Eating Communion on Good Friday / Ash Wednesday. (The flesh of God).

Gerrup Outta Dat!

Excuse the ignorance, but I thought that when the priest performs the blessing and Transubstantiation occurs, the communion actually becomes the body and flesh of Jesus (therefore, meat).

If a Catholic takes the body and flesh of Jesus on Good Friday or Ash Wednesday, are they not consuming meat then? For the more practising and Orthodox Catholics, meat abstention also applies to all Fridays (doesn't it? or is it just Lenten Fridays?).

What's the Church's position on this? Is there an exemption for this?

endacl

And....... He's back!

Are you not on some sort of 'silly thread' probation after your little holiday?

Peregrinus

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

Excuse the ignorance, but I thought that when the priest performs the blessing and Transubstantiation occurs, the communion actually becomes the body and flesh of Jesus (therefore, meat).

If a Catholic takes the body and flesh of Jesus on Good Friday or Ash Wednesday, are they not consuming meat then? For the more practising and Orthodox Catholics, meat abstention also applies to all Fridays (doesn't it? or is it just Lenten Fridays?).

What's the Church's position on this? Is there an exemption for this?

The consecrated elements do not actually become the Body and Blood; they become the Body and Blood "really", "substantially" and "spiritually".

Physically, though, they are still bread and wine, as would be readily confirmed by any physical or chemical analysis that you might hypothetically make. (Don't try this at home, though.)

So, not meat; bread.

endacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, not meat; bread.

Sweetbreads are meat?

Peregrinus

But - the name notwithstanding - they are not bread. (Although, of course, crumbed sweetbreads do involve bread.)

I'm glad I could clear that up for you. Any other culinary questions bothering you, just ask.

Victor

Communion isn't (normally) given on Good Friday or Ash Wednesday, so moot point.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Communion isn't (normally) given on Good Friday or Ash Wednesday, so moot point.

Mass is celebrated, and communion distributed, in the ordinary way on Ash Wednesday.

Mass is not celebrated on Good Friday, but there is a "Mass of the Presanctified" in which communion, consecrated at a mass before Good Friday, is distributed.

Gerrup Outta Dat!

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mass is celebrated, and communion distributed, in the ordinary way on Ash Wednesday.

Mass is not celebrated on Good Friday, but there is a "Mass of the Presanctified" in which communion, consecrated at a mass before Good Friday, is distributed.

But the parishioners will still be consuming meat on Good Friday.

Peregrinus

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

But the parishioners will still be consuming meat on Good Friday.

I refer the honourable gentleman with the unusually short attention span to the answer which I gave in post 3.

Nick Park

Peregrinus wrote: »

I refer the honourable gentleman with the unusually short attention span to the answer which I gave in post 3.

Or you could just feed him some pellets?

ELM327

Peregrinus wrote: »

The consecrated elements do not actually become the Body and Blood; they become the Body and Blood "really", "substantially" and "spiritually".

Physically, though, they are still bread and wine, as would be readily confirmed by any physical or chemical analysis that you might hypothetically make. (Don't try this at home, though.)

So, not meat; bread.

This depends on your branch of Christianity.
Catholic transubstantiation is a lot different from Lutheran beliefs for instance.

And even this within Catholicism has changed from a literal transubstantiation to a representation.
As per below from Nat Geo.

National Geographic, Cannibalism—the Ultimate Taboo&#8212 wrote: »

But in the Middle Ages, that was not the case. Transubstantiation was believed to have taken place: The host and the wine literally became the flesh and blood of Christ.

Nick Park

ELM327 wrote: »

This depends on your branch of Christianity.
Catholic transubstantiation is a lot different from Lutheran beliefs for instance.

And even this within Catholicism has changed from a literal transubstantiation to a representation.
As per below from Nat Geo.

Accepting National Geographic is an accurate source on theology makes about as much sense as accepting a theologian as an accurate source when making up your mind how the world was formed.

ELM327

Nick Park wrote: »

Accepting National Geographic is an accurate source on theology makes about as much sense as accepting a theologian as an accurate source when making up your mind how the world was formed.

