I'm Not At "mass" But In Church...

[Bruce S]

OK, having done about 15 masses in the past four weeks, and [as you fellows and gals like to forget ] immensely interested in this topic of Protestant VS Catholic, on all the levels.

Some observations:

While the time "teaching" in the Mass is indeed present, it is very minimal, and sermons/homilies are not as central to the service, thus the ritual of the Mass dominates while the teaching dominates in most Protestant services.

In the entire time I've been attending Mass, NOT ONE PERSON has had a personal bible with them that I've observed during service, this one is rather odd to me now, since having your own personal bible with you at service is almost the norm for most Pentecostals nowadays....

That LACK of bible with you, to verify what you are being taught is not a good thing, wonder why the Catholic Church doesn't have pew bibles like every other denominaton does?

The statues bother me, I don't think I can every reconcile those in a church, that old part of me, isn't going to return ever...

I'm open to discussion, unlike others [that "Iron Maiden" Guy for one] .... grin, isn't.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Mar 15 2004, 01:59 PM'] OK, having done about 15 masses in the past four weeks, and [as you fellows and gals like to forget ] immensely interested in this topic of Protestant VS Catholic, on all the levels.

Some observations:

While the time "teaching" in the Mass is indeed present, it is very minimal, and sermons/homilies are not as central to the service, thus the ritual of the Mass dominates while the teaching dominates in most Protestant services.

In the entire time I've been attending Mass, NOT ONE PERSON has had a personal bible with them that I've observed during service, this one is rather odd to me now, since having your own personal bible with you at service is almost the norm for most Pentecostals nowadays....

That LACK of bible with you, to verify what you are being taught is not a good thing, wonder why the Catholic Church doesn't have pew bibles like every other denominaton does?

The statues bother me, I don't think I can every reconcile those in a church, that old part of me, isn't going to return ever...

I'm open to discussion, unlike others [that "Iron Maiden" Guy for one] .... grin, isn't. [/quote]
God Bless.

The readings are in the missal. Ritual is not what dominates Mass... Worship of God dominates Mass. Mass is full of Scripture. Maybe if you were really open then you would see this. Maybe you should read my earlier post again.

Christians did not have bibles until well after Gutenburg created the press. By the way, Gutenburg was a Catholic, so you can thank not only the Church for the Bible that you have, but Gutenburg for creating a way to mass produce it (pun intended).

The way Christians read the bible for 1600 + years was by going to Church. Most people couldn't read nor could they afford a hand copied bible.

It's kind of sad how so many non-Catholics don't realize the way the first Christians learned of the Gospels.

Here is a resource for you: [url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/mass.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/mass.asp[/url]

[b]1 Corin. 10:32 [/b]Avoid giving offense, whether to Jews or Greeks or the church of God,
[b]33 [/b]just as I try to please everyone in every way, not seeking my own benefit but that of the many, that they may be saved.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Mar 15 2004, 11:59 AM'] OK, having done about 15 masses in the past four weeks, and [as you fellows and gals like to forget ] immensely interested in this topic of Protestant VS Catholic, on all the levels.
[/quote]
Cool. This reminds me of years ago before my conversion when I had a phase where I frequented numerous protestant churches. Toward the end of this phase I attended a Catholic Mass and my first thoughts were basically the same as the things you just expressed.

[quote]While the time "teaching" in the Mass is indeed present, it is very minimal, and sermons/homilies are not as central to the service, thus the ritual of the Mass dominates while the teaching dominates in most Protestant services.[/quote]
For Catholics the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life. Since protestants do not have the Real Presence and the Sacrifice of Calvary made present the Liturgy of the Word is the central aspect of their services. The encounter with Christ in the Eucharist and His Sacrifice is the center of the Mass. It's not merely ritual, it's the deeper transcendent reality that is the dominant thing.

