What does it mean that Jesus is not literally but rather sacramentally present in the Eucharist?

[Shana]

I was watching the DVD “Common Ground” and Fr. John Riccardo (who’s orthodoxy I do not doubt) said this:

"So we would say the Eucharist is truly Jesus - He’s rea- [ed. I think Fr. started to say “really” but changed his mind] - He’s substantially there.

"But he’s hidden Himself. Just like He hid Himself under the appearance of flesh - and He was really flesh - but He wasn’t only man. So we would say that the Lord has chosen to hide Himself under the appearance of bread and wine; but it’s not really bread and wine. It just looks like it.

"That’s why we would call it trans-substantiation. The substance has changed, even though the accidents remain.

“Is it literally Him? NO - it’s sacramentally Him. If Jesus were to walk into the church while Mass was going on, he wouldn’t look like a host. We’d be down on our face by his majesty.”

What did he mean?

 

[Phemie]

As one priest put it to us, “Jesus in his physical body ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father. Jesus’ sacramental presence is what is present in the Body and Blood that we consume at Communion.”

 

[passus]

If we were receiving Jesus physically, we would be cannibals–eating actual skin and bones and drinking bodily fluids. The *sacramental *presence of Jesus is the mystical way by which we are able to receive the fullness of Jesus’s body, blood, soul, and divinity without actually consuming physical flesh and blood.

Physicality implies a coherence in accident and substance. With physical flesh and blood, we would receive the species of flesh and blood under the appearance and taste of flesh and blood. With sacramentality, however, we can still receive substantial flesh and blood under the mysticality of the accidents of ordinary bread and wine.

I hope that helps.

 

[japhy]

“Is it literally Him? NO - it’s sacramentally Him. If Jesus were to walk into the church while Mass was going on, he wouldn’t look like a host. We’d be down on our face by his majesty.”

What did he mean?

I’ve heard that “literal” is a bad word to use for anything that’s not literature.

I suppose that if you believe the Eucharist is “literally” Jesus, then you would expect that breaking a Host “breaks” Christ, or that one part of the Host is his head, another part is his foot, etc. But that’s not the way Jesus is present in the Eucharist. His presence is sacramental and substantial: the substance is Christ, the appearance is bread.

 

[ckempston]

I was watching the DVD “Common Ground” and Fr. John Riccardo (who’s orthodoxy I do not doubt) said this:

"So we would say the Eucharist is truly Jesus - He’s rea- [ed. I think Fr. started to say “really” but changed his mind] - He’s substantially there.

"But he’s hidden Himself. Just like He hid Himself under the appearance of flesh - and He was really flesh - but He wasn’t only man. So we would say that the Lord has chosen to hide Himself under the appearance of bread and wine; but it’s not really bread and wine. It just looks like it.

His analogy doesn’t work. So, he was “not really a man” he “just looked like it?” Scarily close to heresy if you ask me (though no one did, b/c I’m not Catholic), but Jesus didn’t hide himself under the appearance of flesh, “the Word became flesh…”

"That’s why we would call it trans-substantiation. The substance has changed, even though the accidents remain.

“Is it literally Him? NO - it’s sacramentally Him. If Jesus were to walk into the church while Mass was going on, he wouldn’t look like a host. We’d be down on our face by his majesty.”

What did he mean?

 

[reggieM]

I have never heard that kind of explanation before.
It’s enough to say that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ – He is really present. We receive his Body and Blood – the bread has changed and it is no longer bread. I don’t think his explanation was a good one – there’s no reason to use ambiguous terminology.

 

[FrDavid96]

I was watching the DVD “Common Ground” and Fr. John Riccardo (who’s orthodoxy I do not doubt) said this:

"So we would say the Eucharist is truly Jesus - He’s rea- [ed. I think Fr. started to say “really” but changed his mind] - He’s substantially there.

"But he’s hidden Himself. Just like He hid Himself under the appearance of flesh - and He was really flesh - but He wasn’t only man. So we would say that the Lord has chosen to hide Himself under the appearance of bread and wine; but it’s not really bread and wine. It just looks like it.

"That’s why we would call it trans-substantiation. The substance has changed, even though the accidents remain.

