Eucharist: Is this Correct?

[shawn38]

The Roman Catholic Institution teaches that you must believe that the bread, or host, consecrated in the mass (then the eucharist) actually becomes Jesus Christ and it is to be worshipped as God Almighty.
Canon Law 1. If any one shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure, let him be accursed." (Accursed means to be damned, under a curse.)
Canon Law 6. If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of ,[47] also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy Church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.
A person is to be anathema if they say it’s idolatry?
It holds firm, just as strong today, as it did in the time of the Council of Trent, that anyone who ridicules it, or says that it only represents Christ, let him be anathema. The Vatican II Council re-affirmed this. Pope John XXIII said, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent.”

 

[ralphinal]

The Roman Catholic Institution teaches that you must believe that the bread, or host, consecrated in the mass (then the eucharist) actually becomes Jesus Christ and it is to be worshipped as God Almighty.
Canon Law 1. If any one shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure, let him be accursed." (Accursed means to be damned, under a curse.)
Canon Law 6. If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of ,[47] also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy Church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.
A person is to be anathema if they say it’s idolatry?
It holds firm, just as strong today, as it did in the time of the Council of Trent, that anyone who ridicules it, or says that it only represents Christ, let him be anathema. The Vatican II Council re-affirmed this. Pope John XXIII said, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent.”

What is the issue?

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Canons of the Council of Trent are not to be confused with canon law.

There is hope for folk who through no fault of their own disagree with the Council of Trent (or anything else that is infallibly true). But yeah. It is pretty serious to not recognize God in the Blessed Sacrament. It is even worse to blaspheme. You need some good excuses. Presumably you have them. If not, you’re accursed, as the document says.

 

[plato3]

Just as in John Chap. 6, when many no longer would follow Jesus because his instruction on the Eucharist was too hard to take, we have those still calling themselves Catholic who do not believe in true presence and are causing scandal to His church. One Protestant pastor exclaimed that if he believed in the true presence, he would be on his knees in front of the altar, every free moment that he had. Yet, many Catholics take it too lightly.

 

[Lapey]

The Roman Catholic Institution teaches that you must believe that the bread, or host, consecrated in the mass (then the eucharist) actually becomes Jesus Christ and it is to be worshipped as God Almighty.
Canon Law 1. If any one shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure, let him be accursed." (Accursed means to be damned, under a curse.)
Canon Law 6. If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of ,[47] also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy Church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.
A person is to be anathema if they say it’s idolatry?
It holds firm, just as strong today, as it did in the time of the Council of Trent, that anyone who ridicules it, or says that it only represents Christ, let him be anathema. The Vatican II Council re-affirmed this. Pope John XXIII said, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent.”

Canon # 1 - The canons of this code concern only the Latin Church.

Canon # 6 - When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated: then it goes on to list the older version of canao law and some other codes replaced by this code.

So no, this is not correct.

Sorry brother, couldn’t resist!

 

[shawn38]

Canon # 1 - The canons of this code concern only the Latin Church.

Canon # 6 - When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated: then it goes on to list the older version of canao law and some other codes replaced by this code.

So no, this is not correct.

Sorry brother, couldn’t resist!

The Latin Church reaches out far more than people realize to include:

New Advent
The division between the (western catholics) Roman patriarchate and the others (eastern catholics) forms a line that runs down somewhat to the east of the River Vistula (Poland is Latin), then comes back above the Danube, to continue down the Adriatic Sea, and finally divides Africa west of Egypt.

Western Churches are those that either gravitate around Rome or broke away from her at the Reformation.

Western Christendom may be defined quite simply as the Roman patriarchate and all Churches that have broken away from it. All the others, with schismatical bodies formed from them, make up the Eastern half.

It’s the largest of the patriarhates

Wikipedia
After multiple drafts and many years of discussion, Pope John Paul II promulgated the revised Code of Canon Law (CIC) in 1983. Containing 1752 canons, it is the law currently binding on the Latin (western) Catholic Church.

New Advent
The Latin Church is simply that vast portion of the Catholic body which obeys the Latin patriarch, which submits to the pope, not only in papal, but also in patriarchal matters. It is thus distinguished from the Eastern Churches (whether Catholic or Schismatic), which represent the other four patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), and any fractions broken away from them.

So Yes!

