 |
| In persona Christi |
The NCW believes in Transubstantiation. We believe that the bread and wine becomes the actual Body and Blood of Christ after the priest consecrates it. We believe that we are eating the true flesh of Christ so that His flesh becomes one with our flesh. We believe that the Blood of Christ flows in our veins after we consume His Blood. We also believe that Christ is also present in the Mass, in the ministering priest, and in His Church. For example, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, it is Christ Himself who forgives our sins. The priest becomes "in persona Christi" in the Sacraments. It is also Christ Himself who proclaims the Gospel reading in the Liturgy of the word during Mass.
According to Catholic Online (the bold is mine):
Real Presence is NOT limited to the Eucharist. There are "four modes" of Real Presence: Christ is present not only in the Liturgy of the Eucharist but also in the Liturgy of the Word, the priest who celebrates, and in the people gathered together during the Mass. In pointing to these other modes of Real Presence, I am neither trying to pit the contemplative against the communal, nor create a dichotomy where one does not exist, nor deny the supremacy of the Eucharistic presence in the way Christ presents Himself to us. I'm merely asking that we recognize, given these various modes of Real Presence, the importance of seeing parish life, indeed the experience of the Mass itself, as involving a "people" and not a collection of monadic individuals who just happen to be sitting in the same building at the same time.
WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - Having read through the comments to my article, How Catholics Have Failed the Culture, I've noticed one repeated theme that deserves addressing.
A number of commenters wrote eloquently about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and how the contemplation of that Presence in prayer and liturgy more than compensates for the lack of fellowship in the parish community. In fact, several suggested the demands of fellowship would demean contemplation and prayer. All these commenters imply that my expressed desire for greater "community" would be better fulfilled by the contemplation of the Eucharist
I both understand and appreciate that point of view -- it comes from the heart of the Church and makes the Catholic faith distinctive among Christians around the world. However, it contains a misunderstanding, one that may be actually encouraging the very problem I addressed in the previous article: the paucity of most parish life in the United States, the lack of welcome, of felt connection between parish members.
The misunderstanding is about the Church's teaching on Real Presence itself -- Real Presence is NOT limited to the Eucharist. There are "four modes" of Real Presence: Christ is present not only in the Liturgy of the Eucharist but also in the Liturgy of the Word, the priest who celebrates, and in the people gathered together during the Mass.
The Church's teaching on the four modes of Real Presence can be found in the Constitution of Sacred Liturgy (#7):
"To accomplish so great a work, Christ is always present in His Church, especially in its 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," but especially under the eucharistic elements. By His power He is present in the sacraments, so that when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes. He is present in His word, since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy Scriptures are read in the Church. He is present, lastly, when the Church prays and sings, for He promised: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Mt 18:20).
In 1965, Paul VI's encyclical, "Mysterium Fidei," underscored what this manifold presence of Christ is to His Church. I call your attention to the section where he talks about the "people of God":
"He is present in His Church as it shepherds and guides the people of God, since the Church's sacred power comes from Christ and since Christ, "the shepherd of shepherds" (Idem, In Ps 86, 3: PL 37, 1102), is present in the shepherds who exercise that power, according to the promise made to the apostles" (#37).
It's crucial to note that Paul VI refers to the Real Presence of Christ during the sacrifice of the Mass as a "manner more sublime" since it fills "the mind with wonder and presents the mystery of the Church for contemplation" (#38). Paul VI in a later paragraph calls it Real Presence "par excellence"!
Thus, in pointing to these other modes of Real Presence, I am neither trying to pit the contemplative against the communal, nor create a dichotomy where one does not exist, nor deny the supremacy of the Eucharistic presence in the way Christ presents Himself to us. I'm merely asking that we recognize, given these various modes of Real Presence, the importance of seeing parish life, indeed the experience of the Mass itself, as involving a "people" and not a collection of monadic individuals who just happen to be sitting in the same building at the same time.
How this recognition impacts our attitudes toward parish life, or our attempts at its revitalization, is not spelled out anywhere I know, nor need it be. Part of the genius of the Church is its universality, its accommodation to every kind of existing person, regardless of station, language, education, and personality.
This latter factor -- personality -- is often overlooked when discussions of liturgy and parish life are discussed. It's common sense, at least to me, that people of differing personalities are going to respond more immediately to differing modes of Real Presence: To those who are contemplative, the Eucharist; to those who are social, the people of God; and so forth.
