Non-Catholics - What does the word "Sacrament" mean to you?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveVH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
😉
Anna_Scott said:
Steve,

Here are the two links to compare the Catholic and Episcopal liturgy of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Eucharist-Catholic liturgy:
“Liturgy of the Eucharist,” Catholic Liturgical Library (catholicliturgy.com):
catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/Text/Index/4/SubIndex/67/ContentIndex/11/Start/9

Eucharist-Episcopal liturgy:
Link to The 1979 U.S. Book of Common Prayer: justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/formatted_1979.htm.
Scroll down to the Eucharist, and you will find the liturgy for Rite 1 and 2. There is a Rite 1 and Rite 2 Episcopal Eucharist, every Sunday.

This prayer, which I quoted in an earlier post, is from the Episcopal Eucharist Rite 2.

“. . . . We pray you, gracious God, to send your Holy Spirit upon these gives that they may be the Sacrament of the Body of Christ and his Blood of the new Covenant. Unite us to your Son in his sacrifice, that we may be acceptable through him, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit. In the fullness of time, put all things in subjection under your Christ and bring us to that heavenly country where, with the Blessed Virgin Mary, Blessed (our patron saint), and all your saints, we may enter the everlasting heritage of your sons and daughters; through Jesus Christ our Lord, the firstborn of all creation, the head of the Church, and the author of our salvation. By him, and with him, and in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit all honor and glory is yours, Almighty Father, now and for ever.” . . . .

I’m really interested in you comments, if you have a chance to look at the Episcopal liturgy. No rush. 🙂

Anna
Click to expand...
Anna, for all intents and purposes I see no difference in the Eucharistic prayers. They have all the components of the Catholic prayer.

THE PREFACE: We begin the Eucharistic prayer by giving thanks to God by singing the “Holy, Holy, Holy” and believe that heaven (communion of Saints) joins us in this song
of praise and thanksgiving to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

THE EPICLESIS: The Church asks the Father to send His Holy Spirit on the bread and wine, so that by His power they become the body and blood of Jesus.

INSTITUTION NARRATIVE: This is when the priest repeats the words of Christ “…this is my body which is given for you”, this is my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant…" It is at this moment that we believe the bread and wine are changed (substantially, in substance) into the body and blood of our Lord.

THE ANAMNESIS: We call to mind the Passion, resurrection and return of Jesus and present to the Father the offering of the Son.

INTERCESSION: The Church states that the Eucharist is celebrated in communion with the whole Church in heaven and on earth, the living and the dead, and in communion with the pastors of the Church, the Pope, the diocesan bishop, priests, deacons and all the bishops of the whole world, together with all in their Churches.
(Paraphrase from CCC par. 1352 - 1354)

From what I can see, the same points are covered and in some case the exact language is used. I have an interesting quote that I’ll put in another post, a description of the Mass from St. Justin Martyr.
 
Palaeologos said:
Well, actually “Reformed” ideas were in the C of E since Edward VI. That’s the point at which the more radical Protestants among the English clergy (Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, et al.) started to push their agenda more heavily. Henry (who really wanted State Catholicism a la Their Catholic Majesties of Spain) was gone, Edward was sickly, and he’d been well catechized by his Lutheran-leaning guardians. And the service of Holy Communion in the 1552 BCP is almost Zwinglian in its iconoclastic simplicity–quite a departure from the 1549, which was much more Catholic in its form (most of the Eucharistic Prayer in the 1552 is said after the elements have been consumed by the congregation, and the words “the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ” are not spoken by the minister as he administers them).

Cranmer was pretty much always Reformed–he just had to hide it under Henry VIII. See Diarmaid McCulloch’s biography, which is quite enlightening.
Click to expand...
Very true, especially in regards to Cranmer. Zwinglianism was always the bane of the doctrinal reformation. The Zwinglians tried to infiltrate Lutheranism, as well. They had a willing accomplice, unfortunately, in Philip Melancthon. Thankfully, men like Martin Chemnitz saw through the crypto-Calvinists (as they were called in Germany) and made sure that the Lutheran confessions remained catholic on the sacraments.
 
