. The wine is wine only in its chemical composition and atomic structure. The polymers are absorbed, (filling the person with the holy spirit-as it is said) and a certain proportion of the real presence will end up in the tear ducts. A catholic crying soon after communion, perhaps with joy over her love of Jesus, will be expelling the host from the body in her tears.
Click to expand...
You obviously don’t understand the Real Presence if you think it becomes an excretable part of our makeup in that sort of elemental physical way that, say, an apple or an onion would. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is at least somewhat different from that, hence a consecrated host doesn’t look any different from an unconsecrated wafer under a microscope or chemical analysis. What is excreted and excretable are merely the physical elements MINUS the Real Presence. The physical elements are not inseparable from the Real Presence.

In fact I doubt that even an apple or onion is expelled through our tears and other excreta in quite the way that you’re suggesting. I don’t think you could take tears, sweat or anything else to a scientist for chemical analysis and have them be able to say ‘that’s apple’ ‘that’s onion’ ‘that’s bread’ ‘that’s wine’ or what have you. It’s all indistinguishable once it gets past the point of digestion in the stomach. So are the physical elements of the Eucharist. The Real Presence is not precisely the same thing as the physical elements.

As for not having to explain - well, why should we have to? If I ask you ‘are you alive?’, ‘are you a person?’ you’d answer ‘yes’ to both questions, but if I start asking you what exactly it is about you that makes you alive, what makes you a person, when does one begin/cease being alive, when does one begin/cease being a person, you probably couldn’t give a cogent answer to those quetions. You take your knowledge of such things on faith. So do we. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top