Contradicitions

[mepatri]

One other point: The fact that you think that the question has been answered by simply giving me the catholic church’s explanation of what transubstantiation is is meaningless in an apologetics forum. You need to support your position with more than just “because we say so” types of responses. It’s not that I don’t understand the concept of transubstantiation, but rather that I disagree with the church’s reasoning on the scriptures it bases its assertions on. These types of questions are proper in an apologetics forum, and should not be dismissed as “answered” by merely giving the official position of the catholic church as if it is self evident and dogmatically true.

Thanks.

 

[DallasCatholic]

I guess what I’m saying is that you can’t have it both ways. If Jesus’ body is not actually present as more than just a sacrement, then the statement by the council of Trent is to be discounted as false (since it is clear that the declaration states the true substance of Jesus’ body - even though it appears as bread, is being consumed) and there is really no miracle at all taking place since the practice is merely sacramental in nature. However, if Jesus’ body is indeed present in its true form under the appearance of bread, then catholics are indeed ingesting Christ’s body parts. This is why the only reasonable inerpretation of the scripture is a spirtual and symbolic one.

It’s important to remember the context of the event. Jesus stated that “the flesh profits nothing.” He also stated that "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. He said this in the context of the spirit. He knew (being a Jew) that the Jewish people believed that if they broke bread together and each ate of the same loaf, that they shared a common bond. Jesus used the bread as an example that one needs to “consume” Him, that He may be in us, and we in Him.

The last supper taken out of context with denial of the spirtual aspect of Jesus’ words opens a complicated and unbelievable senario that is contradictory to other scripture passages and is difficult to reconcile. It’s difficulities are explained away as “sacramental”, or “a mystery” when direct questions are raised. God is not a God of confusion. I believe that when God stated “Come, let us reason together” He asserted his belief in the power of reason, not “mystery”.

Where exactly does God say “Come, let us reason together”? I can’t seem to find that passage. Obviously your bias prevents you from seeing what is clear to millions and what was clear to the ECF. The reasons have been presented and are very clear, the fact that you do not accept them does not change the Truth.

 

[DallasCatholic]

One other point: The fact that you think that the question has been answered by simply giving me the catholic church’s explanation of what transubstantiation is is meaningless in an apologetics forum. You need to support your position with more than just “because we say so” types of responses. It’s not that I don’t understand the concept of transubstantiation, but rather that I disagree with the church’s reasoning on the scriptures it bases its assertions on. These types of questions are proper in an apologetics forum, and should not be dismissed as “answered” by merely giving the official position of the catholic church as if it is self evident and dogmatically true.

Thanks.

The explanation of transubstantiation answers the question, not because “we say so” but because we understand. You claim that you understand transubstantiation but that you disagree with the Church’s reasoning on the scriptures it bases its assertions on. Two questions, 1. What exactly do you disagree with? 2. What is your authority for interpreting scripture?

 

[cpayne]

One other point: The fact that you think that the question has been answered by simply giving me the catholic church’s explanation of what transubstantiation is is meaningless in an apologetics forum. You need to support your position with more than just “because we say so” types of responses. It’s not that I don’t understand the concept of transubstantiation, but rather that I disagree with the church’s reasoning on the scriptures it bases its assertions on. These types of questions are proper in an apologetics forum, and should not be dismissed as “answered” by merely giving the official position of the catholic church as if it is self evident and dogmatically true.

Thanks.

Dear Mepatri: I don’t really think your characterization of this discussion is accurate. Weren’t you the one who originally quoted from the CCC? And then asserted that these Catholic teachings contradicted each other? What the other posters have been doing so far, at least as I read them, is not necessarily asserting the dogmatic truth of their positions, but just pointing out that there is no real contradiction, once the terms involved are properly understood.

At this point, what I’d do is find a good Catholic dictionary or encyclopedia (such as at newadvent.org) and look up “substance.” There really is no contradiction in saying that the substance of the Eucharist is Christ, but the physical accidents remain bread and wine, and so the Friday fast is not violated. You are, of course, free not to BELIEVE that–but that’s a different matter than saying, “This teaching contradicts itself.”