[quote]In the entire time I've been attending Mass, NOT ONE PERSON has had a personal bible with them that I've observed during service, this one is rather odd to me now, since having your own personal bible with you at service is almost the norm for most Pentecostals nowadays....[/quote]
haha! That's exactly what I said those many years ago! Great minds think alike.. and so do ours.
Actually I almost always have a Bible on me (at least a little gideon Bible in my pocket), but still, most Catholic parishes do not have Bibles in the pews (although I've been to parishes that do). I can understand your concern as a non-Catholic, I once shared this concern. But having a better understanding of the Mass now, I really don't think it's appropriate to have Bibles at Mass. The purpose of the homily is not for the priest to expound his private interpretation of the Bible. It is to prepare the hearts of the faithful to enter into the Eucharistic Mystery. Certainly expounding upon the Scriptures is a part of this, but it's still not a Bible study session.
[quote]That LACK of bible with you, to verify what you are being taught is not a good thing, wonder why the Catholic Church doesn't have pew bibles like every other denominaton does?[/quote]
Here is the definition of a homily: "A sermon, especially one intended to edify a congregation on a practical matter and not intended to be a theological discourse."

And remember that the principle of private interpretation of the Bible is not the basis of Catholicism so we do not listen to a homily as a judge of doctrine. And generally expounding on doctrine is not part of the homily. The Scripture readings are applied to our lives or something like that. If a parishoner wanted to critique the homilies doctrinal content they would need more than the Bible and their own private interpretation. They would need a reference library.
And also parishes have missaletes and things which contain the readings.
I suppose if a priest had a particular style of preaching (more like a Bible study) it might be good for the parishoners to have Bibles on them, this might explain the parishes I've been to that have Bibles in the pews. Also every adoration chapel I've ever been to has Bibles for devotional reading so you can't say that Catholic Churches don't have Bibles for private reading. This is simply not an appropriate part of the Mass. The Mass is qualitatively different from a protestant service. And remember that the Liturgy is far more ancient than a protestant service and for most of history people did not have personal Bibles so it makes sense that Catholic worship would not be structured in a way that required personal Bibles.

[quote]The statues bother me, I don't think I can every reconcile those in a church, that old part of me, isn't going to return ever...[/quote]
What's wrong with statues? Do you have a problem with statues is general, like the Lincoln memorial, or the Billy Graham museum (it has life sized statues of Mr. Graham, I've been there and its quite a shrine, I'm surprised they don't have kneelers )? I hope the decor isn't so tacky that it's keeping you out of the Church .
I'm just teasing Bruce. But seriously, let's talk about the statues thing. What is your beef with them? Are you opposed to any art work in churches or just statues? Is this because you feel they are "graven images" condemned by the Bible?

God bless you!

[Jake Huether]

[quote]While the time "teaching" in the Mass is indeed present, it is very minimal, and sermons/homilies are not as central to the service, thus the ritual of the Mass dominates while the teaching dominates in most Protestant services.[/quote]

Mass is a prayer, not a teaching. If you want Catholic teaching, you should sign up for a seminar, conferance, or read the Catechism and other Church encyclicals, read Catholic books, watch EWTN. I'm not saying you don't do any of these things already. But the Catholic Mass cannot be compared to Protestant sunday "service". Catholics come together on Sunday at Mass to worship, not to learn - although you do learn during the worship. But the primary source for Catholic training should be done outside of Mass, like, um, during RCIA...



[quote]In the entire time I've been attending Mass, NOT ONE PERSON has had a personal bible with them that I've observed during service, this one is rather odd to me now, since having your own personal bible with you at service is almost the norm for most Pentecostals nowadays....[/quote]


Actually, the Missal should cover the readings so that one can "verify" that the text is true to the vocals. LOL.


[quote]That LACK of bible with you, to verify what you are being taught is not a good thing, wonder why the Catholic Church doesn't have pew bibles like every other denominaton does?[/quote]


Sorry.. This is one of the most silly things I've ever read.. To "verify". Verify what? If the Catholic Church compiled the Bible, why would they be reading something other than what they themselves picked out.

Also, "like every other denom"? Are there "pew bibles" so that the Protestants can "verify" that the Preacher is preaching right? LOL. How do they know the "pew Bible" isn't authored and planted there by the leader of that congregation? Hahaha. It is in THEIR pew, isn't it. If they NEED to verify, they should bring their own Bibles.