Anna_Scott said:
Very interesting. Is Lutheran doctrine more or less “Reformed” than Episcopal doctrine?
Click to expand...
It can’t be compared to either, really. Lutherans hate being compared to the Reformed in any way, shape, or form. We often get lumped in with them because we believe that salvation is monergistic. Beyond that, however, we share very little in common with Reformed doctrine. I would say, in the main, it’s closer to Episcopal, at least in regards to Anglo-Catholicism. We would say that Reformed theology is no more correct than Catholic theology is. Martin Luther, for his part, despised proto-Calvinism (in the form of Ulrich Zwingli). I mean, he hated Zwingli far more than the Pope. He considered the Pope at least nominally Christian. Luther stated in numerous letters that he wouldn’t even consider Zwingli a brother or co-religionist.

Granted, the Reformed assert justification sola fide; but they flirt with heresy when it comes to Christology; they minimize baptism, celebrate a false version of communion; they assert the hellish doctrine of limited atonement and double predestination. The whole thing leaves a bad taste in our mouths. When Lutherans speak of the Reformation, they never use the term in connection with the Calvinists, anabaptists, Zwinglians, etc…
 
The following narrative is from St. Justin Martyr around the year 155 AD. He is writing to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius in response to be asked what Chritians did when they met. I’m not really trying to hijack my own thread. Just thought this may demonstrate how basically unchanged the Mass is from the early Church who definately celebrated the sacrament of the Eucharist.

“On the day we call the day of the sun (sorry Seventh Day Adventists) all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place”. THE GATHERING.

“The memoirs of the apostles and the writing of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.” LITURGY OF THE WORD.

“When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gatherd admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.” HOMILY OR SERMON.

“Then we gather together and offer prayers for ourselves and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may by found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.” PRAYERS OF THE FAITHFUL.

“When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.” KISS OF PEACE.

“Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the bretheren.” OFFERTORY OR PREPERATION.

“He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the Universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.” EUCHARISTIC PRAYER.

“When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying ‘Amen’.” THE GREAT AMEN.

“When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the ‘eucharisted’ bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.” COMMUNION.

This was written in 155 AD explaing what the Church does, in other words the Church had been doing this from the beginning. It clearly defines each part of the Mass that is celebrated in the same way today. I notice the “Creed” is not mentioned, but I’m not sure exactly when the Apostles Creed was formed. The Nicene Creed, obviously, had not been formulated yet.
 
SteveVH said:
😉

Anna, for all intents and purposes I see no difference in the Eucharistic prayers. They have all the components of the Catholic prayer.
Click to expand...
Pretty similar to what we use as a communion liturgy, Steve.

OFFERINGS, INTERCESSORY PRAYER, LORD’S PRAYER

PREFACE
M: The Lord be with you
C: And with your spirit.
M: Lift up your hearts.
C: We lift them up to the Lord
M: Let us give thanks to the Lord, our God
C: It is meet and right so to do.

M: It is truly fitting and right, and for our lasting good, that we should at all times and in all places, give thanks to you, O Lord God, holy Father, almighty and eternal God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. But most of all we thank you for the glorious resurrection of our Lord. He has destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light. We thank you for exalting him as Lord of all and for placing all things under his feet. We thank you that through him you will free the whole of creation from its bondage to decay and create a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness is at home. And so with all the powers and authorities that adore you, and the whole of creation that rejoices in you; with earth and sea and sky, with mountains and hills and valleys, with rivers and fields and deserts, with plants and trees and animals; with all your saints in heaven and on earth; with angels and archangels, cherubim and seraphim, we praise your name and join their unending hymn:

SANCTUS

WORDS OF INSTITUTION, AGNUS DEI

DISTRIBUTION: Typically, the communicants will come to the altar in groups and kneel at the altar rail. The minister will then give each communicant the bread and wine, saying “Take and eat, this is the true body of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, given in to death for the forgiveness of all of your sins. Take and drink, this is the true blood of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, shed on the cross, for the remission of all of your sins.” As each group leaves, the minister will recite a blessing, “Now may this, the true body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, keep and preserve you in the one true faith unto life everlasting. Depart in peace, (sign of the cross) your sins forgiven.”

SONG OF SIMEON
PRAYER OF THANKSGIVING

Since we’re mentioning liturgies, it wouldn’t be complete without a communion hymn. My favorite happens to be the hymn What is This Bread?

