Transubstantiation is a Device of Man

[Carol_Coombe]

There was one exchange and one question put that really bothered me, and still swinging in the wind:

*Alms *

…that fail Protestant individuals to see the correct/Catholic view…?

Coombe

This is an example of the (perhaps) blind faith of (perhaps) born Catholics that correct = Catholic = correct.

You must know that it drives other Christians crazy! Why should they assume this? It has not always been so. We know the debates of centuries among Catholic clergy; we know the about recent Encyclicals and Papal Bulls, without resolution, driving many Catholics into subversive behaviour (for want of a better description).

So the Catholic Church, despite its belief in the possibility of infallibility (a concept of man) may sometimes be in error, or force compromises in belief.

We must accept this unless we want to be unthinking sheep. (I have always wondered whether I want to be designated one of Christ’s sheep, one of His lambs: although the image is comforting, sheep are not among the smartest creatures on God’s earth, and they always seem to be being driven to slaughter. If I am a pig, at least I get pearls.)

What say you here? Perfect in interpretation and uniquely infallible? Or capable of compromise, adjustment, engagement, or just recognition that others might also have valid points of view?

Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

There have inevitably been numerous sidebars. Transubstantiation encompasses many CC core beliefs of RCC. I have attempted a list below of what we have grappled with. Many questions have been answered, some well, some not so well, some not at all. Some questions have not yet been asked, and they are noted too.

• What is transubstantiation?
• Was Christ speaking literally or metaphorically when he commanded the disciples/apostles to eat his flesh and drink his blood?
• Can transubstantiation – a concept originated by RCC on the basis of the reported words of Christ recorded in the Gospels - happen?
• Can this happen 10 million+ times a week – a bit more often than other miracles?
• Or is the concept a device of men to get around difficulties of understanding Christ’s words about blood and flesh?

I thought truthstalker’s advice perhaps closest to truth:

Transubstantiation is a device of man, only so far as it is the most reasonable understanding of what happens in Communion, an understanding that is the result of a long debate and process of elimination of all other alternatives. The concept of transubstantiation is not a revelation so much as a deduction, and in that sense it is a device of man, one man uses to explain what is beyond explanation.

• Do other miracles happen in a way that would suggest the transubstantiation is possible?
• Are the compelling mysteries of God – like transubstantiation – so far beyond our understanding that we comprehend them by faith alone through prayer and meditation?
• What does the transubstantiated Eucharist bestow on the believer?
• Is it alone associated with the Presence of Christ/God among us or in us?
• Can one be a Catholic without fully accepting this mystery? Or can one be in the process of trying to understand it?
• Will we go to hell (define), or in fact not even have a life, if we as Catholics or other Christians do not believe in transubstantiation? Is failure to believe rejection of Christ’s sacrifice?
• RCC establishes its authority on the words of the Bible (is it inerrant?), its interpretation of the Scriptures, and its application of that belief to rite and practice. Is the CC infallible in its interpretations of what is already a difficult/wobbly document; are its mandated interpreters always (divinely) inspired to anticipate divine truth from the Scriptures; or are they men, capable sometimes of inaccuracy even after centuries of debate?
• How is it possible that CC alone at all times asserts the only truth?
• On what grounds does RCC assert its absolute authority over all other Christian denominations, when we know (1) that its tenets, principles, practices and interpretations have at times been in error, visibly corrupt, venal, and blind during certain historical periods? (2) that it has been in error on issues of faith and practice? (3) that it might not have survived had it not been rescued by the challenges of reformers?
• Why does RCC continue to denigrate – at least at ground level - the merit of other Christian denominations of long standing, integrity and constant faith? Is it because one faith, one set of interpretations differs from another? Is that not possible with God, for whom all things are possible? Or is there an element bigotry involved here – on both sides?
• Are reasoned interpretations by scholars of reformed churches inevitably antithetical to those of the Roman Church? Are words like disgusting, hypocrisy and denial applicable here? Is there uneasiness because such scholars do not anticipate the correct/Catholic interpretation?
• Is only one interpretation possible: and therefore out with the bread and wine/juice of the communion of remembrance?

See Next

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Questions Outstanding (Not Answered or Not Asked)

• The concept of *divine *or *divinity *which are necessary for comprehending this belief remains undefined.
• Does every Catholic have to believe in miracles – like those of transubstantiation or stigmata – the community of saints, special healing or the sudden onset of divine grace which may tend to clutter one’s doctrinal beliefs and focus on Christ?
• What is the current relationship between confession (reconciliation) and participation in the Eucharist, when confession is required only very occasionally in many churches (Christmas, perhaps Easter)?
• Assuming transubstantiation of the bread and wine is central to Catholic belief – or is it the Eucharist (the presentation) itself –what are the other irreducible core beliefs, starting with the resurrection?
• What role did Christian reformers – starting with Luther – play in setting the RCC back on track during the reformation, and how does this influence our perception of the authority of the reformed churches and the RCC. What would have happened if the reformation had not happened?
• The Eucharist is central to Catholic services and practice, and is a sacrament. For reformed churches, the sermon is central to the service, and communion is either a sacrament or an ordinance. So what?

