Transubstantiation is a Device of Man

[Carol_Coombe]

Keikiolu:

*You can’t reform what you don’t “possess”. The protestant revolt created a separated “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).

It was principally in the faith and morals realm that the Augean stables needed cleaning. There are Catholics who firmly believe that if the Vatican had paid any attention, or more attention, to Luther, there would not have been a schism. I am glad you noted the idea there was a rebellion in the CC and that it was for legitimate reasons. There is no such thing as a non-church church. Otherwise I find it hard to engage with your logic here. So sorry.

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. 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 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? *
Are you suggesting Mahatma Ghandi was an uncivilised pagan not worthy to stand on the same elevated pedestal as you do? Sail on silver girl, sail on by.

I choose NOT to engage with your comments here because I believe absolutely that there are elements of bigotry throughout your statement, well-meaning as it might be. You could probably work to weed them out, and perhaps you should try. If you read again what you have written, you might see what I mean.

You must remember I live in South Africa, a diverse country - Mandela’s place, where we try to live by ***ubuntu ***- richly textured even after years of apartheid. We do not have much of an inclination to downgrade The Other’s race, creed, beliefs, rights etc enshrined in our Constitution.

Ubuntu is an African concept, with many possible translations in English: Humanity towards others; I am because we are; I am what I am because of what we all are; A person ‘becomes human’ through other persons; A person is a person because of other persons. A popular definition of ubuntu is, “the belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity.” An attempt at a longer definition has been made by Archbishop Desmond Tutu (1999):
A person with ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed.

Siyabonga, Siyajabula
Aluta Continua

 

[Carol_Coombe]

You too…!? 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 ? do you mean mindless, or nonmindless?] 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?

Since you ask: NO! All the experience and authority I need will come from Christ’s example. I think perhaps you are trekking down a path on a hiding to nothing looking for mindless submission. It may give you eternal salvation, comfort, self-love and self-esteem (see CCC), but it will not make a blind bit of difference in anyone else’s life. We need to believe with our heads; we need to have faith in our hearts; and we need to have compassion, lovingkindness, understanding in our relationships with others on this Earth.

Blessings

 

[Sixtus]

Jesus said ‘unless you eat my left toe and chew my left toe nail you will not have any life in you’

HOW RIDICULOUS

guanophore

Transubstantiation is a Device of Man
Quote:Originally Posted by Carol Coombe

If I am a literalist, I would need a bit of Christ’s body to eat - His right finger? a left toe, a bit of hair? Disgusting thought, heinous sin, grotesque cannibalism.

Most of what Jesus said and taught was not intended to be taken literally. it is ok to commit adultery and to marry a divorced person. He was only kidding, it was a wind up…ha ha got you going, you thought it was sinful to marry a divorcee didn’t you ha ha.

It is ok to kill too. You can covert your neighbours wife, his goods and anything else that takes your fancy. The 10-commandments given to Moses were not literal. God did not really speak to Moses, it just does not conform the the laws of nature. God speaking is immutable. He does not interfere in nature.

St Paul did not really have a vision on the road to Damascus, he was blinded by something but what we will never know, probably the arc lights on a passing alien space-craft!!

It all makes sense now!!! Just one thing bothers me: When Jesus said: ‘unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you’ and His followers said ‘this man is talking rubbish now, how can he give us his flesh to eat’ and they stopped following Him. If He did not mean it literally, why did He not call out ‘hey you guys, look I didn’t mean you to take me so seriously, hey come on, keep following me’! No, He did not say/do that. Instead, He called after them ‘unless you eat my flesh, you will have no life in you’! Why did He say that?

The only logical conclusion I can come up with is** He said it because** ridiculous though it sounds HE MEANT IT!!!

 

[Jon_S]

What barriers do you think are there causing no or lack of faith?

The barrier is the human need to explain everything through the five senses. If faith is a test, then the Eucharist is the ultimate bonus question.

†

 

[Jon_S]

Since you ask: NO! All the experience and authority I need will come from Christ’s example. I think perhaps you are trekking down a path on a hiding to nothing looking for mindless submission. It may give you eternal salvation, comfort, self-love and self-esteem (see CCC), but it will not make a blind bit of difference in anyone else’s life. We need to believe with our heads; we need to have faith in our hearts; and we need to have compassion, lovingkindness, understanding in our relationships with others on this Earth.

Blessings

I get the feeling from this quote that you are calling me a brainless idiot. Charity! Come on, now!