When it comes to the Liturgy of the Word, the reading of Scripture and its exposition in preaching is often lackluster, so there is another group not being fed. "Being fed" is a phrase I have chosen deliberately because the Church, if it's truly a feminine body, should be nurturing, it should feed its people. But our Church, the historical Church and its parishes, are not very nurturing in my experience and the experience of many others.
This lack of nurture needs to be addressed, immediately and explicitly.
http://www.catholic.org/homily/yearoffaith/story.php?id=51277
The correct response to this post is to quote the only comment on the article - apparently written by a priest (my emphasis):
ReplyDelete"The point of Mysterium Fidei 38-39, which is reiterated in Catechism number 1374, is that Christ's Presence in the Eucharist is His Presence "in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence
by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely
present." (CCC 1374) The point of Mysterium Fidei is precisely that the
mode of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist *surpasses* all the other
modes of His Presence listed in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy
#7; Bl. Paul VI writes, "These various ways in which Christ is present fill the mind with
astonishment and offer the Church a mystery for her contemplation. But there is
another way in which Christ is present in His Church, a way that surpasses all
the others. It is His presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist...This presence is called "real" not to exclude the idea that
the others are "real" too, but rather to indicate presence par
excellence, because it is substantial and through it Christ becomes present
whole and entire, God and man." (Mysterium Fidei 38-39) So the
term "Real Presence" is actually reserved for Christ's Presence in the
Most Blessed Sacrament. It is understandable that the author desires to
remind the faithful that Christ is present in many other ways, but it
is not accurate to say that these other ways are other forms of "Real
Presence," since the term "Real Presence" is used properly to denote His
real, true, and substantial Presence in the Eucharist."
Dear Anonymous at 11:44 pm,
DeleteI am glad that we agree that Christ's real presence is not limited to ONLY the Eucharist alone despite that the Eucharist is much more unique in that He is truly present in flesh, blood, soul, and divinity. In the other modes, He is present in soul and divinity.
Dear Diana,
ReplyDelete"since the term "Real Presence" is used properly to denote His
real, true, and substantial Presence in the Eucharist" and you have agreed that other forms of His Presence are only in soul and divinity - Please take the Written Word of God out of the Tabernacle which is reserved for His "Real Presence - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity" to Whom we fall prostrate (at least kneel if physically able) in adoration.
Dear Anonymous at 2:49 pm,
DeleteThe holy Bible is not inside the tabernacle. It is under the tabernacle.
Actually, it is in the tabernacle, on the top tier - at least in the NCW version of the tabernacle. So much for being an "insider".
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:18 pm,
DeleteThere is no top tier inside the tabernacle.
look Diana - http://www.rmsperth.org.au/page17.html
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:19 am,
DeleteThe tabernacle is the place where the Body of Christ is kept behind a lock, where only a key can open. The tabernacle is NEVER left open. The tabernacle is the box under the Bible. Surely, you did not think that the box beneath the Bible is the HOST or the Body of Christ??? Do you not know that the Host was never made of silver metal???
Dear Diana,
Deleteyou may need to inform your Australian NCW colleagues of your opinion. It seems they think differently. The caption to the photo reads:
"The Tabernacle shows the Sacramental presence of Jesus in the Scriptures (Silver Bible) and the Eucharistic Species (Body of Christ)."
Does this fit with your (arrogant and presumptuous) description? I think not.
Dear Anonymous at 2:02 pm,
DeleteI believe it is YOU who needs to be informed. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
" In general, four main methods of preserving the Blessed Sacrament may be distinguished in medieval times:
in a cabinet in the sacristy, a custom that is connected with early Christian usage;
in a cupboard in the wall of the choir or in a projection from one of the walls which was constructed like a tower, was called Sacrament-House, and sometimes reached up to the vaulting;
in a dove or pyx, surrounded by a cover or receptacle and generally surmounted by a small baldachino, which hung over the altar by a chain or cord;
lastly, upon the altar table, either in the pyx alone or in a receptacle similar to a tabernacle, or in a small cupboard arranged in the reredos or predella of the altar.
