Transubstantiation is a Device of Man

[FCEGM]

"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). **

And if the bread and wine haven’t been transubstantiated all we are doing is worshipping bread and wine, and those who aren’t Catholic yet attend the Mass regularly would be engaging with us in idolatry.

 

[Keikiolu]

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

That’s cool…!

Prayin’ for you, as well. Na pomaikai ia oe. (Blessings to you.)

Just remember that you have stopped talking to a fellow Christian, and deprived him of your wisdom.

Aloha nui 'oe.
A hui hou.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Here is a new take on the issue of transubstantiation, and comments would be welcome.

I have just returned from Catechism Class (adult enquiry group so-called), where we prepared for Easter services, and I raised the issue of transubstantiation, its difficulties, it challenges.

Msgr Marc laughed, and recognised the problem. He said the easiest and best way it had been understood was by a van der Merwe (Afrikaaner, deep Dutch Reform Church) who wanted to convert to CC for the sake of his wife, after upty years of marriage.

He worked and worked, in secret with his priest, on the conversion, but could not get over the hump of transubstantiation, and the concept of eating the real flesh and blood of Christ. Until, until…

He realised like a bolt out of the blue that if he could accept God’s/Christ’s presence everywhere, except in a Eucharistic wafer, he was an idiot. Why should not the Real Presence be in that wafer as well as everywhere else in the world? His problem solved.

And for me a new insight into how one might understand this mystery.

Any comments?

Blessings

 

[DallasCatholic]

Here is a new take on the issue of transubstantiation, and comments would be welcome.

I have just returned from Catechism Class (adult enquiry group so-called), where we prepared for Easter services, and I raised the issue of transubstantiation, its difficulties, it challenges.

Msgr Marc laughed, and recognised the problem. He said the easiest and best way it had been understood was by a van der Merwe (Afrikaaner, deep Dutch Reform Church) who wanted to convert to CC for the sake of his wife, after upty years of marriage.

He worked and worked, in secret with his priest, on the conversion, but could not get over the hump of transubstantiation, and the concept of eating the real flesh and blood of Christ. Until, until…

He realised like a bolt out of the blue that if he could accept God’s/Christ’s presence everywhere, except in a Eucharistic wafer, he was an idiot. Why should not the Real Presence be in that wafer as well as everywhere else in the world? His problem solved.

And for me a new insight into how one might understand this mystery.

Any comments?

Blessings

Yes, that is certainly one way to explain and accept it. If that works for you then Hallelujah! I would add that while God/Christ’s presence is everywhere we feel that he is present in a special way in the Eucharist…I hope I am not messing you up

Regarding the sidebar on the Reformation, indeed it needs its own thread. I have heard it said that if Luther were transported to our present and saw the Catholic Church that he would still be Catholic. I find it interesting that St. Ignatius Loyola who was a contemporary of Luther’s also saw the need for reform…but he reformed from within the Church. That said, I do not put all of the blame on Martin Luther the hierarchy of the Church in his age bears responsibility for his apostacy as well.

 

[Eireann]

And for me a new insight into how one might understand this mystery.

Any comments?

Blessings

*Well whatever works for you…and a question for you.

What do you make of the verses below ? I mean if it’s only bread and wine how can we profane it ?*

[27]
**Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. **

[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

[29] ** For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.**

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Yes, that is certainly one way to explain and accept it. If that works for you then Hallelujah! I would add that while God/Christ’s presence is everywhere we feel that he is present in a special way in the Eucharist…I hope I am not messing you up

Regarding the sidebar on the Reformation, indeed it needs its own thread. I have heard it said that if Luther were transported to our present and saw the Catholic Church that he would still be Catholic. I find it interesting that St. Ignatius Loyola who was a contemporary of Luther’s also saw the need for reform…but he reformed from within the Church. That said, I do not put all of the blame on Martin Luther the hierarchy of the Church in his age bears responsibility for his apostacy as well.

Today, I am not capable of being messed up!

