|
Post by TarueBeliever on Aug 24, 2004 18:22:21 GMT -5
In the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, Article 2.2.1.3 "The Sacrament of the Eucharist," I read that ...
1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
My question is, if a priest had an awful, unconfessed sin in his life, would his saying the words of the liturgy still consecrate the bread and wine?
We know there have been priests with such sins (pedophiles for example) who were unrepentant for years. If such a priest could only pretend to consecrate the bread and the wine, I imagine the consequences would be awful for those depending on him. Since the physical characterists of the wine and bread do not change, his church members couldn't know of his deception.
Please edumacate me.
TB
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Aug 24, 2004 20:52:43 GMT -5
In the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, Article 2.2.1.3 "The Sacrament of the Eucharist," I read that ...1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.My question is, if a priest had an awful, unconfessed sin in his life, would his saying the words of the liturgy still consecrate the bread and wine?
We know there have been priests with such sins (pedophiles for example) who were unrepentant for years. If such a priest could only pretend to consecrate the bread and the wine, I imagine the consequences would be awful for those depending on him. Since the physical characterists of the wine and bread do not change, his church members couldn't know of his deception.
Please edumacate me.
TB This is a very good question, and one that deserves a thoughtful answer. My first thought was that despite the priest's role in both the pkmtyolm and the consecration, ultimately it is Jesus who santifies any of His gifts to His people. While researching, I recalled a story from a few years ago where a local priest had taken it upon himself to modify the pkmtyolm. The first thing that came up was did his willful act nulify the sanctifying grace of the sacrements. The answer was that to the faithful, Jesus still acted through the consecration of the priest to fulfill the promise of the Holy Euchrist. So, I came up with a couple of things. As we all know, through the years, the Roman Catholic Church has been no stranger to scandal. Fortunately, during these times many great people have been able to step up to challenge these scandalous people and protect the Body of Christ. I found some articles that I would like to excerpt for you: It is my belief that Jesus can still work through a sinful priest (or minister). If we were dependent on the priest's personal holiness, we would be in trouble. Though they are chosen by God from among men, priests are tempted and fall into sin just like anyone else. But of course God knew that from the beginning. Eleven of the first twelve apostles scattered when Christ was arrested, but they came back.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Aug 25, 2004 7:16:40 GMT -5
It is my belief that Jesus can still work through a sinful priest (or minister). If we were dependent on the priest's personal holiness, we would be in trouble. Though they are chosen by God from among men, priests are tempted and fall into sin just like anyone else. But of course God knew that from the beginning. Eleven of the first twelve apostles scattered when Christ was arrested, but they came back. Thank you. Is this your opinion or the position of the Catholic Church?
TB
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Aug 25, 2004 7:45:56 GMT -5
Thank you. Is this your opinion or the position of the Catholic Church?
TB At the moment, I would say it is my opinion supported by earlier men of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Aug 25, 2004 8:31:53 GMT -5
I think Ulrich Zwingli was the first to doubt the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist when he debated with Luther somewhere back in 1529. After that all hell broke loose. So this denial is a relatively new development in the 2000 year history of the church.
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Aug 25, 2004 8:42:07 GMT -5
I think Ulrich Zwingli was the first to doubt the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist when he debated with Luther somewhere back in 1529. After that all hell broke loose. So this denial is a relatively new development in the 2000 year history of the church. Pietro, If Christ was really present in the bread and the wine of the Eucharist, you would know about it! You would see it, you would smell it, you would taste it, and you would be able to feel the texture of His flesh in your mouth. Ulrich Zwingli was an intelligent man by the sound of it. Christian.
