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.
Interesting. I think that kind of reflects the changing beliefs in many Christians, though -- not just on that one doctrine, of course, but on a great many things taught as doctrine by their respective denominations.
I have often found it interesting, too, how many people don't actually know what their churches' doctrines are. I have talked to Catholic friends who are pretty much clueless about Catholic doctrines that even I, as a non-Catholic, have at least some knowledge on. Also even more Christians are clueless about Christian history. I had a Greek Orthodox friend in high school who hadn't the foggiest notion of who Martin Luther was. It's like a whole lot of people really have their heads in the sand about a lot of things tied to Christianity, both their own church and Christian denominations other than their own. Maybe I'm just different in that regard. I started wanting to learn about other Christian denominations' beliefs as young as about twelve years old.
Me too. I have found great ignorance of basic church teachings and beliefs among all groups of Christians and those who call themselves such. Including but not limited to Catholics, believe me.
See above post for further interesting tidbits on the study. From the study.
My biggest problem with the idea of transubstantiation is that I don't see the purpose of it. I mean, what reason would Jesus have for telling us to literally consume His body and blood? If we are really speaking in literal terms, then for one thing, eventually (and long before now), His body and blood would have been fully consumed and there would be none left. And what would be accomplished by our literally eating flesh and drinking blood that is not accomplished by our seeing the tokens of the Last Supper as representative of our devotion to Him and our commitment to follow Him. It just doesn't seem very reasonable to think that He would have asked that we do that.
Also, in Luke 22:19, when He said to His Apostles at the Last Supper, " And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me," you would think that if they assumed He was speaking of His literal body, they would be somewhat taken back by His request. That's not something they would have expected when they sat down to eat. I can't help but think that they -- the ones who knew Him best -- understood that He was speaking symbolically.
I realize that several of the early Church fathers, referred to the bread and wine as being Jesus' body and blood. After all, those were Jesus' actual words. Still, some of these same men also referred to the bread and blood at other times as being symbolic. And The Didache, which dates from roughly the late first century refers to the bread and wine as “spiritual food and drink,” and doesn't even hint at transubstantiation.
Well, for starters I just don't question a lot of what God/Jesus determines is necessary. And I do not believe that His body, in the eternal sacrifice, is ever "used up" so to speak.
Catholics believe that we partake of the real presence of the risen Jesus. And when I partake of the Eucharist, I am incredibly blessed - I feel it to the very bottom of my feet and to the top of my head. Honestly, I never felt that completeness before I converted to Catholicism, and I always felt a very deep pull toward the Eucharist - or "Communion" as we called it as protestants.
In the other gospels (Matthew 26 for instance), Jesus doesn't speak of symbolism at all, though it's not incongruent for Him to speak of remembrance of Him. I mean, the other gospels go into more detail about how taken aback the disciples were at the words of Jesus, and how some of them left Him over it.
I honestly don't see how there's any issue with it after reading this:
Jesus said: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. . . . For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink" (Jn 6:51-55). I mean, it just seems so obvious to me - now. https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...-presence-faqs
For further info, I found this to be an excellent source:
Good thing I'm only responsible for my own actions and beliefs.
I found this interesting from your source:
From your source, only one in five Catholics who know the Church's teaching on the Eucharist don't believe in the Real Presence.
63 percent of Catholics who attend Mass weekly do believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, according to your source. Also, the more educated the person is, the more they believe in the Real Presence, which I found to be interesting.
I presume by the "more educated " they are, you are referring to knowledge of RCC teachings. I didnt see that the survey broke anything down by basic education level.
Interesting. I think that kind of reflects the changing beliefs in many Christians, though -- not just on that one doctrine, of course, but on a great many things taught as doctrine by their respective denominations.
I have often found it interesting, too, how many people don't actually know what their churches' doctrines are. I have talked to Catholic friends who are pretty much clueless about Catholic doctrines that even I, as a non-Catholic, have at least some knowledge on. Also even more Christians are clueless about Christian history. I had a Greek Orthodox friend in high school who hadn't the foggiest notion of who Martin Luther was. It's like a whole lot of people really have their heads in the sand about a lot of things tied to Christianity, both their own church and Christian denominations other than their own. Maybe I'm just different in that regard. I started wanting to learn about other Christian denominations' beliefs as young as about twelve years old.
Same here! I enjoy the history. I read the Diarmaid McCulloch tome in a study group, and I'd like to read it again.
I especially like the little-known sects, like the Mar Thoma Christians.