 

[Catholig]

One other point: The fact that you think that the question has been answered by simply giving me the catholic church’s explanation of what transubstantiation is is meaningless in an apologetics forum. You need to support your position with more than just “because we say so” types of responses. It’s not that I don’t understand the concept of transubstantiation, but rather that I disagree with the church’s reasoning on the scriptures it bases its assertions on. These types of questions are proper in an apologetics forum, and should not be dismissed as “answered” by merely giving the official position of the catholic church as if it is self evident and dogmatically true.

Thanks.

Mepatri,

No one is asking it to have it both ways, and if you want to start a discussion concerning the scriptural origins & interpretations of transubstantiation go ahead, but don’t start the discussion by posing a theological question and then ask that we don’t use theology to answer it.

Catholig

 

[mepatri]

The idea of “ingesting Christ’s body parts” has already been sufficiently answered. However, I do have a question for you: Since Jesus said, “Unless you eat My flesh, you have no life in you,” and also said, “The flesh profits nothing,” do you think maybe Christ was just contradicting Himself?

No I don’t. There is a problem with the two statements only if you take the catholic literal view of transubstantiation. In the context of the verse and statement “The flesh profits nothing,” Christ was trying to point out that His followers were fixating on physical food for sustenance, and not elevating Christ and the spirit over their physical needs.

With His statement “Unless you eat My flesh, you have no life in you,” He was likely referring to the fact that His flesh (represented by the bread symbolically) actually sustains your spirit, not your physical body. Do you believe that the sinners that surrounded Christ we dead, having no life in them? No, they were walking around with “life” in them, but the life Christ was speaking about was spirtual. This is evidence that Christ was speaking figuratively, not literally. The “life” He was referring to was the everlasting spirit.

The whole statement is symbolic. For instance, Christ broke the bread before he ate it - symbolizing His body that was broken for us. Your spirit is “nourished” by they symbol of the bread. Your body on the other hand needs physical food. Why would Christ offer up His actual flesh to feed you, when you can take care of your needs yourself with physical food?

If you do not think Christ contradicted Himself, then His statement, “The flesh profits nothing,” does not seem really relevant to the current question, does it?

It is relevant.

 

[mepatri]

No one is asking it to have it both ways, and if you want to start a discussion concerning the scriptural origins & interpretations of transubstantiation go ahead, but don’t start the discussion by posing a theological question and then ask that we don’t use theology to answer it.

Catholig

I have no problem using theology to answer the questions. The problem comes in when I’m told “it’s been answered” when it has not. Using theology is valid, but using a circular argument to prove a point is useless. In fact, the “theology” that was used is faulty. I tried to use evidence by giving the official church position on transubstantiation, only to get rebuttal that was contradictory to the Catechism, and seeing those that gave it either not understading the problem, or turning away from it.

I think this is really where the problem rests. Today’s American Catholics are really out of touch with the official position of the Holy See. There has been a “re-inventing” of the Catholic church in this country that has made up its own form of Catholicism that hardly resembles the position of Rome on many matters.

Even now a new “evangelical” trend is taking place. Men like John Martinoni, Karl Keating, and Patrick Madrid attest to this.

Anyway, thanks for the efforts to answer my questions. I appreciate it. I’ll keep looking for the answers.

 

[DallasCatholic]

I think this is really where the problem rests. Today’s American Catholics are really out of touch with the official position of the Holy See. There has been a “re-inventing” of the Catholic church in this country that has made up its own form of Catholicism that hardly resembles the position of Rome on many matters.

Even now a new “evangelical” trend is taking place. Men like John Martinoni, Karl Keating, and Patrick Madrid attest to this.

Anyway, thanks for the efforts to answer my questions. I appreciate it. I’ll keep looking for the answers.

Do you have any specific examples of this or are you just posting inflammatory remarks to try and provoke an arguement? Perhaps you are just engaging in hyperbole?

