Nobody eats it? Isn’t that the whole point of “Take and eat for this is my body”…to me the whole reason and theme of the mass is to “commune”…and “take ye and eat” is an integral part of that according to Catholic belief isn’t it? Why “confect” the bread and wine in the first place…if it’s not bread and wine at least in appearance…how does that square with the whole…“take and eat”…“this is my body”?
Because this is obviously a miracle, and what use would it be as a miracle if al evidence was quickly eaten?
I thought the bread and wine became his “body, blood, soul and divinity”…I thought his being “physically” present in the bread and the wine IS his physical body according to Catholic belief.
Now I’m also confused…Catholic teaching is that while Jesus is LITERALLY present in the Eucharist, it is clearly not “physical”, since the accidents, which are changed, are the physical qualities of the bread and wine…Jesus is present spiritually, but he is very much there in a very real way…
So, I’ve been told that since I believe in the Real Presence is manifest at Meeting…He is Truly Present among us…I’ve been told that Jesus cannot be “truly present” at Meeting since we have no “bread and wine” properly confected by a priest as he is present in the eucharist…it is in the eucharist that he is truly present…is it not? If he is only “spiritually present” and not physically present in a Catholic service…is he not spiritually present in a Quaker Meeting for Worship?
All right, this is heady stuff, and I’m no thelogian or Priest, so bear with me occasionally flimsy explanations, but Jesus is present in a special way in the Eucharist; he is “spiritually present” in the Eucharist, but in a special, more profound way than he normally is.
More “special and profound” than His promise "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in their midst’?
Special in a different, unique, and necessary way, at least (necessary because he says that thse who eat his body and drinlk his blood will have eternal life, and because he says he is the bread of life).
Yet the eucharistic “miracle” does not get consumed at all…the “eat his body and drink his blood” isn’t followed…neither is the “take and eat”…to me the whole reason the bread and wine are confected is so they CAN be consumed as the body and blood of Christ…yet the “miracle” offers no such “eternal life” to the communicants since it’s not eaten…what is the whole point of it’s confection? I thought the body and blood HAD to be consumed for it to be a eucharist in the first place?
well, I have no influence at the Vatican…you Catholics will have to make it happen. Please hurry, I am only getting older.
Hello Publisher…from this site it appears that the “flesh and blood” of the Eucharistic miracles are understood to be transubstantiation in reverse (for lack of a better term). Christ’s body isn’t substantially present, but rather only the accidents are present. So after the consecration, when the thing the priest is carrying looks bread (a wafer) it is really (substantially) Christ’s body, but when it looks like a piece of Christ’s body, it isn’t really (substantially) Christ’s body. Therefore, it doesn’t give eternal life and it doesn’t need to be consumed.
you and me both!
To me…it seems like God would be saying “Gotcha!!!” The words of consecration are being spoken by one who has “apostolic authority” to speak them and “confect” the emblems…but God doesn’t agree to play this time…instead He changes the bread and wine into body and blood fragments…and laughs and says “Now see if you can stomach this!” Or …“You said all the right words, made all the right gestures, used the right matter…but I’m not going to “transubstantiate” the bread and wine this time…”