 

[ralphinal]

I still don’t get the issue here

 

[shawn38]

I still don’t get the issue here

Would the statements be accurate in the understanding of the Eucharist and how the Catholic Church is to treat non-catholics who view the Lord’s supper as no more than symbolic?

 

[Lapey]

The Latin Church reaches out far more than people realize to include:

New Advent
The division between the (western catholics) Roman patriarchate and the others (eastern catholics) forms a line that runs down somewhat to the east of the River Vistula (Poland is Latin), then comes back above the Danube, to continue down the Adriatic Sea, and finally divides Africa west of Egypt.

Western Churches are those that either gravitate around Rome or broke away from her at the Reformation.

Western Christendom may be defined quite simply as the Roman patriarchate and all Churches that have broken away from it. All the others, with schismatical bodies formed from them, make up the Eastern half.

It’s the largest of the patriarhates

Wikipedia
After multiple drafts and many years of discussion, Pope John Paul II promulgated the revised Code of Canon Law (CIC) in 1983. Containing 1752 canons, it is the law currently binding on the Latin (western) Catholic Church.

New Advent
The Latin Church is simply that vast portion of the Catholic body which obeys the Latin patriarch, which submits to the pope, not only in papal, but also in patriarchal matters. It is thus distinguished from the Eastern Churches (whether Catholic or Schismatic), which represent the other four patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), and any fractions broken away from them.

So Yes!

Sorry, all I did was quote directly from the Code of Canon Law. I didn’t say anything about what the Latin Church entails.

 

[ralphinal]

Would the statements be accurate in the understanding of the Eucharist and how the Catholic Church is to treat non-catholics who view the Lord’s supper as no more than symbolic?

Thanks for explaining. The answer is not so easy. Let’s start with the first part.

Catholics DO understand that what was once bread and wine after they have been concecrated are 100% the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. This is based on scripture and the traditional understanding from the Apostles. Based on that, it cannot be idolatry to worship the Eucharist, as you are worshipping Christ in the Flesh. Further, if you believe that Jesus is God, why would you not worship him?

As for the second part, there is more to it than that. All non-Catholics (and Catholics, for that matter) who hold that the Eucharist is symbolic are professing a heretical position. That does not make them automatically guilty of heresy (although for the Catholics it probably does). To be guilty of heresy, you must KNOW the Truth and prefer the lie. A majority of non-CAtholics do not know the Truth, so they are not fully culpable. The early Reformers knew the Truth about the Eucharist (many of them accepted the Real Presence), so those that denied it were heretics.

As far as the anathema pronouncement goes, this is one reason for some non-Catholics to be denied communion in the Church. They are under a “a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.” There are multiple definitions of anathema, that is really the one in question. Now, if someone dies is a state of excommunication, their soul is in real jeopardy.

Before you get too far into this part, you might want to study why the Church teaches what it does about the Real Presence.

 

[rick43235]

One Protestant pastor exclaimed that if he believed in the true presence, he would be on his knees in front of the altar, every free moment that he had.

I never thought about it like that before, but I have to agree. If someone really believed that the Eucharist was REALLY Jesus, there would be no time in the day for anything other than worship and adoration. I suspect that very few people, Catholic or otherwise, REALLY believe in the true presence.

 

[ralphinal]

I never thought about it like that before, but I have to agree. If someone really believed that the Eucharist was REALLY Jesus, there would be no time in the day for anything other than worship and adoration. I suspect that very few people, Catholic or otherwise, REALLY believe in the true presence.

Yes and no. St Paul wrote that those “who do not work, shall not eat.” Catholics understand that for some of us, our love of the Real Presence has to be shown in other ways, such as being a good parent. AS much as I would love to stay in adoration, my vocation is as a father and husband. I must fulfill those roles as my sign of my love for the Real Presence.

Now, there are nuns and monks who have as their vocation adoration at all times.

 

[twopekinguys]

I never thought about it like that before, but I have to agree. If someone really believed that the Eucharist was REALLY Jesus, there would be no time in the day for anything other than worship and adoration. I suspect that very few people, Catholic or otherwise, REALLY believe in the true presence.

But Jesus doesn’t want us to neglect our responsibilities either. Such as providing for our families, caring for the sick, and the poor, etc.

It all has to be kept in perspective. We can and should do these things, and definitely make plenty of time for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

As a Catholic, I firmly believe in the true presence of the Eucharist.

 

[stormstopper]

Canons of the Council of Trent are not to be confused with canon law.