 

[mepatri]

As a matter of fact, I do have an example:

I live in New Mexico. The local archbishop of the Santa Fe archdiocese Michael Sheehan, recently hosted a gathering of catholic bishops from around the country addressing the problem of the American catholic missile in the view of Rome. For years Rome has had problems with the American catholic missile as it is communicated to the catholic laity in the US. This is an example of the American catholic church in America cutting its own path.

Also, you can go here:
encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-123576633.html

This will give you a good idea of what I’m talking about. I’m sorry if you feel I’m communicating “inflammatory” remarks. Perhaps you’re really upset with the statement - and not how it’s being communicated. I’m not sure changing the way it’s said will make you feel any better.

 

[Atemi]

I’m confused…are you saying that Protestants take John 6 literally?

No. Not at all…though some do.

What I am saying is that not even Catholics take John 6 literally…but they insist they do.

If you have read any of these responses AND you understand transubstantiation, then you know that in taking Holy Communion a Catholic does indeed eat Christ’s body and blood (which would include flesh)…so exactly which part is it that we are not taking literally?

Here’s an example from another Catholic post:

“The Eucharist is not meat. It is Christ”

Yes, it is supposedly Christ, but is not Christ a man made of meat?

This is a contradiction, IMV.

Did He not command that you should literally gnaw on His flesh?

 

[DallasCatholic]

As a matter of fact, I do have an example:

I live in New Mexico. The local archbishop of the Santa Fe archdiocese Michael Sheehan, recently hosted a gathering of catholic bishops from around the country addressing the problem of the American catholic missile in the view of Rome. For years Rome has had problems with the American catholic missile as it is communicated to the catholic laity in the US. This is an example of the American catholic church in America cutting its own path.

Also, you can go here:
encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-123576633.html

This will give you a good idea of what I’m talking about. I’m sorry if you feel I’m communicating “inflammatory” remarks. Perhaps you’re really upset with the statement - and not how it’s being communicated. I’m not sure changing the way it’s said will make you feel any better.

What I object to is your making a general statement for all American Catholics that is not true for all American Catholics. Painting everyone with the same brush is not a very good idea.

Regarding your example regarding the American Missal (I don’t think the Vatican has any missiles, and certainly American Catholics don’t); There has been dissatisfaction with the english translation of the Missal for some time and will continue to be until a new translation is completed. This certainly doesn’t qualify as American Catholics “cutting their own path”. The Vatican has not issued any condemnations or edicts regarding the American missal they have merely given criticism and direction to the USCCB.

There is nothing in your response or the article that you linked to that substantiates your claim that:

There has been a “re-inventing” of the Catholic church in this country that has made up its own form of Catholicism that hardly resembles the position of Rome on many matters.

While America magazine may claim to be the voice of Liberal Catholics they certainly do not represent the views of myself or the many other Catholics in this country. The Catholic Church in America is in full communion with Rome. If you have any examples that show this is not true I would love to see them.

 

[DallasCatholic]

No. Not at all…though some do.

What I am saying is that not even Catholics take John 6 literally…but they insist they do.

Here’s an example from another Catholic post:

“The Eucharist is not meat. It is Christ”

Yes, it is supposedly Christ, but is not Christ a man made of meat?

This is a contradiction, IMV.

Did He not command that you should literally gnaw on His flesh?

Your comments show that either you do not understand the concept of transubstantiation or you are being willfully ignorant.

 

[teachccd]

The last supper taken out of context with denial of the spirtual aspect of Jesus’ words opens a complicated and unbelievable senario that is contradictory to other scripture passages and is difficult to reconcile. It’s difficulities are explained away as “sacramental”, or “a mystery” when direct questions are raised. God is not a God of confusion. I believe that when God stated “Come, let us reason together” He asserted his belief in the power of reason, not "mystery

So we can reason how God spoke and things leapt into existence? WOW! You’re pretty good!!

You need either a better understanding in the theology of the Eucharist or you need to hear what those here are saying. You are very confused and , maybe through no fault of your own, will continue to misrepresent Catholic teachings as long as you remain where you are. The Eucharist is Jesus period. Not flesh, not teeth, not hair, not anything but the entire Christ.

