Two questions about current Catholic beliefs

MorningStar

Do they still say the wine actually becomes the blood of christ?

Do they still say Mary is the ever virgin?

BrianCalgary

MorningStar wrote:

Do they still say the wine actually becomes the blood of christ?

Do they still say Mary is the ever virgin?

Yes, to both.

MorningStar

How can they claim wine changes when it is apparent that it doesn't? It isn't blood they drink but wine. I can get leaps of faith but if they claimed it became invisible and it didn't people wouldn't accept it why is it acceptable to say something people know is not true.

Rev Hellfire

The term is Transubstantiation when refering to the wine into blood. The transformation is not meant to be a physical one but rather a abstract notion of change.

Its explained rather well on the wikipedia here.

robindch

> why is it acceptable to say something people know is not true.

As far as I can make out, it comes from the intransigence of the belief itself, specifically, that belief in spite of evidence is a good thing (which is exactly what religious people in general are instructed to believe from childhood. Internally, your average catholic churchgoer knows as well as you or I do that it's not blood and meat that they're consuming, otherwise they wouldn't touch it. But nonetheless, they still manage somehow to tell themselves, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that it is. It's another instance of the strength of that peculiar religious mindset in which you feel ok to say that something *is* true, simply because you *believe* that it's true.

Theophagy -- the practice of physically eating gods -- goes back a long, long way into human history and pre-history and most anthropologists believe that it's directly descended from the belief common in many primitive tribes + bands that you can assume the "quality" of something or someone, by eating it (hence, too, the interest in the ginseng root, which is human-shaped when harvested -- see here).

BTW, the physical similarity in color between blood and red wine, leading to its inclusion in the christian rite, seems to be one of the few features of christianity which is original to that religion (though I'd like to verify this a bit further, because the similarity between the two seems too close for it not to have been noticed and used before christianity arose).

metrovelvet

Yes officially to both questions.

However, when I was sent to Jesuit school they referred to her as the "so called virgin." And when they ran out of hosts they didnt think twice about going across to the street from the local deli run by Palestinians to buy a loaf of wonder bread to disperse to their students who were around the corner by the Czeck Embassy smoking fags right before mass. Does the hour rule just apply to food or to cigarettes too?

They do believe that the bread converts into flesh, well they are supposed to. But I think it has to be unleavened, I guess somehow the yeast interferes in this process. Lol, yes Christ can overcome death, but yeast?

Saying that, I often wonder do, Catholics with OCD have a problem with receiving the host and drinking the wine, considering the transfer of microbes, or do they trust in the healing power of Christ?

robindch

> do Catholics with OCD have a problem with receiving the host
> and drinking the wine, considering the transfer of microbes,
> or do they trust in the healing power of Christ?

For the microbe-conscious theophagist, there do exist individually-wrapped communion wafers (see this piccy), while this report discusses some of the risks of eating in church:

Not surprisingly, some individuals in the study had small amounts of fecal and other potentially dangerous bacteria on their fingertips, and some of these were recovered from the chalice samplings.

Other religious dangers included some research a couple of years ago which suggested that there was an increased cancer risk for very regular church attendees coming from cancerous particles in the heavy smoke from incense and large candles. And there was that case last year (?) of the evangelical preacher in the USA who electrocuted and drowned himself while doing one of those showy full-immersion baptisms.

> Christ can overcome death, but yeast?

Perhaps there's a worry that the bread might rise again on the third day without any obvious help from the hereafter?

metrovelvet

[QUOTE=robindch
> Christ can overcome death, but yeast?

Perhaps there's a worry that the bread might rise again on the third day without any obvious help from the hereafter?[/QUOTE]

Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor from laughter.

larryone

Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility.

=0)

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

> Christ can overcome death, but yeast?

Perhaps there's a worry that the bread might rise again on the third day without any obvious help from the hereafter?

Ha-ha, That one must go down in the history of Boards i.e. as the best yet. Non-offensive and really really funny at the same time. Well done.:D
Excelsior, you should tuck this one away for one of your future sermons.

smidgy

Regarding the blood and wine...
What is wrong with believing things that are outside the abilities of your senses, after all this world is just an illusion by the eyes in that everything we see is 99% empty space. This is just another case that if you yield authority to the word of god in the bible you accept it to be true and if you yield authority to your own senses then you deem it to be untrue. I know which I'm with.

