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

[japhy]

Could someone explain Transubstantiation in real terminology?

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

In philosophical terms, what a thing really is is called its “substance” or “essence”. What we perceive of that thing are its “accidents”.

(“Substance” from the Latin sub- (under) stare (stand), thus “stand under”. “Essence” from the Latin esse (to be).)

Just as transformation is a change in form, transubstantiation is a change in substance. Instead of the form or appearance (“accidents”) of the bread and wine changing, their substance – what they are – changes. Their substance is replaced with the substance of Jesus Christ in his full humanity (body, blood, soul) and divinity. This presence is sacramental and substantial (that is, in substance), rather than physical.

As a rough analogy… consider a person before and after baptism. There is no physical or accidental change in the person (apart from getting wet, which will “wear off” soon enough) in the person, yet there is an invisible change that is not perceptible to our senses that has taken place. The change that happens to the bread and wine is invisible to our senses as well.

Does this help?

 

[japhy]

I’ve seen “substantially present” a lot. What are the theological meanings? Something besides, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity?

The word “substantially” in our vernacular speech usually means “for the most part”. Example: “this football team is made up substantially of first-year players”. But in philosophy, “substantially” means “according to the substance”. Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist because he is present in his substance, that is, in the fullness of who he is: God and man, perfect and complete: body, blood, soul, divinity.

I think accidents can be explained as taste, color, shape, in the sensory realm. However, I see signs and appearance used more often.

“Species” is another word used to describe the physical appearance. “Communion under both kinds” or “Communion under both species” or “Communion under both forms” mean the same thing: receiving Holy Communion under both the form of bread and the form of wine, even though the substance beneath both is the same: the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

“Sign” is a good word, but it must be remembered that the Eucharist is both a sign and the thing signified… we just can’t see the thing signified because the appearance has not changed, only the substance.

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.

The easiest brief explanation is probably “a change of what the bread and wine really are”. “what … really are” = substance, essence.

 

[grannymh]

In philosophical terms, what a thing really is is called its “substance” or “essence”. What we perceive of that thing are its “accidents”.

(“Substance” from the Latin sub- (under) stare (stand), thus “stand under”. “Essence” from the Latin esse (to be).)

Just as transformation is a change in form, transubstantiation is a change in substance. Instead of the form or appearance (“accidents”) of the bread and wine changing, their substance – what they are – changes. Their substance is replaced with the substance of Jesus Christ in his full humanity (body, blood, soul) and divinity. This presence is sacramental and substantial (that is, in substance), rather than physical.

As a rough analogy… consider a person before and after baptism. There is no physical or accidental change in the person (apart from getting wet, which will “wear off” soon enough) in the person, yet there is an invisible change that is not perceptible to our senses that has taken place. The change that happens to the bread and wine is invisible to our senses as well.

Does this help?

Believe it or not, the Latin helped. I’m thinking that adding the word sacramental will also help people understand. What connotations go with sacramental?

My observation is that since the word “Transubstantiation” has been dropped from homilies, Mass attendance has dropped. This is because people naturally lean toward the symbolic and figurative which is easier to understand. We heard so much about Jesus being present in community, etc., that the significance of the reality dropped.

I need to leave, but I am really interested, personally concerned, in continuing this conversation. I will return!

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

The word “substantially” in our vernacular speech usually means “for the most part”. Example: “this football team is made up substantially of first-year players”. But in philosophy, “substantially” means “according to the substance”. Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist because he is present in his substance, that is, in the fullness of who he is: God and man, perfect and complete: body, blood, soul, divinity.

“Species” is another word used to describe the physical appearance. “Communion under both kinds” or “Communion under both species” or “Communion under both forms” mean the same thing: receiving Holy Communion under both the form of bread and the form of wine, even though the substance beneath both is the same: the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

“Sign” is a good word, but it must be remembered that the Eucharist is both a sign and the thing signified… we just can’t see the thing signified because the appearance has not changed, only the substance.

The easiest brief explanation is probably “a change of what the bread and wine really are”. “what … really are” = substance, essence.

Quick question before I dart out. Should some use of “fullness” be attached to the seemingly cliche “Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity”?

 

[japhy]

Quick question before I dart out. Should some use of “fullness” be attached to the seemingly cliche “Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity”?

When we minister to the poor, we are ministering to Christ, but not to his Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Christ’s presence in the poor (or in those ministering to them) is not the same type of presence in the Eucharist. His presence in the person of the priest, or in the Scriptures proclaimed by the Church, or in the assembled faithful at Mass, is not the same type of presence he has in the Eucharist.

In the words of Pope Paul VI (Encyclical Mysterium Fidei 38-39, from 1965):
38. … No one is unaware that the sacraments are the actions of Christ who administers them through men. And so the sacraments are holy in themselves and they pour grace into the soul by the power of Christ, when they touch the body. The Highest Kind of Presence.

These various ways in which Christ is present fill the mind with astonishment and offer the Church a mystery for her contemplation. But there is another way in which Christ is present in His Church, a way that surpasses all the others. It is His presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is, for this reason, “a more consoling source of devotion, a lovelier object of contemplation and holier in what it contains” than all the other sacraments; for it contains Christ Himself and it is “a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments.”