I am a historian, but have long forgotten the exquisite details of the Reformation period, and am not sure that a historical exploration is what I need right now. But it comes up again and again with regard to the relationship between the CC and other reformed churches, whether they are ‘non-churches’ as one poster said, whether CC is one denomination among many, whether the CC would still exist if Luther and others had not moved into reform mode, whether if the CC had listened to Luther and engaged with him - as it should have done - he would have rebelled as he did. Was he apostate? I think although that would be the word used by CC, that is too strong, and I would not use it.

Blessings

 

[JimG]

What was the Reformation all about, in the view of RCC?
Blessings

Probably this should be answered by someone with a better grounding in history than me. But I don’t think that Henry VIII, for example, intended to start a new church. He just wanted to make sure that he, not the pope, would be supreme arbiter of the Catholic Church in England. Yet he did end with a new church rather than a reformed church.

And Luther would today be considered much too Catholic in his beliefs to suit modern day Lutherans. Much of what modern day apologists look back upon as theological disputes. were, I suspect, quite often rather disputes over politics, class, property, corrupt officials, the rights of kings, and ownership of estates than theology.

 

[JimG]

To get back to transubstantiation, let me try one more analogy.

A black hole, of whatever size, can be considered as a sphere whose surface is its “event horizon.” From the outside, no one and no instrument can “see” past the event horizon.
The “appearances”—all you can see—is the event horizon.

If you were to pass through the event horizon, you might find yourself in a completely different place or time, even a different universe. In theory, the smallest black hole could contain within itself another universe.

If that is possible, why is it so difficult to think that within the event horizon of the smallest particle of the sacred host, is contained the body and blood, the whole person, of Jesus, in his entirety?

 

[Cranch]

…I raised the issue of transubstantiation, its difficulties, it challenges.

Msgr Marc laughed, and recognised the problem. He said the easiest and best way it had been understood was by a van der Merwe (Afrikaaner, deep Dutch Reform Church) who wanted to convert to CC…but could not get over the hump of transubstantiation, and the concept of eating the real flesh and blood of Christ. Until…

He realised…that if he could accept God’s/Christ’s presence everywhere, except in a Eucharistic wafer, he was an idiot. Why should not the Real Presence be in that wafer as well as everywhere else in the world? His problem solved.

And for me a new insight into how one might understand this mystery…

I’m afraid there is much more to the Real Presence than can be found in this inadequate summation. First, the Church teaches the Real Presence is unique:

**1374 **The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In…the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a *substantial *presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”

Therefore, as God is omnipresent, the Real Presence in the Eucharist is to be distinguished from God’s presence “everywhere else in the world” which would come under the “other types of presence” mentioned in 1374 above.

Second, it is through a conversion that Christ becomes present in the Eucharist:

**1375 **It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:
It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.
And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:
Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed…

The substance of the bread and wine changes into the substance of the Real Presence of Christ at the words of consecration. The Real Presence was not there beforehand:

**1376 **The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

**1377 **The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist…

I submit Msgr’s Afrikaaner has accepted Christ’s presence in the wafer no differently than he accepts Christ’s presence in a rock or tree, but there is no transubstantiation “everywhere else in the world.”

Finally:

**1378 **Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration…

The Eucharist is Jesus really present. There is no adoration due the lilies of the field or the rocks or each other or any other part of creation where God is also present.

 

[DianJo]

Dianjo

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.

Hi Carol,.
Sorry for the delay - I’ve been out of town for work.

I did understand your initial post however, you’re right - there is nowhere in history where we can see an application of eating and drinking human flesh and blood in our culture. Maybe I shouldn’t have included your initial post with mine.

What I attempted to do was show you where in our history the culture of flesh and blood sacrifice came from and how it pertains to transubstantiation. I don’t know if it helped or not, hopefully it did - seeing as how the animal (lamb) sacrifice is transformed into the flesh and blood sacrifice of Christ. I thought that if you could imagine the sacrifice of the lamb being fulfilled in Christ you would be better able to put your mind (and your heart) around this teaching.

A metaphoric understanding may have been easier on all of us but that’s not what the point of the sacrifice was about. Believing in Jesus is never easy. God has always built upon a previous covenant to more fully reveal Himself to His people and Jesus was that final fulfilled revelation. It had to be taken literally, flesh and blood, because it is the fulfllment of God’s revelation and new covenant with us as He taught us to do in sacrifice. The Eucharist is the fulfillment of Passover.

