the Eucharist

[henrikhank]

Hi!
I am a non-catholic so I’ve never experienced going to communion.
Let’s say (even though it is unlikely to happen irl) that one day the Priest gives a non-consecrated bread to you. Would you that day know that the bread is only a bread?
I, personally, can’t tell if a bread is consecrated or not. How does going to communion feel like (or if you experience anything particular at all)? Cause if you are going to speak of intimacy with Jesus then you got to know which bread is Jesus. You would think you have physical intimacy with Jesus even that day when the bread wasn’t consecrated. I know this may sound strange but am a non-catholic so communion can be a bit strange to me.
Please explain your Catholic views on this.

 

[mattp0625]

Hi!
I am a non-catholic so I’ve never experienced going to communion.
Let’s say (even though it is unlikely to happen irl) that one day the Priest gives a non-consecrated bread to you. Would you that day know that the bread is only a bread?
I, personally, can’t tell if a bread is consecrated or not. How does going to communion feel like (or if you experience anything particular at all)? Cause if you are going to speak of intimacy with Jesus then you got to know which bread is Jesus. You would think you have physical intimacy with Jesus even that day when the bread wasn’t consecrated. I know this may sound strange but am a non-catholic so communion can be a bit strange to me.
Please explain your Catholic views on this.

Receiving the Eucharist is not just a physical process. There is a lot of spirituality that leads up to it. It requires examination of conscience, confession of sin, and repentance. One also must accept the truth of the Catholic Church as the church that Christ founded. Mass includes prayers with these concepts in mind.

To summarize, receiving the body of Christ is not something you do without reflection on Christ.

In most Protestant or nondenominational churches, it is just crackers and juice that symbolize the last supper. There is not the same reverence given or spiritual exercise associated with receiving Eucharist.

That said, the priest give due reverence in conducting mass and distribution of the body of Christ. He consecrates the hosts in front of everyone. No need to worry.

 

[Della]

Hi!
I am a non-catholic so I’ve never experienced going to communion.
Let’s say (even though it is unlikely to happen irl) that one day the Priest gives a non-consecrated bread to you. Would you that day know that the bread is only a bread?
I, personally, can’t tell if a bread is consecrated or not. How does going to communion feel like (or if you experience anything particular at all)? Cause if you are going to speak of intimacy with Jesus then you got to know which bread is Jesus. You would think you have physical intimacy with Jesus even that day when the bread wasn’t consecrated. I know this may sound strange but am a non-catholic so communion can be a bit strange to me.
Please explain your Catholic views on this.

We never have physical intimacy with Jesus even if the bread has been consecrated. What we have is sacramental intimacy with him. Jesus is sacramentally present under the appearance of bread and wine when those species are consecrated. Receiving a piece of unconsecrated bread would not bring about a sacramental presence nor a sacramental union with Christ.

We may have spiritual intimacy with Christ at any time due to two factors: 1) because Christ is sacramentally present in every tabernacle in every Catholic parish or chapel in the world (I don’t know about the Orthodox, I don’t think they reserve consecrated hosts), and 2) because the Spirit of Christ is abroad in the world, again due to his sacramental presence among us, in his ministers, and in his people. I hope that helps.

 

[Gorgias]

Hi!
I am a non-catholic so I’ve never experienced going to communion.
Let’s say (even though it is unlikely to happen irl) that one day the Priest gives a non-consecrated bread to you. Would you that day know that the bread is only a bread?\

I, personally, can’t tell if a bread is consecrated or not.

This part confuses me. You know it’s consecrated because you are present at the Mass at which it was consecrated.

How does going to communion feel like (or if you experience anything particular at all)?

It’s not about a ‘feeling’ (or even a physical sensation of any sort).

 

[PapyrusDouay]

Most people can’t tell the difference. But there have been saints who could tell. I recall a story about JPII being able to tell (“sense”?) if there was chapel and Tabernacle nearby with a consecrated host while traveling in places he was unfamiliar with, then find his way to it to pray. It’s possible that there may be some mystics alive now who can tell as well, but they’ll be very few and far between.

There have also been satanists who claim to know whether or not a host is consecrated, I think due to the sheer hatred they feel toward a particular piece.

For the rest of us, we wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. But it’s really unimportant, since whether or not you can tell has no bearing on the reality of the sacrament.

