The Eucahrist, The Amen, and Mutual Consent

  • Thread starter Thread starter StrawberryJam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

StrawberryJam

Guest
Can it be possible that the Eucharist is possibly an act of mutual consent?

That Jesus is not present in the body and blood untill a mutual consent occurs?

“The body and blood of Jesus”

Amen

Member reverently recieves.

Next.

To consent by the Amen,

Is that an example of mutual love?

Or- Is it not important at all that it be a mutually loving act and a one way act? Direct giver, Direct taker?
 
Strawberry: Jesus is present in the Body and Blood from the instant that the priest offers the consecration. It has nothing to do with the person receiving the Eucharist. If the priest consecrated the hosts in a Mass said only by himself, the hosts and chalice would not lie dormant with ‘no Jesus present’ until he received himself or took the consecrated species to another person.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Strawberry: Jesus is present in the Body and Blood from the instant that the priest offers the consecration. It has nothing to do with the person receiving the Eucharist. If the priest consecrated the hosts in a Mass said only by himself, the hosts and chalice would not lie dormant with ‘no Jesus present’ until he received himself or took the consecrated species to another person.
Click to expand...
Hosts are not lying dormant, Nor the wine, The Priest must consume them I am told.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Hosts are not lying dormant, Nor the wine, The Priest must consume them I am told.
Click to expand...
The priest does consume all the Blood. Leftover Hosts are kept in the Tabernacle.
God Himself is physically present in the bread and wine. God Himself is also physically present in the Tabernacle except, of course, when it is empty. Such as during Holy Communion.
 
Strawberry,

Look for some books on Eucharistic Miracles. Many wonderful and amazing miracles have occurred just by the PRECIOUS BODY being present.

I know transubstantiation is very difficult to believe, and today apologists such as Father Corapi will openly tell you, he himself does not understand fully the “how” of it, but he believes fully the “how” if it, because JESUS declared it.

I often imagine while sitting before the Blessed Sacrament how the Pharisee’s and Saducees looked upon JESUS “as a man”, and discredited HIM with the diety that HE professed. “How” can this MAN, be our GOD?

And today, in the 21st Century we have the blessing of seeing HIS macro plan as having unfolded for 21 centuries, so we can sit back in comfort and say, “I just don’t understand how the Pharisee’s missed this?”

But, still today in our time, we kneel before a piece of bread and like the Pharisee’s and Saducees declare that something which “appears” to be materially without credit, contains our GOD - or not. Some of us cannot get our minds around that, and so therefore we join the Pharisee and Saducees and declare “How” can this BREAD contain our GOD?

We needs eyes of faith, not of physical sight. If your mind will not go there, then just let your heart lead the way, and ask our Lady to help you “see” Her SON. It is ok that you do not know the “how”, as long you love the “how”, which is the salvation you seek.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Can it be possible that the Eucharist is possibly an act of mutual consent?

That Jesus is not present in the body and blood untill a mutual consent occurs?

“The body and blood of Jesus”

Amen

Member reverently recieves.

Next.

To consent by the Amen,

Is that an example of mutual love?

Or- Is it not important at all that it be a mutually loving act and a one way act? Direct giver, Direct taker?
Click to expand...
The word “Communion” does describe a relationship. He gives Himself to us freely. He makes Himself present for us, and we only need to accept what He has given.
 
The Eucharist is a Gift from God. He gives it to us because He wants to; He does not need our consent. The Eucharist is the Lord Jesus Himself in Person. He comes offering us infinite graces and blessings, all ours for the asking, i.e. sincere asking. However, we receive these graces and blessings depending on our disposition. In turn, our disposition depends on the quality of our preparation / consent to receive God’s gifts. But the gifts are all there, being offered by the Lord. But we can opt not to receive them.

We believe that the Holy Bible is divinely inspired. We also believe that Jesus is God. In the Creation narrative of Genesis (Gen 1:3ff), we read that when God speaks, what He says, actually happens: “Let there be light,” and there was light! “Let there be…”, and it was so!

Therefore, when God speaks, it happens. And when Jesus, the Word of God said at the Last Supper and during Holy Mass (through the priest): “This is My body …This is My blood,” what He says, actually takes place: The bread and wine become His body and blood. The accidents of bread and wine remain, but transubstantiation takes place. The Lord Jesus is giving His very Person to us as a gift simply because He wishes to.

In the Eucharist, we have the New Covenant, the blood of Jesus being the blood of the New Covenant. A covenant involves a sharing of life, not simply a sharing of material things. And so, it would be safe to say that the Eucharist is an OPPORTUNITY to truly ENCOUNTER Christ and through Him, to encounter the Blessed Trinity. But, this OPPORTUNITY for a true and deep encounter by a creature with his/her Creator may be wasted because of poor disposition. The quality of this encounter depends on our disposition; what we receive by way of graces depends on our dispostion.

Thus, the Eucharist takes place because God says so. It does not depend on our consent.

“AMEN” is a wonderful time for us to renew our commitment to our Covenant with the Lord!
 
The Amen is relatively new practice (40 years old) and is not even used in other liturgical traditions for reception of communion.
 
Formosus said:
The Amen is relatively new practice (40 years old) and is not even used in other liturgical traditions for reception of communion.
Click to expand...
I just need citations, because that was what I was investigating, and do not know how to make sense of it without proper primary sources of information to evaluate.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Can it be possible that the Eucharist is possibly an act of mutual consent?

That Jesus is not present in the body and blood untill a mutual consent occurs?