While there is lots of literal and symbolic language in the bible, you must know when to take something literally or symbolic according to the author and message of the book being written. That’s what we have the Chuch for. She knows these circumstances and can help us to understand the correct meaning of these scriptures - so we don’t misunderstand something as important as the Eucharist.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

To get back to transubstantiation, let me try one more analogy.

A black hole, of whatever size, can be considered as a sphere whose surface is its “event horizon.” From the outside, no one and no instrument can “see” past the event horizon.
The “appearances”—all you can see—is the event horizon.

If you were to pass through the event horizon, you might find yourself in a completely different place or time, even a different universe. In theory, the smallest black hole could contain within itself another universe.

If that is possible, why is it so difficult to think that within the event horizon of the smallest particle of the sacred host, is contained the body and blood, the whole person, of Jesus, in his entirety?

Very helpful analogy. Let us think about it. You know, when you fall in love, it is sometimes the smallest gesture or phrase or a common interest that creates the environment for love. Cardinal Newman prayed for years for faith, and suddenly, bumph, it happened. You try and try to forgive, and suddenly the seemingly impossible happens. I suspect with a lot of us, sudden understanding is given, and I have faith that that will happen. In the meantime, every little bit of (name removed by moderator)ut helps hugely. Thank you

Blessings.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I’m afraid there is much more to the Real Presence than can be found in this inadequate summation. First, the Church teaches the Real Presence is unique:

Therefore, as God is omnipresent, the Real Presence in the Eucharist is to be distinguished from God’s presence “everywhere else in the world” which would come under the “other types of presence” mentioned in 1374 above.

Second, it is through a conversion that Christ becomes present in the Eucharist: The substance of the bread and wine changes into the substance of the Real Presence of Christ at the words of consecration. The Real Presence was not there beforehand:
I submit Msgr’s Afrikaaner has accepted Christ’s presence in the wafer no differently than he accepts Christ’s presence in a rock or tree, but there is no transubstantiation “everywhere else in the world.”

Finally:
The Eucharist is Jesus really present. There is no adoration due the lilies of the field or the rocks or each other or any other part of creation where God is also present.

I understand your point fully - and so clearly would Msgr Marc. However, it was a good start for four would-be converts who were desperately searching for some meaning that would be acceptable to be going on with. I thank you for sharing your insights: they will become part of the process of more sophisticated understanding of transubstantiation. In the meantime, we have to go with what we can, especially as Easter celebrations are around the corner.

Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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

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!!!

Thanks for your insights. Of course we were not meant to gnaw on the actual body of Christ down through the ages. The point I was making earlier was that transubstantiated Eucharist - the body and blood of Christ in bread and wine - is actually a symbol itself for the real thing. Sorry - it is NOT a finger of Christ, it is a wafer in which is contained the whole body of Christ, the Real Presence. Therefore a symbol of our Saviour. Some go beyond that and assume that bread and wine as bread and wine are sufficient to remember his death, sacrifice and resurrection. They are reformed churches for whom the Eucharist is not as central to the rite as the sermon, the help given to the faithful to understand the meaning of their faith. That is the difference between CC (one of them anyway) and reformed churches (so-called Protestant and non-Catholic). And perhaps that signals another observable difference between the denominations: one, through ritual, reveres Christ’s real presence; the others, through thoughtful engagement with life issues, in which Christ’s example is core, are somewhat more practical.

See the Methodist statement on social justice, and the new United Church of Canada Statement of Faith. It is actually worth looking at these documents - neutrally and objectively of course, as the Church demands - because they are the product of other Christians, and represent their values and belief systems.

Blessings.

 

[Phat]

Carol Coombe
Transubstantiation has to do with a change in the substance of material, but not the appearance. I do not believe that the immutable laws of nature, established by God but not binding on Him, allow for the change of the substance of bread or wine into the flesh/blood and divinity of Christ. I do not believe in miracles as they are generally defined: they do not happen. I do believe that the world happens as it happens, and that God does not intervene, for a variety of reasons, in its material workings. He clearly does intervene in its social relationships.