"not a good thing"? Why? Catholics can get the Missal, take it home and compare it if they want. Why would a Catholic need to "read along"? Plus, if you have to flip through to verify, then you miss the point... Um... paying attention to the reading...

You'll have to elaborate on why it is not a good thing...

Catholics aren't asked to stand up and read during the Mass... so why would they need their Bibles AT Mass?


Again, the Mass isn't in any way shape or form comparable to a Sunday church service for Protestants. They completely lost it when they broke away.

The Mass isn't a teaching service. It isn't even a service. Mass is a Sunday Prayer. The greatest Prayer known to man. It is the only Prayer that brings us to Christ PHYSICALLY.

We hear the Word, and then the Word is made Flesh. That is the order of the Mass.


If you were to go to each of those daily Communicant's (those people who go to daily Mass) houses, I can guarantee you that they have and read there Bibles at home. At Mass there is no need.




[quote]The statues bother me, I don't think I can every reconcile those in a church, that old part of me, isn't going to return ever...[/quote]


Oh that's too bad. I'm sure King Solomon would disagree, since he was the first one to build a House for God under the instructions of God, which included statues, etc.

I'm assuming that you have the same feelings toward your own house. And I feel bad for your family members who probably wish that you at least had one photo of them up.



[quote]I'm open to discussion, unlike others [that "Iron Maiden" Guy for one] .... grin, isn't.[/quote]


IronMONK, is very charitable and very very knowledgable. He is open for discussion, if you are open to learn the Truth about what Catholics do and believe.

Edited March 15, 2004 by Jake Huether

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Mar 15 2004, 11:29 AM'] God Bless.

The readings are in the missal. Ritual is not what dominates Mass... Worship of God dominates Mass. Mass is full of Scripture. Maybe if you were really open then you would see this. Maybe you should read my earlier post again.

Christians did not have bibles until well after Gutenburg created the press. By the way, Gutenburg was a Catholic, so you can thank not only the Church for the Bible that you have, but Gutenburg for creating a way to mass produce it (pun intended).

The way Christians read the bible for 1600 + years was by going to Church. Most people couldn't read nor could they afford a hand copied bible.

It's kind of sad how so many non-Catholics don't realize the way the first Christians learned of the Gospels.

Here is a resource for you: [url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/mass.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/mass.asp[/url]

[b]1 Corin. 10:32 [/b]Avoid giving offense, whether to Jews or Greeks or the church of God,
[b]33 [/b]just as I try to please everyone in every way, not seeking my own benefit but that of the many, that they may be saved.


God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
LOL. Sorry if I re-posted some stuff. I must have been writing as you posted.

[annie]

Laudate,

Hey, I live down the road from that museum! And Bruce, as a Catholic convert, I have said all you are saying (only not as nicely as you did! )

I agree with laudate about all that has been said (won't repeat). It is interesting, though, how much God has taught me through my special needs child on the issue of statues, stained glass windows, icons etc.

It really used to bug me prior to converting, and even took some time to digest AFTER converting!

Two years ago our church burned down at the hands of an arsonist. We have been going to Mass in a gymnasium for two years. We do what little we can to create a prayerful environment, but....well, you can guess.
My little boy struggles with so much, and Mass is a long hour for him to focus. Don't get me wrong, he loves the people (used to holler 'hello' to Fr. at the entrance procession) and he loves Jesus in the Eucharist, hey, he even loves Confession (first time, he asked to go back again before we left!) Anyway, to get to the point---he actually said to us that NEEDs to see Mary there and the 'big Jesus" (crucifix over the altar which is now gone of course) because he forgets 'to think of Jesus'. Now, is that not telling? We all need constant reminders--environment is so important, and as HUMANS (and my son is just a little MORE human than some!) we wander, we seek our own needs, etc. the Mass is Heaven on Earth--and the angels and saints are with us--it is not idolatry, but brotherhood. (kinda like pictures of your extended family about you)

[Laudate_Dominum]

