The eucharistic prayer / transubstanation

[maize]

i was reading the book catholicism for dummies and was confused with the following quote on page 145.

The priest doesn’t say, “This is Christ’s body” or “This is Jesus’ blood” He uses the same pronoun, My, because at the moment of consecration, the priest Is Jesus

i had never heard before that the priest turns into jesus, only that he had the power to consecrate.

am i reading this right?

 

[PhilotheaZ]

He doesn’t exactly “turn into” Jesus. He acts in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. Christ acts through the priest so that when the priest pronounces Christ’s words, Christ’s actions of the Last Supper (changing bread and wine into His Body and Blood) are truly made present. Jesus is mysteriously present in His priest so that the priest’s actions are Christ’s actions.

 

[Phemie]

i was reading the book catholicism for dummies and was confused with the following quote on page 145.

i had never heard before that the priest turns into jesus, only that he had the power to consecrate.

am i reading this right?

That is really a dumb explanation, IMNSHO. The priest acts in the person of Christ and in the case of the words of consecration he is “quoting” Christ, he isn’t ‘being’ Christ.

 

[maize]

im just quoting what the books says.

 

[Phemie]

im just quoting what the books says.

I was only criticizing what the book says.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

Perhaps the following section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church will help:

In the person of Christ the Head …

1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).

Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ.

1549 Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops and priests, the presence of Christ as head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers. In the beautiful expression of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop is typos tou Patros: he is like the living image of God the Father.

1550 This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the minister’s sin cannot impede the fruit of grace, in many other acts the minister leaves human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church.

1551 This priesthood is ministerial. “That office … which the Lord committed to the pastors of his people, is in the strict sense of the term a service.” It is entirely related to Christ and to men. It depends entirely on Christ and on his unique priesthood; it has been instituted for the good of men and the communion of the Church. The sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a “sacred power” which is none other than that of Christ. The exercise of this authority must therefore be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made himself the least and the servant of all. “The Lord said clearly that concern for his flock was proof of love for him.”

 

[sancte_joseph]

That is really a dumb explanation, IMNSHO. The priest acts in the person of Christ and in the case of the words of consecration he is “quoting” Christ, he isn’t ‘being’ Christ.

I don’t think it’s a dumb explanation…Its just that you got to know what it means

mysticly/symbolicly----the priest kinda is Jesus aka( in the person of christ)

So that’s why he says this is MY body…it goes beyond just quoting Jesus…it’s sharing in his priesthood

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I was only criticizing what the book says.

Lol.

I agree with your criticism .

Probably why it’s “Catholicism for Dummies” .

EDIT: Not meaning anyone reading it’s a dummy. Just poking at the book intent.

 

[ForexGuides]

A few years back in undergraduate school I took a Sacramental Theology class. It was taught by a nun in her late 70s. She had an impressive life filled with experiences, including sitting on the Catholic advisory board of the World Council of Churches.

The subject of transubstantiation came up. She said, “We don’t teach that anymore.” I was shocked, and asked her doesn’t the Church still teach the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

She explained what she meant by saying that we are a sacramental Church, and sacramentality must include mystery and symbolism. It is true that over the 800+ years since the Laterine IV council declared transubstantiation to be doctrine (this was done about 50 years before the Summa was written) Catholic instructors have focused too heavily on the physical elements of the Eucharist and not enough on the spiritual. In a sense the focus has been on the negative rather than the positive. The bread and wine is NOT bread and wine anymore, while at the same time, the accidents do NOT change, we can NOT see the transformation. And somehow over the years symbols and symbolism have been assumed to mean false, unreal, or synthetic.

The post Vatican II approach is more positive, more spiritual, and more in tune with the Early Christian understanding of the Eucharist. We have shifted the focus away from the bread and wine and emphasize the Presence of Christ shrouded in mystery. We teach that symbols become the reality of that which they symbolize. We keep drumming at the fact that the Presence of Christ is a sacramental presence, and not a physical presence, or a literal one. This is difficult because people have been conditioned to believe otherwise. Aquinas never taught a physical or literal, neither did the Church, but this is what so many people think they are supposed to believe, and they have trouble with it.

Sacrament is a Latinized word for the Greek word for Mystery. Sacramental presence is real presence. Symbolic reality is as real as physical or emperical reality.

