S
StrawberryJam
Guest
You are very kind to note that. But, for the sake of the casual reader here you may consider posting it so they will not lambaste me.
- Status
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Muslims do not accept the fact that Mary had a choice.
She did.
She did not have non consentual relations, did she?
The_Reginator
Active member
Saying ‘amen’ before receiving is a modern invention. Communicants do not say amen before receiving in the EF. Are you suggesting that before VII people did not receive Jesus?
A
Amiciel
Guest
- Perhaps St. Paul would have given this reminder because profanations were seemingly being committed. It would help to read the whole epistle to understand the context of St. Paul’s reminder.
- Where in the epistle is it written that the priests guilty of unrepentant sins were not able to profane?
T
tonyrey
Guest
It seems legalistic to maintain that the presence of Jesus depends on whether a word is uttered.
If a person goes to receive Communion He is hardly forcing Himself on that person!
According to that argument we must always make the first move before God acts! You have a point about completeness existing only where there is mutual love but God’s love is not dependent in every respect on our love.
Where a person rejects God and malevolently receives the Host to defile it you may have a case… Yet even then it would be a reiteration of the mockery, scourging and Crucifixion of Our Lord. By coming into the world He makes Himself vulnerable and puts Himself at our mercy…
A
Amiciel
Guest
Strawberry, In one of your earlier messages in this thread, I got the impression that you wished to have “proper primary sources of information to evaluate” which will help with your investigation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives us some helpful basic information on the nature of the Eucharist. It is not possible to post it here because it is too lengthy, and replete with lots of footnotes. But it is very helpful because without a basic background knowledge of the Eucharist, it is almost impossible to accurately understand its nature and spirit.
I had to go through the same process of digging into pertinent resources when studying the Eucharist with an open mind. Without pertinent references, it is truly difficult, almost impossible, to understand correctly the significance of selected parts of the Eucharistic Celebration.
In case you do wish to investigate further the Eucharist and its background, here are a few more references. Otherwise, please just ignore the list below:
- The Eucharist: an Old Testament Foundation for a New Testament Sacrifice by Fr. Mitch Pacwa, s.j.
- “The Spirit of the Liturgy” and “God is Near us”, both books by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)
- The Biblical Basis for the Eucharist by John Salza.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I still do not understand you.
Look, if you have somebody approach you with a vial of poison and say, 'Wanna drink". . .you have a CHOICE to say ‘no.’ Correct?
But if you take that vial of poison and say, “Meh, I don’t choose to BELIEVE that this is poison”. . .you might believe it 100% but if it’s poison, you’ll die.
The Eucharist IS Jesus. Not just when WE say so, when HE says so.
So a person who receives that Eucharist is going to receive Jesus. The person of course has the choice not to receive the Eucharist, yes? But IF the person DOES receive, He WILL receive Jesus. . .just as if you take that poison, even if you’re ‘la-la-la-la this won’t hurt me’ . . .you’ll get poisoned.
You cannot alter even a non-miraculous element (poison) simply by refusing to ‘believe in your mind’, Strawberry. Far less can you alter a MIRACULOUS element (Jesus Christ) by ‘not accepting Him’.
A
Amiciel
Guest
Strawberry, You are right in sensing that “mutual love” has an important role somehow in the Eucharistic Celebration. I am not a theologian nor an exegete but will try my best to explain my thoughts.
The formula for “love” to be “mutual” (in our case at hand) requires the presence of the Creator’s love and the creature’s love. In this formula, the Creator’s love is A GIVEN because it is present from the outset, independently of the creature’s love. To complete the formula for mutual love, the creature has to give his/her consent. Because of freewill, the creature may or may not do this.
In the Greek text and English translation of the Synoptic Gospels (Mt, Mk, Lk), the Lord’s eucharistic word “Take. Eat. Drink.” are in the imperative case, i.e. these verbs are commands. But since the Lord respects our freewill, He will not impose Himself nor His gifts on us. In the sacrificial act however, taking and partaking of the sacrificial meal is an important part of the event.
If we say YES to the Lord and His gifts, we complete the formula. In this case, it’s well and good because the Lord’s sacrifice would not have been in vain.
If we say NO, then mutual love is absent because only the Lord’s love is present in the formula.
What is the effect of this absence of mutual love? Jn 6:53ff gives us the answer: “So Jesus said to them, 'Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life…”.
Bottom line: The presence of mutual love is NOT a pre-condition for the continued presence of Our Lord’s body and blood in the Eucharist. However, it IS a pre-condition for the creature’s union with his Creator and the resultant possession of eternal life.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I thank you for your answer, I believe you gave me the most heartfelt answer to this.
Perhaps I can ask in more detail the questions that come from this answer.
I am very grateful for your help in this.
P
Peter_John
Guest
I agree. Were it a matter of “mutual consent” there would be no sacrilege in taking the Eucharist if not confirmed, or in improper handling of consecrated hosts.
L
levinas12
Guest
This discussion raises an interesting issue about certain words in the Mass: second Eucharistic prayer, “Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ” … some may think “for us” means only: “for us, it signifies Jesus, it does not necessarily signify Jesus for others” … however, this is not what it means … “for us” (nobis) means “for our sake” … the Church is very clear that the bread and wine undergo ontological change in themselves regardless of what we may think … that is why the Church has retained “transubstantiation” to describe what happens …
R
RosaryFan
Guest
Jesus is present in the Eucharist no matter how any member of the congregation feels about it. That is why the remaining hosts are reserved in the Tabernacle and not tossed in the trash. That is why it is a sacrilege (abuse of a sacrament) to receive Holy Communion while in the state of mortal sin. At the consecration, the bread and wine cease to exist and they become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. This happens at the consecration - not when you say “Amen”. And it happens whether one likes it or not.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I am not arguing that Jesus is NOT present.
R
RosaryFan
Guest
Oh, sorry. Well, He becomes present at the consecration - not at the “amen” of the communicant.
Other then the ramblings of a priest that had a very hard time staying on topic…no.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
You must be aware that the Catholic position is that Mary gave her consent to God.
This is not the position of Islam. Mary was merely a tool in their theology.
- Status