Adoration & Bullet Proof Glass Talk

[dUSt]

 

18 minutes ago, Amppax said:

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. 

Fr John Hardon uses "physical" a lot.

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Prayer/Prayer_065.htm

"Prayer before the Blessed Sacrament is prayer offered to Jesus Christ, present in the Holy Eucharist, while the person praying is physically present in the Church or Chapel; in other words, Christ’s physical presence is met by our physical presence."

and

"We are, with all of the infallibility of the Church of God behind us, affirming prayer before the Blessed Sacrament is prayer before the living, physical, bodily Jesus Christ on earth."

and

"As Catholics we believe that Jesus Christ is physically on earth." (bold emphasis is his)

 

[Peace]

Interesting stuff.  I guess someone like myself who has never formally studied philosophy is a bit out of his lane.

I suppose it does come back down to what one means by "physical".

[dUSt]

As I understand the word "physical", and I think the way most people would interpret that word, I think it's impossible to explain how Jesus is not "physically" present without denying his true presence.

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, dUSt said:

As I understand the word "physical", and I think the way most people would interpret that word, I think it's impossible to explain how Jesus is not "physically" present without denying his true presence.

Well I think most people would equate "physical" with something that can be seen by human eyes or felt with human hands.  But that is not the case with the Jesus. What you see and touch are not Jesus. What you see and touch are the remaining accidents of the bread and wine. If you look through the Summa, for example, you will see that Aquinas states that we see Him only through the eyes of faith, like I mentioned earlier . . .

As stated above, this is probably why official Church documents do not use the phrase "physically present". But If you want to use one of the more nuanced understandings of "physical" discussed above, I suppose I can get down with that, but not "physical" in the same way that we would think about or refer to other objects.

[Amppax]

33 minutes ago, dUSt said:

 

Fr John Hardon uses "physical" a lot.

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Prayer/Prayer_065.htm

"Prayer before the Blessed Sacrament is prayer offered to Jesus Christ, present in the Holy Eucharist, while the person praying is physically present in the Church or Chapel; in other words, Christ’s physical presence is met by our physical presence."

and

"We are, with all of the infallibility of the Church of God behind us, affirming prayer before the Blessed Sacrament is prayer before the living, physical, bodily Jesus Christ on earth."

and

"As Catholics we believe that Jesus Christ is physically on earth." (bold emphasis is his)

 

 

 

Yeah, I noted that:

34 minutes ago, Amppax said:

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

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Amppax

[Peace]

@dUSt

Here you go:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article7

Quote

I answer that, The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily eye properly so-called, and the intellectual eye, so-called by similitude. But Christ's body as it is in this sacrament cannot be seen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible brings about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by means of the substance; so that the accidents of Christ's body have no immediate relationship either to this sacrament or to adjacent bodies; consequently they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any corporeal eye. Secondly, because, as stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 3; Article 3), Christ's body is substantially present in this sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose object is "what a thing is" (De Anima iii). And therefore, properly speaking, Christ's body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.

Moreover it is perceived differently by different intellects. For since the way in which Christ is in this sacrament is entirely supernatural, it is visible in itself to a supernatural, i.e. the Divine, intellect, and consequently to a beatified intellect, of angel or of man, which, through the participated glory of the Divine intellect, sees all supernatural things in the vision of the Divine Essence. But it can be seen by a wayfarer through faith alone, like other supernatural things. And not even the angelic intellect of its own natural power is capable of beholding it; consequently the devils cannot by their intellect perceive Christ in this sacrament, except through faith, to which they do not pay willing assent; yet they are convinced of it from the evidence of signs, according to James 2:19: "The devils believe, and tremble."

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Peace

[Amppax]

I think it's important to remember that the Eucharist is a mystery, and that full comprehension of this mystery is not possible in this life. It's important that we don't let speculation get in the way of what is truly important: that in the Eucharist, Christ is with us - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Let's all be sure that exploring the theology doesn't obscure our apprehension of that key fact. 

Sometimes it's just best to allow ourselves to stand in wonder before the mystery, without trying to grasp every nuance. 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Amppax

[KnightofChrist]

33 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well I think most people would equate "physical" with something that can be seen by human eyes or felt with human hands.  But that is not the case with the Jesus. What you see and touch are not Jesus. What you see and touch are the remaining accidents of the bread and wine. If you look through the Summa, for example, you will see that Aquinas states that we see Him only through the eyes of faith, like I mentioned earlier . . .

As stated above, this is probably why official Church documents do not use the phrase "physically present". But If you want to use one of the more nuanced understandings of "physical" discussed above, I suppose I can get down with that, but not "physical" in the same way that we would think about or refer to other objects.

...

It still feels like you're taking 'not physical' too far. It may appear that we touch is bread and wine but it is Christ. 

Edited February 16, 2017 by KnightofChrist

[Peace]

17 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

...

It still feels like you're taking 'not physical' too far. It may appear that we touch is bread and wine but it is Christ. 

You do not touch Christ. You do not see Him either (except through the eyes of faith). Please see the portion of the Summa I quoted two posts above . . .

What you see and feel are the remaining accidents of the bread and wine - and those accidents are not manifested in the substance of Jesus (see the portion of the Summa I quoted above in response to @Jack4.)

Edited February 16, 2017 by Peace

[Spem in alium]

Just going back to the original post: a few years ago in my home parish, someone did install a heavy glass door in a niche within one of the side chapels. After weekday Mass Father places Jesus there and there is some space for people to sit or kneel. There is also a curtain which can be used to close the chapel. When I was home recently I saw that many people seem to use it.

[Amppax]

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

You do not touch Christ. You do not see Him either (except through the eyes of faith).

 

I think, Peace, that you go too far in what you say, or at the very least, what you say is very much open to an erroneous interpretation. You do touch Christ, present substantially. What you touch, what you see, what you feel... that is Christ's body, his blood, his soul, his divinity. However, you don't perceive this reality which you touch. Your senses do not tell you "This is Christ"; they tell you, "this is bread." But, through faith, we know that that which we touch, that which we taste, is really and truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Savior. 

[Peace]

14 minutes ago, Amppax said:

I think, Peace, that you go too far in what you say, or at the very least, what you say is very much open to an erroneous interpretation. You do touch Christ, present substantially. What you touch, what you see, what you feel... that is Christ's body, his blood, his soul, his divinity. However, you don't perceive this reality which you touch. Your senses do not tell you "This is Christ"; they tell you, "this is bread." But, through faith, we know that that which we touch, that which we taste, is really and truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Savior. 

Maybe you are right. Will think about it.

[Amppax]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Maybe you are right. Will think about it.

It's an excellent subject to meditate upon in adoration.  

[Peace]

19 minutes ago, Amppax said:

It's an excellent subject to meditate upon in adoration.  

Heh. I'll consider it.

What do you think about the portion of the Summa cited near the top of this page of the thread, which indicates that the substance of Jesus does not take on the accidents of the bread and the wine, which remain? Those accidents remain, but without a substance.

It seems that a lot of folks believe that the substance of Jesus takes on the accidents of bread and wine, which leads them to conclude that when they touch the accidents of the bread they are in effect touching the substance in which those accidents are manifested, but that would seem to contradict the portions of the Summa cited above.

[dUSt]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

You do not touch Christ. You do not see Him either (except through the eyes of faith). Please see the portion of the Summa I quoted two posts above . . .

If this were true, I don't understand why the Eucharist is placed in a monstrance. Why does the church place importance on being able to see the blessed sacrament?

New thought...

If my kids ask me what they are looking at during adoration, I should say, "You are looking at an object formerly known as bread"?