“Bread”

by Jimmy Akin

in Bible

A reader writes:

I am an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and one of the
things that grates on me is when people refer to Jesus as "the bread"
or "the wine", rather than something such as "his most precious body
and blood".  However, in scripture there are references as well that it
seems one could use to support a symbolic meaning of the Eucharist:

Luke 24:35:
Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Acts 2:42, 46:
They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.

46
Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes. They ate their meals with exultation and sincerity of heart

Do these verses refer to the Eucharist?  If so, why would the
scripture writers use the term "bread" and not something more
descriptive of what is actually taking place?

These passages–particularly those in Acts–may refer to the Eucharist, but it is not clear to me that any of these passages, in their primary, literal signification refer to the Eucharist. The expressing "breaking bread" is a well-known idiom referring to simply eating a meal, particularly given the fact that bread was the principle constituent of diets in this period of human history–to the point that in Greek the ordinary word for bread (arton) is the same as the word for "food."

I cannot rule out the possibility that in each of these cases what is being referred to is the sharing of an ordinary meal. This is particularly the case with the one from Luke, which occurred so closely after the Crucifixion that (given that Cleopas and his companion did not recognize Jesus) it could well have been an ordinary meal rather than a celebration of the Eucharist (which Cleopas and his companion may not have been empowered to celebrate, anyway).

I thus don’t know if these texts raise the issue that you are asking about.

If they don’t, however, others do.

In 1 Corinthians 10, for example, we read:

16: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a
participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it
not a participation in the body of Christ?
17: Because  there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all  partake of the one bread.

St. Paul clearly indicates that consuming "the bread" of the Eucharist involves "a participation in the body of Christ," so the issue of the Real Presence is not in question. He indicates that "the bread" is "the body of Christ." He is so serious about this that he warns against profaning it in the strongest terms in chapter 11:

27: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the
Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and
blood of the Lord.
28: Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29: For any one who eats and drinks without  discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
30: That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 

   

Because of these biblical usages, I do not think that Catholics should scruple at references to the consecrated elements as "bread" and "wine" as long as these are understood correctly. St. Paul uses such terminology without diminishing in any way the reality of Christ’s Presence in the sacrament–to the point that he warns people against profaning it lest they die.

What one must recognize in such usages is that they are spoken (or written) according to the language of appearances rather than the language of reality. In reality, what is before us is the Body and Blood of Christ, but according to our senses–the appearances–what is before us looks and tastes like bread and wine.

God meant for us to live with both ends of this duality, held in tension: Sensing one thing but recognizing in faith the presence of something else.

Since God expects us to live with this duality, acknowledging both the appearance and the reality, and since he did not mandate a unique mode of language to accomodate the duality but instead allowed the divinely inspired Scriptures to speak of the elements according to both aspects of the duality, we must be prepared to receive and correctly understand both kinds of expressions.

Today we have a special kind of vocabulary that we can use to express the language of appearances. Philosophers call it "phenomenological language." We use phenomenological language when we describe something according to how it appears, without addressing the question of what it is. Thus we can talk about the sun rising, without failing to recognize that the Earth is a sphere (not a flat surface above which something else rises) that actually moves around the sun instead of visa versa.

In the same way, we can phenomenologically speak of the consecrated host as "bread"–the way St. Paul does–without failing to recognize the reality of the Real Presence.

We thus must be prepared to accept either phenomenological language (the language of appearances) and ontological language (the language of realities).

Of course, some today may be unclear on the reality of the Real Presence, and when we encounter someone with such a defective understanding, we must strive to correct him.

Similarly, there are sacramental and liturgical dissents who, one suspects, refer to the Eucharist as "bread" and "wine" because they have a defective understanding of the realities this sacrament involves. It is quite understandable that one feels uncomfortable with their using such language, and it is legitimate to question them about what they mean, but the mode of language itself is not prohibited, for Scripture itself uses it.

 

One note about the passages the reader cites: Regardless of what the primary literal sense of these texts might be, the Church early on recognized a reference to the Eucharist within at least the spiritual sense of these texts, and so it is legitimate today to appeal to them in Eucharistic contexts.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

{ 69 comments }

Christine October 26, 2006 at 12:23 pm

Very sad that only about a third of Catholics believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
My personal opinion is that receiving communion in the hand did alot to affect people’s perception of the Eucharist; it reduced the reverence people should have for the Eucharist.
Christine
The World…IMHO

doc_rex October 26, 2006 at 12:31 pm

Is it relevant whether Cleophas and his companion were “competent to celebrate”? This is hardly an ordinary meal in its antecedent or consequences. The Risen Lord does the celebration Himself, directly, rather than acting through an ordained priest. It seems very much in keeping with the Eucharistic Real Presence that Jesus is recognized in the act of “breaking bread” and is not then said to depart, but to “vanish from their sight”.

WRY October 26, 2006 at 12:37 pm

In my kid’s first communion prep, they’re going to answer questions given to them, and the sample responses always say stuff like, “We receive Jesus in the bread and the wine.”
To me this sounds flat wrong from the standpoint of teaching kids about the real presence.
What say ye?

Tony October 26, 2006 at 12:57 pm

But Jimmy… When you are receiving communion, the bread and wine no longer exist. Isn’t that the meaning of “transsubstantiation” rather than “consubstantiation”?
(However, being an amateur, I will defer to the professional apologist. :) )

SDG October 26, 2006 at 1:04 pm

In my kid’s first communion prep, they’re going to answer questions given to them, and the sample responses always say stuff like, “We receive Jesus in the bread and the wine.”
To me this sounds flat wrong from the standpoint of teaching kids about the real presence.
What say ye?

Yes, that is flat wrong. That said….

But Jimmy… When you are receiving communion, the bread and wine no longer exist. Isn’t that the meaning of “transsubstantiation” rather than “consubstantiation”?

The substance of the bread and wine no longer exist. The appearances (or “accidents” if you prefer) do.
So the question is whether something that is substantially the whole Christ but has the appearance of bread and wine can be phenomenologically called “bread” and “wine” — whether Christ under the appearances of bread and wine can be called “bread” and “wine.” Following St. Paul’s usage and common usage throughout Catholic history, the answer seems to be yes.

J.R. Stoodley October 26, 2006 at 1:06 pm

Christine, I thought it was that a third say they believe in transubstantiation, but over half still believe in some kind of real presence (many don’t even know what transubstantiation is).
WRY, that sounds like consubstantiation to me. Bad news.
Tony, certainly it is no longer bread or wine, but the appearances of bread and wine are still there. Therefore you can either talk about the appearances or the reality. This contrasts with WRY’s situation where the implication is that the bread and wine actually still exist and Jesus is somehow inside them.

