Question:
From the Baltimore Catechism No. 3. Q. 880. How do we show that Christ did change bread ans wine into the substance of His body and blood? A. We show that Christ did change bread and wine into the substance of His body and blood: (1) From the words by which He promised the Holy Eucharist; (2) From the words by which He instituted the Holy Eucharist; (3) From the constant use of the Holy Eucharist in the Church since the time of the Apostles; (4) From the impossibility of denying the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, without likewise denying all that Christ has taught and done; for we have stronger proofs for the Holy Eucharist than for any other Christian truth. Q881. Is Jesus Christ whole and entire both under the form of bread aaand under the form of wine? A. Jesus Christ is whole and entire both under the form of bread and under the form of wine. Q. 882. How do we know that under the appearance of bread we recieve also Christ’s blood, and under the appearance of wine we recieve also Christ’s body? A. We know that under the appearance of bread we receive also Christ’s blood, and under the appearance of wine we receive also Christ’s body; because in the Holy Eucharist we receive the living body of Our Lord, and a living body cannot exist without blood, nor can living blood exist without a body. Q. 882. Is Jesus Christ present whole and entire in the smallest portion of the Holy Eucharist, under the form of either bread or wine? A. Jesus Christ is present whole and entire in the smallest portion of the Holy Eucharist under the form of either bread or wine; for His body in the Eucharist is in a glorified state, and as it partakes of the charactar of a spiritual substance, it requires no definite size or shape. For us traditionalists, the above answers it all. Christ is present physically, which is why we kneel to receive Him on the tongue, touched only by the ordained Priest acting in the person of Christ. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 2) Should any one presence be given any more importance than the others? Yes, the Eucharist…..it is the physical presence and therefore, because it comes into direct-physical contact with human beings it must be revered in a special way. I waited for a day or so to see if anyone else would comment on this passage from a post that I enjoyed reading. Personal opinion here, and one that is not necessarily all that well-formed: I think we need to be cautious about the word "physical" when talking about Real Presence. Adjectives like "real", "sacramental", and "substantial" keep us on more solid footing, IMHO. The only instance of a magisterial writing that I know of that uses the word "physical" is Paul VI’s encyclical Mysterium fidei, and he hastened to add that his use of the word was in a sense other than the commonly-understood one (what he meant by the term is not really clear). Having said that, I once again have not consulted the Catechism, and so will be interested to see if I am once again hoist 
. So I spend 15 minutes going through relevant passages just to make sure and come up with not one usage of the word "physical". As a matter of fact, there are a couple of instances where it looks like "physical" may have been specifically avoided. That is to say, some explanations are so wordy that had I (God help us all) been editing the CCC, I *would* have used the word physical for brevity and word flow. That leads me to believe there may well be a reluctance to use "physical presence". Huh…go figure. Those of you who seek confirmation of this…go look it up. Have fun with the index. HAH! Now, has anyone released the CCC on cd-rom? That would work on a Mac? I’m really getting tired of that so-called "index". — Steve "Behold the power of cheese!"
Bob Bobic |I love my country, but I fear |go Freeh
Response:
When I "joined" the Roman Catholic Church about ten years ago at the age of 62, I was taught that, after consecration, the bread and wine of the eucharistic meal remain bread and wine….but not *just* bread and not *just* wine.
That’s consubstantiation, and is false doctrine. Trent, Decree on the Holy Eucharist: And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, 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. I {}xxxx{}::::::::::::::::: H S Robyn B. Lokken
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I need some clarification and input. In the Const. on the Sacred Lit. it states that Christ has four presences in the Mass. 1) In the Word, 2) In the Presider, 3) In the Assembly and finally 4) In the Elements of Bread and Wine. Now, it also states that one of these (I want you to tell me which one) is a "unique" presence. My questions follow. 1) Is any one presence more important than the others? 2) Should any one presence be given any more importance than the others? 3) Are there, indeed four presences? 4) Why are there seemingly different theologies (in such a critical matter) in what is supposed to be One Universal Church? I’m confused and fear definite, irresolvable conflict in my situation. I want to be in line with the Church’s teaching but I’m hearing things from Church authority that disagree. Any comments are helpful. Please e-mail as well as post to this group. In Christ, Doug Kramer JP These days there is great liturgical confusion. It sounds like you are reading from a document that implements Sacrosanctum Concilium. Please identify the specific document and the location in the document were you are reading.
