Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wannano said:
This misunderstanding of mine then was formed here on CAF where I have read repeatedly that which I asked.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are many Catholics who are not well catechized. When we open the Mass, one of the prayers is the Confiteor, during which we make a confession together as a congregation:

I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done
and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault,
through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.
http://www.diocesefwsb.org/Data/Resources/6663dac75f6f855c122a9e90bdc5b35e-Article-3-Confiteor.pdf

The priest then responds to our prayer:

“May Almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to eternal life.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur585.htm

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) says the following in No. 51:
“Then the priest invites those present to take part in the Act of Penitence, which, after a brief pause for silence, the entire community carries out through a formula of general confession. The rite concludes with the priest’s absolution, which, however, lacks the efficacy of the Sacrament of Penance.”
The rubrics make no indication that the priest makes the sign of the cross and therefore, since such gestures are always indicated at other moments, it is to be supposed that this is not done.
In the extraordinary form the Confiteor is said twice, first by the priest and then by the server.
After the priest has said the Confiteor, the server addresses him saying:
“May Almighty God have mercy upon you, forgive you your sins, and bring you to life everlasting.”
The priest then says the prayer Indulgentiam:
“May the Almighty and merciful God grant us pardon [he makes the sign of the cross] absolution, and remission of our sins.”
Once more, this formula is not a sacramental absolution but a petition for remission so as to worthily celebrate the mysteries of the Mass.
In spite of the fact that the word “absolution” is used, the formula does not have sacramental effect and does not directly forgive sins. Several conditions normally required for sacramental absolution are missing, such as an explicit confession of at least one concrete sin. Likewise, in the extraordinary form at least, the words are said only over the server and are not intended to be sacramental.

In other words, this rite is intended to forgive venial sins, but does not take the place of the Sacrament of Reconciliation for the absolution of mortal sins.
 
Wannano said:
This seems to be confirming to me the suspicion I have been struggling with that learning from CAF is borderline useless. There appears to be a huge disconnect between what the CC actually teaches and what most adherents think it teaches and what they think they are practicing.
Click to expand...
While I do concur that there is, in many cases, a huge disconnect between what the Church teaches, and what the average Catholic thinks, I think this is exactly why CAF is so important. Even if there are some errant responses, CAF is a great source of information and links to get to accurate information. I have learned more about the faith into which I was baptized since coming to CAF than all the decades previous. I must confess that most of that learning came from doing my own research in original documents of the Church, but the discussion fora have served as an excellent springboard. There are some very knowledgeable people here that have helped me immensely.

I enjoy having you here, and other who ask the same kinds of questions you do, and I hope you don’t depart in frustration.
 
Wannano said:
If venial sins are washed by receiving how have I misunderstood? Surely if mortal sins are forgiven and venial sins are washed away…then my understanding is correct, no?
Click to expand...
The venial sins are absolved during the Confiteor, which occurs before the consecration.
 
Wannano said:
Might not hurt to read up on him…He even called Councils together.
Click to expand...
Councils could not convene because the Bishops could not be protected during travel, as it was illegal to hold the Christian faith. Having all the Bishops in one location without legal permission to gather could be an occasion for a mass assassination.

When Constantine did de-criminalize Christianity, even though it was legal, there were still many parts of the empire that were happy to kill Christians, so an Imperial Decree had to be made for them to assemble safely.
Wannano said:
Catholic Baptism saves the person, it is what makes one a Christian? Constantine was not baptized until his death bed, what logical conclusion is drawn?
Click to expand...
Yes, Baptism joins a person to the Christ in his death and resurrection, and makes them a part of His One Body, the Church.

Constantine is considered to have a “baptism of desire” as he held to the faith but had not received the Sacrament. It is, as @rcwitness has stated, not a teaching of the Church or recommended, but erroneously practiced in the early centuries.
 
Wannano said:
Thank you for responding clearly without gobbledygook.

This misunderstanding of mine then was formed here on CAF where I have read repeatedly that which I asked.

