What is a "real presence"?

[Daniel]

As in, Christ's "real presence" in the Blessed Sacrament. What I'd like to know is: what is meant by the word "real"? What is meant by the word "present"? And what is meant by the phrase "real presence"?
I have often heard it described in the negative: a real presence is NOT a local presence, NOT a symbolic presence, NOT his omni- presence, etc. But is there a positive definition?

I am also wondering, what connection is there between the accidents (the Host) and the substance (Christ)? As the Church teaches, the accidents are not subsisting in Christ's substance. And the accidents, in fact, are not subsisting in a substance at all. So how can it be said that the Host "is" Christ, when the Host isn't even a substance?

[Carleendiane]

As in, Christ's "real presence" in the Blessed Sacrament. What I'd like to know is: what is meant by the word "real"? What is meant by the word "present"? And what is meant by the phrase "real presence"?
I have often heard it described in the negative: a real presence is NOT a local presence, NOT a symbolic presence, NOT his omni- presence, etc. But is there a positive definition?

I am also wondering, what connection is there between the accidents (the Host) and the substance (Christ)? As the Church teaches, the accidents are not subsisting in Christ's substance. And the accidents, in fact, are not subsisting in a substance at all. So how can it be said that the Host "is" Christ, when the Host isn't even a substance?

Daniel, could it be the fact that after consecration the only REALsubstance that exists IS Christ? No longer do my senses dictate to me what my eyes behold. By Faith in the words of Christ...THIS is My Body....THIS is My Blood, by those words God is telling me WHAT truly exists.  And by subsist, do you mean co-exist? Maybe I don't really understand what you are asking. Or maybe, you are digging deeper into something that I simply accept by faith.

[Non Nobis]

As in, Christ's "real presence" in the Blessed Sacrament. What I'd like to know is: what is meant by the word "real"? What is meant by the word "present"? And what is meant by the phrase "real presence"?
I have often heard it described in the negative: a real presence is NOT a local presence, NOT a symbolic presence, NOT his omni- presence, etc. But is there a positive definition?

I am also wondering, what connection is there between the accidents (the Host) and the substance (Christ)? As the Church teaches, the accidents are not subsisting in Christ's substance. And the accidents, in fact, are not subsisting in a substance at all. So how can it be said that the Host "is" Christ, when the Host isn't even a substance?

Christ in heaven is "Substance of Christ + Accidents of Christ (e.g.  His physical appearance; accidents subsisting in substance)"

Host [unconsecrated] before transubstantiation is "Substance of Bread + Accidents of Bread (e.g. its color and flavor; accidents subsisting in substance)"

Host [consecrated] after transubstantiation  is "Substance of Christ + Accidents of Bread (here accidents do not subsist in anything)". 

(This shows why the Church uses the word Transubstantiation - it is good to know this much of the underlying theology.)

God's being everywhere is a mystery; Christ being in multiple Hosts is a mystery; Christ being in Heaven all along is a mystery.

"Knowing your faith" does not mean understanding these things as well as St. Thomas did.  Not even he knew much; there is too much Divine Mystery.  I think Carleen's explanation is what we most need to know.  One can understand "real presence" in the simplest, most natural of ways when adoring Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

It is good to humbly understand as much as we can by reason; but doing so beyond our capability, or without great devotion,  can lead to heresies and damage the devotion we already have. This is how it seems to me.

[ServusMariae]

By the term "Real Presence", it means the Divine Bridegroom of our souls is literally & truly present in the Host albeit our human sense can often fail to comprehend His presence.It's not symbolic, it's not fake - He IS just there for your adoration & wonder.

Prior to transubstantiation, the Host is purely & simply mere bread, but once the Words of Consecration gets pronounced, it changes in the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Our Lord (aka 100% Christ Himself. Not 10%, 50% or 70%, but 100%) Simple as that. Just believe

[Daniel]

Thanks. I guess part of it might just be a mystery, so I'll keep that in mind.

And by subsist, do you mean co-exist?

By subsist, what I meant is that a thing's accidents normally exist in the thing. That is, accidents must exist in substances. But this is not the case when dealing with transubstantiation, since transubstantiation is miraculous.

Before transubstantiation, there are the accidents of bread, which subsist in the substance of bread. And through transubstantiation, the substance of bread is changed into the substance of Christ.
So you might be tempted to think that since the bread is now Christ, then the bread's accidents are now Christ's accidents, i.e. that those accidents which had been subsisting in the bread now subsist in Christ, since the bread is now Christ. But this understanding is wrong.
The accidents, in fact, do not transfer to Christ. They just remain there in the chapel, without a substance. While the substance, Christ, is in heaven, not in the chapel. (Well, he's not locally in the chapel, but he is really in the chapel. Yet again, I understand not the meaning of this word "real".)