*What is this bread?
Christ’s body risen from the dead.
This bread we break,
this life we take,
was crushed to pay for our release.
O taste and see - the Lord is peace.

What is this wine?
The blood of Jesus shed for mine.
The cup of grace,
brings his embrace,
of love and life until I sing.
O taste and see - the Lord is king.

So who am I?
That I should live and he should die,
under the rod?
My God, my God,
why have you not forsaken me?
O taste and see - the Lord is free.

Yet is God here?
Oh, yes! By word and promise clear.
In mouth and soul,
He makes us whole.
Christ truly present in this meal.
O taste and see - the Lord is real.

Is this for me?
I am forgiven and set free!
I do believe,
that I receive,
His very body and His blood.
O taste and see - the Lord is good.*
 
TriuneUnity said:
Pretty similar to what we use as a communion liturgy, Steve.

OFFERINGS, INTERCESSORY PRAYER, LORD’S PRAYER

PREFACE
M: The Lord be with you
C: And with your spirit.
M: Lift up your hearts.
C: We lift them up to the Lord
M: Let us give thanks to the Lord, our God
C: It is meet and right so to do.

M: It is truly fitting and right, and for our lasting good, that we should at all times and in all places, give thanks to you, O Lord God, holy Father, almighty and eternal God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. But most of all we thank you for the glorious resurrection of our Lord. He has destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light. We thank you for exalting him as Lord of all and for placing all things under his feet. We thank you that through him you will free the whole of creation from its bondage to decay and create a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness is at home. And so with all the powers and authorities that adore you, and the whole of creation that rejoices in you; with earth and sea and sky, with mountains and hills and valleys, with rivers and fields and deserts, with plants and trees and animals; with all your saints in heaven and on earth; with angels and archangels, cherubim and seraphim, we praise your name and join their unending hymn:

SANCTUS

WORDS OF INSTITUTION, AGNUS DEI

DISTRIBUTION: Typically, the communicants will come to the altar in groups and kneel at the altar rail. The minister will then give each communicant the bread and wine, saying “Take and eat, this is the true body of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, given in to death for the forgiveness of all of your sins. Take and drink, this is the true blood of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, shed on the cross, for the remission of all of your sins.” As each group leaves, the minister will recite a blessing, “Now may this, the true body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, keep and preserve you in the one true faith unto life everlasting. Depart in peace, (sign of the cross) your sins forgiven.”

SONG OF SIMEON
PRAYER OF THANKSGIVING

Since we’re mentioning liturgies, it wouldn’t be complete without a communion hymn. My favorite happens to be the hymn What is This Bread?

*What is this bread?
Christ’s body risen from the dead.
This bread we break,
this life we take,
was crushed to pay for our release.
O taste and see - the Lord is peace.

What is this wine?
The blood of Jesus shed for mine.
The cup of grace,
brings his embrace,
of love and life until I sing.
O taste and see - the Lord is king.

So who am I?
That I should live and he should die,
under the rod?
My God, my God,
why have you not forsaken me?
O taste and see - the Lord is free.

Yet is God here?
Oh, yes! By word and promise clear.
In mouth and soul,
He makes us whole.
Christ truly present in this meal.
O taste and see - the Lord is real.

Is this for me?
I am forgiven and set free!
I do believe,
that I receive,
His very body and His blood.
O taste and see - the Lord is good.*
Click to expand...
TriuneUnity, thanks for that. Its pretty evident that the liturgical churches all have common roots. It makes me long for unity, something for which we all need to pray.
 
Anna_Scott said:
He celebrates the Eucharist in a way that is almost identical to the Catholic Eucharist. He does reserve consecrated bread and wine to be administered to those who are home-bound or ill. The consecrated bread and wine are never disposed of. They are always consumed.

Even though the Articles say the consecrated bread and wine are not to be “reserved” or “carried about,” they are in this particular Church. Sorry for the repetition. 😊

The Priest says not to worry about transubstantiation–that he does not get into the Aristotelian view of substance and matter; but says the important thing is, during these Sacraments, “God shows up.” This is a good simple explanation of the Sacraments for people like me coming from the Baptist Church.

