T
thomas_jd
Guest
One God = Three persons, Father,Son and Holy Ghost
The Eucharist = Jesus
Jesus = Father, Son and Holy Ghost
The Eucharist = Jesus
Jesus = Father, Son and Holy Ghost
- Status
H
hansard
Guest
Where one is present and one acts, all are present and all act.
I don’t believe this is right. What’s the point, then, of having three persons if they don’t have specific roles and functions.
Jesus is the part of God that connects with humanity. Prior to Jesus, there was distance. Now there is complete sympathy. The Spirit does works, inspires, reveals the Father to us (and all the other gifts–wisdom, etc). The Father is the creator. He is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not Christ. He has never been human. The Spirit is not, and cannot be, human.
To my mind, they are quite different entities within the same God–just like (in a way) I have a part of me that is a creator (I’m a parent), a part that is an inspirer and giver of wisdom (in my career as a teacher) and a part that has strong sympathy and empathy with others (due to my common humanity with other humans).
Those who claim to have a better understanding of the Trinity than mine, I can only offer this from the Catechism:
237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God”. To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.
A mystery, you see. No-one knows the full story. My understanding is as good as anyone’s. And I’ve just read through the Cathechism on the Trinity and I find no enlightenment at all, beyond the simple fact that it’s a mystery.
thomas jd: Not convinced by that. It looks like it’s supposed to be a logical progression, but I can’t see it.
Jesus is not the Holy Spirit.
I don’t believe this is right. What’s the point, then, of having three persons if they don’t have specific roles and functions.
Jesus is the part of God that connects with humanity. Prior to Jesus, there was distance. Now there is complete sympathy. The Spirit does works, inspires, reveals the Father to us (and all the other gifts–wisdom, etc). The Father is the creator. He is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not Christ. He has never been human. The Spirit is not, and cannot be, human.
To my mind, they are quite different entities within the same God–just like (in a way) I have a part of me that is a creator (I’m a parent), a part that is an inspirer and giver of wisdom (in my career as a teacher) and a part that has strong sympathy and empathy with others (due to my common humanity with other humans).
Those who claim to have a better understanding of the Trinity than mine, I can only offer this from the Catechism:
237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God”. To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.
A mystery, you see. No-one knows the full story. My understanding is as good as anyone’s. And I’ve just read through the Cathechism on the Trinity and I find no enlightenment at all, beyond the simple fact that it’s a mystery.
thomas jd: Not convinced by that. It looks like it’s supposed to be a logical progression, but I can’t see it.
Jesus is not the Holy Spirit.
T
thomas_jd
Guest
You are trying to explain the first of two of the greatest mysterys of our faith.
Where one of the three are present there also are the others!
A page or two of the Cathechism does not make one a expert.
Allow me to paraphrase an old story:
A man came up to a child on the beach filling a hole with water from a shell.
The man remarked that it was impossible to fill the hole with water.
The child answered that as it was impossible to fill the hole with water from the seas, it was impossible to man to comprehend the “Trinity”.
The man was St. Augustian and the child Jesus.
H
hansard
Guest
thomas jd posted this:
**You are trying to explain the first of two of the greatest mysterys of our faith. **
Ok, I’ll bite.
“The first of two…” Please tell me: what is the second of two?
and
A page or two of the Cathechism does not make one a expert.
I agree. When did I claim otherwise?
**You are trying to explain the first of two of the greatest mysterys of our faith. **
Ok, I’ll bite.
“The first of two…” Please tell me: what is the second of two?
and
A page or two of the Cathechism does not make one a expert.
I agree. When did I claim otherwise?
S
Spirithound
Guest
Yes, it is appropriate to pray to Jesus in the form of the Eucharist. There can’t possibly be a conflict of interest, as there is no conflict in the Trinity.
The Father and the Holy Spirit are present in the Eucharist at least in the same way that they are present everywhere. Moreover, they are present in the Eucharist (because remember the Eucharist is Jesus) in the same way they were present in Jesus when He walked the Earth.
I would say yes.
There doesn’t have to be a discernable point. But, it is reality.
Yes, but:
[BIBLEDRB]John 1:1-3[/BIBLEDRB]
and
[BIBLEDRB]Col 1:15-16[/BIBLEDRB]
This analogy doesn’t quite fit because you’re comparing different “tiers” of persons. See, you are a creator, inspirer, and empathizer within your one person. But remember when you compare yourself to God, you must compare to each individual person of the Godhead. If you can be a creator, inspirer and empathizer, why can’t God the Father also be all three?
“Mystery” does not mean everyone’s understanding is the same. If it did, you wouldn’t be asking questions here.
S
Spirithound
Guest
No.
G
GloriousOrder
Guest
Sorry to be a stick in the mud, but I feel iffy about worshiping the Eucharist. The Lord and the Epistles of Paul speak about eating, drinking, and consuming the Lord worthily. All the actions demonstrated in the Last Supper and discussed by St. Paul seem geared toward consumption. After this consumption or feast of the faithful, it seems the communal totality of Eucharistic church-unity is no longer present, Sunday being over. Everywhere I look in the N.T., Communion is in terms of the Gathering, the Day, the actual Consumption; not, on the contrary, anything about Reservation, Adoration, Genuflection, Tabernacle-Presence etc., which are now associated with the Eucharist in Catholicism.
It seems to me, from my own interpretation (admittedly flawed, being 100% human), that the totality of Eucharistic presence is in Communion. There is no explicit N.T. reference to reserving Him in the Tabernacle, only to eating Him. Christ said “eat my Body” - “do this in memory of Me”. He did not tell us to venerate His flesh, but to eat it (a form of veneration).
Some evangelicals I’ve met compare Adoration (not Communion) to the adoration given the Golden Calf of Exodus. They say that the Jews were worshiping the presence of an invisible God by using an invisible object: mere gold cast in the shape of a riding animal. God condemned this very sharply and harshly. Why should we worship the Eucharist, aside from eating Him?
The reasons above haven’t touched a nerve.
It seems to me, from my own interpretation (admittedly flawed, being 100% human), that the totality of Eucharistic presence is in Communion. There is no explicit N.T. reference to reserving Him in the Tabernacle, only to eating Him. Christ said “eat my Body” - “do this in memory of Me”. He did not tell us to venerate His flesh, but to eat it (a form of veneration).
Some evangelicals I’ve met compare Adoration (not Communion) to the adoration given the Golden Calf of Exodus. They say that the Jews were worshiping the presence of an invisible God by using an invisible object: mere gold cast in the shape of a riding animal. God condemned this very sharply and harshly. Why should we worship the Eucharist, aside from eating Him?
The reasons above haven’t touched a nerve.
S
Spirithound
Guest
We worship the Eucharist because the Eucharist is Jesus. Not just in his flesh, but His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are all present under the form of bread and wine. The Eucharist is the Living, Glorified Christ! This is most emphatically NOT a Golden Calf situation.Sorry to be a stick in the mud, but I feel iffy about worshiping the Eucharist. The Lord and the Epistles of Paul speak about eating, drinking, and consuming the Lord worthily. All the actions demonstrated in the Last Supper and discussed by St. Paul seem geared toward consumption. After this consumption or feast of the faithful, it seems the communal totality of Eucharistic church-unity is no longer present, Sunday being over. Everywhere I look in the N.T., Communion is in terms of the Gathering, the Day, the actual Consumption; not, on the contrary, anything about Reservation, Adoration, Genuflection, Tabernacle-Presence etc., which are now associated with the Eucharist in Catholicism.
It seems to me, from my own interpretation (admittedly flawed, being 100% human), that the totality of Eucharistic presence is in Communion. There is no explicit N.T. reference to reserving Him in the Tabernacle, only to eating Him. Christ said “eat my Body” - “do this in memory of Me”. He did not tell us to venerate His flesh, but to eat it (a form of veneration).
Some evangelicals I’ve met compare Adoration (not Communion) to the adoration given the Golden Calf of Exodus. They say that the Jews were worshiping the presence of an invisible God by using an invisible object: mere gold cast in the shape of a riding animal. God condemned this very sharply and harshly. Why should we worship the Eucharist, aside from eating Him?
Of course there has been some development over the years regarding what is considered acceptable worship, but very early on there is record of the deacons taking the Eucharist to those who could not be at the celebration itself. Perhaps it seemed a logical extension that a little more could be reserved over the week to be brought to the faithful if they fell sick on a day other than Sunday.
I’m not sure what you mean by “communal totality of Eucharistic church-unity”. Could you explain that?
G
GloriousOrder
Guest
By this, I was referring to the way Christ, Paul, and the Fathers seem to describe the Eucharist. They never cease to present it in a supper-like context. Any reference to sacrifice or worship is pointed toward the crucifixion, not the institution at the Last Supper.
Our Lord gives the Eucharist at a supper, not in isolation on a mountain top, say. Paul speaks of eating Him and drinking His Blood unworthily, which condemns those who do so. The Fathers speak of “the day of the Sun” (Tertullian), and how everyone is careful to let not one crumb fall from their hands during Communion. These early saints and teachers almost never mention the Eucharist outside the unifying “supper” aspect of a meal. Where is the early ideal of adoration and reservation?
I ask this in charity and love for truth, not bias.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Those are good observations. I think the answer is that adoration and reservation are not the ideals. Attendance at Mass and reception in that context is the ideal. However, I see worship outside the Mass as a logical extension of worship in the Mass.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Your question makes perfect sense. You are right to ask.
Your Evangelical friends will admit that if they were to study mathematics, they would necessarily rely on the work of mathematicians before them and would not start with elementary ideas like 2+2=4 and why you can’t divide by zero. Likewise, if they go to the hospital, they would not expect the doctors to start diagnosing an illness while ignoring the work of Henry Gray (Grays’ Anatomy - the book, not the TV show) or Antony Van Leeuwenhoek (discovered bacteria in the 1670’s). Car designers, meteorologists, computer chip designers, and brain surgeons, all use a body of knowledge that started before them and they build upon that body of knowledge. Theology - the study of God - is no different.
Your non-Catholic friends are trying to get you to believe that Eucharistic adoration is not Christian because it is not scriptural, not explicit in the Bible. The argument presupposes that understanding cannot increase, that doctrine cannot develop and that everything Christian must be in the Bible.
*There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25)*Not everything Jesus did is in the Bible nor does the Bible say that everything Christian must be in the Bible. The Bible never uses the word “Scriptural” or “Biblical.” Paul urges Timothy to adhere to “Correct” doctrine, not “Biblical” doctrine. And your Evangelical friends really don’t beleive that everything Christian has to be explicit, or even implicit in the Bible.
- Confessing sins directly to God in the privacy of one’s own heart and recieving forgivness for sins directly from God
- Accepting Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal Lord and savior
- Altar calls
- Adult only baptism
- Prayer journals
- Essential doctrines and non-essential doctrines
- Women clergy or pastors
- Baptism as a symbol of faith in Jesus and obedience to God
- The sufficiency of faith in Jesus Christ for entry into heaven
- Completele abstinance from alcohol
- Symbolic communion
- The Trinity
-Tim-
F
fishergal
Guest
The Eucharist is the real presence of Jesus in the form of bread and wine. Yes we adore and worship this Blessed Sacrament.
T
Tigg
Guest
Sorry to be a stick in the mud, but I feel iffy about worshiping the Eucharist. The Lord and the Epistles of Paul speak about eating, drinking, and consuming the Lord worthily. All the actions demonstrated in the Last Supper and discussed by St. Paul seem geared toward consumption. After this consumption or feast of the faithful, it seems the communal totality of Eucharistic church-unity is no longer present, Sunday being over. Everywhere I look in the N.T., Communion is in terms of the Gathering, the Day, the actual Consumption; not, on the contrary, anything about Reservation, Adoration, Genuflection, Tabernacle-Presence etc., which are now associated with the Eucharist in Catholicism.
It seems to me, from my own interpretation (admittedly flawed, being 100% human), that the totality of Eucharistic presence is in Communion. There is no explicit N.T. reference to reserving Him in the Tabernacle, only to eating Him. Christ said “eat my Body” - “do this in memory of Me”. He did not tell us to venerate His flesh, but to eat it (a form of veneration).
Some evangelicals I’ve met compare Adoration (not Communion) to the adoration given the Golden Calf of Exodus. They say that the Jews were worshiping the presence of an invisible God by using an invisible object: mere gold cast in the shape of a riding animal. God condemned this very sharply and harshly. Why should we worship the Eucharist, aside from eating Him?
The Eucharistic Jesus continues to be with us, even as He promised, beyond the liturgy and Communion. Should we leave Him alone in the tabernacle, unheeded, even though He is still present in His totality and due worship is to be given to Him? Adoration of the Eucharist is part of Sacred Tradition, so a bit of caution to remind us as Catholics, that we do not rely solely on Scripture.
Perhaps the great devotion shown by some of the saints and the wonders of their writings would help. St. Peter Julian Eymard, St. Margaret Mary Alacoque and St. Clare of Assisi come to mind, but there are dozens of others who spent long hours in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament.
You might also find this helpful - it is a brief history of Eucharistic Adoration. If you look at the tabs on top of the web page they will give you testimony and inspiration. For me personally, it is all about absolute belief in the Real Presence.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/pea/history.htm
Hope this helps.
G
GloriousOrder
Guest
Thank you very much, TimothyH and Tigg. 
Perhaps my problem was more with it really being Christ in the first place, not necessarily that Christ remains after Communion. Several things having fallen into place, I think I should say that my objection is answered. I hope the O.P. is satisfied!
Perhaps my problem was more with it really being Christ in the first place, not necessarily that Christ remains after Communion. Several things having fallen into place, I think I should say that my objection is answered. I hope the O.P. is satisfied!
B
Bran_Stark
Guest
I was just wondering about this today. And it seems to me that whether the Sacrament is physically Christ’s body or not, we should say “it”. Because a “body” is not quite the same as the person associated with the body.Gotta be careful with our terminology…as has been said, it’s “Him” not “it”.
Now it’s true that we can equally say “Tom’s body is in the room” and “Tom is in the room” to describe the same situation, but I would hold that since Our Lord goes through the trouble of saying “This is My body” instead of “This is Me”, we ought to follow suit and indicate that it’s not just the Second Person in general, but His body in particular. Just as we would say “it” for God’s love or God’s power.
J
japhy
Guest
The Eucharist is not just Christ body – the Eucharist is Christ in His whole and complete substance: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity; in other words, Christ is present in His complete humanity and Divinity in the Eucharist.
That said, I use the word “it” (sometimes capitalizing it, even…) for the Eucharist.
B
Bran_Stark
Guest
Ah but I don’t agree that your second clause does say the same thing in other words. One simply says “Christ = Eucharist”, and the other says “Christ is in the sacrament” - in the same way I am in my own body. There is no part of me that is not present in my body, but there is part of me - my soul - that is not part of my body.
Well if we are going to use only the simple equation of “Christ = Eucharist”, then I don’t see how that can be correct. Though His body is, Our Lord is not a neuter object but a living man.
D
Di_bear
Guest
I struggle with this, but there are some things that I find helpful:
The author goes on to explain “substance” and “accident” using a house as an example. The house is the substance. It is a house. However, you can change the appearance of the house by changing the paint, carpeting, and furniture. Those are the accidents. They are the parts of the house that can change without changing its substance: the fact that it is a house.
The Eucharist is just the opposite. The substance changes into the Body and Blood of Christ, but the accidents do not change: they continue to look like bread and wine.
Also:
The changing of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood is called transubstantiation. It is how Christ remains physically present to us. Don’t forget, blood is “life,” so it isn’t just an empty body, but Christ himself.
The Eucharist is difficult to understand and is a test of faith, but that is why it is a mystery. Perhaps it would help to meditate on this mystery and ask God for faith in this matter – especially after Communion, or while holding the host in your mouth. After all, we are Christians: God is our ultimate source of faith and understanding!
- Status