Not sure if the "JP" is addressed to me(?), but regardless, here is the passage in question from SC: 7. To accomplish so great a work Christ is always present in his Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass not only in the person of his minister, "the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross,"[20] but especially in the eucharistic species. by his power he is present in the sacraments so that when anybody baptizes it is really Christ himself who baptizes.[21] He is present in his word since it is he himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church. Lastly, he is present when the Church prays and sings, for he has promised "where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them" (Mt. 18:20). The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear about the Mass. Christ is present sacramentally in the Eucharist only.
Just so we’re all on the same page – see the passage above from SC and note that it mentions baptism as another specific example of Christ’s presence in a sacrament. But this presence would not be Real (in the Aristotelian sense). Agreed? There is no presence of Christ in the bread and wine! Christ works through the priest (in Persona Christi) to become real in the consecrated species. To say Christ is present in his word is to say nothing unique about the Mass. While Christ is present in the assembly, this says nothing unique about the Mass either.
I agree with this – and this is an important point for us Catholics to remember! While (most) Protestant demoninations may not share in the full sacramental life of the Catholic Church, we should acknowledge that God is present with them when they gather together and break open the Word. Jim
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 2) Should any one presence be given any more importance than the others? Yes, the Eucharist…..it is the physical presence and therefore, because it comes into direct-physical contact with human beings it must be revered in a special way. I waited for a day or so to see if anyone else would comment on this passage from a post that I enjoyed reading. Personal opinion here, and one that is not necessarily all that well-formed: I think we need to be cautious about the word "physical" when talking about Real Presence. Adjectives like "real", "sacramental", and "substantial" keep us on more solid footing, IMHO. The only instance of a magisterial writing that I know of that uses the word "physical" is Paul VI’s encyclical Mysterium fidei, and he hastened to add that his use of the word was in a sense other than the commonly-understood one (what he meant by the term is not really clear). Having said that, I once again have not consulted the Catechism, and so will be interested to see if I am once again hoist . The Real Presence is probably not physical in the sense of a "bleeding host". Since this is perhaps a common misconception, particularly among some non-Catholics, just wanted to bring that up. My own understanding is based on Aquinas’ formulation for transubstantiation, that the *substance* is Christ, while the *accidents* remain that of bread and wine. I think that, in the sense that most of us use the word "physical", the "physical" characteristics of the Eucharist would be classified as accidental. Jim
When I "joined" the Roman Catholic Church about ten years ago at the age of 62, I was taught that, after consecration, the bread and wine of the eucharistic meal remain bread and wine….but not *just* bread and not *just* wine. That seems satisfactory to me. I don’t claim thorough understanding of it. On the other hand, I don’t really understand atomic or numbers theory, either. But I believe both matter and numbers exist. Yet, I’ve never "seen" a number, nor do I "know" of what matter consists. But perhaps I stray off topic.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 2) Should any one presence be given any more importance than the others? Yes, the Eucharist…..it is the physical presence and therefore, because it comes into direct-physical contact with human beings it must be revered in a special way. I waited for a day or so to see if anyone else would comment on this passage from a post that I enjoyed reading. Personal opinion here, and one that is not necessarily all that well-formed: I think we need to be cautious about the word "physical" when talking about Real Presence. Adjectives like "real", "sacramental", and "substantial" keep us on more solid footing, IMHO. The only instance of a magisterial writing that I know of that uses the word "physical" is Paul VI’s encyclical Mysterium fidei, and he hastened to add that his use of the word was in a sense other than the commonly-understood one (what he meant by the term is not really clear). Having said that, I once again have not consulted the Catechism, and so will be interested to see if I am once again hoist .
