Does the Host Physically Become the Body of Christ?


Does the Host Physically Become the Body of Christ?


"By the words of consecration, they(the bread and wine)become the Body and Blood of Christ. He becomes present whole and entire, it is physical reality and bodily presence.(cf. Mysterium Fidei #56) From Catechism on the Real Presence by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.


Not normally in the sense of outward appearance or physical characteristics, visible form, taste, feel, small, etc.


Not in appearance but in reality.


Excellent way of stating it.

That’s why we say Christ is “sacramentally” present in the Eucharist. It is Him, but in the appearance of bread and wine.

Remember, Jesus has a resurrected body now. So the physicality of that body is not the same as our material bodies here on earth.


I believe Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist, but I don’t think the change that happens, transubstantiation, is a physical change. I guess I’m in the minority, either that or I didn’t phrase the question well.


Yes to the first reply of the poll and yes to the second part of the second reply in the poll.


There you go!!!

It might look like bread, smell like bread- But it is Our Lord, Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity, and an article of Faith.


well, I answered wrong :frowning:

I misinterpreted the accidents of bread to be equal to the physical nature of bread. Indeed it becomes the Body of Christ, but we cannot discern that from human reasoning or the physical inspection of the host. It takes faith to come to the conclusion.


I agree, it was excellent.

If anyone remembers the T.V. show “Quantum Leap”, I’ve used that show to explain what transubstantiation is.


I am also one who equates the accidents with the physical appearance … the substance changes [Jesus present body, soul, flesh, blood, humanity, divinity …wholly present] but the accidents [bread and wine/water] remain …


you cant have a poll on a matter of doctrine
there is no room for expression of opinion on this
the doctrine is defined, described here on many fine past threads and linked resourses
we do not define doctrine by popular vote
dumb poll
dumb thread
look up transubstantiation on the Catholic Ency or other good source
read it and digest it
if you dont’ know the meaning of the technical words such as “accidents” and “substance” look them up in a theological dictionary
then come back with questions.


Which one did you vote for? Feel free to answer the question directly if you prefer.


I agree with you, the results of the poll are ‘interesting’ though. :eek:


The Church says that Christ is Really, Truly, and Substantially Present under the appearance of bread and wine. The word physically isn’t used, I would guess because it has too many different meanings.


I’d say He is physically present, but I wouldn’t say that there is a physical change during the consecration.


I havent voted, but is it heretical to believe the second one? (I’m not necessarily saying thats what I believe)


I think the first one is heretical, but the second one isn’t. Just my opinion.


It would depend on the meaning of the word “Physical” in this case. In common usage I think Physical implies something that can be perceived by the human senses.


This is the line of reasoning that led me to choose option two. The word physical and the question itself seemed too ambiguous to me. I have no problem saying the Eucharist is physical presence in a certain sense, but I didn’t want to assert it unqualifiedly.

Here, for instance, is a thread that has dealt with the very problem:

If Paul VI wants to use the term, that’s fine (although it’s interesting to note that the quoted “physical” presence uses physica instead of corporale), but in English the word physical seems far too imprecise.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit