Adoration & Bullet Proof Glass Talk

[dUSt]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Now that is an interesting question.

I would guess that it is to help us focus our thoughts or attention?

But if you could focus without that help, wouldn't it be the same?

I wonder, because we "see" Jesus through the eyes of faith, more so than through our physical eyes.

But now we start undermining the whole Real Presence and purpose of Jesus being actually physically present. 

[Peace]

47 minutes ago, dUSt said:

But now we start undermining the whole Real Presence and purpose of Jesus being actually physically present. 

Maybe. I am not so knowledgeable about this, but my understanding is that the Church does not equate the Real Presence with a "physical presence".

I don't think we can really say that Jesus is physically contained within the tabernacle or that we physically feel Jesus  when we take communion.

Jesus is truly present, but not necessarily physically present in the same way that bodies or objects are present before us.

If you google Catholic, "Real Presence" and "physical presence" you'll find a bunch of things that discuss this topic much better than I can.

[Peace]

I could be wrong on that though.

[KnightofChrist]

Christ is totally, actually, physically present in the Blessed Sacrament, His whole flesh and blood, His whole body and soul, His whole humanity and divinity. When we eat the Blessed Sacrament we eat Christ's actual body, flesh as well as hair and finger nails. It would be incorrect/error to believe Christ is truly present without His actual human physical nature.

Short version: Christ is totally and physically present Body, Soul and Divinity under the physical appearance of bread and wine.

[dUSt]

Like all things, I suppose it's how you define the word "physical". I've never even thought twice about using that word because when I say "physically" present, I mean, really present, or actually present, or substantially present, or tangibly present. Like, Christ's actual body is there, in front of me.

Now, if you think of "physically" as something you can see, hear or smell with your senses, then no, I suppose He is not "physically" present in that way, as the Eucharist still looks, smells and tastes like bread and wine.

Which makes me wonder... we don't put emphasis on how the Eucharist tastes, or smells, or feels, so why do we place emphasis on Him being seen during adoration? Maybe it's not so much about being able to actual "see" Him, but rather, being able to see Him just so we know He is there?

So, kinda like St Thomas Aquinas said about no bread or wine can remain after transubstantiation, otherwise Catholics would be adoring a piece of bread. Maybe we open the tabernacle to see Jesus, so we're not in danger of accidentaly adoring an empty tabernacle. haha

[KnightofChrist]

7 hours ago, dUSt said:

OK, so this is what I am questioning... if this is allowed (laypeople opening a curtain), why wouldn't laypeople be allowed to simply open up the door to the tabernacle? A curtain seems way insecure, because anybody could come in and steal the Eucharist. My idea keeps the Eucharist secure at all times, but still allows laypeople to open/close the tabernacle door for viewing.

Also, 

Right, that's what I'm saying. Christ would never be left unadored because laypeople would be able to close the tabernacle when they leave.

I'm not sure you've covered this or not but I think lay persons who would take on such responsibilities should be trusted, appointed by the parish priest. I'm afraid just leaving it up to a random lay person would be dangerous if that person is not responsible even if it's nothing more than absent mindedness. 

Also, for adoration I'm fairly certain that one can adore Christ the same if He is a prisoner in the tabernacle or exposed in a monstrance. I think one may receive more graces if the Blessed Sacrament is exposed. But I can see how it is possible for equal adoration to be given in both examples.

Lastly, if Christ is protected behind several inches of bullet proof glass just how exposed is He? Not veiled or a prisoner of the tabernacle but would the Sacrament actually be exposed?

[Peace]

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Christ is totally, actually, physically present in the Blessed Sacrament, His whole flesh and blood, His whole body and soul, His whole humanity and divinity. When we eat the Blessed Sacrament we eat Christ's actual body, flesh as well as hair and finger nails. It would be incorrect/error to believe Christ is truly present without His actual human physical nature.

Short version: Christ is totally and physically present Body, Soul and Divinity under the physical appearance of bread and wine.

Sorry pal. I think you may be wrong here.  I think that you may be thinking about this a bit too carnally. As Dust indicates, I suppose it would depend on what you mean by "physically".

Trent is pretty clear the Jesus is present in Heaven and on Earth by different modes of existence. In Heaven He is present in his natural mode of existence, the same physical mode of existence by which he walked the Earth two centuries ago.  In the Eucharist Jesus is present in a sacramental mode of existence. His body, blood, soul, and divinity are truly, really, and substantially contained in the Eucharist, but sacramentally - not physically.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT13.HTM

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Sorry pal. I think you may be wrong here.  I think that you may be thinking about this a bit too carnally. As Dust indicates, I suppose it would depend on what you mean by "physically".

Trent is pretty clear the Jesus is present in Heaven and on Earth by different modes of existence. In Heaven He is present in his natural mode of existence, the same physical mode of existence by which he walked the Earth two centuries ago.  In the Eucharist Jesus is present in a sacramental mode of existence. His body, blood, soul, and divinity are truly, really, and substantially contained in the Eucharist, but sacramentally - not physically.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT13.HTM

While not in the same manner in which our bodies are in a place Christ is still physically, corporeally present in the Blessed Sacrament. If the Blessed Sacrament is not the living physical divine Person and Being of Christ then something other than just appearance of the bread and wine remain. If that is the case we are committing idolatry.