So I spend 15 minutes going through relevant passages just to make sure and come up with not one usage of the word "physical". As a matter of fact, there are a couple of instances where it looks like "physical" may have been specifically avoided. That is to say, some explanations are so wordy that had I (God help us all) been editing the CCC, I *would* have used the word physical for brevity and word flow. That leads me to believe there may well be a reluctance to use "physical presence". Huh…go figure. Those of you who seek confirmation of this…go look it up. Have fun with the index. HAH! Now, has anyone released the CCC on cd-rom? That would work on a Mac? I’m really getting tired of that so-called "index". — Steve "Behold the power of cheese!"
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -3) Are there, indeed four presences? Yes…….it’s like the candle analogy that is often ascribed to explain the Holy Trinity. Now, let’s explore this analogy to Christ’s presence at the Mass. A lit candle has heat, light, flame, and the material candle itself. Christ is present in the word (heat), the presider (light), the assembly (flame), and the candle (the Eucharist). Without the physical candle (the Eucharist), we would have no light, heat, or flame. That is why the Church says we are a Eucharistic people…without it, we have no life. All work together. That is where Catholicism radically differs from Protestanism; Christ said (paraphrased) that if you don’t eat the Son of Man, there is no life in you (Gospel of John – to name one location.) Therefore, when we partake of the Eucharist we become apart of the Body of Christ (as well as through Baptism).
Pat, You guys are SO awesome. The candle analogy is absolutely excellent! Thanks a lot. Very much appreciated. Doug
Response:
A good point, Jim. Paul – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 2) Should any one presence be given any more importance than the others? Yes, the Eucharist…..it is the physical presence and therefore, because it comes into direct-physical contact with human beings it must be revered in a special way. I waited for a day or so to see if anyone else would comment on this passage from a post that I enjoyed reading. Personal opinion here, and one that is not necessarily all that well-formed: I think we need to be cautious about the word "physical" when talking about Real Presence. Adjectives like "real", "sacramental", and "substantial" keep us on more solid footing, IMHO. The only instance of a magisterial writing that I know of that uses the word "physical" is Paul VI’s encyclical Mysterium fidei, and he hastened to add that his use of the word was in a sense other than the commonly-understood one (what he meant by the term is not really clear). Having said that, I once again have not consulted the Catechism, and so will be interested to see if I am once again hoist . The Real Presence is probably not physical in the sense of a "bleeding host". Since this is perhaps a common misconception, particularly among some non-Catholics, just wanted to bring that up. My own understanding is based on Aquinas’ formulation for transubstantiation, that the *substance* is Christ, while the *accidents* remain that of bread and wine. I think that, in the sense that most of us use the word "physical", the "physical" characteristics of the Eucharist would be classified as accidental. Jim
Response:
2) Should any one presence be given any more importance than the others? Yes, the Eucharist…..it is the physical presence and therefore, because it comes into direct-physical contact with human beings it must be revered in a special way.
I waited for a day or so to see if anyone else would comment on this passage from a post that I enjoyed reading. Personal opinion here, and one that is not necessarily all that well-formed: I think we need to be cautious about the word "physical" when talking about Real Presence. Adjectives like "real", "sacramental", and "substantial" keep us on more solid footing, IMHO. The only instance of a magisterial writing that I know of that uses the word "physical" is Paul VI’s encyclical Mysterium fidei, and he hastened to add that his use of the word was in a sense other than the commonly-understood one (what he meant by the term is not really clear). Having said that, I once again have not consulted the Catechism, and so will be interested to see if I am once again hoist . The Real Presence is probably not physical in the sense of a "bleeding host". Since this is perhaps a common misconception, particularly among some non-Catholics, just wanted to bring that up. My own understanding is based on Aquinas’ formulation for transubstantiation, that the *substance* is Christ, while the *accidents* remain that of bread and wine. I think that, in the sense that most of us use the word "physical", the "physical" characteristics of the Eucharist would be classified as accidental. Jim
Response:
No offence, but if your a Catholic, somehow you missed out on the real basic stuff. Hope this helps. -ray
Ray, Thanks for you response. I am a Catholic and the problem is not that I missed something. Fact is, I thought I had it. Now I’m in a position where I’m being told some things that (I believe) are incorrect or at least stretched interpretations of Vatican II documents. I feel that I need to say something to correct these things. But before I do that I want to make sure I’ve got all my proverbial "ducks in a row". Speaking to a priest of 33 years is intimidating when I’m not even that old! So in addition to the internet assistance, I’ve got these same questions in to seminaries and Catholic universities and I’m going to be hitting on the likes of www.ewtn.com and Mr. Scott Hahn. So, thank you for your input. It will go a long way in either my education or someone elses. Doug
Response:
I need some clarification and input. In the Const. on the Sacred Lit. it states that Christ has four presences in the Mass. 1) In the Word, 2) In the Presider, 3) In the Assembly and finally 4) In the Elements of Bread and Wine. Now, it also states that one of these (I want you to tell me which one) is a "unique" presence. My questions follow.