This last method is mentioned in the "Admonitio synodalis" of the ninth century by Regino of Prüm (d. 915), later by Durandus, and in the regulations issued by the Synods of Trier and Münster already mentioned. Reredoses containing cupboards to hold the Blessed Sacrament can be proved to have existed as early as the fourteenth century, as, for instance, the altar of St. Clara in the Cologne cathedral, although they were not numerous until the end of the medieval period. The high altar dating from 1424 in the Church of St. Martin at Landshut, Bavaria, is an example of the combination of reredos and Sacrament-House."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14424a.htm
Do you know the difference between a sacrament house that holds the tabernacle and the tabernacle itself? The tabernacle is in the sacrament house or a cabinet. The tabernacle is the small box containing only the Body of Christ. And above the tabernacle is the Holy Bible.
or Perhaps, you are going to tell me that the Catholic Encyclopedia website is not Catholic?
Dear Diana, once again, I will quote from the Redemptoris Mater Smeinary Perth site - "The Tabernacle shows the Sacramental presence of Jesus in the Scriptures (Silver Bible) and the Eucharistic Species (Body of Christ)."
DeleteNow, if you are going to argue as per the Newadvent page, you must surely agree that the seminary is quite worng in what it says?
I certainly can acknowledge a difference between the so-called "sacrament house" and the tabernacle. But your NCW seminary colleague obviously do not.
Youare, in fact, arguing my point. Thankyou for that. But be careful - they might get cross with you for showing their error!
Dear Anonymous at 11:27 pm,
DeleteTake a closer look at the quote. The quote stated (capitalization is mine):
"The Tabernacle shows the SACRAMENTAL PRESENCE OF JESUS in the Scriptures (Silver Bible) and the Eucharistic Species (Body of Christ).
Did the quote say that the Holy Bible is a Sacrament??? No. It mentions the sacramental presence of Jesus. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Capitalization is mine):
CCC 1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his SACRMENTAL PRESENCE.......
The sacramental presence of Jesus is in the Liturgy of the Word as it is proclaimed in the Mass. It is Christ Himself who proclaims the Gospel during Mass. His Sacramental presence is also in the gathered assembly as Head of the Church.
And, furthermore, just in case there was any doubt what 1380 of the CCC meant when it referred to "sacramental presence", the very next paragraph (1381) says this:
Delete"1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"212"
Do you feel even the least bit guilty for your misrepresentation, or are you operating strictly under orders?
Dear Anonymous at 12:30 am,
DeleteThe Catechism started out with: "It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way."
That unique way was the MASS, which included the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. As I kept saying, you cannot separate the Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist. They are one. Have you ever attended a Mass where there is NO liturgy of the Word??????
"That unique way was the MASS, which included the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
DeleteNo, quote the entire paragraph (1380) of the catechism Diana:
"1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us "to the end,"209 even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us,210 and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love:
The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in this sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet him in adoration, in contemplation full of faith, and open to making amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world. Let our adoration never cease.211 "
There is no doubt at all that this paragraph is referring to the Eucharistic presence - not the Mass per se, but the presence of Christ in his "Body" and "Blood".
You seek to deceive, deliberately and stubbornly. Why? How can you possibly justifyd oing this Diana? These are the moments that matter - it is time for you to reconsider.
Dear Diana, prior to my comment at 12.30, I had made another referring to the remainder of the CCC 1380 - the bit you didn't include in your quote. Why did you not post it? My comment at 12.30 follows on from that and only makes proper sense in relation to the previous comment.
Delete"Have you ever attended a Mass where there is NO liturgy of the Word??????"
DeleteNo but I have adored the Real Presence of Christ in his Body and Blood outside of Mass.
Dear Anonymous at 2:01 am,
DeleteSo have I.
Dear Anonymous at 1:57 am and 2:01 am,
DeleteThe unique way was the Mass because you will find Christ's sacrifice at the altar in the Mass where you receive Holy Communion so that you and God become one. You say that I did not complete CCC 1380? It did not matter because as I said, what Christ left behind was the Mass where you will find His sacramental presence. That is what it says so two CCCs after 1380. According to CCC 1382:
CCC 1382 The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's body and blood. But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To receive communion is to receive Christ himself who has offered himself for us.