SEE NEXT

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Please Google hubblesite.org/gallery/, check out the photos, and then sit and think about God for five minutes or more. Where does this leave you: where you were? Or somewhere else? Where does God fit in? Have these photos changed your mental landscape at all in terms of what we as mere mortals, and He as God Almighty, might have on our minds? Is our God finite on Earth or infinite in infinity? My mental landscape has changed dramatically: it is utterly enchanted by the sacred, it is in awe of creation and creator, it is humbled to distraction, and it is dwarfed by new perceptions of what God has done, what He is, what He was, and what He always will be.

As a result, throughout this discussion I have had to go back repeatedly to my preliminary engagement with Catholicism: how to understand the idea of God in the 21st century. It was no good hanging on to something 30 or more years out of date – or was it out of date? Clearly many cling as hard as possible to ancient perceptions of the godhead described in creation myths.

SEE NEXT

 

[Carol_Coombe]

This is what I think I believe today.

From time immemorial, universally, Í* civilisations adopted the concept of a community of \s (totemism, animism, ancestor worship, Vedic traditions) or a single \ (monotheism).
\ was associated with creation myths of early Í communities which have helped define \’s nature and attributes from Í’s perspective.
\ is not created. \ *is. *\ is Eternal Creator before Eternal Creation.
\’s existence cannot be proven: if it could \ would not be .
\ can be comprehended in terms of eternity/infinity, and not of earthbound time and space. *Heaven and hell have no place in this paradigm.
\ is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent.
\ is a \ of unspeakable might and ineffable grace. \ is above all ἀγάπη – caritas.
\ is said to be divine … [definition of divine.]
\’s name is legion, but in the current phase of Í history \ is Yahweh or Y—h, God/G-d, Abba, Jehovah, Elohim, Allah. \ of Christians and Jews is generally known as Y—h, God or Jehovah. [Here I use **Ώ).
Ώ became known, and continues to be known to Í by mutual communication between Ώ and Ώ’s Í, ie believers and those who wish to believe.
Only rarely does Ώ make himself known to Í through explicit interventions and manifestations: students of miracles and Ώ-inspired cause/effect would argue otherwise.
Í communication with \ has been constant over millennia, initially through the paradigm of culture-bound creation myths and related rituals. Latterly Í in the Judaeo-Christian tradition approach Ώ individually or collectively, guided by mentor/priests, creeds and rituals of differing sects.

**** ****In order to define concepts more clearly, and unclouded by existing biases, ** represents the generic godhead; **Ώ **the idea of one true god, principally monotheistic Judaeo-Christian and Muslim traditions; Í describes humanity, persons, or individuals as neutrally as possible. *

This was the best I could do 2 months ago with limited time, energy and mushy brain. But I can engage with this God Almighty better than with the Aryan grandfather, His golden throne, heaven and hell and us in between.

I have set out this jejune understanding to describe the context in which I try to comprehend Catholic faith, and in this case, transubstantiation. Do see Hubble (previous post) before trying to engage!

 

[KennC]

\’s name is legion,

God or the Godheads name is legion?
Legion was the name of a demon at Gadarenes that Jesus had delt with??

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I found this on another thread and thought it helpful.

Do we really eat His flesh?

St Eric

We believe that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. When we recieve Christ in the Eucharist, we believe we are eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ. I have always thought that this meant that we are eating his real flesh and drinking his real blood, under the appearances or bread and wine. I am told, however that this is wrong. I am told that rather that eating his real flesh and drinking his real blood, we are eating and drinking the sacramental Jesus. What exactly does this mean? What is the “sacremental” felsh and blood that we are receiving? In other words, if I tell a non-Catholic “oh no, we don’t really eat the real flesh and drink the real blood of Christ, we only eat and drink the Sacremental Christ.” What am I saying? What does this mean? Thank you.

Fr Vincent Serpa OP

Hi,

I just answered a similar question. But you seem to want to go deeper. To go deeper, however, is to enter into a mystery that is divine. All we know is that Jesus insisted in the necessity of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. This the Apostles did at the Last Supper. They obviously were not trying to consume His body as He physically sat in their presence. They consumed His flesh and blood under the appearances of bread and wine. When we say that they sacramentally consumed His body and blood, we clearly understand what they were NOT doing. No one was nawing on any part of His physical person. Yet by His own statement, they were receiving His body and blood.