Let me take a hit at this. Bear with me. It seems to me that you are having a hard time understanding transubstantiation because it does not fit within the natural order of the universe. By your definition, God does not intervene with the laws of nature and in so, God cannot make the bread and wine into His body and blood and so forth. Well then, i think the problem with your difficulties lay not in the doctrine of transubstatiation itself, but on your conception of the world.

God, who created the universe and its laws, are above the  natural law, would you agree with me on this point?  You would also agree with me that natural laws do not bind on him, right?  Woud you agree that God, being all powerful, knowing, and goodness, can do all things possible that is in accordance with His Will?  Since God is the Creator of the universe and its laws, by  His being, he can well indeed interfere(intervene) into the universe that is His.  You must realize that God can indeed bend his "immutable laws of nature" to his Will. How would you explain all the "miracles" Jesus performed be of nature since it itself defies nature.  Turning water into wine? Raising the dead? Curing the blinds? Healing the sick?  And especially, ESPECIALLY His own RESURRECTION! That by itself is truly a MIRACLE.  Miracles are called miracles because they DEFIED the LAWS of NATURE.  If there's a logically explanation to the things that happen in the world, then it is voided of the definition of miracles.  Miracles happened because it helps us touch with the supernatural realm that belongs to God.  It is like a bite of a sweet cake.  

 In getting at the point, the Eucharist itself is truly a miracle since God himself, being all merciful and loving, would come down into His universe and transfer a piece of bread and a cup of wine into the most awesomeness gift that He gives to us.   The scope of the awesomeness of the Eucharist does not limit God, but perfect His being and His love for us.  This mystery takes a step of faith, and once you accepted it wholeheartedly, the joy would overcome you that you realize that God can do all things possible.  

 So yes, God can allow for the change of the substance of bread and wine into the flesh and blood of the Divinity of Christ.

Peace
Phat

 

[Joanp62]

Excellent explanation! Said well.
God Bless,
Joan P.

Keikiolu:
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).

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 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.

 

[Joanp62]

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.

I would say it is. God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[Sixtus]

The Lord is present in the Mass not only in the Sacred Meal but also in the person of the priesthood offering Himself to His Father.

He is also present in the congregation who together with the Priest join in adoration and praise of the Father

 

[Carol_Coombe]

To get back to transubstantiation, let me try one more analogy.

A black hole, of whatever size, can be considered as a sphere whose surface is its “event horizon.” From the outside, no one and no instrument can “see” past the event horizon.
The “appearances”—all you can see—is the event horizon.

It is probably true to say that we cannot see he event horizon: black holes are only postulated and proven by factors external to the hole itself.

If you were to pass through the event horizon, you might find yourself in a completely different place or time, even a different universe. In theory, the smallest black hole could contain within itself another universe.

It’s a hugely wonderful thought, and one I think is very possibly true, given the proposed nature of the multiverse.

If that is possible, why is it so difficult to think that within the event horizon of the smallest particle of the sacred host, is contained the body and blood, the whole person, of Jesus, in his entirety?

Because black holes are not miracles: they are the proper action of the laws of nature for the material world which were established by God, and in which he chooses not to intervene. We are able to postulate that they exist because they can be ‘seen’ through a variety of observations of the behaviour of other material around them, which act and react in predictable ways.

Thanks for the analogy, but I don’t think it sticks. I prefer the one that suggests that I am ME on the outside (appearance), but there is another ME on the inside (substance) which is composed of soul, spirit, whatever you want to call it. It may contain evil or good. But you cannot see it. You can only believe, have faith, that it is as you would like it to be.

Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

From Keikiolu
*

You too…!? Heh he he he he…

***please see remainder of lengthy quote above **

You asserted earlier that you loved CC because you could be mindless, obedient and peaceful. Here you suggest that the Church actually allows you to make decisions. OK, here goes on other bits of this alarming statement of faith:

(1) please do not compare yourself to me with a he he he and a smiley.
(2) please do not suggest that the authority of the Church is correct at all times: this is simply not true, as we know and must accept, with however much regret.
(3) please do not assert the entire Church is doggedly dedicated. This is not true of some individuals or occasionally of the Church as a whole: how has it dealt with HIV, condoms and death, social justice, the appropriate balance between everlasting life for ME and action for the benefit of THEM (98% of Earth’s population who starve) for whom Christ quite clearly made us responsible?

