What is a Sacramental Presence? More from Fr Richard O'Brien.

It was unfortunate, to be sure, that he constantly referred to the eucharistic host as a "wafer," "consecrated" or not. However, the distinction between a "wafer" and a "host," that some letter-writers were quick to insist upon, would be lost on non-Catholics (the Globereporter himself is not a Christian), and indeed on most Catholics as well.

The constant use of the word "wafer" did lead some readers to conclude that the practice of eucharistic adoration is nothing less than a form of idolatry. How else explain why someone would sit or kneel hour after hour in adoration of a simple "wafer"? 

It was also unfortunate that Paulson described the Catholic belief in the Real Presence (a technical theological and doctrinal term that did not appear in the story) as a "literal" transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus during Mass. The transformation (the medieval word was "transubstantiation") is sacramental, not literal or physical.

In other words, the bread and the wine retain the properties of bread and wine. They look like bread and wine and taste like bread and wine, but Catholics (and many other Christians as well) believe that the bread and wine have been sacramentally changed into the body and blood of Christ.

Thus, the bread and wine may still appear to be bread and wine, but in the course of the Eucharistic Prayer (formerly called the Canon of the Mass) they have been changed sacramentally, not literally or physically, into the body and blood of Christ. Paulson did quote Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley correctly on the "sacramental presence of Christ" in the Eucharist.

It should be pointed out that the church has always condemned devotional excesses that contradicted its official teachings. One of those excesses was the mistaken belief that, if the host were scratched, it would bleed.

I am sorry to carry on with this 'teaching' of  Fr McBrien, now deceased and gone to his rest, but the article explains why the altar rails were smashed, kneeling  forbidden when receiving Holy Communion, the tabernacles moved into another room, to a far corner of the Church, or the sacred species just put in a safe on the wall, with the excuse that he is just 'sacramentally' present.   And notice that this means according to Fr Richard that he is not literally present, nor physically present.  And what a disappointment that must have been for all those simple minded Catholics who took a needle and pricked the host to see if it would bleed.  Again when trying to prove this heresy it is put in terms of the very adult and wise addressing the very stupid and ignorant.    But let us go on to the part when Fr McBrien goes on to describe transubstantiation  as just another way of expressing 'sacramental presence'.   The ignorance here is appalling.   The theory of transubstantiation was explained by Pope Paul VI after the Vatican Council.   There were no challenges nor changes to the doctrine in Vatican II.  So Pope Paul uttered the teaching of the Church in his 'Credo of the People of God' in the Year of Faith 1968.   "In order to accord with Catholic Teaching any explanation of the Real Presence must  affirm that at the words of Consecration over the Bread, no elements of bread remain but the host is totally the Body of Christ, and at the words of consecration over the wine, no elements of wine remain but what we have is the Blood of Christ",    So how can we explain the consecrated host as other than the physical body of Jesus.   The priest is not holding a sacramental presence  in his hands but the substance of Jesus within the accidents of bread.   Substance is a physical reality.   This is transubstantiation as taught by St Thomas Aquinas.    The fact that Cardinal Sean O'Malley also taught sacramental presence just goes to show just how deep this heresy spread in the Church.   It  affected Cardinals, bishops, priests, and lay people.

Now there is no doubt that we talk in the Church about the Blessed Sacrament.   But what is a Sacrament?   The Catechism of Christian Doctrine tells us that 'a Sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace ordained by Jesus Christ through which grace is given to our souls    Now a sign is not a presence.    When the priest baptises someone it is a Sacrament because of the action of the priest, he pours water, but the Holy Spirit pours grace into the soul of the baptised.    At the hour of death the priest anoints the dying with oil and his action is sacramental for the Holy Spirit pours grace into the soul of the dying person.    We call the consecrated host the Blessed Sacrament for it is a sign of the presence of Jesus Christ in which sight, touch and taste are deceived, but the consecrated host contains the very source of grace, Our Lord Jesus Christ.   If we say the Presence of Jesus in the host is sacramental then we are saying the the presence is only symbolic, which is not Church teaching.   And yes indeed excesses of worship may well be condemned by the Church, but never in two thousand  years has the Church condemned Adoration of the Sacred Species as excessive.    Cardinals, bishops, priests, and lay people can shout from the side lines, but they in this matter do not represent the authority of the Church.

From earliest times the consecrated host was called the flesh of Christ by disciples who had heard Jesus say "Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you cannot have life in you"   Many of his followers left him in disgust and he turned to his disciples and asked them "Will you also leave me".  "Lord" they replied, "to whom shall we turn, for you have the words of eternal life"    What they were saying is that we do not understand, but if you say so then our Faith in you makes us believe"   And that was the story of the early Church, it is his body because he said so.   Would that today we had the faith of the early Church.   This terrible insult of moving the tabernacles and stopping 'badly educated people'  from kneeling, would never have happened.