What I found interesting was following where tradition says each apostle went after Christs death, and what churches they started. Thomas supposedly went to India about 52 AD, so many churches there bear some form of his name.
What I found interesting was following where tradition says each apostle went after Christs death, and what churches they started. Thomas supposedly went to India about 52 AD, so many churches there bear some form of his name.
That is who the Mar Thoma (St. Thomas) Christians are.
Their tradition holds that Thomas came to India and formed a church there, bringing his Gospel of Thomas, a collection of the sayings of Jesus. He was later martyred. The church continued, however.
Then in the 15th century Portuguese explorers came to India along with their agenda to spread Christianity to the pagans they surely would find in these heathen lands. To their surprise, they found people in an area called Kerala practicing a form of Christianity that didn't know a thing about Rome and which used as part of their liturgy the Syriac language, an ancient dialogue related to the Aramaic spoken by Jesus. Even more horrifying, they had crosses decorated with elephants in the church.
Well, they gave those fake Christians what-for, but the church in Kerala survived and today has about 2 million members. It has changed and became influenced by other churches over the centuries. Some of them have now wandered across the globe, and there is a Mar Thoma church in Ontario.
A few years ago, I worked in Brooklyn with a young man from Kerala who was a Mar Thoma Christian. (Interestingly, we both worked at an engineering firm owned by a Chasidic Jew in one of the biggest Chasidic strongholds in NYC, but the employees were very diverse.) He was going home to celebrate Christmas in India. He is the only one I ever met, and he seemed thrilled that I knew his church existed.
(Meanwhile, my Orthodox Jewish office-mate seemed puzzled by the both of us, since the only Christians she had ever heard of were Catholic. )
I would really appreciate hearing a Catholic poster's response to my post #189. No one has commented so far, which surprises me.
I'll give it a shot:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
My biggest problem with the idea of transubstantiation is that I don't see the purpose of it. I mean, what reason would Jesus have for telling us to literally consume His body and blood? If we are really speaking in literal terms, then for one thing, eventually (and long before now), His body and blood would have been fully consumed and there would be none left. And what would be accomplished by our literally eating flesh and drinking blood that is not accomplished by our seeing the tokens of the Last Supper as representative of our devotion to Him and our commitment to follow Him. It just doesn't seem very reasonable to think that He would have asked that we do that.
Well, first, right there in John 6 Jesus tells us the purpose - v50 & v51 - " "so that one may eat it and not die. ... whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world" & doubles & triples down in v53 & v54 - "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day"
As compared to the manna that the ancestors were given in the desert to survive a 'temporal' journey in the desert filling only their stomachs ("Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died" v.49 &v.58),
as Jesus says - "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me." (v56 & v.57) - means that THIS food for surviving THIS journey through the 'desert' of this world/these times and beyond goes way beyond just the 'temporal' - filling even our souls eternally as we grow to be like Him, nourished by Him.
As Jesus demonstrated immediately prior in v.11-13 - not only can He supply 'the impossible' ( & not 'run out' / none left), rather the 12 baskets of 'leftovers' symbolize perfect/unlimited power to accomplish such.
Reasonable or not (for 'man's way of thinking' ), the apostles/disciples obeyed Him (though some doubted, as we are told).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Also, in Luke 22:19, when He said to His Apostles at the Last Supper, " And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me," you would think that if they assumed He was speaking of His literal body, they would be somewhat taken back by His request. That's not something they would have expected when they sat down to eat. I can't help but think that they -- the ones who knew Him best -- understood that He was speaking symbolically.
Waaayyyy prior to the Last Supper, from John 6 ( and from 'These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.' v.59) His Apostles already knew clearly He WASN'T speaking symbolically, as they didn't turn away as many others did that day - even after Jesus asked if it 'Shocked' them v.61.
Now notice that He gives them a little prophecy/hint back there in John 6 (v.62) about His glorified body and also v.63 making clear to them that it's not his 'unrisen' body that they will be partaking in.
Remember, at this point they still didn't fully understand that He would be crucified/resurrected, but Peter/James/John had now also witnessed Jesus's transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-3) and Moses and Elijah even - the v.62 prophecy partially revealed, and further dispelling any doubts from those three.
If anything, at the last supper hearing this again they'd be thinking 'oh, He's repeating the John 6 / synagogue in Capernaum stuff'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
I realize that several of the early Church fathers, referred to the bread and wine as being Jesus' body and blood. After all, those were Jesus' actual words. Still, some of these same men also referred to the bread and blood at other times as being symbolic. And The Didache, which dates from roughly the late first century refers to the bread and wine as “spiritual food and drink,” and doesn't even hint at transubstantiation.
