"Physical" Real Preesense

[Doom]

I keep encountering this term, sometimes from Catholics but usually from Protestants, the statement that Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox, and others who have a high view of the Eucharist, that they believe in a "physical" presence.

My understanding is that this term is completely wrong, that if the presence of Christ was physical, then if you put the consecrated bread and wine under a microscope, you would see absolutely no presence of bread or wine, you would see "holy crap looks like bread but it is actually human flesh!"

Therefore, the entire point of theories like Transubstantiation Is to explain how the Eucharist can be the body and blood of Christ without being a physical presence. And the proper term is not "physical" but "sacramental".

Before I decide that this is a hill I am going to die on in my online discussions, I need to make sure that I have this right.

[anawim]

If I understand it correctly, Jesus is really and truly present, but not physically present, as that would limit Him in space and time. Rather, He is 'substantially' present, as in present in the substance, while the appearance is bread and wine: https://adoremus.org/2002/03/the-realit ... -presence/

[aussie_aussie_oi_oi]

The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Many Protestants attack this doctrine as “unbiblical,” but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).
The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).

https://www.usccb.org/resources/The%20R ... harist.pdf

In the celebration of the Eucharist, the glorified Christ becomes present under the appearances of bread and wine in a way that is unique,
a way that is uniquely suited to the Eucharist. In the Church's traditional theological language, in the act of consecration during the
Eucharist the "substance" of the bread and wine is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit into the "substance" of the Body and Blood of
Jesus Christ. At the same time, the "accidents" or appearances of bread and wine remain. "Substance" and "accident" are here used as
philosophical terms that have been adapted by great medieval theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas in their efforts to understand and
explain the faith. Such terms are used to convey the fact that what appears to be bread and wine in every way (at the level of "accidents"
or physical attributes - that is, what can be seen, touched, tasted, or measured) in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ (at the level of
"substance" or deepest reality). This change at the level of substance from bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is called
"transubstantiation." According to Catholic faith, we can speak of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because this
transubstantiation has occurred (cf. Catechism, no. 1376). This is a great mystery of our faith—we can only know it from Christ's teaching
given us in the Scriptures and in the Tradition of the Church. Every other change that occurs in the world involves a change in accidents
or characteristics. Sometimes the accidents change while the substance remains the same. For example, when a child reaches
adulthood, the characteristics of the human person change in many ways, but the adult remains the same person—the same substance.
At other times, the substance and the accidents both change. For example, when a person eats an apple, the apple is incorporated into
the body of that person—is changed into the body of that person. When this change of substance occurs, however, the accidents or
characteristics of the apple do not remain. As the apple is changed into the body of the person, it takes on the accidents or
characteristics of the body of that person. Christ's presence in the Eucharist is unique in that, even though the consecrated bread and
wine truly are in substance the Body and Blood of Christ, they have none of the accidents or characteristics of a human body, but only
those of bread and wine.

[Doom]

The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Many Protestants attack this doctrine as “unbiblical,” but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).
The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).

https://www.usccb.org/resources/The%20R ... harist.pdf

In the celebration of the Eucharist, the glorified Christ becomes present under the appearances of bread and wine in a way that is unique,
a way that is uniquely suited to the Eucharist. In the Church's traditional theological language, in the act of consecration during the
Eucharist the "substance" of the bread and wine is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit into the "substance" of the Body and Blood of
Jesus Christ. At the same time, the "accidents" or appearances of bread and wine remain. "Substance" and "accident" are here used as
philosophical terms that have been adapted by great medieval theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas in their efforts to understand and
explain the faith. Such terms are used to convey the fact that what appears to be bread and wine in every way (at the level of "accidents"
or physical attributes - that is, what can be seen, touched, tasted, or measured) in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ (at the level of
"substance" or deepest reality). This change at the level of substance from bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is called
"transubstantiation." According to Catholic faith, we can speak of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because this
transubstantiation has occurred (cf. Catechism, no. 1376). This is a great mystery of our faith—we can only know it from Christ's teaching
given us in the Scriptures and in the Tradition of the Church. Every other change that occurs in the world involves a change in accidents
or characteristics. Sometimes the accidents change while the substance remains the same. For example, when a child reaches
adulthood, the characteristics of the human person change in many ways, but the adult remains the same person—the same substance.
At other times, the substance and the accidents both change. For example, when a person eats an apple, the apple is incorporated into
the body of that person—is changed into the body of that person. When this change of substance occurs, however, the accidents or
characteristics of the apple do not remain. As the apple is changed into the body of the person, it takes on the accidents or
characteristics of the body of that person. Christ's presence in the Eucharist is unique in that, even though the consecrated bread and
wine truly are in substance the Body and Blood of Christ, they have none of the accidents or characteristics of a human body, but only
those of bread and wine.

