E
ExCatholicGuy
Guest
Which is exactly what I’m trying to do.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
I give you a hearty
for that.I just wonder where it is that you get your revelation from God. If it’s not from the Church, then from where?
H
hn160
Guest
As SteveVH said " this is what the enemy wants you to believe", you should read C.S. Lewis book The Screwtape Letters.
N
nemesis001
Guest
If only this forum were more Catholic in the way you have described! But you see how easy it is to get kicked off. Kinda waiting for the other shoe to drop, or, to be talked to, wouldn’t that be a novel idea? But nobody talks. Ah well.And that is exactly what I love about the Catholic Church. It is not afraid of reason or philosophy or metaphysics. It accepts truth wherever truth is found, recognizing whatever truth can be found in all religions and all philosophies. We believe it, as you say, “because its true”.
Great post.
N
nemesis001
Guest
Do you believe there is any such thing as sin, in the sense of an offense against God (who is Love?)
If so, do you believe there is any way for a human being to cease and desist from offending God, and if so, how? Thanks.
H
hapaxparadidomi
Guest
But if it WAS bread and now is NO-LONGER bread, then how do you refer to the process between those two periods? A non-transformation? If a transformation is not implied in that explanation, then there is no such thing as an implication.Lutherans don’t think Christ is some sort of bread-man.
As I understand it, we think “this is his body.” And that’s it. Jesus told us, and that’s all we need to accept the mystery.
What we bring to the alter is bread, and what we receive is Jesus, and while there is a specific time when it is no-longer bread - we don’t think of it going through a transformation process.
It was a caterpillar, but now it is a butterfly, yet no transformation took place.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Just a small point, but I believe an important one. The bread and wine are not transformed, if they were we would call the process “Transformation” instead of “Transubstantiation”. The form (appearance) remains the same; bread and wine. The substance is what has changed.But if it WAS bread and now is NO-LONGER bread, then how do you refer to the process between those two periods? A non-transformation? If a transformation is not implied in that explanation, then there is no such thing as an implication.
It was a caterpillar, but now it is a butterfly, yet no transformation took place.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Awesome question - the Lutherans answer is “a mystery.”But if it WAS bread and now is NO-LONGER bread, then how do you refer to the process between those two periods? A non-transformation? If a transformation is not implied in that explanation, then there is no such thing as an implication.
It was a caterpillar, but now it is a butterfly, yet no transformation took place.
It makes me realize that God is out of time - in that we humans sometimes have trouble grasping how something could be something else without a transformation that takes place over time.
In a small way we can see it in out own scientific observations - photons are both waves and particles, and yet they don’t transform from one to the other.
H
hapaxparadidomi
Guest
This is a quote of augustine’s words which I took from someone else’s post, the same one that you are referencing:
“So what you can see, then, is bread and a cup; that’s what even your eyes tell you; but as for what your faith asks to be instructed about, the bread is the body of Christ, the cup the blood of Christ.”
- “what you can see, then is bread and a cup”: What they see is one thing
- “the bread is the body of Christ, the cup the blood of Christ.”: But what it is, is another.
How does utilizing the words “accidents and substance” to describe what Augustine said, change his meaning?
H
hapaxparadidomi
Guest
If the bread is no longer bread but now is the body of Christ then by definition, it is a transformation. Some mysteries are relative and are solved by looking at a dictionary
H
hapaxparadidomi
Guest
Yes thanks for clarifying. I believe though the context makes this clear in that we are arguing for the change of substances from bread to flesh which makes the word transform appropriate: to change into another substance; transmute.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/transform?s=t
D
dshix
Guest
I understand what you are trying to say, but it is still rather incorrect. When speaking about such important matters that HAVE been defined by the Church, we should use the correct language, and “transubstantiation” is the right word, not “transformation.” As was said before, “transformation” means a change in form, whereas “transubstantiation” is a change in the substance, but the accidents remain.
B
benjohnson
Guest
If you mean a transformation that is complete and unknowable, then I would agree.
If you mean a transformation as a time dependent process that is measurable, given my limited understanding of Lutheran theology, I wouldn’t agree.
H
hapaxparadidomi
Guest
Well let’s look at it like this: you agree that there is a change. You don’t believe that the change happened in the accidents. So where would that leave this change to occur? Where does it cease to be bread?
I am not sure where you get the idea of a “time dependent process”. I don’t recall the Church’s definition of transubstantiation to include a definition of a time period that this process occurs over.
S
SteveVH
Guest
When we are using philosophical language such as “transformation” and “transubstantiation” it is important that we use the correct terms because otherwise we will be speaking past each other. You mean one thing by the word “transformation” and a Lutheran means something else. The term “transubstantiation” did not exist before the Church defined the process using this term. It only applies to the Eucharist and nothing else. Transformation was already a common term and carried with it a certain meaning that could apply to many things that change.
If one has ever been to the petrified forest you will see a great example of “transformation”. Wood has been changed (replaced, really) to minerals. What use to be a log is now a rock in the shape of a log. With the Eucharist the “form” does not change at all. It is still in the form of bread and wine (looks like it, tastes like it, smells like it) yet has substantially changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. The Church thought it important enough to distinguish the difference and we are obligated to speak in the language the Church has defined in order to more accurately convey the truth of our beliefs.
H
hapaxparadidomi
Guest
I agree with your explanation.
=======
You mean one thing by the word “transformation” and a Lutheran means something else.
No doubt. I assumed that they at least understood a change of substance since they know that there certainly is not a change of appearance.It would seem to me that what the Lutherans on this board understand by “transform” is simply ‘change into A from B’ . But perhaps I am missing something. What do lutherans undersand by the word “transform” if not ‘change into A from B’? And if they do not mean it as ‘change’ then why would they be using that word in this conversation since nobody is arguing for ‘transformation’, i.e., change of appearance??
C
Christian_Unity
Guest
There are four or five major views of the Eucharist, and think it should not be an issue in which Christians should divide over. After-all, nobody can prove their view over another. The elements do not change before your eyes, do they?
christianityinview.com/eucharist.html
H
hapaxparadidomi
Guest
Sure, if we are just basing our evidence on what you see with your eyes. But as catholics we base our evidence on scripture and on tradition.
Nobody could see that Jesus is God. Ought we to follow your logic and conclude that ‘wether He is divine or not’ is something that we should not divide over?
S
SteveVH
Guest
I think they have pretty much taken the position that it is a mystery and they leave it at that. The Catholic Church was challenged and really had no choice but to define the process. The Lutherans have never been put into that postition.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
CU,
What you can see has little to do with belief. I see a book. You say it is the word of God. How do you prove this.
The Eucharist unites Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Catholic Latin/East and it is agreed among Lutherans and Anglicans as unative.
What is the historical context of the 5 views I ask? When did they appear? The notion of the Bread and wine being the body and blood was not challenged as disbelief for 1000 years. This yardstick of the other views should be examined.
Produce your views in time and who views them…but do not say on a Catholic Forum that your opinion here is unitive…
This is what keeps you from uniting…you yourself will admit this…
- Status