Confusing part of the Eucharistic Prayer

[PolskiKrol]

Isn't it strange how we say, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again?" after the consecration? Hasn't Jesus already come again?

 

[Tonks]

Isn't it strange how we say, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again?" after the consecration? Hasn't Jesus already come again?

Er, I'm guessing that this has something to do with Transubstantiation...?????? There is a difference between the Eucharist and the Parousia.

Granted, the question is not terribly clear so I really don't know what you're getting at....

 

[PolskiKrol]

Well, Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, and He has just come onto the alter, so isn't more accurate to say He has come again?

 

[PolskiKrol]

There is a difference between the Eucharist and the Parousia

What is the difference?

 

[IAMCATHOLIC]

Isn't it strange how we say, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again?" after the consecration? Hasn't Jesus already come again?

Hi PolskiKrol,

The prayer refers to the second coming of Christ - the final judgment.

Yes, Jesus "comes" in the form of the Eucharist, but as the sacrifice. His sacrifice is re-presented to us at every Mass celebration.

Does that help?

 

[BrRichSFO]

Isn't it strange how we say, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again?" after the consecration? Hasn't Jesus already come again?

Speaking in this manner is as though Christ is not present right there in front of you. Because of this the Bishops have decided that this acclamation is no longer to be used.

 

[SmileBugMG]

Speaking in this manner is as though Christ is not present right there in front of you. Because of this the Bishops have decided that this acclamation is no longer to be used.

In Pittsburgh we usually use, "Lord, by your cross and resurrection, You have set us free. You are the Savior of the world."

 

[isshinwhat]

There is a difference between the Sacramental Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Local Presence of Christ at the right hand of the Father in Heaven. This is heavy reading, but well worth it and a good starting point. On our altars we have Christ sacramentally present, at the second coming Christ will be locally present. Thus it is most proper to say "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ willcome again," at the Mysterium Fidei. It is precisely through Christ's coming in the Eucharist that we prapare for His Second Coming.

Thomas Aquinas on the Local Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
As stated above (1, ad 3; 3), Christ's body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ's body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body.

Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.
Thomas Aquinas ST III. 76.5.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[Gwendolyn]

Isn't it strange how we say, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again?" after the consecration? Hasn't Jesus already come again?

Congratulations, my friend. You have discovered a debate that is ongoing among many liturgists. There is a discussion about whether or not it is appropriate to include such a statement in the Mass. However, those who have posted above are correct to make a distinction between Christ's presence in the Eucharist and His Parousia. That is one way to understand it...

 

[D'Ann]

Well, Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, and He has just come onto the alter, so isn't more accurate to say He has come again?

Christ is the past, present and future... and No he hasn't come yet in the physical way that has been promised by Christ himself. (I probably missed the point. sorry)

 

[isshinwhat]

Congratulations, my friend. You have discovered a debate that is ongoing among many liturgists. There is a discussion about whether or not it is appropriate to include such a statement in the Mass.

lex orandi, lex crenendi As we pray, so we believe. Such statements must be left in our prayers, as they are an expression of our faith. Any liturgist who wants such statements removed should himself be removed from his office and sent back to school.

 

[D'Ann]

You all should check out Warrior Angel's thread. She posted a link to a great article about the Liturgy and stuff. Link:


http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=33895

 

[Tonks]

lex orandi, lex crenendi As we pray, so we believe.

Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi​

"Let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer." This is more liturgically accurate than the more commonly seen "Lex orandi, Lex credendi" ("the law of prayer determines the law of faith"), which was condemned by Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical "Mediator Dei" (paragraphs 46-48). The latter, to use the words of His Holiness, inaccurately assumes that the "sacred liturgy is a kind of proving ground for the truths to be held of faith, meaning by this that the Church is obliged to declare such a doctrine sound when it is found to have produced fruits of piety and sanctity through the sacred rites of the liturgy, and to reject it otherwise." Instead, the rule of belief determines prayer.

 

[isshinwhat]

Exactly my point. Prayer is an expression of belief, and the Catholic belief is there is a difference between the local and sacramental presence of Christ. Belief and prayer are an organic whole. Prayer is the breath of the Church and the expression of our belief. Corrupt her prayer, corrupt her breath... Corrupt her breath, cut off her life. As Pius XII said,

59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

 

[QuantaCura]

Christ coming in glory is different than His presence under the Sacramental veils--it's why we say Second Coming and not bazillionth coming.

