Mass question

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

billcu1

Guest
I wonder often what is meant that something is found in both species. The bread and wine. So you only have to take one as the recipient but the priest must consume both species according to canon law. Also what is consubstantiation? It has something to do with Mass.

PS What is the name of the book the deacon/celebrate holds high that is a “BIble” that the word is read from?
 
According to Jimmy Aiken: Jesus statements to “take and eat” and “drink this” were directed to the apostles, who are represented at Mass by the celebrating priest(s). Priests do not have the option of celebrating Mass but refraining from Communion under either species.

Consubstantiation is the heretical belief that the substance of the bread and wine remain, together with the substance of the Real Presence of Christ, after the consecration. Catholics believe in Transubstantiation where only the accidents of the bread and wine remain, not their substance. The only substance after the consecration is Christ’s Body and Blood while only the appearance (accidents) of bread and wine remain.

The book is the Book of the Gospels.
 
If I am not mistaken, it is Lutherans who are the biggest proponents of consubstantiation.
 
Mary_Ellen said:
According to Jimmy Aiken: Jesus statements to “take and eat” and “drink this” were directed to the apostles, who are represented at Mass by the celebrating priest(s). Priests do not have the option of celebrating Mass but refraining from Communion under either species.

Consubstantiation is the heretical belief that the substance of the bread and wine remain, together with the substance of the Real Presence of Christ, after the consecration. Catholics believe in Transubstantiation where only the accidents of the bread and wine remain, not their substance. The only substance after the consecration is Christ’s Body and Blood while only the appearance (accidents) of bread and wine remain.

The book is the Book of the Gospels.
Click to expand...
I see then. Consubstantiation isn’t a Catholic idea then. I’ve always been confused as to what he was saying. It sounds like cannibalism. Surely this was allegorical, the part about eating my flesh and drinking my blood.
 
billcu1 said:
I see then. Consubstantiation isn’t a Catholic idea then. I’ve always been confused as to what he was saying. It sounds like cannibalism. Surely this was allegorical, the part about eating my flesh and drinking my blood.
Click to expand...
But Roman Catholics believe that the Eucharist is indeed the literal flesh and blood of Jesus…it’s not a symbol nor is it allegory. Transubstantiation means that although the bread looks, tastes, feels, smells etc. like bread, it is NOT bread. It is the literal body of Christ. The accidents (or properties/characteristics) of the bread remain but the substance is changed.
 
praestat_fides said:
But Roman Catholics believe that the Eucharist is indeed the literal flesh and blood of Jesus…it’s not a symbol. Transubstantiation means that although the bread looks, tastes, feels, smells etc. like bread, it is NOT bread. It is the literal body of Christ. The accidents (or properties/characteristics) of the bread remain but the substance is changed.
Click to expand...
But why? Why would he want cannibalism practiced?
 
billcu1 said:
But why? Why would he want cannibalism practiced?
Click to expand...
To be honest with you, I do not believe in transubstantiation. Those on this forum who do can answer that question better than I. 😃
 
billcu1 said:
But why? Why would he want cannibalism practiced?
Click to expand...
Let me ask you this question. If you believe that consuming someone’s flesh and blood is cannibalism, why would it make a difference whether it was Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation?
 
ProVobis said:
Let me ask you this question. If you believe that consuming someone’s flesh and blood is cannibalism, why would it make a difference whether it were Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. I am not sure what Consubstantiation is. I thought it might be a Catholic theological term. I now know it isn’t. Now I know what transubstantiation is. I wondered what was the difference. Consubstantiation is evidently Lutheran.
Since transubstantiation is the literal belief in consuming flesh and blood that sounds like cannibalism. Wasn’t at this point many disciples walked off?
 
You could think of it this way:
Jesus is the Lamb, that Jews would eat for Passover.
 
Consubstantiation: You are eating Jesus’ flesh and a piece of bread at the same time…they are both there.

Transubstantiation: You are only eating Jesus’ flesh even though it APPEARS you are eating bread.
 
billcu1 said:
I don’t know. I am not sure what Consubstantiation is. I thought it might be a Catholic theological term. I now know it isn’t. Now I know what transubstantiation is. I wondered what was the difference. Consubstantiation is evidently Lutheran.
Since transubstantiation is the literal belief in consuming flesh and blood that sounds like cannibalism. Wasn’t at this point many disciples walked off?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, consubstantiation (con “with,” sub “under”, stantis “stands”) means the substance is both under flesh/blood and bread/wine. Transubstantiation (trans “across,” sub “under”, stantis “stands”) means the substance has been trans-ed to only flesh/blood. However it is also the Soul and Divinity of Christ, which is the real reason for communion.
 
billcu1 said:
But why? Why would he want cannibalism practiced?
Click to expand...
This is from my DRB John 6:51-58

51I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

54 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

He said it three times, “eat my flesh and drink my blood.” My non-Catholic wife says that Jesus was talking about symbolism here. His followers ran from him saying, “this is hard, and who can hear it?” Jesus knew what was in their hearts. He could have ran after them saying that He was only talking symbolism, but he didn’t. He let them go. I believe our Lords words. I don’t worry about cannibalism. Lord Jesus I trust in You. :signofcross:
 
billcu1 said:
I don’t know. I am not sure what Consubstantiation is. I thought it might be a Catholic theological term. I now know it isn’t. Now I know what transubstantiation is. I wondered what was the difference. Consubstantiation is evidently Lutheran.
Since transubstantiation is the literal belief in consuming flesh and blood that sounds like cannibalism. Wasn’t at this point many disciples walked off?
Click to expand...
Billcu1,
That’s exactly why many disciples walked off, because He was talking about literally eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood. But you’ll note that Jesus did not correct them and in fact turned to those remaining and asked if they, too, would leave Him. But this is not cannibalism:
(1) Cannibals eat what is dead, the Eucharist is living.
(2) Cannibals eat only part of their victims, when we consume the Eucharist we consume the entirety of Christ - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The constraints of space and matter don’t apply; a larger Host doesn’t mean a larger portion of Jesus’ Body. Even receiving from the Precious Cup is unnecessary: by “concomitance,” when a communicant receives the Host, he also receives the Precious Blood.
(3) We consume the glorified Body of Jesus, not a resuscitated corpse but a resurrected “spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:44), completely transformed, transfigured flesh, not at all what cannibals consume.
(4) When you eat food, it becomes a part of you. With the Eucharist, however, the opposite happens. We become a part of it, that is, in Holy Communion, we are made a part of the mystical body of Christ. In our Lord’s words, those who eat His flesh and drink His blood abide in Him (Jn. 6.40).
(5) The Eucharist is non-violent whereas cannibalism is inherently violent.

So, the disciples were horrified by what they heard but were wrong to identify it as cannibalism because the Eucharist is NOT another form of cannibalism. The Eucharist is holy union with Life itself. Cannibalistic acts may seek to imitate that act but fall far short.
 
Mary_Ellen said:
But this is not cannibalism:
Click to expand...
To bring up cannibalism in the context of sacrifice, one would also have to bring up Abraham (and perhaps others?) being prepared to offer up his own son until he was stopped. (In the OT, the sacrifice wasn’t completed until parts of the victim were consumed.) He was only following God’s instructions; I don’t think it’s fair to drop labels where that’s the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top