Torn between Catholicism and Protestantism?

daveyboynire

After some advice. I am a religious person, I was brought up as a protestant in the church of Ireland but I've always felt somewhat drawn to the catholic church, my wife is catholic and my kids all brought up catholic.

When I was a child my mother left home, I've never spoke to her in my life, my father as I say brought me up as a protestant and we never spoke about my mother and my father wouldn't tell me anything. However my mother in law recently told me something I never knew, she told me she went to school with my mother meaning I am actually half catholic.

So growing up in Northern Ireland adds an even bigger slant to it, so I'm very much now confused by my religion. Any advice?

seannash

flip a coin, its all the same.

Screaming Abdabs

I am Catholic and converted from atheism. It sounds like you are drawn to Catholicism as a way to reconnect to your mother. Are you in touch with your mother's side of the family at all?

lmaopml

daveyboynire wrote: »

After some advice. I am a religious person, I was brought up as a protestant in the church of Ireland but I've always felt somewhat drawn to the catholic church, my wife is catholic and my kids all brought up catholic.

When I was a child my mother left home, I've never spoke to her in my life, my father as I say brought me up as a protestant and we never spoke about my mother and my father wouldn't tell me anything. However my mother in law recently told me something I never knew, she told me she went to school with my mother meaning I am actually half catholic.

So growing up in Northern Ireland adds an even bigger slant to it, so I'm very much now confused by my religion. Any advice?

Pray! And never decide to do things 'just because' you have a loyalty, or no - first of all 'pray' and ask to know Christ, and for him to reveal himself to you. Just pray..

topcatcbr

There is nothing to stop you attending both masses and get a feel for both. Then choose whichever one you feel more drawn to. I don't think Jesus would mind either way.

martinedwards

what he said.

I've been a Presbyterian Anglican & Methodist, and attended RC mass....

it's all worshiping the same God.

each has its own strengths and weaknesses.

MRnotlob606

Agreed we should all be working on Christian Unity

Marhay70

Why would you bother being one or the other? At the beginning there were no Protestants or Catholics and belonging to one or other is not necessary to be a Christian.
The so called Christian religions are so far removed from the teachings of Christ it's probably a better course just to lead your life in a Christian manner.
I'm pretty sure God, if he exists, is not ticking off some list of who is Catholic or Protestant.

Terrlock

After religion, try Christ Jesus.

Neither Catholicism or Protestantism follow the teachings of Christ. Sure they might have the basics but the add in a lot of man made up stuff.

The sooner you learn this the better.

Read the new testament, learn about Jesus. Develop a personal relationship with him and his Holy spirit. And Allow him to change your life around.

Benny_Cake

I'm not sure if you're still living in NI, I know that crossing the Catholic / Protestant divide is no small thing there. As others have said, there is no harm in trying a number of churches. If after that you feel led towards Catholicism, then I'm sure you'll be welcomed.

lazybones32

Explore what you feel is drawing you to the RCC. Pray much. Ask God for His Light.
It could be that you knew your mother was Catholic and this "draw" could be an unfulfilled desire being expressed by your subconscious (which records everything).

Lady Chuckles

I'm also a protestant drawn towards Catholicism. I'm not entirely sure why, but Catholicism has always had a special place in my heart. After a lot of pondering, I decided it doesn't matter which one I choose and that there's no rush in choosing either. I believe in God and I believe in being good
For me, that's the most important thing right now.

..... So take your time, OP. If possible try to go to mass. See what it's about
Pray and consider, but don't stress yourself

Mango Joe

I used to have this exact same problem growing up in Ireland - until I got a passport and subsequently realized my issue stretched far beyond Catholicism or Protestantism - Now I'm not even sure which God I support, so many decisions - I wish I'd never broadened my mind

leonil7

Catholicism or protestantism or any sect for that matter is only as true as it upholds scripture to be its guiding authority. Everything else falls into place.