Cool! Thanks annie. You reminded of a story I posted on a different thread a while back. I have a friend who was raised a Buddhist in Korea and had never heard the Gospel. She made a tour of Europe just as a tourist and by visiting all the Churches and seeing all the statues and art of those great Churches she became very interested in Christianity. She says that toward the end of her trip she was in Rome and the day she visited the Sistine Chapel she stood gazing for hours at all the frescoes that adorn the chapel, presenting Salvation history in images. She said that even though she had never read any of the Bible or heard the Gospel verbally, that very day in that chapel she came to know and believe that Jesus is God!! She converted and when I knew her she was being catechised and I had the honor of being at her baptism. She was so radiant and wept tears of joy at her reception of first Holy Communion. I will never forget that day. She seemed like an angel.. God is so good.

Edited March 15, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[willguy]

Bruce,

You mention people not having Bibles. I've been to several protestant services where people always bring their bibles and/or there are bibles in the pews. You know what I've realized? There's no need for it. Cause in those churches, the only time the people use their bible is when whomever is speaking says "Open up to (such and such)." Then, the person speaking reads it and gives their interpretation of it. Heck, why did I open my Bible? I've seen many people bring their Bibles and never once open it. It is like they have it simply because they are supposed to.

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='willguy' date='Mar 15 2004, 02:40 PM'] Bruce,

You mention people not having Bibles. I've been to several protestant services where people always bring their bibles and/or there are bibles in the pews. You know what I've realized? There's no need for it. Cause in those churches, the only time the people use their bible is when whomever is speaking says "Open up to (such and such)." Then, the person speaking reads it and gives their interpretation of it. Heck, why did I open my Bible? I've seen many people bring their Bibles and never once open it. It is like they have it simply because they are supposed to. [/quote]
Good point.

If you read your Bible anyway, you have the OPEN BIBLE in your heart during the Mass. No need for a Catholic to toot his own horn, "I have my Bible with me". I have it hear in my heart!

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Mar 15 2004, 12:29 PM'] Christians did not have bibles until well after Gutenburg created the press. By the way, Gutenburg was a Catholic, so you can thank not only the Church for the Bible that you have, but Gutenburg for creating a way to mass produce it (pun intended).

It's kind of sad how so many non-Catholics don't realize the way the first Christians learned of the Gospels.
[/quote]
and, as we are given the opportunity and inexpensive as it is, in these oh-so-awesome modern times of super-hi-speed printing, we SHOULD carry our own Bible...for any and every purpose...

the Christians of today don't have to live and learn as the Christians of yesterday...relying soley of word of mouth teachings...and I'm thankful I don't have to.

and, as for what was said about "God being physically present" in mass....

isn't God physically present EVERYWHERE?

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 16 2004, 11:06 AM'] and, as we are given the opportunity and inexpensive as it is, in these oh-so-awesome modern times of super-hi-speed printing, we SHOULD carry our own Bible...for any and every purpose...

the Christians of today don't have to live and learn as the Christians of yesterday...relying soley of word of mouth teachings...and I'm thankful I don't have to.

and, as for what was said about "God being physically present" in mass....

isn't God physically present EVERYWHERE? [/quote]
[quote]isn't God physically present EVERYWHERE? [/quote]


Um... no...

Not God the Son, in the flesh. No.

[the lumberjack]

but if God is omnipresent...which I'm hoping you'll agree...how can He NOT be present EVERYWHERE???

as for being PHYSICALLY present, why would God need to show Himself physically? God has no need for a physical body...

as for Christ being physically present...how do you KNOW that He's physically present? if you can't see Him?

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 16 2004, 01:22 PM']



[/quote]
[quote]but if God is omnipresent...which I'm hoping you'll agree...how can He NOT be present EVERYWHERE???[/quote]


Wait a minute. No one denied him being Everywhere. Just not physically. God is Spirit. And His Spirit is everywhere. Yes.


[quote]as for being PHYSICALLY present, why would God need to show Himself physically?  God has no need for a physical body...[/quote]


Why did Jesus take flesh? Was it only to die? Or was His flesh risen too! God became man, and humanity became a part of His Nature. Christ now has two natures, Divine and Human. So to say that God has no need for a physical body is darn near heretical.