Etienne October 26, 2006 at 1:07 pm

Thanks for this. I could use it for a post above a “catholic” Prof (bible) in the Swiss City of Lucerne.
http://vigilate.blogsome.com/2006/10/26/lauter-forderungen-die-ins-schisma-fuhren/

John October 26, 2006 at 1:36 pm

Jimmy,
Considering the below passage the writer quotes from Luke 24:35:
“Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.”
…and given the context of the entire passage, I would argue that Luke is most probably discussing the Body of Christ, and not simply bread broken at a meal.
If we look at verse 30:
“It happened, that when he had sat down at the table with them, he took the bread and gave thanks. Breaking it, he gave to them.”
…we can see that the breaking of the bread was done by Christ, much like at the last supper, and was offered or handed to his disciples by Christ as well. Then back to verse 35, they recognize their Lord when Christ gives the bread to them…
To me the parallels between these passages and the last supper text, are too similar to be mere coincidence.
Luke 22:19 reads:
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you”
Who could argue that Luke 24:30 and 22:19 are not nearly identical. The breaking of bread in Luke 24:35, therefore, must have been referring to the transfer of Christ’s body to his disciples.
I would be interested whether anyone knows the origin of the “breaking bread” saying.
Peace,
John

Anonymous October 26, 2006 at 1:49 pm

Jimmy,
I heard yesterday on EWTN that the Eucharistic Ministers, who are the lay people helping the Celebrant on distributing Communion on Mass, are not going to do the purification after Mass anymore.
Can you give me a light over this issue,
Thanks,
Marie

John E October 26, 2006 at 2:12 pm

Thanks for the explanation. I think I see what you’re saying, phenomenalistically speaking ;-)
While using the terms “bread” and “wine” aren’t wrong at least on a surface level, knowing the sad state of catechesis among many Catholics, I think when speaking with children, non-Catholics, those in RCIA, etc, it may be good to emphasize terms such as “precious body and blood” rather than “bread and wine”. But use of those terms (“bread and wine”) should not automatically be frowned upon.

John E October 26, 2006 at 2:21 pm

Blank anonymous poster of Oct 26, 2006 1:49:56 pm: Look down yonder.

John E October 26, 2006 at 2:22 pm

Blank anonymous poster of Oct 26, 2006 1:49:56 pm (aka Marie). Sorry.

Fr Martin Fox October 26, 2006 at 2:53 pm

This is a subject in which a lot of folks get upset because they don’t attend to the careful precision needed in choice of words and how ideas are expressed.
Jimmy is correct: if you are speaking in terms of appearance, “bread” and “wine” are correct; if speaking of substantial reality, then it’s “Body” and “Blood” (actually, even that is slightly off, as both are present under either species, not to mention Our Lord’s soul and divinity).
As he said, it’s about rightly understanding the terms; and to that end, in the context of the Eucharist being distributed, I discourage merely calling the Eucharist “bread” and “wine,” for prudence’ sake. But I can’t say someone is wrong for doing so.
About the passage in question, here are my thoughts…
I don’t see anything in the passage to say they were all part of a Mass; there is some suggestion that perhaps the Lord, to some degree, mimicked or somehow “re-did” what he did on Holy Thursday. But I would agree with Jimmy (if I understood him rightly) in holding back from saying the “bread” they shared was the Eucharist.
But that’s different from saying Luke, in telling this story, was pointing to, or offering a teaching about, the Eucharist. And that would be my surmise about his purpose here, because I tend to think that all the parts of the Gospels that have people being fed by the Lord are intended to do that, to a greater or lesser degree. Thus, the two feeding episodes, while not involving a sharing of the Eucharist, do, I think, point to the Eucharist. I mean, isn’t it noteworthy how much eating is going on in the Gospels?

Ali G October 26, 2006 at 2:59 pm

” … one of the things that grates on me is when people refer to Jesus as “the bread” or “the wine”, rather than something such as “his most precious body and blood”.”
“Grate?” Did you doubt the veracity of various polls, Jimmy, that show that some 60% of those Catholics that actually bother to show up for Mass on Sunday do not believe in the Real Presence? If anything should “grate” on you, it should be that books like Catholicism for Dummies aren’t being sold at the front door of every Catholic church after each and every Catholic Mass that has been said.

Esau October 26, 2006 at 3:20 pm

If anything should “grate” on you, it should be that books like Catholicism for Dummies aren’t being sold at the front door of every Catholic church after each and every Catholic Mass that has been said.
I believe that the primary reason why all this is happening among the Catholic Faithful of this generation (and this has been reiterated time and again) is because of the poor catechesis being taught at CCD classes and at Catholic schools.
In fact, I know someone who actually teaches CCD classes. She had candidly told me during the course of one evening that even she didn’t believe in the Eucharist and could understand why converts cannot accept this part of the Catholic Faith; yet, this person still teaches CCD.
I’m all for equal opportunity employment, but is this wise to have someone teach tenets of the Catholic Faith, some of which the teacher themselves do not accept and believe in? Mind you, this is not any plain tenet of the Faith but one that is the source and summit of the entire Catholic Faith, The Holy Eucharist!

J.R. Stoodley October 26, 2006 at 3:27 pm

I mean, isn’t it noteworthy how much eating is going on in the Gospels?
Considering how every part of the Bible points to Christ, this is certainly noteworthy. If the manna in the desert and the miracle at Cana and the various multiplications of loaves all have a Eucharistic significance, how much more when Christ is revealed to the disciples in the breaking of the bread. Indeed the whole mass prefigured in my opinion, with Christ first explaining the scriptures to them, and then breaking the bread and being revealed. That doesn’t mean the historical event was an actual mass.
A thought occurs to me though. Assuming the apostles made the Eucharistic connection early on, may this journey to Emmaus be the origin of what we now call the Liturgy of the Word? Nothing like it happened at the Last Supper, yet one would expect something as basic to all liturgies as reading from scripture at the beginning and maybe preaching would go back to the Apostles, and likely to Christ. Maybe the memory of this is what made people think to add that before the actual Eucharistic Sacrifice.

Joe Magee October 26, 2006 at 3:35 pm

Jesus Himself refers to His Eucharistic presence in John 6 as bread as in “I am the Bread of Life.” When someone refers to the Eucharistic species as “bread” in my presence, I try to be charitable and assume they mean “Bread of Life.” Maybe they don’t, but it takes some delicacy to use such situations as a profitable teaching moment.

Christine October 26, 2006 at 4:49 pm

Stoodley,
You may be right about the majority believing in ‘some presence’ but properly catechised Catholics should believe in transubstantiation.
Christine
The World…IMHO

Truefaith October 26, 2006 at 4:53 pm

In this current age of much unbelief and theological confusion, it would be advisable to refer to the elements of the Eucharist–as the ‘Body’ and the ‘Blood’, as this might offer a ‘teachable moment’ for some uncatechised individual. In my own personal experience, the majority of individuals who have referred to the Eucharist as the ‘bread’ and ‘wine’, DID NOT believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In fact, some years ago, when my daughter was preparing for her first Communion, the common teaching circulating through her class was that, the Eucharist was just ‘blessed bread’!–a belief shared by not only the young students, but by many of the parents as well!