A sacrament is a sign instituted by Christ that actually makes present the grace that it signifies. Baptism not only symbolizes a washing or cleansing, it actually IS a cleansing (of original sin). The Eucharist not only symbolizes Christ’s body and blood, it actually IS the His body and blood. But it is a mystery which defies our present ability to fully understand. We simply take the Lord at His word as His Apostles and early Church did.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

 

[JimG]

There have inevitably been numerous sidebars. Transubstantiation encompasses many CC core beliefs of RCC. I have attempted a list below of what we have grappled with. Many questions have been answered, some well, some not so well, some not at all. Some questions have not yet been asked, and they are noted too.

• What is transubstantiation?

Well, I’ll try to answer just one.
Transubstantiation is not, strictly speaking, a miracle. Miracles are unexplainable changes that we can see and experience: making a blind person see, raising Lazarus from the dead, or even a Eucharistic miracle such as Lanciano which involves changing bread into human flesh that we can see and test.

No, transubstantiation is not a miracle because we see and experience no change. The elements appear to remain as they were. But they are not. In fact, only the appearances remain. But appearances are all that we can experience of anything in the world—not just the bread and wine. We can’t directly experience any substance. We only experience appearances—those things which are perceptible to the human senses. (Note that if our senses experienced different factors, different wavelengths of light, for example, reality would appear quite different to us, yet it would be the same reality.)

So when Christ lets the appearances remain while changing the substance, we can detect nothing. What is present under the appearances is Jesus Christ whole and entire, in his body and blood, soul and divinity, his whole person in its humanity and divinity.

If we break the communion host into a dozen pieces, we do not divide Christ. He remains wholly present under each piece. If a thousand or ten thousand communicants receive communion, they do not receive multiple Christs; they each receive only the same one. If a billion communicants receive the host over a period of thousands of years and thousands of places, each receives only the one same Christ. He is never multiplied or divided.

So rather than speaking of a million transubstantiations, there is really only one: it is the one sacrifice of Calvary, made present in every time and place.

Think of a holographic image transmitted throughout space-time from Calvary, backward to the last supper, forward to all times and places where the Eucharist is offered. There is only one.

 

[Keikiolu]

This is what I think I believe today.

From time immemorial, universally, Í* civilisations adopted the concept of a community of \s (totemism, animism, ancestor worship, Vedic traditions) or a single \ (monotheism).

The human conscience is the Godhead within, inherent in all humans.

(( By “Godhead” I mean, "the device which God typically uses to communicate with each person. Whew,… avoided THAT heresy by a hair…!! ))

The conscience, if the person has no “coherent” idea of community (ie if their society is more fractious than unitary), will be percieved of as a plethora of “voices” (polytheism).

If the person exists in a “coherent” society, then “the single voice” is their conscience.

VERY few societies, under this definition, were truly “coherent”, regardless of how the various societies are “classified” by “experts”.

\ was associated with creation myths of early Í communities which have helped define \’s nature and attributes from Í’s perspective.

No one “remembers” their own “creation” (birth) when they are young, and they use that “impression” as a model for “eternity” (neither created or ever destroyed).

This sense of “eternity” is a “foreshadowing” of the eternity of God. God tells us about TRUE eternity by our rememberance of this “remembered eternity”.

Eventually, we see other people born, or CREATED, and come to realize that we WERE created.

We don’t lose our sense of eternity. We simply come to realize that we are created things.

God, thusly, tells us about “created things” as in contradistinction to “eternal things”.

\ is not created. \ *is. *\ is Eternal Creator before Eternal Creation.
\’s existence cannot be proven: if it could \ would not be .

Why would God disallow proof of Himself?

Why would He not be Him if I could prove that He was Him?

I can easily prove that He exists, because I accept that He does, which is my proof, which doesn’t negate His existence.

It simply requires a “shift” in the meaning of the word “proof”.

continued…

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued…

\ can be comprehended in terms of eternity/infinity, and not of earthbound time and space. Heaven and hell have no place in this paradigm.

Heaven and Hell are NECESSARY as required conditions of a God who exists in eternity and who has made Himself known to we temporally bound persons.

If one believes that humanity’s purpose is as a child of God to be “taught” and to reside with Him in His eternal domain, then there must be a differentiation between those who “learned well” and those who “learned poorly” according to their condition.

\ is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent.

Right.

\ is a \ of unspeakable might and ineffable grace.
“Unspeakable might” is handled by onmipotent.
What do YOU mean by “ineffable grace”?

\ is above all ???p? – caritas.

Right. And how is that SHOWN, in your opinion?

\ is said to be divine … [definition of divine.]
\’s name is legion, but in the current phase of Í history \ is Yahweh or Y—h, God/G-d, Abba, Jehovah, Elohim, Allah.
\ of Christians and Jews is generally known as Y—h, God or Jehovah. [Here I use ?).

OK.