[quote]
as for Christ being physically present...how do you KNOW that He's physically present?  if you can't see Him?[/quote]


As for Christ being God, how was Peter able to tell, since He looked like a human?

Matthew 16: 16 Simon Peter answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 Jesus replied, Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Jesus has revealed this to us. That we must eat and drink His Body and Blood to have life. That on the night he was betrayed he took bread and broke it...

[the lumberjack]

[quote]Why did Jesus take flesh?  Was it only to die?  Or was His flesh risen too!  God became man, and humanity became a part of His Nature.  Christ now has two natures, Divine and Human.  So to say that God has no need for a physical body is darn near heretical.

As for Christ being God, how was Peter able to tell, since He looked like a human?

Matthew 16: 16 Simon Peter answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 Jesus replied, Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

[/quote]

this is not what I was trying to imply... and I'm not discussing or disputing these points.

[quote]Jesus has revealed this to us.  That we must eat and drink His Body and Blood to have life.  That on the night he was betrayed he took bread and broke it...[/quote]

when did Christ say that we LITERALLY had to take His flesh and blood in order to be saved? or does EVERY TIME the Bible say that we are "washed in the blood of the Lamb" that we are LITERALLY washed in Lamb's blood?

and Christ said, "do this, in REMEMBERANCE of me"

we are to take communion...in rememberance of what Christ did...as a testimony of what Christ did...

what about when Christ was talking to the woman at the well...did He LITERALLY mean for her to come and drink of the water had to offer? or that she would LITERALLY have springs of living water?

[Archangel]

Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist

John 6:4, 11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.

Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:24 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54-58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat.

Matt. 24:38; John 13:18 - for example, the word "phago" is used here too, and it means to literally gnaw or chew meat. "Phago" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "phago" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words.

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body).

(From Scripture Catholic)

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 16 2004, 02:11 PM']
this is not what I was trying to imply... and I'm not discussing or disputing these points.



when did Christ say that we LITERALLY had to take His flesh and blood in order to be saved? or does EVERY TIME the Bible say that we are "washed in the blood of the Lamb" that we are LITERALLY washed in Lamb's blood?

and Christ said, "do this, in REMEMBERANCE of me"

we are to take communion...in rememberance of what Christ did...as a testimony of what Christ did...

what about when Christ was talking to the woman at the well...did He LITERALLY mean for her to come and drink of the water had to offer? or that she would LITERALLY have springs of living water? [/quote]
I'm very sorry that you do not have the Church to guide you in your interpritations.

Without an Authority to rightly and correctly interpret Scripture for you... As far as what is literal and what is symbolism and what is figurative, etc. Your guess is as good as mine, which is as good as Joe shmow, which is as good as Luthers was.

[jmjtina]

Chapter 18—Eucharist And Mass
[u][b]The Real Presence[/b][/u]
F. J. Sheed

The Blessed Eucharist is <the> Sacrament. Baptism exists <for> it, all the others are enriched by it. The whole being is nourished by it. It is precisely food, which explains why it is the one sacrament meant to be received daily. Without it, one petition in the <Our Father>—"Give us this day our daily bread"—lacks the fullness of its meaning.

Early in his ministry, as St. John tells us (ch 6), Our Lord gave the first promise of it. He had just worked what is probably the most famous of his miracles, the feeding of the five thousand. The next day, in the synagogue at Capernaum on the shore of the sea of Galilee, Our Lord made a speech which should be read and reread. Here we quote a few phrases: "I am the Bread of Life"; "I am the Living Bread, which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world"; "He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him"; "He that eats me shall live by me."

