Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?

[Nita]

Originally Posted by Facite

I am very aware that the Eucharist is really Jesus and there is nothing that is not Jesus about it, however my question (which asks if Christ is physically and/or sacramentally present in the Eucharist; which has an answer to which not many Catholics know the answer to (or have a malformed idea of knowing), is quite relevant. I am also not sure if your sources really state about the (possible) physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Your opening question is very good. Jesus is not "physically" present in the way people normally define "physical".

I hope you will take the time to read TomD's link - especially the section titled "Dimensive quantity....and the Eucharist". You will find an excellent explanation there.
http://newtheologicalmovement.blogsp...s-body-in.html

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by R_C

Thanks Jon.

On the "real vs. physical" question, this article by the Jesuit Fr. Donald Keefe goes over the topic in a concise manner but going over the whole history of the Eucharistic theology.

Also, a quote from Pope Pope Paul VI in the "Mysterium Fidei" is provided, which ends as follows:

Hi R_C,
Thanks for sharing the good father's article. It was worth the read.

In 1978, the Vatican and the LWF put together this document regarding the state of Catholic/Lutheran convergences and remaining differences on the Eucharist. It, too, is a very good read.

http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int...eucharist.html


Jon

[Facite]

Thank you for all the links! They were all worth reading and were very helpful. I think I have my problem sorted out now.

[Facite]

I have also received an answer from one of my friends giving a good answer: "The Eucharist is not the physical body and blood of Jesus. It is the sacramental presence. The Eucharist IS the Body of Christ, but not physical, otherwise it would look like flesh and blood. Also, Jesus will only come to us physically again at the Last Coming, so at the Mass, it is sacramental, not physical."

[Philthy]

Here's another good article on the subject from Cardinal Avery Dulles:

http://www.adoremus.org/0405RealPresence.html

In short, we receive the glorified body of Christ in the Eucharist which should not be thought of in the normal physical sense. There is no "physical" difference between a consecrated and unconsecrated host. Enjoy..

[snarflemike]

Originally Posted by TomD123

It depends on how you define physical. I would say no, based on my understanding of physical.
Jesus is truly and substantially, and really present under the appearance of bread and wine, but He is not physically present in the way we would normally understand physical presence.

Here is a good article:
http://newtheologicalmovement.blogsp...s-body-in.html

You're right that it depends on what is meant by "physical". In the language of transubstantiation, I would interpret "physical" to mean that the accidents of the thing corresponded to substance of the thing. In that case, no, we don't receive Jesus physically, because the substance (body, blood, soul and divinity) does not correspond to the accidents (bread and wine). But yes, he is truly and substantially present, not just symbolically present.

[Ron Conte]

Human nature consists of a physical part, termed the body (or body and blood) and a spiritual part, termed the soul. Jesus has two natures, the Divine Nature and a human nature. Christ is fully present in the Eucharist His entire Person with both natures. So both the physical and the spiritual part of his human nature is present. Jesus is physically present in every host and every tabernacle in the world. He is fully present in each location. We can say that He is locally present, physically present, fully present.

The claim that Jesus is not physically present and not locally present, in every host and tabernacle in the world, is contrary to the dogma of the real presence. The Church has always taught that Jesus is present: body, blood, soul, and Divinity -- his whole human nature and his Divine Nature.

[andrewstx]

Originally Posted by Facite

I have also received an answer from one of my friends giving a good answer: "The Eucharist is not the physical body and blood of Jesus. It is the sacramental presence. The Eucharist IS the Body of Christ, but not physical, otherwise it would look like flesh and blood. Also, Jesus will only come to us physically again at the Last Coming, so at the Mass, it is sacramental, not physical."

Perhaps it will be helpfull to remember that when we recieve the Holy Eucharist we are not recieving Jesus as when he walked the earth.

We are recieving the ressurected, glorified Jesus.

[Nita]

Originally Posted by Facite

I have also received an answer from one of my friends giving a good answer: "The Eucharist is not the physical body and blood of Jesus. It is the sacramental presence. The Eucharist IS the Body of Christ, but not physical, otherwise it would look like flesh and blood. Also, Jesus will only come to us physically again at the Last Coming, so at the Mass, it is sacramental, not physical."