? became known, and continues to be known to Í by mutual communication between ? and ?’s Í, ie believers and those who wish to believe.

If you believe this, do YOU have this communication?

Only rarely does ? make himself known to Í through explicit interventions and manifestations: students of miracles and ?-inspired cause/effect would argue otherwise.

“Rarely” rather covers the idea of “miracles” being miracles. Miracles are not non-rare.

The real question is if you believe God “intervenes” in the world at all?

Í communication with \ has been constant over millennia, initially through the paradigm of culture-bound creation myths and related rituals.

God has ALWAYS communicated with humans since we were humans, and we have always communicated with God for the same period.

We do not communicate via myths, but rather via direct willful “talking” (human communication) in the form of some “grammatical contrivance”, which are both linguistic and gesticulation/manipulation (ritual).

Latterly Í in the Judaeo-Christian tradition approach ? individually or collectively, guided by mentor/priests, creeds and rituals of differing sects.

OK.

• In order to define concepts more clearly, and unclouded by existing biases, \ represents the generic godhead; ? the idea of one true god, principally monotheistic Judaeo-Christian and Muslim traditions; Í describes humanity, persons, or individuals as neutrally as possible.

This was the best I could do 2 months ago with limited time, energy and mushy brain. But I can engage with this God Almighty better than with the Aryan grandfather, His golden throne, heaven and hell and us in between.

I have set out this jejune understanding to describe the context in which I try to comprehend Catholic faith, and in this case, transubstantiation. Do see Hubble (previous post) before trying to engage!

Is transubstantiation difficult for you because it violates your “scientific” mind? Can you imagine a person who has both scientific and religious (faithful) decision making processes, and that they DON’T interfere with one another?

My question to you is: Which parts of your “understanding” do you believe, and for those parts you don’t believe, why not?

When you find out what YOU do believe, then you can think about what you think might be missing.

If you REALLY feel you’re not missing anything in your beliefs, then I’ll be very happy for you.

If you feel something missing, then we can talk.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.
[/quote]

 

[DianJo]

We understand, in our memorial feast, that it is not. Christ asked us to eat and drink in memory of Him. But I do not agree with you that it is the only or even the best and most fitting menu for a memorial meal. Where in previous or subsequent history of humanity have we held this belief?

Carol,
When I read your first post to this thread, something struck about what you asked -Where in previous or subsequent history of humanity have we held this belief? And your biggest issue, as I see it, is that you think we cannot take John 6 literally because of other symbolic/metaphorical language elsewhere in the bible

Let me first say, that it must be literal in light of the Passover covenant. Are you familiar with the book of Exodus? The Passover meal was the covenant that God made with the Isrealites - they were to be His people. On the night that the angel of death was to take the first born, God commanded that each family slaughter a young lamb and spread it’s blood on the doorposts and lintel and then cook the lamb a certain way and EAT it. He also commanded that they eat the lamb with unleavened bread (because they weren’t going to have time to let the bread rise and also because leaven is a bacteria that causes things to die. It is symbolic of sin/slavery that God was about to lead them out of). The Passover meal had to be done exactly as God commanded for it to be valid.

If you go back and look at the history of sacrifice, you’ll see that in order for a covenant sacrifice to be valid or binding, the animal to be sacrificed was split in two. One half was burned up to God and the other half was eaten by the priest, who represented the people or in the case of a sin/guilt offering, it was eaten by the priest and the person making the offering.

It was the night of the Last Supper that Jesus changed the Passover meal into the Eucharistic meal, commonly known now as Mass.

The “cups” spoken of in the Passover meal are: Sanctification, Redemption, Blessing and Acceptance.
The first cup is Sanctification. The unleavened bread is brought out. It’s called the bread of affliction, the poor bread and a large piece of it is broken in half. One half is eaten and the other is hidden to be brought back later in the meal. At this point, Jesus would’ve consecrated this bread - “Do this is memory of Me.”
The 2nd cup, Redemption. They all prepare to eat the ritual meal (the matzah, bread) by washing their hands. This is where Jesus would’ve washed the feet of the Apostles (instituting the priesthood. The Apostles were to be servants). At the end of eating the bread, the larger piece that was hidden earlier would be brought back out, the head of the household would break off a piece for everyone at the table (thus, Communion).
The third cup, the Blessing cup, is when Jesus would’ve consecrated the wine. It’s after this cup that there’s another - The Cup of Elijah - and the doors and windows of the house are opened in hopes of greeting the prophet Elijah, the expected messanger to proclaim the coming of the Messiah. This is when Jesus leaves the Passover meal and goes out to the garden to pray.
The fourth cup is the cup of Acceptance. Jesus prays in the garden that the Father “take this cup from me,” then He says that “Your will be done.” Jesus has “accepted” His fate - to be crucified for man’s redemption. He finally takes the fourth cup on the cross in John’s gospel when the sponge with sour wine is given to him and He takes the wine and then says, “It is finished.” The Passover meal is finished, it is completed.