He saw that many of his own disciples were horrified at what he was saying. He went on: "It is the spirit that quickens: the flesh profits nothing." We know what he meant: in saying they must eat his flesh, he did not mean dead flesh but his body with the life in it, with the living soul in it. In some way he himself, living, was to be the food of their soul's life. Needless to say, all this meant nothing whatever to those who heard it first. For many, it was the end of discipleship. They simply left him, probably thinking that for a man to talk of giving them his flesh to eat was mere insanity. When he asked the Apostles if they would go too, Peter gave him one of the most moving answers in all man's history: "Lord, to whom shall we go?" He had not the faintest idea of what it all meant; but he had a total belief in the Master he had chosen and simply hoped that some day it would be made plain.
There is no hint that Our Lord ever raised the matter again until the Last Supper. Then his meaning was most marvelously made plain. What he said and did then is told us by Matthew, Mark, and Luke; and St. Paul tells it to the Corinthians (1 Cor 10 and 11). St. John, who gives the longest account of the Last Supper, does not mention the institution of the Blessed Eucharist; his Gospel was written perhaps thirty years after the others, to be read in a church which had been receiving Our Lord's body and blood for some sixty years. What he had provided is the account we have just been considering of Our Lord's first promise.

Here is St. Matthew's account of the establishment: "Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said, Take ye and eat: This is my body. And taking the chalice he gave thanks: and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins."

Since they deal with the food of our life, we must examine these words closely. What we are about to say of "This is my body" will do for "This is my blood" too. The word is need not detain us. There are those, bent upon escaping the plain meaning of the words used, who say that the phrase really means "This represents my body." It sounds very close to desperation! No competent speaker would ever talk like that, least of all Our Lord, least of all <then>. The word <this>, deserves a closer look. Had he said, "Here is my body," he might have meant that, in some mysterious way, his body was there as well as, along with, the bread which seems so plainly to be there. But he said, "<This> is my body"—this which I am holding, this which looks like bread but is not, this which was bread before I blessed it, this is now my body. Similarly this, which was wine, which still looks like wine, is not wine. It is now my blood.

Every life is nourished by its own kind—the body by material food, the intellect by mental food. But the life we are now concerned with is Christ living in us; the only possible food for it is Christ. So much is this so that in our own day you will scarcely find grace held to be Christ's life in us unless the Eucharist is held to be Christ himself.

What Our Lord was giving us was a union with himself closer than the Apostles had in the three years of their companionship, than Mary Magdalen had when she clung to him after his Resurrection. Two of St. Paul's phrases, from 1 Corinthians 11 and 10, are specially worth noting:

"Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord"; and "We, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread"—a reminder that the Eucharist is not only for each man's soul but for the unity of the Mystical Body.

I can see why a Christian might be unable to bring himself to believe it, finding it beyond his power to accept the idea that a man can give us his flesh to eat. But why should anyone <want> to escape the plain meaning of the words?

For the Catholic nothing could be simpler. Whether he understands or not, he feels safe with Peter in the assurance that he who said he would give us his body to eat had the words of eternal life. Return again to what he said. The bread is not changed into the whole Christ, but into his body; the wine is not changed into the whole Christ, but into his blood. But Christ lives, death has no more dominion over him. The bread becomes his body, but where his body is, there he is; the wine becomes his blood but is not thereby separated from his body, for that would mean death; where his blood is, he is. Where either body or blood is, there is Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity. That is the doctrine of the Real Presence.

[u][b]Transubstantiation[/b][/u]

Besides the Real Presence which faith accepts and delights in, there is the doctrine of transubstantiation, from which we may at least get a glimpse of what happens when the priest consecrates bread and wine, so that they become Christ's body and Christ's blood.

At this stage, we must be content with only the simplest statement of the meaning of, and distinction between substance and accidents, without which we should make nothing at all of transubstantiation. We shall concentrate upon bread, reminding ourselves once again that what is said applies in principle to wine as well.

We look at the bread the priest uses in the Sacrament. It is white, round, soft. The whiteness is not the bread, it is simply a quality that the bread has; the same is true of the roundness and the softness. There is something there that has these and other properties, qualities, attributes—the philosophers call all of them accidents. Whiteness and roundness we see; softness brings in the sense of touch. We might smell bread, and the smell of new bread is wonderful, but once again the smell is not the bread, but simply a property. The something which has the whiteness, the softness, the roundness, has the smell; and if we try another sense, the sense of taste, the same something has that special effect upon our palate.