There is hope for folk who through no fault of their own disagree with the Council of Trent (or anything else that is infallibly true). But yeah. It is pretty serious to not recognize God in the Blessed Sacrament. It is even worse to blaspheme. You need some good excuses. Presumably you have them. If not, you’re accursed, as the document says.

The excuses we as Protestants have for rejecting the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist are many, not the least of which is the fact Jesus said He was GOING AWAY no less than 5 times, and would send the Holy Spirit in His place!

The RC OBJECTION: "We believe that as a result of consuming the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we are granted the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. For as John Paul II has said, “Through our communion in His body and blood, Christ also grants us His Spirit” (and) “the joint and inseparable activity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. . . is at work in the Eucharist” {Ecclesia de Eucharistia, #17 & 23}.

ANSWER: The biblical evidence will not permit the Roman Catholic to have it both ways because the gift of the Spirit has been promised outside of the Communion ceremony by faith as Scripture clearly teaches! Because the RCC cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint any direct biblical link as to what advantage might result from actually swallowing the physical body of Jesus, she cleverly solves this problem by co-joining the presence of the Holy Spirit as a benefit, so that everything said about the Holy Spirit, may equally be said about the Eucharist. Thus she deceitfully transfers all the attributes of the Spirt’s presence which are found in the Bible in abundance, and then unwarrantedly transfers them over to the Eucharist, which are not stated anywhere. Swallowing the body of Christ, literally or not, is a biblically proven separate action that does not give any promise equal to what the Holy Spirit has already been appointed for. The Catechism readily admits that the Spirit will “teach us everything”, helps in understanding the Word of God, renews us into the image of Christ, sanctifies the church, and produces in us “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and self-control” according to Galatians 5:22 {CCC # 729, 1101, 1109, 747, 736}. Furthermore, they agree that He has been sent . … . “to lead us into all truth” — “to convince the world of sin, righteousness and judgment” ---- “to shine in our hearts to give us light” — “to give us wisdom” — “to quicken us to spiritual life” — “to help our infirmaties, to help us pray, to intercede for us” — “to confirm within our hearts that we are children of God” —and “to be the seal of our inheritence” { John 16:13, 1 Cor 6:20, 2 Cor 4:6, Eph 1:17, John 6:63, Romans 8:16; 26, Eph 1:13}.

We have as yet to hear of any benefit of the RCC Eucharist that has not already been defined as one of the Holy Spirit’s assigned duties. That being the case, ingesting the actual body of Christ does not serve any purpose, so our thesis will show He must have been speaking metaphorically in those places where He bids us to “eat Him”. The Holy Spirit which inspired the Scripture, singlehandedly multi-tasks all the benefits Christ promised when He emphatically stated His physical presence was going away and the Comforter sent to fill in the void. Moreover, the catechism as quoted above {#1374} which states that the Eucharist materializes the “real presence” in the fullest sense, is a lie. Galatians 3:26 says that when “we receive the promise of the Spirit by faith” ---- we are filled with that Spirit and with all the fullness of God {Luke 1:41; 67, 4:1, Acts 2:4; 4:8; 31; 6:3; 5, 7:55, 9:17, 11:24, 13:9; 52, Eph 3:17-19; 5:18, }. The RCC says the Eucharist brings “fullness” —but the Holy Spirit says HE does! Both cannot be true since you cannot fill a vessel that is already full with something else! Yet the RCC presses even further by supposing that, "in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the Church prays that the Father of Mercies will grant His children the fullness of the Holy Spirit . . . " {Ecclesia de Eucharista, #43}. Let the RCC pray all she wishes. The Bible will not support this “dual presence in the fullest sense”, and therefore, she has neither one.

In addition, as they looked skyward to see Him leave this world, the angel said, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into Heaven.” {Acts 1:11}. Since He left in His resurrected body, He will return in “like manner” and in no other manner—including disguising Himself under the form of bread and wine. Notice— if the RCC position were true, the angel should have reminded them in similar fashion as He did at the empty tomb. … . “He is risen. . . just as He said unto you.” {Mk 16:7} And then we would read, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? {You have the reality of His bodily presence when He hides Himself in the bread and wine, just as He said unto you}. But the angel offered no such reminder. Hence, the ascension of Christ and consequent sending of the Spirit for our comfort explicitly denies the necessity for transubstantiation, and thus the case for Jesus speaking symbolically in John 6 and the Last Supper, rings true.

Furthermore, when we take God’s character into consideration, we note that the overwhelming evidence indicates that when He wishes to demonstrate His power by miracles, they must be seen! No where in the Bible are we ever told of a miracle taking place where all the evidence indicated no miracle had taken place.

 

[Lapey]

Ok, we have established that this is not Canon Law, it is dogma. It is Council canon, dogma.

The poster, who sees no problem and speaks the least, has said the most!

Let’s imagine that Jesus is standing before you right now, in physical presence of you. You have a friend standing next to you and say, that is not Christ and you are an idolater because you have knelt and worshiped this non God!

That is what it is when you ridicule me or the Blessed Sacrament in disbelief, it is a sacrilege. I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Eucharist at the Catholic Mass is Jesus. So does the Magisterium of the Church, thus the strict language. Can you understand this concept? You don’t have to believe what I believe but you do have to respect my belief, as I do yours.

If you desecrate the Holy Eucharist, you desecrate Christ and will be accursed. If you call me an idol worshiper for my belief you are judging improperly and you will be judged, thus anathema.

Help?

 

[stormstopper]

As a Catholic, I firmly believe in the true presence of the Eucharist.

---

On the contrary, Scripture declares that the physical presence of Jesus was going away!

“I go to prepare a place for you” . . . “Yet a little while and the world seeth me no more.” . . . “I go away” . . . “But now I go my way to Him that sent me.” . . . “I leave the world and go unto the Father” . . … “I go to my Father and ye see me no more.” . . . “For the poor ye have with you always; but me ye have not always.” . . . “Ye shall seek me and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot come.” . … . “And now, I am no more in the world.” . . . {John 14:2, 14:19, 14:28, 16:5, 16:29, 16:10, 12:8, 7:34, 17:11}. And Paul confirmed that, "though we have known Christ in the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more " {2 Cor 5:16}. Notice— He makes no exception that we be consoled with either Christ’s presence in–or eating His flesh as a result of, the Eucharist. Naturally then, a doctrine such as Transubstantiation which bids us to believe in the actual bodily presence of our Lord is at war with the Bible from the get-go.

Furthermore, Jesus emphatically states that prior to the time of His second coming, "if any man shall say to you, lo, here is Christ; or lo, He is there; believe it not " {Mk 13:21}.

Is not the RCC bidding us to believe Christ is “over there” in a dispensary called a “monstrance”, and picked out by the hands of the priest distributing Him in “physical form” at Communion? Yes they are, and this should rightly disturb you. But the Bible declares that Jesus does not dwell in temples {or any holy places} made with hands . . .but has entered into Heaven itself" where He will remain until He appears “a second time” {Acts 7:48; Hebrews 9:24;28}. No mention is made of a “sacramental presence” to sustain us in the meantime. Thus, the RCC vessel called a “monstrance” {or a “ciborium” or “tabernacle”} is nothing other than an alleged holy place made with hands, but Scripture states that Christ is not there!

We also note another warning in Matthew 24:26: "Therefore, if they shall say to you, Behold He is in the desert; go not forth: {or} Behold, He is in the secret chambers {King James Version} believe it not. " The New King James Version renders “secret chambers” as “inner rooms”. . . or even, “inner chambers” {American Standard Version}. What does this mean? In order that there would be no need to speculate, Jesus provided exact locations where these false appearances would occur. With reference to Strong’s Concordance, the actual meaning of the Greek word “TAMEION” that is translated as “inner rooms” is, “a dispensory; i.e. a chamber on the ground floor or interior of an Oriental house {generally used for storage or privacy; a spot for retirement}.” In other words, the original Greek actually refers to some kind of storage space , dispensary or private place. The backbone of Roman Catholicism is its star prop—the monstrance, which is a vessel / dispensary/ private dwelling----wherein they insist Jesus Christ “retires” in physical form until taken out by the hands of the priest, to be dispensed to the people via the mouth. However, our Lord says to REJECT any future sightings of His physical presence in any “secret chamber” by preceeding his warning with, “See, I have told you beforehand.” {Matt 24:25-26}. And He most certainly did. No where but in Catholicism do the words of Christ find their fulfillment with such stark clarity.

 

[ralphinal]

The excuses we as Protestants have for rejecting the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist are many, not the least of which is the fact Jesus said He was GOING AWAY no less than 5 times, and would send the Holy Spirit in His place!

The RC OBJECTION: "We believe that as a result of consuming the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we are granted the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. For as John Paul II has said, “Through our communion in His body and blood, Christ also grants us His Spirit” (and) “the joint and inseparable activity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. . . is at work in the Eucharist” {Ecclesia de Eucharistia, #17 & 23}.

ANSWER: The biblical evidence will not permit the Roman Catholic to have it both ways because the gift of the Spirit has been promised outside of the Communion ceremony by faith as Scripture clearly teaches! Because the RCC cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint any direct biblical link as to what advantage might result from actually swallowing the physical body of Jesus, she cleverly solves this problem by co-joining the presence of the Holy Spirit as a benefit, so that everything said about the Holy Spirit, may equally be said about the Eucharist. Thus she deceitfully transfers all the attributes of the Spirt’s presence which are found in the Bible in abundance, and then unwarrantedly transfers them over to the Eucharist, which are not stated anywhere. Swallowing the body of Christ, literally or not, is a biblically proven separate action that does not give any promise equal to what the Holy Spirit has already been appointed for. The Catechism readily admits that the Spirit will “teach us everything”, helps in understanding the Word of God, renews us into the image of Christ, sanctifies the church, and produces in us “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and self-control” according to Galatians 5:22 {CCC # 729, 1101, 1109, 747, 736}. Furthermore, they agree that He has been sent . … . “to lead us into all truth” — “to convince the world of sin, righteousness and judgment” ---- “to shine in our hearts to give us light” — “to give us wisdom” — “to quicken us to spiritual life” — “to help our infirmaties, to help us pray, to intercede for us” — “to confirm within our hearts that we are children of God” —and “to be the seal of our inheritence” { John 16:13, 1 Cor 6:20, 2 Cor 4:6, Eph 1:17, John 6:63, Romans 8:16; 26, Eph 1:13}.

We have as yet to hear of any benefit of the RCC Eucharist that has not already been defined as one of the Holy Spirit’s assigned duties. That being the case, ingesting the actual body of Christ does not serve any purpose, so our thesis will show He must have been speaking metaphorically in those places where He bids us to “eat Him”. The Holy Spirit which inspired the Scripture, singlehandedly multi-tasks all the benefits Christ promised when He emphatically stated His physical presence was going away and the Comforter sent to fill in the void. Moreover, the catechism as quoted above {#1374} which states that the Eucharist materializes the “real presence” in the fullest sense, is a lie. Galatians 3:26 says that when “we receive the promise of the Spirit by faith” ---- we are filled with that Spirit and with all the fullness of God {Luke 1:41; 67, 4:1, Acts 2:4; 4:8; 31; 6:3; 5, 7:55, 9:17, 11:24, 13:9; 52, Eph 3:17-19; 5:18, }. The RCC says the Eucharist brings “fullness” —but the Holy Spirit says HE does! Both cannot be true since you cannot fill a vessel that is already full with something else! Yet the RCC presses even further by supposing that, "in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the Church prays that the Father of Mercies will grant His children the fullness of the Holy Spirit . . . " {Ecclesia de Eucharista, #43}. Let the RCC pray all she wishes. The Bible will not support this “dual presence in the fullest sense”, and therefore, she has neither one.

In addition, as they looked skyward to see Him leave this world, the angel said, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into Heaven.” {Acts 1:11}. Since He left in His resurrected body, He will return in “like manner” and in no other manner—including disguising Himself under the form of bread and wine. Notice— if the RCC position were true, the angel should have reminded them in similar fashion as He did at the empty tomb. … . “He is risen. . . just as He said unto you.” {Mk 16:7} And then we would read, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? {You have the reality of His bodily presence when He hides Himself in the bread and wine, just as He said unto you}. But the angel offered no such reminder. Hence, the ascension of Christ and consequent sending of the Spirit for our comfort explicitly denies the necessity for transubstantiation, and thus the case for Jesus speaking symbolically in John 6 and the Last Supper, rings true.

Furthermore, when we take God’s character into consideration, we note that the overwhelming evidence indicates that when He wishes to demonstrate His power by miracles, they must be seen! No where in the Bible are we ever told of a miracle taking place where all the evidence indicated no miracle had taken place.

Interesting take. Can you provide Early Church Fathers who support your position?

 

[Lapey]

“We have as yet to hear of any benefit of the RCC Eucharist that has not already been defined as one of the Holy Spirit’s assigned duties.”

John 6:56

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

Is this assigned to the Holy Spirit?

 

[stormstopper]

The Roman Catholic Institution teaches that you must believe that the bread, or host, consecrated in the mass (then the eucharist) actually becomes Jesus Christ and it is to be worshipped as God Almighty.
Canon Law 1. If any one shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure, let him be accursed." (Accursed means to be damned, under a curse.)
Canon Law 6. If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of ,[47] also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy Church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.
A person is to be anathema if they say it’s idolatry?
It holds firm, just as strong today, as it did in the time of the Council of Trent, that anyone who ridicules it, or says that it only represents Christ, let him be anathema. The Vatican II Council re-affirmed this. Pope John XXIII said, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent.”

Protestants are unafraid of the anathemas issued forth by Rome because Scripture is against them. Catholics wonder,

"Why do you say that Christ couldn't change the elements into His body and blood at the Last Supper?  We know that with God all things are possible" {Matt 19:26}.

ANSWER: Summoning into service the fact that God can do anything in response to any controversy is a poor apologetic. Anyone can say that to support whatever they wish. That Jesus did not transubstantiate the elements is refuted, not by our logic, but by His logic in Hebrews chapter 9 that no power on earth can deny. The Lord is not the author of confusion, but reason {1 Cor 14:33, Isa 1:18} Watch it: We are told that when Moses sprinkled the blood of a sacrificed animal on the book of the law and on the people, he said, “This is the blood of the Testament” Hence, there can be no doubt that Jesus was picking up on this very same sentiment when He held the cup and said, “This is my blood of the New Testament.” It is crucial to remember that Jesus was alive when He said this because we read,

“FOR WHERE A TESTAMENT IS, THERE MUST OF NECESSITY BE THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR; FOR A TESTAMENT IS IN FORCE {only} AFTER {AGAIN, AFTER} MEN ARE DEAD: OTHERWISE IT IS OF NO STRENGTH AT ALL WHILE THE TESTATOR LIVES” {Hebrews 9:16-20}.

Very simply, a person’s last will and testament is not in force until that person has died! It is invalid, useless and consists of, as we read above, “no strength at all”. On the other hand, the RCC pompously affirms that the bread and wine has the STRENGTH to

A. . … function as the “antidote” whereby we may be cleansed from past sins and preserved from future sins" {CCC #1393, 1395} -----and

B . . … that it serve as a “means of grace”, or a channel of life-changing power" {ibid, Shea, p. 29}— and

C . . … that it should be adored and worshipped owing to the fact that “it” is God {CCC # 1380: Trent, Session 13}.

Hebrews 9:16-20 utterly rejects the above three and any other imagined “benefits” based on the fact that Jesus was alive when proclaiming the New Testament at the Last Supper. If the contents of a person’s will has “no strength” and is useless until the Testator has died, then the contents of the cup Jesus held----and by extention, the bread— also had no strength to be what the RCC claims them to be since the Testator had not yet died. Therefore, since the emblems did not carry any efficacious power back then, it certainly doesn’t carry any now. So that “our minds should not be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” {2 Cor 11:3}— the only logical and simplistic solution is that the elements were symbols of His body and blood {His life and death} which we were to remember until He returned {Romans 5:10}. Going beyond that is heresy.

 

[rick43235]

Catholics understand that for some of us, our love of the Real Presence has to be shown in other ways, such as being a good parent. AS much as I would love to stay in adoration, my vocation is as a father and husband. I must fulfill those roles as my sign of my love for the Real Presence.

But Jesus doesn’t want us to neglect our responsibilities either. Such as providing for our families, caring for the sick, and the poor, etc.

It all has to be kept in perspective. We can and should do these things, and definitely make plenty of time for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

As a Catholic, I firmly believe in the true presence of the Eucharist.

I certainly understand that, even for those who believe in the real presence of the Eucharist, “it all has to be kept in perspective.” However, I bet if you were watching CNN as you were getting ready for work one day and a news flash came on saying that a most miraculous thing had happened, that Jesus (yes, JESUS!!!) had appeared down at Sacred Heart, you wouldn’t even bother calling in sick. You’d just beat feet down to Sacred Heart.

Perhaps my understanding of the belief is incorrect, but it seems to me that if one really believed in the real presence, you’d be doing the same thing every time a mass was celebrated at Sacred Heart.