The lamb has been sacrificed and His blood has been put on the doorposts and lintel (the cross) and we partake by eating of the sacrifcial lamb - we eat the sacrifice, too. It is a vaild covenant with God. The New Covenant made by Jesus. He fulfiiled the old.

So, you see, that Jesus had to be the lamb and the lamb had to be eaten in order for the covenant to be valid and so we partake of the new covenant at every Mass - perpetually. It was meant to be that way just like the Jews celebrate Passover and make that event really present again so as to partake of the sacrifical lamb and to make their covenant valid again with God just as He directed them to do - perpetually on that night in Egypt.

You said in the beginning of your post that “We understand, in our memorial feast, that it is not.” Well, the Mass is a memorial feast - the word used is “anemnesis” (sp?). It means not only remember but to actually make the past present again and has sacrifical meaning. Its’s only used twice and in both times it’s in relation to sacrifice.

So, unfortunately, in your memorial feast, you misunderstand what God intended because it’s clear from the Passover meal and the Exodus and the culmination of all the sacrifices that God taught His people to do in preparation for the final and perpetual sacrifice in Christ.

Does transubstantiation become a little clearer now in light of the Passover? I hope so.

 

[guanophore]

Was Christ speaking literally or metaphorically when he commanded the disciples/apostles to eat his flesh and drink his blood?

What if there is another option? What if he was speaking sacramentallly? Supposing that He intended to enter the elements just as He entered human form?

“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” Phil 2:5-8

Supposing this is a model for Christ encountering us in many realms? The incarnational principle, the divine being emptied into the physical runs throughout all the sacraments.

• Can transubstantiation – a concept originated by RCC on the basis of the reported words of Christ recorded in the Gospels - happen?

It was not the “concept” that was formed by the RCC. That term was used, yes, but the concept was present from the very first apostles (Paul writes about it in his letters to the early churches) and is found consistently through the fathers. Another witness to the fact that it is not a RCC concept is that it is found equally, as is the veneration of Mary, in the Orthodox churches of the East, who have not participated in RCC doctrinal debates since the ninth century.

I thought truthstalker’s advice perhaps closest to truth:

• Do other miracles happen in a way that would suggest the transubstantiation is possible?
• Are the compelling mysteries of God – like transubstantiation – so far beyond our understanding that we comprehend them by faith alone through prayer and meditation?

I think that one reason they are called “mysteries” a term used liberally in the Eastern liturgy, is precisely because they are incomprehensible to the human mind. Like the example given above, I cannot begin to grasp how Jesus was able, being in the form of God, to become human. How can that BE!? However, I accept by faith that this is what has happened, and I know that "
12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.1 Cor 13:11-12

• What does the transubstantiated Eucharist bestow on the believer?

All that Jesus speaks about in John 6

• Is it alone associated with the Presence of Christ/God among us or in us?

Now, your own experience has already given witness that it is not!

• Can one be a Catholic without fully accepting this mystery? Or can one be in the process of trying to understand it?

Your spiritual directors have told you so. I have also told you that you are already more Catholic than most Catholics! I think your desire to comprehend with your mind is the onlly thing holding you back. If you can accept that they are mysteries you do not understand, it is enough. I know the first Apostles did not ever hear the word “transubtantiation”, and probably would be very baffled why we struggle so much with the whole thing. Do you think they got hung up when sitting around the table, trying to rationalize "what did he MEAN? No, they took the bread, and ate it, and took the cup, and drank it.

 

[Truthstalker]

Was Christ speaking literally or metaphorically when he commanded the disciples/apostles to eat his flesh and drink his blood?

The point here, I think, is that He was speaking. I can’t see the disciples discussing this at the Last Supper. “Take. Eat. Take. Drink. This is My body. This is My blood.” It ws not the occaision for the discussion of platonic ideals and modality of His incarnation in the Eucharist. Somehow, He is really here. In a real way. He is more present in the Eucharist than we are present at it.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Dianjo

When I read your first post to this thread, something struck about what you asked -Where in previous or subsequent history of humanity have we held this belief? And your biggest issue, as I see it, is that you think we cannot take John 6 literally because of other symbolic/ metaphorical language elsewhere in the bible.

I am very grateful for your thoughtful comments, and I want to engage with them more fully.

