What happens to the host after it is eaten?

[simple_soul]

I would caution that theologians might have a problem with the statement that Jesus is “Physically” present. This is really splitting hairs but if two theologians were discussing the sacrament, they would probably not use that term.

Msgr Charles Pope over at blog.adw.org put it this way (in the comment section)…

***In the end I want you to know that Jesus is really, truly, and actually present in the Eucharist and that you actually and literally receive him in the Eucharist.

That theologians are reticent to use the term “physical” is only because “physical,” at least as literally understood, would require the host to weigh about 210 lbs (or what ever Christ weighs) and have body parts etc., further that he could only be in one place at a time. As it is Christ is actually present in the host but in a sacramental way wherein we truly receive him but in way that the species of bread and wine (i.e. what we see, touch and taste) remains. We also receive the whole Christ, Body, blood, soul and divinity, not just a part of him. But please understand, sacramental presence is a REAL and true presence, no less real than a strictly physical presence***. I’m not a theologian and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express but it seems to me, just my own thoughts here, that “Sacramentally” present is actually present but in a way that transcends even being physically present - able to be in two place at one time and able to be in two times at one place for that matter. Being actually present but not changing the observable physical characteristics of the matter which has in fact been replaced.

Could it be that it is the sacramental presence that stays with us? I really don’t know and would love to hear a theologian speak about it.

Again, for us laity it’s splitting hairs. Just thought I’d throw it out there.

-Tim-

*Hi Tim,

I like the very last line in this quote you shared. I underlined it and then emphasized what I believe is what I understand.
So I wonder if the correct way to say this would be He is physically present to us in a mystical and sacramental way.

The way understand the two places at one time thing is, if God is all encompassing and Jesus is God then He can be at any place He wants to be all the time.
Does that make sense?
*

 

[simple_soul]

Isn’t the Eucharist just symbolic though? Yes, it becomes the body and blood of Christ, symbolically. I’m sure its still 100% bread and wine. physically anyways.

*Dear Decimvs,

I guess you could look at it as only being symbolic.
But when I look at it as only being symbolic I find that I start looking at God as being just symbolic.
So it just does not work for me right now.

I hope and pray that makes some sense.

 

[simple_soul]

My grandmother put it like this. Every “accident” has a subject to which it refers. The appearance of wine, it’s accident, refers to its subject, the wine itself.

In the Eucharist, the accidents of bread and wine no longer have any subject! The reality of the bread and wine ceases to exist.

I love that. Strait, Direct and to the point.

 

[simple_soul]

S.S. How are you? I love this Post.

Hi Gary,

What I find most enlightening about this understanding is how we have to learn to depend on God for everything.
Because when we die we will not have a choice.
So the more we learn how to depend on Him in this life the more prepared we will be to depend on Him in the next life.
The way I understand this dependency is like a child in a mother’s womb.
The child depends on the mother for the food and oxygen they need to live.
When we die, I believe we will have to depend on God in a similar manner.

Good to read from you again. I have been well thanks for asking and I hope and pray you have been well to.

 

[Alindawyl]

My grandmother put it like this. Every “accident” has a subject to which it refers. The appearance of wine, it’s accident, refers to its subject, the wine itself.

In the Eucharist, the accidents of bread and wine no longer have any subject! The reality of the bread and wine ceases to exist.

That’s not exactly correct. Accidents are associated with substances, not subjects.

In talking about the Eucharist, substance and accident are terms which the Church uses in their metaphysical sense. Unless you’ve studied metaphysics, you probably aren’t familiar with that usage.

Metaphysically, a substance is the essential property of a thing without which it would not be that thing. A tree possesses the substance of a tree, which is different from the substance of a person or a car or a mountain or a rainbow. Substance isn’t metal, or wood, or flesh, or bone, or spirit, or energy, or anything like that. It’s just a concept to talk about the essential property of a thing.

Metaphysically, an accident is any non-essential property of a thing. Trees don’t have to be tall, because trees kept tiny by the art of bonsai are still trees. Trees don’t have to be located in the ground, because a tree in a pot is still a tree. Trees don’t have to have leaves, because deciduous trees lose them in winter. All of those are accidents, things which are non-essential for the substance of a tree to exist. Changes in accidents are called accidental change.

Burn a tree, however, and it ceases to be a tree. The substance changes into something new - ash. Changes in substance are called substantial change. They also give us new accidents associated with the new substance.

The miracle of the Eucharist is that the substance of bread and wine has been changed to the substance of Jesus Christ while keeping all of the accidents of bread and wine instead of also acquiring the accidents of Jesus Christ. The Eucharist has the substance of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, but looks, smells, feels and tastes like bread and wine. That’s why the term transubstantiation was created to describe the change in the Eucharist. They took the term transformation and replaced “form” with “substance”.

The substance of Jesus is present for as long as the accidents of bread and wine are present. Once those accidents are gone (which typically takes 15-20 minutes after consumption), then the substance of Jesus is gone as well.

 

[Decimvs]

*Dear Decimvs,

I guess you could look at it as only being symbolic.
But when I look at it as only being symbolic I find that I start looking at God as being just symbolic.
So it just does not work for me right now.

I hope and pray that makes some sense.

Works for you? Your suppose to form reality to what works for you? Jesus told us to do it in remembrance of him. And so it does symbolically become the blood and body of Christ. God may bless them, but physically, it’s still bread and wine, you would probably vomit trying to eat/drink it if it was real wouldn’t you?

That kinda reminds me of the that commandment… you know.
“I am The Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.”

God shouldn’t be made to fit you. But you to fit God. I’m not saying thats against the commandment what your saying, but your kind of believing what you want to believe and not what the Eucharist physically is. I’m talking solely physically, not spiritually.

