Stalwart
Member
What are you talking about? Of course it matters - it's a matter of dogma, and a fundamental element of Christian theology. It is the focal point of the most important thing: how we interact with God, and God with us.
-
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!
Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man, you have no life in you
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
What are you talking about? Of course it matters - it's a matter of dogma, and a fundamental element of Christian theology. It is the focal point of the most important thing: how we interact with God, and God with us.
Stalwart
Member
Why would He need to be dead for transubstantiation to take place? That makes no sense. He willed it, so it was.
You're 'sure', are you? You 'think' it will continue to be a mystery. We do not know how, and we do not need to, but we know because that it (transubstantiation and Eucharistic communion) is part of the faith taught by the apostles. Why do you reject this dogma of Christianity, and more importantly, why do you think your personal perspective is worth touting, or forming your religious perspective on? Who are you to say what is and is not?
What makes no sense is the idea of two 'real' presence at the same time. Jesus was fully, humanly present to his disciples at the Last Supper. His presence in the 'bread' is through the Holy Spirit who cannot not come until Jesus has gone.
Not until Trent was there an attempt to explain 'how' Jesus was present in the Eucharist. The mystery of the Real Presence was accepted from Paul on until the reformers questioned the reality of symbol. There have been various theologians, Rahner and schillebeeckx who attempted to change the term transubstantiation to transignification or transfinalization. The 'how' remains a Mystery.
We do not know how, that's why it remains a Mystery. The Eucharist is a mystery which surpasses our understanding and can only be received in faith. Transubstantiation was never in the mind of the Apostles, it was not necessary. Transubstantiation was an 'apt, fitting explanation' to the dogma of the Real Presence following the schism.
And that raises a problem for all of us. Many can and do quote the Bible verbatim as dictated from God. But, beyond 'knowing' the Bible I think it is necessary to know 'about' the Bible. Otherwise one is defending what seems an absurdity. For some admitting it may not be God's word as dictated is the making of an Atheist.
So many people follow teachings etc but never have that 'experience'.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I dont understand the connection. I never had belief in The Church and teachings because the practices was the belief. I never questioned it. Why question if your mother loves you when you Know she does and felt the experience of it? It is no longer a belief. Its an action. Its not a Sinners Prayer. Its being physically born again, physically confirming, and physically repenting. Its more than belief.
That is me.
I dont see the connection. A lot of people follow teachings wihout the belief. I didnt have the belief because the practice was the belief. It took a good study of the bible and reflection of myself to understand the nature of my relationship with the Church. The experience is still real. Jesus is still in the Eucharist. I became mature enough to distinguish what I know is true and what I want to devote myself to because of it.
But that is me. I follwed teachings because I had the experience. Thats why many follow teachings because they have experience. So I dont know what you mean?
psychoslice
Veteran Member
yo
Means nothing to me personally though.
Stalwart
Member
Means everything to God, but your loss.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes show your arrogance.
Stalwart
Member
My arrogance? Don't presume that I'm lauding the truth over you - I'm just presenting it as plainly as I can.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes and you believe that it s true, so you are lauding it all over me and everyone else, its Ok, I understand your dilemma.
Maybe I don't understand what you mean by 'experience'. Sometimes people go through the 'practice' out of habit and never really question. I think faith and knowledge have to reconciled.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Oh. No. I came into Catholicism as an adult and practiced for over ten years before commiting myself to the sacraments in those last four years.
The difference between having a belief and having knowledge is the former tends tonchamge, the latter you can do whatever you want, but it doesnt change facts.
Experience, to me, is fact. When I tooknthe Eucharist, Inknew and know full well it is Jesus christ. Same as knowing hugging my ex today does not excuse that she was by girlfriend and not someone i just happen to "be with" for X amount of time.
I dont like the word X or Ex for that reason. It belittles the experience and so forth I have and had with people I loved and devoted myself to. That experience/knowledge/belief is so much more liberating.
Saying one can has to belief something to be true is like saying the Eucharist is symbolism and only real to the person who believes it is. I read in the CCC that the Church doesnt want other christians to take communion unless they were baptised and believe jesus is in the Eucharist (after all formalities).
I know christians who have a full right and more right to receive the Eucharist before me because of their faith but its sad to see so many miss that experience because of politics.
You can experience something that becomes, then fact; but, you dont have to devote yourself tonall things you experience. There shouodnt be consequences for freedom of where you out your mind and life to. If anything, all experiences in life back up where we are today.
Stalwart,
Jesus used the wine as a symbol of his blood, that was to be poured out for forgiveness of the sins of all who would believe in him and except his offer. The bread was. Symbol of Jesus' body which was a ransom sacrifice for us.
