Here's a doozy...

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='phatcatholic' post='954227' date='Apr 19 2006, 05:22 PM']maybe this is better?:

--The Trinity is present [i]essentially[/i], but only the Son is present [i]personally[/i]

of course, by "essentially" i mean in the metaphysical sense, as pertaining to the essence of a thing. maybe its improper to reduce what is involved into a catchy little phrase, but it would be helpful as a simple way to explain the reality of the Eucharist.[/quote]
I'm bumping this thread because Apotheoun linked to it and it interested me. I think the best way to phrase it would be to say that the Eucharist IS the Son, but [i]contains[/i] the Father and the Holy Spirit (through their perichoresis). It is possible to say that the Eucharist IS Jesus without it being the Father and the Holy Spirit because the Son IS NOT the Father or the Holy Spirit, however, one would have to admit that since they are all consubstantial (and because of perichoresis, which I recognize as a subtle distinction from consubstantiality), the Father and the Holy Spirit are personally present in the Most Blessed Sacrament, since their Persons are truly present in the Son, who is truly present in the Eucharist. It would seem therefore that all three are present in the Eucharist, but the Eucharist can be said TO BE only the Son. The Eucharist could not be said TO BE the Father or the Holy Spirit, but must be said to [i]contain[/i] them in the sense that they are present (not in the sense that they can be "contained" or limited).

Of course, if I'm wrong on this, I defer to the Magisterium.

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='944572' date='Apr 12 2006, 07:27 AM']Jesus is present in the Eucharist which is wholy and substantially, sacramentally, but not physically.[/quote]

isn't this incorrect? i thought Jesus is there physically as well. the molecules of bread are there, but they are now the molecules of Jesus body (not skin/flesh molecules, but in the same substance of a bread molecule, as in a carbohydrate chain). His flesh, blood, and divinity is there, but our senses can't perceive these as we usually perceive things?

i see the Eucharist as the Trinity. like an icon, it is also a window to heaven. through it we can see the three persons of the Godhead. i can see and speak to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in that round host. i can even see Our Lady and the Saints in heaven through this window. to touch, smell, hear and taste it would be to touch, smell, hear and taste Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.
anything that a human can rationalize or perceive of the Trinity, they can do so in the Eucharist. "It's all me baby!"

i think anything short of His entirety in the Eucharist would be making short of the faith we have in Him.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1554072' date='Jun 2 2008, 02:59 AM']isn't this incorrect? i thought Jesus is there physically as well. the molecules of bread are there, but they are now the molecules of Jesus body (not skin/flesh molecules, but in the same substance of a bread molecule, as in a carbohydrate chain). His flesh, blood, and divinity is there, but our senses can't perceive these as we usually perceive things?

i see the Eucharist as the Trinity. like an icon, it is also a window to heaven. through it we can see the three persons of the Godhead. i can see and speak to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in that round host. i can even see Our Lady and the Saints in heaven through this window. to touch, smell, hear and taste it would be to touch, smell, hear and taste Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.
anything that a human can rationalize or perceive of the Trinity, they can do so in the Eucharist. "It's all me baby!"

i think anything short of His entirety in the Eucharist would be making short of the faith we have in Him.[/quote]

I had to go back a research a little bit on this one, but I feel pretty confident in saying that Jesus is not present in the sense of His molecules. The reason is in the Summa, tertia pars, Q. 76, articles 1-4. The way I understand it, "substance" as the Church uses it is a deeper sense than "substance" as science uses the word. The reason is that if you introduce the idea that Jesus' physical presence in the Blessed Sacrament exists in such a way that there's more than one part (i.e. multiple molecules, or even multiple atoms), then you could say theoretically that you can remove one of those parts, and if you did, would that part...that cell or molecule, be the whole Christ? This causes a huge difficulty, because any part of the Eucharistic host, no matter how small, must contain the whole Christ. "Substance," I believe, goes deeper in our theology to mean something closer to "nature." His human nature is divided into two substances: soul and body. I could be wrong, but I believe we would call molecular structure a "form" and not a substance, and form is a matter of dimension, shape, and other accidents, not of essence or substance. Substance, I think, is simply whatever physical human flesh is on a natural level beyond the scope of form, but that itself, I think, is a mystery.

I think the physical aspect of Christ's human nature is present in the Blessed Sacrament, but in a sacramental way, a way beyond our understanding. To be honest, I need to read [u]The Hidden Manna[/u] to get the best answers on the specifics involved in this.

Anyway, I think what Thess was saying was that Jesus' local presence is not in the Eucharist. The Church calls His "local presence" His presence wherever He Himself is present in the normal way (the way He walked the earth) not the sacramental way. So 2000 years ago, Jesus was locally present on earth. Now He is locally present in heaven and sacramentally present on earth. A lot of people say that Jesus isn't "physically" present in the Eucharist when they mean He isn't "locally" present because a lot of the terms are obscure in their exact meaning (which I suspect is one of the key reasons it's difficult to pin down exactly how Jesus is present in the Eucharist).

I want to make it clear, though, that I don't know all the answers to this and a bit of it is speculation (that, as far as I know, is in line with Church teaching, but I'll research it some more and let you know).

God bless,

Micah

[johnnydigit]

ya, confusing, but a little clearer.

so if the molecules of the bread are there, would it be correct to say that after consecration the host is both wheat bread (accident), plus the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ (substance)? someone once insisted that it is no longer "bread" (accident) and only the substance of the Eucharist.. i disagreed because all my senses tell me there is bread, but my soul tells me there is the addition of the substance..