 

[Truthstalker]

Since you ask: NO! All the experience and authority I need will come from Christ’s example. I think perhaps you are trekking down a path on a hiding to nothing looking for mindless submission. It may give you eternal salvation, comfort, self-love and self-esteem (see CCC), but it will not make a blind bit of difference in anyone else’s life. We need to believe with our heads; we need to have faith in our hearts; and we need to have compassion, lovingkindness, understanding in our relationships with others on this Earth.

Blessings

Frankly, Carol, we need none of these things.

We need Christ, and in Him we have all things.

Without Him we have nothing.

We don’t need His example, salvation, faith, compassion, or anything else. We need Him. He then provides all these things and more.

In the Eucharist we have Him, because He comes to us more than we go to Him, and because He is more there than we are here.

 

[Jon_S]

In the Eucharist we have Him, because He comes to us more than we go to Him, and because He is more there than we are here.

Amen.

 

[JimG]

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

None of the reformers, however, actually reformed the Church. What they did was to start new churches with new and different doctrines. Even at that, most protestant churches of today no longer accept the doctrines of their founders.

There have, however, always been true reformers within the Church—people such as Teresa of Avila and Francis of Assisi, who did reform the Church from within.

 

[Shoshana]

Frankly, Carol, we need none of these things.

We need Christ, and in Him we have all things.

Without Him we have nothing.

We don’t need His example, salvation, faith, compassion, or anything else. We need Him. He then provides all these things and more.

In the Eucharist we have Him, because He comes to us more than we go to Him, and because He is more there than we are here.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I know. It completely baffles my mind that the John 6 discourse can be interpreted any other way except for the actual body and blood of Jesus. I don’t think an engineering instruction manual could be more descriptive.

Isn’t it ironic that so many people believe that the Bible ought to be taken at face value, while at the same time picking and choosing a verse here an a chapter there to interpret as metaphor?

Years ago I got into that discussion with a fundamentlist I knew (who had been raised Catholic, by the way), and his reasoning was that there are some things in Scripture that obviously can’t be taken literally – like when Christ says something like “I am the door…” – but that most of it is straightforward and literal. I guess this gives them an “out” for such things as the John 6 discourse and the accounts of the Last Supper: “Why would Jesus tell us to eat him? Ew – that MUST be a metaphor!”

Such is the extent of Biblical scholarship when one rules out contextual and literary analysis and focuses only on literalism: one finds it necessary to make exceptions and ascribe them to “common sense”.

Boy, do I sound judgemental and condescending, or what?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
**You can’t reform what you don’t “possess”. The protestant revolt created a separated “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).

It was principally in the faith and morals realm that the Augean stables needed cleaning. There are Catholics who firmly believe that if the Vatican had paid any attention, or more attention, to Luther, there would not have been a schism.

They (the Catholic authorities) should have REFORMED their politics and behaviors much much sooner than that!

I agree with you. That doesn’t negate the fact that the “schism” was actually a revolt, and created a group OUTSIDE the group that that group wanted to “reform”.

You can’t reform what you aren’t a part of. One of the “reforms” the revolutionaries wanted was to have an authority over the Pope. That would simply disestablish the Catholic Church as the Catholic Church.

I am glad you noted the idea there was a rebellion in the CC and that it was for legitimate reasons. There is no such thing as a non-church church. Otherwise I find it hard to engage with your logic here. So sorry.

There was no “rebellion” within the Church, because rebels, just like in heaven, fall out of the body.

Those who promoted VERY necessary reform did so in ways which they accepted at all points the authority of the Pope. They worked, as all should, from within the body.

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

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?

Are you suggesting Mahatma Ghandi was an uncivilised pagan not worthy to stand on the same elevated pedestal as you do? Sail on silver girl, sail on by.

He was quite civilized. He was also a pagan. He was also a very holy and wise man who apparently understood a part of the truth as revealed to Christians.

I don’t stand on an elevated pedestal. I stand on my own measly legs with the grace of God, and rely on Him to do wht needs to be done, while I TRY (and usually stumble) to do His will.

And I’m not a female.

I choose NOT to engage with your comments here because I believe absolutely that there are elements of bigotry throughout your statement, well-meaning as it might be. You could probably work to weed them out, and perhaps you should try. If you read again what you have written, you might see what I mean.

Show me my bigotry, as you see it, and I’ll show you your prejudices.

continued…

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

]
You must remember I live in South Africa, a diverse country - Mandela’s place, where we try to live by ubuntu - richly textured even after years of apartheid. We do not have much of an inclination to downgrade The Other’s race, creed, beliefs, rights etc enshrined in our Constitution.

