Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
The Sacrament of the Eucharist
Topic Started: Wednesday, 27. September 2006, 23:23 (1,479 Views)
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Lets discuss the Sacraments. I am opening a thread for each one.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
MickCook
Member Avatar

Take a look at the following:

The deacons shall bring the offering to him [Bishop]; and he, imposing his hand on it, along with the presbytery, shall give thanks, saying, "The Lord be with you." And all shall respond, "And with your spirit." "Hearts aloft." "We keep them with the Lord." "Let us give thanks to the Lord." "It is right and Just."

This is the introduction to the Eucharistic prayer as noted by St. Hippolytus of Rome in The Apostolic Tradition dated 215 AD.

The essentials of the Eucharist that we hold dear today are right there in the Eucharist celebrated in the early Church. We not only share our faith with those living today, but also with the saints who have gone before us to the Kindom of God.

:)
Mick
The Cook Companies
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Karin
Member Avatar
Karin
For as long as I can remember - and that goes back to age 2 - I knew that Christ was 'up there on the altar' and He was always there. To a child, however, that interpretation was far different from an educated adult. But I KNEW, instinctively, that's where HE was.

When I grew up to an age of sentient reason, I understood the basics of why the consecrated hosts were kept in that cool gold thingy on the altar.

But until I really FELT the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I couldn't fully comprehend the true meaning of all the components in the Celebration of the Holy Mass.

And now, as a fully aware adult, I can feel each word being said during the Holy Mass in my heart...tears still come during the elevation and prayers..and I DO 'feel unworthy that HE should come under my roof, that HE say the word only and my soul shall be healed.' For me, it is truly a celebration of the gift of the Eucharist and the healing it brings, the communion with the Church Triumphant we share and the promises of Christ. The Eucharist is a living, breathing entity, just as it was at the first Passover meal shared by Christ and his apostles, to now in our own parishes, which we share together with Him. The Eucharist transcends time and as Mick said, it was the same for the early church as it is today. Our words may have changed a little, but their meaning is still the same.
Karin

Hvaljen Isus i Marija. Kraljica Mira, moli za nas.
"Praised be Jesus and Mary. Queen of Peace, Pray for Us."

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Poesy
Member Avatar

Posted Image


Christ's Solemn Promise.

'' The Bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world.''

''Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath everlasting life.''

''My flesh is the meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me and I in him.''

''The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.''


These words came from the lips of our Blessed Redeemer, the eternal Truth. Since they are His, and since He is the Son of God, they are true.
Accordingly everyone professing to be a Christian must receive such divine utterances with thanks and faith. ''The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.'' In these sacred texts so full of tenderness, sweetness and love, our Saviour Jesus Christ promised us the Holy Eucharist, that is, His own body and blood. Later, as we shall wee, He gave Himself to us in the Sacrifice of the Mass-the central rite of our holy religion and the principal means of divine worship. Nor was this all . On the same evening on which He instituted the Blessed Eucharist, He conferred on men the marvellous power changing bread, and wine into His body and blood and even commanded them to do so. ''Do this in commemoration of Me.'' Herein He ordained the apostles and consequently left in the Church the sacrament of Holy Orders.
Before ascending, therefore, to His eternal Father, our Blessed Lord left Himself in another form to each one of us; nay more He commanded all to partake of His body and blood. ''Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood you shall not have life in you.''
He was then speaking to the multitude and promised to give them later a far more heavenly food than the bread He had just then multiplied to satiate their hunger. This bread was to be superior even to the manna which during forty years fell from heaven and nourished their fathers in the desert. Were it merely a commemorative bread it would be really inferior to the manna; for the manna was heavely and miraculous, while bread is an earthly and natural food. ''Your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live forever.''
What this bread was to be He had previously repeatedly told them. - ''The bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world.'' Notwithstanding, this divine promise ad this divine threat, some amongst the hearers took offence and refused to believe the Saviour's words. Their objections, however, only goes to prove that they interpreted our Lord's language precisely as the Church explains it today. They understood him to speak literally, for St. John tells us that they ''disputed amongst themselves, saying : how can this man give us His flesh to eat ? '' And further more the Evangelist records the fact that '' Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe.''
So much were the disciples shocked at our Redeemer's doctrine and promise, that many of them (St. Augustine hands down the tradition that they numbered seventy), murmured and protested that '' this saying is hard and who can hear it.'' Eventually they went back and walked no more with Him. Does our Saviour recall them and explain that they had entirely misunderstood His language ?. Does He explain to those who remained that He spoke figuratively ? On the contrary, He repeats in more emphatic words the doctrine He had previously propounded. Then, turning to the twelve chosen ones, He thus addressed them: ''Will you also go away?'' These words express Christ's sorrow over the faithless disciples and unbelieving Jews and His confidence in the apostles. At the same time He seems to have wished also to test the faith and consistancy of the twelve. He would not force them to remain.
Then Simon Peter, the spokesman of the rest, replied: ''Lord, to whom shal we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. and we have believed and have known that Thou art the Christ the Son of God.''
Do no those who deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament today speak in the self-same language as the unbelieving Jews of old ? ''How can this man give us His flesh to eat.'' ; or they object with the words of the unfaithful disciples: '' This is a hard saying. Who can hear it ?''. But every Catholic replies with St. Peter their first Supreme Pastor, their first spokesman, '' Lord to whom shall we go ? Thou has the words of eternal life.''
We do not comprehend this ' Mystery of Faith,' but we do believe that nothing is impossible to God, and that He can and does give us, by a stupendous miracle, His body and blood for our spiritual nourishment.