Marhay70

Mango Joe wrote: »

I used to have this exact same problem growing up in Ireland - until I got a passport and subsequently realized my issue stretched far beyond Catholicism or Protestantism - Now I'm not even sure which God I support, so many decisions - I wish I'd never broadened my mind

I would be counting myself among the lucky ones if I were you, mind broadening is something that would be of benefit to many in this narrow and insular country. Unfortunately the cradle to grave indoctrination of our churches is so ingrained in many of our emigrants that no amount of travel can broaden their minds.

Benny_Cake

Mod: Could we try to keep this thread focused on the OP's question? Whether Christians are indoctrinated or not can be discussed elsewhere - thanks.

mcmoustache

What do you believe yourself and which church's beliefs best matches yours?

Basically, if you believe that communion wafers are Christ, that purgatory exists, that confession must be done through a priest and that worshipping statues is OK then you're catholic.

If instead, you think the wafers are symbolic, that purgatory sounds a bit far-fetched, that confession should be done directly to Christ and that worshipping idols and graven images (as Moses was told) is a bit pagan, then you're protestant.

indy_man

I was raised a Catholic, lapsed then found Christ again through protestants and now find myself home in the Catholic Church again the last number of years. I feel very close to Christ these days. As they say, pray and ask the Holy Spirit to lead you.

Peregrinus

Most members of most churches were raised in them.

But, of those who make an adult choice to enter, very few make the choice based on theological convictions they have arrived at, and then finding a church to match them. Still fewer make the choice based on hostile theological characterisations of a particular church made by someone from another church.

Or, in briefer language, mcmoustache's approach is unlikel to be a fruitful one for you.

What draws people into a particular church, in 95% of cases, is human relationships - they are looking for, and they find, fellowship and communion.

The only way you will know if the Catholic church - or the Anglican church, or the Presbyterian church - is the church for you is by putting your toe in the water. Give it a try. Go along and make some connections.

Obviously, in making a decision to commit to a particular church, at some point along the way you'll want to consider what that church believes and teaches, and whether those are things that you can accept with integrity. Suspend judgment on that, though, until you've had an opportunity to discuss that church's teachings with someone who is largely in sympathy with them.

sawdoubters

is your mother still alive

I would try and recoonect with heryou can do a lot of searches on the internet

keano_afc

Dont put yourself in a box or look for a label. I'm a Christian. I worship Christ and Christ alone, as instructed by scripture. The Bible is my only authority on spiritual matters.

Seek God's face, in prayer and through his Word. You'll not be left wanting.

Manach

My 2c, from a Catholic viewpoint.
First there are many excellent Protestant churches with a vibrant community so I'm not arguing per se against them, but more to give the positive aspects of Catholicism.
Second, this would be a major decision point in life and I'd advise reading primars on the Catholic faith. From a doctrinal standing, there is the excellent Youcat catechism, from a histortical standing many good books (eg History of the Catholic Church by James Hitchcock ) and from a balanced perspective giving the good and at times poor aspects of Catholicism (The Catholic Church: What Everyone Needs to Know by John L. Allen)-

My own testimony, I find it challenging and comforting to be part of Catholic community to try and understanding the culture and teachings and as a way to experience God. To paraphrase the convert Elevyn Waugh, being catholic might not make you a better person, but you could be a lot worst without it.

Marhay70

The OP professes to being a Christian. I assume this must have been acquired during his Protestant upbringing but some people can be attracted by the ritual of the RC church. I'm not one of them however, not a basis for fulfillment IMO.
Some time ago, as a support for his wife and family, I attended the Month's Mind mass at the graveside of an old friend. During the mass, a decade of the Rosary was recited. I was absolutely amazed, the whole thing was over in about two minutes flat and this to me sums up the RC church, everything is mechanical, there is no apparent depth of feeling. I doubt if any of the people who partook in that ceremony could even recount what had actually taken place.
I've attended services in C of I churches too and while there is a certain sameness to the ceremony as is in the RC church, nothing to compare with what I have witnessed in RC churches, where robotic priests minister to robotic congregations. It is all about ritual, so if that's what you want then go for it but my advice, as before is, if what you are looking for is fulfillment in your pursuit of Christianity, then you need to look into yourself and not outwards to organised religion.

maryishere

Manach wrote: »

being catholic might not make you a better person, but you could be a lot worst without it.

you could equally substitute the word protestant or Christian or indeed jewish or muslim in to the above sentence : being "religious" might not make you a better person, but you could be a lot worst without it

mcmoustache wrote: »

What do you believe yourself and which church's beliefs best matches yours?
Basically, if you believe that communion wafers are Christ, that purgatory exists, that confession must be done through a priest and that worshipping statues is OK then you're catholic.

