Wine really the blood. Bread really the body

[HerDotness]

When Jesus told the disciples that the bread and wine were His body and blood, many of them couldn't accept that teaching, and left His side. Jesus didn't try to stop them. He didn't holler, "Hey, wait a minute - I was just kidding! It's not REALLY my Body and my Blood!" He said, "This is too hard for some people to accept," and He let them go.

HUH?

Are you saying that it makes any sense whatsoever to think that Jesus A) was God and human, B) that Jesus honestly meant the bread and wine were literally his body and blood? That people actually were expected to think both were true?

This is obviously just an imagined story about a god-man. Why would ANYone then or now be expected to regard any of it as actually having happened?

 

[doppelganger]

Tommy A tells us that it literally becomes the body and blood of Christ, and this this still a standard and official dogma of the Roman Catholic church to this day - "The Transubstantiation of the Host."

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ (Tertia Pars, Q. 75)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

I remember driving to a wedding at an Episcopal church with my ex-wife's very RC father while he explained that the entire Episcopal church was a farce. Why? Because the rectors of that institution had not inherited the official Roman Catholic magic for literally turning bread into flesh and wine into literal blood. And therefore the whole thing was a lie.

Did I mention he's a medical doctor?

 

[HerDotness]

Tommy A tells us that it literally becomes the body and blood of Christ, and this this still a standard and official dogma of the Roman Catholic church to this day - "The Transubstantiation of the Host."

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ (Tertia Pars, Q. 75)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

I remember driving to a wedding at an Episcopal church with my ex-wife's very RC father while he explained that the entire Episcopal church was a farce because the rectors of that institution had not inherited the official RC magic for literally turning bread into flesh and wine into literal blood.

Did I mention he's a medical doctor?

You're quite correct.

Catholics must believe that the bread became Christ's body and the wine Christ's blood when the priest spoke the words of consecration over them.

And yes, a devout Catholic would state quite frankly that the Episcopal church is a farce for that very reason--that they think Jesus didn't mean "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood" very literally.

 

[Kathryn]

HUH?

Are you saying that it makes any sense whatsoever to think that Jesus A) was God and human, B) that Jesus honestly meant the bread and wine were literally his body and blood? That people actually were expected to think both were true?

This is obviously just an imagined story about a god-man. Why would ANYone then or now be expected to regard any of it as actually having happened?

You can choose not to believe it if you like, but your belief doesn't affect whether it's true or not in any way.

 

[doppelganger]

You can choose not to believe it if you like, but your belief doesn't affect whether it's true or not in any way.

It affects whether it's true to her. It doesn't affect whether its true to you. And neither her nor your belief affects whether it's true absent one or the other of you assessing its "truth."

 

[HerDotness]

I'm saying unequivocally that bread and wine can only become Christ's body and blood symbolically--because people say they regard them as symbols of Jesus Christ.

It cannot in any comprehensible literal sense be anything but bread and wine. Anyone who says it genuinely is transformed into flesh and blood imagines things if they're claiming that actually happens.

 

[outhouse]

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.

thats called ignorance, it will pass

 

[outhouse]

first jesus never taught this ever

this was from possibly pagan religions paul delivered to the movement, paul was very well aware of many of these other cults and brought this.

He never knew or heard a word from jesus and this is nothing more then a roman hellenized previous possibly pagan tradition .


the whole point

was not cannabalistic at all, its allegory for being ONE with christ. It was never literal.

 

[idav]

was not cannabalistic at all, its allegory for being ONE with christ. It was never literal.

Jeez, I sure hope it wasn't literal. One like Adam and Eve are one?:cover:

 

[fantome profane]

It's clear to me that this means that Jesus was made out of bread and wine. Maybe kin to a gingerbread man, sans ginger.

But it doesn't need to be that way.

​

 

[blackout]

You're mistaken in saying that Catholics who believe the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus are in any minority.

