In response to Catechism 1390 "Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. . . . "
I asked:
"Is Jesus physically present, body and blood, for all the sacraments?"
To which you replied:
"In the person of the priest for sacraments where the preist is the celebrant."
"But other than that, no it is a spiritual presence, or a spiritual outpouring of gifts."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I asked the "physically present . . . " question because I was confused by the Catechism's use of "sacramentally present" to justify the validity of communion under one kind.
Your answer seems to say this is so only when the priest is the celebrant.
My understanding is the Priest is the celebrant at all the sacraments except Matrimony. Am I wrong? Are you saying the priest is the celebrant only for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist?
Sacrament of Baptism
Sacrament of Confirmation
Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist
Sacrament of Penance
Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick
Sacrament of Holy Orders
Sacrament of Matrimony
According to my understanding of what you said, I assume you believe Jesus is present, body and blood, even when the bread and wine are not present.
Do you see my confusion?
Are you saying communion is not necessary at all?
I corrected this bit of poor language on my part yesterday. The presence in the communion gifts is substantial. The presence in the priest is only spiritual.
I erred in calling this a "physical" presence without differing this type of presence from the substantial present.
The priest at a sacrament is physically there. And He physically handles the elements required for the sacrament. Christ acts through the priest, using the priest's body to perform the work. So, He is "physically" present in that He is the actor of the sacrament. But He is not physically "substantially" present. The priest does not undergoe some change to become Christ's body and blood.
Rather, he is a channel for Christ to do His work.
Now, what does this have to do with my analogy about being born or being deported as it relates to being "Baptised" or "ordained" as an irrevocable thing, like the place of your birth?
Anything?
My understanding is the Priest is the celebrant at all the sacraments except Matrimony. Am I wrong? Are you saying the priest is the celebrant only for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist?
You are correct. The priest is the celebrant for all but Communion. (Well, the bishop for Holy Orders, but he is a priest as well.)
According to my understanding of what you said, I assume you believe Jesus is present, body and blood, even when the bread and wine are not present.
I see. I hope I have explained myself better. The priest is not a continuing presence of Christ wherever he goes. He does not undergo a permanent change from his own body to being a living, walking, talking, substantial Presence of the Body of Christ.
Only while performing the actions of a sacrament is the priest then a channel for Christ to be present to do the acts. Father Paul did not baptise Sarah. Jesus did. Then Father Paul came to the picnic and had a sandwich.
SD