Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Consecration

Expand Messages
  • Speranda62@aol.com
    This is a change of subject obviously oblivious to ongoing discussions and disagreements. I have read and studied on the Eucharist and the nature of the
    Message 1 of 4 , May 16, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      This is a change of subject obviously oblivious to ongoing discussions and disagreements.

      I have read and studied on the Eucharist and the nature of the Consecrated Host, transubstantiation, consubstantiation..etc..etc.

      I would like to see some discussion from those who hold that the Bread and Wine become the Actual body and blood of Christ. Maybe I am not even wording it correctly here, but, basically how are we to think that the elements of matter used are truly transformed into the body and blood of Christ?

      I heard it stated today that If any part of the elements remain as "bread and wine", that this is not transubstantiation and will either fall under Lutheran's "consubstantiation", or Zwingli's symbolic presence only. Either way, if any part of the matter remains it is not a valid Eucharistic meal.

      I know that Catholics certainly maintain the actual transformation of the Host into the Body and Blood of Christ through the sacramental consecration by the Priest.

      Can someone help me understand these ideas?

      Tammy
    • greasy14jc@aol.com
      Tammy, You wrote: I would like to see some discussion from those who hold that the Bread and Wine become the Actual body and blood of Christ. Maybe I am not
      Message 2 of 4 , May 16, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Tammy,

        You wrote: "I would like to see some discussion from those who hold that the
        Bread and Wine become the Actual body and blood of Christ. Maybe I am not
        even wording it correctly here, but, basically how are we to think that the
        elements of matter used are truly transformed into the body and blood of
        Christ?

        I heard it stated today that If any part of the elements remain as "bread and
        wine", that this is not transubstantiation and will either fall under
        Lutheran's "consubstantiation", or Zwingli's symbolic presence only. Either
        way, if any part of the matter remains it is not a valid Eucharistic meal.

        I know that Catholics certainly maintain the actual transformation of the
        Host into the Body and Blood of Christ through the sacramental consecration
        by the Priest."

        It is my understanding that the Catholics believe, from what I have
        gathered concerning Aristotelean philosophy, that things are composed of
        three basic properties: form, function, and accident. Although, I'm sure,
        there are bound to be differences. An example of this, for say, a chair would
        be: Form: chairness, or what it is that all chairs have in common, Function:
        to rest your bum on, or put less crudly, to sit on, Accident: what it happens
        to be made out of materialistically, i.e., wood, metal, plastic, etc. It is
        my understanding that the Roman Catholic Church (And I might very well be
        mistaken, if I am, someone please correct me.) teaches that in the Eucharist
        when the change occurs, the form and function change into the very body and
        blood while the accidents remain the same. In other words: the bread and wine
        will appear to all the senses to be nothing more than bread and wine (since
        that is their material constituent or accident), while their form (what all
        other body and blood of our Lord has in common) and function (the forgiveness
        of sins and life everlasting? I'm not sure how the West views this) will have
        changed to the life giving body and blood of our Lord.
        For my own part I do believe the Orthodox reject this due to their
        largely mystical approach to theology and philosophy. Any static definition
        of something that transcends our understanding would be inadequate. We simply
        say it truly changes in a mystical way. There is also a difference between
        east and west as to when the change occurs. I believe that the West holds
        that the change occurs when the words of the priest or bishop are spoken,
        whereas the East holds that the change occurs when the Holy Spirit descends
        upon the gifts in a unique way.
        I really know little to nothing about Luther's view and I feel
        unqualified to present such a view.
        This is not an argument, I am not arguing for which side I believe is
        right, I am merely conveying my own understanding of the issue. I readily
        invite correction if anything I have said is inaccurate and I hope that you
        all will do your best to make sure I am being honest.

        "The Word exercises an influence which does not make poets: it does not equip
        philosophers nor skilled orators, but by its instruction it makes mortals
        immortal, mortals gods; and from the earth transports them to the realms
        above Olympus." - Justin Martyr

        - Jason
      • Speranda62@aol.com
        Jason, Thanks. Most of what you wrote I have read in my studies. I have a whole book of reference to the Properties of things, Function, Form and Accident. I
        Message 3 of 4 , May 16, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Jason,

          Thanks. Most of what you wrote I have read in my studies. I have a whole book
          of reference to the Properties of things, Function, Form and Accident.  I
          guess it comes down to the standard Working Stiff Single Mom syndrome, when
          things of theology and philosophy meet my practical and everyday brain. I am
          like..Ok,,now how do I think this wafer and wine are really Christ? I am
          trying to plant those mysteries of the faith deep in my heart and mind.

