The consecration happens before the distribution, as the priest says “this is my body, which will be given up for you.” This is part of the Eucharistic Prayer, and the distribution happens right after.
This is actually a matter of some controversy among Roman Catholics. Here is a cite that explains the difference between an illicit Mass (where the rubrics were not followed, but we can still feel confident that transubstantiation took place), and an invalid Mass (where we cannot be confident that transubstantiation took place). According to this website (which I admit clearly has a conservative/traditional take on the matter), if the “matter,” that is, the physical properties of the Host, is anything other than wheat flour and water, then the Mass will be invalid. On the other hand, many parishes use other types of bread, and no one seems to do anything about it, so perhaps TPTB don’t necessarily interpret it with such a hard line. Personally, I would be concerned that my Mass obligation was met if I received this kind of communion (the closest parish to my sister’s apartment uses a type of bread that tastes like and has the consistency of raisin bread. She went one time, and she decided she’d feel more comfortable going to another parish. And she’s not even that religious.)
That’s an interesting question, and one I’ve wondered about myself. It’s hard to know for sure. Some will come right out and say they don’t buy into it. Some are VERY sure of it. Most probably fall inbetween…they have times where they believe it, times where they have trouble believing it, but generally will claim that they do. I’m sure that there is also no shortage of people who don’t even really know what the doctrine is, especially in these days of watered-down Catholic education. I remember my wedding, there was a bit of a kerfluffle…my husband’s Aunt is a True Believer, and she was aggravated that my BIL took communion during our Mass, when she knew that he hadn’t been to Mass in years (his wife is Baptist, and he attends her church). My BIL said to us “What’s the difference? I take communion at our church!” I don’t know if he doesn’t understand the difference, or if he doesn’t care, but I suspect the former.
I have heard that before, too, but I don’t know if it’s true or not.
To expand on Sarahfeena’s answer, so far as I know, there are no requirements placed on the recipe other than that it consist of wheat flour and water. The little poker-chip-shaped wafers are traditional, but matzo or tortillas would also be perfectly valid and licit (and in fact one might argue that matzo would be more appropriate, since the concept of Communion originated with the Passover seder).
The idea that Jesus was present in the Eucharist goes back to the first century. Paul refers to the idea in 1 Corinthians 10:15 - 17 and 11:23 - 29, all the synoptics include the passage at the last Supper where Jesus declares “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Mk 14:22 - 24, Mt 26:26 - 28, and Luke 22:19 - 20), and John spends the entirety of Chapter 6 addressing the issue, particularly the passage 6:48 - 58. (Christians who do not hold that Jesus is present in the Eucharist interpret those passages in different ways.)
There was not a lot of discussion of the issue for the next eight hundred years, until the ninth century when different philoophers began trying to explain the phenomenon. The word transubstantiation appears to have been coined by Hildebert of Tours around 1079. Then, in the middle of the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas, rebuilding Catholic theology around an Aristotelian model and away from the Platonic model, found that that word fit very well into the concepts of substance and accident as it was used in Aristotle’s works. Aside from some Platonists (e.g., the Franciscans and Augustinians) who did not like the Aristotelian approach, the explanation caught on quite wqell throughout the church.
It is probably harder for folks today to understand the concept than it was for people then. I doubt that the typical illiterate peasant or even somewhat educated burger really spent any time trying to embrace the Thomistic/Aristotelian logic employed in the philosophical tracts, but in that pre-scientific era, the notion that something could have a substance–the stuff or property that made sommething what it really was–that differed from its appearance was probably more easily accepted by the people of that time.
We’re not now talking about me and what I think is likely or what is based on my experience, were talking about the truth.
On one level, the truth is that Catholics believe the claims about the Eucharist. On another level, the truth is unknown. In between, the truth is that the claims are probably false. Therefore, the truth is also that it’s possibly true, by virtue of your claim to have had some experiences that you say confirm the claim. But “probably” outweighs “possibly”. And given that the only the only evidence presented is your vague claims of experiences which you won’t elaborate upon and which don’t fit into a consistent pattern that would comprise data, the possibility remains a flimsy one.
It has become a increasingly irritating habit among the religious that they twist issues around to put the skeptics on the defensive. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so by the rules of logic, the default position is that the skeptics are right.
Another “not meant to be disrespectful” question: is the wafer used in Catholic communion “crispy” or limp?
I grew up Presbyterian and the ones we used were about the size of a quarter and totally limp (meaning ‘hold it by the side and it folks likes a pancake’). It was almost like eating really thin dough. (In case anyone doesn’t know and was wondering, mainstream Presbyterians do not believe in transubstantiation [though the ultra conservative Pres. offshoots- which are more akin to Pentecostals- might.)
Having read the Catholic communion wafer referred to as a “cracker” in other threads leads me to think its more like lavash (which would certainly be more authentic if you equate Last Supper with seder, which of course not all accounts do).
What are the requirements for the sacramental wine? Is there a particular type of wine (chianti, bordeaux, merlot, etc.) that’s used more than others? (Presbyterian church usually used grape juice, though once in a blue moon there’d be wine [Presbyterians and Catholics could go drinking together after service as unlike Baptists neither has anything particular against alcohol in and of itself, just the abuse thereof.)