John October 26, 2006 at 4:55 pm

I cant help but laugh at some of these posts-even looking into scripture for the answer to this simple question that most traditionally catechised second graders are all versed in the Baltimore Catechism know the answer to(not the JPII version or as taught in the church today after Vatican II as I recently attended a communion where the priest told all that his bagel if he prayed over it would become Jesus!!. )
It is a sacrament-proper form and proper matter. The bread is the matter. Lets be real here. For example with confirmation, are you saying the holy chrism which is a mixture of olive oil and balm upon confirmation is just oil and balm or does it give the confirmandi a sacrament in which they have worthily received the Holy Ghost and soldiers of Christ?
From the Baltimore Catechism it is clear that our Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist by taking bread, blessing, breaking and giving it to His Apostles saying “Take ye and eat. This is My body; and then by taking the cup of wine, blessing and giving it, saying to them;Drink ye all of this, This is my blood which shall be shed for the remission of sins. Do this for a commemoration of me”.
After the substance of bread and winehad been changed into the substance of the body and blood of our Lord there remained only the APPEARANCE of bread and wine
Please God-help the church! Searching into scripture for the “bread” and the body correlation is the slippery road of Protestanism and sola scriptura that Vatican II and ecumenism has infiltrated into our church, along with the new mass. Attend the Traditional Latin Mass and one has no doubts what is taking place

Esau October 26, 2006 at 5:22 pm

I cant help but laugh at some of these posts-even looking into scripture for the answer to this simple question

From the Baltimore Catechism it is clear that our Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist by taking bread, blessing, breaking and giving it to His Apostles saying “Take ye and eat. This is My body; and then by taking the cup of wine, blessing and giving it, saying to them;Drink ye all of this, This is my blood which shall be shed for the remission of sins. Do this for a commemoration of me”.
Funny, John, but rumor has it that the passage you just mentioned above actually appears in Scripture and not just in the Baltimore Catechism!!! I wonder why that is? I wonder if the Catholic Church being based on both Scripture and Tradition have anything to do with it!
As someone wisely put it:
In Catholicism, Scripture and Tradition are intrinsically interwoven. They have been described as “twin fonts of the one divine well-spring” (i.e., Revelation), and cannot be separated, any more than can two wings of a bird. A theology which attempts to sunder this organic bond is ultimately logically self-defeating, unbiblical, and divorced from the actual course of early Christian history.

Esau October 26, 2006 at 5:27 pm

Don’t belittle Scripture just because of your prejudice toward Protestants. Keep in mind that it is, regardless, the Word of God.
The condescending tone you seemed to exhibit above toward Scripture is very alarming and not at all representative of a Traditional Catholic Faith!

Fr Martin Fox October 26, 2006 at 7:11 pm

John:
The Bible is our book; as Scott Hahn says, when Catholics talk about Scripture, that’s a home (not away) game for us.

Anonymous October 26, 2006 at 9:14 pm

Hmmm, I thought the new Rule 1 limited commentaries to “one and out”.
With respect to John’s inquiry, “I would be interested whether anyone knows the origin of the “breaking bread” saying.
As with most Christian practices, it appears to have come from old Jewish customs/religious ceremonies.
http://www.restorationfoundation.org/6_110.htm
The equivalents to Luke 24:35 and other references to “bread and fish” are :Bread and Fish: (1?) 1 Cor 15:6; (2) John 6:1-15; (3a) Mark 6:33-44 =Matt 9:36; 14:13b-21 = Luke 9:11-17; (3b) Mark 8:1-10 = Matt 15:32-39; (4) Luke 24:13-33,35; (5) Luke 24:41-43; (6) John 21:9,12-13
With respect to “transubstantiation” as viewed at some Catholic universities as noted previously in other discussions.
“Transubstantiation is still a Catholic doctrine, but it never meant a literal transforming of bread and wine into the physical body and blood of
Jesus. “Substance” in medieval philosophy referred to the essence of a thing
and was not reducible to material appearance. Transubstantiation is a way of
expressing belief that Jesus Christ is SOME HOW present in the consecrated
bread and wine in a special way. Some theologians believe that “transignificantion” would be a better term today than transubstantiation.
[Note: both Episcopalians and Lutherans believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharistized bread and wine.]”

John October 26, 2006 at 9:35 pm

To anonymous poster at 9:14:08…I think you are, as others have done here many times, confusing me with another John who also posts here. I posted the comments discussing Jimmy’s take on the Luke passage, and the question relating to the origin of the term “breaking bread”. You can differentiate my posts by looking in the lower right-hand corner of my individual post. My name is not underlined, or stated another way, is not “linked”. The person I would perceive to be the more traditional John has his named underlined or “linked”. I offered one post today, staying within the boundaries of Jimmy’s new rule. Linked John, I believe, is the man you’re after. Happy hunting…unless of course you have a problem with my analysis.
Peace,
John (unlinked…and first I might add)

Ryan C October 27, 2006 at 5:15 am

For the last time (hopefully) it is not true that only 30 % (or whatever) of Catholics believe in the real Presence. To continue to claim so is bearing false witness and disingenuous.
Check this out: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9910qq.asp
Secondly, if one thinks that communion in the hand or Vatican II or ecumenicism or what have you is to blame for decreased belief in transubstantiation, then one needs to pick up a good history of theology in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, where one would see that belief in this doctrine has always been in tension, with many dissenting from the teaching (like say, the Wycliffites in the 14th and 15th centuries). As people said when Jesus himself taught this doctrine: “This is a hard saying-who can follow it?”
And John, I’m really not sure why using the same words as the Great Apostle Paul, or meditating on his rhetoric of Holy Scripture, is so funny.

Denise October 27, 2006 at 6:15 am

Just another thought on the use of “bread” and “breaking of the bread”. Wouldn’t it also be true that in the early Church there was a great emphasis on keeping secret those most holy parts of our belief and worship?
Is it possible that the writers of Sacred Scripture were being deliberately oblique in their references?

John October 27, 2006 at 7:27 am

Yes-Scott Hahn a “former” Protestant
Questioning the validity of where in the Bible bread and transubstantiation is taught or in there word for word is just another lack of true knowledge of ones catechism or their faith
For that matter maybe one should search the Dheouy Rheims version and not the 4x since Vatican II retranslated New American Bible as it has been changed and changed to suit the Protestants as well as to be “Politically Correct”
“Interwoven”? Yes-no one doubts that

Ryan C October 27, 2006 at 7:35 am

Hi Denise,
That may be, though it seems to me that St. Justin Martyr is pretty upfront with the Roman authorities about what the early Christians believed about the Eucharist. The early Christians, after all, were sometimes accused of cannibalism.
I would just like to suggest to those concerned over the use of the word “bread” that they consider the Lord’s Prayer, where we ask the Father for “Our Daily Bread,” which is, among other things, a reference to the Eucharist.
I would also suggest that since Our Lord’s Body and Blood serve the same function as bread both physically and metaphorically (building us up, nourishing and strengthening us) that the terms are accurate as well. In the sacraments the relationship between sign and signified breaks down, and we are lifted up to Heaven. The tremendous humility of the Lord, to reveal himself under such everyday forms.