Agreed….. 1) Is any one presence more important than the others?
see my response to #2. 2) Should any one presence be given any more importance than the others?
Yes, the Eucharist…..it is the physical presence and therefore, because it comes into direct-physical contact with human beings it must be revered in a special way. Think about it like this: we are imperfect and sinful by nature. Christ, who was and is perfect, is also all Holy and free from corruption. Therefore, the fact that God (through His Son Jesus) would willingly allow His perfect nature to become part of something that is sinful means that this sacrament and this presence deserves very secial attention. Christ other presences in the Mass are important, just we don’t physically become part of them as much as the Holy Eucharist. 3) Are there, indeed four presences?
Yes…….it’s like the candle analogy that is often ascribed to explain the Holy Trinity. Now, let’s explore this analogy to Christ’s presence at the Mass. A lit candle has heat, light, flame, and the material candle itself. Christ is present in the word (heat), the presider (light), the assembly (flame), and the candle (the Eucharist). Without the physical candle (the Eucharist), we would have no light, heat, or flame. That is why the Church says we are a Eucharistic people…without it, we have no life. All work together. That is where Catholicism radically differs from Protestanism; Christ said (paraphrased) that if you don’t eat the Son of Man, there is no life in you (Gospel of John – to name one location.) Therefore, when we partake of the Eucharist we become apart of the Body of Christ (as well as through Baptism). 4) Why are there seemingly different theologies (in such a critical matter) in what is supposed to be One Universal Church?
They appear to be different theologies, but in reality there is only one. This statement (#4), has a false premise. Allow me to use a Baseball team as an analogy: one batter hits .315, another hits .250. The guy htting .250 has 30 home runs, the guy hitting .315 has none. One could say that on the suface, the guys have conflicting value to the team….. But, they are playing for the SAME team. They simply have different roles to play. The same applies to question #4. Because there are four different presences of Christ in the Mass does not mean that the RCC is not Universal and united. It means that these presences have different roles to play for the one "team". I’m confused and fear definite, irresolvable conflict in my situation. I want to be in line with the Church’s teaching but I’m hearing things from Church authority that disagree. Any comments are helpful. Please e-mail as well as post to this group. In Christ, Doug Kramer
I hope this helps… pat – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
I need some clarification and input. In the Const. on the Sacred Lit. it states that Christ has four presences in the Mass. 1) In the Word, 2) In the Presider, 3) In the Assembly and finally 4) In the Elements of Bread and Wine. Now, it also states that one of these (I want you to tell me which one) is a "unique" presence. My questions follow. 1) Is any one presence more important than the others? 2) Should any one presence be given any more importance than the others? 3) Are there, indeed four presences? 4) Why are there seemingly different theologies (in such a critical matter) in what is supposed to be One Universal Church? I’m confused and fear definite, irresolvable conflict in my situation. I want to be in line with the Church’s teaching but I’m hearing things from Church authority that disagree. Any comments are helpful. Please e-mail as well as post to this group. In Christ, Doug Kramer
Response:
I was reading from the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. I will find the exact number tomorrow. But this is from a collection called the Liturgy Documents and resides there with Instruction on Eucharistic Worship, Directory for Masses with Children et al. Thanks! Doug
