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?
I think the answer is in the Pesach (Passover) Seder. An unblemished lamb was slain, roasted and eaten on the first night of Passover. If Christ is our Passover Sacrifice, then it is not enough to merely represent the Sacrifice but we must eat the lamb. Therefore Christ it must be flesh, in some sense, that we eat. In the Gospel of John, Jesus commands that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. He makes it clear that this is not metaphorical or representative but rather "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." But we know that we do not tear Christ with our teeth in the Eucharist. Also, we know that Christ is not a person possessed by the Spirit of God, but rather is united in Spirit and body just as we are. What we receive in the Eucharist is a mystery received in faith. We know WHY it must be true, but no idea HOW it is true.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. If we take John 6 and the words of institution at the Last Supper simply, then I think we have to admit that Christ's physical body and blood are present though we don't know how. Sometimes I think theologians complicate this greatly with all their philosophical talk. I believe a term like "transubstantiation" is useful, plus the Church continues to use it. Obviously, it has value. But when most theologians explain what a substance is and whether or not it has physical properties, they aren't very clear and just confuse things. I think it's vitally important that the faithful know, as much as the human mind can know, how Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament, so that when they genuflect or receive communion, they can do it with a full faith and understanding.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the years, while I have never doubted the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I have often found myself questioning simply HOW Christ is present in the Eucharist, meaning in what manner--physical or otherwise. But, the more I think about it, the more I come to realize that maybe we aren't supposed to completely understand it. It is this mystery that makes the Sacrament of the Eucharist beautiful, I think. As St. Thomas says, it 'cannot be apprehended by the senses' and therefore must be accepted with faith. I think we're on the same page here.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as per your comment above, I think it is important for the church and theologians to use philosophy to help prove the manner in which Christ is present in the Eucharist. While it may make things a bit confusing for those of us who have a difficult time understanding philosophical talk, I believe if it is explained right it would make things more clear.