[StColette]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1554586' date='Jun 2 2008, 03:41 PM']ya, confusing, but a little clearer.

so if the molecules of the bread are there, would it be correct to say that after consecration the host is both wheat bread (accident), plus the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ (substance)? someone once insisted that it is no longer "bread" (accident) and only the substance of the Eucharist.. i disagreed because all my senses tell me there is bread, but my soul tells me there is the addition of the substance..[/quote]

What you describe is Consubstantiation, which is what Lutherans believes. Consubstantiation says that the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present.

Transubstantiation, which is what Catholics believe, says the bread ceases to be bread, because it truly becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. The very substance of the bread changes. The substance of the bread no longer is there, but tt does keep the accidents, which are attributes. Meaning it still tastes, feels, and looks like bread, but it has truly become the body of Christ.

It's substance is changed but the accidents remain.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1554586' date='Jun 2 2008, 03:41 PM']ya, confusing, but a little clearer.

so if the molecules of the bread are there, would it be correct to say that after consecration the host is both wheat bread (accident), plus the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ (substance)? someone once insisted that it is no longer "bread" (accident) and only the substance of the Eucharist.. i disagreed because all my senses tell me there is bread, but my soul tells me there is the addition of the substance..[/quote]

Well...see, this is what I mean about it getting confusing because we're not all able to know what each other thinks by certain terms. The bread does not remain wheat after consecration, because wheat is the substance of the bread (and transubstantiation means that the substance of bread ceases to exist), however, it does retain the outward form of wheat cells (that is, if you put the host under the microscope, that's what you'll see), but the substance is not wheat. The substance of wheat is replaced by the substance of Christ, but the accidents of wheat remain.

It is the dogma of transubstantiation that what was bread and wine ceases to be those and actually become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. There is no longer any bread or wine after consecration.

Let me use an analogy. You know petrified wood? It looks like wood, but it's not. The reason is because it once was wood, but minerals came along and took the place of wood as it rotted away. It is really rock with no wood remaining, but it appears to be wood. It's like that with transubstantiation, except that transubstantiation is instantaneous.

So there is no wheat (or wine) remaining, but only Christ. What we see and taste only appears to be wheat (or wine).

This is a very emphatic teaching especially because of Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. If the Eucharist were Christ AND bread, then we would be worshiping both in the Blessed Sacrament, and that is unacceptable.

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1554778' date='Jun 2 2008, 03:08 PM']Let me use an analogy. You know petrified wood? It looks like wood, but it's not. The reason is because it once was wood, but minerals came along and took the place of wood as it rotted away. It is really rock with no wood remaining, but it appears to be wood. It's like that with transubstantiation, except that transubstantiation is instantaneous.

So there is no wheat (or wine) remaining, but only Christ. What we see and taste only appears to be wheat (or wine).

This is a very emphatic teaching especially because of Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. If the Eucharist were Christ AND bread, then we would be worshiping both in the Blessed Sacrament, and that is unacceptable.[/quote]

great analogy! i think i see it much better now, as in Christ replacing the space and form that the bread molecules inhabit. before it was a "lifeless" accident of bread that has the "essence" of merely wheat, while after consecration it is the body of Christ, full of the essence of life, in the appearance of the accident of bread, down to the molecule. i imagine the appearance of the molecules are shinier and have stronger charges

so if the molecules of wheat bread normally break down as carbohydrates in the stomach, are converted to sugars and fats to be used and stored as energy for individual cells, so does the Body of Christ get absorbed into every cell of your body. however, i'd like to think that the remainder that is expelled ceases to be the Eucharist and its essence has already "transferred" to your body and soul, like when the purificator and water touches the Eucharist, it ceases to be the Eucharist.

=| .. > .. > .. > .. > ..

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1555038' date='Jun 2 2008, 08:33 PM']great analogy! i think i see it much better now, as in Christ replacing the space and form that the bread molecules inhabit. before it was a "lifeless" accident of bread that has the "essence" of merely wheat, while after consecration it is the body of Christ, full of the essence of life, in the appearance of the accident of bread, down to the molecule. i imagine the appearance of the molecules are shinier and have stronger charges [/quote]

lol, well, as far as I know, no one has ever tested the shininess of the accidents of the host after consecration. I'd imagine, though, that since the accidents of bread remain, and shininess is an accident, that it also remains the way it appeared.

[quote]so if the molecules of wheat bread normally break down as carbohydrates in the stomach, are converted to sugars and fats to be used and stored as energy for individual cells, so does the Body of Christ get absorbed into every cell of your body. however, i'd like to think that the remainder that is expelled ceases to be the Eucharist and its essence has already "transferred" to your body and soul, like when the purificator and water touches the Eucharist, it ceases to be the Eucharist.[/quote]

Actually this is something that, as far as I know, hasn't been officially pronounced upon (afterall, we didn't know nearly as much about the science of digestion the last time we had a council focusing heavily on the Eucharist). However, it is the case that the Church teaches that once the Body and Blood no longer appear to be bread and wine, then their substance has been converted to something else, which begs the question about what happened to the substance of Christ's Body and Blood, which are glorified, and can't decay. I think the pious answer (and I think it's in keeping with Church teaching) would be that the substance contributes to our substance in some way, i.e. transforming us, which essentially means "you are what you eat." I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but this will have to do for now. What is good is that this fits with the Church's theology on the sacraments and theosis (divinization), i.e. that by receiving the sacraments worthily, we become partakers in the divine nature and slowly transform to be more like God.

God bless,

Micah

[Resurrexi]

Though only the Son is united to the human nature of Christ ("We believe and confess that divinity itself, whether you call it divine substance or nature, is incarnate only in the Son." D 392), the other persons are present in the Son by way of circuminsession ("Because of this unity the Father is entire in the Son, entire in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entire in the Father, entire in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is entire in the Father, entire in the Son." D 704). Obviously, the Father and Holy Spirit would be present in the Eucharist in the same manner in which they are present in the Person of Christ.