So I have witnessed several Masses, I know the hosts are brought from the back to the altar at the appropriate time. Question: when the words of consecration are given by the Priest, does that whole plate full of hosts instantly become the flesh and blood of Jesus or is it the instant each wafer is consumed? In my mind if digestion or even dissolving erases the body and blood of Jesus then consumation should start the process.
Is the Spiritual presence of Jesus more than the presence of Him in the Eucharist?
I knew that was coming…
So if I profess that the presence of Jesus in my heart and life is the source and summit of my faith and the fount from which the Grace of GOD flows to me, I am a misguided or somewhat inferior Christian to someone who says the Eucharist is the source and summit of my faith and the fount from which the Graces of the CHURCH flow to me?I knew that was coming…
I didn’t mean more as in greater, just more abundant, maybe? It’s a different “form” of Jesus. A different context.
You aren’t inferior, but that profession may be. The point is that the Holy Spirit enters our hearts because of the grace bestowed through the death of Jesus. This is His Love and God’s forgiveness fully recognized.
Did the Israelites worship or adore the manna or the Ark of the Covenant? Did they believe that God was physically present in the manna or the Ark?
I would add that any person who is truly a Christian and not just in name only KNOW they are constantly in the presence God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit…
That doesn’t mean they are participating in the Communion of His body and blood. That takes a particular Sacrament with lawful quality.
Not to be facetious or sarcastic but that is in the eyes of the Catholic Church right? If that is true and necessary from God’s point of view then there should be explicit scripture with direct reference to it.
Why are you here, susan? I was hoping for a non challenging discussion!
John 6!!!Not to be facetious or sarcastic but that is in the eyes of the Catholic Church right? If that is true and necessary from God’s point of view then there should be explicit scripture with direct reference to it.
I saw that coming!
To see the Ark would be fascinating in one way as the only place for atonement of sins in the OT was the Mercy Seat of the Ark. The cross of Jesus Christ is the only place for atonement in the NT and current times.
Don’t worry about what makes us happy… search with me to discover what makes Him pleased! Stay! We can disagree, but have respect for each others beliefs. And again, It may not be a good example to support EA. I realize it’s certainly not in some ways. But I kinda see some ways it does.
Which is greater to you? A Eucharist Communion or the Ark of the Old Covenant? Would you rather see and open the Ark (if you could) or partake of your Communion?
The cross was the event that took place in time that accomplished the reconciliation with man and God. Man’s response is to Commune with God and man. This is the summit of the Christian faith! To commune with God and brother. The way it was made possible is the sacrificed Lamb, who no longer is dead but living.
No question. To truly commune with God and others as brothers while fulfilling the Great Commission is the summit of the Christian faith. Jesus made it all possible and He is truly alive and will be Lord and Master if we allow Him. The Holy Spirit has come and fills our lives and is with us 24/7/365.
I am not trying to be challenging.Why are you here, susan? I was hoping for a non challenging discussion!
Just messin’… but I do want to say that this question doesn’t have a right or wrong answer per say. I wanted to bounce it off others to see if it has merit in supporting E. A. If I don’t feel Catholics and non-Catholic Christians see much support, then I won’t use it.
No. Manna was not worshipped or Adored. I am not trying to imply that. But it was venerated for the purpose of remembering that God sustained His people in the wilderness. And it was kept in the holiest place on earth. And no, God was not “physically” in the Ark. He didn’t physically manifest Himself until the Incarnation.
I am just trying to sort it through.Not sure we have the same concept of veneration? When you look upon a nativity scene (maybe not all or always) and reflect on the Gospel with the joy and love you have for God and the Incarnation, I would call that venerating the little images. They stir in your heart the image of the Gospel. They help bring your mind and soul to the event of the birth of the savior. You imagine the scene, and you give thanks in your heart.I am not trying to be challenging.
The Ark of the Covenant was very sacred. It was kept in the “holy of holies,” and many miracles and wonders accompanied the box. It and what was in and around it is certainly meaningful, but I am not aware that it was worshiped or venerated. I think it was a place where God was worshiped and the Spirit was present. It seemed to represent God’s presence with the Israelites and at times God was present in a cloud over the ark.
It seems the significance of the Ark of the Covenant wasn’t about God being physically present, but about it symbolizing that God was with them. It was revered, but not worshiped. I don’t know if it would be a convincing reason to accept the worship of the physical presence of God in the Eucharist. I think that is a very different concept.
I wonder when the earliest record of the true adoration or worship of the Eucharist occurred.