Ryan C October 27, 2006 at 7:49 am

John:
From the Douay-Rheims version of the 16th century:
16. The chalice of benediction vvhich vve do blesse: is it not the comunication of the bloud of Christ? and the bread vvhich vve breake, is it not the participation of the body of our Lord?
17. For being many, vve areone bread, one body, al that participate of one bread.
From Luke:
19. And taking bread, he gaue thankes, and brake: and gaue to them, saying, This is my body vvhich is given for yov. Doe this for a commemoration of me.
35. And they told the things that vvere done in the vvay: and hovv they knevv him in the breaking of bread.
And the Catholic writer comments on this passage in Luke:
The Fathers in diuers places take this to be meant of the B. Sacrament. Author operis imperf. ho. 17. S. Augustine li. 39 de consensu Euang. c. 25 & ser. 140 de temp. & ep. 59 ad Paulinum q. 8. Paulinus him self in the next epistle before that, among S. Augustines. Venerable Bede also vpon this place. Theophylacte vpon this place. And that it should be meant of the holy Sacrament, the forme of solemne taking the bread into his handes, blessing it, breaking it, and reaching it to his disciples (exceding proper to the consecration, and common to none other vulgar benediction, nor any where vsed but in Christs miraculous multiplying the loaues) and the singular effecte in notifying Christ vnto them, do proue. [Subnote: The B. Sacrament in one kinde.] And if it be the Sacrament (as it is most probable) then is it an euident example and vvarrant of ministration in one kinde.
So it seems like many of the Fathers saw in this passage the Eucharistic meal.
Anyway, how are these versions different from the NAB, or anything people here have cited?
Also, John, I find your questioning of Hahn’s commitment to the Church through the use of “scare quotes” highly uncharitable.

Fr Martin Fox October 27, 2006 at 8:19 am

John (underlined):
Oh, you are so convincing!
I’m going to go throw out all those evil Bibles I own, wherever did Scripture come from, anyway? It’s all a plot to suck us all into being Protestant!

Esau October 27, 2006 at 9:00 am

Yes-Scott Hahn a “former” Protestant
John (linked/underlined-whatever),
Mind you that Jimmy Akin himself was also a “former” Protestant. In fact, I find that most former Protestants (at least, the ones I know of) become the best Catholics!
These have a profound knowledge of Scripture and isn’t it so wonderful that as they have come into the Church, they have finally come to know of the Tradition as passed down by Christ to the Apostles; in a sense, a sort of reunion between ‘Tradition’ & ‘Scripture’, if you will, that was torn asunder by the tragic ‘divorce’ that had resulted from the Reformation that has since wreaked damage to both sides.
Hopefully, in the future, there will be again a united Christendom under the banner of Christ just as Christ, himself, had prayed!
Jn:17:22: And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Fr. Stephanos, O.S.B. October 27, 2006 at 9:11 am

Eucharistic Prayer 1 (the Roman Canon), after the consecration, addresses God the Father to whom we offer:
Panem sanctum vitae aeternae– “the holy Bread of eternal life.”
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote the Eucharistic Sequence in which he calls the Eucharist Panis angelorum, “the Bread of angels.”
At Exposition and Adoration of the Blessed Eucharist, we have the acclamation Panem de caelo praestitisti eis, “He gave them Bread from heaven.”
Is the Eucharist bread? The Church says, “No.” The Church says it has the appearance of bread, but it is the Body of Christ really, truly, substantially.
Does the Church sometimes call the Eucharist bread? Yes.

Inocencio October 27, 2006 at 9:27 am

John(jtnova),
just another lack of true knowledge of ones catechism or their faith
Since you ignore both the Catechism of Trent and the teaching and example of St. Thomas Aquinas are you surprised when people ignore your rantings?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Kris October 27, 2006 at 10:38 am

John, (of the anti-VII camp)
I find your distrust of Scott Hahn, on the basis that he is a former Protestant, rather illogical. There are alot of very important people in the Church who were converts to the Faith–the 12 apostles for example. Or how about, St. Paul–well, maybe not him. He was a former Christian killer after all so maybe we shouldn’t trust his teachings/writings. Good thing they didn’t put any of his stuff in the Bible…
Come on John, we’re all in the same boat. We yearn for a day when good and holy cathechesis will return to Catholic schools, when renegade liberal priests are reigned in by good Bishops, and when Holy Mass isn’t viewed as a form of entertainment; but, we can’t let anger divide good Catholics. Support the Vatican, support the Councils–why? Beacause that’s what loyal, faithful Catholics do. The bad news is, there are many battles to be fought in the odmern Church—the good news, we know the Truth will prevail in the end. Jesus said so: “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”

John October 27, 2006 at 1:03 pm

Convincing? No, ever try to convince the left wing of the country who are so pro abortion that conception starts at life? They are the most stubborn and uncompromising group of people the liberals
The same here as it goes on this blog-the left wing of it-nothing would ever convince you that changing of the faith and deviating from past teachings of the church really took place over these past 40 years because by losening up the so called rules-you feel better about yourselves instead of striving to be perfect catholics and saints as we were taught to strive for when we were young-instead we strive to be like, well -Hold the Moslems in High esteem??
As far as Scott Hahn -if you ever read his bio he HATED catholics for years and then came over to Catholicism-do you not think he forgot his sola scriptura way of thought over night? Does he not run the bible study on EWTN? I am not questioning his catholicism as he is probably a better Catholic than the cradle catholics -as I do recall it was the Protestants who stood up against the media onslaught against the Passion of the Christ while Catholics and JPII (who actually met with Abe Foxman) said nothing, so I do admire many of them

bill912 October 27, 2006 at 2:00 pm

“…it was the Protestants who stood up aginst the media onslaught against the Passion of the Christ while Catholics…said nothing.”
Thos of us who are members of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights know that you are putting your ignorance on parade. We led that fight.

