POPE WRITING ENCYCLICAL ON EUCHARIST

ZENIT News Agency ^ | May 29, 2002

[NYer]

ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome

---

Code: ZE02052905

Date: 2002-05-29

Encyclical on Eucharist to Recapitulate Key Topics of Pontificate

Work on New Document Is in Initial Stages

VATICAN CITY, MAY 29, 2002 (Zenit.org).- John Paul II is planning to write an encyclical on the Eucharist, a topic that Vatican sources say profoundly links his other papal writings.

ZENIT confirmed with the Vatican that the writing of the encyclical, announced on Italian public television RAI 2, is still in its initial phases.

The Holy Father sees in Christ´s real presence in the Eucharist a profound link with all the writings of his pontificate, which began with the encyclical "Redemptor Hominis" (Redeemer of Man) in March 1979, Vatican sources explained.

At the same time, the new encyclical is expected to give the opportunity to bring together in a circular way -- a trait common in John Paul II´s thought -- the ideas of this pontificate, one of the most prolific in history.

John Paul II has published 13 encyclicals, the last of which was "Fides et Ratio" (Faith and Reason), signed on Sept. 14, 1998.

In recent years, the Pontiff has given much attention to Sunday Mass, to the point that he dedicated an apostolic letter to it, "Dies Domini" (The Lord´s Day), signed on May 31, 1998.

In his 2001 apostolic letter "Novo Millennio Ineunte" (At the Beginning of the New Millennium), No. 36, he wrote: "In many regions Christians are, or are becoming, a "little flock" (Luke 12:32). This presents them with the challenge, often in isolated and difficult situations, to bear stronger witness to the distinguishing elements of their own identity. The duty to take part in the Eucharist every Sunday is one of these. The Sunday Eucharist which every week gathers Christians together as God´s family round the table of the Word and the Bread of Life, is also the most natural antidote to dispersion."

[NYer]

Contrast this with the following passage from Michael Rose's book, Goodbye Goodmen ...

And then there is the education. Many of our young priests are taught that the Real Presence is a myth; that Christ never intended to establish the Eucharist; that St. Augustine invented the idea of original sin; and that in general the sacraments are antiquated.

Please remember the Holy Father in your prayers!

[kinsman redeemer]

I am a former Catholic.

I would like someone to explain how transubstantiation is not the same as repeated sacrifice.

Thanks in advance,

Russ

[NYer]

I would like someone to explain how transubstantiation is not the same as repeated sacrifice.

Perhaps the following extract from http://www.therealpresence.org/ will answer your question.

In transubstantiation there is a unique substantial change. The essence or substance of bread and wine ceases to exist, while the accidents or sensibly perceptible properties of bread and wine remain. This kind of change has no counterpart in nature; it belongs to the supernatural order.

What actually occurs? The substance of what was bread and wine is replaced by the living Christ. Although the external qualities of bread and wine remain, their substance is no longer on the altar. It is now the whole Christ, divinity and humanity, soul and body, and all the bodily qualities that make Christ, Christ.

In his historic encyclical The Mystery of Faith, Paul VI goes into great detail to show that transubstantiation produces a unique presence of Jesus Christ on earth. The pope analyzes six ways in which the Savior is present and active in the world of human beings, but they are not the Real Presence. The Real Presence is unique because “it contains Christ Himself.” Moreover, this presence is called Real because it is the presence “by which Christ, the God-Man is wholly and entirely present” (Mysterium Fidei, September 3, 1965).

Worship of the Holy Eucharist.  There has been a remarkable development of doctrine on the Real Presence. Already in the infant Church, the faithful did not doubt that by the words of consecration by the priest, what had been bread is now the living Christ. However, as certain theories began to emerge that called the Real Presence into question, two things happened. The Church’s magisterium began to express her Eucharistic faith in even sharper and clearer terms; and the Church’s saints began to foster devotion to the living Christ who is present in our midst in the Blessed Sacrament.

The classic expression of faith in the Real Presence was drafted by Pope Gregory VII in a Eucharistic Creed that leaves no room for compromise.

I believe in my heart and openly profess that the bread and wine placed upon the altar are, by the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of the Redeemer, substantially changed into the true and life-giving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord, and that after the consecration there is present the true body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and offered up for the salvation of the world, being hung on the cross and now sits at the right hand of the Father, and there is present the true blood of Christ which flowed from His side. They are present not only by means of a sign and of the efficacy of the sacrament, but also in the very reality and truth of their nature and substance (Council of Rome, February 11, 1079).

[Theresa]

"I would like someone to explain how transubstantiation is not the same as repeated sacrifice."

"The priest—by Christ's command, in Christ's name, by Christ's power—is offering to God the Victim once slain upon Calvary. This does not mean it is a new sacrifice, but Calvary's sacrifice presented anew—in order that the redemption won for our race should produce its fruit in us individually." F. J. Sheed http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SHEEDEUC.HTM

[Mike Fieschko]

I would like someone to explain how transubstantiation is not the same as repeated sacrifice.

It's common to speak of the effects of Our Lord's death at a particular place and time, being applied to us in the present.