I was using it as a source not the source.
Way to miss the message and focus on the detail

Peregrinus

ELM327 wrote: »

This depends on your branch of Christianity.
Catholic transubstantiation is a lot different from Lutheran beliefs for instance.

Sure. But the original post specifically mentioned Catholic eucharistic beliefs.

ELM327 wrote: »

And even this within Catholicism has changed from a literal transubstantiation to a representation.
As per below from Nat Geo.

While of course I manifest a faithful submission of will and intellect to the teaching authority of the National Geographic, the Catholic church never taught that the consecrated elements "literally" become the Body and Blood of Christ, or that they do so "actually" or "physically". It taught, and still teaches, that they become the Body and Blood "really", "sacramentally", "spiritually" and "substantially".

It's the "substantially" bit that causes confusion, I think. In our (philosophically) materialist culture, we default to assuming that any reference to "substance" is a reference to material or physical substance. But this one isn't; this draws on the outdated language of Aristotelian philosophy, and "substance" refers to metaphysical substance - an essence or reality which lies underneath the purely physical. The claim is that the metaphysical "substance" of the bread and wine is changed, while the "accidents" (which includes their physical nature) are not changed.

You may accept the claim or you may reject it. But if you're going to critique the Catholic view, that is the view that you need to critique.

Chancer3001

It's bible buffet.

Just try to pick the bits that make sense.

Ignore or 're evaluate the meaning of the obvious nonsense.

Be grand.

Nobody looks too deeply at it .

Questions make heads hurt. Just do what the priest says

ELM327

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. But the original post specifically mentioned Catholic eucharistic beliefs.


While of course I manifest a faithful submission of will and intellect to the teaching authority of the National Geographic, the Catholic church never taught that the consecrated elements "literally" become the Body and Blood of Christ, or that they do so "actually" or "physically". It taught, and still teaches, that they become the Body and Blood "really", "sacramentally", "spiritually" and "substantially".

It's the "substantially" bit that causes confusion, I think. In our (philosophically) materialist culture, we default to assuming that any reference to "substance" is a reference to material or physical substance. But this one isn't; this draws on the outdated language of Aristotelian philosophy, and "substance" refers to metaphysical substance - an essence or reality which lies underneath the purely physical. The claim is that the metaphysical "substance" of the bread and wine is changed, while the "accidents" (which includes their physical nature) are not changed.

You may accept the claim or you may reject it. But if you're going to critique the Catholic view, that is the view that you need to critique.

My issue is the a la carte christianity that people pick and choose which parts of the religion they want to adhere to. Most catholics I've spoken to on the subject (including at the church carpark, so not just lapsed catholics) don't believe in any form of transubstantiation, literal or otherwise, and instead believe in the lutheran form of representation. If you're a member of a golf club you can't decide to play golf but not adhere to the dress code rules. SO if you're a Catholic you must believe all of God and the church's teachings, otherwise you are not a Catholic.

Chancer3001 wrote: »

It's bible buffet.

Just try to pick the bits that make sense.

Ignore or 're evaluate the meaning of the obvious nonsense.

Be grand.

Nobody looks too deeply at it .

Questions make heads hurt. Just do what the priest says

+1
I would not have worded it so offensively but that's essentially the point I was making.

Peregrinus

ELM327 wrote: »

My issue is the a la carte christianity that people pick and choose which parts of the religion they want to adhere to. Most catholics I've spoken to on the subject (including at the church carpark, so not just lapsed catholics) don't believe in any form of transubstantiation, literal or otherwise, and instead believe in the lutheran form of representation. If you're a member of a golf club you can't decide to play golf but not adhere to the dress code rules. SO if you're a Catholic you must believe all of God and the church's teachings, otherwise you are not a Catholic.

The Catholic and Lutheran positions are actually pretty close. Lutherans don't profess transsubstantiation, but (if beaten about the head and neck with a broken bottle until they agree to use Aristotelian language) consubstantiation, the view that, in the consecrated elements, the (metaphysical) substance of the Body and Blood subsists along with the substance of bread and wine, rather than instead of it. They hold this, as Catholics do, to be a true and real presence of Christ, not just a representation or symbol.

