CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Teaching Series - dogmatic theology
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 28th May 2007, 11:53 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,603
Default TS 7c: the Eucharist

A validly-ordained priest or bishop says the words of consecration, chosen by the Church in accord with the words of her Savior, over the proper type of bread (unleavened wheat bread) and wine (made from grapes containing alcohol), resulting in a change of the substance of the bread and of the wine into the body and blood (i.e. the physical part of the human nature) of Christ; the soul of Christ and His Divine Nature are also immediately present, since Christ's body is never apart from His Divine Nature and since, being alive, His body and soul are united.

Only a priest or bishop can consecrate the Eucharist.
The words of consecration can be varied, according to the will of the Church, even to a great extent.


Christ did not establish the Sacraments in immutable specifics. The Church has the ability to change the Sacraments to a limited extent.

However, Christ did establish the Sacraments in immutable fundamentals. Anything that is fundamental to a Sacrament cannot be changed, even by the Pope and all the Bishops combined.

The bread and wine used for the Eucharist must be in accord with the bread and wine used by Christ for the first Eucharist: wheat bread which is unleavened and grape wine with alcohol. Rice hosts, which are used by some Protestant sects, cannot be validly consecrated. If a priest or Bishop uses rice hosts, even inadvertantly, the Eucharist is not present; it remains just a wafer of rice flour. Similarly, wine without alcohol, or wine not made from grapes cannot be validly consecrated. Even the Church does not have the authority to validly consecrate leavened bread or wine without alcohol or bread not from wheat.

The substance of the bread and wine are not replaced by the body and blood of Christ. Nor is the substance of bread and wine present along side the body and blood of Christ. The substance of bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ: this is called transsubstantiation.

However, the bread and wine are not changed into Christ's soul, nor into His Divinity. Christ's soul and Divinity are present with his body and blood, so that Christ is fully present in both his human and Divine natures. But the transsubstantiation only applies to the physical part of the human nature of Christ, i.e. his body and blood.

See also the section of this article on the Eucharist and Eternity:
http://www.catholicplanet.com/MHT/time-eternity.htm
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 29th May 2007, 01:10 AM
CRW
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mustum

Ron,

A: The question of the validity of the use of "mustum," or grape juice, for priests suffering from alcoholism or for some other medical reason was finally resolved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1994 in a letter signed by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Among other things this letter stated:

"A. The preferred solution continues to be communion 'per intinctionem,' or in concelebration under the species of bread alone.

"B. Nevertheless, the permission to use 'mustum' can be granted by ordinaries to priests affected by alcoholism or other conditions which prevent the ingestion of even the smallest quantity of alcohol, after presentation of a medical certificate.

"C. By 'mustum' is understood fresh juice from grapes or juice preserved by suspending its fermentation (by means of freezing or other methods which do not alter its nature).

"D. In general, those who have received permission to use 'mustum' are prohibited from presiding at concelebrated Masses. There may be some exceptions however: in the case of a bishop or superior general; or, with prior approval of the ordinary, at the celebration of the anniversary of priestly ordination or other similar occasions. In these cases the one who presides is to communicate under both the species of bread and that of 'mustum,' while for the other concelebrants a chalice shall be provided in which normal wine is to be consecrated."

Question: If mustum does not contain alcohol and the requirement remains for the Mass to be licit the consecration of both species is required, is the above valid? Or does the body and blood from the consecrated bread replace that of the wine? Reference: http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur133.htm

Cecil
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 29th May 2007, 01:51 AM
Joan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Miracle of the Eucharist

This Holy Truth of Christ truly present in the Eucharist is a miracle. How slowly this light dawned, and still unfolds to my awareness. "Lord I believe You are truly present, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in this Blessed Sacrament." This affirmation assists me to receive the Eucharist in faith, as we also call to mind the faith and humility of the good Centurion, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you," and "only say the word and I shall be healed"

This strength, hidden in plain sight, is one of the principal causes of antagonism towards the Catholic faith, the envy of Cain. Resentment and disregard for the sacrament seems more and more blatant, or at least I am noticing it more

Even when Christ still walked this earth, many departed from Him because of this teaching.

2. When you say that changes in the rite of Eucharist might be made, might that refer to the words we are used to hearing, such as "This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" ?

3. Also, I still don't understand a distinction you are showing us about the miracle of transubstantiation; but that does not mean that I in any way doubt the truth and reality of the Eucharistic miracle: "The substance of the bread and wine are not replaced by the body and blood of Christ. Nor is the substance of bread and wine present along side the body and blood of Christ. The substance of bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ: this is called transubstantiation." As the water was changed to wine, at Cana--it wasn't water that tasted like wine, or was water alongside wine, or water that vanished, to be replaced by wine; it was truly transubstantiation. "He changed the water into wine." ? Is this an accurate "type" of the Eucharistic miracle

If we consent with faith to the reality and truth as taught by the Church, do we receive the same degree of beneficial grace as if we had a fuller, or more correct understanding? It seems, subjectively, that as I've understood more, I've experienced increased awareness of the power of healing and peace, strength and holiness, in the Eucharist. With or without that subjective awareness, is the same efficacy present?

Last edited by Joan : 29th May 2007 at 01:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 29th May 2007, 02:24 AM
Joan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"....the bread and wine are not changed into Christ's soul, nor into His Divinity. Christ's soul and Divinity are present with his body and blood, so that Christ is fully present in both his human and Divine natures."

Meaning, that the Soul and Divinity of Christ are intrinsic to his Body and Blood, just as Joan's Soul is intrinsic or integrated, into the body Joan inhabits?

