Replies

GOOD!

I like "in a manner altogether unique". I have a friend who is doing a doctorate in Sacramental theology. I may never seen him again in this life, but if I do, I'm going to ask him about this uniqueness, about how it is 'like' and how it is 'unlike' other modes of presence.

"whole and entire"
I nibble 'round the edges of this. The first thing I'd say is that Jesus doesn't "come in parts" (while He MAY come in "modes".) So you don't get MORE Jesus if you take a bigger chunk of "bread" or a bigger slug of "wine". However you "get Him", you get ALL of Him. It's just like God is not PARTLY in New York and partly in Beijing, but all of Him is everywhere.

And as one person, Jesus, comprised two natures, divine and human, whatever you get has (or is) both natures and one person.

"continuously," I'm not sure why they said this. I really need to study those documents, with a mentor. Certainly, however HE is present, I don't think He comes and goes.

I know some non-Catholic groups think that, well, whatever happens to the bread and wine, whether it has to do with 'substance or essence" or with "purpose" or "signification" it only happens "in context." Whatever happened only happened for the duration of the communion service, and afterwards it's just bread and wine again to be used without any special reverence.

We hold that it is not us, our intentions (except in a specific sense), or the context we set, but God Himself who makes the change. Whatever the change is, it is objective and it remains as long as the 'accidents' of bread and wine remain.

Consequently the "leftovers" are to be treated with the utmost reverence AND it is proper to view them, especially the "bread," as somehow a bearer of the presence in such a way that when one goes into a room where the "bread" is present, one can be said to be in the presence of Christ.

(I say 'especially the "bread"', because any surplus of the Precious Blood is consumed after all the people have had an opportunity to make their communion, while the surplus hosts are usually 'reserved' in a reverent way in a special place.

"Substantially" = "whatever Jesus 'is', the bread and the wine have become and now are, as long as the 'accidents' remain." They don't look like Him, taste, smell, feel, or sound like Him. They 'merely' ARE Him "sacramentally".

One problem is that "substantially" has come to mean "more or less", to be a word of approximation.

In the old fairy tales, a man is turned into a stork (while somehow retaining his mind, intentions, will, blah blah) we would say, "The stork IS, SVITW," even though it had none of the perceptible characteristics, because there is who and what you are over here, and over there, what you weigh,what you look, smell, taste, feel, and sound like.

Note: a lot of this stuff arises from a dialog of many centuries. It started way back with the scriptural and pre-scriptural witness (about which we can only guess.) Questions arose. Answers were attempted and discussed. And in a manner similar to the question of what to do about Gentile Xtians or what is the relationship of the Son to the Father, somebody articulated a teaching which met with controversy. So the Church, or part of it, gathered to settle the question, appealing to God and especially to the Holy Spirit.

But IMHO, to evaluate all these things, it's best if one has a sense of what the controversial opinion was, how it was seen to somehow lessen the gospel, and what the decision was and, as far as we can tell, what the reasons for it were.

I hope that's at least a little clear.