Christ in the Eucharist: Really, truly, substantially... and physically?
#21
The world physical is not well defined.

Here is from the Council of Ephesus

115 Can. 3. If anyone in the one Christ divides the subsistences after
the union, connecting them by a junction only according to worth, that
is to say absolute sway or power, and not rather by a joining according
to physical union, let him be anathema.

In other hand physical is the opposite of the moral or opposite of the spiritual or opposite of the supernatural.

Christ presence is supernatural, but definitely more than moral, and He is present primarily by his body and blood and not His spirit.
Reply
#22
(04-21-2010, 07:52 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(04-21-2010, 11:06 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: On an Evangelical Christian forum, other Catholics and I argued with Evangelicals about the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Evangelicals stated that we Catholics believe that Jesus is physically present in the Holy Eucharist, and were able to present one or two priests saying as much (Fr. Hardon among them). My understanding has always been that Jesus isn't physically present in the Holy Eucharist, but rather that He is substantially present (which need not be physical).

I found an article that seems to address your question: http://www.adoremus.org/0302RealPresence.html  It says, in part:
Quote:It follows that, insofar as "physical" is understood to mean "empirical", the Real Presence is not "physical". However, the denial that the Real Presence is physical can easily be misunderstood to mean that the Real Presence is not historically objective because not corporeal -- for our ordinary language associates "physical" reality with corporeal reality. Anyone accustomed to that interpretation of the "physical" would understand a denial of the "physical" presence of Christ in the Eucharist to be a denial of his substantial or concretely actual Real Presence. It must be insisted that the Real Presence is precisely corporeal, objective, and historical: it is a concrete Event -- presence, whether the Event be termed transubstantiation, or the offering of the One Sacrifice. It is in this specifically Catholic understanding -- that the Eucharist is concretely an Event, identically the Event of the Cross, that the Catholic Church parts company with those Protestants who affirm, with Luther, a Real Presence, but who, with Luther, deny the Sacrifice of the Mass, and deny transubstantiation.

It is well to avoid language which can be so easily misunderstood. It is better by far to speak of a substantial Real Presence because it is by a Presence per modum substantiae that the Risen Lord is incapable of being "imprisoned" or "contained" in this fallen world, whatever we may do.
In short, all this comes down to "it depends on what one means by physical."
Here is another article that explores this http://www.cts.org.au/0108/COMMENT.pdf:
Quote:But, let us look more closely at the different meanings of “physically present”
(Webster's) -
1. present corporeally, i.e. existing as a physical body.
2. present to our knowledge in a physical manner, i.e. to our senses, sensibly
(visibly),
or to our intellect, intelligibly (naturally).
3. present really, as opposed to figuratively, morally etc.
Meanings 1 and 3 are verified in the Eucharist, but not 2.

JayneK,
Thank you very much for your imput, especially for the Adoremus article (with a great quote by Pope Paul Vi at the end, as well). That may be exactly what I've been looking for.

If anyone else has anything they'd like to add, please feel free to do so.  ;)

Oh, and here's an article by Fr. John Hardon where he uses the term "physical" to describe Christ's presence in the Holy Eucharist:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/...itepar.htm


glgas,
Isn't Our Lord present body and blood, together with His soul and divinity (the whole Christ)?
Reply
#23
(04-21-2010, 06:40 PM)littlerose Wrote: The initial doubt is not a sin. But to pursue it and hold it without considering the teachings of the Church is a sin.

Well, even if it isn't, I think we got off topic (my fault). The point was that, to be an atheist or apostate, doubt alone is not sufficient. One must explicitly embrace the non-belief in God, which is a sin.

Quote:I have a real hard time with the Immaculate Conception, but after my initial doubts, I just set it aside as a mystery and accept that the teaching is real.

I think you're interpreting my use of the word "doubt" to mean intellectual doubt. I was referring to spiritual doubt: allowing yourself to spiritual doubt (as a lack of faith) a truth of the Church. That is sinful according to what I've read. But it is irrelevant in light of the above. 

Quote:I don't believe I sinned because as soon as someone showed me the error I decided not to think about it but trust that if I ever need to understsand it, the answer will be there in the Church.  If I persisted at that point someone showed me the doctrines, I would have moved from error to sin. 

I have no problem with this. The only teaching I sometimes have problems with is the inheritance of original sin.

Quote:I know you will say "but it is in the Apostle's Creed", yes, but I was "re-defining" it like the Gnostics do.  So I was in error on the edge of apostasy. 

Okay, but again, the original discourse concerned actually being an atheist or apostate, not a heretic.

