Wine really the blood. Bread really the body

[Me Myself]

some people really seem to be wanting to debate this so I made this thread so it wouldn´t derail others in which this is not the main subject.

Naturaly, this talks about the Eucharisty in catholicism, where it is dogma that the bread really becomes the body and the wine really becomes the blood.

so, let´s discuss how real this is.

I say holy canibalism Batman!

 

[CarlinKnew]

Hm, tasted like bread to me. Maybe it transforms into flesh somewhere further along the digestive tract. Any volunteers for a little surgical investigation?

 

[idav]

Do you think Jesus was speaking symbolically and not literally? What is up with Jesus calling his flesh the bread of life? Some proably get the wrong idea.

 

[Iti oj]

Do you think Jesus was speaking symbolically and not literally? What is up with Jesus calling his flesh the bread of life? Some proably get the wrong idea.

well different sects have different opinion on this

 

[gnomon]

Taking a trip over to some Catholic forums it appears that a large percentage of those engaged do indeed believe that, while the bread is bread and the wine is wine, they are also the flesh and blood of Christ. The essence of each becomes the flesh and blood. It's still bread and wine, chemically and to the senses, but it's flesh and blood. Not metaphorically. Consumption of the bread and wine is the consumption of Jesus' flesh and blood. The substance has been changed.

 

[Me Myself]

Taking a trip over to some Catholic forums it appears that a large percentage of this engaged do indeed believe that, while the bread is bread and the wine is wine, they are also the flesh and blood of Christ. The essence of each becomes the flesh and blood. It's still bread and wine, chemically and to the senses, but it's flesh and blood. Not metaphorically. Consumption of the bread and wine is the consumption of Jesus' flesh and blood. The substance has been changed.

QFT.

Least, that´s my belief.

 

[Iti oj]

Taking a trip over to some Catholic forums it appears that a large percentage of this engaged do indeed believe that, while the bread is bread and the wine is wine, they are also the flesh and blood of Christ. The essence of each becomes the flesh and blood. It's still bread and wine, chemically and to the senses, but it's flesh and blood. Not metaphorically. Consumption of the bread and wine is the consumption of Jesus' flesh and blood. The substance has been changed.

transubstantiation

 

[CarlinKnew]

It's still bread and wine, chemically and to the senses, but it's flesh and blood. Not metaphorically... The substance has been changed.

So in what sense has it changed? Let me guess, "spiritually" AKA in make-believe land.

 

[Me Myself]

So in what sense has it changed? Let me guess, "spiritually" AKA in make-believe land.

Yeah, sounds about the best way you could understand it yes.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Yeah, sounds about the best way you could understand it yes.

Ah, and you are more spiritually advanced than me and are therefore able to understand this transformation on a higher level, yes?

 

[Me Myself]

Ah, and you are more spiritually advanced than me and are therefore able to understand this transformation on a higher level, yes?

No way to tell. Maybe you just don´t need to understand it in the way I do and that´s that.

 

[Student of X]

If you get a real ritual going that actually alters the state of consciousness of the participants (not like today), then it's a snap for mind-over-matter to change bread and wine into mana. There, now you guys know things that few do because our stupid modern culture discounts psi. When you discount psi you can't figure squat out. Ugh, I'm so disappointed with this stupid foolish modern age.

 

[apophenia]

So in what sense has it changed? Let me guess, "spiritually" AKA in make-believe land.

Amusingly enough I think that's quite true, and at the same time expresses the authentic value of the process.

There are plenty of examples of what we might call the mundane use of visualisation/imagination to positively affect behaviour. This is a commonplace for sports players and musicians for example, who use imagination to train or play musical pieces. I don't see science-minded people or atheists ridiculing the use of the mind in that way, in fact I'm sure if I did some research I could find plenty of studies showing improved performance and skill-acquisition using focussed imagination.

Another way to describe that would be "make-believe". Make-believe can be very useful. Brain plasticity is the current term used in behavioural sciences.

The connections in the brain can be rewired through imagination.

So 'make-believe land' is objectively real - as real as your brain - and their are techniques to leverage this fact. This does not require that the person doing the imagining to have a scientifically credible explanation of what they are doing for it to produce results.

So to answer your question "in what way has it changed ?" - what can change is brain connections.

 

[George-ananda]

some people really seem to be wanting to debate this so I made this thread so it wouldn´t derail others in which this is not the main subject.

Naturaly, this talks about the Eucharisty in catholicism, where it is dogma that the bread really becomes the body and the wine really becomes the blood.

so, let´s discuss how real this is.

I say holy canibalism Batman!

