G
GKMotley
Guest
Both of the species are said to be both Body and Blood; in receiving either, one receives both. Not bread and wine, though I know where you’re coming from.
- Status
G
GKMotley
Guest
They date from Elizabeth I’s day, are a visible embodiment of the Elizabethan compromise, and reflect how she decided to rule her fractious Church in those turbulent days. Were occasionally referred to as Articles of Peace. As opposed to Henry VIII’s Six Articles, which were referred to as the bloody whip with six strings.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
If the cup has always been available in a church, then what theological theory would there be to withdraw it because of bird flu?Eric_Hyom:
The Catholic Church denied lay people the cup for centuries in the Middle Ages. I believe there is a a theological theory that it is not necessary to take communion under both kinds. If one eats just the bread, they receive Christ so it was not thought necessary to drink the wine as well.
Theologically what is more powerful? The blood of Christ or bird flu?
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Perhaps the bird flu is in the accidents.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Yes, the CCC deals with this question in at least two places:
1377. The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM
1390. Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P42.HTM
Communion under the species of bread alone is the standard practice in many countries, where communion under both kinds is reserved for special occasions only and is then given by intinction (dipping).
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
The famous quote attributed by some to Elizabeth, however, might be said to be an acceptable definition by (almost?) all Anglicans: “‘Twas God the Word who spake it; he took the Bread and brake it; and what the Word did make it, that I believe, and take it.”
G
GKMotley
Guest
Liz was the Anglican par excellence, if she did formulate that, as is generally said.
J
jfz178
Guest
I believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, no question about it.
But this whole discussion of transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation vs whatever strikes me as an academic discussion that should only be engaged in by theologians with too much spare time. The whole issue is faith-based anyway. The so-called “accidents” of bread and wine are provable by science. The rest is not. If you sent samples of bread and wine to a lab, before and after consecration, the lab would confirm that no change whatsoever had occured. That cannot be denied. Those things the lab would test for are not “accidents,” they are real.
Christ said when he broke the bread, “This is my body.” But it was NOT His body then! Because its was His body, his hands, that were breaking the bread! He could have meant it as transubstantiation, consubstantiation or just as a metaphor. So this is all on the Church, not Christ. So if the Church has real evidence that transubstantiation has occurred, they are remiss in presenting that evidence. Instead, the make up these arcane arguments for it that are not logical, or even understandable by anyone capable of independent thought.
But it is one of those things that I call a “low investment belief.” Like most Catholics, there is nothing I have to do differently whether it is transubstantiation, consubstantiation or whatever. I still go to Communion and I know the Lord is there. So sure, I’m happy to be on board with transubstantiation. But supporting something with bad arguments does that thing a disservice. This is one of those things that the Church does all the time.
S
Shakuhachi
Guest
Yes, and why should it divide us as followers of Christ?
J
jfz178
Guest
Absolutely! That’s why the idea that if you don’t believe it, you are a heretic, is so divisive.
K
Kei
Guest
“Christ held Himself in His hands when He gave His Body to His disciples saying: ‘This is My Body.’ No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored it.”
-St Augustine of Hippo, Doctor of the Church
In Catholic belief, there would not be a change in the physcial attributes of the host, so any lab tests that would say normal consecrated hosts are composed of molecules of bread would be expected. This is excepting the rare Eucharistic miracles whereby the change is made to the accidents as well.
-St Augustine of Hippo, Doctor of the Church
In Catholic belief, there would not be a change in the physcial attributes of the host, so any lab tests that would say normal consecrated hosts are composed of molecules of bread would be expected. This is excepting the rare Eucharistic miracles whereby the change is made to the accidents as well.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
I am happy with your explanation. But in some countries / churches, communion under both kinds has been the norm, as in our church. But we stopped for a period of time when the bird flu was prevalent, and when the scare was over, we went back to communion of both kinds.
I am only a layman, but it was a great sadness when we stopped, I would have preferred to carry on as we always had. I sincerely believe the blood of our Lord has power over bird flu.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Some Lutherans believe in ‘sacramental union’. Not every single ‘Lutheran’ confesses the Book of Concord or Luther’s novel theology of ‘sacramental union’.
How can you call it ‘the Sacrament of the Altar’ if you do not confess to believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass? If you are not sacrificing the Sacrament on the altar, then there is no need to borrow that terminology.
Beautifully said! He absolutely ‘gives’ Himself for us for the forgiveness of sins in the ‘Sacrament of the Altar’! That is why in the consecration Our Lord says, “Take, eat, this is My Body which is given up for you”. Notice: 'given up for you"; that is the language of Calvary that is being made present in perfect union with the sacrifice of the Eucharist. And, likewise, “For this is the blood of the eternal covenant, which will be shed for you and for many”.
