what are the words the priest says that turns bread to the body and wine into blood ? if a denominational pastor were to say such words, would it happen as well ? Can anyone say such words?

-- anon (a@a.com), March 26, 2003

Answers

Actually, the host by itself, contains the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ once it is consecrated. You cannot have a body without the Blood and Soul.

You can look the words of consecration up easily enough on the internet.

And, no, noone but a validly ordained priest, can cause Transubstantiation to happen. And even he has stipulations, such as proper form, matter and intention.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 26, 2003.

I encountered a minister the other day while on a trip to Virginia, this is my question..if anybody can give me the information or where to get it..He says he left the Catholic Church because he couldnt understand, or thought it was ridiculous that We Catholics believed the the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus in Communion..I told him what I believed and promise to pray for God to give him the understanding..but I wouldnt mind mailing him some information...God Bless

-- Maria del Pilar Pujols (zorrafea@aol.com), March 27, 2003.

Plenty of information on the internet you can print off and then mail to him.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 27, 2003.

So if the priest does not have the right form or intention or whatever during the consecration and people begin to worship the host, thinking that it is indeed Christ himself contained therein, would this amount to idolatry ?

-- anon (a@a.com), March 27, 2003.

It would amount to objective idolatry, but there would be no sin of idolatry involved, since one cannot sin unknowingly.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 27, 2003.

It would not be idolatry because worship is an act of the will. The people in your example believe that Jesus is substantially present in the Eucharist and are giving worship to him and not an "idol." This is their intention. To be culpable of idolatry, as with any sin, you have to intend to do it.

God bless, -Eric

-- Eric Filmer (midgardia@hotmail.com), March 27, 2003.

Dear Maria,

Does the minister also consider it ridiculous that all Christians from the time of Christ until a few hundred years ago believed in the real presence of Christ's body and blood? Seems like that would make Luther, rather than Christ, the source of his beliefs.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 27, 2003.

Maria,

You can find online information concerning the Real Presence in the Eucharist at www.catholic.com (the web page of Catholic Answers). I think many people don't believe in the Real Presence because it sounds too good to be true.

-- Eric Filmer (midgardia@hotmail.com), March 27, 2003.

I agree with you there Eric. I also think many don't believe in the Real Prescence because they try to limit the ways of God. They find it incomprehensible in the human mind, and therefore, can't see how it can be done. "Oh, ye, of little faith."

"O my God, I believe, I adore, I trust and I love thee. I beg pardon for all those who do not believe, do not adore, do not trust and do not love thee."

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 27, 2003.

Eternal Father In Heaven, I offer thee the Body,Blood, Soul, and Divinity,in all the Masses throughout the world, this day, for all the Holy souls in Purgatory, the sinners in the Universal Church, and the sinners in my own home and family.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 27, 2003.

How come intention comes into it ? In the old testament, if someone sinned unintentionally they were still guilty of that sin.

-- anon (a@a.com), March 28, 2003.

Concerning the question on intention and the Old Testament - God presented the fullness of his revelation to humankind in Christ. Everything that happened before this was a "prelude" and could not see things through the big scope of Christianity. During the times of the Old Testament the Hebrews were still in the "class room" so to speak. God couldn't dump every aspect of his revelation onto any single generation, anymore than a math teacher can't dump physics equations on an elementary mathematics class. Like a math teacher, God first gave us the basics and slowly built upon it, generation after generation. With this in mind, there are parts of the Old Testament that need to be examined through the fullness of Christianity and we see an example of this when Jesus gives us his commentary on the Old Testament teaching of "an eye for an eye." I suggest that the same sort of thing is going on here with the matter of intention when comparing how it is treated in the Old Testament and how it is now explained to us through the teaching of the Magesterium (under the guidance if the Holy Spirit).

-- Eric Filmer (midgardia@hotmail.com), March 28, 2003.

Maria,

I think it is so sad to hear that a practicing Catholic would reject Jesus Christ, Truly Present in the Most Blessed Sacrament, and then go out on his own to preach to others. So, so sad!

The Gospel of St. John is full of references to Jesus being the Bread of Life.

Protestants will say that He is only speaking figuratively here, not literally, since Jesus also says that He is a vine, or a gate...But in St. John, Chapter 6, there is an account where Jesus insists that we must eat His Body and Blood.

In St. John, Chapter 6, verses 30 through 69, we see the people asking Jesus for a sign, just as God gave manna to the Israelites in the desert.

Jesus tell them, "I myself am the bread of life..."

Verse 41 tells us that the jews started to murmur at this.

Rather than saying, "Hey guys, you misunderstand, I don't mean that I am literally bread," He becomes more emphatic about it. Verse 47, 48: Let me firmly assure you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Verse 51 ...If anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; the bread I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. (Here, St. John uses the Greek word, faegin for "eat.")

Verse 52: At this, the Jews quarreled, saying how can he give us his flesh to eat?

Verse 53: "Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. he who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up on the last day." Here, St. John uses an even stronger word for "eat," trogon (which means to gnaw, or chew on).

Verse 60: "After hearing his words, many of disciples remarked, 'This sort of talk is hard to endure! How can anyone take it seriously?'"

Jesus then challenged them, asking them if this teaching was to shake their faith, what would they do if they saw Him rise from the dead (alluding to His Resurrection, following the institution of the Eucharist).