As for the view that "if you're a Catholic you must believe all of God and the church's teachings, otherwise you are not a Catholic", we here face a serious conundrum, since this is not what the Catholic church itself teaches. So what you're saying here is that, to be a Catholic, you must reject the Catholic church's teaching of what it is to be a Catholic, which would mean, of course, that you can't consider yourself a Catholic.

ELM327

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Catholic and Lutheran positions are actually pretty close. Lutherans don't profess transsubstantiation, but (if beaten about the head and neck with a broken bottle until they agree to use Aristotelian language) consubstantiation, the view that, in the consecrated elements, the (metaphysical) substance of the Body and Blood subsists along with the substance of bread and wine, rather than instead of it. They hold this, as Catholics do, to be a true and real presence of Christ, not just a representation or symbol.

As for the view that "if you're a Catholic you must believe all of God and the church's teachings, otherwise you are not a Catholic", we here face a serious conundrum, since this is not what the Catholic church itself teaches. So what you're saying here is that, to be a Catholic, you must reject the Catholic church's teaching of what it is to be a Catholic, which would mean, of course, that you can't consider yourself a Catholic.

Do post this with a reliable source, as I can't see that being the actual position.

Peregrinus

A Catholic is (a) a baptised Christian, who (b) is in a relationship of communion with the Catholic community gathered around his bishop and, through that, with the worldwide Catholic community.

Shared belief is an important part of that relationship of communion, but it's by no means the only part of it. And certainly there is no church teaching that says that if you reject any of the church's teachings, you thereby cease to be Catholic. In general you only cease to be Catholic by completely severing your relationship with the church - by rejecting all of the church's teachings or, at any rate, so many of them that you no longer wish to participate in the Catholic community.

As far as the Catholic church is concerned, if you reject church teaching on this or that, that's a problem. But it's not a problem which means that you're not a Catholic any more; it's a problem which means that you need to be called to greater fidelity.

There are Christians, and Christian denominations, whose beliefs align closely with the teachings of the Catholic church. But they're not Catholics because they are not in communion with the Catholic church - don't wish to be, don't consider themselves to be. Conversely people who are in commmunion with the church are Catholics, even if they have real issues with some church teachings, unless those issues beceme so great that they can no longer be in communion.

ELM327

Peregrinus wrote: »

A Catholic is (a) a baptised Christian, who (b) is in a relationship of communion with the Catholic community gathered around his bishop and, through that, with the worldwide Catholic community.

Shared belief is an important part of that relationship of communion, but it's by no means the only part of it. And certainly there is no church teaching that says that if you reject any of the church's teachings, you thereby cease to be Catholic. In general you only cease to be Catholic by completely severing your relationship with the church - by rejecting all of the church's teachings or, at any rate, so many of them that you no longer wish to participate in the Catholic community.

As far as the Catholic church is concerned, if you reject church teaching on this or that, that's a problem. But it's not a problem which means that you're not a Catholic any more; it's a problem which means that you need to be called to greater fidelity.

There are Christians, and Christian denominations, whose beliefs align closely with the teachings of the Catholic church. But they're not Catholics because they are not in communion with the Catholic church - don't wish to be, don't consider themselves to be. Conversely people who are in commmunion with the church are Catholics, even if they have real issues with some church teachings, unless those issues beceme so great that they can no longer be in communion.

All of this is interesting reading and it is great to know your personal opinions on the subjects, but unless you are authorised by Him upstairs to speak on His behalf I fear you misunderstood my request for a source.

ELM327 wrote: »

Do post this with a reliable source, as I can't see that being the actual position.

Peregrinus

Well, do you have a source for your position? (Which, to remind you, is "if you're a Catholic you must believe all of God and the church's teachings, otherwise you are not a Catholic".)

While you're digging up your source, I'll offer you one of mine: Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, in which participation in the Church is presented as constituted primarily by a sacramental relationship, and secondarily by a life oriented towards holiness, and towards sharing in the church's mission of proclaiming and giving life to the gospel. The whole thing is worth a read, if this subject interests you, but there's a neat summary in paragraph 14:

"They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart." All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged."

