Just when I think I'm starting to understand...

[goldenchild17]

"some Catholics are surprised to learn that the Church has never taught that the bread and wine 'physically' change in Christ's body and blood."

from Envoy volume 5.5 page 4.

So, I just wrote out a whole big paper on the fact that Jesus really is there in the Eucharist. How is He not there physically? I know the accidents don't change. But I thought that the Eucharist sacramentally(I don't know the meaning of this) changes into the physical body and blood of Jesus.

So...

[corban711]

if i remember correctly when this was explained to me...you have already kind of answered your question. the key word here is "Sacramentally" present. He is truly and totally present...but you can only say physically in the context of Sacramentally. i think this is because if you say "physically" it could bring confusion about the issue of the substance vs. accidents. so it is more fitting to say sacramentally to avoid confusion. but yes, you are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. maybe that makes sense. i sure hope so. hehe. but that's my best shot at it.

[cmotherofpirl]

I think the point they are trying to get across is you are not biting into Jesus's foot or elbow kind of stuff.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Mar 6 2005, 11:39 PM'] "some Catholics are surprised to learn that the Church has never taught that the bread and wine 'physically' change in Christ's body and blood."

from Envoy volume 5.5 page 4.

So, I just wrote out a whole big paper on the fact that Jesus really is there in the Eucharist.  How is He not there physically?  I know the accidents don't change.  But I thought that the Eucharist sacramentally(I don't know the meaning of this) changes into the physical body and blood of Jesus.

So... [/quote]
The change in the bread and wine brought about by the Eucharistic prayer involves a conversion of the immaterial substance of those elements into the body and blood of Christ. In other words, the physical and chemical properties (i.e., the appearances) of the bread and wine remain after the consecration, but the underlying substance or essence of the elements is transformed into the substance of Christ's own body and blood. That is why the Church uses the term [i]transubstantiation[/i] for this great mystery.

Nevertheless, it is wrong to say that Christ is not physically present in the sacrament, because He is physically present, but in a substantial mode of existence. This form of existence is of course unique, for Christ does not exist in the Blessed Sacrament through a natural mode of being; instead, He exists in the Eucharist in a substantial mode of being. He is truly and physically present in the Blessed Sacrament, but not in the way that a being is naturally present in a place. Thus, after the consecration the bread and wine are truly the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

[phatcatholic]

apotheoun.........i understand what you're saying, and i agree with you. however, i also see why the author of that envoy article would say that Jesus is not physically present. most people take "physical" to mean those aspects of a thing that we can see and touch, the accidents of a thing. i'm guessing that's why the author meant by the word. so, w/ that definition, it would be correct of him to say that Jesus is not "physically" present. when i read that sentence, that's what i took it to mean.

[goldenchild17]

So He is present physically? Just not in the accidents?

[Antonius]

Jesus is [i]naturally [/i]present in Heaven at the right hand of the Father. He is [i]sacramentally [/i]present in the Eucharist. That is why Jesus is not "hurt" if we bite the Host. Similarly, He does not get cold if we have ice-cream after Mass.

Like cmotherofpirl pointed out, we should not be confused as that we are consuming His legs or arms or any other specific body part.

It is a Divine Mystery how Jesus can be substantially present sacramentally. It is a physical presence in the sense that it is Real, that the bread and wine are no longer to be thought of as mere bread and wine, but that Jesus is sacramentally present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. When we see and taste the Eucharist, it is really Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine.

Christ is present in the Mass in several ways, including the Word and the Congregation, but he is[b] primarily and most importantly [/b]present in the Blessed Sacrament, which is meant to be adored as well as to be consumed in Holy Communion.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Mar 7 2005, 03:00 PM'] apotheoun.........i understand what you're saying, and i agree with you. however, i also see why the author of that envoy article would say that Jesus is not physically present. most people take "physical" to mean those aspects of a thing that we can see and touch, the accidents of a thing. i'm guessing that's why the author meant by the word. so, w/ that definition, it would be correct of him to say that Jesus is not "physically" present. when i read that sentence, that's what i took it to mean. [/quote]
It is a Catholic doctrine that all the physical characteristics of Christ's humanity are present in the Eucharistic species after the consecration; now of course it is also true that they are not present in a natural mode of being, but are rendered present in a substantial mode of existence through the prayer of consecration.

Therefore, a Catholic must confess, as Pius XII taught, that it is ". . . [Christ's] physical Body, which, born of the Virgin Mother of God, now sits at the right hand of the Father and is hidden under the Eucharistic veils." [Pius XII, [u]Mystici Corporis Christi[/u], no. 60] In other words, the body of Christ present in the Eucharist is the same body that was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and this teaching was reaffirmed by Pope Paul VI in [u]Mysterium Fidei[/u] when he said that, "Christ is present whole and entire in His physical reality, corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place." [Paul VI, [u]Mysterium Fidei[/u], 46] Thus, the Church teaches that Christ is present in His full physical nature in the Eucharist species after the prayer of consecration, but that this physical presence is manifested in a substantial mode of being.

[thessalonian]

Augustine speaks of the Lord's Supper as being figurative and many Protestants use this to show he mean symbolic. CMP I think hit on it. It is not his arms and legs and all as in flesh with humanly distinct properties but is under the form of bread and wine. Thus it is figurative of physical flesh and blood. But he is no less really present body, blood, soul, and divinity.

By the way if you ever fully understand then your a heretic so be glad you don't. A God fully bound by men's minds is not God. I think it was Bishop Fulton Sheen who told the story of a man who could not understand the trinity and therefore didn't believe it. Bishop Sheen would not baptize him. Well some time later he came back and said "Bishop I completely understand the Trinity". The good Bishop said "I will not baptize you". It is all a mystery and the nice thing is you never stop learning.

Blessings

Edited March 8, 2005 by thessalonian

[Apotheoun]

The physical reality of Christ is present in the Eucharist, but it is present in a substantial mode of being. Thus, He is not present as one is present in a place; instead, He is present by way of substance.

Nevertheless, two things must be borne in mind when dealing with this mystery: (1) Christ's physical body and blood, i.e., the whole Christ, is present in the Eucharist, and (2) His physical presence is manifested in the sacrament through a substantial mode of being. In other words, He is not present in the sacrament in a natural mode of being, i.e., in a way that a body is present in a place, because that would require a physical change in the bread and wine; instead, He is physically present in the Eucharist by way of substance.

Thus it is the true physical body and blood of Christ that is present in the Blessed Sacrament, along with His soul and divinity, but He is not present in a natural way, i.e., as a thing is present in a place; instead, His physical reality is manifested substantially.

A Catholic must hold that Christ's physical body and blood are present in the Blessed Sacrament, because that is the only kind of body and blood that Christ has, for as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches:

[quote name='St. Thomas Aquinas' date=' Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Q. 76, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 2']"By the power of the sacrament there is contained under it, as to the species of the bread, not only the flesh, [i]but the entire body of Christ[/i], that is, [i]the bones the nerves, and the like[/i]. And this is apparent from the form of this sacrament, wherein it is not said: "This is My flesh," but "This is My body." Accordingly, when our Lord said (John 6:56): "My flesh is meat indeed," there the word flesh is put for the [i]entire body[/i]. . ."[/quote]

[phatcatholic]

oh, i definitely agree. i was just saying that, since most people think of "physicality" in the natural sense, i can understand why the author would say that he is not physically present. however, it was probably imprudent of him to do so, and it would have been much more prudent of him to take that opportunity to explain how Jesus can be physically present in a substantial way.

Edited March 9, 2005 by phatcatholic

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Mar 8 2005, 11:44 PM'] oh, i definitely agree.  [. . .] [/quote]
Phatcatholic, I know that you accept this doctrine, but I was simply trying to clarify for Goldenchild that Christ's Eucharistic body and blood is the very same body and blood that was born of the Holy Theotokos. That being said, I want to commend you for your own clarity of expression, because the ending of your own post explains this doctrine beautifully; for as you said, Christ is ". . . physically present in a substantial way." By describing the Eucharistic mystery in this way you have safeguarded it from erroneous interpretations, and have emphasized the twofold nature of the doctrine. In other words, you have said [i]what[/i] the Eucharist is, i.e., that it is the very same physical body of Christ that was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, while also explaining [i]how[/i] the Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament, i.e., that He is present in the Eucharistic species in a substantial mode of existence, and that He is not present in the consecrated elements as a body is present in a place.

God bless,
Todd

[goldenchild17]

Okay thanks. So He's present substantially. The elements don't change but it is no longer bread and wine, but is His body and blood? Just trying to get the vocabulary down.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Mar 9 2005, 02:01 AM'] Okay thanks.  So He's present substantially.  The elements don't change but it is no longer bread and wine, but is His body and blood?  Just trying to get the vocabulary down. [/quote]
It is best to put it this way: In the Eucharist it is Christ's physical body born of the Holy Virgin Theotokos that is rendered present in a substantial mode of being under the appearances of the bread and wine. Thus, the change that takes place in the bread and wine involves a change of their substance into the substance of Christ's physical body and blood -- which was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary -- existing by way of substance in the sacrament, and not as a body is present in a place.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Mar 9 2005, 04:01 AM'] Okay thanks. So He's present substantially. The elements don't change but it is no longer bread and wine, but is His body and blood? Just trying to get the vocabulary down. [/quote]
the accidents of bread and wine remain the same, but the substance of the elements are transformed into the physical body and blood, as well as the soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

to those who are not used to making this distinction between accidents and substance, another example is helpful: Jesus Christ himself. afterall, by all appearances (his "accidents") he was merely human. but we know that he was also substantially divine, and this veiled, or hidden if you will, beneath a human body. now, the metaphor does break down (as i suppose all metaphors for God do) b/c Jesus is also substantially human. but, he is still helpful as an example insofar as he has a substance that is not revealed via his accidents, as does the Eucharist.

[phatcatholic]

colin................the best way to adopt the appropriate language needed to explain the doctrine is to read how others explain it as much as you can. pretty soon, you will adopt the language as your own. even after reading much about it, it can be easy to slip up and use the wrong word. one word can change the entire meaning, so its important to use them wisely (case in point, the author u cited) and its a good thing that you are taking the time to clarify what is the appropriate language to use.

[Paphnutius]

I know that this thread died about a week ago, but if one really wants to get down the vocab look at Aristotle's use of the vocab. That is where the Church built on transubstantiation.

Substance=what a thing is, its essence, its "whatness"(human, divine, etc...)

Accidents=characteristics of a thing, (size, shape, etc...)

This is the sacrament of the Eucharist. Normally one can have a change in accidents without changing the substance (such as a human growing in size), but in the Eucharist the substance changes but not the accidents (the bread becoming the body, but still retaining the accidents of bread). This happens due to the action of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist acting through the priest who stands in persona Christi capitus.

Like I said, Aristotle's use of them is a good place to start looking.

[phatcatholic]

why was this distinction between accidents and substance originally made? were there some type of real world examples in Aristotle's day that required such an explanation? the only other example i can think of that comes close is the Incarnation, but of course, that was foreign to Aristotle. it just doesn't seem like someone would naturally make such a distinction between the accidents and the substance of a thing until something warranted such a distinction.

i dunno, i've always wondered about that......

[argent_paladin]

What makes this really confusing is that the colloquial modern sense of many technical Catholic terms are different. When theologians use words like "really", "substantially", "actually", "accidentally" etc they mean very precise things. I think the original statement is misleading shorn of its context. "Physically" is derived from "physis" Greek for "nature". It is most famously used in the Nicean Christological formulation of one person and two natures. So, to say that the Eucharist doesn't have the same natures as Christ is heretical.

As for PhatCatholic's question, you should perhaps archive this quick summary of Aristotle's Hylomorphic theory: [url="http://www.saintaquinas.com/primer.html"]http://www.saintaquinas.com/primer.html[/url]

Aristotle's theory sprang from his analysis of change and the fundamental nature of things. He saw that some changes, such as carving a piece of marble, didn' t change the nature of the marble, only the accidents. But, somethings changed the nature of things, like burning wood. The first is accidental change, the last is substantial change. Other kinds of accidental change are location, size, quantity, etc.
But Aristotle never thought of a time when the substance would change but all the accidents were the same. Perhaps death is the closest example because a corpse seems in all ways the same as a human, but is a different substance.

[Paphnutius]

Like Argent said, it came from Aristotle's observations about change in the world. It also built on his theory of epistomology and human knowledge. I cannot write a lot right now, but it builds on his conept of substrate and superstrate and how that relates with actuality and potentiality.