Transubstantiation & The Incarnation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gmsod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for all the replies.
So basically JESUS is sacramentally, not physically, present in the Eucharist? If so, how come the Eucharist contains his whole body blood soul and Divinity? Is that included in the sacramental aspect but the accidents of his body are what is missing from that but present in his physical body?

GOD bless!
 
I’m kinda dumb and I have no idea what a Kenosis is. I know “Ketosis” but that’s about it.

All I was trying to get at is, Jesus was divine, God, and powerful during his whole human life, and did not just become endowed with divinity after his Resurrection. He accepted his Father’s will that he go around in a human body and live a human life though he did miracles and could have done more "supernatural " things. I will leave any more in-depth theological analyses to those who can keep up better than me.
 
Last edited:
I feel sorry for you. You are confronted with too many cooks; your broth is quite spoilt already. I suggest you just go into the Catechism of the Catholic Church and look for Sacrament - the Eucharist.
 
Jesus is corporeally present in the Eucharist—that is, his entire body and blood, his whole self, is present under the appearances of bread and wine. The word “physical” is not used mainly because when we refer to the physical we are referring to what can be perceived by the senses. And what can be perceived by the senses is the appearances of a thing, not the substance of a thing.
 
Just to add to what others have said, here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explained how Christ is not locally present in the Eucharist:

St. Thomas Aquinas
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 3; Article 3), Christ’s body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ’s body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ’s body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ’s body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ’s body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ’s body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ’s body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body.

Hence in no way is Christ’s body locally in this sacrament.
Click to expand...
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article5
 
Yes, put simply, it is the substance of the accident which changes to the real body of Christ, which we cannot see and cannot know but nevertheless real Christ, divinity and soul. The word is substance.
 
This makes more sense now. So he is not physically there but he is sacramentally is what I’m getting. Thank you all.

GOD bless!
 
We receive his entire body and blood, soul and divinity–Jesus in his entirety. One could say that a sacramental presence is a physical presence under the appearances of bread and wine. We do not perceive his appearances or accidents (which are the essence of ‘physicality’ because the appearances of bread and wine remain. Location and extension in space are accidents.
 
JimG said:
One could say that a sacramental presence is a physical presence…
Click to expand...
I dont think so because it would start denying the definition of sacrament and start making it a reality … a bit like one of thos believable but impossible drawings of endless staircases.

A bit like saying “look, that woman is naked…under all her clothes.”

But I know what you mean.
 
Last edited:
That doesn’t sound like a sacramental mode but a real, physical mode.
 
Hope1960 said:
I still
Don’t understand what SACRAMENTAL mode means…
Click to expand...
When you are face-to-face with a friend, what’s the “mode” of your interaction?

What’s the mode of your interaction if you’re talking to your friend on the phone?

What’s the mode of your interaction if you’re writing your friend a letter or reading one they’ve written?

The “mode” is the manner in which something is experienced. The Eucharist is Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity in sacramental mode. That is, He is present sacramentally, not physically.
 
JimG said:
One could say that a sacramental presence is a physical presence under the appearances of bread and wine.
Click to expand...
Well… one could say that… but then, he’d be inaccurate. There is a physical presence in the Eucharist, but it’s the physical appearance of bread and wine. Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, of course, but substantially rather than in physical accidents.
 
  1. If Jesus isn’t physically in the Eucharist, what about articles, I think from The Real Presence, that say we receive Jesus’ head, hands, feet, sinews… everything?
  2. Was that wrong? Is Jesus just present spiritually (which I highly doubt)?
  3. Or is this so complicated because His Eucharistic presence is glorified? I read an older post by someone else that says it’s not because He’s Glorified.
  4. At the Last Supper, when Jesus held His own body and blood in His hands, was the 1st Eucharist His glorified body and blood?
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
  1. If Jesus isn’t physically in the Eucharist, what about articles, I think from The Real Presence, that say we receive Jesus’ head, hands, feet, sinews… everything?
Click to expand...
All of Jesus. Not physically. Really, and truly, and substantially… but not physically.

Perhaps you misunderstood what the articles were saying?
  1. Was that wrong? Is Jesus just present spiritually (which I highly doubt)?
Click to expand...
Not just ‘spiritually’. He is truly present. In a philosophical sense, we would say that his substance is present.
  1. Or is this so complicated because His Eucharistic presence is glorified? I read an older post by someone else that says it’s not because He’s Glorified.
Click to expand...
It’s complicated because it’s a very nuanced discussion, and because the whole ‘transubstantiation’ discussion hinges upon a precise philosophical distinction.
  1. At the Last Supper, when Jesus held His own body and blood in His hands, was the 1st Eucharist His glorified body and blood?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
About His being glorified at the Last Supper. The CCC says about the Last Supper, in chapter 1323, last sentence, that “ a pledge of FUTURE glory is given to us.

Doesn’t that mean His Eucharist at the Last Supper wasn’t Glorified but that future Eucharist would be Glorified?
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
At the Last Supper, when Jesus held His own body and blood in His hands, was the 1st Eucharist His glorified body and blood?

Yes.
Click to expand...
Have you an authoritative quote for this?
I am not so sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top