So therefore, if the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ glorified and transfigured, then He is truly present in these, as Joan is truly present in her mortal, physical body?

"But the transubstantiation only applies to the physical part of the human nature of Christ, i.e. his body and blood."

I don't think I understand this.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 29th May 2007, 02:49 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRW View Post

"C. By 'mustum' is understood fresh juice from grapes or juice preserved by suspending its fermentation (by means of freezing or other methods which do not alter its nature).

mustum is permitted because some fermentation has occurred and there is some alcohol present. Notice the text says 'suspending its fermentation' so fermentation has begun, with some alcohol being produced.

If there were no fermentation, it would not be valid. Grape juice is not permitted; it is used by some Anglicans and other Protestants, but is not valid for the Eucharist.

Similarly, the Church has steadfastly rejected calls for the use of rice wafers by persons with celiac disease (can't eat wheat). The matter must be unleavened bread.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 29th May 2007, 02:52 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joan View Post
Meaning, that the Soul and Divinity of Christ are intrinsic to his Body and Blood, just as Joan's Soul is intrinsic or integrated, into the body Joan inhabits?

So therefore, if the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ glorified and transfigured, then He is truly present in these, as Joan is truly present in her mortal, physical body?

I don't think I understand this.

Christ's Divinity has always existed and cannot be changed. Therefore, the substance of the bread and wine has not changed into the Divine Nature.

Christ's soul was created once at his Incarnation and virgin conception, created directly by God out of nothing. Therefore, the substance of the bread and wine has not changed into the soul of Christ.

But where the living body of Christ is present, his soul and Divinity are also present.

(Note that, even after the death of Christ, his Divine Nature remained united to his human body.)

i'm not sure I'd use the word 'intrinsic'....
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 29th May 2007, 02:57 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joan View Post
2. When you say that changes in the rite of Eucharist might be made, might that refer to the words we are used to hearing, such as "This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" ?

There was a controversy concerning an Eastern church in full communion with the Catholic Church; they use a very different formula for the consecration itself. Their formula does not contain any form of: 'This is my body. This is the cup of my blood.' Yet Pope John Paul II approved of their formula as a valid consecration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joan View Post
3. Also, I still don't understand a distinction you are showing us about the miracle of transubstantiation; but that does not mean that I in any way doubt the truth and reality of the Eucharistic miracle: "The substance of the bread and wine are not replaced by the body and blood of Christ. Nor is the substance of bread and wine present along side the body and blood of Christ. The substance of bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ: this is called transubstantiation." As the water was changed to wine, at Cana--it wasn't water that tasted like wine, or was water alongside wine, or water that vanished, to be replaced by wine; it was truly transubstantiation. "He changed the water into wine." ? Is this an accurate "type" of the Eucharistic miracle

If we consent with faith to the reality and truth as taught by the Church, do we receive the same degree of beneficial grace as if we had a fuller, or more correct understanding? It seems, subjectively, that as I've understood more, I've experienced increased awareness of the power of healing and peace, strength and holiness, in the Eucharist. With or without that subjective awareness, is the same efficacy present?

Yes, the miracle at Cana is a figure for understanding transsubstantiation. The bread and wine are not replaced by Christ's body and blood, but changed into Christ's body and blood.

A better figure is the Incarnation of Christ. A part of Mary's body was changed into the beginning of the body of Christ, and immediately, in the very same moment, his soul and Divinity were also present.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 29th May 2007, 10:13 AM
Rob Rob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sicily, Italy
Posts: 966
Default

Ron,

How about those eucharistic miracles where the eucharist has transformed into real meat and blood, such as at Lanciano. Is Christ still really present in those miracles?
Can a eucharist go bad if it's left or forgotten somewhere? What should a priest do if he finds an eucharist in such state?

Also, from what we have learned, fallen angels are able to conceal and move around object, so they could move hosts and make them appaear from nowhere. As I understand deamons can move ordinary not consacrated hosts, but are they able to move the eucharist? Thanks
__________________
For to me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain (Phil 1:21)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 29th May 2007, 12:17 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,603
Default

How about those eucharistic miracles where the eucharist has transformed into real meat and blood, such as at Lanciano. Is Christ still really present in those miracles?

The substance is still Christ's body and blood; it is only the form (appearances) which has changed. So I believe that he is still present.


Can a eucharist go bad if it's left or forgotten somewhere? What should a priest do if he finds an eucharist in such state?

Yes. The priest should dissolve it in water and then, when it has broken down (similar to its breaking down in the stomach), he can put it down the dry well used by the sacristy.

Also, from what we have learned, fallen angels are able to conceal and move around object, so they could move hosts and make them appaear from nowhere. As I understand deamons can move ordinary not consacrated hosts, but are they able to move the eucharist?

Yes, because when Christ was tempted in the desert, he was moved twice by Satan:

{4:5} Then the devil took him up, into the holy city, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple,
{4:6} and said to him: “If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down. For it has been written: ‘For he has given charge of you to his angels, and they shall take you into their hands, lest perhaps you may hurt your foot against a stone.’ ”
{4:7} Jesus said to him, “Again, it has been written: ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’ ”
{4:8} Again, the devil took him up, onto a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory,
{4:9} and said to him, “All these things I will give to you, if you will fall down and adore me.”
{4:10} Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan. For it has been written: ‘You shall adore the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’ ”
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 29th May 2007, 06:36 PM
Rob Rob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sicily, Italy
Posts: 966
Default

Interesting, didn't know that. Concerning my third question, I thought that the devils were afraid of Christ in the eucharist and could stand his presence just like holy water.
__________________
For to me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain (Phil 1:21)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.