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I need some clarification and input. In the Const. on the Sacred Lit. it states that Christ has four presences in the Mass. 1) In the Word, 2) In the Presider, 3) In the Assembly and finally 4) In the Elements of Bread and Wine. Now, it also states that one of these (I want you to tell me which one) is a "unique" presence. My questions follow. 1) Is any one presence more important than the others? 2) Should any one presence be given any more importance than the others? 3) Are there, indeed four presences? 4) Why are there seemingly different theologies (in such a critical matter) in what is supposed to be One Universal Church? I’m confused and fear definite, irresolvable conflict in my situation. I want to be in line with the Church’s teaching but I’m hearing things from Church authority that disagree. Any comments are helpful. Please e-mail as well as post to this group. In Christ, Doug Kramer
JP These days there is great liturgical confusion. It sounds like you are reading from a document that implements Sacrosanctum Concilium. Please identify the specific document and the location in the document were you are reading. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear about the Mass. Christ is present sacramentally in the Eucharist only. There is no presence of Christ in the bread and wine! Christ works through the priest (in Persona Christi) to become real in the consecrated species. To say Christ is present in his word is to say nothing unique about the Mass. While Christ is present in the assembly, this says nothing unique about the Mass either. The only presence of Christ unique to the Mass is the Sacred Species. Only a priest, no other "presider" can celebrate Mass. Blessings, Jerry http://www.flash.net/~jerry53
Response:
I need some clarification and input. In the Const. on the Sacred Lit. it states that Christ has four presences in the Mass. 1) In the Word, 2) In the Presider, 3) In the Assembly and finally 4) In the Elements of Bread and Wine. Now, it also states that one of these (I want you to tell me which one) is a "unique" presence. My questions follow. 1) Is any one presence more important than the others?
More "important?" (Webster says: marked by or indicative of significant worth or consequence : valuable in content or relationship) We might go on for days, months and years in determining how each presence is very important. They are dfferent presences. The Eucharist is the "Real" presence. Faith comes through hearing. Therefore #1 is very important. Grace is administered through the sacraments with the Priest acting "in persona Christie." Therefore #2 is very important. Through the bride/body of Christ, under the assurance that he would be present when two or three are gathered in his name, we offer our prayers to the Father. Therefore #3 is very important. The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is fundamental to our lives as in Christ in the Church, it too is very important. 2) Should any one presence be given any more importance than the others?
Should it be given more importance? The proclaiming of the word is dependant on the voice, it is ehpemeral, it lasts only while the voice proclaims the word. At this time, it should receive great importance, because if you don’t hear the word, it will pass right by you at exactly mach 1. Should the presider be given importance? To be in the person of Christ is to be humble in the person of Christ. Should the assembly be given importance? No, to do so, would give the appearance of worshiping each other, and worship is to God. To be the bride and body of Christ is to be called to humility as well. Should the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, who remains with us, in the sacred Host and witin the cup even after the Mass is ended *(technically the cup is never reserved)* receive great importance? Yes. Because this presence above all is the summit and source from where all graces flow. 3) Are there, indeed four presences?
Yes. 4) Why are there seemingly different theologies (in such a critical matter) in what is supposed to be One Universal Church?
There are not different "theologies." It’s like the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. Are there seven different theologies on the Holy Spirit? No, just seven different ways the Holy Spirit bestows his gifts. — Peace & Good! Christopher Beattie SFO KOC, SPEBSQSA, et.al.
Response:
I’m confused and fear definite, irresolvable conflict in my situation. I want to be in line with the Church’s teaching but I’m hearing things from Church authority that disagree. Any comments are helpful. Please e-mail as well as post to this group.
