Jump to: navigation, search


119 bytes added, 18:54, February 22, 2007
Real Presence
I would say that #2 is definitely wrong, as it gives the impression that there is a chemical change into flesh meat and red and white corpuscles. Even the Roman Catholic Church, despite some popular but mistaken beliefs, does not teach that. Aquinas is explicit about this. Moreover, using the word 'substance' introduces an unnecessary distinction (between substance and accidents) and association (with Roman notions of transubstantiation using Aristotelian terminology). #1 makes me a little uneasy for a couple of reasons. First, saying that Christ 'resides in the elements' makes it sound like a localized presence, such that when the priest lifts the chalice he is lifting Christ (which Aquinas is right to reject). Second, while I understand saying 'after the Epiklesis' is affirming the Eastern Orthodox emphasis upon the epiklesis, this could be read as denying the Real Presence in a liturgy that does not use an ''epiklesis''. This is an untenable view since a consecratory epiklesis was never universal in the Church -- I am thinking here in particular of the Liturgy of Addai and Mari. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 07:38, February 6, 2007 (PST)
:Thank you. This is very good. I also received an excellent reply by email with some general references and some terms to study. [[User:Willibald|Willibald]] 10:48, February 22, 2007 (PST)
==Christian Eucharist = Jewish Passover? ==

Navigation menu