Host [consecrated] after transubstantiation  is "Substance of Christ + Accidents of Bread (here accidents do not subsist in anything)". 

But it seems that the word "Host" here is just being employed in sort of an ambiguous manner: sometimes in reference to Christ's substance, and other times in reference to the accidents.

What I am still confused about is the connection between the accidents and Christ's substance. It seems there is no connection. Or, the connection is not by subsistence, at any rate. But I'm guessing there must be some sort of a connection, otherwise it cannot be meaningfully said that Christ's substance is "present". I mean, in the plainest sense, the accidents are undoubtedly "present" in the chapel. But again, in the plainest sense Christ's substance is undoubtedly "present" in heaven. Unless there be some connection between the accidents and Christ's substance, I'm not really understanding what the word "present" means in this context.

[Gardener]

St. Thomas answers your questions here:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm

ST/3/Q76

[Miriam_M]

By real presence is meant that He Himself is truly there.  That is, it is not a symbolic presence, a figurative presence, or a mere historical reminder of the Last Supper.  The Godhead of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is actually present in a consecrated host, and of course, where one member of the Trinity is present, all three are, because there can be no disunity within God.

The presence is spiritual, in that the physical bread itself is not equivalent to Him; rather, he has chosen bread as the physical form within which to become present.  The sacramental presence is not the bread itself; it is merely contained within the bread, and every particle of it.

I could go more into the theology (and the philosophy of essence, being, substance, accidents, etc. as you and others have done here), but I don't know that that is helpful for Catholic spirituality. Rather, two ways I like to think about The Real Presence are

(1) that He is sharing His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity with each of us.  Analogically (only), it helps if I conceive of it as not unlike a transfusion or an organ donation, even though it is neither, of course, and unlike human transfers, there is no even temporary loss experienced by Him.  When I think of it this way, I cannot help but feel tremendous gratitude.  It is also humbling. 

(2) that His presence is as real as if He were visibly standing at the Communion rail, directly in front of me, and could be touched (not as in a mere vision, however true the vision might be).  There is a beautiful First Communion certificate that our priest always uses for the young communicants, which pictures Jesus Himself as the minister at the rail, distributing HC individually.

A couple of other ways you could think about if it helps you to understand the mystery:

In mathematics, the opposite of imaginary.
In law, originally relating to physical things, such as real property.

What the consecrated host is (in reality), is no longer bread.  It is really, whole and entire in its substance, God Himself -- which is why the priest and servers and anyone dealing with used altar linens must be so careful about particles.  Every atom of those particles contains the presence of God Himself.

I suppose intellectual distinctions are important for a Systematics or Sacramental theology class (if you're in school, and yes, I know this is the Sacred Sciences forum), but as much as theology fascinates me, it doesn't help me receive better (be well disposed before and at the Communion rail) to think about intellectual concepts.  It's actually all in the physicality of it, which helps me "experience" the analogies I mentioned -- our submissive kneeling, our waiting humbling side-by-side with our hands beneath the cloth; His appointed minister, the priest, in persona Christi, bringing to us His very life so intimately that He allows us to consume Him within our own mortal bodies (what humility and generosity!), the reverent and solemn manner in which our men in the sanctuary carry all of this out, the elevated beauty surrounding it, such as the gilt chalice and paten, the kind of "celestial" appearance of the vestments and everything else associated with the sacrament.  All of that helps me experience the presence, and in experiencing it, I'm somehow better able to understand, even though obviously I've done a very insufficient job of explaining it.

[Non Nobis]

The sacramental presence is not the bread itself; it is merely contained within the bread, and every particle of it.

I know this isn't what you mean, but someone could think that there is (1) bread and also (2) Christ contained in the bread and its particles.

Obviously this isn't what you are saying, since you also say:

What the consecrated host is (in reality), is no longer bread.  [/

From the 4th Fourth Lateran Council (quoted in Wikipedia) the Eucharist (the consecrated Host) is

...Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood...

Sometimes Christ is also said to be (really) present "under the appearances of bread and wine". 

St. Thomas also speaks of the accidents of bread and wine as hiding God, in Adoro Te Devote:

Adoro te devote, latens Deitas, quae sub his figuris vere latita...
(Hidden God, devoutly I adore Thee, truly present underneath these veils)

If the accidents of bread and wine were not present we would not know that Christ was present; in this way they show Christ although in another way they hide Him.

[Daniel]

Thank you, Miriam_M and Non Nobis.