“The body and blood of Jesus”

Amen

Member reverently receives.

Next.

To consent by the Amen,

Is that an example of mutual love?

Or- Is it not important at all that it be a mutually loving act and a one way act? Direct giver, Direct taker?
Click to expand...
You have a good point but it raises a problem. If the priest who consecrates the bread and wine does not believe Jesus is present Jesus is not present whatever others believe! Or He is present but ceases to be present for those who do not believe. But how can He be present and not present at the same time??
 
tonyrey said:
You have a good point but it raises a problem. If the priest who consecrates the bread and wine does not believe Jesus is present Jesus is not present whatever others believe! Or He is present but ceases to be present for those who do not believe. But how can He be present and not present at the same time??
Click to expand...
I believe that this forum has dealt in length about the topic of a Priest who is acting in this way. Apparently, his being in a state of sin is not relevent to what is happening.
There are nuances, of course.
I am speculating that without an Amen from the communicant there is no Mutual Consent.
Jesus may be present, and willing to do what he is willing to do, but will never force himself on anyone.
That is my premise. I get the feeling it must be a mutual love or it is not complete.
 
StrawberryJam said:
I believe that this forum has dealt in length about the topic of a Priest who is acting in this way. Apparently, his being in a state of sin is not relevent to what is happening.
There are nuances, of course.
I am speculating that without an Amen from the communicant there is no Mutual Consent.
Jesus may be present, and willing to do what he is willing to do, but will never force himself on anyone.
That is my premise. I get the feeling it must be a mutual love or it is not complete.
Click to expand...
Um. . .If I’m reading you correctly (I may not be though), you seem to be saying that you think that a person who does not ‘consent’ (with the verbal Amen) will somehow not really receive Jesus, because Jesus, even though present completely in the Body/Bread and Blood/Wine, won’t ‘enter’ the person unless the person ‘consents.’

I do not believe that is correct.

Jesus is present and those who receive Him, receive Him, whether they ‘consent’ or not.

That is why it is so critical that we as Catholics understand the Real Presence, lest we receive unworthily.

**If Jesus somehow ‘disappeared’ **if the person did not ‘consent’ to receive Him, we wouldn’t have to worry about sacrilege, right? If Jesus is not ‘present’ if the person doesn’t ‘accept’ Him, then the atheists who shred consecrated hosts aren’t doing a wrong, because by your logic, since they don’t ‘accept Christ mutually’, Christ has somehow ‘left the building’. But we know that Christ is present, and that indeed, offenses against the consecrated species --whether the person ‘believes’ or not–are truly mortal offenses against Christ–not just against bread or wine.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Um. . .If I’m reading you correctly (I may not be though), you seem to be saying that you think that a person who does not ‘consent’ (with the verbal Amen) will somehow not really receive Jesus, because Jesus, even though present completely in the Body/Bread and Blood/Wine, won’t ‘enter’ the person unless the person ‘consents.’

I do not believe that is correct.

Jesus is present and those who receive Him, receive Him, whether they ‘consent’ or not.

That is why it is so critical that we as Catholics understand the Real Presence, lest we receive unworthily.

**If Jesus somehow ‘disappeared’ **if the person did not ‘consent’ to receive Him, we wouldn’t have to worry about sacrilege, right? If Jesus is not ‘present’ if the person doesn’t ‘accept’ Him, then the atheists who shred consecrated hosts aren’t doing a wrong, because by your logic, since they don’t ‘accept Christ mutually’, Christ has somehow ‘left the building’. But we know that Christ is present, and that indeed, offenses against the consecrated species --whether the person ‘believes’ or not–are truly mortal offenses against Christ–not just against bread or wine.
Click to expand...
The alternative position is one that the Muslims try to brush under the carpet regarding mutual consent regarding Mary.

We can not have it both ways.
 
Strawberry, one good reference would be Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1322 ff. Will pray to the Holy Spirit for light and guidance.
 
Tantum Ergo, I agree with you. St. Paul writes in 1Cor 11:27: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”
 
StrawberryJam said:
Can it be possible that the Eucharist is possibly an act of mutual consent?

That Jesus is not present in the body and blood untill a mutual consent occurs?

“The body and blood of Jesus”

Amen

Member reverently recieves.

Next.

To consent by the Amen,

Is that an example of mutual love?

Or- Is it not important at all that it be a mutually loving act and a one way act? Direct giver, Direct taker?
Click to expand...
not it is not possible to explain the Eucharist in this manner, because that is not the way Jesus instituted the Eucharist. Where in the gospel account of the last supper does he say “hey as soon as you guys say ‘amen’ this becomes my body and my blood”?
 
Amiciel said:
Tantum Ergo, I agree with you. St. Paul writes in 1Cor 11:27: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”
Click to expand...
Perhaps, they never were able to profane the body and blood, as the priests guilty of unrepentant sins were not able to…
 
puzzleannie said:
not it is not possible to explain the Eucharist in this manner, because that is not the way Jesus instituted the Eucharist. Where in the gospel account of the last supper does he say “hey as soon as you guys say ‘amen’ this becomes my body and my blood”?
Click to expand...
Do you have to say Amen before recieving? Or are you special in this regard and have some kind of right to bypass this in the Holy Mass?
 
puzzleannie said:
not it is not possible to explain the Eucharist in this manner, because that is not the way Jesus instituted the Eucharist. Where in the gospel account of the last supper does he say “hey as soon as you guys say ‘amen’ this becomes my body and my blood”?
Click to expand...
Are you a bible only literalist? Or a Catholic? I am confused.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top