There was never a transsubstantiation, or anything even resembling that idea. Remember the Law of God strictly forbids the eating of any kind of blood, and even more so would the eating of human blood be outlawed, Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10-14, Acts 15:20,28,29. Anyone taking blood into his body has his name removed from the Book of Life, Revelation 20:12-15.
Agape!!!
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
In the early church the Communion was an actual weekly meal shared by the whole community
the ritual and belief concerning it are as under (Translated by Aaron Milavec) from the Didache.
9:1 (And) concerning the eucharist, Eucharistize thus:
9:2 First, concerning the cup:
We give you thanks, our Father,
for the holy vine of your servant David
which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus.
To you [is] the glory forever.
9:3 And concerning the broken [loaf]:
We give you thanks, our Father,
for the life and knowledge which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus.
To you [is] the glory forever.
9:4 Just as this broken [loaf] was scattered
over the hills [as grain], and, having_been_gathered_together, became one;
in -like - fashion., may your church be_gathered_together
from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.
Because yours is the glory and the power
through Jesus Christ forever.
9:5 (And) let no one eat or drink from your eucharist
except those baptized in the name of [the] Lord,
for the Lord has likewise said concerning this:
"Do not give what is holy to the dogs."
You can see from the above that in those early times the Eucharist was not about the body and blood of Christ Or indeed Jesus at all.
It was not in any way a sacrifice. It was thanksgiving in fellowship, and the gathering in worship and the expectation of the Kingdom to come.
It is also interesting that the cup came first in that time.
the ritual and belief concerning it are as under (Translated by Aaron Milavec) from the Didache.
9:1 (And) concerning the eucharist, Eucharistize thus:
9:2 First, concerning the cup:
We give you thanks, our Father,
for the holy vine of your servant David
which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus.
To you [is] the glory forever.
9:3 And concerning the broken [loaf]:
We give you thanks, our Father,
for the life and knowledge which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus.
To you [is] the glory forever.
9:4 Just as this broken [loaf] was scattered
over the hills [as grain], and, having_been_gathered_together, became one;
in -like - fashion., may your church be_gathered_together
from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.
Because yours is the glory and the power
through Jesus Christ forever.
9:5 (And) let no one eat or drink from your eucharist
except those baptized in the name of [the] Lord,
for the Lord has likewise said concerning this:
"Do not give what is holy to the dogs."
You can see from the above that in those early times the Eucharist was not about the body and blood of Christ Or indeed Jesus at all.
It was not in any way a sacrifice. It was thanksgiving in fellowship, and the gathering in worship and the expectation of the Kingdom to come.
It is also interesting that the cup came first in that time.
Last edited:
Because it was probably a meal and not the Eucharistic celebration. There are differing accounts within the Gospels. The words pronounced over the bread and wine are not reproduced in the same form. They are probably the actual liturgical usages of the primitive Christian communities, shaping its own enactment of tradition. In Lk and Paul "after the meal" is before the consecration of the chalice. What we find in the first look into the liturgical life of these communities of the 1st century. But by the end of the 1st cent, do to growth of the communities the 'supper' aspect of the assembly disappeared, the celebration became a Eucharistic celebration. There was now one table, the "Lords Table'.
In ch14 of the Didache "On the Lord's day meet and break bread and offer the Eucharist, after having first confessed your offences, so that your sacrifice may be pure."
Paul writes "As often as you eat this bread and drink the chalice of the Lord, you proclaim the death of the Lord."
Stalwart
Member
This (the notion of the transubstantive Eucharist constituting a breach of God's Law) is a common and mediocre objection which is refuted here, in full: Is Jesus' command to drink his blood a violation of God's law? | Catholic Answers
Our Lord told His apostles, and us, through their communication of His Gospel: "Hoc est enim Corpus Meum" -- "This is My Body". The burden is upon you to demonstrate why this very clear and unambiguous declaration on the part of Our Lord is not to be taken literally, but instead metaphorically, especially in light of the scripture which has inspired this thread in the first place. I presume you abide by the principle of Sola Scriptura. We both know, then, that every ounce of scripture is both wholly purposeful and inerrant - why, then, is this declaration at no stage clarified as a metaphorical statement, especially when so much of sacred scripture affirms the validity of a literal understanding. In fact, on that...