At the outset, I should emphasise however that we need to read carefully what was asked. (1) I asked where in previous history of our culture/civilisation have we seen the custom of eathing human flesh and drinking human blood. I suppose the question is more sociological than spiritual or religious. I used Papua New Guineans and Andaman Islanders as examples of cultures who actually do eat the flesh of dead relatives and friends. But I cannot think where it has been applied in our culture, and so it springs out at me in a surprising way. (2) I did not say or imply that we *cannot *take John 6 literally because of metaphors elsewhere in Scripture. What I asked was why Christ’s commandment was interpreted literally rather than metaphorically, when the latter would have been easier on everyone. There are lots of literal truths in the Bible, and lots of metaphorical truths as well.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

DallasCatholic

: defensiveness is a gut reaction when people perceive they are being attacked, [especially in the case of an] “unquestionable truth”.

I noted a posting: rather than proselytizing CC’s stance is to ‘defend the faith’.
Jimmy
*

It is not the same thing as cannibalism.

*I did not say or imply it was: others might think it had elements of cannibalism.

Other Christian denominations are irrelevant to CC teaching. CC cannot change teachings because others reject them. CC teachings predate protestant and all other churches: there can be no alternative.

CC need not change its teachings; there can be alternatives; there are alternatives; there are a number of legitimate interpretations; CC is not the only keeper of the faith.
*

it is the substantial presence of Christ within us after we have received that makes it significant.

*Thank you. I am starting to understanding the sacramental nature of Eucharist: what you say rings true.
JimG
*

He said “this is my body,” and meant it. That’s how the apostles and their successors understood it. How can I, who was not there, try to second guess what has been handed down?

*I still get muddled because what Christ is reported to have said is now metaphorical or now literal. Is it a hit and miss affair? Why is one literal, another metaphorical? Perhaps context, perhaps authorship etc.
But the difference between the appearance of the Eucharist, and its substance, helps to make possible an understanding of its sacramental nature. It is perhaps sort of like people: we know you are there (your appearance), but you –mind, spirit, soul (your substance) – remains a mystery.
*

When it comes to handing down Faith, the Church has a negative charism, not a positive one.

*Let me think about this: I have not encountered the idea of negative charism before, but it makes sense as you have put it.
*

if you had an extensive oral history of family events and if someone were to say “that is not what your grandmother really meant” or “that particular event never happened that way, because I researched all the family letters,” I would say, no you are wrong, because those are the things that have been handed down to me from the beginning, and my family doesn’t lie.

*Lie is a strong word. I do not understand your rationale here. Why can there not be different or new interpretations? Our family recently discovered from computerized military archives that our mother, adopted by a wealthy Baptist family in Canada, was actually the daughter of a so-called ‘Mexican greaser’ who absconded and did fraud all down the US before disappearing into Mexico. I told her the story two months before she died last October. We had only learned the true story, after years of searching and years of hoping we were of Canadian Indian or Goan Indian descent as rumour had it. So, it’s likely South American Indian. Do I go back to the Canadian First Nation theory, or back further to the wealthy Baptist theory, or what?
*

All Christian churches ultimately derive from and depend in some way on the Catholic Church.

• No. Sorry.

If the Catholic Church had not been founded by Christ, there would be no others. There would, in fact, be no bible.

*One might suggest that if the reformers had not challenged CC during its nadir, the CC might no longer exist.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

DallasCatholic
*

Are you familiar with the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy?

*I answered this elsewhere: there was flesh and blood; perhaps the heart did not appear fraudulently. But I see the town of Lanciano does not mention the miracle on its website. It does mention that ‘According to tradition, Lanciano is the birthplace of Longinus the Roman centurion who thrust his spear into Jesus’ side during the Crucifixion’.
jimmy

• Are you a unitarian universalist? The only place I have encounted a view like this is in discussions with unitarian universalists. *

I don’t know what a Unitarian universalist is. I grew in faith in the Baptist Church of Canada.
*

Do you believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection of Jesus or the raising of Lazarus …etc. If you believe there is no reason you couldn’t believe in transubstantiation or any other miracle.

• Right now, today, I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception; I am not even sure Mary existed. I am working on resurrection. Today I do not believe in miracles, but I do believe that Jesus had a healing power which he used with compassion, and also as a great teaching aid. I can’t be a Catholic overnight!

With God anything is possible…. if you had faith of a mustard seed a mountain would pick itself up and throw itself into the sea.

• OK, go for it! End the HIV pandemic. Pick up the pieces of the tsunami. End global warming. Makes you think, no?
  guanophore

*if you could be relieved of it [your obsessive thinking and analyzing], things would be a lot easier for you. *

• I have absolutely no doubt that you speak the truth. *I had another thought (overthinking). I am doing brainwork (theology); I should be doing heartwork (faith). I now think there are three elements here, not two. The third: the compassion that brings us into intimate contact with the faith of others. If I can use the example of my HIV work globally: I encountered many people of great faith among those who were dying, those caring for them, those trying to understand and plan, nuns caring for AIDS orphans in Burma, Zambian teachers paying fees for orphans from their meager salaries, because it was right.
  I have huge character flaws. But for some reason I have been given a great dollop of compassion. As a result of the way I interact with people, I have received from them the great miracle of their faith. This is what has sustained me through the years: their faith, their prayers, their trust, their belief that Christ will sustain and bless them, and their hope for something better. In all of this, I was blessed by their faith, their smiles, their prayers and hymns (most Africans don’t bother about whether they can open a meeting with Christian song and prayer – they just do it), their hands and hearts, and it sustained me. It made me too hope for something better, even when my own faith was pretty much like a worm in a muddy pond. I saw ineffable suffering; I saw too enduring hope and trust.