St. Thomas answers your questions here:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm

ST/3/Q76

Thanks. I think the relevant part is in article 5, reply to objection 2:

Reply to Objection 2. The place in which Christ's body is, is not empty; nor yet is it properly filled with the substance of Christ's body, which is not there locally, as stated above; but it is filled with the sacramental species, which have to fill the place either because of the nature of dimensions, or at least miraculously, as they also subsist miraculously after the fashion of substance.

So I guess when he says "sacramental species" he is referring to the substanceless accidents, which occupy the place that the bread used to occupy (before it was changed into Christ).

But what I'm still confused about is how it can be said that Christ is the same place as these substanceless accidents? What St. Thomas seems to be saying is that Christ is "there" because the bread was "there" before it was changed into Christ. But I thought that the bread was only "there" on account of its accidents? So how is Christ "there" when the substanceless accidents are not his accidents?

Consider the two scenarios:
1.) What actually happens during the Mass: The bread's substance is changed into Christ's substance.
2.) What does not happen: The bread's substance is merely annihilated, rather than being changed into any other substance.
The former results in a real presence, while the latter (if it ever were to happen) results in no real presence. Yet on a practical level, I'm not seeing the difference. In both cases what you end up with substanceless accidents (in the chapel) and Christ (in heaven).

[Kreuzritter]

The substance of a body being "present" but not locally present makes no sense. How can something corporeal, whose very essence entails extension and location, be "present" in any other way than by extension at a location in space? Indeed, how can one even ingest Christ's body and blood through receiving the host if it is not locally present under the host?

On the contrary, The place and the object placed must be equal, as is clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv). But the place, where this sacrament is, is much less than the body of Christ. Therefore Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place.

No. That's not Apostolic doctrine but an Aristotelian presupposition, and it's one that I'd moreover reject given post-Riemannian understanding of spaces. Particularly the emboldened minor premise is doutbful.

Reply to Objection 1. Christ's body is not in this sacrament definitively, because then it would be only on the particular altar where this sacrament is performed: whereas it is in heaven under its own species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species.

No. That's not a logical necessity but is only contingent upon certain presuppositions concerning physics, and ones to which I would certainly not constrain an omnipotent God. Consider the loaves and fishes.

This is all that the Council of Trent had to say:

In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God

There's no indication there that this sacramental presence by a manner of existing does not constitute a local presence, although it is by supernatural means.

Indeed, where in divine revelation, either in the Bible or Apostolic tradition, would one find this idea? This is not doctrine but (arduous) metaphysical speculation (of the worst kind). I'd be on guard against any attempt to turn "real presence" into a formula that means something other than what everyone - including the Apsotles - would normally understand by such words.

[Non Nobis]

I don't have good extracts from St. Thomas here, but my understanding is that he thinks that the Sacrament is present locally,  but that the Sacrament is the substance of Christ's Body and Blood specifically under the appearance (accidents) of bread and wine, and that the locality of the sacrament derives from the locality of those accidents (locality being an accident itself). The substance of bread is under its own appearances, and the substance of bread is converted directly to the substance of Christ's Body hidden under the appearances of that same bread. That Christ is no longer present in the Host when it is digested or dissolved seems to indicate the importance of the accidents.  God could have made the Body and Blood present in some way with no accidents of anything, but He chose that the (natural) bread be directly substantially changed to the Bread  of Life, made visible and taste-able and touchable and movable as Sacramentally present because of the accidents of the bread that remain. "Sacrament" refers to a visible sign of Divine reality; the accidents of bread showing the Real Presence of Christ.

Kreuzritter, do you believe that the part in bold describes the sacrament?   Or do you think that the word "transubstantiation" is a huge mistake because it depends on Aristotelian presuppositions?  And that the Church's immense praise for St. Thomas is also a huge mistake?

As little as I understand of St. Thomas I don't see I can throw him out because of  "post-Riemannian understanding of spaces", not when I consider what the Church has taught:

As we have said, one may not desert Aquinas, especially in philosophy and theology, without great harm; following him is the safest way to the knowledge of divine things.... If the doctrine of any other author or saint has ever been approved at any time by us or our predecessors with singular commendation joined with an invitation and order to propagate and to defend it, it may be easily understood that it was commended only insofar as it agreed with the principles of Aquinas or was in no way opposed to them.

I cannot study every modern philosophical thought, because of my own slowness and lack of time (and yes laziness).  As a Catholic my conscience says I am safest (and best spend my time) by turning to St. Thomas and ascribing my lack of understanding to myself, and only very rarely to St. Thomas himself (the Immaculate Conception). Not every little thing St. Thomas has taught may be right, but I think I am safest relying on him as much as I can - short of errors that are very clear to me and not just an opposition to modern philosophy.