So, while "profession of faith" is important, it's just one element in a much more holistic package. Traditionally, the Profession of Faith which supports membership of the Church is the Apostles' Creed. (This, in fact, is the purpose for which the Apostle's Creed was developed.) There's nothing to support the view that if you can't tick each and every box on the entire list of church teachings, you're out on your ear. On the contrary, the principle factor which undermines apparent or nominal church membership is a failing in charity.

ELM327

My position is that of the converse to "Hobsons choice" if you will, the de facto position of an organisation is that all rules are to be taken as gospel (pardon the pun) unless defined otherwise.

I'm off to read the link now.

Peregrinus

ELM327 wrote: »

My position is that of the converse to "Hobsons choice" if you will, the de facto position of an organisation is that all rules are to be taken as gospel (pardon the pun) unless defined otherwise.

I know that's your position. But what's your source for that position?

ELM327

Peregrinus wrote: »

I know that's your position. But what's your source for that position?

De facto?

Peregrinus

ELM327 wrote: »

De facto?

You mean, that's your position because that's your position? Your source for your position is, well, your position?

If that's so, it's probably an unwise strategy to start demanding sources for other people's positions, Elm.

ELM327

De Facto means default.
As I explained earlier, the default position for any organisation that has any rules is that all should obey the rules and not cherry pick, unless instructed otherwise.
Hence why I asked for the "instructed otherwise"

Chancer3001

Peregrinus , you're saying 6he Catholic church itself encourages cherry picking?

Not taking every aspect as fact but interpreting pieces yourself ?

ELM327

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Peregrinus , you're saying 6he Catholic church itself encourages cherry picking?

Not taking every aspect as fact but interpreting pieces yourself ?

I'm not sure he said encouraging, but does not penalise.
I don't agree with that perspective personally, I feel that to be a member you must follow the rules.

Hence my current struggle. I don't know if I'm shalom, inshallah or buicheas le dia at the moment!

Peregrinus

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Peregrinus , you're saying 6he Catholic church itself encourages cherry picking?

Not taking every aspect as fact but interpreting pieces yourself ?

I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that the Catholic church doesn't define a Catholic as someone who accepts every aspect of church teaching, or consider that if you doubt or reject some aspect of church teaching you thereby cease to be a Catholic.

Chancer3001

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that the Catholic church doesn't define a Catholic as someone who accepts every aspect of church teaching, or consider that if you doubt or reject some aspect of church teaching you thereby cease to be a Catholic.

So you can choose to follow/ ignore whatever parts you want and still be considered a Catholic by the church ?

EirWatchr

Chancer3001 wrote: »

So you can choose to follow/ ignore whatever parts you want and still be considered a Catholic by the church ?

You would only be no longer considered Catholic by the Church if you are excommunicated from it. Some things you may do, of utmost gravity, contrary to the faith result in automatic excommunication (e.g. procuring an abortion).

The Church teaches that you are, in fact, obliged to follow your informed conscience, but note the informed part - i.e. would you be ignoring some teaching or not following it wilfully without giving due diligence to informing your conscience about it fully, or worse - ignoring your conscience entirely.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

Peregrinus

Chancer3001 wrote: »

So you can choose to follow/ ignore whatever parts you want and still be considered a Catholic by the church ?

If you ignore enough of it the church may take the view that your departure from church teaching and church life is so great that your relationship of communion has effectively come to an end and you are no longer a Catholic. But note that (a) they are generally very reluctant to come to that view; 999 times out of 1,000 it's the individual who decides that he has left the church, not the church. And (b) it's usually not issues of what you believe that will be regarded as having brought communion to an end, but issues of what you do, how you live. The most obvious example would be if you formally join another church, or formally enter into a non-Christian religion.

EirWatchr wrote: »

You would only be no longer considered Catholic by the Church if you are excommunicated from it. Some things you may do, of utmost gravity, contrary to the faith result in automatic excommunication (e.g. procuring an abortion).

Actually, no. An excommunicated Catholic does not cease to be a Catholic; he just becomes a Catholic who is subject for the time being to the canonical penalty of excommunication. (Which has the surprising result that if he commits a further grave public sin, he can be excommunicated a second time; since he is still a Catholic, he is still subject to canonical disciplinary procedures.) Whereas a non-Catholic can't be excommunicated even the once.