Not to mention the catholic churches beliefs on such matters as birth control / contraception. The Catholic churches beliefs on its track record with regard to all the scandals. When talking about matching "church beliefs" to peoples beliefs, bear that in mind....why would people pretend or try to believe something they are not comfortable with /think is wrong.

keano_afc wrote: »

Dont put yourself in a box or look for a label. I'm a Christian. I worship Christ and Christ alone, as instructed by scripture. The Bible is my only authority on spiritual matters.

Seek God's face, in prayer and through his Word. You'll not be left wanting.

correct imho.

lmaopml

maryishere wrote: »

you could equally substitute the word protestant or Christian or indeed jewish or muslim in to the above sentence : being "religious" might not make you a better person, but you could be a lot worst without it



Not to mention the catholic churches beliefs on such matters as birth control / contraception. The Catholic churches beliefs on its track record with regard to all the scandals. When talking about matching "church beliefs" to peoples beliefs, bear that in mind....why would people pretend or try to believe something they are not comfortable with /think is wrong.


correct imho.

I guess that the Catholic Church is the big baddie, and so are Catholics too - we're all apparently by popular opinion the very terrible people these days.

Not so in real life, but online, this seems to be the case. It's apparent really how nasty we are. Complete assholes really..


Thank you!

maryishere

lmaopml wrote: »

we're all apparently by popular opinion the very terrible people these days.

No we are not. Myself and the previous poster would not seem to think so anyway. There are good, and some not-so-good people everywhere. Do not be any more hypocritical that you are already.;)

jjpep

Have you considered Judaism? The original, if you like.

lmaopml

maryishere wrote: »

No we are not. Myself and the previous poster would not seem to think so anyway. There are good, and some not-so-good people everywhere. Do not be any more hypocritical that you are already.;)

Why thankyou. From one hypocrit to another it means a lot to me, and I'd just like to say....really thankyou for that insight, I didn't realise this before now, but suddenly it's become clear to me and I think I may become something other that what I am now...I think I may have found the courage to do so now that I know I am not alone etc. so on...

Juza1973

I think that you should consider your religion based on your relationship with Jesus. What is the path that you are convinced Jesus wants you to follow? I generally find protestant very interesting and nice but on religious matters I only care about the Lord.

daveyboynire

I've been pondering this over the past week or so and am none the wiser really. One main thing I've noticed however, during my childhood being brought up as a Protestant we all were very knowledgeable about the bible and its teaching, even now I am very familiar with its teachings, I could ask my other half about a basic story about say the 10 commandments, she wouldn't have a notion. The same can be said for her mother, who attends mass several times per week and puts across this image of a deeply religious woman but in reality living in a small rural area its all about being seen at mass rather than what you learn at mass, its not about religion, Christ, Jesus etc at all, its all about what the neighbours think.

I wonder now much of this really goes on?

Marhay70

daveyboynire wrote: »

I've been pondering this over the past week or so and am none the wiser really. One main thing I've noticed however, during my childhood being brought up as a Protestant we all were very knowledgeable about the bible and its teaching, even now I am very familiar with its teachings, I could ask my other half about a basic story about say the 10 commandments, she wouldn't have a notion. The same can be said for her mother, who attends mass several times per week and puts across this image of a deeply religious woman but in reality living in a small rural area its all about being seen at mass rather than what you learn at mass, its not about religion, Christ, Jesus etc at all, its all about what the neighbours think.

I wonder now much of this really goes on?

