S
Startingcatholic
Guest
But if if they see an unconsecrated host that they believe to be consecrated. Would it only be a venial sin to worship what they believed to be the body and blood of Jesus?
What do non-Catholics do with the "leftovers" from their Eucharist or Lord's Supper?
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
It would be no sin at all.
N
NeuroTypical
Guest
Latter-day Saints don’t do real presence, or transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, or anything similar.
We do bless and sanctify the bread and water, thus making it holy. But the purpose of the sacrament to us, is to renew the covenants we made at baptism. We eat/drink in remembrance of the body/blood of Jesus, in order to bear witness, take upon ourselves His name, always remember Him, have His spirit to be with us.
After the ordinance, it’s still just bread and water and empty plastic cups, which we discard.
We also have a wide range of things that can be sanctified for the sacrament. Soldiers in the field can use canteen cups and MRE crackers, etc. Symbolic meaning takes precedence over notions of things really becoming flesh/blood.
We do bless and sanctify the bread and water, thus making it holy. But the purpose of the sacrament to us, is to renew the covenants we made at baptism. We eat/drink in remembrance of the body/blood of Jesus, in order to bear witness, take upon ourselves His name, always remember Him, have His spirit to be with us.
After the ordinance, it’s still just bread and water and empty plastic cups, which we discard.
We also have a wide range of things that can be sanctified for the sacrament. Soldiers in the field can use canteen cups and MRE crackers, etc. Symbolic meaning takes precedence over notions of things really becoming flesh/blood.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
True
It’s approx 98% of Catholicism.
It’s approx 98% of Catholicism.
S
steve-b
Guest
Good question.
Bottom line
Either the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ or it isn’t. What any individual believes doesn’t alter the truth of the matter. The Eucharist happens because it was consecrated by a validly ordained priest in apostolic succession. Outside of that, there is no valid ordination, nor valid consecration.
So
To your point,
“Once someone knows the truth,” is a key point. That’s why we are to pass on the knowledge we have, and not leave people ignorant of important things to know.
therefore,
Before one knows the truth, then one’s ignorance, providing it is innocent ignorance, might shield them from that sin.
I say might, because
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
Therefore, Since we don’t know what a person actually knows, in your question, we have to speak in qualified terms…right?
Last edited:
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Don’t you know that YOU are answerable for all of Protestantism?Lenten_ashes:
No, I agree, it is horrific.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
HopkinsReb:
W
Wannano
Guest
Did you mean to say "don’t you know you are NOT answerable for all of Protestantism? "Wannano:
Don’t you know that YOU are answerable for all of Protestantism?Lenten_ashes:
No, I agree, it is horrific.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Sarcasm is a lost art, it would seem.HopkinsReb:
Did you mean to say "don’t you know you are NOT answerable for all of Protestantism? "Wannano:
Don’t you know that YOU are answerable for all of Protestantism?Lenten_ashes:
No, I agree, it is horrific.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Quite the straw man there.
W
Wannano
Guest
I just came in from being in a cold wind all day…maybe my brain is frozen!
S
Shasta-Rose
Guest
Yes, by the time I was leaving the Lutheran Church, decades ago, they were doing Communion only a couple of times a year. So the remaindered wafers would not be saved, probably.
Pastor did say that the Lutherans considered the wafers and wine (not juice) to be the real presence of the Lord. Therefore, if there was any leftover wine, it was poured out on the ground. The glasses (we used tiny, little glasses) were washed out in a dish pan, which was then washed out and the wash water was dumped out on the ground, as well, and none went “down the drain.” I’m not as clear as to the wafers, but can just about guarantee that they were not thrown out with the garbage. They would have been treated with reverence and then maybe thrown out onto the ground, maybe mixed with the wine first, but definitely not thrown out with the garbage. This was all quite some time ago, of course, and Pastor is no longer around to ask.
Pastor did say that the Lutherans considered the wafers and wine (not juice) to be the real presence of the Lord. Therefore, if there was any leftover wine, it was poured out on the ground. The glasses (we used tiny, little glasses) were washed out in a dish pan, which was then washed out and the wash water was dumped out on the ground, as well, and none went “down the drain.” I’m not as clear as to the wafers, but can just about guarantee that they were not thrown out with the garbage. They would have been treated with reverence and then maybe thrown out onto the ground, maybe mixed with the wine first, but definitely not thrown out with the garbage. This was all quite some time ago, of course, and Pastor is no longer around to ask.
L
ltwin
Guest
I honestly don’t see a problem. It’s convenient. Perhaps not the most aesthetically pleasing way to distribute communion elements, but, from my tradition’s theological perspective, there is nothing disrespectful about distributing what is in fact bread and grape juice in plastic containers.
S
steve-b
Guest
Council of Florence (an ecumenical council) approved the use of either kind of bread in 1439, so the use of leavened or unleavened bread is a question of licitness, not validity. This was infallibly defined.
The council stated, “We have likewise defined that the body of Christ is truly effected in unleavened or leavened wheaten bread and that priests ought to effect the body of our Lord in either one of these, and each one namely according to the custom of his Church, whether that of the West or of the East” ( Decree for the Greeks ).
I showed in a previous post HERE why the Latin/Roman Rite uses unleavened bread.
The council stated, “We have likewise defined that the body of Christ is truly effected in unleavened or leavened wheaten bread and that priests ought to effect the body of our Lord in either one of these, and each one namely according to the custom of his Church, whether that of the West or of the East” ( Decree for the Greeks ).
I showed in a previous post HERE why the Latin/Roman Rite uses unleavened bread.
Last edited:
C
CelticWarlord
Guest
That’s what we had as well. I liked that everyone had their own and there was no sharing of lip balm. lol
Hence, when speaking of practice and doctrine, use of the term “Protestant” is folly.
As I often say.
Last edited:
While it isn’t the Lord before consecration, I find a certain irony between this and even the term “communion”.
I’ve never noticed lip balm or lipstick on the chalice.Shasta-Rose:
That’s what we had as well. I liked that everyone had their own and there was no sharing of lip balm. lol
- Status