It's important to understand that while many of the early Church Fathers would have written various things, I don't think any were specifically establishing 'a teaching'/ speaking ex-cathedra; the writings have to really be taken in context.
Jesus himself established the Tradition & Form for it - words like Eucharist and transubstantiation are just our way of trying to name or describe it.
It certainly is “spiritual food and drink,” - Jesus clearly established that as I mentioned in my first paragraph; It's not just something to 'fill our stomachs' like manna or 'crackers&grape juice' and not just a symbol - It's something that does what it says - a visible sign of an invisible reality - and backed by Jesus Words (a 'sacramentum' or sacrament).
Scripture wise, for me, Paul makes it clear as day at 1 Corinthians 11:27,29 "]Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.....For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." - now notice - he was not establishing a new teaching here; rather he was reprimanding a particular congregation because they had strayed from the practice/tradition and he needed to set them straight - not with something new, but what He had learned from the Lord himself.
And then, if the bread/wine were only symbolic, how could it be possible to 'eat/drink judgement on oneself'?
Well, first, right there in John 6 Jesus tells us the purpose - v50 & v51 - " "so that one may eat it and not die. ... whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world" & doubles & triples down in v53 & v54 - "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day"
As compared to the manna that the ancestors were given in the desert to survive a 'temporal' journey in the desert filling only their stomachs ("Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died" v.49 &v.58),
as Jesus says - "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me." (v56 & v.57) - means that THIS food for surviving THIS journey through the 'desert' of this world/these times and beyond goes way beyond just the 'temporal' - filling even our souls eternally as we grow to be like Him, nourished by Him.
As Jesus demonstrated immediately prior in v.11-13 - not only can He supply 'the impossible' ( & not 'run out' / none left), rather the 12 baskets of 'leftovers' symbolize perfect/unlimited power to accomplish such.
Reasonable or not (for 'man's way of thinking' ), the apostles/disciples obeyed Him (though some doubted, as we are told).
Waaayyyy prior to the Last Supper, from John 6 ( and from 'These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.' v.59) His Apostles already knew clearly He WASN'T speaking symbolically, as they didn't turn away as many others did that day - even after Jesus asked if it 'Shocked' them v.61.
Now notice that He gives them a little prophecy/hint back there in John 6 (v.62) about His glorified body and also v.63 making clear to them that it's not his 'unrisen' body that they will be partaking in.
Remember, at this point they still didn't fully understand that He would be crucified/resurrected, but Peter/James/John had now also witnessed Jesus's transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-3) and Moses and Elijah even - the v.62 prophecy partially revealed, and further dispelling any doubts from those three.
If anything, at the last supper hearing this again they'd be thinking 'oh, He's repeating the John 6 / synagogue in Capernaum stuff'.
It's important to understand that while many of the early Church Fathers would have written various things, I don't think any were specifically establishing 'a teaching'/ speaking ex-cathedra; the writings have to really be taken in context.
Jesus himself established the Tradition & Form for it - words like Eucharist and transubstantiation are just our way of trying to name or describe it.
It certainly is “spiritual food and drink,” - Jesus clearly established that as I mentioned in my first paragraph; It's not just something to 'fill our stomachs' like manna or 'crackers&grape juice' and not just a symbol - It's something that does what it says - a visible sign of an invisible reality - and backed by Jesus Words (a 'sacramentum' or sacrament).
Scripture wise, for me, Paul makes it clear as day at 1 Corinthians 11:27,29 "]Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.....For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." - now notice - he was not establishing a new teaching here; rather he was reprimanding a particular congregation because they had strayed from the practice/tradition and he needed to set them straight - not with something new, but what He had learned from the Lord himself.
And then, if the bread/wine were only symbolic, how could it be possible to 'eat/drink judgement on oneself'?
Very nicely done, CCCyou! It is literally His "spiritual body" that He is referring to in spiritual terms, NOT carnal. The resistance to understanding the scriptures spiritually is quite strong despite the clear admonishment to do so. The carnal natural mind cannot properly interpret scripture that is designed to communicate spiritual truths.
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.
)
Very nicely done, CCCyou! It is literally His "spiritual body" that He is referring to in spiritual terms, NOT carnal. The resistance to understanding the scriptures spiritually is quite strong despite the clear admonishment to do so. The carnal natural mind cannot properly interpret scripture that is designed to communicate spiritual truths.