We’ve discussed this before and I do not want to be redundant, but, per John 6 and elsewhere in Christian antiquity, the Eucharist, and its meaning, was perhaps the most scandalizing doctrine to accept. Notice in John 6:52,53:
“The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them…” - The last thing Our Lord would want here is a misunderstanding of His Eucharistic discourse and for anyone to fall away. If Our Lord truly meant that He was referring to His Body and Blood ‘with, in, and under bread and wine’, don’t you think He would have explained it that way to deter many of His disciples from leaving Him? Instead, He remarks with:
“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53)
These words of Our Lord scandalized souls then and it continues to in all Protestant denominations. Also, take note, that anytime Our Lord uses the redundancy of ‘Amen’, as in ‘Amen, amen’, you must know that He is being as literal as possible without any subtly or allusions to anything else.
Are you suggesting, then, that Orthodox and ‘pre-Tridentine Catholics’ believed in ‘sacramental union’?!
Last edited:
Where did he say or imply this? He said that “Lutherans] do not attempt to explain how this happens like Transubstatiationists or Consubstantiationists. Similar to the Orthodox. Or many pre-Tridentine Catholics, for that matter.”
He seems to be saying what John of Damascus said:
Now, if you inquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as God took on Himself the flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit… so the bread of the altar and the wine (and water) are mysteriously changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and are not two but one and the same.
Correct. No vague implications. No talk of substance and accidents. No talk of co-mingling. Just this is my body.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
I read ‘changed into’, viz. transubstantiation, and I do not read ‘in, with, and under the bread and wine’.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
[in, with, and under the bread]? Is that what Our Lord meant?
J
jfz178
Guest
St. Augustine was not there. He also had no way to know much about 21st century forensics. “Accidents” is a made-up term in this context. There is a reason “normal consecrated hosts are composed of molecules of bread would be expected.” Because that is what they physically are. That cannot be denied.
Transubstantiation makes no sense because the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, but it also still is bread and wine. An “accident” in this use of the word means “a non-essential property.” But if you can prove it in a lab, it is an essential property.
I’ll give you an example. I have an acquaintance who cannot take the normal host because it has gluten in it and she has Celiac’s disease. If she takes a normal host, she gets sick. The gluten in that host is a pretty darn essential property for her. That is no “accident.”
S
Spyridon
Guest
Corporeal presence = Bodily presence
Pneumatic = Spirit presence
Consubstantial = Presence with substance
Spiritual presence = symbolic, metaphysical presence
The Catholic doctrine of Real Presence and transubstantiation incorporates elements of all these - Christ is symbolically and spiritually present in the Eucharist, Christ is also Corporeally Present in the Eucharist, the Holy Spirit is present through the Eucharist, Christ is present substantially, and Christ is truly present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist.
So, us Catholics DO believe what the Presbyterians and Anglicans believe, in a way - we just take it a step further.
Last edited:
K
Kei
Guest
You say Christ could not be holding Himself. But that is precisely what we believe.
How much less were you not there than the Doctor!
But I don’t think you understand what accidents are. It goes back to the theory of forms and the fact of a transcendent, metaphysical reality beyond the physical reality.
What we mean by “accidents” is the physical reality of what is.
So, say there is a form of bread. All the physical bread that is is an imperfect shadow of this form, but rightly called that form. But it is still bread. When it is melted in water or digested, it is no longer bread.
The Eucharist has after consecration no longer the substance of bread, but of Christ. Hence why it is important to receive without letting the Eucharist melt in your mouth, and why when digested it is no longer the Eucharist, as what was changed was the substance of the bread.
I did not explain adequately most likely, but I reccomend looking up the theory of forms from a Catholic perspective. Remember that transubstantiation is an authoritative teaching of the Church and that we should seek to understand such when we do not.
How much less were you not there than the Doctor!
But I don’t think you understand what accidents are. It goes back to the theory of forms and the fact of a transcendent, metaphysical reality beyond the physical reality.
What we mean by “accidents” is the physical reality of what is.
So, say there is a form of bread. All the physical bread that is is an imperfect shadow of this form, but rightly called that form. But it is still bread. When it is melted in water or digested, it is no longer bread.
The Eucharist has after consecration no longer the substance of bread, but of Christ. Hence why it is important to receive without letting the Eucharist melt in your mouth, and why when digested it is no longer the Eucharist, as what was changed was the substance of the bread.
I did not explain adequately most likely, but I reccomend looking up the theory of forms from a Catholic perspective. Remember that transubstantiation is an authoritative teaching of the Church and that we should seek to understand such when we do not.
- Status