Toggle October 27, 2006 at 2:38 pm

JOHN (linked):
As far as Scott Hahn -if you ever read his bio he HATED catholics for years and then came over to Catholicism
As far as St. Paul -if you ever read his bio he PERSECUTED Christians for years and then came over to Christianity!
do you not think he forgot his sola scriptura way of thought over night? Does he not run the bible study on EWTN?
I also study the bible — I guess I believe in Sola Scriptura as well! I guess anything having to do with the bible is Protestant!
I wonder why then, among so many things, did the Catholic Church ever bother to decide the New Testament Canon at the Council of Rome in 382 AD or why it’s such a big part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church or why it has been an essential part of the Liturgy of the Word since the days of the Early Church!
You almost seem to suggest in your posts (for example, I cant help but laugh at some of these posts-even looking into scripture for the answer to this simple question that most traditionally catechised second graders are all versed in the Baltimore Catechism know the answer to) that the Catholic Church is based primarily on the Baltimore Catechism rather than actually the Scriptures and, of course, Tradition as we well know. But, that can’t be right since even the Baltimore Catechism cites Scripture as even you had stated in your other post:
From the Baltimore Catechism it is clear that our Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist by taking bread, blessing, breaking and giving it to His Apostles saying “Take ye and eat. This is My body; and then by taking the cup of wine, blessing and giving it, saying to them;Drink ye all of this, This is my blood which shall be shed for the remission of sins. Do this for a commemoration of me”.
Although I might admire the fact that somehow, even in your twisted sense of Catholicism, there is something redeemable in it such as your unyielding loyalty to Traditional Catholicism. However, it almost seems that this is the very same thing that is causing you to do harm to it and the very Catholic Church you’ve pledged your allegiance to as well.
May God bless you John and illuminate the darkness that has set forth on your mind and help you with your situation. Granted, there have been many terrible things that have happened to the Church in the last years and, unfortunately, many of the harmful effects of the modern world and the liberal christianity that has crept even into the celebration of the Holy Mass that we revere with our whole hearts as it is from and by God. Still, you also must open your eyes to the good that has happened too! For one thing, some of our lost flock are returning to the fold of the Church and we, like the Father of the prodigal son, must rejoice at this!
P.S. Scott Hahn did a program with Jeff Cavins on the bible which was called “Our Father’s Plan” but that was years ago.

Maureen October 27, 2006 at 2:38 pm

Re: calling the Eucharist “bread” and “wine”
Look, there’s nothing wrong with having a poetic name for Jesus, especially one which links Jesus’ Body and Blood to all the foreshadowings through the centuries, as well as our own humble food at home.
However, it’s true that some folks (some Protestants, some ill-educated Catholics) do indeed take the Eucharist to be just bread and just wine (or grape juice). And yes, from them it’s not quite so high-sounding or poetic a nickname.
I guess it’s the difference between somebody lovingly calling me ‘punkin’ or ‘dumerazel’, and somebody else hearing that and thinking I actually am nothing but a pumpkin or dumerazel. :)

bill912 October 27, 2006 at 2:45 pm

Maureen, I’m afraid my dictionary doesn’t list the word “dumerazel”. Would you please provide a definition?

Inocencio October 27, 2006 at 3:33 pm

John(jtnova),
Needs to read his Baltimore Catechism again.
Especially lesson eleven.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Ryan C October 27, 2006 at 6:31 pm

On the other hand, Maureen, I don’t believe you have the accidents of a pumpkin or a dumerazel. Correct me if I’m wrong. ;-)
I don’t think it’s accurate to call it a nickname, or even a metaphor. Sacraments are signs which perform what they signify. Jesus feeds us in the Eucharist, both physically and spiritually. It is accurate, then, to say he becomes our Bread.
“This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”

Anthony English October 28, 2006 at 4:20 am

From Ecclesia de Eucharistia by Pope John Paul II:
3. The Church was born of the paschal mystery. For this very reason the Eucharist, which is in an outstanding way the sacrament of the paschal mystery, stands at the centre of the Church’s life. This is already clear from the earliest images of the Church found in the Acts of the Apostles: “They devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (2:42). The “breaking of the bread” refers to the Eucharist.

John October 28, 2006 at 4:59 am

Bill and Inocencio
What happened to your rule about personal attacks calling me ignorant-I guess you can only use it when you want
You see what you do is play the game of the media-taking one word from a complete thought and argument and harp on that because you cant defend the harmful acts that the church has done to itself over these past 40 years
I ask you both to simply respond to these very simple and direct questions without your penchant for name calling which is obviously a sign of your frustration in defending your position:
1. As far as the Baltimore Catechism -Why would it have needed to be changed by JPII? Was there something wrong with it?
2. Canon Law-Same question as above
3. The Bible Itself-What was wrong with the DR Bible and the subsequent retranslation after retranslation that has taken place since Vatican II
4. The Mass itself-Why the need for a “New Mass” formulated by of all persons a man who was a known mason and banished twice by 2 Popes
There are so many other new and interesting innovations-But I just ask for you respond to those 4 above using your knowledge of the church and doctrine. If the above was changed to “Modernize” the church as many have said-Is she still “One” “Holy” “Catholic” and “Apostolic” and since the church can not teach error “Indefectible -Take note Inocencio”-Are these changes infallible and binding?
Simple questions for such simple people to answer, who with their liberal viewpoints seem to know it all
I wait

John October 28, 2006 at 5:17 am

Inocencio -let me add the following to help you explain the above as remember the church can not defect is that indefectibility is that the Church must endure until the end of time with the essential nature and qualities with which Christ endowed it at its foundation. In other words, it is impossible that the Catholic Church undergo a substantial change. This indefectibility is a certain sign of the Church’s supernatural origin and character, for no human organization could traverse two thousand years and remain essentially the same. Its indefectibility is ever more a sign of its divine origin and assistance when one considers how many times and with what force the enemies of the Church have tried to make her change essentially.
The primary indefectibility of the Catholic Church is in doctrine. Faith objectively considered, i.e., the deposit of sacred revealed doctrine, is the foundation of the entire structure of the Catholic Church. Similarly faith subjectively considered, i.e., the virtue of faith, is the basis of the entire supernatural life of the soul. Hence the most important way in which the Catholic Church cannot defect is in teaching true doctrine. Since God is changeless, the doctrine of the Church is therefore forever changeless, and it is a testimony of Christ’s assistance to the Church that her teaching has remained the same and consistent throughout the two thousand years of her existence. A single contradiction or inconsistency in her ordinary or extraordinary ma-gisterium would be sufficient to prove that the assistance of God was not with her.
But her indefectibility is not limited to doctrine, but rather extends to all those things which have been endowed to her by the Divine Founder. We know that Christ endowed the Church with both structure and power. He established the Church as a monar-chy, placing all power in the hands of Saint Peter. He also instituted bishops who, in union with and subject to Saint Peter, would rule the Church in diverse localities. To this structure He endowed the power to teach, to rule, and to sanctify the entire human race. This power derives from the apostolic mission, i.e., the act of being sent by Christ for the purpose of saving souls. Therefore this structure and this mission to the souls of mankind must endure throughout all ages unchanged. In addition, the Church is endowed with the power of orders, by which human beings are made into supernatural instruments of divine power to effect the supernatural sanctification of men through the sacraments, in particular the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Therefore the Church would defect if:
(a) it ever changed its doctrine;
(b) it ever altered or abandoned a monarchical and hierarchical structure;
(c) it ever lost, substantially changed, or abandoned the apostolic mission of teaching, ruling and sanctifying souls;
(d) it ever lost, substantially changed, or abandoned the power of orders.
The teaching of indefectibility is confirmed by ecclesiastical documents. The first is the Bull Auctorem Fidei of Pope Pius VI (August 28, 1794), The second is of Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum. Having first explained in what the Church is spiritual and in what she is visible, and emphasizing the fact that these two things are absolutely necessary for the true Church, analogous to the necessity of union of body and soul for the human being, he then says:
Since the Church is such by divine will and institution, she must remain such without any interruption until the end of time.
Furthermore the Vatican Council of 1870 states:
The eternal Pastor and Bishop of souls decreed to establish a holy Church to perpetuate the saving work of salvation.
So with the simple example of changing Catechism, canon law (who laxed rules for annulments which is a sacrament instituted by Christ as well as distribution of his body to non catholics), the Bible as well as the Mass itself which allowed all new innovations to the mass (would a clown mas be a real mass and did those people who attended truly fulfill their sunday obligation?)