          I thought I'd share this with you concerning your observation of the
          "Aristotelian philosophy" of the Western Church's view of Transubstantiation:

          From Dave Armstrong:
          Contrary to the common misconception, transubstantiation is not dependent
          upon Aristotelian philosophy, since some notion of the concept goes back to
          the earliest days of the Church when Aristotle's philosophy was not known.
          The eastern Fathers, before the sixth century, used the Greek expression
          metaousiosis
          , or "change of being," which is essentially the same idea. The
          Church did, however, draw upon prevalent philosophical categories, such as
          substance
          and accidents. In all ages, Christians have sought to defend
          Christianity by means of philosophy and human learning (wherever the
          individual intellectual categories utilized were consistent with Christian
          faith). St. Paul, for instance, did this in his sermon on Mars Hill in
          Athens, where he made reference to pagan poets and philosophers (Acts
          17:22-31). St. Augustine incorporated elements of Platonic thought into his
          theology, and St. Thomas Aquinas synthesized Aristotle and Christianity into
          a unified, consistent system of Christian thought (Scholasticism or Thomism).


          You write : <There is also a difference between east and west as to when the
          change occurs. I believe that the West holds that the change occurs when the
          words of the priest or bishop are spoken,  whereas the East holds that the
          change occurs when the Holy Spirit descends  upon the gifts in a unique way.>


          The Council of Trent, in its Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the
          Eucharist
          , of October 11, 1551, defined the following propositions as
          absolutely binding on all Catholics:

          In the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the
          bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really,
          and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things.
          Immediately after the consecration the Veritable Body of our Lord and His
          veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species
          of bread and wine . . . as much is contained under either species as under
          both. By the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conversion is made
          of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ
          our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His
          Blood; which conversion is by the holy Catholic Church suitably and properly
          called transubstantiation.


          It is my understanding that after the Words of the Priest to Invoke the Holy
          Spirit upon the Host and seeking the Consecration that the substance is
          changed to the Body of Christ. This is mere nit picking, but both West and
          East agree on the timing of the change of the Substance I think. Both occur
          after the Supernatural Work of the Holy Spirit has been invoked.

          Now, I don't know if in the Eastern church Words are actually spoken for
          consecration or if the elements are prayed over or what. But it is through
          the Eucharistic Prayers that the Holy Spirit is invoked and called upon and
          only after the Holy Spirit Supernaturally changes the elements that the Host
          becomes the Body of Christ.

          Tammy



        • JB LACA
          Dear Tammy, http://www.catholic.net/Periodical/Homiletic/Jan98/transubstantiation.html (From Homiletic & Pastoral review) and
          Message 4 of 4 , May 21, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Tammy,

            http://www.catholic.net/Periodical/Homiletic/Jan98/transubstantiation.html

            (From Homiletic & Pastoral review)
            and
            http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha4.htm
            (By Frank Sheed)
            Although I'm unworthy to loose the sandals of anyone
            here as far as intellect goes, I do hope that these
            links help.
            God bless you and yours!
            Johnny
            --- Speranda62@... wrote:
            > This is a change of subject obviously oblivious to
            > ongoing discussions and disagreements.
            >
            > I have read and studied on the Eucharist and the
            > nature of the Consecrated Host, transubstantiation,
            > consubstantiation..etc..etc.
            >
            > I would like to see some discussion from those who
            > hold that the Bread and Wine become the Actual body
            > and blood of Christ. Maybe I am not even wording it
            > correctly here, but, basically how are we to think
            > that the elements of matter used are truly
            > transformed into the body and blood of Christ?
            >
            > I heard it stated today that If any part of the
            > elements remain as "bread and wine", that this is
            > not transubstantiation and will either fall under
            > Lutheran's "consubstantiation", or Zwingli's
            > symbolic presence only. Either way, if any part of
            > the matter remains it is not a valid Eucharistic
            > meal.
            >
            > I know that Catholics certainly maintain the actual
            > transformation of the Host into the Body and Blood
            > of Christ through the sacramental consecration by
            > the Priest.
            >
            > Can someone help me understand these ideas?
            >
            > Tammy
            >


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
            http://auctions.yahoo.com/
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.