It took several years and a few graduate courses in sacramental theology for me to fully inderstand this because I too had been conditioned in the old defination of transubstantiation. It is not that we don’t teach it anymore, we now teach it more fully by bringing to it a sacramental understanding which has in the past been taught as separate subject matter.

I am quite frustrated by the number of posts I see here which totally minrepresent the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence in the Eucharist. It is real, is spiritual, it is sacramental, and yes, it is symbolic. It is not representitive, it is not metaphorical, it is not physical, it is not literal, (in the physical sense). It is REAL.

 

[benedictgal]

A few years back in undergraduate school I took a Sacramental Theology class. It was taught by a nun in her late 70s. She had an impressive life filled with experiences, including sitting on the Catholic advisory board of the World Council of Churches.

The subject of transubstantiation came up. She said, “We don’t teach that anymore.” I was shocked, and asked her doesn’t the Church still teach the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

She explained what she meant by saying that we are a sacramental Church, and sacramentality must include mystery and symbolism. It is true that over the 800+ years since the Laterine IV council declared transubstantiation to be doctrine (this was done about 50 years before the Summa was written) Catholic instructors have focused too heavily on the physical elements of the Eucharist and not enough on the spiritual. In a sense the focus has been on the negative rather than the positive. The bread and wine is NOT bread and wine anymore, while at the same time, the accidents do NOT change, we can NOT see the transformation. And somehow over the years symbols and symbolism have been assumed to mean false, unreal, or synthetic.

The post Vatican II approach is more positive, more spiritual, and more in tune with the Early Christian understanding of the Eucharist. We have shifted the focus away from the bread and wine and emphasize the Presence of Christ shrouded in mystery. We teach that symbols become the reality of that which they symbolize. We keep drumming at the fact that the Presence of Christ is a sacramental presence, and not a physical presence, or a literal one. This is difficult because people have been conditioned to believe otherwise. Aquinas never taught a physical or literal, neither did the Church, but this is what so many people think they are supposed to believe, and they have trouble with it.

Sacrament is a Latinized word for the Greek word for Mystery. Sacramental presence is real presence. Symbolic reality is as real as physical or emperical reality.

It took several years and a few graduate courses in sacramental theology for me to fully inderstand this because I too had been conditioned in the old defination of transubstantiation. It is not that we don’t teach it anymore, we now teach it more fully by bringing to it a sacramental understanding which has in the past been taught as separate subject matter.

I am quite frustrated by the number of posts I see here which totally minrepresent the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence in the Eucharist. It is real, is spiritual, it is sacramental, and yes, it is symbolic. It is not representitive, it is not metaphorical, it is not physical, it is not literal, (in the physical sense). It is REAL.

With all due respect, inasmuch as I can see what the nun was trying to say, I think that she has taken in a bit too much of the alleged Spirit of Vatican II as opposed to what the Council documents actually say.

About 29 years ago, when I was confirmed, our bishop (at the time) picked three kids to question. I was one of them. It fell to me, a girl of 12, to explain transubstantiation. As far as this little gal could go, I explained what it meant to the bishop, saying that when Jesus says “This is my Body”, “This is my Blood”, the bread and wine become His Body and Blood. They may still look like bread and wine, but, it is different. Needless to say, my CCD teacher (I was in Catholic school at the time and still do not understand why we still had to go to CCD since we had religious ed every day) breathed a sigh of relief and afterwords, the bishop joked that I should study theology.

We still teach transubstantiation. In fact, my parochial vicar makes a point of it at the tail end of most of his homilies. We should not be watering down the Faith. We should be reinforcing it. The fact that the Fourth Lateran Council declared transubstantiation
is doctrinal should indicate that it is something that should not be downplayed or dilluted.

Furthermore, we should not fall into antiquarianism.

 

[FrDavid96]

i was reading the book catholicism for dummies and was confused with the following quote on page 145.

i had never heard before that the priest turns into jesus, only that he had the power to consecrate.

am i reading this right?

You are reading it right, and it is correct. However, the author/editor could have used better words to describe it, or perhaps should have given more explanation. The priest is indeed *in persona Christi *Only Christ is present, and that’s why the priest says “this is my Body” not “this is His Body.”