If you are making the riduculous (humorous?) leap from the eucharist to canibalism then you have too much hate in you.

 

[Me Myself]

If you are making the riduculous (humorous?) leap from the eucharist to canibalism then you have too much hate in you.

I actually do think it is canibalism. Not a bad one though, but if you literaly believe the bread is body and the wine is blood, you can only see it as canibalism.

If you don´t believe this, then naturaly you cannot see it as canibalism.

I would advice that you look elsewhere for the source of this hatred that you say you have found, as it couldn´t have come from my posts. (least not this ones and difficultly in this topic)

May Vishnu help you find it and may he shower it will love so the hating ceases when he does :namaste

 

[gnomon]

If you are making the riduculous (humorous?) leap from the eucharist to canibalism then you have too much hate in you.

Stop acting like a fool.

edit: Now quick. Is this an example of mocking, being rude or something else? Does it irritate you? Can it be a simple utterance as of two old men on a front porch verbally jabbing? Quick! Quick!

 

[George-ananda]

Stop acting like a fool.

edit: Now quick. Is this an example of mocking, being rude or something else? Does it irritate you? Can it be a simple utterance as of two old men on a front porch verbally jabbing? Quick! Quick!

Ok, I'll apologize. We can use extremist words just to make a point. Where the borderline is, is a judgement call. I agree we should err on the side of free speach here.

 

[HerDotness]

The fact of the matter where transubstantiation is concerned is that it actually IS cannibalistic in nature since Catholics are expected to believe that the bread and wine are somehow transformed into the body and blood of Jesus. It's impossible to detect any change in either one, but Catholics are supposed to believe that the priest's words bring about this quite magical change. So, you must believe that you're eating Jesus's body and drinking his blood.

What is acceptable to do may have changed since I was a Catholic kid in the 1950's, but I was instructed never to dig at Jesus with a finger when the wafer stuck annoyingly to the roof of my mouth which they often did if your mouth was a bit dry. That was disrespectful , sacrilegious and very much not the thing to do, because back then in any Catholic church where I ever had communion, only the priest could touch the consecrated host. Also, you stuck out your tongue, and the priest laid the wafer on it.

Currently, others than just the priest can touch consecrated wafers and distribute communion, and the wafer is put into the cupped hands of the person taking communion. So, quite a lot is now done differently than when I was a child.

If a consecrated wafer was dropped on the floor back then, one of the altar boys or the priest placed a white cloth over it so that no one would step on the body of Jesus until the priest had time after the Mass had ended to pick up the dropped wafer and dispose of it respectfully and properly. I don't know what would be done today if that happened.

 

[ChristineES]

some people really seem to be wanting to debate this so I made this thread so it wouldn´t derail others in which this is not the main subject.

Naturaly, this talks about the Eucharisty in catholicism, where it is dogma that the bread really becomes the body and the wine really becomes the blood.

so, let´s discuss how real this is.

I say holy canibalism Batman!

It is symbolic to me. The way our "Lord's Supper" went during Church services in the Baptist Churches I have been to, as well as a couple of other denominations, it was described as symbolic. I believe that even when Jesus did it with His apostles, it was symbolic then, too.

 

[Desert Snake]

The fact of the matter where transubstantiation is concerned is that it actually IS cannibalistic in nature since Catholics are expected to believe that the bread and wine are somehow transformed into the body and blood of Jesus. It's impossible to detect any change in either one, but Catholics are supposed to believe that the priest's words bring about this quite magical change. So, you must believe that you're eating Jesus's body and drinking his blood.

What is acceptable to do may have changed since I was a Catholic kid in the 1950's, but I was instructed never to dig at Jesus with a finger when the wafer stuck annoyingly to the roof of my mouth which they often did if your mouth was a bit dry. That was disrespectful , sacrilegious and very much not the thing to do, because back then in any Catholic church where I ever had communion, only the priest could touch the consecrated host. Also, you stuck out your tongue, and the priest laid the wafer on it.

Currently, others than just the priest can touch consecrated wafers and distribute communion, and the wafer is put into the cupped hands of the person taking communion. So, quite a lot is now done differently than when I was a child.

If a consecrated wafer was dropped on the floor back then, one of the altar boys or the priest placed a white cloth over it so that no one would step on the body of Jesus until the priest had time after the Mass had ended to pick up the dropped wafer and dispose of it respectfully and properly. I don't know what would be done today if that happened.

Mmmm wafers? :drool: Well I think perhaps "cannibalistic" is a bit much, perhaps "symbolically cannibalistic" if you're really intent on using that term.