In any case, my point there is that no-one is saying wine = actual, real blood.
Blood tastes good though. I could convert and live without black pudding, but black pudding is good.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Eucharist
- Thread starter Unveiled Artist
- Start date
Blood tastes good though. I could convert and live without black pudding, but black pudding is good.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
And "yes, at some time or other, there have been--and I strongly suspect, there still are--folks who believe in the unbelievable literal transformation of the elements. Some of us might be kind enough to call it "magical thinking", just before strapping the believer in a straight-jacket.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
On RF, I don't usually care why. My conversations don't go so far and most of the conversations I read are arguing about the OP, telling a joke, or purposely posting to questions in which the OP doesn't apply.
I usually say my whys and go deeper when I know the conversation would be more fruitful after three or four posts of well-meaning thought. Most threads like that I don't post cause I don't know the content to have a good conversation.
Define "weird". Drinking blood and flesh is "weird", but every Christian is supposed to do it.
But don't worry, the god in question, whether it's Jesus or Mithra, can give you any amount of his blood and flesh he wants... He doesn't even have to hurt himself.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Doctrines of what happens to the elements: (Two versions of various doctrines)
No, the Church can speak for itself. The following is taken from the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which you can find at www.vatican.va
"the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the 'eucharistic species', remain unaltered."
Cooky
Veteran Member
Also consider that the "blood of Jesus" could just mean "solar energy", since I think he's really one aspect of the Sun god as a teacher. "The light of the World".
It could to some, though this isn't the Catholic position.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
While one marvels at the wide range of doctrines regarding what happens in the elements, I think it's somewhat relevant to take note of the variety of opinions regarding the Hebrew Scripture, ... which--in the case of Christian believers would also apply to the Christian Scripture.
Question: Are the words that I am reading the God-dictated (i.e. a "stenographic view" of Scripture); divinely-inspired in part and human contribution to the written result: or interesting literary efforts in a very human genre?
What's interesting to me is that, commonly ... at least among the Christian sects, the more God-dictated the Christian believes the words to be, the less literal he/she believes the transformation of the elements in the Eucharist/Holy Communion.
Question: Are the words that I am reading the God-dictated (i.e. a "stenographic view" of Scripture); divinely-inspired in part and human contribution to the written result: or interesting literary efforts in a very human genre?
What's interesting to me is that, commonly ... at least among the Christian sects, the more God-dictated the Christian believes the words to be, the less literal he/she believes the transformation of the elements in the Eucharist/Holy Communion.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Great! just what this thread needs, .... all we're missing are some JWs, SDAs, and some schizophrenics.
Cooky
Veteran Member
That is an interesting observation.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
I'm still trying to figure out how to make some money out of it.
Write your own Bible translation. You can call it the,
'New International Authorised English Revised Good News Version.'
Cooky
Veteran Member
I think you should write a book. You have the right pizzazz for authorship.
I would like to take this opportunity to reassure you that Jesus, to my knowledge, has never passed through my digestive tract and been released after a trip to the loo.
Guilty, though I may be, of many things in my life - I'm as pure as the driven snow on that one!
@Rival and @exchemist have already covered much that need be said be said in answer to your question (very well, too) but I'll add a few more thoughts of my own:
In his book Font of Life (2012), Garry Wills correctly notes how the church father St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 AD) "ridiculed" the idea that the eucharist was the literal body and blood of Christ. "Augustine repeatedly says," writes Wills, "that Christ cannot be chewed, digested, and excreted."
As you will know, there is a great deal of diversity in Christian interpretation of the import of the Lord's Supper and its sacramental character. This ranges from the purely symbolic 'memorialism' of denominations like Baptists, Anabaptists and non-denominational churches; the real and effective "spiritual presence" viewpoint espoused by traditional Calvinists; the most widely shared cross-denominational perspective, that of the "real presence" of the sacramental blood and body of Christ in the communion wavers and wine as believed by Anglicans and Lutherans among others (to varying degrees) and finally the most extreme versions, that of metousiosis (change of essence or inner reality) adhered to by Eastern Orthodox and the transubstantiation affirmed by Roman Catholics.
In none of these interpretations, including the last two, is there any insinuation that Jesus is 'eaten, chewed, digested and excreted' in a cannibalistic or theophagic manner. Using Scholastic philosophical language and its conceptual framework, the Catholic Church distinguishes between substance and species in the consecrated eucharistic bread and wine. The accidents of bread and wine (size, weight, taste, texture) do remain. So the flesh and blood is not consumed under the form or properties of flesh and blood (such that no scientific analysis would ever conclude that it is, physically speaking, anything other than bread and wine), but under the sacramental signs of bread and wine.
The sense in which it is "Christ's glorified body and blood" is not perceptible by the senses (i.e. if you tested the consecrated host in a lab, it would be comprised of just any old particles of wheat and flour) but must be discerned and experienced spiritually.
I admit that transubstantiation is a peculiar doctrine to those outside the church. But as weird as it might be, one does need to keep a sense of proportion and not exaggerate its meaning to a ridiculous degree.
The idea that Christians gathered to commit acts of ritual cannibalism was, of course, the accusation of many contemporary Roman era writers - I guess, understandably - but it was a gross misinterpretation and slander that led to much social distrust and state repression of the early Christian movement.
