Adoration & Bullet Proof Glass Talk

[dUSt]

Well, SOMETHING is physically present, because I can see a round white thing with my eyes. So, if Jesus is not physically present, and the round white thing is no longer bread, then what exactly am I physically looking at?

 

[KnightofChrist]

Ok, I found this explanation that seems pretty clear and understandable. Also written far better in detail than I could easily accomplish.

"Comments on the significance of the phrase “physically present” in relation to the Eucharist

[...]

But, let us look more closely at the different meanings of “physically present” 

(Webster's) - 
1. present corporeally, i.e. existing as a physical body. 
2. present to our knowledge in a physical manner, i.e. to our senses, sensibly (visibly), or to our intellect, intelligibly (naturally). 
3. present really, as opposed to figuratively, morally etc. 

Meanings 1 and 3 are verified in the Eucharist, but not 2. For our knowledge of Christ's bodily presence in this life is by faith only. However, the meaning in 1 is affected by the unique way in which Christ' s body exists in the Eucharist. The ordinary meaning still applies in so far as it intends to signify the actual presence of “the whole substance” of Christ's physical body. But his physical body is not present in the ordinary manner of a physical body. Though the existing body is natural or physical, the mode of existence is supernatural, not natural or physical.

[...]

Substantially, then, Christ's body is physically present, i.e. as a bodily substance, under the appearance of bread, but its mode of existence is not physical or natural. 

In ordinary language we do not make this distinction between a physical thing and its mode of existence. It becomes necessary, however, in speaking of the Eucharist. Hence, taking the Eucharist into account, we have four possible meanings of “physically present”. 

1. present corporeally, i.e. existing as a physical body. 
2. present corporeally, i.e. existing as a physical substance, together with its physical accidents existing according to their natural accidental mode. 
3. present to our knowledge in a physical manner, i.e. to our senses, sensibly (visibly), or to our intellect, intelligibly (naturally). 
4. present really, as opposed to figuratively, morally etc

[...]

So, in speaking in theology to anyone outside the thomist tradition, which understands the distinctions that are referred to above, it is perhaps necessary when using the phrase “physically present” to point out that one is not using it in the third sense of the fourfold senses listed, nor is one denying the supernatural mode of existence of Christ's body in the sacrament whereby our knowledge of Christ's physical presence is by faith alone. 

The phrase “physically present” is not found in relevant Church documents on the subject, nor is it used directly by St. Thomas. This may be because of the  possibility of mistaking the meaning by confusing it with senses 2 and 3 above. If anything, however, today we need to bring out its application in senses 1 and 4. For, to deny these senses means equating the sacramental presence to a purely “spiritual” one. That would mean either Christ is present in his divinity or his spiritual soul only, or according to his power only, i.e. morally.

Source: http://www.cts.org.au/0108/COMMENT.pdf

[Peace]

9 hours ago, dUSt said:

Well, SOMETHING is physically present, because I can see a round white thing with my eyes. So, if Jesus is not physically present, and the round white thing is no longer bread, then what exactly am I physically looking at?

 

From what I understand, the "accidents"  of the bread and wine remain, but the "substance" of the bread and wine are changed into Jesus.

[dUSt]

47 minutes ago, Peace said:

From what I understand, the "accidents"  of the bread and wine remain, but the "substance" of the bread and wine are changed into Jesus.

So, physically speaking, we are adoring the "accidents of the bread and wine"? That seems sacrilegious. I guess I just don't get it. When I am in adoration, I am actually physically looking at something with my physical eyes. I don't know why the Church would place the Eucharist in a monstrance where it is visible to the eye, if there was no purpose for it. I'm calling Fr Pontifex.

[Jack4]

41 minutes ago, dUSt said:

... we are adoring the "accidents of the bread and wine"?

Properly speaking, no, you are not adoring the accidents.

The object of your latria is the substance of something which has the accidents of bread and wine. 

 

44 minutes ago, dUSt said:

I'm calling Fr Pontifex.

Fr Who?

[Peace]

9 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

The object of your latria is the substance of something which has the accidents of bread and wine. 

I don't think the accidents that remain exist in any substance. From what I understand they (miraculously) remain without substance. They signify the substance (Jesus) but Jesus Himself does not actually have the accidents of bread and wine.

Correct me if I am wrong though.

[dUSt]

I just texted @Pontifex. Asked him if Jesus is "physically" present in the Eucharist. Here's his reply, and I quote, "He is. Argument over."

So, that is the phatmass stance. haha

[Jack4]

"The Body of Christ as present in the Eucharist does not have extension; It does not move when a Host is moved; etc. All the property we think of as "physical" do not apply."

Visus tactus gustus in te fallitur.

http://forums.avemariaradio.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=164443

 

27 minutes ago, dUSt said:

I just texted @Pontifex. Asked him if Jesus is "physically" present in the Eucharist. Here's his reply, and I quote, "He is. Argument over."

So, that is the phatmass stance. haha

But Aquinas seems to disagree. 

33 minutes ago, Peace said:

I don't think the accidents that remain exist in any substance. From what I understand they (miraculously) remain without substance. They signify the substance (Jesus) but Jesus Himself does not actually have the accidents of bread and wine.

Correct me if I am wrong though.

I might not be understanding you fully, but if you're saying that the Eucharist doesn't have any substance, or that the substance is not of Jesus, that is wrong. 