This is essentially the difference between the RC church and mainstream Protestantism. This was at the heart of Luther's reformation, the availability of the Bible and the Gospel to the masses.
Most religious education is carried out in schools and tends to be doctrinal rather than Biblical.
It's hard to be judgemental on people"s motives for attending mass but years ago.it was considered a mortal sin not

georgieporgy

daveyboynire wrote: »

I've been pondering this over the past week or so and am none the wiser really. One main thing I've noticed however, during my childhood being brought up as a Protestant we all were very knowledgeable about the bible and its teaching, even now I am very familiar with its teachings, I could ask my other half about a basic story about say the 10 commandments, she wouldn't have a notion. The same can be said for her mother, who attends mass several times per week and puts across this image of a deeply religious woman but in reality living in a small rural area its all about being seen at mass rather than what you learn at mass, its not about religion, Christ, Jesus etc at all, its all about what the neighbours think.

I wonder now much of this really goes on?

it would be a mistake to assume that all catholics know and practise their religion. Many are just as ignorant and careless as non catholics are when it comes to knowledge of what the (catholic) church holds to be true.

This site takes you to conversion stories of people from a variety of backgrounds. You might find it helpful; http://whyimcatholic.com/

maryishere

daveyboynire wrote: »

I've been pondering this over the past week or so and am none the wiser really. One main thing I've noticed however, during my childhood being brought up as a Protestant we all were very knowledgeable about the bible and its teaching, even now I am very familiar with its teachings, I could ask my other half about a basic story about say the 10 commandments, she wouldn't have a notion. The same can be said for her mother, who attends mass several times per week and puts across this image of a deeply religious woman but in reality living in a small rural area its all about being seen at mass rather than what you learn at mass, its not about religion, Christ, Jesus etc at all, its all about what the neighbours think.

I wonder now much of this really goes on?

The point you made about Protestants being "very knowledgeable about the bible and its teaching", much more so than Catholics, is an interesting one. As someone else said, this was at the heart of Luther's reformation, the availability of the Bible and the Gospel to the masses. Most of the people converting these days seem to be from the RC church to Protestantism rather than the other way round. Not that it makes much difference really - as one fellow Catholic said to me once, many if not most of the Catholics in Ireland are Protestants anyway. "Why" I said, "is it because they reject Romes view on contraception, role of women in the church etc". No, he said,"define Protestant".

mcmoustache wrote: »

if you believe that communion wafers are Christ

Many young catholics would not believe that, and neither would we accept many of the churches other teachings.
As long as you are a good person and obey the commandments that's the main thing....if everyone done that the world would be a better place.

lazybones32

Marhay70 wrote: »

This is essentially the difference between the RC church and mainstream Protestantism. This was at the heart of Luther's reformation, the availability of the Bible and the Gospel to the masses.
Most religious education is carried out in schools and tends to be doctrinal rather than Biblical.
It's hard to be judgemental on people"s motives for attending mass but years ago.it was considered a mortal sin not

It still is a sin for a Catholic Christian to not attend Sunday Mass (obv. there are mitigating factors and circumstances but for a Christian to willfully ignore the breaking of the bread on the Lords day is sin)

Marhay70

lazybones32 wrote: »

It still is a sin for a Catholic Christian to not attend Sunday Mass (obv. there are mitigating factors and circumstances but for a Christian to willfully ignore the breaking of the bread on the Lords day is sin)

Thanks, the Catholic church has moved so many goalposts, I thought it might have been one I missed.

Marhay70

maryishere wrote: »

T


Many young catholics would not believe that, and neither would we accept many of the churches other teachings.
As long as you are a good person and obey the commandments that's the main thing....if everyone done that the world would be a better place.

How could you fail to believe in transubstantiation and still call yourself a Catholic. This is probably the main area of disagreement in faith, between Rome and certainly, the Anglican Church. Other than that and the infallibility of the Pope, there is very little difference in the two.

maryishere

Marhay70 wrote: »

How could you fail to believe in transubstantiation and still call yourself a Catholic.

