Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Faith1960 said:
And could someone please explain how Jesus can be the substance of the Eucharist when it looks like bread and wine. I just know there’s some way for it to make some sense.

Could it be: Because Jesus can perform miracles?
Code: 
                Because this is a supernatural thing?

                Because Jesus is glorified, which allows Him to do things like walk through walls
                 Etc.?

                Something else?
Click to expand...
It is a miracle.

The sense used of substance is essence. The outward appearances are called accidents.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, essence:
1a : the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being

Modern Catholic Dictionary, Transubstantiation:

The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis “change of being”; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, “change of substance,” which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Council of Trent, in defining the “wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood” of Christ, added “which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation” (Denzinger 1652). After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantiatio, change of substance.)
 
Vico said:
It is a miracle.

The sense used of substance is essence. The outward appearances are called accidents.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, essence:
1a : the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being

Modern Catholic Dictionary, Transubstantiation:

The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis “change of being”; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, “change of substance,” which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Council of Trent, in defining the “wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood” of Christ, added “which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation” (Denzinger 1652). After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantiatio, change of substance.)
Click to expand...
Is goout in post #99 wrong then?
 
Faith1960 said:
I’m trying to understand the Eucharist better. Is it correct to say that the Glorified Jesus can take any form He wishes and He chose to take the form of the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
ALMOST!🙂

More accurately one should say that the Consecrated HOST literally DOES take the form of Jesus Himself:thumbsup:

In the Eucharist Jesus IS [literally] "Really, Truly & Substanually Present: hence the complete and real Jesus:)

Our Catechism
1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial

1358 We must therefore consider the Eucharist as:
  • thanksgiving and praise to the Father;
  • the sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body;
  • the presence of Christ by the power of his word and of his Spirit.
1000 This “how” exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible only to faith. Yet our participation in the Eucharist already gives us a foretaste of Christ’s transfiguration of our bodies:

Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God’s blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, the one earthly and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection.

1374** The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”**

God Bless you

Patrick
 
I found an article online that I don’t want to post, as it’s very anti-Catholic. Now, I know that the accidents are the only perceivable part of the Eucharist but this article says that nothing is found except bread, even at the DNA level. Surprising? I don’t think so, but I’m asking, for further discussion.
 
Faith1960 said:
Is goout in post #99 wrong then?
Click to expand...
So there are three statements and he answered yes to all three:

Could it be:

  1. *]Because Jesus can perform miracles?
    *]Because this is a supernatural thing?
    *]Because Jesus is glorified, which allows Him to do things like walk through walls etc.?
    1. Transubstantiation is a miracle. Fr. John Hardon wrote: “In general a miracle is any effect perceptible by the senses, produced by God which surpasses the powers of nature.”
    therealpresence.org/archives/Miracles/Miracles_001.htm
    1. “multilocation without further question belongs to the supernatural order”. - Catholic Encyclopedia
    2. “Christ with His natural dimensions reigns in heaven, whence he does not depart, and at the same time dwells with His Sacramental Presence in numberless places throughout the world.” - Catholic Encyclopedia
    Pohle, J. (1909). The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. New Advent: newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
 
Vico said:
So there are three statements and he answered yes to all three:

Could it be:

  1. *]Because Jesus can perform miracles?
    *]Because this is a supernatural thing?
    *]Because Jesus is glorified, which allows Him to do things like walk through walls etc.?
    1. Transubstantiation is a miracle. Fr. John Hardon wrote: “In general a miracle is any effect perceptible by the senses, produced by God which surpasses the powers of nature.”
    therealpresence.org/archives/Miracles/Miracles_001.htm
    1. “multilocation without further question belongs to the supernatural order”. - Catholic Encyclopedia
    2. “Christ with His natural dimensions reigns in heaven, whence he does not depart, and at the same time dwells with His Sacramental Presence in numberless places throughout the world.” - Catholic Encyclopedia
    Pohle, J. (1909). The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. New Advent: newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
Click to expand...

  1. So, all three are correct?
 
In an old thread titled “Do We Believe in Literal Transubstantiation” from June 25 2013, it quoted" if someone says this was bread now it’s flesh I can test that claim and likely disprove it, but we believe it is Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine, not actual blood and flesh."

The reply said, “this part is correct.”

Is that right?

(It was replied by jmcrae, a very well respected and knowledgeable poster.)
 
Faith1960 said:
In an old thread titled “Do We Believe in Literal Transubstantiation” from June 25 2013, it quoted" if someone says this was bread now it’s flesh I can test that claim and likely disprove it, but we believe it is Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine, not actual blood and flesh."

The reply said, “this part is correct.”

Is that right?

(It was replied by jmcrae, a very well respected and knowledgeable poster.)
Click to expand...
It is the resurrected Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
 
Faith1960 said:
What’s the difference with regards to this question?
Click to expand...
There are two different times: before glorification and after.
There are two kinds of places: heaven and worldly places of the Eucharist.

“Christ with His natural dimensions reigns in heaven, whence he does not depart, and at the same time dwells with His Sacramental Presence in numberless places throughout the world.” - Catholic Encylopedia
 
Vico said:
There are two different times: before glorification and after.
There are two kinds of places: heaven and worldly places of the Eucharist.

“Christ with His natural dimensions reigns in heaven, whence he does not depart, and at the same time dwells with His Sacramental Presence in numberless places throughout the world.” - Catholic Encylopedia
Click to expand...
So is it correct or incorrect to say that “it is jesus under the appearance of bread and wine, not actual blood and flesh?”
 
Faith1960 said:
So is it correct or incorrect to say that “it is jesus under the appearance of bread and wine, not actual blood and flesh?”
Click to expand...
You mean as in our blood and flesh not resurrected? The glorified body is actual.
 
Faith1960 said:
So jmcrae was wrong? It’s actual blood and flesh?
Click to expand...
Christ is present in the Eucharist. Really, substantially. Body blood soul divinity, in his entirety. The Eucharist is not an “it” but rather a “who”.
 
Faith1960 said:
So jmcrae was wrong? It’s actual blood and flesh?
Click to expand...
Define actual. I fear you do not understand essence and accident.

Jesus Christ said “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

So that is what we do. Are you trying to look at it from a microscope, which will not reveal essence by only inspecting the appearance?
 
Vico said:
Define actual. I fear you do not understand essence and accident.

Jesus Christ said “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

So that is what we do. Are you trying to look at it from a microscope, which will not reveal essence by only inspecting the appearance?
Click to expand...
Im just going by what jmcrae said. I THINK he meant literal, visible blood and flesh but I don’t know.

And yes, I’m struggling with essence and accidents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top