As I posted before, he said just as he has faith that Christ is both man and God; he has faith that the bread and wine are both “bread and wine” and the “body and blood” of Christ.

Anna
Click to expand...
 
TriuneUnity said:
It can’t be compared to either, really. Lutherans hate being compared to the Reformed in any way, shape, or form. We often get lumped in with them because we believe that salvation is monergistic. Beyond that, however, we share very little in common with Reformed doctrine. I would say, in the main, it’s closer to Episcopal, at least in regards to Anglo-Catholicism. We would say that Reformed theology is no more correct than Catholic theology is. Martin Luther, for his part, despised proto-Calvinism (in the form of Ulrich Zwingli). I mean, he hated Zwingli far more than the Pope. He considered the Pope at least nominally Christian. Luther stated in numerous letters that he wouldn’t even consider Zwingli a brother or co-religionist.

Granted, the Reformed assert justification sola fide; but they flirt with heresy when it comes to Christology; they minimize baptism, celebrate a false version of communion; they assert the hellish doctrine of limited atonement and double predestination. The whole thing leaves a bad taste in our mouths. When Lutherans speak of the Reformation, they never use the term in connection with the Calvinists, anabaptists, Zwinglians, etc…
Click to expand...
TriuneUnity,

This is so interesting to me. Your posts have really given me a better understanding of the Lutheran faith. It is important to look at the origins of beliefs and all the factors that influenced the development of doctrines.

Your comments about “sola fide” and “flirting with heresy” in Christology brings us to a critical point in discussing the Sacraments. The Reformed versions of Baptism and Communion are proclaimed with such passion in the Protestant sector. The question is why? How did Protestantism stray so far from Orthodox Christianity? I realize these are questions for another thread. I’m really just thinking out loud.
SteveVH said:
The following narrative is from St. Justin Martyr around the year 155 AD. He is writing to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius in response to be asked what Chritians did when they met. I’m not really trying to hijack my own thread. Just thought this may demonstrate how basically unchanged the Mass is from the early Church who definately celebrated the sacrament of the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Steve,

Great post. It is quite amazing that the celebration of the Eucharist has changed so little.

I don’t understand how the Baptist (and other Protestant) abandonment of the Sacraments can remain in view of both Scripture and the practices of the early Church.

I have found a rather disturbing trend on the forums. I know Baptists post here. Yet, when a discussion produces information that contradicts their doctrine, they are “conspicuously” silent. I’m trying to understand this. If we continue with certain beliefs, we do need to find credible support for them. Otherwise, we must question those beliefs and why we have accepted them.

I started a Thread on January 22, 2010 entitled, “Baptists, Does Scripture point to the Catholic Lord’s Supper/Eucharist?” I made sure “Baptist” was the first word in the thread title, so anyone surfing the “non-Catholic” forums would see this question addressed to Baptists. I started this Thread just before I submitted my formal resignation to the Baptist Church and just before my first visit to the Episcopal Church. There were wonderful posts on that thread, supporting the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Sadly, no Baptists would address John Chapter 6, regarding consuming the body and blood of Christ. This is from my last post on that Thread:
Anna_Scott said:
. . . .I gave an invitation to Baptists to discuss John Chapter 6. Sadly, only one Baptist actually posted on this Thread, and he did not address John Chapter 6.

So, I had absolutely no response from Baptists regarding these passages of Scripture that point to the “Real Presence.” I know there are a number of Baptists, here, at CAF. I found the lack of response very disturbing. . . . .
Click to expand...
Steve,

This thread has produced so much information on the Sacraments. It is actually surprising to find that the liturgy is so similar in Catholic, Episcopal/Anglican, and Lutheran celebrations of the Eucharist. I don’t think we have heard from Eastern Orthodox, unless I missed a post. I should PM Byzantine_Wolf and see if he will comment.

Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
TriuneUnity,

This is so interesting to me. Your posts have really given me a better understanding of the Lutheran faith.
Click to expand...
Glad I could do so!
Your comments about “sola fide”
Click to expand...
A minor addition here, too. While the Reformed believe that we receive the grace of justification through faith alone; they disagree with how we are given faith. Lutherans assert we receive faith through the preaching of the word and through the Sacraments. The Reformed deny that faith is given by God through the Sacraments, merely that faith is “confirmed.”
and “flirting with heresy” in Christology brings us to a critical point in discussing the Sacraments. The Reformed versions of Baptism and Communion are proclaimed with such passion in the Protestant sector. The question is why? How did Protestantism stray so far from Orthodox Christianity? I realize these are questions for another thread. I’m really just thinking out loud.
Click to expand...
Nominalism, largely. The Reformed considered the Roman Catholic view of the Sacraments “too mystical,” (as if God becoming a human is somehow not!) and infected with superstition. At the root, however, going back to the Christology issue, is a faulty view of the human-divine natures of Christ. The Reformed believe that the human nature of Christ is restricted to its presence in heaven. Since it’s a true human body, it cannot be present in more than one location at a time (multiple altars, for example). So, therefore, Christ cannot be bodily present in the eucharist. Hence the “spiritual presence” view.

What is lost on this near-Nestorian view…is that Christ does indeed have a true human nature which is not confused or mixed with the divine… However, He still has a divine nature! Therefore, when His divine nature does something, by extension, the ENTIRE Christ, including the human nature, does it, because Christ is ONE person. One can logically say, a natural human body cannot walk on water; a natural human body can not appear and disappear, cannot multiply fish, raise the dead, etc. ALL of these were done by Christ as both human and divine. Therefore, Christ’s human nature can be present in the eucharist because the divine communicates with the human at will. It doesn’t deify it, but it does manifest deity through it (this is referred to as the genus majestaticum).
 
TriuneUnity said:
Glad I could do so!

A minor addition here, too. While the Reformed believe that we receive the grace of justification through faith alone; they disagree with how we are given faith. Lutherans assert we receive faith through the preaching of the word and through the Sacraments. The Reformed deny that faith is given by God through the Sacraments, merely that faith is “confirmed.”

Nominalism, largely. The Reformed considered the Roman Catholic view of the Sacraments “too mystical,” (as if God becoming a human is somehow not!) and infected with superstition. At the root, however, going back to the Christology issue, is a faulty view of the human-divine natures of Christ. The Reformed believe that the human nature of Christ is restricted to its presence in heaven. Since it’s a true human body, it cannot be present in more than one location at a time (multiple altars, for example). So, therefore, Christ cannot be bodily present in the eucharist. Hence the “spiritual presence” view.

What is lost on this near-Nestorian view…is that Christ does indeed have a true human nature which is not confused or mixed with the divine… However, He still has a divine nature! Therefore, when His divine nature does something, by extension, the ENTIRE Christ, including the human nature, does it, because Christ is ONE person. One can logically say, a natural human body cannot walk on water; a natural human body can not appear and disappear, cannot multiply fish, raise the dead, etc. ALL of these were done by Christ as both human and divine. Therefore, Christ’s human nature can be present in the eucharist because the divine communicates with the human at will. It doesn’t deify it, but it does manifest deity through it (this is referred to as the genus majestaticum).
Click to expand...
TriuneUnity,

Thank you so much for the information! This is something I have never heard; and it makes sense. Unfortunately, study of Christian history is not emphasized in the Baptist Church. The same is true for many other Protestant Churches. It is as if the first 1500 years of Christianity never existed.

I am beginning to feel like the door of Christianity has been opened, and I am stepping inside for the first time.

In Christ,
Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
TriuneUnity,

Thank you so much for the information! This is something I have never heard; and it makes sense. Unfortunately, study of Christian history is not emphasized in the Baptist Church. The same is true for many other Protestant Churches. It is as if the first 1500 years of Christianity never existed.

I am beginning to feel like the door of Christianity has been opened, and I am stepping inside for the first time.

