My Struggle with the Real Presence

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is really and truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, that is, that he is present in his body, blood, soul, and divinity.


I have no difficulty in understanding how Christ's human soul and divine nature as the second person of the Blessed Trinity are present in the Eucharist, because they are spiritual realities without physical properties.


Difficulties arise for me, however, with understanding how Christ's body and blood are present.  The reason for this is that I, on this side of heaven, cannot conceive of a body or of blood in any way other than physically.  I have a body that is physical, that is, it is composed of physical things like bones, muscles, organs, hair, and the like.  In addition, I have blood in my body that is also physical, that is, it is a liquid that is red and tastes terrible.  I have no way of knowing for sure, but I am willing to bet that, when the average Catholic in the pew hears that Jesus' body and blood are present in the Eucharist, he naturally and automatically thinks physically.


I have found that most orthodox Catholic theologians (including Pope Benedict) deny that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist.  They reject the idea that Christ shrinks himself down so that there is a little Jesus in every host (a childish view, if I must say so).  They also reject the idea that the physical properties of a body (bones, muscles, organs, hair, etc.) are present.


There are four things that make this matter confusing for me.


First, the Roman Catechism or the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in its explanation of the Eucharist, describes the meaning of the Real Presence: "....all the constituents of a true body are present, such as bones and sinews."  The late Fr. John Hardon takes a literal or physical view when he says, "He is therefore in the Eucharist also with the essence of those dimensional features that we commonly associate with a living human being.  The explanation of how these physical properties are possible is part of theological speculation, but the fact is a matter of faith (John Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, 462)." 


Second, the post-resurrection narratives of the gospels (which are not designed to explain how Christ is present in the Eucharist) teach that Christ's glorified body had physical properties.  It bore the scars of the crucifixion; and Jesus told the disciples that he had flesh and bones and was not a ghost.  Yet, Jesus, in his resurrected body, transcended physical laws in that he could appear anywhere and disguise his appearance.


Third, I do not know which, if any, of the Eucharistic miracles has been authenticated by the Church; but these definitely point to a physical presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.


Fourth, the Church says that Christ's presence is a "substantial" and "sacramental" (not physical) presence.  These terms are hard to understand because they are based on philosophy and metaphysics.  As such, most theologians do not do a good job explaining them and how they differ from a physical presence.


Could it be that the most the Church can do is to speak apophatically, that is, to tell us what is not meant by the Real Presence but cannot tell us what is meant?

Mind the Spirit of the Law Not Just the Letter of the Law

Gospel, Week 4, Lent

John 9: Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind

This Sunday's Gospel sets forth a contrast between the faith of the man born blind and the unbelief of the Pharisees.  In the beginning of the chapter, Jesus refers to himself as the "light of the world", and this light had shot through the heart of the man born blind; whereas, it was rejected by the Pharisees.  As such, they remained in the darkness of unbelief.

A key reason for the Pharisees unbelief was that they put more emphasis on the letter of the law and their interpretation of it rather than the spirit of the law, which is love for God and neighbor.  This is most evident in their understanding of the Sabbath.  They were far more concerned about what constituted and did not constitute work (i.e., letter of the law) than they were about the fact that God created the Sabbath so that he and people might reconnect in love (i.e., the spirit of the law).  Their obsession with the letter of the law regarding the Sabbath led them to conclude that Jesus broke it; and thus, was not from God.  Jesus may have broken the Pharisees' rigid interpretation of the Sabbath; but he never broke the Sabbath as God intended it, which was to do good to others.

We can make a similar mistake as the Pharisees made.  We can become so focused on the moral teachings of the Church that, somehow, we lose the love of which those moral teachings are an expression.  And once we lose love, we become self-righteous and quick to condemn others, just like the Pharisees.

Let me give an example.  A girl comes to her sister (who is Catholic) and tells her she is gay and is moving in with her girlfriend.  If the sister is a Catholic whose main focus is the letter of the law, then she will get angry, condemn her sister, and turn her back on her.  Love for the sister will be completely absent.  However, if the sister is a Catholic whose main focus is the spirit of the law, then she will agree to disagree and not turn her back on her sister.  The Catholic will not justify her sister's lifestyle because the law says it is sinful, but she will also not turn her back on her sister because that is not a loving thing to do.

May our Lord give us the grace and wisdom, not only to mind the letter of the law, but also not to neglect the love the law commands.