If we probe further, though, and consider the question of 'why' this admittedly strange doctrine would have emerged at all in the first century Christian circles, I think we can arrive at a decently cogent hypothesis:
It needs to be noted - as attested also by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, as well as in the synoptic gospels - that Jesus only announced a "new covenant" on the night he was betrayed to death, during the Last Supper with the institution of the Eucharistic ritual. St. Paul's version of this Jesus tradition and words of institution:
"For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." (1 Corinthians 14:24-26)
These words - among the earliest sayings ever attributed directly to Jesus, owing to the primitive dating of St. Paul's epistle, which pre-dates any of the canonical gospels - were by far the most 'offensive' words Jesus could have used under the Torah, in which 'blood' was absolutely forbidden to be consumed:
Leviticus 17:10
If anyone from the house of Israel or a foreigner living among them eats any blood, I will set My face against that person and cut him off from among his people.
If anyone from the house of Israel or a foreigner living among them eats any blood, I will set My face against that person and cut him off from among his people.
As one Jewish scholar notes:
"If anyone eats blood, that person must be cut off from his peers.” The ban on eating blood is fundamental to the Torah. The ban occupies a central place in the covenant."
On the same night where he impliedly declares the Torah an 'old covenant' through the announcement of a 'new covenant', Jesus refers to the wine in the cup as his "blood", as if to ram the point home that the Old Covenant really is surpassed by a New one for his band of disciples - a New Testament, with new possibilities not circumscribed by the preceding one.
I honestly think he said this because he considered it the most offensive and outrageous way of symbolically violating the Torah and thus definitively communicating a new beginning, an abrogating of the old by a "new covenant".
It was intended to be a maximally shocking statement, as the last ever major teaching to his disciples.
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Nice. This was very helpful. Still, I wonder why non-catholics would call it cannibalism. It literally (and I stress literally) is not.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
It's just anti-Catholic pejorative nonsense, lacking any serious recognition and/or acknowledgement of the of the purpose of and benefits to be received in and through following Jesus' instructions and Paul's words:
- Matthew 26:17-30 English Standard Version
- The Passover with the Disciples
- 17 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
- 18 He said, “Go into the city to a certain man and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.’”
- 19 And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover.
- 20 When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve.
- 21 And as they were eating, he said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.”
- 22 And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, “Is it I, Lord?”
- 23 He answered, “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me.
- 24 The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”
- 25 Judas, who would betray him, answered, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You have said so.”
- Institution of the Lord's Supper
- 26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”
- 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you,
- 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
- 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”
- 30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
- The Passover with the Disciples
- Mark 14:12-25 English Standard Version
- The Passover with the Disciples
- 12 And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
- 13 And he sent two of his disciples and said to them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him,
- 14 and wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?'"
- 15 And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us.”
- 16 And the disciples set out and went to the city and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.
- 17 And when it was evening, he came with the twelve.
- 18 And as they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.”
- 19 They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another, “Is it I?”
- 20 He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me.
- 21 For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”
- Institution of the Lord's Supper
- 22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.”
- 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.
- 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
- 25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
- The Passover with the Disciples
- Luke 22:7-20 English Standard Version
- The Passover with the Disciples
- 7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed.
- 8 So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it.”
- 9 They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?”
- 10 He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters
- 11 and tell the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, ‘Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’
- 12 And he will show you a large upper room furnished; prepare it there.”
- 13 And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.
- Institution of the Lord's Supper
- 14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him.
- 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.
- 16 For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
- 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves.
- 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
- 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
- 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
- The Passover with the Disciples
- 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 English Standard Version
- The Lord's Supper
- 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
- 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
- 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
- 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
- The Lord's Supper
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
- Vouthon says:
- On the same night where he impliedly declares the Torah an 'old covenant' through the announcement of a 'new covenant', Jesus refers to the wine in the cup as his "blood", as if to ram the point home that the Old Covenant really is surpassed by a New one for his band of disciples - a New Testament, with new possibilities not circumscribed by the preceding one.
- I honestly think he said this because he considered it the most offensive and outrageous way of symbolically violating the Torah and thus definitively communicating a new beginning, an abrogating of the old by a "new covenant".
- For the record, I say: I acknowledge the 2nd, new covenant; but reject the notion that Jesus was intentionally doing anything offensive and outrageous and that he abrogated the 1st covenant.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
These are commonly used verses that kind of get pushed under the rug after awhile. These things need to be thought out more rather than regurgitated (to put it bluntly). It makes it easier to express it in your own words.
I want to explain it how I see it but I can't figure how to shorten it up. Basically, there is no need for transubstantiation because when the Mass comes together, they already made christ present in communion. The priest as christ (lbw) breaks the bread in which is the cornerstone and passion (food is important) and because christ is already present beforehand, when people eat and drink real food-the last meal-they become one body in christ.
When christ says "this is my blood and body" he doesn't mean this is my haired flesh and white blood cells. It just means he's the cornerstone of communion and he is breaking the bread. Whoever takes the bread and wine will experience christ's Passion not christ himself. The Passion is communion/Eucharist not christ. Christ is already made present, just one needs to break bread with christ in order to experience his Passion-his presence means nothing without the body and food.
That's what I got out of it. Sometimes I wish I could follow these teachings but like other religions, I have a deep understanding but no internal connection to the knowledge and wisdom I pick up.