And when Christ said that flesh is of no avail, do you think that He was speaking of His flesh? I sure hope not. That would make the crucifixion a charade…He gave His flesh for the life of the world. His flesh has infinite meaning…

 

[Atemi]

Your comments show that either you do not understand the concept of transubstantiation or you are being willfully ignorant.

I do understand what Christ clearly said. I guess you do not take Him literally either, as you were very quick to insult me.

 

[DallasCatholic]

I do understand what Christ clearly said. I guess you do not take Him literally either, as you were very quick to insult me.

It is unfortunate that you take a statement of fact as an insult.

 

[Atemi]

It is unfortunate that you take a statement of fact as an insult.

Do you gnaw on the flesh (meat) of Jesus Christ…yes or no?

 

[DallasCatholic]

Do you gnaw on the flesh (meat) of Jesus Christ…yes or no?

Again, your question shows either that
a.) You do not understand the concept of transubstantiation
or
b) you are being willfully ignorant.

 

[cpayne]

No I don’t. There is a problem with the two statements only if you take the catholic literal view of transubstantiation. In the context of the verse and statement “The flesh profits nothing,” Christ was trying to point out that His followers were fixating on physical food for sustenance, and not elevating Christ and the spirit over their physical needs.

With His statement “Unless you eat My flesh, you have no life in you,” He was likely referring to the fact that His flesh (represented by the bread symbolically) actually sustains your spirit, not your physical body. Do you believe that the sinners that surrounded Christ we dead, having no life in them? No, they were walking around with “life” in them, but the life Christ was speaking about was spirtual. This is evidence that Christ was speaking figuratively, not literally. The “life” He was referring to was the everlasting spirit.

The whole statement is symbolic. For instance, Christ broke the bread before he ate it - symbolizing His body that was broken for us. Your spirit is “nourished” by they symbol of the bread. Your body on the other hand needs physical food. Why would Christ offer up His actual flesh to feed you, when you can take care of your needs yourself with physical food?

It is relevant.

Here’s another analogy: When a man and woman become “one flesh,” is that expression just symbolic of their unusual closeness, or is it a sacramental and spiritual reality?

Likewise with transubstantiation (I am assuming that you chose the latter option, above). Catholics believe in the sacramental and spiritual reality of Christ in the Eucharist, not just the symbolic nature of Christ’s life being “in” us in a way.

As for John 6, OF COURSE Christ’s “flesh” sustains our spirit. Do you think Catholics believe in the Eucharist as a snack to strengthen our physical bodies? (I’m actually not trying to be sarcastic; it’s just coming out that way.) When viewed in this way, this also provides the answer to another question: you asked, “Do you think the sinners that surrounded Christ were dead, having no life in them?” The obvious answer is “Yes, they were.” That’s why He pointed them to Himself.

 

[Fergal]

According to the Compendium of the CCC in question 282 we see the following:

282. How is Christ present in the Eucharist?
1373-1375
1413
Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist in a unique and incomparable way. He is present in a true, real and substantial way, with his Body and his Blood, with his Soul and his Divinity. In the Eucharist, therefore, there is present in a sacramental way, that is, under the Eucharistic species of bread and wine, Christ whole and entire, God and Man.

 

[ricmat]

Here’s an example from another Catholic post:

“The Eucharist is not meat. It is Christ”

Yes, it is supposedly Christ, but is not Christ a man made of meat?

This is a contradiction, IMV.

Did He not command that you should literally gnaw on His flesh?

If you’re referring to “not eating meat on Friday”, as was a discipline within the Church in times past (and still during Lent)…“meat” was very narrowly defined. It WAS beef, poultry…[don’t remember the rest], but it WAS NOT e.g. fish. Now by almost any generic definition of meat (as flesh), fish would be included. Shrimp would be included. But for the purposes of this discipline, fish and shrimp (and some other flesh/meat) were not included.

The discipline was actually “You shouldn’t eat certain types of meat on Fridays, but it’s OK to eat others such as seafood.” And of course, the flesh of Christ (meat as you would say) was one of those that were approved.