Question About Real Presence in Eucharist

Because Jesus is seated at the right hand of the father in Heaven, he can’t be also locally situated in your church. He could be in your church or in Heaven. If he can be both in Heaven and on Earth at the same time, does that mean he was both in Heaven and in hell when he descended into sheol after dying on the cross? Does that mean he was sitting on the cross and sitting in Heaven at the same time? The reason no one makes these arguments is because Jesus is human and humans exist in specific locations, not millions of locations at once. Jesus is both human and God, so can Jesus do miraculous things, yes, of course, but if Jesus is in Heaven and in your church on Sunday, then what does that say about Jesus’ human nature?

Please explain why this is not possible.

He could be in your church or in Heaven. If he can be both in Heaven and on Earth at the same time, does that mean he was both in Heaven and in hell when he descended into sheol after dying on the cross? Does that mean he was sitting on the cross and sitting in Heaven at the same time? The reason no one makes these arguments is because Jesus is human

What Scripture or Church teaching says this (in bold)?

and humans exist in specific locations, not millions of locations at once. Jesus is both human and God, so can Jesus do miraculous things, yes, of course, but if Jesus is in Heaven and in your church on Sunday, then what does that say about Jesus’ human nature?

My understanding, based on Scripture and Catholic teaching, is that Jesus is a Divine person, not a human person. His two natures go with Him wherever He is.

Here is something a little easier.

“We are to believe that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ – simply, without qualification. It is God become man in the fullness of His divine nature, in the fullness of His human nature, in the fullness of His body and soul, in the fullness of everything that makes Jesus Jesus. He is in the Eucharist with His human mind and will united with the Divinity, with His hands and feet, His face and features, with His eyes and lips and ears and nostrils, with His affections and emotions and, with emphasis, with His living, pulsating, physical Sacred Heart. That is what our Catholic Faith demands of us that we believe. If we believe this, we are Catholic. If we do not, we are not, no matter what people may think we are.” Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.

St. Thomas says the same thing only he explains it in detail why it is so.

Jesus is present in this way although our eyes do not tell us this.

IF the first Eucharist at the Last Supper wasn’t the glorified Jesus then how did it happen? Because Hes God and is not limited to space and time or some other reason?

That’s a good question.

Fr. Hardon is saying that the Eucharist is Christ in his current state. Since Christ is in his glorified state when Fr. Harden wrote this, then he is correct in that we receive his glorified body…

At the last supper, Christ was in his human unglorified state, and that is what the Eucharist was at the last supper, and is what the apostles received.

St. Thomas said that during the time that Christ was dead, from his death on the cross until his resurrection, the Eucharist, if received, would not have been a live body. For St. Thomas says

And therefore had this sacrament been celebrated during those three days when He was dead, the soul of Christ would not have been there, neither by the power of the sacrament, nor from real concomitance.

So it seems that what state Christ is now, is what is received in the Eucharist. And since he is currently in his glorified state, that is what we now receive.

So how theologeans say it happened? By His being God and not limited to time and space? By being God and able to turn His body into the Eucharist? How?

On he other thread and on your website you said you believe Jesus was glorified in the first Eucharist.

By being the 2nd divine person, God, he created everything in the universe.
And by the same token keeps everything in existence and consistent with it’s own nature. If he creates out of nothing, and keeps everything from falling into nothing, than what would be so difficult about changing one thing into another? The greater includes the lesser.

When Jesus said to the cripple “Get up and walk”, he walked.
Whatever Jesus said made it happen.
When Jesus said, “this is my body”, then it happens and is his body.

If the details of how this is possible, then the greatest theologian, St. Thomas, explains it in his treatise as best as he can.

On he other thread and on your website you said you believe Jesus was glorified in the first Eucharist.

That was Ron Conte. My id is Fred Conty.

I can see how Jesus is the Eucharist now, since He is glorified and can take any form He chooses but I still don’t get how He could Make Himself present in the first Eucharist if He wasn’t glorified.

A glorified body is not able, by virtue of it being glorified, to transubstantiate from body and blood to the appearance of bread and wine, everywhere on the globe to be consumed. That is NOT a property of a glorified body. A glorified body becomes impassible, meaning it will never die or suffer. There may be other abilities as well, but not what happens in the Holy Eucharist.

Only God can effect what happens in the Eucharist. So it is GOD that makes the Eucharist possible, not a glorified body. Therefore, because Jesus is the Son of God, or God Incarnate, he IS ABLE to effect the Eucharistic transformation, whether he is in a glorified body or not.

You guys are struggling with something that can’t be grasped.

Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is high, I cannot attain it.

(Psalm 139:6)

You are all staring at the sun trying to figure out what makes it shine. Nothing good can come from it.

It is Jesus. It is the Lord. That’s all.

-Tim-

In baptism, we die with Christ. The Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross makes Baptism and all other Sacraments effective. Yet baptism was given prior to the Crucifixion. So we clearly see by this example that time and place are no obstacle to the Sacraments.

Similarly, the Eucharist could be given, including Christ’s glorified body, even though the event of His resurrection and ascension occurred later.

Another consideration is that, if a Mass had been celebrated between His death and resurrection, the Eucharist would be His dead body (united to His Divinity, but without His soul). Jesus would not establish a Sacrament in such a way that it could be corrupted (even by sheer possibility that does not occur) by becoming a dead body.

But the strongest argument for the last supper Eucharist being the glorified body of Jesus is that, if it were otherwise, then what Jesus instituted and celebrated would be substantially different from the Eucharist as it has been consecrated and received throughout Church history.

So the Eucharist was always the glorified body of Jesus, and not his body in whatever state it happened to be at the time. For time and place are no obstacle to the miracles of God.

So the Eucharist was always the glorified body of Jesus, and not his body in whatever state it happened to be at the time. For time and place are no obstacle to the miracles of God.

In a sense, the whole question is moot. In the Holy Transfiguration, and His walking on water, His miraculous birth, we see that Jesus, by His Hypostatic Union, was never “in need” of a glorified body. The glorified body he received at the Resurrection is a promise for us, more than something that was “added” to his own Hypostatic Union. After all, the glorified body we receive at the general resurrection of the dead, is a grace from God, or to be more specific, Jesus, who is the Resurrection and the Life of all mankind.

IOW, the glorified body is not some sort of requirement for the Eucharist. It is the Person of Jesus that is the requirement. However, since we receive Jesus now, after the resurrection, it is proper to say it is the glorified body of Jesus. But at the Last Supper it would not be necessary, and I don’t believe it is even proper to say it.

I’m so confused. Some are saying, here and in PMs that His Eucharist at the Last Supper was His glorified body, some are saying it wasn’t.

For Jesus to be human he must be located in one place. First God is not limited by nature.

[Mt14: 19 And **he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. 20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. 21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.] The flesh of the same fish and bread was multiplied.

Man by nature cannot multiply food, but the man Jesus did. Man by nature cannot be transfigured but the man Jesus was. Man by nature cannot resurrect but the man Jesus did. Man by nature cannot ascend to heaven, but the man Jesus did. Man by nature cannot walk on water, but the man Jesus and the man Peter did. Man by nature cannot raise the dead, but the man Jesus and the man Peter & Paul did. With God man can do all things for nothing is impossible for God.

Man by nature cannot perform transubstantiation, but the man Jesus did when he said this Is my body this is my blood given for you. “Given for you”, identifies that body and blood as the same given for us on the cross. By nature man cannot do likewise but by the power of Christ and the action of the Holy Spirit when Christ gave the authority, do=offer this in remembrance of me, man can perform transubstantiation. Some find it as impossible for him to multiply and give us his flesh, as food indeed and his blood as drink indeed. Just as the Jews rejected Christ, believing it impossible, God come in the flesh.

So He was able to be the Eucharist because He was outside of time and space?

Yes, but He was the Eucharist and changed it while standing there — I don’t get it.

commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. 20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. 21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.] The flesh of the same fish and bread was multiplied.

Man by nature cannot multiply food, but the man Jesus did. Man by nature cannot be transfigured but the man Jesus was. Man by nature cannot resurrect but the man Jesus did. Man by nature cannot ascend to heaven, but the man Jesus did. Man by nature cannot walk on water, but the man Jesus and the man Peter did. Man by nature cannot raise the dead, but the man Jesus and the man Peter & Paul did. With God man can do all things for nothing is impossible for God.

Man by nature cannot perform transubstantiation, but the man Jesus did when he said this Is my body this is my blood given for you. “Given for you”, identifies that body and blood as the same given for us on the cross. By nature man cannot do likewise but by the power of Christ and the action of the Holy Spirit when Christ gave the authority, do=offer this in remembrance of me, man can perform transubstantiation. Some find it as impossible for him to multiply and give us his flesh, as food indeed and his blood as drink indeed. Just as the Jews rejected Christ, believing it impossible, God come in the flesh.

So the Eucharist was changed into His body by the power of the Holy Spirit?

It is currently an open theological question. The Magisterium has no definitive teaching on that point.

And virtually everyone other than you and I seem to think they know the answer. :rolleyes:

You tell me since your so smart.

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.