In other words, whatever the senses perceive—even with the aid of those instruments men are forever inventing to increase the reach of the senses—is always of this same sort, a quality, a property, an attribute; no sense perceives the something which has all these qualities, which is the thing itself. This something is what the philosophers call substance; the rest are accidents which it possesses. Our senses perceive accidents; only the mind knows the substance.

This is true of bread, it is true of every created thing. Left to itself, the mind assumes that the substance is that which, in all its past experience, has been found to have that particular group of accidents. But in these two instances, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the mind is not left to itself. By the revelation of Christ it knows that the substance has been changed, in the one case into the substance of his body, in the other into the substance of his blood.

The senses can no more perceive the new substance resulting from the consecration than they could have perceived the substance there before. We cannot repeat too often that senses can perceive only accidents, and consecration changes only the substance. The accidents remain in their totality—for example, that which was wine and is now Christ's blood still has the smell of wine, the intoxicating power of wine. One is occasionally startled to find some scientist claiming to have put all the resources of his laboratory into testing the consecrated bread; he announces triumphantly that there is no change whatever, no difference between this and any other bread. We could have told him that, without the aid of any instrument. For all that instruments can do is to make contact with the accidents, and it is part of the doctrine of transubstantiation that the accidents undergo no change whatever. If our scientist had announced that he had found a change, that would be really startling and upsetting.

The accidents, then, remain; but not, of course, as accidents of Christ's body. It is not his body which has the whiteness and the roundness and the softness. The accidents once held in existence by the substance of bread, and those others once held in existence by the substance of wine, are now held in existence solely by God's will to maintain them.

What of Christ's body, now sacramentally present? We must leave the philosophy of this for a later stage in our study. All we shall say here is that his body is wholly present, though not (so St. Thomas among others tells us) extended in space. One further element in the doctrine of the Real Presence needs to be stated: <Christ's body remains in the communicant as long as the accidents remain themselves>. Where, in the normal action of our bodily processes, they are so changed as to be no longer accidents of bread or accidents of wine, the Real Presence in us of Christ's own individual body ceases. But we live on in his Mystical Body.
This very sketchy outline of the doctrine of transubstantiation is almost pathetic. But like so much in this book, what is here is only a beginning; you have the rest of life before you.

[u][b]The Sacrifice of the Mass[/b][/u]

Upon Calvary Christ Our Lord offered himself in sacrifice for the redemption of the human race. There had been sacrifices before Calvary, myriads of them—foreshadowings, figures, distortions often enough, but reaching out strongly or feebly towards the perfection of Calvary's sacrifice.

These represented an awareness in men, a sort of instinct, that they must from time to time take something out of that vast store of things God has given them and give it back to him. Men might have used the thing for themselves but chose not to; they offered it to God, made it sacred (that is what the word <sacrifice> means). In itself, sacrifice is simply the admission that all things are God's; even in a sinless world this would be true, and men would want to utter the trust by sacrifice. With sin, there was a new element; sacrifice would include the destruction of the thing offered—an animal, usually.

We can study these sacrifices, as they were before Calvary at once perfected and ended them, in the Temple sacrifices of the Jews, the Chosen People. The whole air of the Old Testament is heavy with the odor of animals slain and offered to God. The slaying and the offering—immolation and oblation—were both necessary elements. But whereas the offering was always made by the priests, the slaying need not be done by them; often it was the work of the Temple servants. For it was not the slaying that made the object sacred, but the offering. The essential thing was that the priest offer a living thing slain.

With Christ, we have said, sacrifice came to its perfection. The priest was perfect, for Christ was the priest. The victim was perfect, for he was the victim too. He offered himself, slain. But not slain by himself. He was slain by others, slain indeed by his enemies.

What he did was complete, once for all, not to be repeated. It accomplished three things principally—atoned for the sin of the race, healed the breach between the race and God, opened heaven to man, opened it never to be closed. His is "the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for those of the whole world" (1 Jn 2:1).