 

[simple_soul]

Works for you? Your suppose to form reality to what works for you? Jesus told us to do it in remembrance of him. And so it does symbolically become the blood and body of Christ. God may bless them, but physically, it’s still bread and wine, you would probably vomit trying to eat/drink it if it was real wouldn’t you?

That kinda reminds me of the that commandment… you know.
“I am The Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.”

God shouldn’t be made to fit you. But you to fit God. I’m not saying thats against the commandment what your saying, but your kind of believing what you want to believe and not what the Eucharist physically is. I’m talking solely physically, not spiritually.

*Point made and taken. I think…

I believe a better way to explain what I was trying to say is that the Eucharist is more than just a symbol.

The Eucharist is Jesus Christ, God Incarnate. Are you saying this is incorrect?

The reason I do not see the Eucharist as just a symbole is because I believe that would be putting the symbole before God. If that is the case then I believe I have made the symbole my god and that would be putting a false god infront of God.

Does that make sense?

 

[simple_soul]

That’s not exactly correct. Accidents are associated with substances, not subjects.

In talking about the Eucharist, substance and accident are terms which the Church uses in their metaphysical sense. Unless you’ve studied metaphysics, you probably aren’t familiar with that usage.

Metaphysically, a substance is the essential property of a thing without which it would not be that thing. A tree possesses the substance of a tree, which is different from the substance of a person or a car or a mountain or a rainbow. Substance isn’t metal, or wood, or flesh, or bone, or spirit, or energy, or anything like that. It’s just a concept to talk about the essential property of a thing.

Metaphysically, an accident is any non-essential property of a thing. Trees don’t have to be tall, because trees kept tiny by the art of bonsai are still trees. Trees don’t have to be located in the ground, because a tree in a pot is still a tree. Trees don’t have to have leaves, because deciduous trees lose them in winter. All of those are accidents, things which are non-essential for the substance of a tree to exist. Changes in accidents are called accidental change.

Burn a tree, however, and it ceases to be a tree. The substance changes into something new - ash. Changes in substance are called substantial change. They also give us new accidents associated with the new substance.

The miracle of the Eucharist is that the substance of bread and wine has been changed to the substance of Jesus Christ while keeping all of the accidents of bread and wine instead of also acquiring the accidents of Jesus Christ. The Eucharist has the substance of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, but looks, smells, feels and tastes like bread and wine. That’s why the term transubstantiation was created to describe the change in the Eucharist. They took the term transformation and replaced “form” with “substance”.

*Dear Alindawyl,
I started to get lost with the begining part of your post but then I read this part.
This makes more sense.

I wonder if you could help me understand another thought of mine regarding the next part of your post.
*

The substance of Jesus is present for as long as the accidents of bread and wine are present. Once those accidents are gone (which typically takes 15-20 minutes after consumption), then the substance of Jesus is gone as well.

If we are consuming Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity through the bread and wine. As our body digests Him would He not become a part of us just like anything else we eat through the fact that we are digesting the bread and wine that He has taken form in?

 

[Alindawyl]

If we are consuming Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity through the bread and wine. As our body digests Him would He not become a part of us just like anything else we eat through the fact that we are digesting the bread and wine that He has taken form in?

I’m no theologian but it sounds reasonable. So… probably?

If not, then whatever God teaches through his instrument the Church.

 

[simple_soul]

I’m no theologian but it sounds reasonable. So… probably?

If not, then whatever God teaches through his instrument the Church.

 

[Robert_Burns]

What happens after the host is digested? Is it still the body of christ while it is being digested?

When Jesus comes to us under the appearance of Bread and Wine in the Real Presence it is by his design as Jesus himself has implemented the Blessed Sacrament. It isnt a Science Project.

Pax

 

[larsenl1]

This is a great question and the responses explaining the metaphysical treatments were educational.

I like to think that yes, Jesus’ Body Blood Soul and Divinity are now with me. I think of him flowing through my veins, being in my lungs, running through my kidneys and liver and becoming part of my muscle and bones. And yes, part of that is that the kidneys lead to the bladder and the stomach and intestines lead to the colon. But it is scandalous that we are consuming the flesh of the Messiah. We are supposed to consider how this works. It is awesome and mysterious and wonderful. It is also why some of the disciples turned and walked away after the Bread of Life discourse in the Gospel of John. Jesus emphatically states that we must gnaw on his flesh.

Anyway, that is my humble opinion.

God Bless

 

[simple_soul]

This is a great question and the responses explaining the metaphysical treatments were educational.

I like to think that yes, Jesus’ Body Blood Soul and Divinity are now with me. I think of him flowing through my veins, being in my lungs, running through my kidneys and liver and becoming part of my muscle and bones. And yes, part of that is that the kidneys lead to the bladder and the stomach and intestines lead to the colon. But it is scandalous that we are consuming the flesh of the Messiah. We are supposed to consider how this works. It is awesome and mysterious and wonderful. It is also why some of the disciples turned and walked away after the Bread of Life discourse in the Gospel of John. Jesus emphatically states that we must gnaw on his flesh.

Anyway, that is my humble opinion.

God Bless

*Dear Larsen,

Thank you for sharing this.
I thought I remembered reading or hearing about this somewhere but could not recall where.
Do you happen to know what the chapter and verse are.

Thank you and God Bless you too,*

 

[larsenl1]

*Dear Larsen,

Thank you for sharing this.
I thought I remembered reading or hearing about this somewhere but could not recall where.
Do you happen to know what the chapter and verse are.

Thank you and God Bless you too,*

Gospel of John 6:47-66

47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

I’ve been told that the part that says the one who feeds on me is a transalation of the greek verb “to gnaw”

 

[simple_soul]

*Thank you larsenl,
*