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.

You said in an earlier posting that Mahatma Gandhi was simply a semi-civilised pagan because he did not cling to the Absolute Truth of the One True Church. Please do not feel sorry for him, or for anyone like him, or many others who in their daily lives live through the Real Presence of Christ in their own ways of faith. I think probably none of them would need or want your parochial pity (I am feeling really grumpy here, because I said I would not engage with you because of bigotry in your postings.) Open you mind to the real world.

I believe in the fundamental truth of all great religions of the world. I believe that they are all God-given and I believe that they were necessary for the people to whom these religions were revealed. And I believe that if only we could all of us read the scriptures of the different faiths from the standpoints of the followers of these faiths, we should find that they were at bottom all one and were all helpful to one another.
mahatma gandhi

**Keikiolu **

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

Is that reasonable?

** Joan P**

I would say it is. God Bless

Being peaceful and at one with God inevitably involves struggle, thought, contemplation, prayer and meditation throughout our lives. I will not put myself in the hands of any ‘control freak’ except God. We need to work for our faith, our understanding of what each life means for ourselves, for others and for God. We cannot sit back and let ‘authoritative control freaks’ rule our lives. What kind of a ‘faith’ is that? Do you accept transubstantiation at face value because the Church told you to believe? Or have you struggled to understand?

Who is unthinking? Soldiers who did the bidding of Hitler control freak par excellence, and pulled the trigger to murder naked Jewish women holding babies at the edge of a great pit, although they were husbands and fathers. Their gripe about the job? They didn’t like getting splashed by blood, guts and brains (Hitler’s Willing Executioners). They did it because they were told to do it. The Church requires not robots, not toy automata, but people who will serve it and God.

I am not in any way suggesting that there is a parallel between you and Nazi killers, so please do not come back on that one.

Joan Please could you explain why you think this is such a terrific statement by Keikiolu***.*** Or do you prefer to be an observant follower too?

Jabulani

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Excellent explanation! Said well.
God Bless,
Joan P.

**From Carol **We are moving down a sidebar of the question of transubstantiation. I think you are raising issues of the essence of religious truth – and of course if you believe that CC is the only True Truth, then you will also believe unassailably that everyone in the world would do well to believe in the concept of transubstantiation. I have not dealt with that problem here, but only directly with your comments.

I refused to engage earlier with Keikiolu because of what I perceive as bigotry in your views: that is, a lack of respect for the beliefs and values of others around the world. I dont know why I changed my mind, but here it is.

Originally Posted by Keikiolu
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.
***From Carol ****Luther tried to reform from within, as history shows. Perhaps if the CC had engaged, he would not have left the CC. Scholars suggest that if Vatican had engaged, he would not have left, and there would have been a stronger and viable Church, doctrines and practice. As a result of the debates among reformers, changes *were **made in the Catholic Church itself. You know that.

KeikioluThey rebelled against THEIR CHURCH, and formed a new creation,… non-Church churches*.*
***From Carol ***There is no such thing as a non-church church – or perhaps you would explain. I suspect you mean there is no Church outside the CC, just as you believe that there is no faith outside the CC, anywhere in the world. I would not subscribe to that belief.

Keikiolu* Pagans ARE simply unbelieving (“unbelievers”) people who haven’t “attained” the truth yet.*
*From Carol **[ie the Absolute Truth of the CC]? Surely this statement would be patronizing and derogatory, erroneous and uninformed?
Keikiolu These people **??? Where I live, this is exceptionally derogatory usage] DO indeed have some inkling of a piece of "the Truth…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.
From Carol Vatican II made a strong statement on this point putting the Jews, from whom Christ descended in his human form, and Moslems with whom we share scriptures and God at the top of list of those who are beloved of God. *
How on earth have you, as an obedient child of the Catholic Church, come to the conclusion that other faiths have no essence, that other human beings are not as blessed as you are because they have a different faith? Respect for the faith of others is enshrined in many constitutions including that of the United States and the rainbow nation South Africa where I live. It is but one short step from this view, surely, to believing that those of other faiths are hardly human, as they are not blessed by the One True Catholic God. Do your research here.