…just food for thought

 

[henrikhank]

We never have physical intimacy with Jesus even if the bread has been consecrated. What we have is sacramental intimacy with him. Jesus is sacramentally present under the appearance of bread and wine when those species are consecrated. Receiving a piece of unconsecrated bread would not bring about a sacramental presence nor a sacramental union with Christ.

We may have spiritual intimacy with Christ at any time due to two factors: 1) because Christ is sacramentally present in every tabernacle in every Catholic parish or chapel in the world (I don’t know about the Orthodox, I don’t think they reserve consecrated hosts), and 2) because the Spirit of Christ is abroad in the world, again due to his sacramental presence among us, in his ministers, and in his people. I hope that helps.

How is eating the bread of life not physical intimacy? You have Jesus in your body after communion but it’s not physical? Why is that only sacramental and not physical?

 

[Della]

How is eating the bread of life not physical intimacy? You have Jesus in your body after communion but it’s not physical? Why is that only sacramental and not physical?

We receive the risen Christ, in a sacramental manner. After all, he’s still seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, not physically present here on earth. His body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist is a sacramental presence, not a physical one. The host appears to be bread and the wine appears to be wine, but they are sacramentally transformed into his Real Presence. As soon as we partake his presence enters us even as the species are consumed as food. It’s a greater presence than spiritual but not a physical one, as if we were eating fleshy bits of a person. Christ is whole, and entirely present in a sacramental manner. It’s the word “physical” that is throwing you off.

 

[Frankenfurter]

What is the benefit of the Eucharist for Christ? Why did HE create it?

I believe that if you penetrate that question you may find your answer. And the answer may surprise you.

Not everything that Jesus did was for our benefit. It’s a two-way street.

 

[Markie_Boy]

Hmmmm, now I am confused.

If with transubstantiation, the bread and wine become the body and blood, it’s no longer bread and wine - but sacramental not actual physical?

 

[thenobes]

Hmmmm, now I am confused.

If with transubstantiation, the bread and wine become the body and blood, it’s no longer bread and wine - but sacramental not actual physical?

It’s not physical because it has no measurable aspects of body and blood. (Physical means measurable). It appears as bread and wine. However in essence it is Christ’s Body and Blood.

I explain this in this manner, although it is not necessary to see it this way to be Catholic: when the soul is affixed to matter, then ipso facto, the soul becomes the organizing force of that matter. Thus matter becomes flesh and blood in appearance through that organization. In the case of transubstantiation, however, a miracle of God prevents the soul of Christ from exercising organization, although the soul of Christ is indeed affixed to the matter.

The miracle is the affixation, but suspension of organization.

At least that is my opinion.

peace
steve

 

[Gorgias]

Hmmmm, now I am confused.

If with transubstantiation, the bread and wine become the body and blood, it’s no longer bread and wine - but sacramental not actual physical?

Correct. The ‘accidents’ of bread and wine (that’s a medieval philosophical term that means the ‘empirically observable physical properties’ of bread and wine) remain, but the substance (that is, ‘what it is’ as as opposed to ‘what it looks like’) becomes the substance of Christ. (Therefore, even though it continues to look and feel and smell and taste like bread and wine, it is (in reality) the body and blood of Christ.)

The mode of this presence, then, is ‘sacramental’, not ‘physical’, since the physical properties continue to be the physical properties of bread and wine. But, since what underlies these properties is no longer the substance of bread and wine, but rather, the substance of Christ, then what is present is truly ‘Christ’, not ‘bread and wine’.

It’s an argument in philosophical terms.

 

[Faith1960]

Correct. The ‘accidents’ of bread and wine (that’s a medieval philosophical term that means the ‘empirically observable physical properties’ of bread and wine) remain, but the substance (that is, ‘what it is’ as as opposed to ‘what it looks like’) becomes the substance of Christ. (Therefore, even though it continues to look and feel and smell and taste like bread and wine, it is (in reality) the body and blood of Christ.)

The mode of this presence, then, is ‘sacramental’, not ‘physical’, since the physical properties continue to be the physical properties of bread and wine. But, since what underlies these properties is no longer the substance of bread and wine, but rather, the substance of Christ, then what is present is truly ‘Christ’, not ‘bread and wine’.

It’s an argument in philosophical terms.

I’m still having difficulty with what is a sacramental presence.

 

[sudy]

(51) As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new “reality” which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.
source: w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium.html

 

[Markie_Boy]

How is the sacramental presence different than the Lutheran real presences? And if neither can prove their concept is correct, should there really be division?