[Satanists’ belief in the nature of the Eucharist] is another testimony to the truth….They are not hindered by reason.

• I understand your point, but is this an odd way of proving – the perception of goons?

Is it possible for you to have peace in the process?

*Great peace is coming here, with support from posters, since I moved from my last swamping thread. I grateful to those who have given time, advice, ideas on this one, and am even making progress.
*

Surely you don’t feel that you have to resolve all of them before joining the church!

*I am not sure. You tell me. How much to I have to know and believe before I can be confirmed?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

guanophore
*

The Magesterium of the CC believes that Christ gave it the duty to profess, promulgate, guard and interpret his teachings; that Jesus promised to be with them, that His spirit would protect them from error. I think they would say “yes” that extends to all believers, and all the world (including different believers). They believe they represent the teachings of Christ most faithfully to all the world.

*I cannot and probably will not believe that CC is the only keeper of the true faith, just as there is no one keeper of the faith for Islam (although look at internecine strife in Iraq), or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Judaism.
*

Although I don’t understand or agree with it all, my life is more peaceful and productive when I am obedient; that the more I am obedient and submissive the more Teachings make sense or are easier to accept.

*You are a reasoned thinker and you know that. My character flaws include arrogance, tendency to confrontation, insistence on correct and logical analysis, determination to be at the centre where decisions are made rather than being on the outer fringes where lurkers watch and wait. Obedience, submission, peace, (mindless) acceptance are big difficulties. I am working on it as are many others I am sure. I could say that my profession required me to be as I am, or my military family. Or I could say it is time to take myself in hand, leave this shell behind to create a new substance while the appearance of Me stays the same. Which is what I think I am doing.
*

If there are other alternatives equally plausible or commendable, why make changes?

*God knows. He has chosen each of us from birth; He seems to have chosen me for some purpose. I have already had several purposes, a richly textured life, and am waiting God’s next assignment. This one seems particularly stressful, but I shall perhaps be tamed. I am sure if I wait for Him, he will make all clear.
*

…if she cannot from the heart say she believes it [Catholic doctrine], she will not feel comfortable going through with it.

*That is why it is important to know how much one has to know, to believe. If I cannot in honesty say *I believe the core doctrines of the Church of Rome, *I cannot be confirmed.
*

I think most protestants would say… that non-Catholics overall do a better job of being sacrament to the world, bringing Christ into society, than those who profess substantiation.

*My Catholic experience of the past two years suggests you are correct. It troubles me. My lay preacher sister, United Church of Canada, is totally practical – will not be bothered with all this to-ing and fro-ing.
jimmy
*

To say we should accept protestant teaching as valid is to say we should abandon our teaching, that it doesn’t matter if Christ established one church: they are all equal even though they all … rebelled against or rejected the one church.

*Remember reformers did not rebel against the Bible – they asked to know it – nor did they rebel against Christian faith. They rebelled against the unjustifiable excesses of the CC at that time.
Let’s take another example of differing belief. I find it impossible to say that a Hindu, a Jain, a Taoist or a Buddhist is a pagan, an unbeliever; that they have no concept of the one real truth discovered by CC/me and to which CC/I are anchored. I respect other religions, and those who cling to them. They are as blessed as we are. You would disagree, but that’s OK. No one has a lock and chain on the truth.
DallasCatholic
*

This thread has been long and winding. I’m hoping that Carol will give us a new question…so that we can continue the dialog.

*I hope people will look at the list (above) amend, add, adjust. I have tried to be as neutral as possible, and to focus on the core of this thread, but am not sure that I did the discussion justice. Thanks for sticking with it. There is still lots to do, but I have been profoundly changed.

 

[DallasCatholic]

I answered this elsewhere: there was flesh and blood; perhaps the heart did not appear fraudulently. But I see the town of Lanciano does not mention the miracle on its website. It does mention that ‘According to tradition, Lanciano is the birthplace of Longinus the Roman centurion who thrust his spear into Jesus’ side during the Crucifixion’.

Sorry Carole, I did not see where you answered this elsewhere. I don’t understand why the town not mentioning the miracle on their website has any bearing on the miracle itself.

