Mrs. Bro. Adam Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 *giggles* *runs with fear and confusion in her eyes* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 *runs with fear and confusion in her eyes* :wacko: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLAZEr Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 Actually this is true. It has nothing to do with the fact that both species contain the whole Christ because I'm talking about the symbolic dimension of the Liturgy. The fact that bread and wine are consecrated symbolizes the seperation of body and blood. But in this respect it is just a symbol, it has nothing to do with the Theological reality of Transubstantiation. And the symbolism doesn't mean that Christ necessarily lost every drop of blood on the Cross. It means that Christ shed His blood and that this is made present in the Mass. When Christ instituted the Eucharist he said "this is my body" refering to the consecrated bread, and "this is my blood" over the chalice. He didn't say "this is my body, blood, soul and divinity", "and so is this". There are different dimensions to the Eucharist, there is the symbolic dimension and then there is the supernatural reality. And I'm not making this up, its what the Church teaches. Any book on the Theology of the Mass will explain it. A good concise work being "Calvary and the Mass" by Fulton Sheen. Laudate, I have never come across the idea that the Fractured Host and the Chalice are held up to symbolize the seperation of his body and his blood. This idea still doesn't make any sense to me. I never came across it in any sacramental theology classes, I haven't read it in any book, and it still strikes me as odd. I understand your reasoning for it not being a "theological" statement, I just don't see the grounds for the symbollic statement either. Can you please give a quote from where you have read this idea. I haven't read the book by Bishop Sheen that you are suggesting, and there is no way I can find it any time soon. Can you just post the quote from it? Or a quote from wherever this idea comes from. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted February 17, 2004 Author Share Posted February 17, 2004 LOL!!! :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Laudate, I have never come across the idea that the Fractured Host and the Chalice are held up to symbolize the seperation of his body and his blood. This idea still doesn't make any sense to me. I never came across it in any sacramental theology classes, I haven't read it in any book, and it still strikes me as odd. I understand your reasoning for it not being a "theological" statement, I just don't see the grounds for the symbollic statement either. Can you please give a quote from where you have read this idea. I haven't read the book by Bishop Sheen that you are suggesting, and there is no way I can find it any time soon. Can you just post the quote from it? Or a quote from wherever this idea comes from. Thanks! Sure, I'll go see if I can find a quote in a minute (my books are kind of a disaster right now, many are in boxes, etc). The Fulton Sheen book I mentioned is very short just so you know. As a side note the traditional way of doing the Agnus Dei is the hold the broken host over the chalice. Many prayer cards have pictures of this. A host dripping blood over the chalice. One of the visions of Fatima was of this. This is the best way of showing this symbolism but many priests these days don't follow that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 (edited) "The double Consecration of the bread and cup symbolized the seperation of Christ's Body and Blood when he shed his Blood for s on Calvary. The risen Christ, however, was present whole and entire in both of the consecrated elements since he was understood to be incapable of undergoing in the Sacrament actual seperation of his Body and Blood. Aquinas and other theologians explained this by the theory of concomitance. .. [a long quote from Aquinas goes here but I've ommited it].. By this distinction the differences between the symbolic and real aspects of the Sacrament were preserved. The One and identical Lord was completely present under the appearance of each of the elements; his death was memorialized through the symbolic seperation of Body and Blood." - From "The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist", by James T. O'Connor If you're interested in where St. Thomas talks about it (the quote I ommited because it wasn't necessary) it is contained in the Summa Theologiae, third part, question 76, article 1. Peace Edited February 17, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs. Bro. Adam Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 LOL!!! Hey!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :D Ok...I suppose it is a little funny! :D ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted February 17, 2004 Author Share Posted February 17, 2004 who thinks Mrs. Bro. Adam should join the universal church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socalscout Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 I wish more would go to Mass especially with a knowledgeable Catholic. It is rich with Scripture and would actually dispel those accusations that the Church is anti Scriptural. I'm glad you had a good experience. Again you have managed to post something that has made my day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 who thinks Mrs. Bro. Adam should join the universal church? I think that's a great idea!! :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs. Bro. Adam Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 who thinks Mrs. Bro. Adam should join the universal church? *glares intently into the back of his head* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleflower+JMJ Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 who thinks Mrs. Bro. Adam should join the universal church? *waves hand wildy in air* I DO! :breakdance: i DO! i dO! :ph34r: what? well you asked!!! :rolling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleflower+JMJ Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 *glares intently into the back of his head* into his head or at his head? :rolling: :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted February 18, 2004 Author Share Posted February 18, 2004 *glares intently into the back of his head* :wub: :wub: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 :wub: :wub: You two are such a cool couple… I dig it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now