This seems to be confirming to me the suspicion I have been struggling with that learning from CAF is borderline useless. There appears to be a huge disconnect between what the CC actually teaches and what most adherents think it teaches and what they think they are practicing.
Click to expand...
Wannano,

While your post wasn’t to me,

You bring up a valid point. Unless all provide or can provide proof properly referenced for what they answer when asked, then one’s answers can cause all kinds of misdirection and even error in the minds of those who read the answers.

Always ask for references properly referenced, as in from qualified sources, if such references aren’t given up front. Don’t hesitate to ask for references. No one should ever get upset if you ask them for their proof.

Re: Proper references

It drives me nuts when people quote from and use Wikipedia as a resource. Why does it drive me nuts? Grammar schools don’t even allow that as a resource. Ever read their disclaimer?

It doesn’t mean that everything on a page of theirs is wrong. It maybe 100% correct. But when they say they don’t stand up for anything they write, why read anything that comes from them? Not only that, anybody can edit a page. Who validates the edit? “Edit” is next to every paragraph in every article of theirs.

Bottom line,

Validate
 
Last edited:
susanlo said:
Clement of Alexandria did use symbolic terms for the Eucharist:

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both — of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.”

The Instructor Book 1 Chapter 6 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm

“For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, Take, drink: this is my blood — the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word shed for many, for the remission of sins— the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.”

The Instructor Book 2 Chapter 2 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm
Click to expand...
Actually I think the meaning for this is the other way around. He writes of the flesh and drinking the blood as symbolizing the drinkable properties of faith (this is the metaphor, not the Body and Blood) and the Word as a Holy Stream of Gladness is a metaphor, but the Body and Blood are not.
 
susanlo said:
how the ECF’s understood “symbol” when they used it:

Clement of Alexandria

“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”

Which writing is this taken from? I see a similar version of this from The Instructor Book 2 Chapter 2. I actually have a quote from later in that chapter below. It sounds like you are quoting a different translation. Or am I looking at the wrong writing?

Clement of Alexandria did use symbolic terms for the Eucharist:

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both — of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.”
The Instructor Book 1 Chapter 6 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm

“For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, Take, drink: this is my blood — the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word shed for many, for the remission of sins— the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.”
The Instructor Book 2 Chapter 2 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm
Click to expand...
From commentary on Clement of Alexandria

To your point,

“…Scholars have found it no easy task to sum up the chief points of Clement’s teaching. As has already been intimated, he lacks technical precision and makes no pretense to orderly exposition It is easy, therefore, to misjudge him. We accept the discriminating judgment of Tixeront. Clement’s rule of faith was sound He admitted the authority of the Church’s tradition. He would be, first of all, a Christian, accepting” the ecclesiastical rule", but he would also strive to remain a philosopher, and bring his reason to bear in matters of religion. "
 
Last edited:
guanophore said:
Actually I think the meaning for this is the other way around. He writes of the flesh and drinking the blood as symbolizing the drinkable properties of faith (this is the metaphor, not the Body and Blood) and the Word as a Holy Stream of Gladness is a metaphor, but the Body and Blood are not.
Click to expand...
While Clement of Alexandria’s writing is difficult to understand at times, it seems quite clear from the 2nd quote above from Book 2 that he understood that Jesus drank wine at the Last Supper. He is using this example of Jesus drinking wine to teach about drinking alcohol in moderation. Whatever we say is figurative in that sentence, we know that the wine is literal.
His writings are filled with all kinds of allegory and it is hard to know if he meant anything literally in that passage of Book 1. He is comparing the Gospel to milk and meat and sort of confusing me. But there is no evidence that he ever taught about a conversion of the bread and wine. He taught a lot about the symbolism of the Eucharist.
 
Last edited:
susanlo said:
Jesus drank wine at the Last Supper. He is using this example of Jesus drinking wine to teach about drinking alcohol in moderation. Whatever we say is figurative in that sentence, we know that the wine is literal.
Click to expand...
Definitely all the present at the last supper drank wine according to the custom There were three cups of wine poured through the Passover meal. The third cup was the one used for the consecration, and the fourth cup is referred to Jesus’ suffering on the cross.

susanlo said:
But there is no evidence that he ever taught about a conversion of the bread and wine. He taught a lot about the symbolism of the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Yes, some of that weaving metaphor is hard to follow, but he was most certainly a Catholic, which means he believed in the Real Presence.
 
mcq72 said:
Transub. is much more than Real Presence if I recall.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. “Transubstantiation” is a term used to explain and describe the Real Presence. The believe existed from the beginning, though the term came much later. Much like the “Trinity”, a word used to describe the Godhead that is not found in scripture. The faithful believed this concept from the beginning, but the term was applied centuries later.
 
