Ask a Catholic

[Spiderman]

Its a difficult teaching to understand since the bible has a different spin than how the Church interprets it. Thats the Roman part. I side more with Othorodox, if Im getting my Eucharistic translations correct.

It doesnt make sense that bread and wine is the actual body and blood of christ.

Every meal in the bible had a specific meaning to which the meal was for. The food for example during the time they put blood on the door meant something. The mana Isrealites recieved, they got because they starved physically (desert) and spiritually (abent of gods presence).

Since it was god and not joe smoe that sent down mana, that symbol (strong word) of life was the life given by god and the nourishment they recieved for their physical and spiritual health.

The bread was real bread. It wasnt god. Bread means life.

Likewise, when the community of believers sat and broke real bread around the table hearing the cries of parents as their new birn sons murdered, this meal was not just any meal.

If I remember. It symbolized (strong word) being obedient to god.

Think of all the meals in the Bible.

In the NT, cant remember where, but Jesus broke one bread to a thousand loaves.

This was real bread. From him, it meant (strong word) life. Coming from him is different than coming from joe smoe.

In all ocasions in scripture, bread and wine meant life.

The Last Meal was called the Last Meal on purpose. It was the Last sacrificial meal. Himself. Not bread. Not wine. The food didnt die on the cross. Christ did.

When Jesus rose the bread and said this js my body it was the same as god giving the Isrealities mana and saying this is life.

Yet, the bread was still literally bread.

They didnt consume Jesus. They communed with him.

Communion means to communion with the Body of Christ. When the Body communions, christ is present. When the Eucharist is consumed, that Last Meal binds all believers IN Christ.

That literal meal isnt like going to McDonalds. I dont understand how bread and wine needs to become Christ in order to commune with him by the food he gave around to his disciples.

--
Once you make the Eucharist a mystery, to me, it takes out the importance of it. When you see the actual bread and wine as food the disciples were given by christ and you see it as a bond to the Church and Christ,

Food takes on a different meaning.

Its no longer just bread and wine as you get at a store. It is life.

In John 6 Jesus repeatedly said you must eat the Flesh and drink the blood of the son of man. People questioned him about it because they figured he was speaking symbolically.

He spoke very clearly that he was not speaking symbolically. He lost many followers over that teaching.

The teaching that we literally have to eat his flesh and drink his blood was the first time in his ministry that his followers left him. He let them go and did not call them back to explain that he meant something different.

In the Old Testament , the Israelites were required to eat the lamb.

But yes, we can commune with God and become one with him without receiving Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church.

If there is anything in Catholicism that you see to be good and what would nourish you spiritually and bring you closer to God , then I encourage you to bring that into your spirituality and meditations.

Pray to the Holy Spirit for wisdom and guidance and do not go what goes against your conscience.

 

[Demonslayer]

He spoke very clearly that he was not speaking symbolically. He lost many followers over that teaching.

As well he should have, eating human flesh and drinking human blood, literally, is cannibalism.

 

[Spiderman]

How far does the church go on this issue? Where do they draw the line? What "evidence" for evolution do they accept?



Do you know what the Hebrew word for "soul" means? "Neʹphesh" is always used to describe a living, breathing creature....it is not used to describe something inside a person, but is used to describe the whole person. Animals are also described as "souls" who breathe the same air, and die the same death as we do.

Eccl 3:19, 20:
"for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile.  All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust."

This is what God told Adam....that he would return to the dust.

I guess the church draws the line when it comes to believing that human beings evolve from a single cell organism without God causing it.

It is a mystery. There are many Mysteries the church does not claim to understand fully or barely understand at all.

Bottom line is, God created man in his own image and breathed his Spirit into him.

An example of how the church admits it doesn't know where to draw the line on some issues, is a person could live the worst life imaginable, then kill themselves with no sign of repenting, and the church still says we don't know for sure that the soul went to hell for eternity.

It is still possible that the soul could have been fully enlightened, repented, been transformed, and made worthy of Heaven after death.

There is no guarantee of that either, but my point is that the church is saying we simply do not know.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand what you mean...this is where the other side comes from:

In John 6 Jesus repeatedly said you must eat the Flesh and drink the blood of the son of man. People questioned him about it because they figured he was speaking symbolically.

He spoke very clearly that he was not speaking symbolically. He lost many followers over that teaching.

The teaching that we literally have to eat his flesh and drink his blood was the first time in his ministry that his followers left him. He let them go and did not call them back to explain that he meant something different.

Think about it. Can you really consume Jesus Christ as the Isrealites and Levites did the lamb. One is food the other is a person. They are both sacrificial offerings for peoples sins. They both have the same role, no doubt. Physically, you cannot consume Jesus Christ.

Symbolism sounds like a bad word to Catholics; and it is not a bad word. When I hold bread and wine, yes I am holding Jesus but I am holding bread and wine not an actual person. The priest looked at me silly when I asked, "do you actually believe you are holding Jesus Christ Himself. His body. Arms. Legs. Etc?" He remarks "No, of course not."

Thats were symbolism comes into play. Do you actually believe you are consuming Jesus hair, noes, feet, etc?

I feel the Body of Christ when taken literal like that defeats the purpose of communion. It takes out the role of what food has as a role of a sacrificial meal and replaces it as if the food died on the cross instead of Jesus.

I can easily explain the context of those verses; but, I know it wont help. It helped me gain a better understanding of how actual bread and wine is not Christ. Christ gave himself on the Cross and the reminder (very strong word) of that "do this im memory of me" is not food from McDonalds but the food of life. Not Jesus Christ who died on the Cross but Life god gave the Isrealites. Its about who gave the Source/food that makes the meal more than a meal but life itself.

Thats why Jesus says "this is my blood; this is my body". He wasnt saying that the bread and wine is his physical body--dna, hair, bones, skin. No, he means: the bread and wine is life.

So when he dies on the cross every time you consume bread and wine, you are consuming life that god gave from Christ not as Christ.

It just seems common sense. I honestly dont think many protestants understand it vise versa. I use symbolism because we dont see Jesus physical self. We see accidents. But the accidents are not just that. It means more than grape juice instead fo wine and flexible communion once or twice a month.

Bread and wine means Life.

Christ died on the Cross and when he did, he gave life (bread and wine).

 

[Spiderman]

Explain the Immaculate Conception to me. The Virgin Mary was not stained with original sin because her mother Anne was not stained by original sin. Ok, I understand that. But wouldn’t Anne’s mother be required not to be stained with original sin too? And her mother and her mother’s mother all the way down the line to Eve?

So I was redeemed because I fell into a mud puddle and my Daddy cleaned me off and redeemed me with the blood of Christ.

Since God needed Mary to be obedient to him for her very special vocation as the mother of his only begotten son, he needed to stop her from falling in the mud puddle in the first place.

So, in the womb he preserve her from the stains off sin and from the inclination to sin, so that there would be a guarantee she would be obedient , not rebel, not get an abortion etc.

God didn't need Ann to have the exact same Grace in order to give that Grace to mary.

 

[Demonslayer]

God created man in his own image and breathed his Spirit into him.

So do you believe God has two feet, ten toes, hair, lungs, a heart with 4 chambers, reproductive organs, etc?

 

[Spiderman]

As well he should have, eating human flesh and drinking human blood, literally, is cannibalism.

Yes, only we consider the Eucharist to be the body, blood ,soul ,and Divinity of Christ and we consider it to be alive, where is cannibalism is eating a hunk of dead mutilated flesh.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@PopeADope

Think of it this way.

OT, food and bread was life

Lamb (food) sacrificed and eatened freed the people who consumed it of sins and therefore gave them life.

Likewise Jesus (person) was sacrificed....but no one thought to eat him. He died and rose to heaven. You cant eat someone who isnt here.

The unblemished lamb wasnt just any lamb or food, it was the food that took away the peoples sins.

When Jesus offered himself to others as a sacrifice, he wasnt just any joe smoe, he offered himself to give others life.

Here is the key:

BECAUSE (emphasis) Jesus is not food, no one can eat him. (Unless they were cannibals back then)

Instead, Jesus offered a sacrificial meal in his name. Therefore that meal became his body and blood---that meal became life.

It is still a meal. Its still food. He didnt change anything to the food and no one is eating him.

He's using the food as a mirror of himself who is life. They are inseparable and they are not each other.

When you eat Bread and Wine in commune, you are eating what Jesus gave to you--which is life. Jesus already gave you life at Baptism, so when you eat of his food you are communing with others to make Jesus present in the Church. You are eating the bread and wine which Jesus (and the OT) called life.

It doesnt take out the importance of the meal. If anything, it hightens it. Food is a big issue in many cultures. What other way to join the Church together than to eat the food/life Christ gave when he died on the cross?

Understand?**

 

[Demonslayer]

Yes, only we consider the Eucharist to be the body, blood ,soul ,and Divinity of Christ and we consider it to be alive, where is cannibalism is eating a hunk of dead mutilated flesh.

Yes I know I was raised in a very devout Catholic family.

Cannibalism has nothing to do with the flesh being "dead or mutilated." All it means is a human eating another human flesh. Often times cannibals ate their victims flesh while still alive for freshness reasons, and because they believed the fresh blood granted them power and vitality.

I fail to see how living flesh vs. dead flesh makes it any less creepy.

 

[Spiderman]

I understand what you mean...this is where the other side comes from:


Think about it. Can you really consume Jesus Christ as the Isrealites and Levites did the lamb. One is food the other is a person. They are both sacrificial offerings for peoples sins. They both have the same role, no doubt. Physically, you cannot consume Jesus Christ.

Symbolism sounds like a bad word to Catholics; and it is not a bad word. When I hold bread and wine, yes I am holding Jesus but I am holding bread and wine not an actual person. The priest looked at me silly when I asked, "do you actually believe you are holding Jesus Christ Himself. His body. Arms. Legs. Etc?" He remarks "No, of course not."

Thats were symbolism comes into play. Do you actually believe you are consuming Jesus hair, noes, feet, etc?

I feel the Body of Christ when taken literal like that defeats the purpose of communion. It takes out the role of what food has as a role of a sacrificial meal and replaces it as if the food died on the cross instead of Jesus.

I can easily explain the context of those verses; but, I know it wont help. It helped me gain a better understanding of how actual bread and wine is not Christ. Christ gave himself on the Cross and the reminder (very strong word) of that "do this im memory of me" is not food from McDonalds but the food of life. Not Jesus Christ who died on the Cross but Life god gave the Isrealites. Its about who gave the Source/food that makes the meal more than a meal but life itself.

Thats why Jesus says "this is my blood; this is my body". He wasnt saying that the bread and wine is his physical body--dna, hair, bones, skin. No, he means: the bread and wine is life.

So when he dies on the cross every time you consume bread and wine, you are consuming life that god gave from Christ not as Christ.

It just seems common sense. I honestly dont think many protestants understand it vise versa. I use symbolism because we dont see Jesus physical self. We see accidents. But the accidents are not just that. It means more than grape juice instead fo wine and flexible communion once or twice a month.

Bread and wine means Life.

Christ died on the Cross and when he did, he gave life (bread and wine).

I have actually been going through a crisis in my Catholic faith where for the time being I don't have much faith in the Eucharist being what the Church and Saints said.

But the Catholic teaching on the it is that the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, everything about him ,and the entirety of him is contained in the Eucharist.

 

[Spiderman]

But yes I understand

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But yes I understand

Thank you. I dont want to make you uncomfortable. My Catholic friend told me not to talk to her about things like this because it will make her doubt her faith. I honestly thought it would strengthen it. I mean, talking to the priests and understanding that he didnt mean literal as in bones and hair particles made me look more into the context of what Jesus was saying rather than the literal language or content of it. It made more sense when I compared it to Leviticus when they were doing all the sacrifices and building altars etc

If the priests agree with me after explaining it in my way for a good long awhile, it made me think its more peoples interpretation and what they are taught rather than whats in scripture. Especially transubsatiation. The Eucharist can be seen as Life Chist gave or Christ himself, but when you can change bread and wine which is already life from Christ (already blessed), that raises a couple of eyebrow.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes I know I was raised in a very devout Catholic family.

Cannibalism has nothing to do with the flesh being "dead or mutilated." All it means is a human eating another human flesh. Often times cannibals ate their victims flesh while still alive for freshness reasons, and because they believed the fresh blood granted them power and vitality.

I fail to see how living flesh vs. dead flesh makes it any less creepy.

They arent eating flesh, though. They are eating wafers and drinking wine. The teachings say its Jesus but the Church understands they are accidents even though on the "inside" its Jesus Christ.

I think its the people rather than the Church doctrine.

 

[Demonslayer]

I have actually been going through a crisis in my Catholic faith where for the time being I don't have much faith in the Eucharist being what the Church and Saints said.

But the Catholic teaching on the it is that the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, everything about him ,and the entirety of him is contained in the Eucharist.

It's things like the arrogant insistence on literal transubstantiation that drove me away from the Catholic Church to begin with. You want to teach me some moral stories, fine. But you can't shove nonsense like the wine physically transforms into blood down my throat and expect me to just swallow it. Pun intended.

 

[Demonslayer]

They arent eating flesh, though. They are eating wafers and drinking wine. The teachings say its Jesus but the Church understands they are accidents even though on the "inside" its Jesus Christ.

I think its the people rather than the Church doctrine.

I think it's the doctrine. I think the vast majority of the people actually realize its wafers and wine. Only the official doctrine...still unchanged to this day...insists on an actual physical transformation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the change of substance by which the bread and the wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the physical Body and Blood of Jesus the Christ

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think it's the doctrine. I think the vast majority of the people actually realize its wafers and wine. Only the official doctrine...still unchanged to this day...insists on an actual physical transformation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the change of substance by which the bread and the wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the physical Body and Blood of Jesus the Christ

I was Catholic and know what it means. Just like Catholics, some non-catholics have the same mindset of seeing taking the Eucharist as cannibalism.

It is physically and literally bread and wine. Cannibalism is not taking bread and wine but of a human flesh. No matter how the doctrine interprets it, when you take communion, you are holding bread and wine not a human being.

edit: The Catechism is a better source of reference than Wiki

 

[George-ananda]

@PopeADope ,

I was reading through this thread and just wanted to say I like you. This is very hostile territory (RF) for a Catholic defending Catholicism and you are doing a great job. .

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Did you ever draw a map on a piece of paper? Maybe you drew an X and said this is the gas station over on Main Street or you drew a circle and said this is the supermarket on Elm Street. Of course the X is not really a gas station and the circle is not really a supermarket. They REPRESENT those things for the purpose of your map. When Jesus said "this is my body" everyone there knew it was just a piece of bread but it REPRESENTED his body for the purpose of the ceremony. Nothing says that Jesus actually changed the bread or told anyone else to do it in the future. But when people come together to worship they let the bread represent his body. Many Protestant churches have a ceremony where they take bread and wine as part of the ceremony but they do not claim it is actually Jesus body and blood. They represent these items just like the marks on a map represent the buildings or streets being shown.

 

[Spiderman]

@PopeADope ,

I was reading through this thread and just wanted to say I like you. This is very hostile territory (RF) for a Catholic defending Catholicism and you are doing a great job. .

I like you too and I hope my prayers ,blessings, and sufferings benefit you in some way.

 

[Deeje]

I guess the church draws the line when it comes to believing that human beings evolve from a single cell organism without God causing it.

