Question About Real Presence in Eucharist

Ok that makes sense, except how did He give the Eucharist at the Last Supper before He died, rose and was glorified?

OK. But the Eucharist is not outside the space/time continuum. So by whatever miraculous means, Jesus is present in every consecrated host and in heaven.

Only His Divine Nature has the divine attribute of omnipresence. The humanity of Jesus is present in many locations at once, wherever the Eucharist is present, but not everywhere.

If there is no mixture or separation, how can a human person be in two different places at once in a physical sense? Surely Christ’s spirit could be, but if his body can be in two places at once, then aren’t you saying his Divine nature is consuming his human nature? This, I think, is the main concern I have.

Good points here. Although, I guess my concern is that Jesus’ human nature is now almost non-existent. It’s one thing for a human to do miraculous things or even rise from the dead, but being in two places at one time does seem to go well beyond what makes a person fundamentally human, no?

VERY interesting! I have never heard this before from a Catholic perspective. Strangely, this is only slightly different from what John Calvin teaches. He too would say the person is somehow communicating with Christ’s true body in heaven. Calvin would emphasize the idea that Christ is NOT here on Earth, but that through the Lord’s Supper, the communicant partakes of Christ through faith.

An interesting question arises from the wording you used. The dogma is that the human nature is united to the Divine Nature, not merely or solely (if that could be) to the Second Person. We still say, correctly, that the one Person with these two natures is Jesus, the Second Person. But we cannot deny that the one Divine Nature is united to his human nature.

How is it that the Divine Nature is united to the human nature assumed by Christ, yet only the Second Person has two natures? The only answer I can see is that the Trinity decided that, as concerns personhood, only the Second Person would be associated with the human nature directly.

Hi Jerry,

I think the problem with your Luke reference is that Jesus body had NOT ascended into heaven at this point. I’m referring to after Jesus returns from the dead.

I’m not referring to a “symbolic” presence, so that’s really not relevant to the OP.

Ok, I can see how that might make sense, except I don’t see anything from scripture that would say this, and I don’t see where in the earliest church fathers you’re getting this idea either? I’m not saying you’re wrong, by the way, but I do wonder where specifically you’re getting this.

But that’s the whole point … how can his human nature be present in many places at once? A defining characteristic of humanity is NOT being present in many places at once, correct?

Just to clarify … This is the Reformed position (at least, confessionally and from a Reformational perspective):

John Calvin insisted, as did the Anglicans, on the true presence of Christ, but he also insisted that the presence of Christ is through His divine nature. His human nature is no longer present with us. It is in heaven at the right hand of God. We still are able to commune with the human nature of Christ by means of our communion with the divine nature, which does indeed remain united to the human nature. But that human nature remains localized in heaven. In the debate, Calvin fought a war on two fronts. On the one hand, in dealing with the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics, he refused to use the term substance with respect to the presence of Jesus in the sacrament. But over against those disciples of Zwingli, who wanted to reduce the sacrament to a mere symbol and memorial, Calvin insisted upon the term substance. Here the term substance had two different nuances. With respect to Luther and Rome, the term substance meant “corporeal” or “physical.” With respect to the debate with Zwingli, Calvin used the term substance as a synonym for “real” or “true.”

The source is from R.C. Sproul, a Presbyterian: ligonier.org/learn/articles/battle-table/

In an old thread on this topic, someone posted that Jesus is scramentally and substantially present in eucharist, not physically or biologically, if He was, we’d be guilty of cannibalism.
What is meant by being present sacramental? I still don’t get it.

For those interested, here are some good references.

CCC
1374 …In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.”… it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm

Question 76. The way in which Christ is in this sacrament

  1. Is the whole Christ under this sacrament?
  2. Is the entire Christ under each species of the sacrament?
  3. Is the entire Christ under every part of the species?
  4. Are all the dimensions of Christ’s body in this sacrament?
  5. Is the body of Christ in this sacrament locally?
  6. After the consecration, is the body of Christ moved when the host or chalice is moved?
  7. As it is in this sacrament, can Christ’s body be seen by the eye?
  8. Does the true body of Christ remain in this sacrament when He is seen under the appearance of a child or of flesh?

That was waaaaaay over my head.

It is miraculous. He is present in Heaven and on earth (in every Eucharist) at the same time, yet it is not as if there are many of him. Some persons use the example of the bilocation of Saints, wherein the Saint is present in two places at once. But I would say that Christ is truly fully physically present in each location of the Eucharist, and in Heaven, without multiplying his human nature. It is one presence of the one Person, miraculously found in many places at once.

It is a mystery beyond complete human comprehension, even by the Blessed Virgin Mary in Heaven (having the Beatific Vision).

The bilocation of the saints thing is probably the least persuasive argument I have ever heard, especially since when one is speaking to a Protestant, they are not likely to believe in those events anyway.

Would my summary of your point be accurate?: Christ’s human nature is located in Heaven, yet, somehow, when a person receives the Eucharist, he or she partakes of the actual physical Jesus even though Jesus’ body remains as one physical body in heaven.

I do not think this is accurate.

Jesus is a divine person.
Jesus has a divine nature
Jesus has a human nature
Jesus’s natures are not separate from each other - they are in union.
Therefore wherever Jesus is, he is a divine person with two natures.

In this context, only persons can be located, not natures. Since Jesus is God, what would prevent Him from making Himself present in as many locations as He wanted to?

This is a good question. Did you get an answer?

I think .the answer is in the other thread about the Eucharist. “Sacramental wafers and wine…”

I would disagree with that wording, since it makes it seem as if he is not physically or fully present in the Eucharist. I would say that Christ is just as present in any consecrated host as he is in Heaven.

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.