Because the great Catholic education system gave me a scientific training as well as a logical mind, and one day I realised the bread and the wine used in the Eucharist symbolised the body and blood of Christ, and was not actually the body and blood of Christ.

Marhay70 wrote: »

This is probably the main area of disagreement in faith, between Rome and certainly, the Anglican Church. Other than that and the infallibility of the Pope, there is very little difference in the two.

A few other differences, like attitudes to child abuse, equality of women, and birth control matters. With all the abnormal weather lately, climate change is being thought about, and I feel the Catholic churches attitude to large families is partly to blame. Do you realise how the world population has grown and how unsustainable it is? It is estimated that the world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927, but it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960. Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999 and, according to the United States Census Bureau, seven billion in March 2012. The United Nations, however, estimated that the world population reached seven billion in October 2011. One scenario predicts a massive increase to 256 billion by 2150, assuming the global fertility rate remained at its 1995 level of 3.04 children per woman. Time for the Catholic Church to at least stop condemning condoms methinks.;)

lazybones32

maryishere wrote: »

Because the great Catholic education system gave me a scientific training as well as a logical mind, and one day I realised the bread and the wine used in the Eucharist symbolised the body and blood of Christ, and was not actually the body and blood of Christ.



A few other differences, like attitudes to child abuse, equality of women, and birth control matters. With all the abnormal weather lately, climate change is being thought about, and I feel the Catholic churches attitude to large families is partly to blame. Do you realise how the world population has grown and how unsustainable it is? It is estimated that the world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927, but it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960. Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999 and, according to the United States Census Bureau, seven billion in March 2012. The United Nations, however, estimated that the world population reached seven billion in October 2011. One scenario predicts a massive increase to 256 billion by 2150, assuming the global fertility rate remained at its 1995 level of 3.04 children per woman. Time for the Catholic Church to at least stop condemning condoms methinks.;)

I actually wanted to write a Thesis on how the World could easily support 10 Billion humans but 2 things prevented me: 1) My Adviser called it "too theoretical" and 2) Colin Tudge (Queen Elizabeth's adviser) already wrote a similar book. Providentially, I ended up writing a thesis on something that can help make my initial claim a reality.
A more mathematically minded-person would be able to relay the correct proportions, but humans are to the Earth what harmless bacteria are to the surface of an apple. Multiple factors influence climate (it always "changes") but the popular money-making myth is that it is solely attributed to human activity. Did anyone consider the fact that the Polar magnetic fields are decreasing in strength as being an important event that will have major consequences?... They naturally shift and no change comes without turmoil.
There are so many different contributors to Earths climate and there is a powerful lobby promoting climate-change (could they benefit somehow?) which has been proven to present misleading and falsified statistics in the recent past.
If you credit an Institution with fostering a "scientific mind", don't dishonour yourself by swallowing whatever is thrown at you by popular Media. Truth and objectivity are not on their agenda.

I gets carried away when I start...but to keep my post relevant I have a question for you:
Did Jesus tell his disciples and hearers to actually eat his flesh and drink his blood?

Marhay70

maryishere wrote: »

Because the great Catholic education system gave me a scientific training as well as a logical mind, and one day I realised the bread and the wine used in the Eucharist symbolised the body and blood of Christ, and was not actually the body and blood of Christ.



A few other differences, like attitudes to child abuse, equality of women, and birth control matters.

Not apples and apples. transubstantiation is a basic tenet of the RC church, the others could be changed at the stroke of a pen.
The church has a history of making up the rules to suit the occasion. Married priests is one issue that springs to mind, this was quite a common feature of the early church and suddenly, on a whim and, it is assumed, for financial reasons, it was a no-no.
On the subject of women who, IMO, are treated disgracefully by the church. It never ceases to amaze me that an institution which holds a single, particular woman, in such high esteem, to a point where she seems to be on a par with God himself, should treat the rest of her gender with such contempt. I've often wondered what she thinks of it.

Marhay70

lazybones32 wrote: »

I gets carried away when I start...but to keep my post relevant I have a question for you:
Did Jesus tell his disciples and hearers to actually eat his flesh and drink his blood?

A question which more learned theologians than you or I have debated for many years.
Personally, I would say no. The bible clearly says he proffered the bread and wine, not that he cut chunks out of himself. He was speaking metaphorically.

georgieporgy

Marhay70 wrote: »

A question which more learned theologians than you or I have debated for many years.
Personally, I would say no. The bible clearly says he proffered the bread and wine, not that he cut chunks out of himself. He was speaking metaphorically.

When you eat bread, after a few hours it turns into you. Presumably this happens according to the design of the human body (made by God).

Would it be too much of a stretch of the imagination to contemplate God turning bread into himself also, and speeding up the process a bit?

Or would you limit his capabilities to creating worlds and stuff?;)

Marhay70

georgieporgy wrote: »

When you eat bread, after a few hours it turns into you. Presumably this happens according to the design of the human body (made by God).


Would it be too much of a stretch of the imagination to contemplate God turning bread into himself also, and speeding up the process a bit?

Or would you limit his capabilities to creating worlds and stuff?;)

The question is not what it turns into but what it is at time of consumption, eventually it will turn into faeces and urine.l
This is a subject which could become mired in"what ifs", what I have given is my opinion.
God could presumably do many things to make belief in Him easier, but obviously chooses not to.


.






..

lazybones32

Marhay70 wrote: »

A question which more learned theologians than you or I have debated for many years.
Personally, I would say no. The bible clearly says he proffered the bread and wine, not that he cut chunks out of himself. He was speaking metaphorically.

Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "(Metaphorically, metaphorically), I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.…Jn 6:52

(I substituted the word "Truly" with metaphorically and included them in parentheses ... because they don't belong there)
The Bible clearly says Jesus commands his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
I didn't ask for an interpretation or a personal position: I asked if Jesus said it.

RichardoKhan

Re Population growth. There is one reason & one reason alone it has grown relatively unfettered with................

MONEY.......People = Consumers

Marhay70

lazybones32 wrote: »

Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "(Metaphorically, metaphorically), I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.…Jn 6:52

(I substituted the word "Truly" with metaphorically and included them in parentheses ... because they don't belong there)
The Bible clearly says Jesus commands his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
I didn't ask for an interpretation or a personal position: I asked if Jesus said it.

Again it can only have been metaphorical. There are no accounts of Jesus physically offering bits of Himself for consumption, if he had, I think there would be.
As I said, the subject is a minefield, we are not going to agree.
For instance, if a forensic examination was done after the consecration and it showed them to be bread and wine rather than flesh and blood, would you accept that? I doubt it.
In my opinion, it was symbolic at the Last Supper and remains so today.

Peregrinus

Marhay70 wrote: »

Again it can only have been metaphorical. There are no accounts of Jesus physically offering bits of Himself for consumption, if he had, I think there would be.

But the Catholic church has never claimed that the eucharist is physically Jesus. On the contrary, the notion of transusbstantiation says very clearly that, as far as the physics goes, the eucharist is bread and wine.

Marhay70 wrote: »

As I said, the subject is a minefield, we are not going to agree.
For instance, if a forensic examination was done after the consecration and it showed them to be bread and wine rather than flesh and blood, would you accept that? I doubt it.

Any orthodox Catholic will accept that. It's what Catholic teaching would lead them to expect.

Marhay70 wrote: »

In my opinion, it was symbolic at the Last Supper and remains so today.

As far as CAtholics are concerned, you're posing a false dichotomy between "physical" and "symbolic" - if a thing is not physically X, then it can only be symbolically X. But there is no argument - either theological or scientific - that says this must be so.

lazybones32

Marhay70 wrote: »

Again it can only have been metaphorical. There are no accounts of Jesus physically offering bits of Himself for consumption, if he had, I think there would be.
As I said, the subject is a minefield, we are not going to agree.
For instance, if a forensic examination was done after the consecration and it showed them to be bread and wine rather than flesh and blood, would you accept that? I doubt it.
In my opinion, it was symbolic at the Last Supper and remains so today.