To me this miracle would be very difficult to explain away. Even if you were to posit that somehow a Priest in the 8th century was able to pull off a hoax how would you explain:
the Host being actual cardiac tissue
the Cardiac tissue and the blood being the same type
the blood being “fresh”

Perhaps the hardest thing to explain, to me, would be how (even if the original action was a hoax) have the cardiac muscle and blood remained uncorrupted for appx. 1300 years? Please understand I am not asking you to explain these things, I am just enumerating why I think this miracle is so difficult to explain away.

It sounds as if you are making great progress and I pray that you will come into the Church at Easter. I think that you will have to trust your mentors. If your Pastor and your Bishop allow you to enter the Church then you have to trust that they, as representatives of the Church, know what they are doing.

I also commend you on your comment about getting “heart” knowledge. There is a Baptist pastor who I respect very much who constantly warns that you can have all of the knowledge of Christ and Salvation that is humanly possible but if Christ is not in your heart it will avail you nothing. He points to his own life at seminary where he said his head was full of knowledge but it was the most spiritually bereft he has ever been. I hope that you will continue to find help and support on this forum.

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…
Quote:
To say we should accept protestant teaching as valid is to say we should abandon our teaching, that it doesn’t matter if Christ established one church: they are all equal even though they all … rebelled against or rejected the one church.
Remember reformers did not rebel against the Bible – they asked to know it – nor did they rebel against Christian faith. They rebelled against the unjustifiable excesses of the CC at that time.

You can’t reform what you don’t “possess”. The protestant revolt created a seperated “church”, which granted no authority to the actual Church. It thereby gave itself NO AUTHORITY to “reform”, or otherwise influence, the body from which it left.

They rebelled against THEIR CHURCH, and formed a new creation,… non-Church churches.

But,… it was according to God’s plan, obviously, and served as a good “prod” to make the Church get serious about straightening up it’s act (in the “political” realm, not in the faith and morals realm).

Let’s take another example of differing belief. I find it impossible to say that a Hindu, a Jain, a Taoist or a Buddhist is a pagan, an unbeliever; that they have no concept of the one real truth discovered by CC/me and to which CC/I are anchored.

A pagan is simply someone who is not “from the (civilised) cities” (latin: Pagani),… and was used primarily to distinguish Christians from non-Christians.

Therefore, pagans ARE simply unbelieving (“unbelievers”) people who haven’t “attained” the truth yet.

Now, these people DO indeed have some inkling of a piece of “the Truth” (Christianity), as the Catholic catechism admits (842-843 and environs), because all humans are drawn toward God.

I respect other religions, and those who cling to them. They are as blessed as we are. You would disagree, but that’s OK. No one has a lock and chain on the truth.

They are NOT as blessed as we are, as they have not been given a more thorough measure of the truth (as we Christians have), and no one is more blessed than the Catholic person, as they have the fullest measure of the truth.

Truth is not a “commodity” to be held in a box under lock and key. The Church (Catholic) wants nothing more than to distribute the Truth as widely as possible!

Truth must be accepted as truth, by whatever “logic” it is that people accept “truths”.

If you TRULY think that their religion is as “true” and “full” as yours, then why did you choose yours?

It’s fine to respect other religions as what they are, but to elevate them to being on par with what you KNOW is a “superior product” is quite simply wrong. Would you not agree?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Although I don’t understand or agree with it all, my life is more peaceful and productive when I am obedient; that the more I am obedient and submissive the more Teachings make sense or are easier to accept.
You are a reasoned thinker and you know that. My character flaws include arrogance, tendency to confrontation, insistence on correct and logical analysis, determination to be at the centre where decisions are made rather than being on the outer fringes where lurkers watch and wait. Obedience, submission, peace, (mindless) acceptance are big difficulties. I am working on it as are many others I am sure. I could say that my profession required me to be as I am, or my military family. Or I could say it is time to take myself in hand, leave this shell behind to create a new substance while the appearance of Me stays the same. Which is what I think I am doing.

You too…!? Heh he he he he…

The lovely thing about the Catholic Church is that it has established ways to curb my arrogance, mitigate my NEED for confrontation, has WONDERFUL resources for making logical and sensible (correct) decisions about matters of faith, and allows me to be AT THE HEART of the decision making processess because of the copious documentation from THE HEART of the Church.

Obedience to an authority who is, quite simply, CORRECT at all times, in their appropriate area (faith and morals), is a HUGE promoter of personal peace (tranquility) and THE BIGGEST reason that I can commit to a NON-MINDLESS acceptance of the truth, as the entire Church is doggedly dedicated to dealing with EVERY controversy that arises.

I feel very sorry for those who don’t have the dedicated institutions and true authority handed down by our Savior Himself to work with.

We “control-freaks” need more experienced and authoritative “control-freaks” to obey if we are to have any peace with ourselves.

Is that reasonable?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.