Honestly, I've heard that accalamation tons of times and never found it odd or confusing.

 

[PolskiKrol]

Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.

Kinda funny to hear a saint say that.

 

[PolskiKrol]

Thomas Aquinas on the Local Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
As stated above (1, ad 3; 3), Christ's body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ's body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body.

Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.
Thomas Aquinas ST III. 76.5.

So what St. Tommy is saying is that Christ's body, its substantive quality, is only equal ("commensurate") to the "foriegn" (bread's) dimensive qualities. So that Jesus in the form of bread does not have the same qualities that Jesus in heaven at Gods right hand has.

This seems contrary to what I've been taught. And believe.

Its not the first time Jesus has done something like this. He went from being something not of the natural order, the Word, to something which was, a body. Now at first glance we could say that this body was restricted to the dimensive qualities of a body. Namely, people could see that He had to eat and drink and (proabably) poop and sleep and if you touched him you bounced off and didn't go through (except that wall, but that only happend ONCE, ok?). But heres the catch- He was not, and did not, restrain Himself to the foreign dimensive qualities which his substance took on. Namely, He conquered death, and rose again.

I believe it is the same with the bread. Remember the Ascension? Jesus is in heaven, in splendor, in the same body He had here on earth. That Body, while still in foriegn dimensions (the dual nature of Christ- God and man), contains the entire splendor of His heavenly reign. Though many people back in His day couldn't see it. I think Jesus in the form of bread is the same.

 

[isshinwhat]

I believe it is the same with the bread. Remember the Ascension? Jesus is in heaven, in splendor, in the same body He had here on earth. That Body, while still in foriegn dimensions (the dual nature of Christ- God and man), contains the entire splendor of His heavenly reign. Though many people back in His day couldn't see it. I think Jesus in the form of bread is the same.

The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is different than the Incarnation in that when Christ became Incarnate, there was present in the One Person of Jesus both a human and divine nature in their fullness. With the Eucharist, the bread and wine are no longer present in their substance, only their elements. To say the Eucharist is lke the hypostatic union is called companation, and its later variant consubstination is a belief held by the Lutherans.

Now at first glance we could say that this body was restricted to the dimensive qualities of a body.

after work... Thank you for the conversation.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[AnnieG]

I think it has something to do with the Mass, which we will celebrate until Christ finally comes. He is with us, he told us: I am with you until the end of the world. Especially in the form of the consecrated species. But his definite return to judge the living and the dead is what we are waiting for and professing during Holy Mass.

 

[a_ntv]

"Let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer." This is more liturgically accurate than the more commonly seen "Lex orandi, Lex credendi" ("the law of prayer determines the law of faith"), which was condemned by Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical "Mediator Dei" (paragraphs 46-48). The latter, to use the words of His Holiness, inaccurately assumes that the "sacred liturgy is a kind of proving ground for the truths to be held of faith, meaning by this that the Church is obliged to declare such a doctrine sound when it is found to have produced fruits of piety and sanctity through the sacred rites of the liturgy, and to reject it otherwise." Instead, the rule of belief determines prayer.

Liturgy is many times the way to check some doctrine back in the centuries of the Tradition.

The encyclical "Mediator Dei" comdamns "who have claimed that the sacred liturgy is a kind of proving ground for the truths to be held of faith," but is states that: "The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church."

In other words: the Liturgy cannot be used to introduce/change doctrine, but the liturgy shows the Christian faith.

Isn't it strange how we say, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again?" after the consecration? Hasn't Jesus already come again?

The old Trentine idea that the Bread becames Body in the very second of the words "This is my.." has been recently heavily convulsed by the Vatican statment that one Orthodox Eucaristic Prayer without the words "This is my.." is perfecly valid (see http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...uni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html).
So the idea now of most theologicans is that the whole 'Eucharistic Prayer' has a consacranting value, so to define a detailed second can lead to misunderstanding.
I remember you that the Eucharistic Prayer starts with the dialogue "The Lord be with you" and ends with the doxology "In Christ, for Christ, with Christ..."