1. This presence is called “real” not to exclude the idea that the others are “real” too, but rather to indicate presence par excellence, because it is substantial and through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man. And so it would be wrong for anyone to try to explain this manner of presence by dreaming up a so-called “pneumatic” nature of the glorious body of Christ that would be present everywhere; or for anyone to limit it to symbolism, as if this most sacred Sacrament were to consist in nothing more than an efficacious sign “of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful, the members of His Mystical Body.” (MF 38-39)

 

[japhy]

Believe it or not, the Latin helped. I’m thinking that adding the word sacramental will also help people understand. What connotations go with sacramental?

A sacrament (Greek: mysterion) is “an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace”. Sacraments have a “physical” (sensible) form and a “spiritual” (substantial, sacramental!) reality. They are mysteries: we do not so much understand them as believe them.

My observation is that since the word “Transubstantiation” has been dropped from homilies, Mass attendance has dropped. This is because people naturally lean toward the symbolic and figurative which is easier to understand. We heard so much about Jesus being present in community, etc., that the significance of the reality dropped.

(How often did you hear “transubstantiation” in homilies before?!)

I would agree, though, that if the “communal” presence of Christ is given “first billing”, the order (hierarchy) of presences can get lost. The Eucharist is the presence par excellence of Christ. You can’t get any “realer” than that (short of the accidents of bread and wine disappearing and perceiving Christ as he is). If you make the Eucharist to be a symbol or a figure of speech (rather than a reality), why should we care about that symbol (bread and wine) when we can care about a symbol of Christ that lives and breathes and needs food and shelter and medicine?

This is, in truth, a false dichotomy. The Church can (and does!) worship Christ in the Eucharist and minister to Christ present in the poor. In fact, it is only because the Church is sustained by the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist day by day that she can continue to do the things in the world that she does.

Another drawback of the over-emphasis of symbolism is that, if all symbols are equal (or, worse, if the Eucharist is a lesser symbol because it’s so “old” and “backward”), you can swap another symbol with it. Eucharist with beer and nachos, Eucharist with soda and Cheetos. Or, you can go one step further: we are Eucharist, that is, the Church celebrates herself, or to be more specific, the local Church community celebrates herself. (This is not at all what St. Ignatius meant when he said he was the finely ground bread of Christ: he was speaking of his impending martyrdom.) We see this too often: Mass (if it’s called Mass – more often just called a “Eucharistic celebration”, not even a “worship service”) is a horizontal celebration of the community (to which God is invited).

 

[Cluny]

“Sign” is a good word, but it must be remembered that the Eucharist is both a sign and the thing signified… we just can’t see the thing signified because the appearance has not changed, only the substance.

Good words here!

In Greek SYMBOLOS (whence the English word “symbol”) means “a bringing together of two realities” (compare the word “symphony”–sounding together).

And in Greek thought, the SYMBOLOS was not just an empty sign, or something that stood for something else.

The SYMBOLOS was in fact the thing signified, as the quote points out.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I still prefer the good old fashioned “substantially” present. I like to say we receive the substance but not the accidents of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

 

[grannymh]

I still prefer the good old fashioned “substantially” present. I like to say we receive the substance but not the accidents of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Are you familiar with the Miracle of Lanciano, Italy? I was reading that the real “flesh” and real “blood” are not the accidents of Jesus Christ. Does this make sense to you.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

(How often did you hear “transubstantiation” in homilies before?!)
quote]

 

[japhy]

I need a cheat sheet for greeters and docents which explains the Eucharist.

Oooh.

Could it be that the word "Transubstantiation was actually dropped from Catholic grade/junior high school education and CCD? That would account for the fact that very few Catholics (younger than me) know how to explain the Eucharist.

That seems likely. Which is why I never omit the term when I speak about the Eucharist to Catholics, inquirers (in RCIA), and others. I make it clear Vatican II never touched this doctrine, and Pope Paul VI specifically repeated it in 1965 in Mysterium Fidei.

Realistically, that is the perfect group to preach to. Something has to encourage the choir to go out and “preach”. Or at least be able to answer questions.

Good point.

So, dear japhy, will you accept the amendment to my statement?

Oh, certainly!

 

[Faith1960]

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?

Good question, I’ve been trying to find out what it means for Jesus to be substantially present in the Eucharist and still don’t get it.

 

[Faith1960]

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.”

Butcwhat does he mean by Jesus’ “sacramental presence?”

 

[BartholomewB]

This is not a new question, by any means. It is useful to look at it in its historical context. Both Augustine and Ambrose wrote about in, in *De Doctrina *and *De Mysteriis *respectively. After that period it was largely forgotten. Several centuries passed without anyone raising any questions about it, until Charlemagne (768-814) initiated wide-ranging ecclesiastical reforms, including the standardization of the liturgy throughout the Empire. This in turn triggered a new spirit of inquiry in the Church, particularly in Benedictine monasteries.