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Aug 25, 2004 8:52:20 GMT -5
question... you say smell, taste and texture - and how would you or anyone know just what that would taste, smell or feel like? Come off it, Marysia! Are you really trying to suggest that wine tastes like blood, and bread tastes like human flesh? Now you really are beginning to worry me.....Actually YOU said that -- Either the bread and the wine of the Last Supper physically changed into the flesh and blood of Christ, or they didn't, and that includes their smell, taste and texture. No indication is given in scripture that they were changed into the substance of Christ. I REPLIED -- you say smell, taste and texture - and how would you or anyone know just what that would taste, smell or feel like? there was only one Jesus Christ, See what happens when you take something out of context. there was only one Jesus Christ, He was the only God who came in the form of man. He was of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. That's correct. so when Christ, at the behest of His mother Mary changed water to wine at the wedding - why didn't they give us the vintage - so we could know it was really wine? That is so funny, Marysia! ;D You seem to think that Christ can't do whatever He sets His mind to (or in the wedding instance, what His mother requests). I never said that. Remember the story of Christ walking on water - was that real? Indeed it was! How about Noah, Jonah and all those other "stories" of the Bible, gracious, what about Adam & Eve? They are true stories too.I do not put limitations on God. Andy, when you think of the Crucixion do you really think that we can even comprehend what was happening to our Lord? None of us can. I know this is not the papacy thread but was wondering if you would be so kind as to possibly reply to questions that have been made there, here? if you would like them reposted please just let me know. That's up to you.One I questioned was - do you believe in the Trinity? Absolutely! then you understand that Jesus is God and God is Jesus. Mary gave birth to Jesus... It's a shame that people often take things out of context only so they can twist it to mean something other than what it is. reminds me of that michale moore movie.
Christian.so all those other "stories" from the bible are true -- who is to say it too is not a metaphor? what about Mary's impregnation? that is something that has to be taken on word, on faith alone... how else could someone become pregnant without actually having sex? God works wonders and since Christ was God, He too can work wonders.
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Aug 25, 2004 8:57:00 GMT -5
Pietro, If Christ was really present in the bread and thewine of the Eucharist, you would know about it! You would see it, you would smell it, you would taste it, and you would be able to feel the texture of His flesh in your mouth. Ulrich Zwingli was an intelligent man by the sound of it. Christian. why do you keep assuming and cpkmtyollifying Christ as man? He was more than that. you've already agreed that He was God. COuld normal man walk on water? Change water to wine? so why do you think His Body & Blood were exactly like ours? Have you ever been touched by God? I have and it's nothing like anything I've ever felt before. Have you ever heard from God? I have and again, it's not like He rang me up on verizon and said - hey whatcha doin with your life! We have been told - Christ's ways are not our ways.
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Aug 25, 2004 9:25:09 GMT -5
why do you keep assuming and cpkmtyollifying Christ as man? He was more than that. you've already agreed that He was God. COuld normal man walk on water? Change water to wine? so why do you think His Body & Blood were exactly like ours? Have you ever been touched by God? I have and it's nothing like anything I've ever felt before. Have you ever heard from God? I have and again, it's not like He rang me up on verizon and said - hey whatcha doin with your life! We have been told - Christ's ways are not our ways. Because Christ was fully man as well as being fully God. His flesh and blood were the same as the flesh and blood of every other person in history. It was actually a Gnostic teaching that said that Christ wasn't truly human, which is a heresy that I know you are not trying to say. My question has still not been answered, so I will pose it again. If the bread and wine do not change in a physically perceived way (touch, smell, taste, substance), then how did it change? What is the difference between a symbolic change and this change here, if there is no physical change?