“Once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine except for the species–beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in his physical “reality”, corporeally (eta: having, consisting of, or relating to a physical material body) present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.” - Mysterium Fidei

[Peace]

46 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

While not in the same manner in which our bodies are in a place Christ is still physically, corporeally present in the Blessed Sacrament. If the Blessed Sacrament is not the living physical divine Person and Being of Christ then something other than just appearance of the bread and wine remain. If that is the case we are committing idolatry.

“Once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine except for the species–beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in his physical “reality”, corporeally (eta: having, consisting of, or relating to a physical material body) present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.” - Mysterium Fidei

Corporeally present does not mean physically present. Explained by two different priests in the links below.

http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/christ_is_really_present_but_how

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.in/2011/06/only-difference-between-christs-body-in.html?m=1

[KnightofChrist]

36 minutes ago, Peace said:

Corporeally present does not mean physically present. Explained by two different priests in the links below.

http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/christ_is_really_present_but_how

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.in/2011/06/only-difference-between-christs-body-in.html?m=1

Here are two articles that explain it is an error to believe Christ is not physically present in the Blessed Sacrament.

---

Is Jesus Christ physically present in the Eucharist?

https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/is-jesus-christ-physically-present-in-the-eucharist/

From the article...

" 

But the glorified body is still physical; it has not been changed into something spiritual, as if the human nature of Christ would then consist of a spiritual part, the soul, and another spiritual part, like a second soul. The glorified body (even our glorified bodies after the general Resurrection) has abilities, given to it as a gift from God, beyond the physical. Adam and Eve, before the Fall, had preternatural abilities, abilities beyond nature. But this is true for the glorified bodies of the resurrected just to an even greater extent. These glorified bodies are still physical bodies, but they have been transformed to exceed the limits of the merely physical. And such is the case for the glorified body of Christ as well.

How is a glorified body related to molecules, to that which constitutes non-glorified material objects? The answer is a mystery. But the glorified body cannot be unrelated to its non-glorified state; it cannot be unrelated to molecules. (If it were, we could not say ‘body and blood’ to describe the physical part of His human nature in the Eucharist.) For if such were the case, then it would not be a glorified version of the body in life; such a proposition would in effect deny that the general Resurrection is a resurrection, implying instead that the event is the creation of a new body. So the glorified body must still be physical, even in the sense of having some relationship to all that is essential in a physical object (its substance).

And such is the case with the physical presence of the body and blood of Christ (the physical part of the human nature of Christ) in the Eucharist. Since we must by faith believe that Christ is wholly present in the Eucharist, with His whole human nature and His whole Divine Nature, we cannot hold that the physical presence of Christ’s human nature in the Eucharist is anything less than if He were standing, glorified, right in front of us — except that in the Eucharist He is hidden. Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is no less physical than when He returns from Heaven (body, blood, soul, Divinity) in the last days.

"

---

The Blessed Sacrament is Truly Emmanuel | Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap.

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/rscanlon_euch1_oct05.asp

From the two part article...

"

The Blessed Sacrament is a Living Physical Divine Person and Being

The Council of Trent has defined that there is no difference between the reality of Jesus Christ and the Blessed Sacrament, except for the appearance. The Council stated: "First of all the holy Synod teaches and openly and simply professes that in the nourishing sacrament of the Holy Eucharist after the consecration of the bread and wine our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species (appearance [45]) of those sensible things." [46] Similarly, in his encyclical, Mysterium Fidei, Paul VI stated about the effect of the consecration at the Mass that "once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine except for the species ("appearance" [47]) - beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical 'reality,'corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place." [48]

Because the Blessed Sacrament is the same "Thing" as Jesus Christ, one might also ask whether or not one can call the Blessed Sacrament a human person or a human being? No doubt, one might think that, if Christ's "physical 'reality"' is "corporeally present" in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, then the Blessed Sacrament must be a human person or human being. But, we have previously stated that, for St. Thomas, substantial being is "being through itself (per se) because it is not in another" and "accidents" "do not have being in themselves, independent of a subject." But, "physical" is a quality and therefore only represents accidental being or "being in another(in alio)." And, the "Other" or "Subject" in which this physical quality subsists is the divine Being who is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject." [49] This includes Jesus Christ's "physical, 'reality'." [50]

So, when our tongues touch the Host, we are not coming into bodily contact with a human person and a human being. Rather, we are coming into bodily contact with a living physical divine Person and Being as directly and immediately as did St. Thomas the Apostle when he put his finger into the nail-marks of Jesus' wounds and his hand into Jesus' side and exclaimed: "My Lord and my God!" (Jn. 20:27-28). The Blessed Sacrament is Emmanuel!

"

[Peace]

Again I think it comes down to what you mean by physical. The first article you cite states that we are not eating literal flesh and literal blood in the Eucharist, so I don't think that helps your hair, fingers, and nails argument very much.