Verse 66: "From this time on, many of his disciples broke away and would not remain in his company any longer."

Did Jesus then back down, retract his words, rephrase it more delicately?

No! He turned to his Apostles, and offered them the same Truth, and the same opportunity to reject it. As we all know, the apostles remained, with St. Peter speaking on behalf of them all, saying, "Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of everlasting life..."

Protestants will say that the Eucharist is only symbolic.

Why would His disciples leave Jesus, if He was only speaking symbolically? He was speaking literally, and they knew it! They couldn't accept eating His Body and Blood, so they left.

Many of the early Christians (martyrs) were put to death under charges of, among other things, "cannibalism."

They celebrated a holy ritual meal of the Body and Blood of their Lord, and were therefore condemned to death! (It is not cannibalism, of course, because we begin this holy sacrifice with ordinary bread and wine. It is God Himself who changes that bread and wine into His Body and Blood for us.)

Early Church Fathers, also, taught and wrote of the Most Holy Eucharist. Indeed, St. John had celebrated many, many Masses prior to writing his gospel, as it was written decades after the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

This holy sacrament has endured for 2,000 years.

Our Lord has even left us miracles of His True Presence, just in case His Word, and history are not enough to convince us!

To view some Eucharistic Miracles, still present today with no scientific means of preservation, after 700 years...visit these sites: http://www.cmns.mnegri.it/miracolo/welcome.html

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

http://www.regione.abruzzo.it/giubileo/en/itinerari/lanciano/

I hope this helps, Marie.

If he refuses to accept this teaching, you really have no other choice but to refuse to listen to his Protestant errors any longer, as he will try to break down your Faith, by twisting Scriptures.

May Jesus and Mary be with you! Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (flowerofthehour@hotmail.com), March 28, 2003.

*Maria,* not "Marie," sorry :)

-- Anna <>< (flowerofthehour@hotmail.com), March 28, 2003.

Eric, I'm sorry but I am quite dissatisfied with your answer. Either intention has an effect on sin or it didn't. I don't believe the nature of sin has changed since the old testament. If God said back then that a man is guilty even if he didn't know or didn't intend to sin, then why oh why should he change his mind now ? Please provide a better explanation, because otherwise, we could start saying that about sins right across the board, "Oh I didn't mean to sin.","Oh I didn't know that was a sin." Come on. You know as well as I that intention doesn't come into it. Sin is sin.

-- anon (a@a.com), March 28, 2003.

Dear anon,

Don't confuse objective evil with personal sin. If something is objectively evil, then it is evil, regardless of the knowledge or intent of a person who commits the act. But the individual cannot be personally guilty ("culpable") unless he/she knows that the act is objectively evil, and decides to do it anyway. That's why small children are not capable of sin. Some of the things they do may be objectively wrong, but they are not aware of the moral aspects of their actions, and therefore cannot be guilty of sin, even though they may "steal" something, damage property, etc.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 29, 2003.

Anon, I think Paul had expressed the idea at work here very well. In addition to his comments, consider paragraph 1860 of the Catechism: "Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense" - which would apply to the example of people mistakenly giving worship to unconsecrated bread. Obviously God does not want people worshiping bread, but being perfect justice he does hold people culpable for doing so in the example you gave. Once again, it is a matter or intention.

"For sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent" (CCC #1857). The example you presented only meets one of the requirements (grave matter). The people in question did not have full knowledge (rather, they thought it was the Eucharistic Host) nor consent to commit idolatry. Therefore they are not guilty of the sin of idolatry. I hope this helps.

-- Eric Filmer (midgardia@hotmail.com), March 29, 2003.

Oops - typo! I meant "matter OF intention" not "matter or intention."

-- Eric Filmer (midgardia@hotmail.com), March 29, 2003.

Anon - Here are some other things I meant to comment on:

"I don't believe the nature of sin has changed since the old testament."

- The nature of sin does not change but our understanding of it has developed over time. This is true in other areas of moral theology as well.

"If God said back then that a man is guilty even if he didn't know or didn't intend to sin, then why oh why should he change his mind now?"

- I do not believe that God changes his mind, but I believe he had to teach the ancient Hebrews in a fashion different from the way he taught later generations in light of the fullness of the revelation given through Christ. But perhaps it would help in this discussion if I knew exactly which Old Testament verse you are referring to.

"Please provide a better explanation, because otherwise, we could start saying that about sins right across the board, "Oh I didn't mean to sin.","Oh I didn't know that was a sin."

- God reads the heart. A person who was unintentionally ignorant cannot justly be held accountable for a sin. But the key here is unintentionally ignorant. A person may be having a good time with a particular sin and be unaware of what the bible says about it or what the Church teaches. Nevertheless, his conscience may well be bothering him. If he chooses not to investigate the matter further because he wants to go on sinning in blissful ignorance then he may be held accountable for his attitude. He had a nagging suspicion that what he was doing was wrong, but refused to look into it because he didn't want to know. Such a person is neither unitentionally ignorant nor completely ignorant.

-- Eric Filmer (midgardia@hotmail.com), March 29, 2003.

anon,

I am not sure what you are referring to concerning the Old Testament. Could you direct us to the Old Testament passage that indicates a man is guilty of sin even if he didn't know he was committing it? Thanks.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 29, 2003.