Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
for the record, first off:
i know the teachings from early childhood, and i have come to a rather profound understanding of them, on my own, as i would like to add.
another reason for me to leave the rcc was that the language used to this day makes me cringe with shame.
i just cannot help that.
out of utter respect, i have never spoken (openly) about this, but i do suspect many catholics at least in "secular" and "enlightened" countries must feel the same way, but need not admit it due to an humanistic ethics code available to them.
which does have grave consequences, and i am aware of them, at least that.
I was hoping to whisper when people go receive communion
yeah, and i got sort of an allergy against the normality of altar boys and young chaplains as opposed to the regimen of an all-girls boarding school run by nuns..
seriously: i struggle with an apparent irreconcilabe difference between sacredness and joy.
I think the way most Catholics view the Eucharist is not exactly the way the Church teaches it.
First off as a child we were not taught anything about transubuation .
Back in those days you were not even allowed to let it come in contact with your teeth, it was a real ***** when it stuck to the roof of your mouth.
I think the Church would have been better off just leaving the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as a mystery instead of trying to define it with some complex definition that is very questionable, after all we really know very little about God when you think about it.
I have not heard any simple explanation on transubuation that I have been satisfied with, and the more really complex explanations leave me baffled.
I tend to view the Eucharist somewhat like it is said that when two or more are gathered in his name Jesus is present, that he comes to us in some special intimate way when we are gathered at a Eucharist celebration and receive Communion.
I might also add that I think it is a little presumptuous that the institutional church thinks it has some type of copyright on real presence, that only they can have it.
One should never try to limit God.
actually, the word transsubstantiation was not used, and the german word wandlung just does not radiate within the same frequency spectrum, as i would be much more comfortable to have communion and communications in.
i did hear benedict xvi use the word frequency about 2 years ago, publicly and to my great surprise.
it is somehow a good perspective evolving from knowing this pope to be capable of deep thinking and knowledgable beyond christian and church teachings....
I think the way most Catholics view the Eucharist is not exactly the way the Church teaches it.
First off as a child we were not taught anything about transubuation .
Back in those days you were not even allowed to let it come in contact with your teeth, it was a real ***** when it stuck to the roof of your mouth.
I think the Church would have been better off just leaving the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as a mystery instead of trying to define it with some complex definition that is very questionable, after all we really know very little about God when you think about it.
I have not heard any simple explanation on transubuation that I have been satisfied with, and the more really complex explanations leave me baffled.
I tend to view the Eucharist somewhat like it is said that when two or more are gathered in his name Jesus is present, that he comes to us in some special intimate way when we are gathered at a Eucharist celebration and receive Communion.
I might also add that I think it is a little presumptuous that the institutional church thinks it has some type of copyright on real presence, that only they can have it.
One should never try to limit God.
i having been using the word in my religious classes and my high school students DO understand it----my way of explaining eucharist is different than yours but i have attended a variety of religious courses so that i may present it in an understandable fashion----have never had much confusion from my students--even the ones that are converts to my faith----that is all i can say within this forum
I understand Catholics belief about it more now. I have always believed we should make sure our lives are worthy of taking communion before doing so, which is why for quite a while when going to church I wouldn't partake.
What if a person wasn't a Catholic, but did believe it is Jesus' literal body and blood? Would the priest let him partake?
MZ, the truth be told, if you did all the right things as you approached the front, the priest has no idea what you believe. You WILL receive the eucharist from the priest if you make the right gestures. The priest is highly educated man in the ways of the Catholic faith, but he is not a mind reader.
But it's your relationship with Jesus that is affected, not the priests with Jesus. The priest tries to do the right thing and if you obviously don't know what you are doing, then he will just bless you instead.
Just remember, you can just stay in your pew during communion or if you want to, join the Eucharist line. As you approach the front, just cross your arms with your hands touching each shoulder in front of you and elbows touching the front of your body and your arms (an "X" pattern) against your chest. This is a signal for him just to bless you. If you go to church and like what you find, then check out the local parish's RCIA program. You can go and NOT join the Catholic Church if you so choose. What RCIA does is give you vital information about the Catholic faith and gives you plenty of chances to pray and discern if you want to join the Church. If you join, great, but if you choice not to, there are no hard feelings whatsoever. They're glad you came.
I actually wasn't trying to be facetious or disrespectful, just trying to understand how anyone could wrap their mind around the concept.
The Early Church and Apostolic Fathers believed that the the bread and wine was the body, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ as is mentioned in John 6.
These are the men that walked with Jesus believed and so taught the first generations of leaders of His Church.
That is why we still believe it today. Jesus commanded it and the Early Church Fathers followed the Apostles lead.
Go ahead and do the research yourself and see what they believed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