 

[dUSt]

I was watching something on Netflix, about how colors work--and how our brains interpret color. In reality, an orange is not orange. An orange is actually every color, EXCEPT orange--because or eyes only see what color reflects off of the orange's surface. The orange is actually absorbing every other color. So--our human brains will never actually know the true color of an orange--as we can only see the one color it is not.

There are also other color tricks, like this one, where if you stare at the cross, a green dot takes over the pink dots:

In reality, the green dot does not exist--but our brains create it for us.

I think this might be a good lesson in how the "accidents" of an object are mostly determined by the limits of our brains and how they are able to interpret things. Knowing how easy it is for our brains to be "tricked" based on physical limitations--it's actually a lot easier to accept the miracle of bread and wine actually becoming the Body and Blood of Jesus--even though our brains are trying to tell us otherwise.

[Jack4]

11 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

42 minutes ago, Peace said:

I don't think the accidents that remain exist in any substance. From what I understand they (miraculously) remain without substance. They signify the substance (Jesus) but Jesus Himself does not actually have the accidents of bread and wine.

Correct me if I am wrong though.

I might not be understanding you fully, but if you're saying that the Eucharist doesn't have any substance, or that the substance is not of Jesus, that is wrong. 

 

Canon 1. If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.

Canon 2. If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.

Council of Trent, Canons concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist (September 5, 1551)

(all emphases mine)

Edited February 16, 2017 by Jack4

[dUSt]

13 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

"The Body of Christ as present in the Eucharist does not have extension; It does not move when a Host is moved; etc. All the property we think of as "physical" do not apply."

 

So, this is a quote by "Obi-Wan Kenobi - 4th Degree KoC".

Yeah.

[KnightofChrist]

Father Brian (aka Theologian in Training) answered this question on Phatmass in 2006. The phorum will not allow me to post the link to the original thread. So here's a copy paste.

----

Question in brief: Is Christ physically present in the Eucharist?

----

Yes, it would be correct to say that as well. In fact, in John 6:51 we read I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." Emphasis mine.

Further, we believe as Catholics that we receive Him Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, which is a real body and real blood. And though it is not strictly doctrinal, there have been countless miracles which consisted of the Eucharist becoming real flesh or real blood. In fact, the miracle of Lanciano is a miracle where the Eucharist became a true piece of flesh, a heart to be exact. http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

Hope that helps

God Bless

Fr. Brian

Maybe this will work? phatmass.com/phorum/topic/60096-is-christ-physically-present-in-the-eucharist/

Edited February 16, 2017 by KnightofChrist

[Amppax]

1 hour ago, dUSt said:

So, this is a quote by "Obi-Wan Kenobi - 4th Degree KoC".

Yeah.

 

 

 

However, dUSt, what the person in question says is in agreement with what St. Thomas teaches in the Summa (see my post above). However, just because the properties we think of as physical do not apply, does not mean that the presence isn't physical. I think KoC's post above, which discussed the different possible meanings for physical, is helpful. I think it's certainly right to say it's physical in the two senses that his article highlights; to say otherwise would be to deny the reality of Christ's presence.  

Also, if anyone is interested, I'd highly recommend Fr. John Hardon's writings on the Eucharist, which can be found here: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist.htm. Fr. Hardon was a consultant for the drafting of the Catechism. He also promoted Eucharistic adoration extensively. 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Amppax

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Jack4 said:

I might not be understanding you fully, but if you're saying that the Eucharist doesn't have any substance, or that the substance is not of Jesus, that is wrong.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4077.htm#article1
 

Quote

On the contrary, Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx) that "the sacramental species are the names of those things which were there before, namely, of the bread and wine." Therefore since the substance of the bread and the wine does not remain, it seems that these species remain without a subject.

I answer that, The species of the bread and wine, which are perceived by our senses to remain in this sacrament after consecration, are not subjected in the substance of the bread and wine, for that does not remain, as stated above (III:75:2); nor in the substantial form, for that does not remain (III:75:6, and if it did remain, "it could not be a subject," as Boethius declares (De Trin. i). Furthermore it is manifest that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of Christ's body and blood, because the substance of the human body cannot in any way be affected by such accidents; nor is it possible for Christ's glorious and impassible body to be altered so as to receive these qualities.

Now there are some who say that they are in the surrounding atmosphere as in a subject. But even this cannot be: in the first place, because atmosphere is not susceptive of such accidents. Secondly, because these accidents are not where the atmosphere is, nay more, the atmosphere is displaced by the motion of these species. Thirdly, because accidents do not pass from subject to subject, so that the same identical accident which was first in one subject be afterwards in another; because an accident is individuated by the subject; hence it cannot come to pass for an accident remaining identically the same to be at one time in one subject, and at another time in another. Fourthly, since the atmosphere is not deprived of its own accidents, it would have at the one time its own accidents and others foreign to it. Nor can it be maintained that this is done miraculously in virtue of the consecration, because the words of consecration do not signify this, and they effect only what they signify.

Therefore it follows that the accidents continue in this sacrament without a subject. This can be done by Divine power: for since an effect depends more upon the first cause than on the second, God Who is the first cause both of substance and accident, can by His unlimited power preserve an accident in existence when the substance is withdrawn whereby it was preserved in existence as by its proper cause, just as without natural causes He can produce other effects of natural causes, even as He formed a human body in the Virgin's womb, "without the seed of man" (Hymn for Christmas, First Vespers).

 

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Peace

[Amppax]

Fr. Hardon, incidentally, is quite adamant that the Lord's presence is physical and corporeal.