Seems like trying to define it beyond Christ is really present, really does not help. He said “Where two or more are gathered in my name, I will be there also.” Do we need to define more than that?

 

[sudy]

I don’t know anything about Lutheran real presences so my response isn’t strictly to that. But we do need to define more than that. We’re not talking about ‘when two or more are gathered in my name, I will be there also.’ That is perfectly true and He will be there on those occasions as he said.

We’re discussing the Eucharist, which is not the same thing. Jesus said that anyone who eats this living bread will not die. He also said that ‘if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.’ And he said His flesh is real food and His blood is real drink. He said that we should take and eat and that it is His body, and that we should drink the cup of His blood, which is poured out for the forgiveness of sins.

As to proving it is correct, Jesus assured us that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things and will remain with us.

 

[mattp0625]

How is the sacramental presence different than the Lutheran real presences? And if neither can prove their concept is correct, should there really be division?

Seems like trying to define it beyond Christ is really present, really does not help. He said “Where two or more are gathered in my name, I will be there also.” Do we need to define more than that?

Lutheran claim to apostolic succession is invalid. The authority to consecrate a host comes from Christ through the apostles.

They resort to consubstantiation or some derivative of the concept for their communion. In other words, God is in everything, including your socks, a cookie, and the host.

Protestants and nondenominationals use the verse you quote to deny many things, such as the need for apostolic succession. Why even go to church when two people can gather at home? You understand the point.

 

[guanophore]

 Lutheran claim to apostolic succession is invalid.  The authority to consecrate a host comes from Christ through the apostles.

They resort to consubstantiation or some derivative of the concept for their communion. In other words, God is in everything, including your socks, a cookie, and the host.

I don’t think this is an accurate or fair representation of the Lutheran view. Luther believed in the Real Presence, and it is a fundamental pillar of the faith that separated Lutherans from followers of Zwingli and Calvin, who denied the RP.

Protestants and nondenominationals use the verse you quote to deny many things, such as the need for apostolic succession. Why even go to church when two people can gather at home? You understand the point.

The point also needs to be made that a gathering for a prayer meeting is not the same as a gathering for celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Jesus commanded the apostles to “do” or “make” the consecration, and gave them the model and the authority to enact this important anamnesis. It cannot e properly understood and celebrated outside of the Passover ceremony, in which it was born. It is an enactment, and only those authorized by Christ may preside.

 

[PapyrusDouay]

How is the sacramental presence different than the Lutheran real presences?

I’m not a Lutheran and never have been, so if someone else has a more accurate explanation or a correction, by all means go ahead. But this is my understanding of the difference between Catholic and Lutheran Real Presence…

As Catholics, we believe in Real Presence, the process by which the bread and wine become Christ’s Body and Blood is called “Transubstantiation”. That has mostly been described on this thread already, but it essentially means that although the appearance of bread and wine remain, it is actually and physically Christ’s body and blood. The reality of what it actually is, is what we call the “substance” of the host. So the substance is Christ’s body and blood, but in the appearance of bread and wine. These are metaphysical terms.

Lutherans, from what I understand believe in “consubstantiation”. I think this more accurately described as Christ being truly present, but the “substance” is still bread and wine. Rather, Christ is present within, through, around, above, and below the bread. So the believe Christ is really there, but the actual particle of bread is still bread.

In other words, Lutherans believe after consecration bread is still bread, but Christ is really there, permeating in and around the bread. We Catholics believe that after consecration the bread is truly no longer bread, but is actually and physically Christ’s body despite the outward appearance. Same for the wine and Precious Blood.

You have to appreciate the Orthodox though, who also believe in the Real Presence but don’t get into the nitty gritty metaphysics of it, and just call it “a mystery”.

…And if neither can prove their concept is correct, should there really be division?

I think most of us would agree that reconciliation among all Christians would be ideal.

 

[Markie_Boy]

You have to appreciate the Orthodox though, who also believe in the Real Presence but don’t get into the nitty gritty metaphysics of it, and just call it “a mystery”.

Yes! Sometimes I think there is more division because people try to define what they can’t.

 

[Markie_Boy]

You have to appreciate the Orthodox though, who also believe in the Real Presence but don’t get into the nitty gritty metaphysics of it, and just call it “a mystery”.

YES! I sometimes think some division comes from over-defining things.