I don’t seek to “downgrade” anyone’s beliefs. They were incorrect when they were encountered by Christians, and they are still incorrect.

If you understood the concept of Charity as professed by Catholics you’d see that it is encumbent on me to allow people there own ways while showing them where they are incorrect according to revealed truth. They are not to be in any way coerced into changing their beliefs. They are to be shown the truth, and persuaded of it’s truthfulness as best possible, and allowed to freely choose truth over their error.

“Catholic” means “universal”. Every race, culture, language, hair-color, human morphological variant is welcomed into the Church and welcomed to keep every part of themselves that doesn’t clash with Christianity.

What is needed to not clash with Christianity?
*) Love God above all.
*) Love your neighbor as youself.
*) Obey the Church’s decisions (as promulgated by the Magesterium).

Ubuntu is an African concept, with many possible translations in English: Humanity towards others; I am because we are; I am what I am because of what we all are; A person ‘becomes human’ through other persons; A person is a person because of other persons. A popular definition of ubuntu is, “the belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity.”

(( From CCC: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a1.htm ))
1702 The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons, in the likeness of the unity of the divine persons among themselves (cf. chapter two).
1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."7
1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him "to do what is good and avoid what is evil."9 Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person.

(( see also: scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm ))

There are various other treatises on Man’s humanity in community and responsibilities toward neighbor, but I don’t have the time right now.

An attempt at a longer definition has been made by Archbishop Desmond Tutu (1999):
A person with ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed.

Siyabonga, Siyajabula
Aluta Continua

Isn’t Des a Catholic…?

It is never wise to humiliate, demean or diminish other PERSONS.

It is often wise to correct people’s errors.

What does your Bible say about how to do what is right for the Gentiles?

If you want more information on what many wise and experienced people think of how to best implement and understand how to do that good work, you can use the Catechism (Catholic) as an index into the vast repository that is the Church:

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

Prayin’ for 'ya,… as always.

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

 

[Keikiolu]

Since you ask: NO! All the experience and authority I need will come from Christ’s example.

That’s cool. If you wish to forego the massive resources available to you, go for it.

You do of course realize that all the information that you have is FROM the resource that you say you “don’t need” above, right?

I think perhaps you are trekking down a path on a hiding to nothing looking for mindless submission.

A protestant thinks that wisdom from any source except “personal revelation” is invalid. The question of course is where they get the information which triggers that personal revelation.

I submit to wisdom, as you do, based on what you consider wisdom.

You consider only SOME of the Catholic information you’ve received to be worthy to be called wisdom.

I choose to consider ALL of the wisdom of the Church as wise, in those areas where the Church itself has said it is wise.

It may give you eternal salvation, comfort, self-love and self-esteem (see CCC), but it will not make a blind bit of difference in anyone else’s life.

Uh,… eternal salvation would be good,… I’ll take that…!

If it is deemed by God that I should receive “salvation”, then I must have been a good person, and as a good person I will have had to be a good person to others.

Hmmm,… sounds like if I will have had to have had a positive effect on somebody else…!

We need to believe with our heads; we need to have faith in our hearts; and we need to have compassion, lovingkindness, understanding in our relationships with others on this Earth.

Blessings

I absolutely agree with you…!!

We do need to believe with our reason, and my reason says that I should find the wisest and most experienced group of people and “data” from which to form and understand my beliefs.

We do need to have faith in our hearts, and my heart soars with the faith I find in the Church.

We do need to have compassion, love, and understanding with ALL people on this planet, and the Church is professed CATHOLIC, meaning “universal”,… and the ONE true Church established and perpetuated from the “beginning” by Jesus Himself.

Why are you angry with me? Or, who are you angry with?

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

 

[Carol_Coombe]

None of the reformers, however, actually reformed the Church. What they did was to start new churches with new and different doctrines. Even at that, most protestant churches of today no longer accept the doctrines of their founders.

There have, however, always been true reformers within the Church—people such as Teresa of Avila and Francis of Assisi, who did reform the Church from within.

What was the Reformation all about, in the view of RCC? This is a sidebar, but an important theme throughout this thread, with which few have engaged.

Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

***From Carol: ****We need to believe with our head, to have faith in our hearts and lovingkindness in our relationships with others. *

**From Truthstalker: **

Frankly, Carol, we need none of these things. We need Christ, and in Him we have all things. … He then provides all these things and more. In the Eucharist we have Him, because He comes to us more than we go to Him, and because He is more there than we are here. *

Once we are in Christ’s care through the sacraments of the Church, he will guide us, mentor us throughout our Christian lives, and all things are provided.