And if you reject a teaching of the Church, you are not an apostate, you are a heretic. Apostasy is a complete rejection of the Faith wholly and completely.
Reply
#24
Thank you for the distinction between heresy and apostasy, I am often too fuzzy with words.  So, heresy might lead to apostasy but actually a person could just adopt one or two heretical notions and  continue on for years within the Faith without going into apostasy but lose his soul in the process, if he does not accept teaching.

Now, I remember when a lot of the teachings bothered me.  I was a devout child but questioned everything with great hormonal energy from puberty on.... and it has been like a counting game through the Apostle's creed to get back on my feet as a Catholic.

I really appreciate that the Church gave us such convenient Faith-learning tools as the Creed.  It is like checking your sugar level if you are a diabetic, to read it over and say, "ok, ok, uh.... hmm... ok ok ok" and then pray for answers to the "uh...hmmm..." parts  :laughing:
Reply
#25
(04-21-2010, 08:28 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: JayneK,
Thank you very much for your imput, especially for the Adoremus article (with a great quote by Pope Paul Vi at the end, as well). That may be exactly what I've been looking for.

You are welcome.  I saw how everyone was going off on a tangent in this thread and felt sorry for you.  :awww:
Reply
#26
(04-21-2010, 11:06 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: On an Evangelical Christian forum, other Catholics and I argued with Evangelicals about the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Evangelicals stated that we Catholics believe that Jesus is physically present in the Holy Eucharist, and were able to present one or two priests saying as much (Fr. Hardon among them). My understanding has always been that Jesus isn't physically present in the Holy Eucharist, but rather that He is substantially present (which need not be physical). As to why, I'll present the argument that I used against the Protestants:

"Therefore Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place. ... Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, a. 5, contra sed).

"For there is no repugnance in this that our Savior sits always at the right hand of the Father in heaven according to the natural mode of existing, and yet is in many other places sacramentally present to us in His own substance by a manner of existence which, though we can scarcely express in words, yet with our understanding illumined by faith, we can conceive and ought most firmly to believe is possible to God" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. I: DS 1636).

"The pastor should next teach that our Lord is not in the Sacrament as in a place. Place regards things only inasmuch as they have magnitude. Now we do not say that Christ is in the Sacrament inasmuch as He is great or small, terms which belong to quantity, but inasmuch as He is a substance. The substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christ, not into magnitude or quantity; and substance, it will be acknowledged by all, is contained in a small as well as in a large space" (Roman Catechism, II, 4).

Furthermore, Dr. Ott notes that the accidents of bread and wine "retain their physical reality after the change of the substance" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 383).


If Christ is not in the Blessed Sacrament as in a place, but rather is in Heaven in His natural mode of existence and in the Holy Eucharist in a sacramental mode of existence, and the appearances retain their physical reality, does this lead us to conclude that Our Lord is not physically present in the Blessed Sacrament?

Has anyone else heard that Christ is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament?

Please note: I am not in any way bringing into question Christ's true, real and substantial presence in the Blessed Sacrament, nor would I dare question the suitability of adoring Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. I am simply asking if it can be said, with theological accuracy, that Our Lord is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament.

I look forward to your responses!
God is omnipresent; He's everywhere. But he is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament. Fully present. He is the Eucharist. The whole Jesus, all of Him. Not just a fleck of his skin. Our Lord isn't bound to the laws of nature as we are.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#27
(04-27-2010, 05:31 AM)Jacafamala Wrote: God is omnipresent; He's everywhere. But he is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament. Fully present. He is the Eucharist. The whole Jesus, all of Him. Not just a fleck of his skin. Our Lord isn't bound to the laws of nature as we are.

The substance of the Holy Eucharist is the body and blood of our Lord. His body is distinct nature form God.

Jesus Christ living among us and living now at the right hand of the Father is person, and his personality is the same as the second divine Person, the Son.

The Eucharist is not person (subsitence) it has only unity with the broken body and shed blood of our Lord in the substance level.

This is mystery, but we should keep some distinctions.
Reply
#28
I don't understand the distinction.

Eucharist = Jesus = person. No?
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#29
(04-27-2010, 05:31 AM)Jacafamala Wrote:
(04-21-2010, 11:06 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: On an Evangelical Christian forum, other Catholics and I argued with Evangelicals about the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Evangelicals stated that we Catholics believe that Jesus is physically present in the Holy Eucharist, and were able to present one or two priests saying as much (Fr. Hardon among them). My understanding has always been that Jesus isn't physically present in the Holy Eucharist, but rather that He is substantially present (which need not be physical). As to why, I'll present the argument that I used against the Protestants:

"Therefore Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place. ... Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, a. 5, contra sed).

"For there is no repugnance in this that our Savior sits always at the right hand of the Father in heaven according to the natural mode of existing, and yet is in many other places sacramentally present to us in His own substance by a manner of existence which, though we can scarcely express in words, yet with our understanding illumined by faith, we can conceive and ought most firmly to believe is possible to God" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. I: DS 1636).

"The pastor should next teach that our Lord is not in the Sacrament as in a place. Place regards things only inasmuch as they have magnitude. Now we do not say that Christ is in the Sacrament inasmuch as He is great or small, terms which belong to quantity, but inasmuch as He is a substance. The substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christ, not into magnitude or quantity; and substance, it will be acknowledged by all, is contained in a small as well as in a large space" (Roman Catechism, II, 4).

Furthermore, Dr. Ott notes that the accidents of bread and wine "retain their physical reality after the change of the substance" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 383).


If Christ is not in the Blessed Sacrament as in a place, but rather is in Heaven in His natural mode of existence and in the Holy Eucharist in a sacramental mode of existence, and the appearances retain their physical reality, does this lead us to conclude that Our Lord is not physically present in the Blessed Sacrament?

Has anyone else heard that Christ is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament?

Please note: I am not in any way bringing into question Christ's true, real and substantial presence in the Blessed Sacrament, nor would I dare question the suitability of adoring Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. I am simply asking if it can be said, with theological accuracy, that Our Lord is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament.

I look forward to your responses!
God is omnipresent; He's everywhere. But he is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament. Fully present. He is the Eucharist. The whole Jesus, all of Him. Not just a fleck of his skin. Our Lord isn't bound to the laws of nature as we are.

If Our Lord is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament, then wouldn't it follow that he is in the sacrament as in a place? Wouldn't a physical presence be a local presence?

And yet, both St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism say that He is not there as in a place, with Trent making a distinction between Christ's natural mode of existence in Heaven and His sacramental mode of existence in the Blessed Sacrament. I would assume that Christ's natural mode of existence in Heaven is physical, which is why I would assume His sacramental presence to be something other than a physical presence.

The terms used by the Church seem to rule out a physical presence.
Reply
#30
(04-27-2010, 12:37 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(04-27-2010, 05:31 AM)Jacafamala Wrote:
(04-21-2010, 11:06 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: On an Evangelical Christian forum, other Catholics and I argued with Evangelicals about the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Evangelicals stated that we Catholics believe that Jesus is physically present in the Holy Eucharist, and were able to present one or two priests saying as much (Fr. Hardon among them). My understanding has always been that Jesus isn't physically present in the Holy Eucharist, but rather that He is substantially present (which need not be physical). As to why, I'll present the argument that I used against the Protestants:

"Therefore Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place. ... Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, a. 5, contra sed).

"For there is no repugnance in this that our Savior sits always at the right hand of the Father in heaven according to the natural mode of existing, and yet is in many other places sacramentally present to us in His own substance by a manner of existence which, though we can scarcely express in words, yet with our understanding illumined by faith, we can conceive and ought most firmly to believe is possible to God" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. I: DS 1636).

"The pastor should next teach that our Lord is not in the Sacrament as in a place. Place regards things only inasmuch as they have magnitude. Now we do not say that Christ is in the Sacrament inasmuch as He is great or small, terms which belong to quantity, but inasmuch as He is a substance. The substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christ, not into magnitude or quantity; and substance, it will be acknowledged by all, is contained in a small as well as in a large space" (Roman Catechism, II, 4).

Furthermore, Dr. Ott notes that the accidents of bread and wine "retain their physical reality after the change of the substance" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 383).


If Christ is not in the Blessed Sacrament as in a place, but rather is in Heaven in His natural mode of existence and in the Holy Eucharist in a sacramental mode of existence, and the appearances retain their physical reality, does this lead us to conclude that Our Lord is not physically present in the Blessed Sacrament?

Has anyone else heard that Christ is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament?

Please note: I am not in any way bringing into question Christ's true, real and substantial presence in the Blessed Sacrament, nor would I dare question the suitability of adoring Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. I am simply asking if it can be said, with theological accuracy, that Our Lord is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament.

I look forward to your responses!
God is omnipresent; He's everywhere. But he is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament. Fully present. He is the Eucharist. The whole Jesus, all of Him. Not just a fleck of his skin. Our Lord isn't bound to the laws of nature as we are.

If Our Lord is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament, then wouldn't it follow that he is in the sacrament as in a place? Wouldn't a physical presence be a local presence?

And yet, both St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism say that He is not there as in a place, with Trent making a distinction between Christ's natural mode of existence in Heaven and His sacramental mode of existence in the Blessed Sacrament. I would assume that Christ's natural mode of existence in Heaven is physical, which is why I would assume His sacramental presence to be something other than a physical presence.

The terms used by the Church seem to rule out a physical presence.
In other words, He is the Eucharist--or the Eucharist is Him, rather. Right, that's what 'm saying--trying to say.

The Eucharist is the Real Presence.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)