Doug.. I myself do not have the answer to your question because I have no recourse to look up what your reading. However… I do have this bit of advise … When you find something that appears to contradict itself, relax… you have misinterpreted something.. and it may take a while to find out what. Also … stop and think "does this effect me?" .. for example.. do you have some responsibility here to teach this in catechism or something. My son came to me last week with an algebra problem. He was stumped (he’s flunking algebra this period).. I myself could not make sense out of the problem. Both of us were confused. Steve, my son, says "This stuff is crap. None of this works, no wonder I can’t understand it." I said "Steve, math and algebra have been around for 3000 years, ever since that guy Euclid or whatever the Greek guys name was, started it. It -has- to work!" "Steve…" I said … "isn’t there anybody you can call, some friend who can explain it?" "No Dad…" he said …"I’ve been skipping ahead in the book, the teacher really hasn’t assigned us these problems yet." Bottom line, it is a day by day cooperation with Providence which is the Church’s main purpose here on earth. It is the Will of God which the Church assists us to do. But we, as Americans in the rat race, have long ago lost sight of that, often tend to run ahead of God. Here is the West we prize the smartest intellect, in the East.. the people there thing we are nuts.. we build bombs just because we know how. Many and most of the Eastern cultures see Americans as de-humanized.. a slave to technology for the sake of technology. Even European countries, our friends, stand back and wonder at us a lot. In Europe they live on a daily basis with the ‘old’ .. old buildings, old institutions, old traditions going back hundreds of years. WE in America ripe down most building once they get to be 50 years old. Catholics over there see American Catholics as arrogant and almost a splinter group. OK.. before I get off the subject. If the documents your reading are genuine Roman Catholic in line with the teachings of the magisterium (some published in America are not), then there is no disagreement in meaning or terms. For example… there is only one Christ.. so there is only one presence… however He can be present in different ways. For example… I can be present by calling you on the phone, writing you a letter, being somewhere in your house with you in another room, standing in your face .. get the idea? One presence because there is one Christ. Simple.. don’t let your mind get tangled in intellectual complications. Lets start with present in Bread and Wine. This is a basic Catholic belief (somebody must have never explained it to you). Christ, being present in the species of Bread and wine, after the consecration, is a sacramental presence. A real presence. His real body and blood (the words of the mass remember?). Sacramental.. a sacred presence established by Christ himself for the use of the Church… the words "This is my body.. this is my blood" are His words which cause the tran-substance-ation to take place. Kind of nice of Him to be under the look of bread and wine – I might find it a bit hard to walk up and eat what looked like a bloody piece of human flesh. Christ being present in the assembly. That is in you and me. The mystical Body of Christ. When Saul saw the brilliant light (remember Saul/Paul had been persecuting Christians and had recently been an accomplis to the murder of Steven).. Christ said "Why do you persecute ME"… Paul never persecuted Jesus face to face!! Well.. not in the way we think.. but obviously in the way Christ thinks.. he did. By persecuting Christians Saul was persecuting the presence of Christ in them.. Christ Himself. So Christ is present in the Assembly at mass. Christ present in the "Pesider"… not reading what your reading so not having a full context, I would take this to be the Priest presiding at the Mass. Here Christ is present in another sacramental way (established by Christ himself for the use of the Church). Christ assigns the priesthood. Man can not create it himself. The Apostles (12 of the 120 or so disciples, not all disciples were made priests you know) were given the Priesthood by Christ himself… It would take too long here for me to explain how and when.. simply let me say it is when He commanded the 12 "Do this in memorial of me."… and in the traditions of the Jewish word "apostle" as 12 who were sent out from the main synagogue to surrounding congregations to assure conformity. In any event… Christ being present in the Priest.. is the one who makes Christ present in the host and wine. Remember at the last supper.. it was Christ Himself which made Christ Himself in the bread and wine. There was not three Christs then (standing at table, in the bread, and in the wine) but one Christ present in diffent ways. Why does he do it this way? I don’t know – your gona have to ask him and there is a heck of a lot of things He just doesn’t tell us. Faith remember. Should any one presence of Christ be given more importance than another… each is present to our knowing in a different way, and each has a different purpose to our human nature. Let me say this.. I would give the Euharist the highest respect as the central mystery from which all life in the Chruch flows… and if you treated the other presences of Christ with the respect you should treat the Eucharist – you would be a saint. No offence, but if your a Catholic, somehow you missed out on the real basic stuff. Hope this helps. -ray
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.