In my own research, I have discovered something interesting about the claims for evolution. I am not speaking about adaptive changes within species as all living things exhibit this ability to adapt to their environment. Without it, creatures could be wiped out if there was some kind of alteration in climate or food source, so this "microevolution" as some call it, is clearly discernible in nature. BUT.....when it comes to "macroevolution" the story is very different. Science only has proof for adaptation, but when presenting "evidence" for "macroevolution", they resort to assumption and educated guesswork based on microevolutionary findings. IOW, they use one to prove the other when they have no real evidence that it happened that way. They are guessing that it "could have".

They couch it in the same kind of language that advertisers use to promote their products by claiming things that "might" happen if you use them. If you study their articles and watch their videos, you soon realize that macroevolution is a huge hoax. There is not one bit of positive proof that all species evolved from a single organism over millions of years. When science uses phrases like "might have" or "could have" or "this leads us to believe that"...something took place, you see no "proof" but a lot of "supposition" masquerading as science. This is not the language of scientific fact.

Their computer generated images are presented as though they are eye witness testimony, when the fact is, no one was around to record the event except the Creator....and he tells a very different story. What you have at the end of the day is a church selling out to godless science. When I say 'godless science', I am not speaking about true science, but theoretical science that requires no actual proof. Changing the definition of the word "theory" to mean "fact" is all part of the hoax. Who wants us to believe that God doesn't exist? (1 John 5:19)

It is a mystery. There are many Mysteries the church does not claim to understand fully or barely understand at all.

There are no mysteries actually. God has revealed his will and purpose to his true servants and there should be nothing left in the realm of mystery that cannot be explained from the Bible.

Bottom line is, God created man in his own image and breathed his Spirit into him.

Yes he did. But what is this "spirit"?

The meaning of the word "spirit" in Greek is "pneuʹma which comes from "pneʹo", meaning “breathe or blow,” so the "breath of life" that Adam received from God was the ability to breathe. This is seen in words we use today like "pneumonia" or "pneumatic" which indicate that air or breath are involved in their meaning.

Adam did not receive a "soul" when he was created, but "became" one when God started him breathing. (Gen 2:7) The word "soul" (Gr "psy·kheʹ") is used to describe a living, breathing, sentient creature. It is never disembodied. The Bible teaches that death is actually death and that nothing leaves the body to go anywhere. Adam was simply told that he would "return to the dust" from which he was created. There was no mention of an afterlife of any kind.

A return to life was by means of a resurrection, which was demonstrated by Jesus himself a few times. Each one was returned to this life and reunited with their families. His most famous resurrection was that of his dear friend Lazarus. Read the account and see where Jesus said Lazarus was. (John 11:11-15)

An example of how the church admits it doesn't know where to draw the line on some issues, is a person could live the worst life imaginable, then kill themselves with no sign of repenting, and the church still says we don't know for sure that the soul went to hell for eternity.

Now ask yourself what would be the outcome if there was no immortal soul and all the dead were merely sleeping in their graves awaiting the call from Jesus to "come on out" as he did for Lazarus. Jesus himself says that this is what he will do once he has established the rule of his kingdom on earth.

He said at John 5:28, 29:
"Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment."

No one who has died is judged until that time. There is no fiery hell or consciousness at all...there is only "sleep" in death. (Eccl 9:5, 10) If Jesus calls people from their tombs, then they must all still be in them.

It is still possible that the soul could have been fully enlightened, repented, been transformed, and made worthy of Heaven after death.

There is no guarantee of that either, but my point is that the church is saying we simply do not know.

When you know what the Bible really teaches, you don't have to wonder about anything. The truth is there in scripture...all you have to do is ask God to reveal it to a willing heart...I see one in you.

There are reasons and satisfying explanations for everything. Its the pre-conceived ideas that prevent us from seeing them, yet they have been there all along. "Keep knocking, keep seeking"....the answers are not far away.