-


Domine Jesu, noverim me .
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deacon Robert
Member Avatar

Mick,

There is an older prayer than the prayer of St. Hippolytus of Rome. I believe it is written by ST John Chrystostom (sp) I just emailed one of my Eastern Rite Deacon friends for the reference. Hopefully he will reply in a short time.

Very early in the church there were no Priests, the Bishop would consecrate and the Deacons would bring the sacred species to the faithful in outlying areas. The first Priests were ordained from the Jewish Priesthood because they had the ability to offer sacrafice.
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
MickCook
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Very early in the church there were no Priests, the Bishop would consecrate and the Deacons would bring the sacred species to the faithful in outlying areas. The first Priests were ordained from the Jewish Priesthood because they had the ability to offer sacrafice.


This is not strictly speaking, accurate. There were priests in the early Church, but the distinction between bishop (episcopus) and priest (presbyter) was not always clear. Deacons did assist bishops and women deacons assisted with the baptism of women - because all went down into the water completely naked.

At this time the hierarchy of the Church was still evolving, which is what I think you are trying to say, but it wasn't long before clear distinctions were made and the hierarchy was established. This is essentially the same today as it was then.

The point I was making is that the essentials of what makes the Eucharist the Eucharist were present in the early Church just as they are today.

:D
:)
Mick
The Cook Companies
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deacon Robert
Member Avatar

"At this time the hierarchy of the Church was still evolving, which is what I think you are trying to say, but it wasn't long before clear distinctions were made and the hierarchy was established. This is essentially the same today as it was then."

Yes, sorry sometimes I am not clear.


"The point I was making is that the essentials of what makes the Eucharist the Eucharist were present in the early Church just as they are today."

I agree. In many of the early writtings you can find descriptions of the eucharistic feast.


The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Some of you may be interested to read of an explanation of The Real Presence, and how it is possible for Jesus to be present under the appearances of bread and wine.

When I was receiving First Holy Communion instruction at the age of seven, the Sister who taught us was very very good at teaching, but with a class of 46 there was little or no time for answering questions. Solution - ask Mother, which I did. She gave the following answer:

You know God is so powerful and clever He made the whole world and everything here. Jesus is God the Son. You know Jesus could make blind men see and lame people walk. He rose from the dead without any help. God the Son put Himself inside a human body because he decided that was good. He can put Himself wherever he pleases, and he does, at every Mass.

I need no further theological explanation.

Thank God for mothers.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
BenAGregory
Member Avatar

Just seen Patrick's suggestions for a new thread so thought I'd take it up:

'Is receiving Communion in the hand disrespectful to Our Lord because I read somewhere that only consecrated hands should touch the Host?

Years ago, Patrick, it was the norm to receive under one kind only because the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ is present in both species.

Back then, and up until Vatican 2, those with consecrated hands were the only ones able to handle hosts. Since the Council, this has changed. Why, however, I do not know. Irreverence? Sign of the times?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gerard

Ben

Quote:
 
Back then


Back when? 1,900 years ago? No. 1900 years ago it was normal to pass the Consecrated Bread, The Eucharist, round hand to hand as was done at the Last Supper. Jesus was OK with this so why should not we?

At some point the Church restricted handling the Host to consecrated hands. It has the authority to do this. "What you bind on earth is bound in heaven". When did this happen. I dont know but would guess during the middle ages.

In our time the Church has gone back to allowing receiving the Host in our hands. It has the authority to do this "what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven".

So Jesus is OK with it, and the Church allows it. It is not irreverant.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PJD

Communion in the Hand?

What a very good answer you supplied Gerry.

PJD

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
"Out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches It but what is consecrated" said St. Thomas Aquinas.

Communion in the hand was condemned by the Synod of Rouen in 650 AD to put an end to widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

[EDIT]

Communion in the hand was abolished because of it's making the Host available to those who wished to profane the Sacred Host to 'legitimise' a 'Black Mass'.

In recent years, we have seen Hosts being sold on Ebay, hosts being passed around childrens' classrooms etc.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Who reintroduced the method of Communion in the hand? It wasn't Vatican 2. Nor was it Pope Paul VI, who said in a letter to the Bishops (Memoriale Domini) that 'This method, 'on the tongue' must be retained'.

If Communion in the hand is optional, why are our children in Catholic schools being taught to receive on the hand with the option of receiving on the tongue not being taught?
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
The vendor of one of the hosts advertised on Ebay claimed his mother kept it inside her mouth, after receiving it from Pope John Paul. No proof was offered on Ebay that it really was a consecrated host, let alone received from the Pope.

Satanists wanting consecrated hosts could receive them on the tongue, and retain them in their mouths until they had gone down the aisle and out of the door.

As Gerard says, the Church has authority. What is looses on earth is loosed in heaven.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Rose of York
Oct 8 2006, 01:54 PM
The vendor of one of the hosts advertised on Ebay claimed his mother kept it inside her mouth, after receiving it from Pope John Paul. No proof was offered on Ebay that it really was a consecrated host, let alone received from the Pope.

Oh, I see. I didn't realise that. Fair enough.

Quote:
 
Satanists wanting consecrated hosts could receive them on the tongue, and retain them in their mouths until they had gone down the aisle and out of the door.


Why would they want to receive the Body of Christ on their tongue, being Satanists, when they can just receive in the hand and put the Host in their posket/bag?

Quote:
 
As Gerard says, the Church has authority.  What is looses on earth is loosed in heaven.


Agreed. So who promulgated Communion in the hand?

Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Locked Topic