I have emphasized three principal elements of faith is because I am troubled by reading CCC (1419) about what we obtain by participating in the Eucharist: Christ pledges glory with him; we are identified with his heart; our strength is sustained; we long for eternal life; and we are united to the Church in heaven. This is all about ME, and what I get out of the Eucharist. Much of faith is focused on ME, what there is in it for ME, principally forgiveness and life everlasting. Surely we cannot just come to a full stop, having been blessed ourselves. Let us look beyond the Eucharist: Matthew 25 we all know.

*34 Then shall the King say … Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. *
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. [KJV]

****To paraphrase the liturgy itself: *****Christ work through me; Christ stand with me; Christ be in me.*Christ surely gives me strength through the Eucharist to serve him. It this not one of the great messages that God sent through his son?

Here is a heterodoxy: Should we be focused so much on life everlasting that the transubstantiated bread and wine offer us? Or should we say, *Now that I am sure of eternal salvation, I can let that go and be peaceful about it. Now that I am the beloved of Christ, and he is my beloved, I must serve here and now. *

Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

ToKeikiolu

I shall pray for you, but I cannot engage with you. I will go and meditate and pray.

Thank you for your comments.

Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I get the feeling from this quote that you are calling me a brainless idiot. Charity! Come on, now!

I get the feeling from this quote that you are calling me a brainless idiot. Charity! Come on, now!

No Jon, I was responding to a post by Keikiolu which was actually a paean of praise of mindless submission to the Teaching à peace. I rejected this because, as I said, we must have head, heart and compassion in this act of being part of CC. The Vatican after all is comprised of some of the greatest scholars and intellectuals of our time. Do you think that they prefer having a flock of sheep following them around? (Some do think they would prefer that.) Or what?

Sorry if you thought I was speaking about you, and I ask forgiveness for any hurt. As I emphasized to Keikiolu, charity/caritas/ lovingkindness/ fairness is surely one of the three principal elements of Christian faith.

Blessings

 

[Eireann]

**Carol Coombe **

Why? Understanding our Creator God, and the laws of nature, makes it clear that natural laws of the universe/multiverse are fixed and immutable. as far as we know. Our current belief is that God will not intervene in the physical, chemical or biological laws which He has established for all time. If He did, we would be confronted by chaos and anarchy. Our brains have likely not evolved sufficiently to catch up with the true magnificence of His creation - but they will. (Even if one believes He did not create the laws which Newton, Einstein, Hawking et al are defining for us, the laws are still immutable. We must accept this at least until our brains catch up with a law that is not. There are suspicions, admittedly, about both brain and laws.)

Yes God does intervene in the natural laws, they’re called **“miracles”. **

At Cana " naturally they had no wine, Jesus intervened, then they did.

The blind man should have remained blind, Christ intervened, the lame walked, the deaf heard, the dumb spoke, and the dead were raised to life, all supernatural which is outside the natural.

Although we can’t see the transformation at Mass doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

An example, Jesus said to a man, " your sins are forgiven " some were taken back by this, why ?

Well we can’t see the shackles of sin fall from us physically, it’s outside our comprehension.
So what did Jesus say to confirm He had the power to forgive sins, yes arise and walk.

Don’t walk away like some did, be like Peter who may not have understood at the time, said** " to whom shall we go Lord, you have the message of eternal life "**

"CCC "**1404 The Church knows that the Lord comes even now in his Eucharist and that he is there in our midst. However, his presence is veiled. Therefore we celebrate the Eucharist "awaiting the blessed hope and the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ,"246 asking "to share in your glory when every tear will be wiped away. On that day we shall see you, our God, as you are. We shall become like you and praise you for ever through Christ our Lord."247

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

1418 Because Christ himself is present in the sacrament of the altar, he is to be honored with the worship of adoration. “To visit the Blessed Sacrament is . . . a proof of gratitude, an expression of love, and a duty of adoration toward Christ our Lord” (Paul VI, MF 66). **

 

[davidv]

Do you think that they prefer having a flock of sheep following them around? (Some do think they would prefer that.) Or what?

Actual that’s exactly what Jesus called us, “sheep”. Too stupid to know when we are wandering off and getting lost. So our leaders must take very seriously Jesus’ command to Peter to feed His sheep.

 

[guanophore]

What was the Reformation all about, in the view of RCC? This is a sidebar, but an important theme throughout this thread, with which few have engaged.

Blessings

I think this needs it’s own thread.

Any Catholic that knows his history will not deny that the Church was in need of reformation due to the gross clerical abuses that were at work. Ever wonder how things might have been different if Luther and Calvin had remained Catholic?