O
otjm
Guest
Gold is not consecrated. That response in irrelevant to the question.
Last edited:
- Status
T
tafan2
Guest
Your understanding is simply wrong. Go get a copy of the books. A person with a good memory would spend a lifetime memorizing those answers.
Your understanding is understandable, because that is the myth the modernists catechism writers and publishers successfully instilled in the Catholic public. I only assume they were some how successful, despite mist if the adults never being forced to memorize four volumes, was because we did have to memorize the first few short answers:.eg Why did Gid create us? “To know him, live him, and serve him in thus world, and be with Him in the next”. That’s off the top of my head, sfterv50 some years, I suspect I got it wrong
.But it is just wrong. Those saintly nuns actually knew how to teach kids, they were dang good at it, they dedicated their whole lives to it. I got one, am eternally thankful.
S
Stephen_says
Guest
It’s an analogy. Gold is gold till the smallest possible particle, so it is with the Eucharist.
Granted, it’s different because gold is an element, so the smallest possible fragment is an atom of gold. With the Eucharist, whatever the smallest molecule of bread is would still be Christ
Granted, it’s different because gold is an element, so the smallest possible fragment is an atom of gold. With the Eucharist, whatever the smallest molecule of bread is would still be Christ
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
No, the analogy is not the same. Gold is not consecrated. Bread is. A speck of bread nearly unable to be seen by the naked eye will test as bread in a chemical qualitative analysis. The Church, however, does not hold that Christ is still present.
As noted above in the thread, the means of destroying a damaged Host is to put it in water until it dissolves. Anyone who knew that it was a Host put in the water could look at it “dissolved” (a poor choice of words, as next noted) and say that it was still “the Host” as there will be particles in the bottom of the glass which are white, and if disturbed, will float up in the water. However, that is to be put down in the sacrarium.
“Dissolved” normally applies to substances which are put into solution and are no longer apparent to the eye; examples are putting some salt or sugar into water; you cannot any longer see them. The “dissolved” Host you can see.
As noted above in the thread, the means of destroying a damaged Host is to put it in water until it dissolves. Anyone who knew that it was a Host put in the water could look at it “dissolved” (a poor choice of words, as next noted) and say that it was still “the Host” as there will be particles in the bottom of the glass which are white, and if disturbed, will float up in the water. However, that is to be put down in the sacrarium.
“Dissolved” normally applies to substances which are put into solution and are no longer apparent to the eye; examples are putting some salt or sugar into water; you cannot any longer see them. The “dissolved” Host you can see.
R
Richca
Guest
The Church in its official documents or pronouncements uses the terms ‘appearances’ or ‘species’ in referring to what we see of the bread and wine after the consecration. After the consecration of the bread and wine, bread and wine are no longer substantially present on the alter but only the ‘appearances’ of bread and wine. The substances of the bread and wine have been changed into the substances of Christ’s body and blood. What is substantially present on the alter are Christ’s body and blood, not bread and wine, under the appearances or species of bread and wine. Using scholastic philosophy and terminology, the appearances or species that remain of the bread and wine after the consecration are nothing other than the accidents of bread and wine.
Okay, maybe I am wrong. I’ve just heard tales of pupils memorizing catechism. I do have a copy of BC2 and just the questions and answers, taken by themselves, without commentary, could probably be memorized by someone with the will and motivation to do so.HomeschoolDad:
Your understanding is simply wrong. Go get a copy of the books. A person with a good memory would spend a lifetime memorizing those answers.
Your understanding is understandable, because that is the myth the modernists catechism writers and publishers successfully instilled in the Catholic public. I only assume they were some how successful, despite mist if the adults never being forced to memorize four volumes, was because we did have to memorize the first few short answers:.eg Why did Gid create us? “To know him, live him, and serve him in thus world, and be with Him in the next”. That’s off the top of my head, sfterv50 some years, I suspect I got it wrong
But it is just wrong. Those saintly nuns actually knew how to teach kids, they were dang good at it, they dedicated their whole lives to it. I got one, am eternally thankful.
I am quite aware of the good job done by teaching nuns, because I was privileged to take advantage of it. I came along a bit late to get into any of the memorization, but I can attest that they were, as you say, dang good. (Okay, sisters, not nuns, there’s a technical difference, but “nun” is the colloquial term, even if it is technically incorrect, just like the Netherlands are commonly called “Holland” even though that’s just one region of NL.)
- Status