Catholic's, at what point does it become the body? (2)

[Tayla]

Scripture only says that Christ's body and blood are indeed present in the Sacrament.

We have to be able to worship Jesus in his presence in the consecrated bread and wine. So, therefore, we have to know when he inhabits them.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

The short answer is at the epiclesis or the ringing of the bells at mass. That's the transforming invocation of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament.

 

[Tangible]

We have to be able to worship Jesus in his presence in the consecrated bread and wine. So, therefore, we have to know when he inhabits them.

I think "have to" is too strong of a statement here. We have the opportunity to worship Jesus in his presence in the Supper. We "get to" do it, not "have to". The Supper is Gospel, not Law.

In my Lutheran tradition, we show honor and reverence to the altar and the elements by bowing and kneeling and by blessing ourselves with the holy cross during the words of institution and after receiving the elements. I would not have a problem with someone saying I was worshiping the consecrated elements as my Lord is truly present for me in them according to scripture, forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life through the power of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If someone chose not to bow, kneel, cross themselves, or otherwise worship the presence of Our Lord in a traditional way - yet believed that he was indeed truly present - they would receive the same forgiveness of sins as the most traditionally observant worshiper.

Trying to categorically and objectively state, within the context of the entire service of the Sacrament, that in one second or split second He is present and in another second or split second He is not seems to me rather silly and an overly Law-orientated view of the Sacrament which completely misses the point of why Our Lord is present in the Supper in the first place.

He is not there to be worshiped, although we may rightly do so. He is there to give us the forgiveness of our sins.

 

[Knee V]

We have to be able to worship Jesus in his presence in the consecrated bread and wine. So, therefore, we have to know when he inhabits them.

On the Orthodox side of things, while we also believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, we do not do Eucharistic adoration. We believe that it is simply to be consumed. As such, by the time it is consumed, all the prayers have been said, and so knowing the exact point at which the change occurs is largely irrelavent.

 

[Tayla]

On the Orthodox side of things, while we also believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, we do not do Eucharistic adoration. We believe that it is simply to be consumed. As such, by the time it is consumed, all the prayers have been said, and so knowing the exact point at which the change occurs is largely irrelavent.

Yes, I prefer the Orthodox view in that Christ is present in the context of the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist and in the group sharing in the meal. Trying to identify a moment in time seems too "western" and scientific.

 

[Ron Gurley]

RCC doctrine of transubstantiation is false.

Why "sacrifice" Jesus at communion?

Hebrews 7:27 (NASB)
who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices,
first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people,
because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust,
so that He might bring us to God,
having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

 

[Athanasias]

In Catholic understanding the bread and wine become Christ Body and Blood Soul and Divinity somewhere within the Epiclesis and the words of consecration.

 

[Ron Gurley]

PLEASE DEFINE:
1. Christ Body and
2 Blood Soul and
3 Divinity
somewhere within the
4. Epiclesis and the
5. words of consecration.

 

[Athanasias]

PLEASE DEFINE:
1. Christ Body and
2 Blood Soul and
3 Divinity
somewhere within the
4. Epiclesis and the
5. words of consecration.

Ok Sure Good question. The bread and wine's substance change from bread and wine into the substance of Christ himself somewhere within the Epiclesis(A prayer that calls down the Holy Spirit or epicletic action of the priest). The words of consecration are "This is my Body, This is my blood". Western Catholics hold that the words of consecration transform the elements as the priest acts in persona Christi and Christ Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit transforms the elements through the priestly actions. At least one Eastern Catholic church does not even use the words of consecration but just the epiclesis and hold that at that prayer the transformation happens. I hope this helps.

 

[Ron Gurley]

For me, too much Sacred Tradition + Papal Magisterium and lack of Scriptural support.
John 6 is a metaphor!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

For me, too much Sacred Tradition + Papal Magisterium and lack of Scriptural support.
John 6 is a metaphor!

If Christ was speaking literally of the Eucharist or not, it certainly points to it.

 

[Athanasias]

For me, too much Sacred Tradition + Papal Magisterium and lack of Scriptural support.
John 6 is a metaphor!

Well yeah I mean I know you do not think it is real that is why your a non-denominational Christian and not one of the apostolic Christian Churches. We should talk about Jn 6 though because I feel there is a whole lot that points to this not being symbolic or metaphoric in context. Would you like to go verse by verse in Jn 6 and look at this? It seems odd to me to that all the early Church and martyrs taught this including those like St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of the apostles John himself. How would you explain that? Did all the early Christians get it wrong?

 

[Ron Gurley]

Q: Did all the early Christians get it wrong?

A: All spiritual interpretations contrary to those of God the Holy Spirit and that of Scripture are in error.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Q: Did all the early Christians get it wrong?

A: All spiritual interpretations contrary to those of God the Holy Spirit and that of Scripture are in error.

Even when we let Scripture interpret Scripture, and let Scripture take context from Scripture; we are still left with the real presence in the Eucharist. At which point it becomes the body and blood are irrelevant; as Luther said "it is what it is".

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Ok Sure Good question. The bread and wine's substance change from bread and wine into the substance of Christ himself somewhere within the Epiclesis(A prayer that calls down the Holy Spirit or epicletic action of the priest). The words of consecration are "This is my Body, This is my blood". Western Catholics hold that the words of consecration transform the elements as the priest acts in persona Christi and Christ Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit transforms the elements through the priestly actions. At least one Eastern Catholic church does not even use the words of consecration but just the epiclesis and hold that at that prayer the transformation happens. I hope this helps.

The Verba, the Words of institution, are key; Scripture reiterates this; although drawn and compiled from Scripture the Epiclesis is not part of the formula given to the Church. The Epiclesis itself implies that the onus is on the Priest whereas, it is God, regardless of who the celebrant is, that is responsible for the Eucharistic miracle.

 

[Athanasias]

The Verba, the Words of institution, are key; Scripture reiterates this; although drawn and compiled from Scripture the Epiclesis is not part of the formula given to the Church. The Epiclesis itself implies that the onus is on the Priest whereas, it is God, regardless of who the celebrant is, that is responsible for the Eucharistic miracle.

Thanks Mark for this info. Yeah Western Catholics agree with our lutheran brothers that it is the verba or words of consecration that transforms the Eucharist. This is the majority position historically and theologically. Your right on the fact that it is God who does the miracle through the ministry of the priest. We view it that way as well. The Eastern catholics also view it that way. I forgot which eastern Church does not use the words of consecration but there is one that just uses the epiclesis and I remember in grad school our sacramental theology professor was telling us about it. So its debated(at least in one Eastern Church in union with rome) when the change actually happens. But the east still sees it as God doing the transformation through the ministry of the priest in persona Christi even in the epiclesis. At the epiclesis the Holy Spirit is called down to do the work. I hope that helps. Its always good to talk to you!

 

[Athanasias]

Q: Did all the early Christians get it wrong?

A: All spiritual interpretations contrary to those of God the Holy Spirit and that of Scripture are in error.

Well how could God let every major Christian martyr and father/preacher for the first 1500 year be absolutely wrong on this understanding of scripture?

 

[Ron Gurley]

Non-Catholics: Transubstantiation?

https://www.catholiceducation.org/e...s/should-non-catholics-receive-communion.html

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Non-Catholics: Transubstantiation?

https://www.catholiceducation.org/e...s/should-non-catholics-receive-communion.html

Ron,

Good article. Did you know that both Confessional Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox practice "Closed Communion" for the same reason that the Catholic Church does? Did you know that until very recently; so did the Anglican Church (Episcopal) as well?

The reasons are valid.