“Is it literally Him? NO - it’s sacramentally Him. If Jesus were to walk into the church while Mass was going on, he wouldn’t look like a host. We’d be down on our face by his majesty.”

What did he mean?

Here’s one way of looking at it:

First, we need to keep in mind that Christ is truly, substantially present in the Eucharist in the form (accidents) of bread and wine. I’m sure (based on what you are saying) that the priest was not disputing this at all.

To say that Christ is not “literally” present in the Eucharist means that we won’t find red & white blood cells in the wine, nor bones in the host. It sounds like he was trying to explain the part about the accidents of the bread & wine not changing.

We usually talk and think so much about the substance changing,
but we see little need to talk about the accidents not-changing
that when we do talk about the later, it can be a very akward point to make.

 

[GEddie]

If the change were “literal” as the op suggested, the Host would instantly become about 200# heavier and take on the appearance of an actual human body; we see it does not.

However, we believe that it does become His body, in a living human sense (not a dead-body sense). Sacramentally seems to me to mean that His bodiness, His humanness and His life—supernatural life—are mysteriously transferred into the tiny bit of matter in the Fr’s hands, and in such a way that His life, bodiness and humanness in Heaven are not impaired. The quantitative aspect of the Host remains the same so that we can take Him into our beings without needing to assimilate over 200# of human mass into our bodies.

As with everything else about Him, it is made simpler for our benefit.

But I am just an average sinner and could be mistaken:shrug:

 

[drforjc]

I don’t think that “literal” was the best choice of words to use to differentiate the mode of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. “Literal” is a poor choice to describe a metaphysical concept.
I’m not sure “physical” is even the right word to pit against “substantial” - witness the many threads here that have discussed the issue.

Better, IMO, to emphasize what “substantial” means in a positive sense rather than doing it by negating the contrary by means of phrases such as “not literal” or “not physical.”

 

[Brendan]

I don’t think that “literal” was the best choice of words to use to differentiate the mode of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. “Literal” is a poor choice to describe a metaphysical concept.
I’m not sure “physical” is even the right word to pit against “substantial” - witness the many threads here that have discussed the issue.

Better, IMO, to emphasize what “substantial” means in a positive sense rather than doing it by negating the contrary by means of phrases such as “not literal” or “not physical.”

“Physical” is inappropriate as well. Physical is that which can be measured by physics. Height, Weigh, Mass, eye color. All of which are Accidental to the Substance.

Christ is Sacramentally Present, not Physically present ( the host does not weigh the same as Christ’s Body etc…) nor Literally present ( we are not writing about Him with words, we are experiencing Him.

It would also be appropriate to say the Christ is Actually Present, as there is an Actio involved, Christ is acting on us to bring us closer to Him.

 

[BSHoop96]

His analogy doesn’t work. So, he was “not really a man” he “just looked like it?” Scarily close to heresy if you ask me (though no one did, b/c I’m not Catholic), but Jesus didn’t hide himself under the appearance of flesh, “the Word became flesh…”

He didn’t say “not really a man”…he said not ONLY a man. Big difference. Of course he was not ONLY a man as he was fully human and fully divine. So not close to heresy at all.

 

[ckempston]

He didn’t say “not really a man”…he said not ONLY a man. Big difference. Of course he was not ONLY a man as he was fully human and fully divine. So not close to heresy at all.

You are right, of course, but I was criticizing the analogy, not the words. I think my criticism of the analogy still stands - it’s a serious stretch.

 

[Cluny]

I was watching the DVD “Common Ground” and Fr. John Riccardo (who’s orthodoxy I do not doubt) said this:

"So we would say the Eucharist is truly Jesus - He’s rea- [ed. I think Fr. started to say “really” but changed his mind] - He’s substantially there.

"But he’s hidden Himself. Just like He hid Himself under the appearance of flesh - and He was really flesh - but He wasn’t only man. So we would say that the Lord has chosen to hide Himself under the appearance of bread and wine; but it’s not really bread and wine. It just looks like it.

"That’s why we would call it trans-substantiation. The substance has changed, even though the accidents remain.