Liturgical reform called for reflection on the sacraments, some of which presented greater difficulty than others. Baptism, for instance, was relatively straightforward, but the Eucharist was more complex. In the words of Willemien Otten, a specialist in Augustine at the University of Chicago, “Whereas we are baptized like Christ, we cannot relive Christ’s death and resurrection.”

This is the background to the celebrated “Eucharistic controversy” at Corbie, a Benedictine monastery in France, in the 830s and 840s. Two monks, Radbertus and Ratramnus, both wrote books on the subject, both of them drawing on Ambrose and Augustine. Unhelpfully, they both gave their books the same title, *De Corpore et Sanguine Domini *(On the Body and Blood of the Lord), and both used essentially the same terminology, in which the three key words were *veritas *(truth), figura (appearance or symbol), and *mysterium *(mystery). But they attached different meanings to the terms. Radbertus used veritas to mean that which faith teaches and figura to mean the outward appearance of the elements of the Eucharist: they are outwardly bread and wine but “truly,” in Radbertus’ sense, the body and blood of the Lord. But Ratramnus, whose book appeared about ten years later, used *veritas *to denote the natural world of tne five senses and figura to denote all that is symbolic.

At the time of the Protestant Reformation, the reformers sized upon Ratramnus’ book to justify their reinterpretation of the Eucharist, while the Catholic Church stood by Radbertus. The controversy continues.

 

[Faith1960]

This is not a new question, by any means. It is useful to look at it in its historical context. Both Augustine and Ambrose wrote about in, in *De Doctrina *and *De Mysteriis *respectively. After that period it was largely forgotten. Several centuries passed without anyone raising any questions about it, until Charlemagne (768-814) initiated wide-ranging ecclesiastical reforms, including the standardization of the liturgy throughout the Empire. This in turn triggered a new spirit of inquiry in the Church, particularly in Benedictine monasteries.

Liturgical reform called for reflection on the sacraments, some of which presented greater difficulty than others. Baptism, for instance, was relatively straightforward, but the Eucharist was more complex. In the words of Willemien Otten, a specialist in Augustine at the University of Chicago, “Whereas we are baptized like Christ, we cannot relive Christ’s death and resurrection.”

This is the background to the celebrated “Eucharistic controversy” at Corbie, a Benedictine monastery in France, in the 830s and 840s. Two monks, Radbertus and Ratramnus, both wrote books on the subject, both of them drawing on Ambrose and Augustine. Unhelpfully, they both gave their books the same title, *De Corpore et Sanguine Domini *(On the Body and Blood of the Lord), and both used essentially the same terminology, in which the three key words were *veritas *(truth), figura (appearance or symbol), and *mysterium *(mystery). But they attached different meanings to the terms. Radbertus used veritas to mean that which faith teaches and figura to mean the outward appearance of the elements of the Eucharist: they are outwardly bread and wine but “truly,” in Radbertus’ sense, the body and blood of the Lord. But Ratramnus, whose book appeared about ten years later, used *veritas *to denote the natural world of tne five senses and figura to denote all that is symbolic.

At the time of the Protestant Reformation, the reformers sized upon Ratramnus’ book to justify their reinterpretation of the Eucharist, while the Catholic Church stood by Radbertus. The controversy continues.

Wow. Was that all an answer to me? If so, it was WAAAAY over my head.

 

[BartholomewB]

Wow. Was that all an answer to me? If so, it was WAAAAY over my head.

You surprise me, Faith. Most of the posters on this thread deal with the fine distinctions between abstract ideas such as substance and accidents, transformation and transubstantiation, physical presence and sacramental presence, really, truly, sacramentally, literally, and substantially. These are the things that I find difficult and that are burning up my last few remaining neurons. My post, in contrast, is just gossip about a couple of monks and what happened one day when they started a quarrel.

I tried to keep my post short and sweet – I don’t like reading long posts, let alone writing them – and perhaps I cut too much out. I left out one character in particular, Charlemagne’s grandson, who is known to history by the unflattering name Charles the Bald. Charles was the ruler of the Empire at the time Radbertus wrote his book, and one day in 843 he turned up at Corbie saying he wanted to stay there a few days on a retreat. Charles was interested in theology, not least because he was aware that a mastery of the subject would help him settle conflicts at the various councils that were held in the course of his reign.

After a day or two at Corbie, Charles found that he didn’t get on very well with Radbertus, who was the head of the monastic school and therefore, nominally, the monastery’s top theologian. He got on better with one of the other monks, Ratramnus. (Later the same year Radbertus was elected abbot, on which occasion Ratramnus took over as head of the monastic school.)

Among other questions, Charles asked Ratramnus “whether the body and the blood of Christ, which the faithful at church receive in their mouth, are present there in mystery or in truth.” That was when the trouble began.

 

[Vico]

But what does he mean by Jesus’ “sacramental presence?”

Sacramental presence is the manner of presence of Christ in the sacrament of Holy Communion.

There are the appearances of bread and wine, but he is fully there in his divinity and humanity. The appearances are are not make-believe but are sustained in existence by divine power.