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Aug 25, 2004 10:12:00 GMT -5
Because Christ was fully man as well as being fully God. His flesh and blood were the same as the flesh and blood of every other person in history. It was actually a Gnostic teaching that said that Christ wasn't truly human, which is a heresy that I know you are not trying to say. My question has still not been answered, so I will pose it again. If the bread and wine</A> do not change in a physically perceived way (touch, smell, taste, substance), then how did it change? What is the difference between a symbolic change and this change here, if there is no physical change? thank you for understand (in a sense) that I was not seeking to speak heresy. i will try to explain but just got a call and... will be back
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Aug 25, 2004 10:46:23 GMT -5
Because Christ was fully man as well as being fully God. His flesh and blood were the same as the flesh and blood of every other person in history. It was actually a Gnostic teaching that said that Christ wasn't truly human, which is a heresy that I know you are not trying to say. My question has still not been answered, so I will pose it again. If the bread and wine do not change in a physically perceived way (touch, smell, taste, substance), then how did it change? What is the difference between a symbolic change and this change here, if there is no physical change? I'll take a shot: Christ is present in the Eucharist, but how? the medieval Fathers reasoned that the presence of Christ meant that a change in the reality of the bread takes place, which lead them to concieve "transubstantiation" as the best description of the transformation of the substance. It is here that Aquinas appealed to the Aristotelian constructs of "accident and substance" to give the closest explanation as to what occurs at consecration. The accidents of physical appearance remain the same but the substance changes. Think of substance as the truth of what a thing is and accidents as how it appears. So water is a substance which appears under the accidents of steam, liquid, and ice. These are the accidents of water. The substance of bread normally has the accidents of a dry solid. But the accidents look like wheat, rye, be light or dark,a wide variety of appearances and still be bread. At consecration it is not the accidents that change but the substance, the truth of what a thing is. The Holy Spirit brings about this change. It is not visible. It is a matter of faith. Regardless of what it looks like, it is the body of Christ in substance but not accidents.
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Aug 25, 2004 11:13:36 GMT -5
so all those other "stories" from the bible are true -- who is to say it too is not a metaphor? Most of the stories are true. But the belief that the bread and the wine of the Eucharist become the flesh and blood of Christ is delusional. what about Mary's impregnation? that is something that has to be taken on word, on faith alone... how else could someone become pregnant without actually having sex? The Spirit of God caused Mary to become pregnant.God works wonders and since Christ was God, He too can work wonders. Absolutely!Marysia, I am curious as to why you added to my response of "absolutely" to your question "Do you believe in the Trinity?" I am not a fan of Michael Moore.
Christian.
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Aug 25, 2004 11:22:42 GMT -5
why do you keep assuming and cpkmtyollifying Christ as man? He was more than that. Indeed. He is fully God and fully man. you've already agreed that He was God. COuld normal man walk on water? Nope.Change water to wine? Nope.so why do you think His Body & Blood were exactly like ours? So that He could accomplish His purpose here on Earth.Have you ever been touched by God? I have. My conversion to Christ was my first such experience. I have and it's nothing like anything I've ever felt before. Have you ever heard from God? Audibly, no. Through others and through feelings that I have experienced - yes. I have and again, it's not like He rang me up on verizon and said - hey whatcha doin with your life! We have been told - Christ's ways are not our ways. That is so true, sister! Christian.
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Aug 25, 2004 11:35:22 GMT -5
COuld normal man walk on water? Don't forget Peter did! With God, all things are possible! Blessings, LJ
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Aug 25, 2004 11:47:46 GMT -5
My question is, if a priest had an awful, unconfessed sin in his life, would his saying the words of the liturgy still consecrate the bread and wine? Let the edumacation begin... Because the gifts that we receive through the bread and wine (namely, salvation by grace in receiving Christ's body and blood) are not dependent on man, who is frail and disobedient, but on the Holy Spirit, who works the miracle of grace in us, it is possible (happens all the time!) to have consecrated bread and wine offered by a sinful priest/pastor. The same holds true for baptism. In the Augsburg Confession (the Lutheran "go to" resource) Philip Melancthon discusses the fact that a priest/pastor doesn't even have to believe that baptism works the miracle of salvation for the miracle to happen, simply because the miracle depends on water, the Word, and the Holy Spirit --and not the priest/pastor. Christ's presence in the bread and wine was helpfully articulated to me this way: "Inside" your body is that which makes you you --your personality, your attitude, your thoughts, emotions, etc. If I were to operate on you I couldn't find your "essence" (for lack of a better word) or point to where it comes from, but it is there just the same. Your "essence" is not representative of you, it IS you. Additionally, without your body there would also be no "essence" --no you. The two are not divisible and are both obviously present. Does this help? Blessings, LJ
|
|