BrianCalgary

Regarding the Lord's Supper.

There were two practices ordained by Christ: Baptism and Communion. Baptism is over on another thread. During baptism the Holy Spirit came upon Christ.

It has been argued that since Christ instituted the Lord's Supper, stated that 'this my body', 'this is my blood', that there is something more than just bread and wine.

When I was confirmed in the Anglican Church of Canada, at 15, I believed that the Holy Spirit was in the communion hosts (we got both). There was something special about what I was participating in. After attending an evangelical church for so many years and the cracker and grape juice became symbolic of Christ's body and blood, the whole process became rather empty.

I now look for the Spirit's presence within the eucharist and it has taken on new life and meaning. I don't know if I can go so far as transubstantiation, but why not? It is God with whom we are dealing. If He says that 'this is my body and blood', who are we to say that Christ isn't present within the communion hosts?

larryone

So how come people with alcohol allergies can't drink from the cup?
Are you telling me that if they truly have faith that they wont have any allergic reaction?

BrianCalgary

larryone wrote:

So how come people with alcohol allergies can't drink from the cup??

I don't know anyone with such an allergy nor have I ever come across the problem.

larryone wrote:

Are you telling me that if they truly have faith that they wont have any allergic reaction?

No. I said that Christ is present within the eucharist. My guess is that it is still alcohol and that the reaction will occur beacuase I don't believe that transubstantion happens, and that the wine remains wine.

Rev Hellfire

Transubstantion is not a physical change from one substance to another, that my friend is transmutation. This can be closest compared to a spirtual change if my understanding is correct, perhaps one of the practicing catholics could give us their view on it, so we can have an unbiased view from their camp.

BrianCalgary

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Transubstantion is not a physical change from one substance to another, that my friend is transmutation. This can be closest compared to a spirtual change if my understanding is correct, perhaps one of the practicing catholics could give us their view on it, so we can have an unbiased view from their camp.

Thanks for the clarification.:)

larryone

BrianCalgary wrote:

I don't know anyone with such an allergy nor have I ever come across the problem.

AFAIK technically it's not an allergy, but it involves a rapid rise in temperature, pulse, flushing of the skin, headache and usually nausea. I think it has more to do with the individuals ability to metabolise the alcohol or something. I know someone who has an allergy to brewers yeast and hence cant drink beer - not sure what the wine situation there is.

BrianCalgary wrote:

No. I said that Christ is present within the eucharist. My guess is that it is still alcohol and that the reaction will occur beacuase I don't believe that transubstantion happens, and that the wine remains wine.

I was referring more to what catholocism has to say about it.
But it seems I am not fully getting what exactly the differences between transubstantiation and consubstantiation really are...

BrianCalgary

larryone wrote:

AFAIK technically it's not an allergy, but it involves a rapid rise in temperature, pulse, flushing of the skin, headache and usually nausea....

I used to get that way with too much alcohol and a good looking babe in close proximity.:D

larryone wrote:

I was referring more to what catholocism has to say about it.
But it seems I am not fully getting what exactly the differences between transubstantiation and consubstantiation really are...

I'll leave this to someone born and raised catholic. Consubstantiation is new to me also.

staple

If you're interested in understanding Catholic ideas of transubstantiation, I suggest newadvent.org's article on "the real presence of Christ in the eucharist" and wikipedia's article on "substance theory" might help you.
As I understand it, Catholics do not claim that the bread and wine undergo a chemical change during consecration.

Yossie

staple wrote:

Catholics do not claim that the bread and wine undergo a chemical change during consecration.

There are numerous "official" miracle stories of the "host" and wine actually becoming real flesh and blood. There is no doubt as to what catholics were once meant to believe about transubstantiation, perhaps the church is now embarrassed of this literal take.

Rev Hellfire

Yossie wrote:

There are numerous "official" miracle stories of the "host" and wine actually becoming real flesh and blood. There is no doubt as to what catholics were once meant to believe about transubstantiation, perhaps the church is now embarrassed of this literal take.

Maybe you would be willing to backup where the catholic church has said there was a PHYSICAL change. As unsettling as it is for me to find myself defending the catholic church I find it needs to be said that from my view point there seems to be to be a witchhunt with reguards to this particular demoniation. (since all belief systems are as unbelivable as one another).

Yossie

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Maybe you would be willing to backup where the catholic church has said there was a PHYSICAL change.

Sure.
http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/SDRs/SDRs_02_01_012.html

And from .........
http://www.livingmiracles.net/Eucharist.html


we get this......
Scientific Studies

Local Church authorities as well as the Vatican have officially authenticated the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano on numerous occasions since the middle Ages.
The miraculous flesh and blood were submitted for recognition by ecclesiastic authorities and recognized as being authentic in 1574, 1637, 1770 and in 1886.
In 1970-71, a rigorous scientific analysis of the miracle was performed by Dr. Odorardo Linoli, professor in Anatomy, Pathological Histology, Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Dr. Ruggero Bertelli, a Professor of anatomy at the University of Siena.
The research done on the fragments of the Blood and the Flesh yielded the following results:
• The Blood is real blood and the Flesh is real flesh.
• The Flesh consists of muscular tissue of the myocardium (heart tissue).
• The Blood and the Flesh belong to the human species.
• The blood type is identical in the Blood and in the Flesh, type AB (identical to the Blood-type found on the Turin Shroud).
• The proteins in the blood are in the same proportions as those found in normal fresh blood.
• There is no trace whatsoever of any materials or agents used for preservation of flesh or blood.
• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an unexplainable phenomenon.

The turin shroud bit is a nice touch;)

There are plenty more examples if you care to look for them.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

(since all belief systems are as unbelivable as one another).

Ummm...... That sounds suspiciously like a "belief system" to me, so why believe it??:D

Yossie

Rev Hellfire wrote:

As unsettling as it is for me to find myself defending the catholic church I find it needs to be said that from my view point there seems to be to be a witchhunt with reguards to this particular demoniation.

From my point of view, I much prefer catholics to real christians. Most catholics don't really fully subscribe to the churches dogma.:) A lot more zealots amoung the christians:( I was brought up catholic, but was 13 before i knew that meant i was also a christian;)

But you are probably right about this forum, there is a heavy bias against catholicism and in favour of the "born again" crowd.

metrovelvet

Yossie is right and it is the MAIN theological distinction between Catholocism and Protestant demoninations. Catholics believe a MIRACLE takes place and that the wine turns into blood and the wine turns into flesh. Its very much a sarcrifice what the priest does. For Protestants its symbolic.

When I asked a priest famous nephew of a famous Italian flying saint,why women cant be priests he said they lack they lack the killer instinct needed for the breaking of the bread. Seriously, thats what he said.

robindch

> it is the MAIN theological distinction between Catholocism
> and Protestant demoninations.

That's an arguable point but I've never had any satisfactory reply to my suggestion to either side that since they believe that god is everywhere and therefore already present in the bread and wine, wouldn't that make the "transsubstantiation" (lovely word!) a bit pointless?

In terms of being upset about each other, though, I would submit that mutual suspicion between catholics and protestants concerning their opposing beliefs about Jesus' mum cause far more fireworks than any reservations they might both have about the theological nature of bread.

> When I asked a priest famous nephew of a famous Italian flying saint, why
> women cant be priests he said they lack they lack the killer instinct
> needed for the breaking of the bread.

Hmm... a french ex-monk once told me that women simply "don't have the balls to be priests", which is doctrinally quite accurate, as any castrato who's wanted to be a priest would have found out to his disappointment. Nice one about the killer instinct all the same though.

staple

Yossie wrote:

Sure.
http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/SDRs/SDRs_02_01_012.html

And from .........
http://www.livingmiracles.net/Eucharist.html


we get this......
Scientific Studies
[...]
There are plenty more examples if you care to look for them.

Ummm...... That sounds suspiciously like a "belief system" to me, so why believe it??:D

I think there are two kinds of miracle being confused here:
1. the miracle that happens every day at mass: has the Catholic church tested the host or communion wine after 'normal' consecration and claimed it had the physical/chemical composition of human flesh and blood? Again, a change of _substance_ (in its technical sense) is not the same as a change of physical/chemical composition. As one of the pages you link to says "the bread and the wine are believed literally to become the flesh and Blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit (although they retain the physical appearance, taste, texture, etc. of bread and wine)." Here's another link to Catholic doctrine: it doesn't mention chemical or physical change: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm
Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist not because they see wine turn into O+ but because they believe in revealed truth from God in the Bible and to the Church. Such belief seems to me to be a sine qua non for accepting real presence.

2. the miracles at Bolsena and Lanciano to which you link: the blood in the chalice at Lanciano may well have the chemical composition of human blood: this is a miracle believed to be sent once to a doubting monk. Many Catholics (and maybe some other Christians) believe that such miracles do occur. It is, so to speak, a one off.

Finally, would someone like to start another thread re. ordination of women? This thread seems to be wandering.

Yossie

staple wrote:

I think there are two kinds of miracle being confused here:

No confusion here staple. Rev Hellfire asked if I "would be willing to backup where the catholic church has said there was a PHYSICAL change."

I provided such back-up. Never claimed it happened at every mass, but the church does believed it has happen, although they are increasingly embarrassed about them, just like exorcisms.

staple wrote:

Again, a change of _substance_ (in its technical sense) is not the same as a change of physical/chemical composition. As one of the pages you link to says "the bread and the wine are believed literally to become the flesh and Blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit (although they retain the physical appearance, taste, texture, etc. of bread and wine)."

That sounds amazingly close to the Emperor's new clothes fairytale - one of my favourites:v:

staple wrote:

Such belief seems to me to be a sine qua non for accepting real presence.

You hit the nail on the head here - if you want to be in the club accept the dogma (whether irrational or not) - shame that for most people it's "bread";) into them , rather than real a choice

staple

This thread is concerned with what Roman Catholics believe about the eucharist; I've provided links that explain that belief. Catholics don't believe there is a chemical change but they do believe in real presence of Christ in the eucharist. I'm afraid I can't do any better than that. Many Christians believe something different about communion.

Yossie wrote:

Nf you want to be in the club accept the dogma (whether irrational or not)(

I'm not quite sure what is implied here. Rationalism and observation of the material world reveals facts, and (Christians believe) there is a higher truth beyond this material world: truth by authority (of the Bible and other things) and revelation. Christianity is based on completely unreasonable things like someone being dead for days and returning to life: for Christians 'irrational' does not mean 'wrong'. If you only believe in rationalism, empiricism and the material world, then you won't accept what Catholics believe about communion and someone as weak in argument as me certainly can't hope to convince you. I only hope to clarify what we believe and show where that belief comes from.

Yossie

staple wrote:

I'm not quite sure what is implied here. Rationalism and observation of the material world reveals facts, and (Christians believe) there is a higher truth beyond this material world: truth by authority (of the Bible and other things) and revelation. Christianity is based on completely unreasonable things like someone being dead for days and returning to life: for Christians 'irrational' does not mean 'wrong'. If you only believe in rationalism, empiricism and the material world, then you won't accept what Catholics believe about communion and someone as weak in argument as me certainly can't hope to convince you. I only hope to clarify what we believe and show where that belief comes from.

Thanks staple. You have impressed me with these comments. You nicely sketch what is for me, the divide between atheism and theism. Most believers I know won't accept the element of irrationality in their faith, so kudos from me:)

Re: Communion. Only wanted to show that the RC church have examples where they believed in the actual physical change. Their theology is as you stated, even if similar to said fairytale.

cmcg

larryone wrote:

=0)

they prob did but i think that she never got pregnant again. she was chosen as the mother of god so wouldnt have been anyone else's mother. apart from the fact that that is probably the plan for her just think of the inferiority complex of the brothers and sisters? siblin rivalry of the highest order

Akrasia

I was always taught that transubstantiation was the physical changing from bread into flesh and from wine into blood. It's even part of the Mass 'Body of christ' amen' And 'lord we are not willing to recieve you, but only say the word and we shall be healed' both suggest that we are supposed to be eating the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.

So basically, catholics are cannabals.

Asiaprod

cmcg wrote:

they prob did but i think that she never got pregnant again. she was chosen as the mother of god so wouldnt have been anyone else's mother. apart from the fact that that is probably the plan for her just think of the inferiority complex of the brothers and sisters? siblin rivalry of the highest order

Afraid you are way of base. There were quite a few siblings, they are mentioned by their names in the Gospels.