The very silent minority would be Catholics who don't believe that happens...if they're smart and want to remain Catholics, they'll be silent about it.

Catholics MUST believe that the transformation occurs or they're not sincere Catholics.

Maybe you think "minority" means all or most?

Well, to clarify, it really does depend on the particular parish you're talking about.

The ones with Eucharistic adoration and all tend to attract more believers in this doctrine,
as well as the parishes that tend to be more traditional and conservative in general.

The more modern and liberal parishes, actually manage to repel the more doctrinal catholics, while attracting those who are there more for reasons of their own.

The size of the confessional lines are rather a good indication
of how doctrinal a parish is in general.
(as well as parishoner's attitudes towards birthcontrol and other similar things)

Also just to say,
I was the pianist/accompanist for a rather liberal RC parish for years,
so I heard ALL KINDS of inside comments there,
and even by many of the people most active in the parish.
Not only didn't they believe in transubstantiation,
they refused to admit that this was what the church actually put forth as true.
(regardless of the catechism that they couldn't be bothered referencing)

 

[HerDotness]

Wow! Things have certainly changed in Catholic churches since I last went to one, then. Not surprising since I haven't been around one for anything but weddings or funerals for about 30 years.

I have a gay cousin who lives in Denver and one reason why he quit going to church was that they were so openly nasty about "hating the sin but loving the sinner" as well as the local bishop or priest, I forget which, disbanding the Dignity group. I'll have to ask him, since he quit long after I did, if he ever heard anybody say they didn't believe in the transubstantiation.

Now that I think about it, not that surprising as many Catholics as get vasectomies, tubes tied or use contraception that they'd have gotten liberal enough to openly deny essential church doctrines, too.

Whew! Just boggles the mind, though, growing up pre-Vat2 as I did that a Catholic would actually say they didn't believe in any of the major stuff like Mary being perpetually a virgin, the virgin birth, the resurrection, the bread-body-wine-blood thingy. No one would EVER have said any such such thing when I was a teenager even. You'd have had a huge knot snatched in your tail FAST if you had!

 

[HerDotness]

Slap muhself upside the head, I'm still so boggled by this.

Geez, those people weren't just questioning church rules...they were flat out denying crucially significant church teachings. B16 would have his signature on their excommunication papers the moment he heard anything like a Catholic not believing this thread topic is literally true!

 

[Kathryn]

It affects whether it's true to her. It doesn't affect whether its true to you. And neither her nor your belief affects whether it's true absent one or the other of you assessing its "truth."

I guess you're just expounding on what I said, since there's no contradiction to what you've said and what I said:

You can choose not to believe it if you like, but your belief doesn't affect whether it's true or not in any way.

 

[Mister Emu]

So in what sense has it changed? Let me guess, "spiritually"

Wrong... substantively.

The fact of the matter where transubstantiation is concerned is that it actually IS cannibalistic

No, it is not, since the Eucharist retains the physical aspects of bread and wine.

"brainwashing"

brainwashing

brainwashing

You keep using that word...

Did I mention he's a medical doctor?

Ergo?

 

[HerDotness]

You keep using that word...[brainwashing]

So? It's not as if someone's opinion is gospel by any means.

And yes, I DO think that the intensive conditioning that Catholics got pre-Vat2 merits the casually applied term "brainwashing."

It was coercive enough that a person my age, early 60's, never quite can escape the guilt.

 

[CarlinKnew]

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.

Non sequitor. Visualization changing the brain has nothing to do with bread turning into flesh.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Wrong... substantively.

Go on...

 

[Mister Emu]

So? It's not as if someone's opinion is gospel by any means.

Reference to The Princess Bride... the whole quote being "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

Go on...

The Eucharist is changed in substance. Not a spiritual change.

 

[HerDotness]

Reference to The Princess Bride... the whole quote being "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

Huh? What word? The word "gospel" as in someone's opinion isn't gospel?

I don't understand what your reference is here.