Jesus is present in the Eucharist in His entirety - which means His physical "accidents" are also present - but they remain present interiorly only . Thus the external manifestation is present only as an ability of His sacramental & substantial Body and Blood, an ability to manifest Itself "physically" to us, an ability to manifest His body's natural accidents to us. Everything is there, so to speak, but Jesus has chosen not to externally manifest it to us - but rather to allow the accidents of bread and wiine be what we physically perceive through our senses.

Here are Fr. Ryan's words http://newtheologicalmovement.blogsp...s-body-in.html

In other words, the Real Presence in the Eucharist does include the accidental property of Christ’s body which is dimensive quantity. The body of Christ, present in the Eucharist, is substantially the same body which took up space while he was on earth and which now is physically and dimensionally extended in heaven. However, the body of Christ is present in the Eucharist according to a substantial mode which is sacramental – therefore, the physical extension of the Lord’s body is only an “inner extension” and is not expressed in “outer extension”. Thus, the Lords’ Real Presence does not take up space, nor is our Lord moved in the Sacrament, nor does his body suffer violence when the Sacrament is consumed – hence, while we must admit that the body of Christ is present in its “physical reality” (i.e. the inner dimensive extension), we ought not claim that this body is “physically present."

[Facite]

Originally Posted by Nita

Jesus is present in the Eucharist in His entirety - which means His physical "accidents" are also present - but they remain present interiorly only . Thus the external manifestation is present only as an ability of His sacramental & substantial Body and Blood, an ability to manifest Itself "physically" to us, an ability to manifest His body's natural accidents to us. Everything is there, so to speak, but Jesus has chosen not to externally manifest it to us - but rather to allow the accidents of bread and wiine be what we physically perceive through our senses.

Here are Fr. Ryan's words http://newtheologicalmovement.blogsp...s-body-in.html

In other words, the Real Presence in the Eucharist does include the accidental property of Christ’s body which is dimensive quantity. The body of Christ, present in the Eucharist, is substantially the same body which took up space while he was on earth and which now is physically and dimensionally extended in heaven. However, the body of Christ is present in the Eucharist according to a substantial mode which is sacramental – therefore, the physical extension of the Lord’s body is only an “inner extension” and is not expressed in “outer extension”. Thus, the Lords’ Real Presence does not take up space, nor is our Lord moved in the Sacrament, nor does his body suffer violence when the Sacrament is consumed – hence, while we must admit that the body of Christ is present in its “physical reality” (i.e. the inner dimensive extension), we ought not claim that this body is “physically present."

So does this mean the passage from my friend is incorrect?

[Philthy]

Originally Posted by Ron Conte

Human nature consists of a physical part, termed the body (or body and blood) and a spiritual part, termed the soul. Jesus has two natures, the Divine Nature and a human nature. Christ is fully present in the Eucharist His entire Person with both natures. So both the physical and the spiritual part of his human nature is present. Jesus is physically present in every host and every tabernacle in the world. He is fully present in each location. We can say that He is locally present, physically present, fully present.

The claim that Jesus is not physically present and not locally present, in every host and tabernacle in the world, is contrary to the dogma of the real presence. The Church has always taught that Jesus is present: body, blood, soul, and Divinity -- his whole human nature and his Divine Nature.

We receive Christ's glorified human nature. That is substantially different from the "human nature" that walked about on earth and that you reference above. So while both natures of Christ are present in the Eucharist, it is not in the same physical sense that is normally meant. There is no scientifically (ie physical) discernible difference between a consecrated and unconsecrated host.

[Nita]

Originally Posted by Facite

So does this mean the passage from my friend is incorrect?

Your friend said:

"The Eucharist is not the physical body and blood of Jesus. It is the sacramental presence.

It is not correct to say it "is not the physical body and blood of Jesus". Bodies are physical things - not spiritual or immaterial things. It is Jesus' physical body (glorified) that is present in the Eucharist - as well as His human soul and His Divinity.

Catholic teaching could be expressed in the following way:
"In the Eucharist, the glorified physical body and blood of Jesus is present in a sacramental mode."

The Eucharist IS the Body of Christ, but not physical,

Again, this would be incorrect because a "body" is physical - the physical part of our human nature, not the spiritual, immaterial part. Jesus' body is the physical part of His being.

It would be better to say:
"The Eucharist is the Body of Christ, but without it's physical accidents being manifested/expressed."
or perhaps
"The Eucharist is the physical Body of Christ, but without it's presence being physically manifest to our senses."

otherwise it would look like flesh and blood.

It is the accidents that give flesh and blood its appearance (color, shape, mass, dimensions...) The "substance" of a physical body and blood only "looks like flesh and blood" when it's accidents are made present to our senses. If the substance of Our Lord's body is there, but its accidents (color, shape, etc.) are not manifested, then we will not see His body - His risen physical body - even tho it is there. We will only see (and touch, taste,...) the accidents that are there. In the case of the Eucharist, the accidents that are there are those of bread and wine. So that is what we see and taste - even tho the substance of bread and wine is no longer there; it has been converted into the substance of Our Lord's body.

Also, Jesus will only come to us physically again at the Last Coming, so at the Mass, it is sacramental, not physical."

This is okay to say because "physically" here has the sense of mode or manner. To "come physically" having the meaning "to come in His natural mode".



Perhaps the comparison below will help:

Since His resurrection,
Our Lord's "natural mode" consists of the substance of His physical body and blood with it's glorious accidents manifested/expressed (this is how He is present in heaven and how He will come at the end of the world)
whereas
Our Lord's "sacramental mode" consists of the substance of His physical body and blood without it's glorious accidents manifested/expressed (this is how He is present in the Eucharist).

[Nita]

Originally Posted by Nita

...Here are Fr. Ryan's words http://newtheologicalmovement.blogsp...s-body-in.html

I need to make a correction to my post #39. I said "Fr. Ryan"; it should be "Fr. Reginaldus".

[Facite]

Originally Posted by Nita

Your friend said:
It is not correct to say it "is not the physical body and blood of Jesus". Bodies are physical things - not spiritual or immaterial things. It is Jesus' physical body (glorified) that is present in the Eucharist - as well as His human soul and His Divinity.

Catholic teaching could be expressed in the following way:
"In the Eucharist, the glorified physical body and blood of Jesus is present in a sacramental mode."




Again, this would be incorrect because a "body" is physical - the physical part of our human nature, not the spiritual, immaterial part. Jesus' body is the physical part of His being.

It would be better to say:
"The Eucharist is the Body of Christ, but without it's physical accidents being manifested/expressed."
or perhaps
"The Eucharist is the physical Body of Christ, but without it's presence being physically manifest to our senses."



It is the accidents that give flesh and blood its appearance (color, shape, mass, dimensions...) The "substance" of a physical body and blood only "looks like flesh and blood" when it's accidents are made present to our senses. If the substance of Our Lord's body is there, but its accidents (color, shape, etc.) are not manifested, then we will not see His body - His risen physical body - even tho it is there. We will only see (and touch, taste,...) the accidents that are there. In the case of the Eucharist, the accidents that are there are those of bread and wine. So that is what we see and taste - even tho the substance of bread and wine is no longer there; it has been converted into the substance of Our Lord's body.


This is okay to say because "physically" here has the sense of mode or manner. To "come physically" having the meaning "to come in His natural mode".



Perhaps the comparison below will help:

Since His resurrection,
Our Lord's "natural mode" consists of the substance of His physical body and blood with it's glorious accidents manifested/expressed (this is how He is present in heaven and how He will come at the end of the world)
whereas
Our Lord's "sacramental mode" consists of the substance of His physical body and blood without it's glorious accidents manifested/expressed (this is how He is present in the Eucharist).

Ahh, I see. Thank you very much for this post!

[Ron Conte]

Fr. Ryan asserts that no human body and no human soul can be in more than one place at the same time. He holds that Jesus' body and soul are in Heaven, and so he concludes that they are not locally present in the Eucharist. What Fr. Ryan is suggesting is essentially Transignification, which states that Jesus is sacramentally present, but not physically present.

My understanding is that the presence of the whole human nature of Christ, including His physical body and his soul, implies a local and physical presence, in each and every host. God acts by way of a miracle to cause the human nature of Christ to be physically present in each and every location where there is a consecrated host.

Saint Robert Bellarmine maintains that our Lord can be locally here, though He is in heaven; for he proposes, as a certain truth, that a body can be in two places at once. So in the Sacrament that very Body, which died upon the Cross, and rose again and ascended, is locally present under the accidents of Bread.