...Keep in mind John 6:48-59, wherein Our Lord informs Man of the Eucharistic feast. He is questioned and prodded about this declaration by the Jews and His disciples alike, yet He maintains His statement that He is the new Bread of Life, meant to be consumed so as to sustain spiritual life - as the old was consumed to as to sustain material life. Examine in the same chapter verses 67-69, where He is abandoned by many of His followers. He does not call them back by clarifying His meaning; He permits them to understand Him as having spoken literally, and permits them to abandon Him by rejecting this dogma. If He were speaking metaphorically, He would have made it clear so as to prevent them from needlessly abandoning Him, and in the end, those who believed Him to have been speaking literally remained with Him, while those who did not departed from Him. This is highly illustrative of the Protestant Revolution, to me; that those who reject this most clear dogma have certainly departed from Christ, while those who have faith enough to abide by it remain members of His Body.
Again, the burden is on the Protestant from the beginning. See these Patristic statements, including one from St. Ignatius, student and second successor of Saint John the Apostle, from the early second century:
Saint Ignatius, 110 AD:
"They [heretics, Gnostics in particular] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Saviour Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again."
Saint Cyril, 4th century:
"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ.”
Saint Justin, mid-2nd century:
"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
Protestants do not accept anything beyond what is clearly in the NT. For Catholics, "Our Christian sacrifice is enclosed in a prayer of thanksgiving, in a prayer whose main subject is that salvation we have received through Christ. That prayer is but a thankful remembrance that recalls, with gratitude, how the Father sent His Son into the world, into a Virgin's womb, to accomplish our redemption and how the Son, by the struggle of His passion and the triumph of His resurrection, made that redemption effective for us. The first and second centuries were led to shape the Mass liturgy into a 'eucharistia, as it is at present-a Eucharistic celebration.
Justin describes a Baptism, and the Mass that followed;
After we have baptized him who professes our belief and associates with us, we lead him into the assembly of those call the Brethren, and we there say prayers in common for ourselves, for the newly-baptized, and for all others all over the world...After finishing the prayers, we greet each other with a kiss. Then bread and a cup of water and o mixed wine are brought to the one presiding over the brethren. He takes it, gives praise and glory to the Father of all in the name of the Son and the Holy Ghost, and gives thanks at length for the gifts that we were worthy to receive from Him. When he has finished the prayers and thanksgiving, the whole crowd standing by cries out in agreement; "Amen." "Amen" is a Hebrew word and means, "So may it be." After the presiding official has said thanks and the people have joined in, the deacons, as they are styled by us, distribute as food for all those present, the bread and the wine-and-water mixed, over which the thanks had been offered, and also wet some apart for those not present."
Catholics will immediately recognize the same elements in today's Mass.
From 3rd cent are found 'The Apostolic Tradition of ST Hippolytus of Rome', and the Eucharistic prayers we pray at Mass today!
reference; The Early Liturgy, Josef Jungmann
Justin describes a Baptism, and the Mass that followed;
After we have baptized him who professes our belief and associates with us, we lead him into the assembly of those call the Brethren, and we there say prayers in common for ourselves, for the newly-baptized, and for all others all over the world...After finishing the prayers, we greet each other with a kiss. Then bread and a cup of water and o mixed wine are brought to the one presiding over the brethren. He takes it, gives praise and glory to the Father of all in the name of the Son and the Holy Ghost, and gives thanks at length for the gifts that we were worthy to receive from Him. When he has finished the prayers and thanksgiving, the whole crowd standing by cries out in agreement; "Amen." "Amen" is a Hebrew word and means, "So may it be." After the presiding official has said thanks and the people have joined in, the deacons, as they are styled by us, distribute as food for all those present, the bread and the wine-and-water mixed, over which the thanks had been offered, and also wet some apart for those not present."
Catholics will immediately recognize the same elements in today's Mass.
From 3rd cent are found 'The Apostolic Tradition of ST Hippolytus of Rome', and the Eucharistic prayers we pray at Mass today!
reference; The Early Liturgy, Josef Jungmann
As did I. I converted soon after Vatican II. When Catholics were grumbling about being turned into Protestants! But it was not until after lot of reading, from church history back Christian and Hebrew Scripture that I realized the path through to the Church.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I remember that about the Vatican thing. I looked that up a lot of things Vatican II put as Church doctrine. A lot of Catholics had a fit. My parish said we need to go back to honoring the saints as during the whole issue, a lot of Churches were getting away from that. Becoming protestants, lol. That made me chuckle. Yeah.
A Muslim told me it's best coming into a faith as an adult because you have time to understand the nature of your faith and devotion. He didn't have that advantage. Good conversation we had.
The sad thing is that the ultra conservatives, 'radtrads', are still having a fit as the current pope seems to be fulfilling the 'Spirit' of the Council.