Holy Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter coco2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ralphinal said:
I attend adoration for at least an hour every week. I have never read or been told anything to imply that it is primary over the actual Eucharist. One is a sacrament, the other is a natural offshoot of who the Eucharist is.
QUOTE]

I didn’t say nor mean to imply that Catholics would consider it such, at least most Catholics, and I know the Church doesn’t.
Would a Eucharistic procession bother you?/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
JonNC said:
ralphinal;4536240:
I attend adoration for at least an hour every week. I have never read or been told anything to imply that it is primary over the actual Eucharist. One is a sacrament, the other is a natural offshoot of who the Eucharist is.
QUOTE]

I didn’t say nor mean to imply that Catholics would consider it such, at least most Catholics, and I know the Church doesn’t.

I don’t know, Ralph. Honestly, having been raised Lutheran, I guess I would probably be uncomfortable with it. I know that Luther, who held that adoration was ok, was not a fan of Corpus Christi processions. My thought would be, afterall, if it points
to Christ present in the Eucharist for us to eat and drink…

I know. That doesn’t sound very Lutheran, does it?

Jon
Click to expand...
Yes and no. It is logical and thought out, which tends to be a sign of Lutheranism. It is not hardline enough, though. 😃
Click to expand...
 
JonNC said:
ralphinal;4536372:
Yes. Both Leo and ML missed it. The question on my mind is always: that was then, this is now. What do we do now?

Jon
Click to expand...
Well, as somebody said recently, back then the big boat was half wrecked and full of leaks, so a lot of people jumped ship and took to the lifeboats. But now the big boat is pretty much ship-shape but the life boats are looking pretty bad.

We have a ladder for you. C’mon aboard.
Click to expand...
 
mercygate said:
It is absolutely imperative that the consecrated elements be consumed in both kinds for the Catholic Sacrament to be valid.
Click to expand...
mercygate,

Could you explain and expand on that? What do you envision when you say “for the sacrament to be valid?”

Thanks!
VC
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
You may want to enlist the aid of Google to get at this in depth, but in brief:

Catholics teach that the bread and wine become, upon consecration, the body and blood of Jesus Christ, with only the appearances of the bread and wine remaining. The technical term for this is “transubstantiation,” and the teaching precedes the term by many centuries. The Eastern Orthodox believe the same, and the Catholic Church acknowledges that, because their Holy Orders remain valid, they have the true Holy Eucharist.

Lutherans claim “consubstantiation,” with the bread and wine not changing, but with the body and blood of Christ somehow coexisting with it.

Anglicans are, quite frankly, all over the map. Some claim real presence, through an unspecified mechanism, but deny both trans- and consubstantiation. Others deny any real presence, and speak in terms of a spiritual presence of some sort - again, there’s variations. It pretty much depends on who you read, or who you talk to.

Those are the differences in a nutshell, although there is more to the positions of each group. However, where one claims transubstantiation, another consubstantiation, and another neither, one can see why they separate at the Liturgy of the Eucharist. They are not celebrating the same thing, even though they all use the word “Eucharist” to describe what they celebrate.

Blessings,

Gerry
Click to expand...
And, to spread a little further around the map, some Anglicans affirm transubstantiation.

Takes a scorecard, I know.

GKC
 
ralphinal said:
OK. I was not sure.

After the service, what happens to any left over Consecrated Bread and Wine?
Click to expand...
Jumping right in, late, I reply that in my parish, and in all parishes I know off, the Body is reserved in the Tabernacle, and the Blood is consumed. It vessels are washed in the piscina. And nobody touches the Body or Blood save that they be ordained.

GKC
 
mercygate said:
It is absolutely imperative that the consecrated elements be consumed in both kinds for the Catholic Sacrament to be valid. That said, it IS possible (though not recommended) for a solitary priest to say Mass. And because the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are fully present in BOTH elements, we allow the Eucharist to be received in only one kind by the faithful. The celebrant MUST partake of both.

I believe Catholic understanding of the persistence of Christ’s Presence is derived from two things: 1) Our Lord’s word “IS” – He does not say that IS becomes “not IS” – and 2) the practice of the primitive Church of carrying the Sacrament from the churh to the sick. It would be pointless to carry “not IS” to the sick. (We still do this.)
Click to expand...
I myself have been present for the purpose of receving, so Mass may be celebrated, in my Anglican parish.

GKC
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
I can take you to Anglican churches here in Greater Vancouver where the Rector would agree with you 100%. And, I can take you to places where the Rector will give you a very rough ride for even using the term"real presence".

They are all over the map, and there’s more of these clergymen than there is of you, so I’m sticking with with “all over the map.” It’s not an opinion; it’s an observation.

Blessings,

Gerry
Click to expand...
And you’re correct, in general.

GKC
 
Verbum_Caro said:
mercygate,

Could you explain and expand on that? What do you envision when you say “for the sacrament to be valid?”

Thanks!
VC
Click to expand...
The Order of the sacrament, under the discipline of the Church follows Our Lord’s command: “do this.” Just as the bread must be made of wheat flour and water, with no other ingredients, and the wine must be from grapes and of a certain alcoholic content, the Church insists that the celebrant receive in both Kinds.
 
GKC said:
Jumping right in, late, I reply that in my parish, and in all parishes I know off, the Body is reserved in the Tabernacle, and the Blood is consumed. It vessels are washed in the piscina. And nobody touches the Body or Blood save that they be ordained.

GKC
Click to expand...
When I was an Episcopalian ONLY the priest or deacon washed the purificators.
 
JonNC said:
ralphinal;4536372:
Yes. Both Leo and ML missed it. The question on my mind is always: that was then, this is now. What do we do now?

Jon
Click to expand...
I am beginning to formulate an idea. We spoke about it Tuesday night after Adoration. It was specifically about Anglicans, but I think any denomination would work.

We trade our goofballs for their orthodox. We set us an Anglican rite within the Church, restoring valid orders. Yes, the Pope would need to be seen as head of the Church, but I think stability is worth it. We have not figured out how to deal with the other issues, but it is a start.

Now, once we do this, the goofballs that are no longer Catholic and the goofballs that are left in the Anglican/Episcopal Communities can form up the sho’nuff goofball church.
Click to expand...
 
ralphinal said:
JonNC;4536438:
I am beginning to formulate an idea. We spoke about it Tuesday night after Adoration. It was specifically about Anglicans, but I think any denomination would work.

We trade our goofballs for their orthodox. We set us an Anglican rite within the Church, restoring valid orders. Yes, the Pope would need to be seen as head of the Church, but I think stability is worth it. We have not figured out how to deal with the other issues, but it is a start.

Now, once we do this, the goofballs that are no longer Catholic and the goofballs that are left in the Anglican/Episcopal Communities can form up the sho’nuff goofball church.
Click to expand...
Can one imagine someday a Lutheran rite?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top