'Being washed in the Blood of the Lamb' is a common phrase, and though it isn't literally true, there is some effect being produced now by an event nearly two millennia ago.

An 'unbloody' washing. We need that effect now because we folks live at a different time than Our Lord did.

Any church which applies thought to grace, wrestles with the question: how does an event in the past, or something outside time, produce an effect at a particular place and time? The Church teaches that the means of grace include the sacraments: they are some of the ways how God has chosen to dispense His grace.

There's nothing new or distinct occurring at the Mass. It is the same event, though in our time unbloody. The benefits of the bloody sacrifice are available to us and received by us through the unbloody re-presentation of that event.

[Siobhan]

Prayers for the Holy Father and for the formation and education of real Catholic priests.

[onedoug]

Fascinating. Thanks for posting.

[Lady In Blue]

I heard a priest once,say that the Sacrifice of the Mass,is not Christ being crucified over again but that we are PRESENT at Calvary when we assist at Mass.And this same priest offered another analysis.He said that each time that you play a video - you're PRESENT each time you play that video,even though that video was made only once.Hope I remembered correctly how Father said that,but it's at least close to what he said.

[Gophack]

Very good analogy on the video ... I'll use that to explain to my kids if they question.

God bless.

[Lady In Blue]

Thanks,GOPhack.I've always remembered that.Some things,which seem very difficult at first glance,can be explained in simple terms.I've always loved the way St.Patrick explained the Trinity to the Irish by using a shamrock.I heard of another saint(can't remember his name)who used a blanket to explain the Trinity. He folded the blanket 3 times.Each fold is distinct,but made out of the same material.

[Salvation]

Please remember the Holy Father in your prayers!

Amen!

[Salvation]

Super analogy on the video. Thanks for that information. Apologetcs, hooray!

[Brandybux]

Hi, Kinsman Redeemer,

You didn't ask this question, but it's lurking in the one you did ask, so I'm gonna toss this in ...

Transubstantiation is the Roman attempt to explain the Real Presence, to account for it. All who believe in transubstantiation believe in the Real Presence. However, there are many, many Christians (Anglicans, Lutherans, the Orthodox, just to name a few) who believe in the Real Presence, but do not believe in transubstantiation.

I'm in the latter group. As a more-or-less conventional evangelical Protestant, I was taken more and more by the obvous testimony of the Bible that God was simultaneously everywhere (the usual doctrine of omnipresence), and also present at some locale in a way, to a degree, that He was not present on any place else.

Theophanies, for example, do not contradict God's omnipresence. God was still omnipresent when Isaiah was confronted by God in the Temple (Isaiah 6), or when God appeared to Israel at Sinai, or to Moses in the Burning Bush. Notwithstanding, He was present in a special, peculiar way in the Burning Bush, and NOT in Moses' sleeping tent some miles away. He was present within the Holy of Holies in a way that was different than omnipresence.

And, so, the Church has believed that Christ is present in the elements of the communion in a way that He is not present in your front yard. The thing that convinced me was 1 Corinthians 11. Mere bread and wine do not make people sick, or kill them. It was because they did not discern the presence of the Lord in the Eucharist that they were judged.

How God is present in one place that is different from all other places is a thorny question to ponder. Catholics (at least since Aquinas) have used transubstantiation to explain how this happens. Leaving aside whether their explanation is credible, one does not need that particular doctrine to acknowledge that the Eucharist is one way -- a quite tangible way -- that Jesus' words to His disciples are true: "I will be with you always, even until the end of the world."

[Salvation]

And, so, the Church has believed that Christ is present in the elements of the communion in a way that He is not present in your front yard. The thing that convinced me was 1 Corinthians 11. Mere bread and wine do not make people sick, or kill them. It was because they did not discern the presence of the Lord in the Eucharist that they were judged.

The real presence bump.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I would like someone to explain how transubstantiation is not the same as repeated sacrifice.

It is a sacrifice.

Canons of the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist: If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, Let him be anathema. (Canons on the Most Holy sacrament of the Euchrist, Canon 1, Declarations of the Council of Trent, Session 13.)

If anyone says that Chirst received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, let him be anathema. (Canon 8).

Becky

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

More:

Council of Trent

Canon 1, Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass

If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, Let him be anathema.

Canon 3

If anone says that the sacifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions,a nd other necessities, let him be anathema.

Becky

[drstevej]

***Very good analogy on the video ... ***

The video only is a visual and audio representation of the action recorded. Watching the video later call to memory the events of the actors. They are not really present on the tape.

The analogy better fits the Zwinglian view. I like the analogy as a Protestant.

... I'll use that to explain to my kids if they question. :-)

[narses]

In the Old Testament, animals were killed (sacrificed) and then presented to God at the Altar as a gift of worship. Our Lord allowed himself to be killed on the Cross as the ultimate Sacrifice, at the Altar he is offered to God again and again as the unbloody renewal of that sacrifice as a gift to God on behalf of all the worshiping faithful. At least that is my understanding.

[Salvation]

Thought for the Day

Since Christ Himself has said, "This is My Body" who shall dare to doubt that It is His Body?

 -- St Cyril of Jerusalem