The Mass is the ONLY place where you will find Christ's sacrifice and the ONLY place where we can become one with Him. And the Mass includes both the Liturgy of the word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
You are doing it again. When you brought up CCC 1380 you said this:
Delete"The sacramental presence of Jesus is in the Liturgy of the Word as it is proclaimed in the Mass"
Now,you know that to be untrue, as CCC1380 deals with the unique presensce of Christ in the "Body and Blood" of the Eucharist.
CCC1381 and CCC1382 only confirm this.
It did matter that you didn;t completely quote CCC1380. You chose not to completely quote that parqagrah so you could argue that the "sacramental presence" that it referred to was the "liturgy of the Word".
When you do this you are a liar and a deceiver. I hope you convert and put away these childish, selfish things. The NCW is endangering your soul.
Dear Anonymous at9:26 am,
DeleteCCC 1382 specifically mentions the MASS. You only focus on the Eucharist. In the first place, I never denied that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist in the real sense. It is YOU who deny the sacramental presence of Christ in the Liturgy of the word proclaimed at Mass. His sacramental presence is real.....it is not symbolic.
I stated that the sacramental presence of Jesus is in the Litury of the word as it is proclaimed in the Mass. YOU stated this to be untrue. The fact that you said it is untrue means that you do not believe that Christ is present in the Liturgy of the word proclaimed in Mass. Yet, according to the USCCB website, it stated:
"According to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, Christ is present in his Word "since it is he himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church."
Furthermore, when you have resort to calling me a liar and a deceiver, you have already lost the debate. And as everyone can now see, YOU went against what was written in the USCCB website. Therefore, what you teach is not Catholic.
If you review what I had written previousl, you will not find that I ever denied that Christ is truly present in the proclamation of the Word or in the priest or in the assembley of the faithful. I argued, rather, that the "real presence" pertains to the eucharist.
DeleteI believe you know you are wrong, but you can't bring yourself to admit it - and that is where you fail.
CCC1382 is the first paragraph in a new section of the Catechism titled "The Paschal Banquet", and while it numerically follows 1381, it deals more specifically with the Mass.
1380 and 1381 are clearly speaking about the real presence in the Eucharist. You should admit this is true and recant your previous statements. Not to do so is not only dishonest, but will indicate your deception.
Now, you say "I stated that the sacramental presence of Jesus is in the Litury of the word as it is proclaimed in the Mass. YOU stated this to be untrue."
But that is again a decpetion. I did not ever deny the presence of Christ in the proclamation of the Word. You know this. But that doesn;t stop you from lying about it.
What I said is that CCC1380 and CCC1381 deal with the "sacramental presence" of Jesus in the Eucharist (the Body and Blood). You cannot deny that any further, as it is absolutely clear to anyone who cares to look.
You know you lie. You know you are twisting the Catechism. In that, you demonstrate that you don't care about the truth, but only to defend the NCW.
The entire point of your post is to claim that the "real presence" pertains to forms other than the Eucharistic species. You quoted the catechism to make that point, even though you know as well as I that the catechism does not support that view.
Dear Anonymous at 1:00 pm,
DeleteYes, you denied it. I stated that the sacramental presence of Christ is in the Liturgy of the word as it is proclaimed in Mass. And you said that what I stated was not true. Read your comment above.
Furthermore, both the Catholic website and the USCCB website stated that the other forms of Christ's presence are also real despite that it is only His Soul and Divinity present. In other words, His presence is not fake nor a symbol. Read the USCCB website. The question was asked: is Christ present in the celebration of the Eucharist in OTHER ways in addition to his real presence in the Blessed Sacrament. The answer that the USCCB gave is a "yes." See my comment below dated March 16, 2016 at 8:52 pm.
You could just about find any opinion you wanted to find on a "catholic" website.
ReplyDeleteThis is simply an example of how the NCW ruins people. Diana posts this link to this article supposedly to show that the "real presence" is not unique to the Eucharist, but that the "real presence" also applies to these other things.
Why does hse do this?
Because the RMS has a double decker tabernacle, and it would be unthinkable for her to admit that the RMS (NCW ) might be wrong.
So, in the end, she pits herself against the Church. Diana does not quote from the CCC or any official teaching of the Church on this subject, but rather grasps at any straws that might support the position of the NCW.
Is it any wonder that there is division? Is it any wonder that ral Catholics will object to the things Diana and the NCW argue?