“Is it literally Him? NO - it’s sacramentally Him. If Jesus were to walk into the church while Mass was going on, he wouldn’t look like a host. We’d be down on our face by his majesty.”

What did he mean?

This is standard Catholic teaching concerning the Holy Eucharist.

The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is MYSTICAL (or Sacramental) and Substantial.

The Church has never said it was physical.

Jesus in Heaven doesn’t go “Ouch!” when the Priest breaks the Host, nor does He suffer exsanguination at the Consecration of the Chalice.

 

[Cluny]

But he’s hidden Himself. Just like He hid Himself under the appearance of flesh - and He was really flesh - but He wasn’t only man. So we would say that the Lord has chosen to hide Himself under the appearance of bread and wine; but it’s not really bread and wine. It just looks like it.<<

His analogy doesn’t work. So, he was “not really a man” he “just looked like it?” Scarily close to heresy if you ask me (though no one did, b/c I’m not Catholic), but Jesus didn’t hide himself under the appearance of flesh, “the Word became flesh…”

Read it again. The priest did NOT say that Jesus was “not really a man”–He said that Jesus was not ONLY a man.

And have you ever sung the Christmas hymn “Hark, the herald angels sing”?
It contains these words: “Veiled in flesh the Godhead see.”

 

[paperwight]

And the words in the hymn to the Blessed Sacrament by St. Thomas Aquinas

‘O Godhead hid, devoutly we adore Thee,
Who truly art within the forms before me’.

 

[dnomyaR]

If we were receiving Jesus physically, we would be cannibals–eating actual skin and bones and drinking bodily fluids. The *sacramental *presence of Jesus is the mystical way by which we are able to receive the fullness of Jesus’s body, blood, soul, and divinity without actually consuming physical flesh and blood.

Physicality implies a coherence in accident and substance. With physical flesh and blood, we would receive the species of flesh and blood under the appearance and taste of flesh and blood. With sacramentality, however, we can still receive substantial flesh and blood under the mysticality of the accidents of ordinary bread and wine.

I hope that helps.

I liked this explanation it helped me.

 

[grannymh]

Could someone explain Transubstantiation in real terminology?

Giving understandable definitions for the words used.

Also, could someone take that same explanation and adapt it for young people?

Does one need to use the word sacramental in the real terminology definition?

Which one verse in John, Chapter 6 gives the definition of Transubstantiation?

Thank you.

P.S. I’ve noticed on a variety of threads that posters seem to dance around the issue or just refer to parts of definitions for Transubstantiation. I would really like to see the terminology in a complete definition.

This thread is the first I’ve seen that does not like the use of literal or physical. Interesting?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Cluny]

Could someone explain Transubstantiation in real terminology?

Giving understandable definitions for the words used.

Also, could someone take that same explanation and adapt it for young people?

Does one need to use the word sacramental in the real terminology definition?

Which one verse in John, Chapter 6 gives the definition of Transubstantiation?

Thank you.

Granny, are you aware that “substance” and “accidents” have technical phliosophical and theological meanings in this context?

P.S. I’ve noticed on a variety of threads that posters seem to dance around the issue or just refer to parts of definitions for Transubstantiation. I would really like to see the terminology in a complete definition.

This thread is the first I’ve seen that does not like the use of literal or physical. Interesting?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Cluny]

Somehow, my reply wound up in the midst of my quoting of Granny’s letter.

Here it is:

Granny, are you aware that “substance” and “accidents” have technical phliosophical and theological meanings in this context?

 

[grannymh]

Somehow, my reply wound up in the midst of my quoting of Granny’s letter.

Here it is:

Granny, are you aware that “substance” and “accidents” have technical phliosophical and theological meanings in this context?

I am aware of the metaphysical substance and accidents but am not sure how to make that understandable. I’ve seen words like essence, core, unique, what makes a person a person and so on. Lately, I’ve seen “substantially present” a lot. What are the theological meanings? Something besides, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity?

I think accidents can be explained as taste, color, shape, in the sensory realm. However, I see signs and appearance used more often. Our pastor likes to use the word “sign”

I believe it is important to use the word “Transubstantiation” when writing about the Eucharist but there needs to be a correct English version probably in parenthesis.

I have one more question – but momentarily forgot it.