Fr Martin Fox October 28, 2006 at 7:30 am

We all know there are times when we have encounters with people, and we realize, after being drawn into a heated argument, that the truly charitable thing would have been not to engage. When I was a boy, my parents had a friend who got so worked up about certain subjects. It was a good lesson for me to realize that I ought not to engage with him on those subjects, however fun it could be, otherwise, to debate them. But in his case, it was uncharitable, and even a little bit cruel.
Well, it occurs to me that happens in comment threads, doesn’t it? Perhaps here, quite a bit?

John October 28, 2006 at 8:15 am

Father
You have failed to answer the question…Next?

Mary Kay October 28, 2006 at 10:03 am

John,
Two or three weeks ago, several people attempted to engage in a discussion with you. The only thing you had to offer were attacks on Vatican II and Pope John Paul II. None of those attacks were substantiated with reference to a document that all could look at and discuss.
You are free to read the Duoay-Rheims Bible and Baltimore Catechism as well as attend an indult Mass.
I will include you in my prayers.

John October 28, 2006 at 1:49 pm

Mary kay
I posed a simple question above with 4 key components and follow up church doctrine to support my position
I will state it once again
The simple question is why did the church under Paul VI and JPII feel the need to change her form of worship (and associated customs), her catechism, her code of canon law, and retranlate the bible over and over and have these changes resulted in a defection from the 4 Marks of the church and compromising her “indefectibility” and hence not from God?
The answers to the above are as simple as yes and no. Please respond if you may

icatholicus October 28, 2006 at 3:07 pm

John,
I, too, wait for an answer to your questions.
However, your latest post seems to confuse matters.
Your last line says the answers “are as simple as yes and no.”
However, the paragraph immediately before that is a “why” question.

John October 28, 2006 at 3:32 pm

Icatholicus
My error in typing-Some of my questions are a simple yes or no and the others are not.
I am not asking for a long winded cut and paste job here. And I dont need people to “pray” for me as those prayers should be saved for our Church. Please convince me that following what was taught for the most part of 1962 years is wrong before the changes with fact.
The Pope is to rule the Church in this structure endowed to teach, to rule, and to sanctify the entire human race. This power derives from the apostolic mission, of being sent by Christ for the purpose of saving souls. Therefore this structure and this mission to the souls of mankind must endure throughout all ages unchanged.
Also the Church is endowed with the power of holy orders (father this you should easily be able to answer) by which human beings are made into supernatural instruments of divine power to effect the supernatural sanctification of men through the sacraments, in particular the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Therefore the Church would defect if:
(a) it ever changed its doctrine;
(b) it ever altered or abandoned a monarchical and hierarchical structure;
(c) it ever lost, substantially changed, or abandoned the apostolic mission of teaching, ruling and sanctifying souls;
(d) it ever lost, substantially changed, or abandoned the power of orders.
What is a simple yes or no is
Has the church stopped performing its primary mission as established by Christ on Earth with the present group of clergy post Vatican II?
Was Church doctrine changed in any way by those changes?
If YES-Then how could it have come from God
If NO-Then does it need to be followed-As it is not Church doctrine and Not from God
And why and what was the need for these changes?
Simple questions with simple answers I feel. These questions are in line with this thread on transubstantiation the most important of all sacraments
Please convince me-teach me-enlighten me-If you yourself can-Or enlighten yourselves
God bless

John October 28, 2006 at 3:35 pm

My error above-If NO
Then how can one explain the contradiction to the above definition of indefecibility as it is a clear contradiction

kaneohe October 28, 2006 at 4:12 pm

Hey dudes and dudettes, I have copied the following line directly from (underscored) John’s missive:
4. The Mass itself-Why the need for a “New Mass” formulated by of all persons a man who was a known mason and banished twice by 2 Popes
My first questions is: does anyone know who John is refering to?
Last week’s earthquake on Hawai`i island damaged many homes and rock walls, so my second question is: does this mason work on week-ends?
Mahalo, you all rock!

John October 28, 2006 at 5:39 pm

Kaneohe
You are simply showing your lack of knowledge of church history and the disdain of the Masons, a group which has for the most part of 3 centuries reachings its zenith at the French Revolution where a Catholic Monarchy was overthrown and replaced with secular, Jewish and an anti catholic government, where the Jesuits were slaughtered and church land confiscated to this day never returned
The Modernist threat for the past 125 years has been real within the church, with Pope Pius X wounding them for the moment, but not defeating them only to resurrect themselves under different banners and infiltrating their way into the church and her teachings
So again Kaneohe-you tried to deflect the simple questions above-And I also forgot to add that all of the 7 sacraments, including the ordination of Priests were changed in either form or matter or in some cases BOTH
Answer????????

Maureen October 28, 2006 at 5:48 pm

Re: pumpkin and dumerazel
Well, it wasn’t a very tight simile, I admit. But on Friday, I was wearing an orange jack-o-lantern shirt. So I’ll take partial credit on the accidents of a pumpkin. :)
“Dumerazel” is one of those words that’s in the family for no known reason. It’s apparently a Yiddish word, and it’s apparently somewhat similar in meaning to “dumkopf”. (Except nicer. At least the way we use it.) My dad has modified it in recent years to just plain “dumer”, which makes it even more incomprehensible to outsiders! Mwahaha!
So the accidents of being a dumerazel must remain a mystery, though I assume I manifest some of them upon occasion. ;)