In Christ,
Anna
Click to expand...
Of course the Lutherans and Episcoples only go back 500 as wel 😉

Just sayn… 😛

🙂
 
Anna_Scott said:
TriuneUnity,

Thank you so much for the information! This is something I have never heard; and it makes sense. Unfortunately, study of Christian history is not emphasized in the Baptist Church. The same is true for many other Protestant Churches. It is as if the first 1500 years of Christianity never existed.
Click to expand...
Too true, sadly. This is the result of the revivalism that swept through America in the 1800s. Wherein you had a bunch of churches spring up that thought they were reinventing the wheel back to “apostolic Christianity” and thus, they were the true church, so the prior 1800 years didn’t matter.
It’s even more of a shame when chronological anachronism is displayed by Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans as well. We should know better. Poor catechism, though, always accounts for it (and most of the time because we Americans are too lazy to think about “boring” topics like doctrine, theology, and church history.)
I am beginning to feel like the door of Christianity has been opened, and I am stepping inside for the first time.
Click to expand...
In Christ,
Anna
Click to expand...
Well, I have no doubt that you were a Christian when you were Baptist (Jesus justifies even them! haha). It’s nice to know what you believe and why you believe it, though.
 
TriuneUnity said:
For your theological edification LOL

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n6_v113/ai_18042037/

timhansenproject.com/lyrics/Lutheran%20Jello.pdf
Click to expand...
Oh, the lessons on Lutheranism. Keep’m coming. 😉
crazzeto said:
Of course the Lutherans and Episcoples only go back 500 as wel 😉

Just sayn… 😛

🙂
Click to expand...
You crack me up :rotfl: I do realize that I walked right into that one; and, of course, it would be you, crazzeto, who pointed this out. lol. I know. . . .you’re “just sayn…”

Anna
 
SteveVH said:
😉

Anna, for all intents and purposes I see no difference in the Eucharistic prayers. They have all the components of the Catholic prayer.

THE PREFACE: We begin the Eucharistic prayer by giving thanks to God by singing the “Holy, Holy, Holy” and believe that heaven (communion of Saints) joins us in this song
of praise and thanksgiving to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

THE EPICLESIS: The Church asks the Father to send His Holy Spirit on the bread and wine, so that by His power they become the body and blood of Jesus.

INSTITUTION NARRATIVE: This is when the priest repeats the words of Christ “…this is my body which is given for you”, this is my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant…" It is at this moment that we believe the bread and wine are changed (substantially, in substance) into the body and blood of our Lord.

THE ANAMNESIS: We call to mind the Passion, resurrection and return of Jesus and present to the Father the offering of the Son.

INTERCESSION: The Church states that the Eucharist is celebrated in communion with the whole Church in heaven and on earth, the living and the dead, and in communion with the pastors of the Church, the Pope, the diocesan bishop, priests, deacons and all the bishops of the whole world, together with all in their Churches.
(Paraphrase from CCC par. 1352 - 1354)

From what I can see, the same points are covered and in some case the exact language is used. I have an interesting quote that I’ll put in another post, a description of the Mass from St. Justin Martyr.
Click to expand...
Steve,

Thanks for posting this. The liturgy is so similar to Episcopal liturgy.

The difference would be in transubstantiation. I do have a question about that. Is the consecrated Bread reserved in the Sanctuary? I heard something about his.

Anna
 
Anna_Scott said:
Steve,

Thanks for posting this. The liturgy is so similar to Episcopal liturgy.

The difference would be in transubstantiation. I do have a question about that. Is the consecrated Bread reserved in the Sanctuary? I heard something about his.

Anna
Click to expand...
Yes, the consecrated Bread (or “hosts”) is reserved specifically in the tabernacle. Generally, the tabernacle is directly behind (or on) the altar, or in a side chapel. This is why Catholics genuflect when getting into and out of the pew, or when passing the tabernacle, out of respect. One also bows before the altar. Whenever I visited the National Shrine and St. Matthew’s Cathedral in DC, it was always interesting to watch people genuflect to the altar, since the tabernacles in those churches are actually in side chapels. 😛
 
TheosisM said:
Yes, the consecrated Bread (or “hosts”) is reserved specifically in the tabernacle. Generally, the tabernacle is directly behind (or on) the altar, or in a side chapel. This is why Catholics genuflect when getting into and out of the pew, or when passing the tabernacle, out of respect. One also bows before the altar. Whenever I visited the National Shrine and St. Matthew’s Cathedral in DC, it was always interesting to watch people genuflect to the altar, since the tabernacles in those churches are actually in side chapels. 😛
Click to expand...
What is the purpose of keeping the “hosts” in the tabernacle?

Anna
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top