F
Faith1960
Guest
Now we are back to substance. I just don’t get it.
- Status
F
Faith1960
Guest
And back to what a sacramental mode is.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Which is probably why the translators decided against using the word in the revised English Creed IMO. .
F
Faith1960
Guest
What does sacramental mode mean?.
P
ProVobis
Guest
As opposed to what? Spiritual mode?
F
Faith1960
Guest
I don’t know. Gorgias said Christ said is present in a sacramental mode. Don’t know what it’s opposed to.
V
Vico
Guest
Catholic Encyclopedia, Transubstantiation:And back to what a sacramental mode is.
The application of the foregoing to the Eucharist is an easy matter. First of all the notion of conversion is verified in the Eucharist, not only in general, but in all its essential details. For we have the two extremes of conversion, namely, bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and the Body and Blood of Christ as the terminus ad quem. Furthermore, the intimate connection between the cessation of one extreme and the appearance of the other seems to be preserved by the fact, that both events are the results, not of two independent processes, as, e.g. annihilation and creation, but of one single act, since, according to the purpose of the Almighty, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. Lastly, we have the commune tertium in the unchanged appearances of bread and wine, under which appearances the pre-existent Christ assumes a new, sacramental mode of being, and without which His Body and Blood could not be partaken of by men. That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii).
Pohle, J. (1909). The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
F
Faith1960
Guest
V
Vico
Guest
F
Faith1960
Guest
V
Vico
Guest
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Z
zab
Guest
Substance is something that appeals to our senses of sight, taste, touch, unlike a spiritual person being that is not physically present. In the Eucharist, the Host is Jesus. He is visibly present in the form of bread not present in human form. The nature of food is to be eaten.
F
Faith1960
Guest
R
Richca
Guest
The flesh and blood of Christ is really, truly, and substantially present under the appearances or accidents of the bread and wine in the eucharist. So the sacramental presence of Jesus in the eucharist does not mean that his body and flesh and blood are not present in the eucharist, they really are and we really eat his flesh and drink his blood. Otherwise, we would be contradicting the very words of Jesus and how the Church has always understood the eucharist to be, “my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink” John 6:55. In this sense, there is no difference between the sacramental presence of Christ in the eucharist and a fleshly presence, or we would not be truly eating his body and drinking his blood nor would the bread be changed into his body and the wine into his blood at the consecration at Mass. The difference in the eucharist is that the whole body and blood of Christ is truly present but under the appearances or accidents of bread and wine and not in its natural appearance as he is beheld by the blessed in heaven or as people beheld his body while he walked on earth.
R
Richca
Guest
As I’m sure you know, the Church teaches that at the consecration at Mass the whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of the body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine is changed into the whole substance of his blood. Obviously, the question can be asked, what pertains to the substance of Christ’s body and blood. Answer: the substance of Christ’s body is his very material whole body, that is, his flesh, bone, muscle, tissue, heart, etc. And the whole substance of his blood is his very material blood.
The reason why that after the consecration of the bread and wine we do not see the actual body and blood of Jesus is because by divine power, a miracle, the appearances or accidents of the bread and wine remain while the substances of the bread and wine have been changed into the body and blood of Christ. The matter of the bread and wine which is a part of the substances of the bread and wine is changed at Mass into the matter of the body and blood of Christ. What is key here is grasping the accident of quantity or extension which because it is an accident, it is not the substance. For example, the dimensions of the host we receive in communion has about a one inch diameter. These dimensions are an accident of the bread for bread can be made with other dimensions and yet it would still be bread. The dimensions of Christ’s body in heaven are obviously larger than the host but the dimensions of any material body are what is called an accident and is not part of the substance of some thing. In the eucharist, it is the substance of the bread and wine that changes but not the accidents which is apparent to sense. Accordingly, the whole body of Christ is present in the eucharist in an unextended manner by divine power and miraculously and under the dimensions of the bread that remain after the consecration. We would not think that such as what happens in the miracle of the eucharist could take place except that we believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ because Jesus said so and Jesus is God who possesses almighty power. The miracle of the eucharist is beyond anything we naturally observe in the changes and order of nature and unless God had revealed it, I don’t think we could have even hoped to imagine such a miracle. Consider that we believe that in the consecrated bread, the whole body indeed the whole Christ is present in the host and whole and entire under every part of the host without leaving heaven. And not only in one host or on one alter, but in every host throughout the entire world.
Concerning the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist on the USCCB website it says:
" In the Church’s traditional theological language, in the act of consecration during the Eucharist the “substance” of the bread and wine is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit into the “substance” of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. At the same time, the “accidents” or appearances of bread and wine remain. “Substance” and “accident” are here used as philosophical terms that have been adapted by great medieval theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas in their efforts to understand and explain the faith. Such terms are used to convey the fact that what appears to be bread and wine in every way (at the level of “accidents” or physical attributes - that is, what can be seen, touched, tasted, or measured) in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ (at the level of “substance” or deepest reality). This change at the level of substance from bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is called “transubstantiation.”
The Catechism of the Council of Trent also uses the philosophical terms of substance and accident in expounding on the doctrine of transubstantiation.
So, in order to understand the Church’s doctrine of transubstantiation which is the change that takes place of the bread and wine at Mass, I think we need to understand in some degree what is meant by the philosophical terms of substance and accident (or appearances) which the Church has deemed useful in expounding the doctrine of transubstantiation which is in accord with the Church’s faith concerning the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist. At the same time, I think we should also keep in mind that our faith in the Real Presence does not depend on any philosophy but on the words of Jesus Christ himself. However, transubstantiation (change of substance) is a dogma of the faith, this is what really happens. I know what I have said here may be difficult to understand upon first reading it. But it is actually not to difficult to grasp once a person understands the concepts in some degree. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
V
Vico
Guest
I may be able to help if I know what words or phrase you do you not understand in the sentence?
F
Faith1960
Guest
For starters, “sacramental manner of being” I just don’t get what that is.
Z
zab
Guest
Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist is sometimes called a sacramental Presence in order to distinguish this Real Presence from his presence as a human being. Jesus is fully present in the sacred Host, body blood soul and divinity even though all that we see feel, touch and taste is bread. How do we know that he is really and wholely present? Because He said so. Not only that but God has allowed some Eucharistic Miracles to occur in order that some may believe. In these Eucharistic Miracles we can see that the Host is real flesh and blood. Among the most noted are the Miracle of Santarem in Portugual and Lanciano, Italy. It is not only a miracle that the consecrated Host changed into flesh and blood but that it has not deteriorated after hundreds of years. And at certain times, the coagulated blood, liquefies and then hardens again. So there are miracles within a miracle. Now these miracles are only meant for us to believe that Jesus is truly present, not to consume in that state. We would not eat the Eucharist in the form of flesh and blood. We eat the Eucharist in the form that is meant for people to consume food which in this case is bread and wine. We are not cannibals who eat human flesh and blood. This is why Jesus’ Presence in the Eucharist is referred to as a sacramental presence. Jesus changed water into wine. And he can change his Presence into bread and wine so that we may be able to take him inside us.
9
987mk
Guest
Then you’re doing it wrong.
You are to believe that the Eucharist is the very flesh, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, the son of God.
Not the spirit of Jesus, his actual flesh and blood.
- Status