Yes, yes, yes but that doesn't answer the question of whether it is proper to describe the presence as "physical", I am 99% certain that it is not.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

It is not. When a Host is broken in half, Jesus is not broken in half. That's the easiest counter-demonstration I know of.

[Doom]

It is not. When a Host is broken in half, Jesus is not broken in half. That's the easiest counter-demonstration I know of.

That is an even better illustration than my usual microscope example. Transubstantiation means you can't tell the difference between consecrated and unconsecrated bread even under a microscope, a physical presence would mean that you could. But breaking a Host in half doesn't give you two halves of Christ, that is an even better illustration.

So this is a hill I can die on, good to know.

[Essential Sacrifice]

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh (the physical [my insert] )counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

If I understand it correctly, Jesus is really and truly present, but not physically present, as that would limit Him in space and time. Rather, He is 'substantially' present, as in present in the substance, while the appearance is bread and wine

I think, in definition, anawim is spot on here. I think it also substantiates

Mathew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen..

How else could Jesus, from heaven, be with us till the end of the age? Only spiritually, not physically ... as

substantially' present, as in present in the substance, while the appearance is bread and wine

Really not all that different, definitionally, than the Eucharist itself. How could it be? It is His Word in Spirit, at Mass, from the priest in persona Christi, that gives us unconditional eternal life by His Body and Blood. So He speaks to us now as He did to(them) then in Spirit and life until the end of the world, as we are, perhaps, a part of today.

[Doom]

Physical would mean limited to one place and time. Christ, like anyone else, cannot be physically present in more than one place at the same time. Once you assert Christ is present in the Eucharist in more than one place, it cannot possibly be a physical presense.

[VeryTas]

I'm not convinced. Is substance physical? If not, is it spiritual? Is the mystery of the Eucharist a Thomist mystery produced by an abstruse philosophical concept, namely, substance? I do believe Christ is really present with soul and divinity there, but I think he purposely only stated body and blood. Are you toying with docetism?
When a cup of water is broken in half, is water broken in half?

[Doom]

Show me one place just one Church document or theologian who uses the word physical.

What possible reason could there be for an elaborate theory of Transubstantiation if all you have to do is say “Christ is physically present”, no Aristotle necessary!

[peregrinator]

When a cup of water is broken in half, is water broken in half?

Water can be divided, Christ can't.

[Doom]

Precisely,a cup of water split in two is two half cups. A Eucharistic Host split in two the two halves are both the full Christ.

[VeryTas]

Let me put it this way. Is Christ bodily present in the Eucharist? I say yes. Then how is he not physically present?

[Tired]

Let me put it this way. Is Christ bodily present in the Eucharist? I say yes. Then how is he not physically present?

what do you mean by 'bodily' present? That doesn't mean much to me so I'm not sure what you are getting at. The substance of the Eucharist is indeed Christ (body, blood, soul, and divinity). The appearance of the Eucharist is still bread...

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Part of the problem is that we think of "physical" as the alternative for "spiritual" or "symbolic," so if we say, "not physical," it sounds like we're saying "symbolic only." But that's not true.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

This is the legendary (in certain circles) space octopus explanation of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

His resurrected Body is physically present in Heaven and does not leave there. A consecrated Host has the presence of the Body "piped" into it via the badly drawn channels (I went to seminary, not art school). A Host communicates the Presence, but the Body is not there in a physical sense. In a physical sense, It's in Heaven.