How can there be any resolution to these problems when you have people such as Diana who have no qualms about playing with words (eg "concelebration" , "I am glad that we agree that Christ's real presence is not limited to ONLY the Eucharist") looking for cheap support (this article for example), even to the point of outright lies - setting herself against the Church for the sake of defending the NCW
Dear Anonymous at 10:27 am,
DeleteAre you saying that Catholic Online is NOT a Catholic website??????
Well, it is certainly Catholic in name. But as the sole comment on that article points out, the author is mistaken in his use of the term "real presence". You also choose to use that mistaken sense, in order to support a dubious practice of the NCW.
DeleteAS I said, you can just about find anything you want to find on supposedly Catholic websites.
Instead, how about you quote the catechism or some other official Church document to support your argument on these "real" presences? Can you do it, dear Diana?
Dear Anonymous at 2:05 pm,
DeleteSo, you are saying that the Catholic website is mistaken. What about the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops? Would you believe their website???? According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop:
"Is Christ present during the celebration of the Eucharist in other ways in addition to his Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament?
Yes. Christ is present during the Eucharist in various ways. He is present in the person of the priest who offers the sacrifice of the Mass. According to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, Christ is present in his Word "since it is he himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church." He is also present in the assembled people as they pray and sing, "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)" ( Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 7). Furthermore, he is likewise present in other sacraments; for example, "when anybody baptizes it is really Christ himself who baptizes" (ibid.). We speak of the presence of Christ under the appearances of bread and wine as "real" in order to emphasize the special nature of that presence. What appears to be bread and wine is in its very substance the Body and Blood of Christ. The entire Christ is present, God and man, body and blood, soul and divinity. While the other ways in which Christ is present in the celebration of the Eucharist are certainly not unreal, this way surpasses the others. "This presence is called ‘real' not to exclude the idea that the others are ‘real' too, but rather to indicate presence par excellence, because it is substantial and through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man" ( Mysterium Fidei, no. 39)."
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm
According to the USCCB website, it says pretty much the same thing as that Catholic webiste, which you say is mistaken. The USCCB also listed the Church documents as their source.
No, it doesn't say "pretty much the same thing" as that article, Diana. The article says this:
Delete"Real Presence is NOT limited to the Eucharist. There are "four modes" of Real Presence: Christ is present not only in the Liturgy of the Eucharist but also in the Liturgy of the Word, the priest who celebrates, and in the people gathered together during the Mass."
That is not the proper meaning of "real presence" as the priest that makes the sole comment points out. There is a distinction to be made in regard to the presence of Christ in those other forms, and his "real presence" in the Eucharist. You seek to blur that line to support a ducious practice of the NCW. Shame on you.
Dear Anonymous at 11:24 pm,
DeleteThe USCCB stated (capitalization is mine):
"While the OTHER ways in which Christ is present in the celebration of the Eucharist are certainly NOT UNREAL.............This presence is called 'real' not to exclude the idea that the OTHERD are 'REAL' TOO,........
A Catholic believes that God's presence in ALL sacraments are real, not symbolic.
"A Catholic believes that God's presence in ALL sacraments are real, not symbolic."
DeleteThat may be true, yet the use of the term "real presence" is a step too far for a Catholic. "Real Presence" pertains to the Eucharist only - not to diminish the presence in the other ways (such as by implying they are purely symbolic) but to highlight the special place of the Eucharistis presence - a special presence that would cause a true Catholic to stop short of, say, claiming that the scriptures show the "sacramental presence" of Christ, and therefore should be placed in (or on) the tabernacle.
Again, you have no shame.
Dear Anonymous at 12:27 am,
DeleteI will believe what the USCCB says. You are not the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.
Dear Diana,
ReplyDeleteCCC #1183 "The tabernacle is to be situated "in churches in a most worthy place with the greatest honour." THE DIGNITY, PLACING AND SECURITY OF THE EUCHARISTIC TABERNACLE SHOULD FOSTER ADORATION BEFORE THE LORD REALLY PRESENT IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR."
and
CCC #1379 says "The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent, outside of Mass. As faith in the REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN HIS EUCHARIST DEEPENED, THE CHURCH BECAME CONSCIOUS OF THE MEANING OF SILENT ADORATION OF THE LORD PRESENT UNDER THE EUCHARISTIC SPECIES. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church, and SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT EMPHASIZES AND MANIFESTS THE TRUTH OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT."
Peace.