you did not read my post
thanks for quoting the catholic encyclopedia, but you wouldn’t have had to do that if you had really read my post instead of stopping when i mentioned Ratramnus. i said he didn’t teach merely symbolic, but that he also disagreed with the person whom transubstantiation is largely based. that he would not have held to transubstantiation. and he was catholic.
I am aware of these accounts but these accounts say nothing of the “mechanics” of how it was done. It says nothing of the qualifications of the person who was to do it.
This is what is read at Mass, go to Mass and see for yourself
Where does it say in these passages that only a priest can do this?
Gabriel how was your service today?
I’m waiting for your response in the other thread so we can continue our great conversation Ever since childhood, I have had trouble with Holy Communion. In short, it always seemed to me to be the Christian practice (Catholic or Protestant) that was most in danger of harboring paganism under the guise of Christianity.
Some ancient mystery religions, competitors of early Christianity, preached the notion that a blood sacrifice had to be offered to appease the wrath of God. This was even present in Temple Judaism. Sorry, but I find this pagan. The whole notion that God the Father ordained that his only Son must suffer and die on a cross has always struck me as inane, even child abuse. It hardly fits the notion of God the all merciful, the just, the compassionate. Certainly God was capable of providing our redemption by a more humane and less blood-thirsty means.
When I receive communion, as I frequently do, I regard it instead as a reminder that Christ and millions of others throughout history have suffered and died because of the sin of humankind. How many was it in World War II alone? 60 million, as I recall, all but a handful of them basically innocent, even the patriotic Germans and Japanese who laid down their lives for their countries. And consider those who die daily in Iraq and the Congo, in Kenya and elsewhere in the world. Many others have died as a result of crime, accidents, plagues, etc.
This perspective is far more acceptable to me than the strange notion that God had to die for our sins. There is something quite bizarre and even superstitious about that, a concept not at home in our world today.Dear Roy,
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.
For those that live under the covenant made with Abraham this is still the Law to be observed.
Referring to that which has been sacrificed to idols and pagan ritual.
I have know idea what you are talking about here. I have never read anywhere were Catholic have said that Jesus spit on the Torah as we hold it is very High regard for through Christ we have been share the promise of Gods grace give in the Torah.
It doesn’t say only that kind of blood, since not drinking any blood has been the Law for all humans ever since Noah.
I’m not saying that you say that intentionally, but you say it with your doctrine. Whereas Jesus said not to teach Jews to break the Law.
Jesus meant that if you get a little blood accidentally it won’t magically send your soul to hell, but intentionally disobeying God to drink it will.
I think that is off topic in this thread. This question is more appropriate to the Apostolic Succession thread.
Point taken, but Corinthians I, the Didache, Clement, and other sources suggest a set rite, similar (at the very least at the words of consecration) to our present-day liturgy. We cannot also assume that there worship consisted of just singing like in alot of Protestant services.
.[/indent]“Real presence,” and “transubstantiation” are not the same thing, but two different things.
No, the two are related, and it has to do with how one considers the whether or not the “Presence” is present.
On the contrary, we have exactly how this was done:
Oh really? Tell that to the early Church and they’d call you a Gnostic.
Since we are looking at the Didache, let us also consider:From the second canon of the thirteenth session of the Council of Trent:If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.In other words, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, and in the process the bread and wine cease to exist, except in appearance. The “substance” of the bread and wine do not remain.
From the Didache 10:3 Prayer after communion:Almighty Master, You created all things for Your own purpose;
You gave men food and drink to enjoy,
That they might give You thanks;
But to us You freely give spiritual food and drink,
And eternal life through Your Servant.“Real presence,” and “transubstantiation” are not the same thing, but two different things.
Which came first, the Didache, or the Trent?