I don't think the second article is consistent with your view either, but I will have to detail that when I have more time.

Have a good day.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

22 minutes ago, Peace said:

Again I think it comes down to what you mean by physical. The first article you cite states that we are not eating literal flesh and literal blood in the Eucharist, so I don't think that helps your hair, fingers, and nails argument very much.

I don't think the second article is consistent with your view either, but I will have to detail that when I have more time.

Have a good day.

Perhaps we are using two different definitions for 'physical' as well as corporeal. That something has a corporeal presence yet is also non-physical seems to be contrary to the definition of the word.

But even so Christ's whole body is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament. His entire body, hair, nails, bones, nerves, etc.  

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, but the entire body of Christ, that is, the bones the nerves, and the like. 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 entire body, because according to human custom it seems to be more adapted for eating, as men commonly are fed on the flesh of animals, but not on the bones or the like.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm

[Amppax]

Just as an aside, I wouldn't necessarily go to Ron Conte for much, theologically, he's a nut. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3892&repos=2&subrepos=0&searchid=1694166. That's not to say, obviously, that he isn't right sometimes, but there are better sources.  Specifically, I wouldn't go to him on this topic, I don't think his understanding is quite right. 

Now, as far as the Thomistic understanding of this goes, you need to look at Article 5 of Q. 76 (go to the link KoC posted above). There, Thomas explains that Christ is not present in the Eucharist "as in a place." He's a quick synopsis of the article, from Fr. Paul Glenn's Tour of the Summa: 

Quote

5. Christ's body is not in this sacrament as a body is in a place. For a body in a place is there according to its external dimensions, and these make the body commensurate with the dimensions of the place it occupies. But Christ's body is not present in the Eucharist according to external dimensions. His body is present quantitatively, not in the manner of the external accidentals of measurement and dimension, but according to the manner of substance, which is complete in any quantity, large or small, that exists.

 

I don't necessarily have time to get into the explanation of that, but there are sources out there for understanding this teach of St. Thomas', and I'd be happy to point people in that direction.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Amppax

[KnightofChrist]

26 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Just as an aside, I wouldn't necessarily go to Ron Conte for much, theologically, he's a nut. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3892&repos=2&subrepos=0&searchid=1694166. That's not to say, obviously, that he isn't right sometimes, but there are better sources.  Specifically, I wouldn't go to him on this topic, I don't think his understanding is quite right. 

Now, as far as the Thomistic understanding of this goes, you need to look at Article 5 of Q. 76 (go to the link KoC posted above). There, Thomas explains that Christ is not present in the Eucharist "as in a place." He's a quick synopsis of the article, from Fr. Paul Glenn's Tour of the Summa: 

I don't necessarily have time to get into the explanation of that, but there are sources out there for understanding this teach of St. Thomas', and I'd be happy to point people in that direction.

Thank you for the warning, I should have Googled him before posting. I got his blog confused with another. Should have just posted Father Regis Scanlon article. Still, I do believe it can be correctly understood that Christ is 'physically' present although not as a body in a place. Also without doubt Christ's entire body is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, hair, bones, teeth and all.

[Peace]

57 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Thank you for the warning, I should have Googled him before posting. I got his blog confused with another.

I didn't know that he was out there either. I thought that he was OK, as far as I had seen up to this point.

I wonder how he makes money.

57 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Should have just posted Father Regis Scanlon article. Still, I do believe it can be correctly understood that Christ is 'physically' present although not as a body in a place.

In your view, what does it mean for something to be physically present, although not as a body in a place?

For example, I am physically present in my office as I type this post. That means that my body is in a place (my office). If my body were over at Starbucks for lunch, I would not be physically present in my office, because my body would not be in the place (my office).

Put another way, "although as not as a body in a place" seems to rule out physical presence. But maybe there is something that I have not thought of. Can you give any examples of what it would mean for someone to be physically present at a place, without his body being in the place?

Sticking with the example, let's say that there is a group meeting that takes place in a conference room. 10 people are present at the meeting. 9 of them are physically present in the conference room.  I am the 10th person, but I have to stay home with the kids that day, so I call into the meeting from home, and participate in the meeting that way. Was I truly present at the meeting? Yeah, but that does not mean that I was physically present at the meeting.

The analogy is imperfect, of course, but I think Jesus is truly present somewhat along the same lines. He is physically present in Heaven, in his natural mode, but is also truly present in the Eucharist according to his "sacramental mode" of existence. He is truly present, but not in the same physical way that He is present in Heaven.

As for what constitutes the "sacramental mode", I don't know to be honest. It is different than making a call on a phone, of course, but it is not the same as the natural mode by which Jesus exists in Heaven.

If He were physically present you would seemingly run into all sorts of obstacles, like his body being divided a million times, Him feeling hot or cold depending on the temperature of the room, etc. . .

57 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Also without doubt Christ's entire body is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, hair, bones, teeth and all.

No disagreement here. Just not physically present.

We can get along.