SpaceOctopus.png

[Stella]

(I went to seminary, not art school)

On the positive side you could also use that bad drawing to explain how calamari happens.

[VeryTas]

Let me put it this way. Is Christ bodily present in the Eucharist? I say yes. Then how is he not physically present?

what do you mean by 'bodily' present? That doesn't mean much to me so I'm not sure what you are getting at. The substance of the Eucharist is indeed Christ (body, blood, soul, and divinity). The appearance of the Eucharist is still bread...

I don't mean visually, tactilely, etc. And I don't mean substantially in the sense of mostly. He said it is his body and blood, so it is at least bodily, which we take on faith, not sight.
For centuries the Vulgate and some Greek texts of John 3:13 have had him telling us: "And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven." (The other texts don't include "who is in heaven.") He said this on earth before he ever ascended. (And he wasn't even the Son of man [ie incarnate] before he descended.) So while on earth he seems to have somehow been in heaven too. Anyway, if he could be two places then, he can be present in all the tabernacles of the world now, while also at the right hand of the Father. And why not bodily, since he used the word "body"?

[Tired]

I don't mean visually, tactilely, etc. And I don't mean substantially in the sense of mostly. He said it is his body and blood, so it is at least bodily, which we take on faith, not sight.
For centuries the Vulgate and some Greek texts of John 3:13 have had him telling us: "And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven." (The other texts don't include "who is in heaven.") He said this on earth before he ever ascended. (And he wasn't even the Son of man [ie incarnate] before he descended.) So while on earth he seems to have somehow been in heaven too. Anyway, if he could be two places then, he can be present in all the tabernacles of the world now, while also at the right hand of the Father. And why not bodily, since he used the word "body"?

I fear you are using 'substantially' in a different meaning than when I used 'substance'. I wouldn't possibly do justice to Frank Sheed's Theology and Sanity (but it's a GREAT book) - but let me try with a terribly insufficient example. Let's take a nice dessert item - a bowl of mint chocolate chip ice cream. When I choose to get a bowl, I normally eat it with a spoon. When I get a spoon out of the drawer, it is a metal utensil about 7 inches long and formed well enough to get me a nice bite. The spoon has certain properties that I can observe with my senses (its 'accidents'). It is hard (I can't bend it without a lot of effort). It is shiny (it's stainless steel). It's cold when the ice cream is on it as it conducts heat pretty well. For the spoon, it's substance - metal material, shiny, cold when it has ice cream on it - is no different than its accidents. I could cut it up and look at it under a microscope, melt it into a fork (or some other item), etc., and it would still have the substance I perceive with 'normal' metal items.

Before consecration, the bread (same analog for the wine) looks like unleavened bread. It feels like unleavened bread, it tastes like unleavened bread. It dissolves in water like unleavened bread, etc. The descriptions of the bread are what I can perceive with my senses - they are the 'accidents' of the bread. And its substance is indeed bread. However, after the consecration, even though its accidents remain (it looks like bread, tastes like bread, acts like bread), it's substance - the thing it IS - is no longer bread but instead, its substance is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Its accidents haven't changed. If I were to do a careful, scientific evaluation of the consecrated Eucharist, my senses (and my analytical scientific analysis) would still perceive the Eucharist to be bread. But its substance - know to me by faith (and the constant teaching of the Catholic Church) - would actually be the body of Christ.

So I struggle with what you mean by 'bodily'...

FWIW - I really liked Obi's picture and explanation.

[VeryTas]

I wonder if the common resistance throughout history to taking the Eucharist as his physical body/blood (not excluding soul and divinity) stems from our repugnance for cannibalism. That is likely why the many disciples left him in John 6. It isn't clear that any real cannibals ate their enemy warriors' flesh and blood to gain some of those victims' spiritual virtues (courage, loyalty, etc.). But when I heard that that might have been true in some cases, I thought, Oh, they just had the wrong man! Jesus is the man! That's what he himself seems to be saying when you read John 6:32-59.