John October 28, 2006 at 5:59 pm

A little history on the Masons my friend Kanohe:
Way back in France, a small political minority was able, over time and with very little resistance, thanks to Masonic unity and influence, to enforce its will as that of “the people,” by working to assume political and legal power and influence.
The “Declaration of the Rights of Man” (Hey-Does that not sound like Vatican II??) and of the Citizen” was anything but, as this illicit document was intended rather to deny natural and inalienable human rights to a great number of the people, in particular the clergy and anyone remaining faithful to their religious heritage, resulting in random and arbitrary imprisonment, exile or, in some cases, summary execution. The only article relating to religion was worded as follows: “No one shall be disturbed for his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.” That again sounds like Vatican II!!!
The Assembly then declared that the property of the clergy belonged to the nation. Both Church-owned and personal property of clerics began to be summarily confiscated by the government and put up for sale.
All clerics were obliged to swear an oath of loyalty to this new constitution or face deportation or imprisonment. Any priest or cleric who refused the oath was forbidden to publicly exercise their ministry. Bishops who remained faithful, organized and issued a rebuttal to the Assembly in which they rejected the Constitution and called upon the faithful to do the same.
Many members of the assembly openly championed a complete separation of Church and State. (Sound familiar?)
The Assembly passed a decree which suspended the king’s powers and convoked a national convention. King Louis XVI was thus imprisoned. By the opening of the National Convention in 1792, the majority of the Convention declared open hostility to Christianity itself. The Convention voted a prize to whosoever should denounce any priest liable to criminal prosecution and who remained in France despite the law.
Thousands were arbitrarily sentenced and executed by guillotine at the hands of the Public Accuser and his henchmen.) Sixteen Carmelite Nuns, who came to be known as the Martyrs of Compiegne, were guillotined on 17 July, 1794. (An excellent, well researched and very readable book detailing their story has been recently published entitled, “To Quell the Terror.”)
The Convention offered a prize for the abjuration of priests by passing a decree which assured a pension to Priests who abjured, and the most painful day of that sad period was 20 November, 1793, when men, women, and children dressed in Priestly garments taken from the Church of St. Germain des Prés marched through the hall of the Convention. A man named Laloi, presiding over the convention, congratulated them saying they had “wiped out eighteen centuries of error.”
Coincident with these events, a known pagan of this period known as the “Theophilanthropists,” these people wished to create a spiritualist church without dogmas, miracles, priesthood or sacraments, resulting in only a sort of vague religiosity so as not to offend anyone while still appealing to the person’s innate, natural desire to worship a supreme being-Vatican II????.
It is a direct, negative commentary on our society that historical revisionists around the world should still hold the Age of Enlightenment and the fathers of the French Revolution in so positive a light and in such high regard, in spite of the sea of blood that was shed by their hands under the guise of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” which was the motto and rallying cry of the French Revolution.
And there you have some history on the Masons, the French Revolution, the Modernists and the infiltration into our beloved church, and the resulting Council which followed in Vatican II
Hope this helped somewhat

kaneohe October 28, 2006 at 6:08 pm

OK, I admit that my goal was to make use of the lower case m in John’s mason to inflict a bit of humor to an otherwise very “tight” discussion – my apologies…hey, we just went through an earthquake but we have kept our sense of balance – no pun intended – I am not Catholic but always thought you all had a good sense of humor….
Anyway can someone at least answer my first and SERIOUS question reguarding the following posting:
4. The Mass itself-Why the need for a “New Mass” formulated by of all persons a man who was a known mason and banished twice by 2 Popes
WHO IS THE MAN WHO WAS A KNOWN MASON AND BANISHED TWICE BY 2 POPES?
Hey, I don’t know, and while that probably shows I am an ignorant non-Catholic, can I still get an answer?
Again, mea maxima culpa for trying to get a few smile out of you all with that mason question – I’ll know better next time.

bill912 October 28, 2006 at 6:36 pm

Kaneohe, please just ignore John. I liked the joke. If you look back at a post from October 23 titled “New Authentic Interpretation: Hobby Horse Rudeness”, you’ll see that John was riding one.
As to your second question, I can’t help you as I don’t know the shop rules for the Hobby Horse Union in Hawaii.

John October 28, 2006 at 6:40 pm

Bill
I was not being rude as Kenohe was making a joke at my expense and I had thought name calling was offlimits here-or only for some posters?
And I am only asking for a simple answer to my question and I still cant seem to get one which means that name calling is all that one can resort to
Sorry Kenohe-I am a professional engineer, if you need help in Hawaii just drop me a plane ticket and I can help you for free!

bill912 October 28, 2006 at 6:43 pm

No, kaneohe was asking an honest question and injecting a little levity–at no one’s expense.

kaneohe October 28, 2006 at 7:08 pm

Guys, come on – what’s the answer???
John, many thanks for the info on the Masons – You mention the Carmelite martyrs – have you heard/seen Francois Poulenc’s opera Dialogues des Carmelites based on this event? It was written in 1953. It is extraordinary – one of my favorite operas.
There are various recording of it – the one with Dame Sutherland and the other with Jessye Norman are superb. There is also at least one live performance video/DVD of the opera (that I know of – there may be others.) The staging for the last scene of the opera is – even as I type this I’ve got “chicken skin” – aka goose bumps to people on the mainland – phenomenal. Once you see and hear this it’s unforgettable.
A hui hou from Hawai`i nei.

Inocencio October 28, 2006 at 7:31 pm

John(jtnova),
If you feel that I made a personal attack I apologize that you feel that way.
The simple answer to all your questions is the Church, as our mother and teacher, has the God-given authority to decide if it needs to change catechisms, canon law, bible translations or the liturgy and not you.
The Catechism of Trent clearly teaches you are commanded by Christ to have “obedience even to wicked pastors”
“I am not asking for a long winded cut and paste job here.”
Make sure to follow your own request.
Next question?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Mary Kay October 29, 2006 at 6:28 am

Kaneohe, (must be tough to fit an entire city on a keyboard) I hope the post-quake clean up is going well. And yes, your humor is appreciated. I like the description of “chicken skin.”
You asked who John was referring to and I think it’s Cardinal Bugnini who, according to Wikipedia, was Secretary to the Commission for Liturgical Reform at Vatican II. He was rumored to be a Freemason, but who knows how true rumors are. You’ll have to ask John what he means by beng “banished” twice.
John’s saying that Bugnini formulated the New Mass (a phrase that’s probably part of the problem) is repeating what is said by Catholics known as Traditionalists.
John, on your 3:32 post. The answer to your “simple yes or no” is no to both questions. But – your logic is really flawed. How on earth do you get that if Church doctrine has not changed in any way, that it is not Church doctrine and not from God? Huh?
That Church doctrine has not changed means that Church doctrine has remained the same.

John October 29, 2006 at 7:42 am

Mary
As of yet still no one has attempted to “convert me” from my adherence to the faith and tradition of the teachings of the church as they were before they were “reformed” in 1962 and thereafter
As far as Bugnini-These are the facts and some I will try to summarize as best as I can.
Bugnini was a career liturgist, very little of Mr. Bugnini’s service to the church was spent ministering or helping the poor. He was born in Italy in 1912 he became an ordained priest in 1936 at the age of 24. After only 10 years of parish duties, he began liturgical studies and shortly thereafter was appointed by Pope Pius XII to be secretary of his Commission for Liturgical Reform in 1948. He became Consultor to the Sacred Congregation of Rites and Professor of Sacred Liturgy in the Lateran University in 1956 and 1957 respectively.
So far aso good. His real influence began in 1960 when he was appointed Secretary to the Preparatory Commission for the Liturgy. In 1962 using his influence, he was able to bring to fruition what was known as “The Bugnini Schema” The Bugnini Schema was the liturgical draft document that wound up being nearly identical to what was adopted by the Liturgy Constitution. Vatican II was now well under way.
But then just a few short months after this apparent victory, Bugnini was mysteriously and promptly removed from both his position as secretary of the commission and from his chair at the Lateran University. This unprecedented move could not have happened without the full consent of Pope John XXIII, or without the (to this day unknown) offense being egregious. No explanation was ever disclosed as to reason for Bugnini’s sudden removal.
In 1964, a commission called “The Consilium” was established to implement the first document on the Sacred Liturgy (passed in 1963 by the Council Fathers). Unexplainably, Pope Paul VI appointed Bugnini to the position of secretary of the Consilium, ignoring his predecessor who had removed him from the same position on the preparatory commission. Incredibly, Bugnini would now be in charge of interpreting the very same Liturgy constitution of which he was instrumental in creating.
In 1969 Paul VI ended the separate nature of the Consilium by dissolving it and making it part of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship (which just 6 years later he would suppress), appointing none other than the fallen Bugnini as secretary. Now he was in the most powerful position possible to ensure implementation of his brainchild. He was later consecrated as an Archbishop in 1972.
In what Bugnini describes in his book as an “earth shaking” move (you should try reading this book by the way before you make your comments), he was once again summarily dismissed –this time by Pope Paul VI – from his any and all duties of influence.
The Congregation of Divine Worship was suppressed and Bugnini was “exiled” to Iran. This move immediately and permanently ended Mr. Bugnini’s career as a reformer. Once again under mysterious and unexplained circumstances Bugnini, the main architect of V2 is harshly rebuked and essentially fired from all of his important duties.
Then In March of 1965 in a periodical known called L’Osservatore Romano, he was quoted as saying: “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants. In 1974 preceding his second downfall, Bugnini proudly proclaimed Vatican II to be a “major conquest of the Catholic Church”.
So lets all just be real and look at what and who formulated this mass and if this change is good or bad for the souls as our Lord intended the church to save

Mary Kay October 29, 2006 at 8:31 am

John, here’s a newsflash for you: no one’s going to attempt to “convert” you from attending an indult Mass or reading the Duoay-Rheims Bible or Baltimore Catechism.
Furthermore, no one is interested in “converting” you. Speaking for myself and what I’ve seen of others’ posts, you don’t have to like Vatican II, just stop smearing it.
As for Bugnini, neither you nor I know the reasons for those decisions. What you call the “Bugnini Schema” was discussed in liturgical circles as early as 1930s, probably before Bugnini was ordained.
You are free to hold whatever opinions you wish. For the third time, you are free to attend an indult Mass and you are free to read the Douay-Rheimes Bible and Baltimore Catechism.
There’s no point in going over the same ground with you, over and over and over again.

Inocencio October 29, 2006 at 8:57 am

John(jtnova),
So lets all just be real and look at what and who formulated this mass and if this change is good or bad for the souls as our Lord intended the church to save
Yes be real and look at what our Blessed Lord promised:
He would send the Holy Spirit to Guide His Church to all Truth (John 14:15, 25, 15:12).
He would not leave us orphans (John 14:18)
His Church would be built upon the Rock of Peter, the papacy (Matt. 16:18).
His Church would have the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:19, 18:18).
His Church would make disiples and teach in the name of God (Matt. 28:19-20).
He would be with His Church until the end of time (Matt. 28:20).
Time did not end in 1962.
You are obligated to honor and be obedient to the pope and not just the past ones you pick and choose.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Fr. Benoit Morrier October 29, 2006 at 2:17 pm

Hum. I think some of Jimmy’s rules have been overlooked in this thread.
The anonymous poster (Oct 26 9:14) is right when he says “substance in medieval philosophy referred to the essence of a thing and was not reducible to material appearance” but is wrong when he suggests that “transignificantion would be a better term today than transubstantiation”.
The substance of a thing is what the thing is. It answers the question : ‘What is it?”. We look at bread and we ask : ‘What is it?’ Answer: ‘It is bread’ (substance). The bread may be white or brown, leavened or unleavened, hard or fluffy, it may taste sweet or sour : these are the ‘accidents’ (in Aristotelian philosophy, the accidents are the perceptible qualities of an object).
After the consecration of the bread and wine during Mass, the species become the Body and Blood of Christ. When we look at the consecrated bread and we ask : ‘What is it?”, the answer is : “It is the Body of Christ” (substance). The accidents of bread are still there : it is white, unleavened flour and water (or whatever bread is made of). To explain transubstantiation, some will say (rightly so): it has only the appearance of bread (accidents) but it is no longer bread (substance) ; it is the Body of Christ (substance). Others say, and it would still be true according to Church doctrine : “The bread (accidents, i.e. what is perceptible) IS (after consecration) the Body of Christ (substance)”.
When we talk about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we are not talking about living tissues, veins, blood, cells and flesh of Jesus that have taken the appearance of water and flour mixed together… The Eucharist is the Body of the Risen Lord! The bread that we perceive through its accidents IS truly the Body of Christ, body, soul, blood and divinity, i.e., the whole Christ. It is no longer bread. We can adore the Eucharist. We can’t worship bread. Jesus is the Bread of Life, but he’s not bread. His Blood is the Wine of the Eternal Kingdom (le “vin du Royaume Éternel”) but it is not wine.
The error of consubstantiation is to believe that the bread (substance) co-exists with the Body of Christ (substance). The question : “What is it?” is answered : “It is bread AND Christ”. The error of transignification is to believe that the bread remains bread (substance) but it only becomes a SYMBOL (or sign) of Christ’s spiritual presence.

Michael_Barber October 31, 2006 at 9:14 pm

Jimmy, you rock, but allow me to clarify something regarding the phrase “the breaking of the bread” and “breaking bread”. You might specify that “breaking bread” is a term found in Jewish literature, while “the breaking of the bread” is unique to Christian literature.

Esau October 31, 2006 at 11:49 pm

Michael,
Now, that makes more sense!
This means that Luke 24:35 and Acts 2:42 where “breaking of the bread” is evident, this must then actually and truly refer to the Eucharist (pursuant to tradition), while Acts 2:46 where “breaking bread” is mentioned refers to the Jewish meal.
In fact, I often thought that 1 Cor 10:16 actually alluded to Acts 2:42 and vice-versa.
By the way, great radio show! I just wish I was able to listen to it on a regular basis. Unfortunately, your show happens to air during work. I only caught two episodes of it when I was able but was impressed by the content. The last concerned the Gospel of John. That really made an impression!
I just wished you had archives so I could get the chance to actually listen to your show regularly!
Hope you got your Mandatum!

Previous post:

Next post: