Confusion over the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter holdencaulfield
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

holdencaulfield

Guest
This thread has created a little bit of confusion for me. I have been under the impression that the bread and wine is physically the Body and Blood of Christ. I know that it does not break the Lenten Feast because it is still in the species of bread and wine. Am I mistaken?
 
holdencaulfield said:
This thread has created a little bit of confusion for me. I have been under the impression that the bread and wine is physically the Body and Blood of Christ. I know that it does not break the Lenten Feast because it is still in the species of bread and wine. Am I mistaken?
Click to expand...
Of course the Body and Blood of Our Lord, whatever its species, would never break the Lenten fast (and you don’t want to confuse your feasts and your fasts, by the way). We are forbidden from warm-blooded animal meat, not from receiving Our Lord in the Eucharist.
 
physically it is still bread and wine. Looks like it, tastes like it, but at the same time it is fully and truly the Body and Blood of Christ. Its presence is The Body and Blood, but its appearance is bread and wine, if that makes sense
 
According to Cannon Law:

Can. 899 §1. The eucharistic celebration is the action of Christ himself and the Church. In it, Christ the Lord, through the ministry of the priest, offers himself, substantially present under the species of bread and wine, to God the Father and gives himself as spiritual food to the faithful united with his offering.

§2. In the eucharistic gathering the people of God are called together with the bishop or, under his authority, a presbyter presiding and acting in the person of Christ. All the faithful who are present, whether clerics or laity, unite together by participating in their own way according to the diversity of orders and liturgical functions.

§3. The eucharistic celebration is to be organized in such a way that all those participating receive from it the many fruits for which Christ the Lord instituted the eucharistic sacrifice.
 
SenorSalsa said:
physically it is still bread and wine. Looks like it, tastes like it, but at the same time it is fully and truly the Body and Blood of Christ. Its presence is The Body and Blood, but its appearance is bread and wine, if that makes sense
Click to expand...
No thats Consubstantiation. With Transubstantiation we believe that the bread and wine is fully 100% the Body and Blood. Yes it in every physical sense it is bread and wine, however it can no longer be called this, because that’s not what it is.
 
Jesus is sacramentally, substantially present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist under the appearance and accidents of bread and wine. He is not physically present. that would make us cannibals, as our critics sometimes charge.
 
puzzleannie said:
Jesus is sacramentally, substantially present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist under the appearance and accidents of bread and wine. He is not physically present. that would make us cannibals, as our critics sometimes charge.
Click to expand...
“Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner” (CCC 1413)
 
Can. 897 The most August sacrament is the Most Holy Eucharist in which Christ the Lord himself is contained, offered, and received and by which the Church continually lives and grows. The eucharistic sacrifice, the memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated through the ages is the summit and source of all worship and Christian life, which signifies and effects the unity of the People of God and brings about the building up of the body of Christ. Indeed, the other sacraments and all the ecclesiastical works of the apostolate are closely connected with the Most Holy Eucharist and ordered to it.
Can. 898 The Christian faithful are to hold the Most Holy Eucharist in highest honor, taking an active part in the celebration of the most august sacrifice, receiving this sacrament most devoutly and frequently, and worshiping it with the highest adoration. In explaining the doctrine about this sacrament, pastors of souls are to teach the faithful diligently about this obligation.
 
puzzleannie said:
precisely. note the word “physical” is not used.
Click to expand...
grrrr ok fine. I guess there is a difference however it is a fine line. Because it is Christ’s Body and Blood, however it is not physically. But what is the bread and wine then? I’m so confused.

Transubstantiation:
Theology. the changing of the elements of the bread and wine, when they are consecrated in the Eucharist, into the body and blood of Christ (a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church).
Click to expand...
Consubstantiation:
the doctrine that the substance of the body and blood of Christ coexist in and with the substance of the bread and wine of the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Whats the difference?
 
1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: “He took bread…” “He took the cup filled with wine…” the signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,152 fruit of the “work of human hands,” but above all as “fruit of the earth” and “of the vine” - gifts of the Creator. the Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering.153
 
John Chapter 6: (NAB)

52

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

53

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54

Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

57

As you can see from the scripture, the Bread and Wine truly and physically become the Body and Blood of our Lord. The Jews had the same problem as you puzzelannie. 👍
 
SacredHeartFan said:
John Chapter 6: (NAB)

52

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

53

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54

Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

57

As you can see from the scripture, the Bread and Wine truly and physically become the Body and Blood of our Lord.
Click to expand...
Thank You. Otherwise there is no difference between Trans and Con
 
Here is the official Church teaching. During the consecration at the mass, the miracle of transubstantiation takes place. What that means is that bread and wine are no longer present, but Jesus in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity are now present. To say that the bread and wine are still there is to hold to the heresy of consubstantiation, which was long ago condemned by the Catholic church as being erroneous. The accidents of bread and wine are there, but it is not bread and wine. If you think this is impossible, ask yourself a simple question. What is more difficult. For God to create all that is by a single thought, or to change something that he created into something else. Remember, the laws of nature are subject to God, not God to the laws of nature, which is his own creation. If one holds that the bread and wine are still present, you are holding to what most Protestant denominations believe, who believe in the true presence. If you believe that they are no longer present, you are Catholic. This is a Dogma of our faith, i.e., the species of bread and wine no longer being present. It is not open to discussion or debate by those who are Catholic.
Deacon Ed B
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
Here is the official Church teaching. During the consecration at the mass, the miracle of transubstantiation takes place. What that means is that bread and wine are no longer present, but Jesus in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity are now present. To say that the bread and wine are still there is to hold to the heresy of consubstantiation, which was long ago condemned by the Catholic church as being erroneous. The accidents of bread and wine are there, but it is not bread and wine. If you think this is impossible, ask yourself a simple question. What is more difficult. For God to create all that is by a single thought, or to change something that he created into something else. Remember, the laws of nature are subject to God, not God to the laws of nature, which is his own creation. If one holds that the bread and wine are still present, you are holding to what most Protestant denominations believe, who believe in the true presence. If you believe that they are no longer present, you are Catholic. This is a Dogma of our faith, i.e., the species of bread and wine no longer being present. It is not open to discussion or debate by those who are Catholic.
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!! THIS IS THE POINT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE ALL ALONG!!!👍 👍 :extrahappy: :clapping: :tiphat:
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
Here is the official Church teaching. During the consecration at the mass, the miracle of transubstantiation takes place. What that means is that bread and wine are no longer present, but Jesus in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity are now present. To say that the bread and wine are still there is to hold to the heresy of consubstantiation, which was long ago condemned by the Catholic church as being erroneous. The accidents of bread and wine are there, but it is not bread and wine. If you think this is impossible, ask yourself a simple question. What is more difficult. For God to create all that is by a single thought, or to change something that he created into something else. Remember, the laws of nature are subject to God, not God to the laws of nature, which is his own creation. If one holds that the bread and wine are still present, you are holding to what most Protestant denominations believe, who believe in the true presence. If you believe that they are no longer present, you are Catholic. This is a Dogma of our faith, i.e., the species of bread and wine no longer being present. It is not open to discussion or debate by those who are Catholic.
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Thank You. My point as well.
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
Here is the official Church teaching. During the consecration at the mass, the miracle of transubstantiation takes place. What that means is that bread and wine are no longer present, but Jesus in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity are now present. To say that the bread and wine are still there is to hold to the heresy of consubstantiation, which was long ago condemned by the Catholic church as being erroneous. The accidents of bread and wine are there, but it is not bread and wine. If you think this is impossible, ask yourself a simple question. What is more difficult. For God to create all that is by a single thought, or to change something that he created into something else. Remember, the laws of nature are subject to God, not God to the laws of nature, which is his own creation. If one holds that the bread and wine are still present, you are holding to what most Protestant denominations believe, who believe in the true presence. If you believe that they are no longer present, you are Catholic. This is a Dogma of our faith, i.e., the species of bread and wine no longer being present. It is not open to discussion or debate by those who are Catholic.
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Could you please show me this in the Canons and Catechism, per chance? There are a few Catholics in a thread in the Non-Catholic Religions forum that hold on to the belief that Christ is “literally present” but not “physically present.”:confused: I think some fraternal correction is in order, yes?

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top