With such completion, what was still to be done? For something <was> still to be done. Christ is still in action on men's behalf, as the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us. Jesus has entered "into heaven itself, that he may appear <now>, in the presence of God for us" (9:24). He is "always living to make intercession for us" (7:25). What still remains to be done is not an addition to what was done on Calvary, but its application to each man—that each of us should receive for himself what Our Lord won for our race.

The "intercession" just spoken of is not a new sacrifice but the showing to God of the sacrifice of Calvary. The Victim, once slain, now deathless, stands before God, with the marks of the slaying still upon him—"a Lamb standing, <as it were> slain" (Rv 5:6).

We are now in a better position to understand the Sacrifice of the Mass. In heaving Christ is presenting himself, once slain upon Calvary, to his heavenly Father. On earth the priest—by Christ's command, in Christ's name, by Christ's power—is offering to God the Victim once slain upon Calvary. Nor does this mean a new sacrifice, but Calvary's sacrifice presented anew—in order that the redemption won for our race should produce its fruit in us individually.

In the Mass the priest consecrates bread and wine, so that they become Christ's body and blood. Thus the Christ he offers is truly there really there. The Church sees the separate consecration as belonging to the very essence of the Mass. It is a remainder of Christ's death—and he had told his first priests at the Last Supper that, in doing what he had just done, "they should show forth the death of the Lord, until he come (1 Cor 11:26). They should <show forth> Christ's death, remind us of his death, not, of course, kill him, any more than he had killed himself on Calvary.

The priest offers the sacrifice. But we are, in our lesser way, offerers too. Twice we are told so in the Ordinary of the Mass. We have already seen how after the Consecration the priest says, "We thy servants but also thy holy people [<plebs tua sancta>] . . . offer . . . a pure, holy and immaculate Victim." To see ourselves merely as spectators at Mass is to miss the opportunity to take our part in the highest action done upon earth.

One element in the Mass remains to be mentioned. We, united with Christ's priests, have offered Our Lord to God. And God gives him back to us, to be the Life of our life. That is what Holy Communion means. God, while retaining Christ for his own, also shares him with us. So that God and man, each in his own way, receive the slain and risen God-man.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SHEEDEUC.HTM"]Chapter 18 from Theology for Beginners[/url]

great book.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Mar 16 2004, 07:24 PM']

Chapter 18—Eucharist And Mass
[u][b]The Real Presence[/b][/u]
F. J. Sheed
[/quote]
HEY where did you find that online?

[jmjtina]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SHEEDEUC.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SHEEDEUC.HTM[/url]

:pc:

[MC Just]

[color=blue][b]The Eucharist (CCC 1322–1419) [/b][/color]

Once we become members of Christ’s family, he does not let us go hungry, but feeds us with his own body and blood through the Eucharist. In the Old Testament, as they prepared for their journey in the wilderness, God commanded his people to sacrifice a lamb and sprinkle its blood on their doorposts, so the Angel of Death would pass by their homes. Then they ate the lamb to seal their covenant with God.

This lamb prefigured Jesus. He is the real "Lamb of God," who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Through Jesus we enter into a New Covenant with God [b][color=red](Luke 22:20), [/color][/b]who protects us from eternal death. God’s Old Testament people ate the Passover lamb. Now we must eat the Lamb that is the Eucharist. Jesus said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you" [b][color=red](John 6:53). [/color][/b]

At the Last Supper he took bread and wine and said, "Take and eat. This is my body . . . This is my blood which will be shed for you" [b][color=red](Mark 14:22–24). [/color][/b]In this way Jesus instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, the sacrificial meal Catholics consume at each Mass.

The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross occurred "once for all"; it cannot be repeated [b][color=red](Heb. 9:28). [/color][/b]Christ does not "die again" during Mass, but the very same sacrifice that occurred on Calvary is made present on the altar. That’s why the Mass is not "another" sacrifice, but a participation in the same, once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Paul reminds us that the bread and the wine really become, by a miracle of God’s grace, the actual body and blood of Jesus: "Anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself" [b][color=red](1 Cor. 11:27–29). [/color][/b]
After the consecration of the bread and wine, no bread or wine remains on the altar. Only Jesus himself, under the appearance of bread and wine, remains.