How often do Catholics hold communion?
True story: the church I grew up going to was a very traditional small town Presbyterian church- conservative service, somewhat staid and boring but undeniably dignified. The communion was served on silver platters passed down each aisle by ushers followed by individual thimble sized communion cups- just a sip-let- also passed down the aisle [then the empty container for the glasses passed back down for “pick-up”]). Communion was only held a few times per year.
A neighbor of ours attended a backroads Baptist church- you literally had to drive down about three dirt roads to get to it (even in rural Alabama that’s unusual) and it was this big unpainted barn of a church. Her Down’s Syndrome son was in a Christmas Pageant and was very excited and asked us to come see it (we babysat him sometimes) so we promised we would.
I think I’ve told the story of the Christmas pageant itself elsewhere (perhaps the first time I knew I was gay due to the hissy fit I was having at the staging), but the most mortifying thing about the whole evening was that they had communion.
They passed around a loaf of “straight from the supermarket” French bread, which was… “well okay… that’s how they do it here… not terribly hygienic but…”. Then they passed around the wine.
It really was wine= homemade, probably scuppernong, which usually I like. Bu t then usually it’s not in a fruit jar that’s already littered with tiny bread crumbs and the saliva of two dozen hillbillies, a couple of whom have left lip prints and lipstick on the jar. None of us remembered Christ by his blood that night.
Another odd communion story: has anybody else ever been to a Jehovah’s Witness church when they hold communion? It’s probably the strangest communion rite of all. Only the members of the church certain they are going to Heaven partake. Sometimes- particularly if it’s a small gathering- this is literally NOBODY in the congregation, so the bread and fruit-juice (NEVER wine) is left untouched on the altar. (Only 144,000 people will go to Heaven in the JW’s beliefs; the rest, if righteous, will populate “New Earth”, while those who are not saved will remain in the grave {there is no Hell in JW beliefs}; you only know if you’re going to heaven by personal revelation, so in a Kingdom Hall of perhaps 100 people there’s rarely more than 3 or 4 who are heaven bound.)
Each priest celebrates mass daily and some (often small) number of parishioners attend. The Eucharist is the central point of the mass and the congregation participates in each celebration. For the majority of Catholics, mass and communion is a weekly event on Sunday.
Oh, up until the reforms following the Second Vatican Council, (but beginning at some unknown to me date prior), the host used to be a stiff (but unleavened in the RCC tradition) circle of very thin bread that sort of dissolved a bit in the mouth and then was swallowed. Currently, the host is slightly larger and thicker so that it will be chewed/eaten rather than being swallowed like an oversized pill.
Well, the current code of canon law says: “The bread must be wheaten only.” That’s a rule of regulatory practice, though, and not a comment of the efficacy of the sacrament. In fact, obviously yeast may be added, since the Eastern Orthodox do not always use unleavened bread and their communion is obviously valid.
St. Thomas Aquinas in “Summa Theologica” said, about mixing in other material:
Of course. No extraordinary claim should be accepted without sufficiently extraordinary evidence. Lacking that, as you say, the default position is that the claim is unfounded. You’re completely correct.
I do not see any where Jesus taught that we are son’s by adoption. Mary concieved by the Holy Spirit (according to the author) so the Spirit would really be Jesus 's father.
In the psalms the psalmist calls men ‘gods and sons of God’. Jesus backs up this statement by telling (When accused of Blasphmey) their fathers were also called god and sons of god.
I believe your interpetation of Mary’s being free from orignial sin is according to the RCC teachings,
Hypnagogic, there’s the bits in the Mass just before distribution when the priest says, " This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper."
In one of my favourite books, the writer says he recently attended a church where the priest quite often said, “This is Jesus, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.” in order to make it more clear- this is God, guys. Pay attention. No comment on whether or not his word-changing was appropriate.
I understood that the bread turns into the body of Christ, and the wine turns into the blood of Christ. This is based on taking communion at an Episcopal church several times. Am I mistaken?
Apologies if this is already answered, I haven’t read the whole thread.
Roman Catholics (and others) who believe the bread and wine truly are the body and blood of Jeus(after conceration) believe that when Jesus is quoted as saying(at the last supper) This is my body, and this is my blood do this in memory of me, he meant it literally, but it can be translated in a different way; if one realizes that it wasn’t Jesus real flesh or blood, as the bread and wine was separate from his human body. It could well be understood that it was a symbolic jesture. It could mean as some suggest he thought of himself as food and drink for the soul. As an example; If some one says to me," I give you my heart", it is symbolic and could be a sacred jesture but it would not be his physical heart.
I agree that paul thought that but he wasn’t present when Jesus spoke so he can only presume that he meant by adoption because the jews of that time considered it Blasphmey to call God their father.
Understood. I think I’m reading Polycarp’s post differently to you though - I understood it to be saying that the doctrine underscores two things:
-the First Person of the Trinity as the Father of Jesus as per his teachings
-our Father by adoption as well.
-rather than the adoption bit being part of the explicit teaching, although I’ll be happy to concede that I just read it wrong - it all depends on which part of the statement owns the ‘and’:
