Thread Rating:

Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26432
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
September 8th, 2011 at 7:48:44 AM permalink
This is a spin-off of the thread Let me say something nice about religion, for once.. There were a number of posts there about transubstantiation, so I'm trying to direct that discussion here. It has been discussed here before, thus the reason for the "part 2." Here are a couple posts from defenders of transubstantiation:

Quote: vert1276

Wizard....I think you are a little confused when it comes to The Eucharist....Catholics dont believe it "literally" turns to "meat and blood" as you put it......transubstantiation clearly states the "change" that takes place as the priest recites the Consecration......Maybe this will help explain it...

The Eucharist or “Holy Communion”, is a Sacrament that is a vital part of HolyMass, celebrated by Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, the Coptic's, Armenians, Syrians and Chaldean Christians. These Christian Churches believe that during “Holy Mass” (Sacrifice of Praise), bread and wine are placed on the altar. A Priest then recites an Offertory, offering God the Creator the same bread and wine, made with humans hands from gifts given to man by God the Creator. The Priest then recites the “Consecration”: the words and acts of Jesus Christ on the evening of “The Last Supper” at the Jewish Feast of the Passover.

After the “Consecration”, it is believed that through the invocation of the Holy Spirit; the bread and wine are transformed into the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ. Not visibly seen, but disguised as bread and wine. The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is then offered to God His Father for the sins of men. Then, under the direction of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Gospels, the Body and Blood hidden and disguised as bread and wine, is consumed.




Quote: tsmith

To use a word like "meat" when referring to the symbolic body of Christ is not only offensive, but also ignorant, and to equate the talking of Communion (which, by the way, is practiced in churches other than Roman Catholic) with cannibalism is simply ridiculous. The practice of Communion is not something that was made up by any one religion anyway, but was Jesus' idea, when He said at the Last Supper, "Do this in remembrance of me."



It seems to me like those defending transubstantiation are backing off the position that the bread and wine become literally flesh and blood. To that, let me quote from GotQuestions.org.

In other words, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that once an ordained priest blesses the bread of the Lord's Supper, it is transformed into the actual flesh of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of bread); and when he blesses the wine, it is transformed into the actual blood of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of wine).

Note the words ACTUAL twice. Can someone please explain to me how it ACTUALLY becomes flesh and blood while maintaining the appearance, taste, and odor of bread and wine? Furthermore, I don't see why it is ridiculous to compare the practice to cannibalism if you are eating ACTUAL flesh.

Is it that I'm just a little slow or can anybody else see that the emperor has no clothes?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
Mosca
Mosca
  • Threads: 191
  • Posts: 4140
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
September 8th, 2011 at 8:12:31 AM permalink
It's supposed to be a miracle. Don't underestimate the fervor of a devout Catholic; I'm married to one. And I raised one (her choice, she gets to decide for herself). I actually taught catechism for several years, but it's been a while, like 20 years or so.
A falling knife has no handle.
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
September 8th, 2011 at 8:18:14 AM permalink
Treguna Mekoides Trecorum Satis Dee
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
September 8th, 2011 at 8:19:12 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

In other words, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that once an ordained priest blesses the bread of the Lord's Supper, it is transformed into the actual flesh of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of bread);


It was a Passover seder so wouldn't it have been matzah, not bread? Are communion wafers kosher for Passover?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
September 8th, 2011 at 8:24:09 AM permalink
I agree with Mosca.

I married into devout catholicism myself (not my wife, but her mother), and it actually makes my wife sick that her mother believes in true transubstantiation. In fact, my mother-in-law performs communion (she is not an ordained priest) at old people's home and she believes that she's turning bread and wine into flesh and blood, which of course (for reasons I won't go into) makes my wife sick and gives me the hee-bee-gee-bees given the person that she actually is.

It's a spiritual thing. As a catholic, you are taught to believe in these things to give importance to the ritual. Since priests, bishops, and popes are God's representatives on earth, they have certain powers to perform these minor miracles. Your level of belief depends I guess on being able to depart from reality.

But on the other hand, one would argue that belief in God is a departure from reality as well, so why not believe in transubstantiation, flying saucers, fairies, witches, goblins, magic, Level 15 Paladins and things of that nature?
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
September 8th, 2011 at 8:28:41 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Note the words ACTUAL twice. Can someone please explain to me how it ACTUALLY becomes flesh and blood while maintaining the appearance, taste, and odor of bread and wine? Furthermore, I don't see why it is ridiculous to compare the practice to cannibalism if you are eating ACTUAL flesh.



Hear, hear!

even if it were symbolic flesh, it would still be symbolic cannibalsim. Furhter, whats' the purpose of eating the flesh and drinkign the blood of Jesus? mere ritual, or is there a "deeper meaning."

I can imagine what would happen if I took a lump of coal and said I can get God to transform it to diamond, but it will retain the appearance, physical and chemical proeprties of coal.


Quote:

Is it that I'm just a little slow or can anybody else see that the emperor has no clothes?



I'm with you.

Let's leave my endless calls for tangible evidence aside. Instead I'll ask: what reason is there to believe in a deity, other than millions believe in one and have done so throughout history?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 10992
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 8th, 2011 at 8:28:58 AM permalink
I don't think you're slow. I think you're, in this case, putting too much trust into what you read on the internet.

For example, the item you quoted above, comes after a direct quote from Church doctrine, and begins with "In other words..." That's the first clue.

Further, two paragraphs down, is the only other time the work 'actual' is used on the page, and contradicts what was previously stated:
Quote:

The Scriptures declare that the Lord's Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood.

I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ ————————————————————————————————————— Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 10992
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 8th, 2011 at 8:30:24 AM permalink
P.S.

For the record, being Jewish, the few times I've attended a Communion, I didn't partake, but always had an urge to scratch my head and ask, "That's still just a cookie, right?"
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ ————————————————————————————————————— Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
September 8th, 2011 at 8:39:53 AM permalink
Quote: 1 Corinthians 11, King James

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.



and

Quote: Luke 22, King James Version

19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.



But the key text is here:

Quote: John 6, King James

53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.



A very succinct argument debunking transubstantation even in the intent of the biblical text is found here.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 10992
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 8th, 2011 at 8:51:58 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

It was a Passover seder so wouldn't it have been matzah, not bread? Are communion wafers kosher for Passover?

Of course, the 'bread' at the Last Supper was matzah. However, Communion wafers are not matzahs, even though the ingredients are the same: Wheat flour and water.

Although I have no idea how the wafers are made, I assume the preperation and cooking process is a bit different.

The short version of Kosher for Passover matzahs includes making them in small batches. Ages ago, the Rabbis decided that once the flour and water are mixed, you've got 18 minutes until it starts to rise - even without leavening. So at the factory, every 18 minutes, all the equiment gets cleaned to prevent bits older than 18 minutes from contaminating the next batch. Most of the matzah manufacturers also make it during the off-season, but don't bother with the 18 minute thing, and clearly mark the box "Not for Passover."

Additionally, all products must have rabbinical supervision before being marked Kosher, or Kosher for Passover.

While you might think that nobody would bother getting rabbinical supervision for Communion wafers, you may be wrong.

If a manufacturer that makes wafers also makes other Kosher products, the rabbi would insist that EVERYTHING made in the same production area get supervision.

So, depending on the brand, Communion wafers may be kosher, with rabbinical supervision. Just don't bother to look for the kosher mark on the box. Additionally, because of the 18 minute thing, it's unlikely that the manufacturer is making their other products Kosher for Passover. However, if they are....
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ ————————————————————————————————————— Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26432
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
September 8th, 2011 at 8:54:44 AM permalink
To address a couple recent points:

1. Is it required to believe that the bread and wine become LITERALLY/ACTUALLY flesh and blood, or would the church accept a member who had a hard time with the concept, and was more comfortable with the protestant interpretation that the bread and wine being SYMBOLIC of the body and blood? For example, if I was a member in good standing, and the priest thought I was smarter than the average bear (for the sake of argument), might he give me a little nod and wink, that he kind of agreed with me that it the belief does seem a little ridiculous, but it is above his pay grade to say so in public.

2. To get at what the Vatican actually teaches on transubstantiation, I think that before the actual communion they recite something about what it represents and why they are doing it. My kids go to piano recitals in a protestant church and there is a book in the pews full of such liturgy. Can someone quote or link to the words uttered in mass before, during, and after the communion? That way we can't get off topic by quoting non-official web sites on the topic.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
September 8th, 2011 at 9:35:16 AM permalink
The catholic church accepts all sinners, even those who don't truly believe in transubstantiation. There's plenty of fornicators, condom-users, adulterers, and sinners in the church. If you confessed that you don't believe in transubstantiation, you might get let off with a hail mary.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
September 8th, 2011 at 10:25:55 AM permalink
As best I understand the Catholic doctrine, they do believe that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus. But I, like others in this thread, don't really see any biblical support for that.

Reading the bible as if it were a newspaper article - literal where it's literal and poetic where it's poetic - my take is that the bread (or whatever) and wine (or whatever) is symbolic, meant as a remembrance of what happened. Taking it to mean actual or symbolic cannibalism is ridiculous in the same way that saying The Simpsons predicted 9/11 is ridiculous, meaning, it's for people who not only don't believe in it but also want to do everything they can to ridicule those who do. Very stupid position, if you ask me.



Remembering that the last supper happened before the torture and death of Jesus, the words - at the moment they were spoken - probably didn't mean much. But in light of the events that followed, you can see how they became meaningful and why Christians think it's so important that remembrances of it should be installed.

NB: whether or not Mel Gibson is a crazy nut job, it's clear that brutal depictions of the torture and death of Jesus - a kind of remembrance - still create controversy all this time later. Although, I also note that similar depictions of Roman cruelty as dramatized in Spartacus were not at all controversial.
vert1276
vert1276
  • Threads: 70
  • Posts: 446
Joined: Apr 25, 2011
September 8th, 2011 at 10:41:06 AM permalink
Well...I guess I will throw my 2 cents in on this thread as well LOL......Lets just say the Catholic church has been struggling with charges of cannibalism as it pertains to the Eucharist for close to 2000 years.....All the way back to The first Apology written by St. Justin Martyr in the second century were he explained to the roman emperor..."we Christians are not cannibals; rather, we are simply following the teachings of God."

You will find many ways the Catholic church and it followers have tried over the past 2000 years to understand in human terms what is a supernatural reality.....Some may say..."well cannibalism is the eating of DEAD flesh..and Christ is not dead..and his flesh is not dead therefore it is not cannibalism" or...you can even look at the stance of the church itself as far back as the 11th century...becasue of attacks on the physical true presence of Christ in the Eucharist the church turned to the Aristotelian philosophical concepts of "substance" and "accidents"....I'm totally not going to get into this philosophical discussion LOL

Pope John Paul II explained the Eucharist to children about to receive their first communion in this way.....

"When a light bulb is turned on by electricity you can't see the electricity, and the light bulb is the same light bulb, but it's different because it gives us light.

Same with the Eucharist...when the holy spirit is sent on the bread and wine...they still look like bread and wine, but they are different because, well...they give us light."

What would I say if someone said to me...."Your belief that the Eucharist is the ACTUAL flesh and blood of Christ makes you are cannibal...either LITERALLY or RITUALISTICALLY"?.......I would say..."To me..and by definition cannibalism is the eating of human flesh...to ME Jesus Christ is not human he is divine"....and that would be the end of the conversation.....If that's not a good enough explanation for them nothing will be.........If you have no faith(which I do not personally judge people of not having)....it would be hard for them to understand this concept...
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
September 8th, 2011 at 11:21:48 AM permalink
Quote: vert1276

What would I say if someone said to me...."Your belief that the Eucharist is the ACTUAL flesh and blood of Christ makes you are cannibal...either LITERALLY or RITUALISTICALLY"?.......I would say..."To me..and by definition cannibalism is the eating of human flesh...to ME Jesus Christ is not human he is divine"....and that would be the end of the conversation.....If that's not a good enough explanation for them nothing will be.........If you have no faith(which I do not personally judge people of not having)....it would be hard for them to understand this concept...


That's a big part of what makes religion religion -- you start with a set of axiomatic beliefs, like Eucharist, and then argue about what it means for your life/behavior/beliefs using logic and reasoning. But you don't question the axiomatic beliefs because they are axiomatic (unquestionable). That's also why you can have so many different religions, ostensibly about the same thing, but really not. Mormons don't believe in transubstantiation; Catholics don't believe in the golden plates of Moroni; Jews and Hindus don't believe in the divinity of Jesus; and a few people believe that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Each religion's set of axiomatic beliefs are different. If the beliefs weren't different, you'd be talking about the same religion.

That's also why there is only one science. The only axiomatic belief of science is that a theory must be disprovable, using human senses and cognition, in order to be scientific. This single principle is sufficient to unify scientific methodology. It's also why attempts to co-opt science for furthering religious purposes (e.g. "intelligent design") must fail, since adding other axiomatic beliefs to science (in the ID case, "God did it; investigate from there") necessarily conflicts with the axiom that theories be disprovable.

But that's also why having a debate using logic about different religious beliefs is a pointless exercise. You can't disprove someone else's axiomatic beliefs using a logical argument that stems from your own (different) axiomatic beliefs. The only thing you can do is convert them by changing their beliefs to your own.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
September 8th, 2011 at 2:51:59 PM permalink
Praises be to His starchy goodness, ramen! Yarrrgh!
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26432
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
September 9th, 2011 at 12:24:40 AM permalink
Quote: vert1276

Pope John Paul II explained the Eucharist to children about to receive their first communion in this way.....

"When a light bulb is turned on by electricity you can't see the electricity, and the light bulb is the same light bulb, but it's different because it gives us light.

Same with the Eucharist...when the holy spirit is sent on the bread and wine...they still look like bread and wine, but they are different because, well...they give us light."



I don't think anyone else could have said it better. However, it sounds to me like a roundabout way of saying that a physical thing is symbolic of intangible thing.

Quote: vert1276

What would I say if someone said to me...."Your belief that the Eucharist is the ACTUAL flesh and blood of Christ makes you are cannibal...either LITERALLY or RITUALISTICALLY"?.......I would say..."To me..and by definition cannibalism is the eating of human flesh...to ME Jesus Christ is not human he is divine"....and that would be the end of the conversation.....If that's not a good enough explanation for them nothing will be.........If you have no faith(which I do not personally judge people of not having)....it would be hard for them to understand this concept...



That does help me understand your point of view. I still don't get how he can have a body and blood if he not human. If the bread and wine are supposed to help put a tangible spin on the divine, that is fine, but it still sounds symbolic to me.

Anyway, thanks for help me understand your position on this. I think I came off rather nasty at first, and for that, I apologize. I will be rather busy the next week, so if you wish to say anything at all about your faith, have at it. Chances are I won't have time to challenge it, and if I do find the time, I'll try to be more gentlemanly about it.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
September 9th, 2011 at 1:11:58 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Note the words ACTUAL twice. Can someone please explain to me how it ACTUALLY becomes flesh and blood while maintaining the appearance, taste, and odor of bread and wine? Furthermore, I don't see why it is ridiculous to compare the practice to cannibalism if you are eating ACTUAL flesh.

Is it that I'm just a little slow or can anybody else see that the emperor has no clothes?



Your argument of "no clothes" reminds me of an article I read in philosophy class decades ago. The author argued that a claim of some event that was completely unverifiable by empirical means essentially was a non-statement. The author would not argue that transubstantiation was true nor false because , but merely say that it does not qualify as a claim .

Eucharistic theologies are contrasted in this Wikipedia article.

The charge of eucharistic cannibalism has been made from the earliest days of Christianity. Counter arguments usually say that cannibals eat what is dead. By contrast, Christ, is alive. He rose on the third day, and is present in the Eucharist as fully alive.

Some Protestant groups are satisifed with a doctrine of Real Presence. They want to argue that the eucharist is more than just symbolic, but they simply reject any discussion of mechanics.
vert1276
vert1276
  • Threads: 70
  • Posts: 446
Joined: Apr 25, 2011
September 9th, 2011 at 4:28:47 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard


Anyway, thanks for help me understand your position on this. I think I came off rather nasty at first, and for that, I apologize. I will be rather busy the next week, so if you wish to say anything at all about your faith, have at it. Chances are I won't have time to challenge it, and if I do find the time, I'll try to be more gentlemanly about it.



hey no problem wizard......I think in both threads you were gentlemanly.....The only time was a little heated with a remark was the contraception/AIDS issue......But besides that I think you are open to hearing what people have to say....

As far as people "challenging my faith".....It doesn't bother me and if it bothers any other christian.....They really need to take a good look at themselves and decide whether they ever had "faith" to begin with...As a Catholic I think we are the least judgmental of the Christians denominations IMO......I think being a Catholic anywhere outside of the northeast...You kinda develop thick skin.....becasue you always the minority when it comes to Christians.....I dont know how many times I have been called a "fake christian" by protestants(mostly evangelicals).....Of course when I say to them...."my church dates back to shortly after the death of Christ...and ALL the Apostles were members of my church(minus Judas of course)....and their church was formed in the 16th century".....They kinda just look at me like a deer in the headlights......But I dont judge any other Christians we are all brothers...none of us are better than the other in the eyes of your savor....

If you want to see a good religious debate....its really not between atheist or agnostics and Christians...but between the different denomination of Christianity LOL.....put two different denomination Catholics in a room....One Roman one Orthodox and listen to them debate about who has more books to their bible LOL.......Or a Catholic and a protestant(evangelical if you are feelin frisky) in a room....and listen to them debate about how Catholics are praying to false Idols praying to saints and the blessed Mother Mary...Of course if they ever took the time to listen to those "prayers" they would realize we are not "praying" to them... we are asking them to pray for us.........or that they we believe in relics which evangelicals also believe are false idols......those are the fun debates to listen too LOL
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
September 12th, 2011 at 4:11:18 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard


... more comfortable with the protestant interpretation that the bread and wine being SYMBOLIC of the body and blood

To get at what the Vatican actually teaches on transubstantiation, I think that before the actual communion they recite something about what it represents and why they are doing it. My kids go to piano recitals in a protestant church and there is a book in the pews full of such liturgy. Can someone quote or link to the words uttered in mass before, during, and after the communion? That way we can't get off topic by quoting non-official web sites on the topic.



The Catholic prayer uttered before the change is called the Epiklesis. Catholic Real Presence EE&A Assoc tells of a Eucharistic miracle which has preserved bread and wine, turned into real flesh and blood for over 1000 years,

I think that there are very few Protestant Churches who have the official position that the act is merely SYMBOLIC. Most of them believe in some level above "symbolic".
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
September 12th, 2011 at 9:24:20 PM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

Just a couple of additions - A couple friends of mine have converted to Catholicism and they went through an almost 8 month process with classes, rites, and other stuff. They loved it. One of the biggest things they learned was about the Eucharist. The Wizard is right it is literally the Body and Blood of Christ, but it is also His soul and divinity. Basically the Eucharist is Christ still giving Himself to us completely, like He did on the cross once and for all. He is not giving us a piece of himself, "here chew on my ear", yuck. He is giving us everything, holding nothing back, so that He can live in us and we can live in Him. Through Him, with Him, and in Him. God just loves us that much, it's how God rolls - not cannabalism just crazy generous love.



I was just repeating this post from possibly the only Catholic priest in the forum.
FrGamble
FrGamble
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 790
Joined: Jun 5, 2011
December 14th, 2011 at 8:38:56 PM permalink
Reviving this thread because I noticed still a lot of confusion over this Catholic teaching. If you read John chapter 6 you'll quickly realize that confusion over the Eucharist has always been with us. After Jesus emphasizes the teaching that His body was real food and His blood was real drink and that we would not have life with Him if we did not eat His body and drink His blood Jesus starts to lose some followers who grumble that this is a hard teaching. First of all we should note that the teaching from Jesus himself was met with skepticism so I have no hope of clearing up everything with a post. When the teaching is rejected by some of the followers we read that Jesus did not run after them and say something like, "come on guys, its not really my body and blood, it is just a symbol - come on back." No actually Jesus turns to face those who remain and says to them, "are you going to leave me too?" Jesus is not backing down from this challenging position and neither will His Church who holds the same position Christ, St. Peter, St. Paul, and every Christian held until the 15th century.

What happens next in John's Gospel is also important because St. Peter's response to Jesus is not, "why should I go, I understand exactly what you are saying and it makes perfect sense." Nope, St. Peter's honest and humble response is, "To whom shall we go, you have the words of everlasting life." He admits his awe in the face of the mystery but professes his trust in the one whom he has come to love and knows speaks the truth.

Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true. –St. Thomas Aquinas
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28570
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
December 14th, 2011 at 8:47:49 PM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

After Jesus emphasizes the teaching that His body was real food and His blood was real drink



This is soooo Pagan and sooo utterly disgusting. But we have
no idea how powerful the Pagan beliefs were in the first 300
years after Jesus' death. The Church had to adopt a lot of
Pagan rituals if they ever hoped to convert them.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26432
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
December 15th, 2011 at 9:42:47 AM permalink
I'd to point to a good post by FrG in the Spanish Word of the Day thread on Catholic doctrine, which few people visit. Just letting the fans of the Padre know. Part of the discussion was on the difference in beliefs between Catholics and Protests when it comes to communion.

Let's take a look at the actual passage in Matthew.

Quote: Matthew 26:26-29


While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”



My interpretation of this, which I think would agree with the Protestant one, is that Jesus was not necessarily saying the bread and wine were literally his body and blood. In all fairness, neither does he say they are symbolic. I can't speak for Protestants, but I've known too many to count. What I think is their view is they take part in communion on a regular basis, as Jesus commanded. However, I think they just let the mystery be about how literal/figurative Jesus was. Catholics, of course, take the literal point of view -- the whole way.

I'd be interested in the opinion of any Protestant members to get it straight from the horse's mouth.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
December 15th, 2011 at 10:43:56 AM permalink
Magic that actually works!!

edit: link fixed
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
December 15th, 2011 at 1:53:36 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

My interpretation of this, which I think would agree with the Protestant one, is that Jesus was not necessarily saying the bread and wine were literally his body and blood. In all fairness, neither does he say they are symbolic. I can't speak for Protestants, but I've known too many to count. What I think is their view is they take part in communion on a regular basis, as Jesus commanded.



I discussed this with my brother who is a UCC pastor. He said there is a large range of beliefs within Protestant denominations. There are even some that don't take communion at all. But they range from the belief that it is purely symbolic, to Anglicans who remain fairly close to the Catholic view. Most of the denominations take a viewpoint somewhere in between, and refer to "real presence" to signify that it something more than just a symbolic act. Also frequency varies considerably. Some take communion only annually.

I'm not sure why you are fixated on the Eucharist as much as you are. The range includes The Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Apocalypse, the Rapture, the Miracles, the taking of Elijah bodily into Heaven, Sodom and Gomorrah , Joshua stopping the sun, the lifespan of Methuselah, the conquest of Jericho, the 40 years in the Wilderness, the Flood, the Forty Loaves of Bread, the Anti-Christ, the Whore of Babylon, Tower of Babel, not to mention the Shroud of Turin, the Living pieces of Wood from the Cross, Exorcisms, and Icons in general. The Eucharist is just one item of a long list.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26432
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
December 15th, 2011 at 3:05:25 PM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

I'm not sure why you are fixated on the Eucharist as much as you are. The range includes The Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Apocalypse, the Rapture, the Miracles, the taking of Elijah bodily into Heaven, Sodom and Gomorrah , Joshua stopping the sun, the lifespan of Methuselah, the conquest of Jericho, the 40 years in the Wilderness, the Flood, the Forty Loaves of Bread, the Anti-Christ, the Whore of Babylon, Tower of Babel, not to mention the Shroud of Turin, the Living pieces of Wood from the Cross, Exorcisms, and Icons in general. The Eucharist is just one item of a long list.



I have purely an academic interest in religion. The customs and art are interesting to me. The Eucharist is an important ritual in Christianity, and one that I find amusing. Yet, I think we've beaten that topic pretty hard, and I'm ready to move onto something else.

I'd be very interested in taking up the topic of the Trinity, but would prefer somebody else break the ice. In particular, I don't see what supports the belief in the trinity at all. The bible says over and over that god is "one," but the way it is practiced "three" is the key number. Exorcisms is also a hot topic I'd like to learn more about. Somebody brought it up recently, but I don't think we got far with it. I'm interested in anything involving a whore.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
December 16th, 2011 at 7:36:25 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I'm interested in anything involving a whore.



The 'Whore of Babylon' appears in the book of Revelation. She seems to be the superpower of the day when the world ends, where 'Babylon' is a metaphor for a bloated civilization out of favour with God, and therefore predestined to fall. Note that in Spanish 'Revelation' becomes 'Apocalypse'. She is a popular figure for political statements.

Revelation 17 King James Version
Apocalipsis 17 La Biblia de las Américas (1997)

1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me,
1 Y uno de los siete ángeles que tenían las siete copas, vino y habló conmigo, diciendo:

- Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
- Ven; te mostraré el juicio de la gran ramera que está sentada sobre muchas aguas;
(shew was not a different verb tense, but an obsolete pronounciation)

2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication,
2 con ella los reyes de la tierra cometieron actos inmorales,

- and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
- y los moradores de la tierra fueron embriagados con el vino de su inmoralidad.

3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness:
3 Y me llevó en el Espíritu a un desierto;

-and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
-y vi a una mujer sentada sobre una bestia escarlata, llena de nombres blasfemos, y que tenía siete cabezas y diez cuernos.



Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26432
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
December 16th, 2011 at 8:32:35 AM permalink
My head starts spinning every time I try to understand Revelations.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
December 16th, 2011 at 9:24:41 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

My head starts spinning every time I try to understand Revelations.



I suppose Revelations is meant to be deliberately obscure.
==================
- and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
- y los moradores de la tierra fueron embriagados con el vino de su inmoralidad.

It seems like an odd choice of words in this Spanish translation. You would think that they would use habitantes which is the closest to the original word. Also residentes would seem proper as well. But moradores is from the same Latin word that the English word moratorium comes from. It's meaning seems a little closer to "loiterer".

Also "have been made" is fairly explicit perfect tense in English. You would think in Spanish it would be "se han hecho". Instead they opt for "fueron" which is closer to English "were" (past tense plural of 'to be'). The Spanish translation loses some of that idea that something was done to the people, not just that they 'were inebriated'.

Of course, the Spanish was probably translated from the original Greek, so maybe the choice of words was influenced by that.
  • Jump to: