Jesus in Person / Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament


#1

How come if Jesus were to appear before the world again we would be on the next plane there (so to speak)? The whole world would repent (mostly), the whole press and media would be covering this story, even Catholics would be surprised and maybe scared. But we believe Jesus is present body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist? Why arent we more excited and more desperate to visit Him there and to receive Holy Communion (in general amongst the faithful, and in comparison to any other glorious manifestation by Him at least)?

How come the doctrine of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ doesnt match our senses (if this is the right way of addressing this)?


#2

Why should it? While in THIS world we live by faith, not be sight. Our faith responds to His Eucharistic Presence, while our senses are not capable (unless especially graced, as some Saints and Blesseds have been) of experiencing Him through sight, sound, taste, touch. When He comes in glory we will see Him as He Is and faith is no longer needed.


#3

What do you mean by “why should it”? I am saying why is it that we dont act in His presence in the Eucharist when is there completely, or isnt He? Jesus is present sacramentally, but what does that mean? If He is present body, blood, soul and divinity, even though God is almighty and glorious: what more can there be? I want to emphasise that the chuch teaches Jesus is present soul and divinity. This is amazing, and you reckon: “why should it”? Does faith mean dont be excited yet? (I acknowledge that there must be some Catholics who visit Jesus for hours daily. But even so, they are likely to be sitting there most of the time, not understanding that Jesus is fully there. I know I have during Mass oe adoration).

I dont want to misquote Scott Hahn, but I think I remember reading/ hearing that he said that Christ is fully present in the Eucharist as if He was there in person. Like I said, I can’t recall the words, but I think that was the gist of it. I also know Scott Hahn is not infallible.

FCEGM, I know you are quite knowledgeable, but how is the Jesus walking towards us so to speak (or appearing here on earth) in bodily form, be any different to how he is in the Eucharist, according to Church teaching, except in appearance?

Do we judge by appearances? :slight_smile:


#4

I was responding to your question: “How come the doctrine of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ doesnt match our senses (if this is the right way of addressing this)?”

Thus, “why should it?” - Why should it “match our our senses” when we are to live by faith in this life? Why we sometimes/often don’t act according to our faith regarding the Eucharist or other doctrines of our Faith, is another question, easily answerable by our tendency towards obtuseness and/or sinfulness.

I am saying why is it that we dont act in His presence in the Eucharist when is there completely, or isnt He? Jesus is present sacramentally, but what does that mean? If He is present body, blood, soul and divinity, even though God is almighty and glorious: what more can there be?

There will be the full recognition of Him by our senses, not just be faith, when He comes in His glory. No one, then, will be able to deny either implicitly or explicitly that He IS, and that He IS the summit of all our hopes and expectations. For now He has hidden Himself from our senses to be our spiritual nourishment and to be so not for what spiritual highs we may experience - and which are transitory, but to love Him for Who He IS.

I want to emphasise that the chuch teaches Jesus is present soul and divinity. This is amazing, and you reckon: “why should it”?

As I explained above, this is questioning your seeming desire now not to live by faith, as we know we are to do until He comes.

Does faith mean dont be excited yet? (I acknowledge that there must be some Catholics who visit Jesus for hours daily. But even so, they are likely to be sitting there most of the time, not understanding that Jesus is fully there. I know I have during Mass oe adoration).

Until we see Him as He is, our understanding will not be all that it will be. We may or may not experience “excitement”; what He wants from us is fidelity despite not feeling excitement. A reading of St. John of the Cross would be helpful, MH.

I dont want to misquote Scott Hahn, but I think I remember reading/ hearing that he said that Christ is fully present in the Eucharist as if He was there in person. Like I said, I can’t recall the words, but I think that was the gist of it. I also know Scott Hahn is not infallible.

No, he isn’t, but he is correct; again, though, how we react to Our Lord’s Presence will vary from person to person, so one cannot insist on the same reaction to His Eucharistic Presence for everyone, though we can hope that all will want to be with Him with love and perseverance during our times at Mass and at Adoration.

FCEGM, I know you are quite knowledgeable, but how is the Jesus walking towards us so to speak (or appearing here on earth) in bodily form, be any different to how he is in the Eucharist, according to Church teaching, except in appearance?

:slight_smile: The difference lies in our perception of His being with us; we adore now in faith His “hidden” Presence; we “wait in joyful hope”, though, for the realization of what our sight now is lacking.

Do we judge by appearances?

If we have faith, of course not. But we hope for more than what is now hidden so that our faith will fully and finally see its Object; and we hope and pray that our souls will be ready by His grace for that Beatific Vision.


#5

Sadly the answer to your question is that much indifference is offered to Jesus in the Holy Eucharist because of incredulity. You are absolutely right there is no difference in the physical reality of the Presence of Jesus. You may have heard it said that He is present in his word, in the priest and in each of us. I have even heard one say that you are eucharist to me and I am eucharist to you so we have no need to reverence the tabernacle by genuflecting.I say to this, Bunk! Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior humbles himself to come to us in the hypostatic union [body, blood, soul, and divinity] in Holy Communion and we truly become the bride of Christ. He who created all things has come to me to unite my body and my soul with Him in a family bond, the new covenant.
"Almighty Father I offer you the body, blood, soul and divinity of your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in reparation for the indifference, the outrages and the sacraliges committed against the Holy Eucharist and through the infinite merits of the Immaculate heart of Mary and the Sacred heart of Jesus, I beg the conversion of poor sinners.


#6

This might help. I sugest to read a post or 2 a day if you don’t feel like reading all at once.
adamthecatholic.blogspot.com/search/label/Eucharist


#7

I was told by the director of my parish’s RCIA program that it was inappropriate for Catholics to genuflect anymore, only a bow is nedded. I laughed.

The question is not whether or not we should kneel. The question is how do we ever stand up when our Eucharistic King is among us?


#8

You only genuflect IF the tabernackle is behind the alter. If the tabernackle is in a place of promince not behind the alter you bow to the alter.


#9

What you described in the very first post is to describe a depth of faith, or a lack of it. Some may be surprised, but many and I mean many do worship the Blessed Sacrament regularly in Eucharistic chapels where there is perpetual adoration. i am one of them. It goes to the depth of your faith and your action on that faith. When we have the gift of faith and want a greater faith, we do not ask for more faith, but a stronger faith. As faith is singular and a gift. We either have it or we don’t. If we have it, pray for a deeper stronger faith, and you too will feel the need for and the desire to worship the Blessed Sacrament.
Deacon Ed B


#10

I agree.

I was meditating on this very thought recently, and again in front of Jesus in the form of the Eucharist.

He is indeed present, and His appearance is indeed “shrouded” in the forms of bread & wine. Even more shrouded from our senses than was His appearance as a man.

Yet, even while here on earth as a man, even while they knew Him to be the Son of God, the Apostles and the other disciples didn’t spend 100% of their time on their faces in front of Him. Far different than John’s reaction when Christ is revealed in His glory (all? most? certainly more) in Revelation.

So, it’s reasonable that, while His presence is shrouded, we would not react as we will when He is fully revealed. And it’s also reasonable that, even though we don’t react as we should in His presence, He is indeed present.

Whew! I hope I got my idea across.


#11

Yes, you did. :thumbsup:


#12

While Im not 100% sure, I don’t think the apostles knew who Jesus really was until after the resurrection maybe. I happened to read the notes I think last night in the 1965 version of the Jerusalem Bible which seem to back up my opinion.

I’ll copy some of it down (Im not the fastest typer) ;).I hope you have a copy yourself to ensure that the parts I type are in context. Otherwise, if you are interested I can copy the whole section down.

Okay.
Note “c” (from Matthew 4:3)

“The biblical title ‘Son fo God’ does not neccessarily mean natural sonship but may imply a sonship which is merely adoptive, i.e. which as a result of God’s deliberate choice sets up a very intimate relationship between God and his creature. In this sense the titile is given to angels (Jb 1:6) to the Chosen people (Ex. 4:22; Ws 18:13), to individual Israelites (Dt 14:1; Ho 2:1; cf. Mt 5:9,45, etc.), to their leaders (Ps 82:6). Where therefore it is attributed tot the royal Messiah (1 Ch 17:13; Ps 2:7; 89:26) it does not neccessarily imply that he is more than a man: nor need we suppose that it has any deeper significance when used by Sata (Mt 4:3,6) or by the possessed (Mk 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:41), still less when used by the centurion… . By itself the sentence at the baptism… and at the transfiguration… suggests no more than the divine predilection for the Messiah-servant, and in all probability the High priest’s question (26:63) concerns messiahship only. Nevertheless the tile ‘Son of God’ can be a further, more profound meaning of sonship in the full sense of the word. Jesus clearly insinuated this meaning when He spoke of himself as ‘the Son’ (21:37), ranked above the angels (24:36), having God for his ‘Father’ in a way others had not…, enjoying with the Father an altogther singular relationship of knowledge and love… These assertions coupled with others that speak of the Messiah’s divine rank (22:44-46), of the heavenly origin of the ‘Son of Man’…have endowed the expression ‘Son of God’ with that strictly divine significance which will later be found, eg. in Paul (Rm 9:5+). During the lifetime of Christ, it is true, his disciples had no clear conception of his divinity-the texts of Mt 12:33 and 16:16 which add the title ‘Son of God’ to the more primitve text of Mk reflect, in all probability, a later stage in the faith’s development…”

Taken from pg 19 of the New Testament

Okay, I copied most of it. Most of the “…” are related to cross references to the bible verses. I also missed the end part, about two sentences. PM me if you want me to fill in the rest.


#13

While I disagree only partially, you must remember that the Apostles spent time with Christ even AFTER the resurrection. We KNOW that Thomas, at least, worshipped Him as his God. And then they spent time with Him afterwards. They may have been in awe of Him, but it doesn’t say they were flat on their faces, as was John when he saw Jesus in Revelation.


#14

Isnt that what I suggested? …After the Resurrection. If Im missing something of what you are saying can you try to rephrase. :slight_smile:


#15

What I’m saying is that while I don’t know if I totally agree with this or not (it may be that they were unsure), it doesn’t change my point since they did indeed spend time on earth with Him after His resurrection.


#16

Schabel, do you think the commentary I posted above is flawed? Do you agree with it partially?


#17

I’m saying that I’m not sure what the Apostles believed prior to Christ’s resurrection, and that anything I say will be speculative.

However, I do know that after the resurrection, they DID believe that Jesus was God, as stated by St. Thomas. And therefore, from that time on, my point still stands.

That said, my speculation is that from the time of St. Peter’s confession until Christ’s arrest, they were, to varying degrees and with some confusion, probably somewhat aware of who He is.


#18

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