Frim Wiki:
In 1551, the Council of Trent confirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation as Catholic dogma, stating that “by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”[34] In its 13th session ending 11 October 1551, the Council defined transubstantiation as “that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”.[34] This council officially approved use of the term “transubstantiation” to express the Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, with the aim of safeguarding Christ’s presence as a literal truth, while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine.[35] It did not however impose the Aristotelian theory of substance and accidents: it spoke only of the species (the appearances), not the philosophical term “accidents”, and the word “substance” was in ecclesiastical use for many centuries before Aristotelian philosophy was adopted in the West,[36] as shown for instance by its use in the Nicene Creed which speaks of Christ having the same “οὐσία” (Greek) or “substantia” (Latin) as the Father.
 
mcq72 said:
Is transub only possible historical interpretation for real presence?
Click to expand...
No, but I don’t understand what you mean when you say "it is much more than Real Presence’. The dogma is limited only to describing the Real Presence in the Eucharist. It does not apply to anything else.
mcq72 said:
Yes and so when an early church father speaks of “real presence” it may not meet the specificity of Trent definition.
Click to expand...
It is unlikely, as they were not speaking from the context of Aristotelian theory!
 
guanophore said:
Definitely all the present at the last supper drank wine according to the custom There were three cups of wine poured through the Passover meal. The third cup was the one used for the consecration, and the fourth cup is referred to Jesus’ suffering on the cross.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that transubstantiation occurred at the Last Supper? Or do you think the wine was symbolic at the Last Supper, but then after the resurrection the wine was no longer symbolic but actually converted into blood? Most Catholics are insistent that when he said, “This is my blood,” at the Last Supper that transubstantiation occurred at that time. I don’t think that the Catholic Church has an official stance on this. Clement of Alexandria viewed it as symbolic.
guanophore said:
Yes, some of that weaving metaphor is hard to follow, but he was most certainly a Catholic, which means he believed in the Real Presence.
Click to expand...
Clement of Alexandria was part of the (universal) catholic Church of his day. He was not part of the future Roman Catholic Church. Christians in his region were on the Eastern Orthodox side of the schism 1000 years later.

I have learned that the “real presence” is a tricky term. It has a flexible meaning. Many on here use it as a synonym for transubstantiation, however it actually includes beliefs of other Orthodox and Protestant groups including those in the Calvinist category who believe in a spiritual presence of the Eucharist.
“Stone’s [Darwell Stone] second volume shows how the great Anglican, E. B. Pusey, recoined the phrase “Real Presence” in the mid-nineteenth century and promoted it most strongly… He was at pains to point out that he did not hold to any corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist: “In the communion there is a true, real, actual though spiritual communication of the body and blood of Christ to the believer through the holy elements.” In another place, Pusey denies transubstantiation explicitly and argues for a “mystical, sacramental, and spiritual presence of the body of our Lord.””

www.catholic.com

Beware the Term 'Real Presence'

Catholics and Protestants do not mean the same thing when they use the term "Real Presence" in the Eucharist. Find out why the distinctions are important.
www.catholic.com www.catholic.com

Is your term “real presence” above in line with this broad definition? Or did you mean transubstantiation?

There were various understandings or the Eucharist in the universal-catholic Church of Clement of Alexandria’s day. Many of the beliefs held by Christians today can be found in the writings in the early centuries. There was no universal belief until the 4th Lateran Council in 1215 AD. The term “real presence” did not start until much later than 1215 AD.
 
Interesting reading on early views of real presence (9th C) , as in real flesh, spiritual flesh , or just spiritual presence, between Radbertus and Ratramnus two Benedictine monks at same monastery of Corbie, France

www.ligonier.org

The Meal That Divides by Keith Mathison

On the night of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus prayed for His disciples and for those who would become His disciples, “that they may all be one” (J
www.ligonier.org www.ligonier.org
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top