Again, I am not seeking opinions, perspectives, interpretations etc; I simply asked if Christ said what he said. Many claim to have the ability to discern what Christ meant when he spoke, but I'm only interested in the criteria they use and their authority to decide.
Re: forensics.....Lanciano?

Marhay70

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the Catholic church has never claimed that the eucharist is physically Jesus. On the contrary, the notion of transusbstantiation says very clearly that, as far as the physics goes, the eucharist is bread and wine.

I don't pretend to be as expert on Catholic theology but perhaps you could explain this extract from the cathecism to me.


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

I think you are engaging in semantics; as I read this, the belief is that the bread and wine becomes the physical substance of the body and blood, while retaining the appearance of bread and wine.
I don't accept that this is the case but I don't object to Catholics accepting it, in the same way as I don't object to Muslims' belief in Mohammed.
My contention was that it is one of the main differences between Roman Catholicism and most of the reformed churches.

Peregrinus

Marhay70 wrote: »

I don't pretend to be as expert on Catholic theology but perhaps you could explain this extract from the cathecism to me.


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

I think you are engaging in semantics; as I read this, the belief is that the bread and wine becomes the physical substance of the body and blood, while retaining the appearance of bread and wine.

You’re sticking in the word “physical” into your summary of how you read what the Catechisms says, even though that word doesn’t appear in the Catechism.

You’re assuming, I think, that “substance” = “physical substance”. Not so, in this context.

The quote is taken, as the Catechism says, from the Council of Trent, which considered this matter a bit over 400 years ago. At the time, the state-of-the-art language of natural philosophy distinguished between the substance of a thing and its accidents. “Accidents” are properties of a thing that we encounter, from which we know what that thing is, but accidents can be changed or modified. For example, water can be encountered as a liquid, a solid or a vapour, but it’s always water; its “essence” or “substance” is unchanged by the change in state. A chair can be made of metal or wood (accidents), but it’s still a chair (substance). Things which exist only a substance, with no accidents, are ideals (a perfect circle, the number 2). In general, we can only experience the accidents of a thing, but the accidents are what point us to the substance.

This way of speaking about things goes back to Aristotle; it’s not much in vogue among philosophers today, which is why the language is hard for us to get to grips with, but it was very much standard stuff in 1600. Trent represents the Catholic church’s efforts to explain its doctrine of “real presence” in the language of their day. It’s not so helpful to us because it’s not the language of our day.

OK. A little thought shows that the physical properties of a thing - colour, weight, structure, shape, fabric, etc - are all accidents, in this sense, not substance. So when Trent says that the “substance” of the consecrated elements has changed, they’re not making any claim about a physical change. In fact, although the point is not addressed in the extract you quote from the Catechism, fuller explanations from the time explicitly state that the “accidents” of bread and wine remain - i.e. it is acknowledged that there is no physical change. The change claimed is not in any physical property, but in an essence or substance which lies under, beyond or behind the physical properties - not a physical change but a metaphysical change.

Marhay70 wrote: »

My contention was that it is one of the main differences between Roman Catholicism and most of the reformed churches.

There is a diversity of belief in the reformed churches. They mostly reject the Council of Trent’s teachings about transubstantiation, but they mostly accept, or at least can accommodate, a teaching that Christ is “really present” in the eucharist. The view that the eucharist is purely symbolic is known as the Zwinglian view; it’s most commonly found in Baptist and Evangelical (in the American sense) churches. But Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians all adhere (at least formally) to a “real presence” teaching which, while rejecting the technicalities of transubstantiation, also affirm that the “Real Presence” is, indeed, real, and not purely symbolic.

Marhay70

Peregrinus wrote: »

You’re sticking in the word “physical” into your summary of how you read what the Catechisms says, even though that word doesn’t appear in the Catechism.

You’re assuming, I think, that “substance” = “physical substance”. Not so, in this context.

The quote is taken, as the Catechism says, from the Council of Trent, which considered this matter a bit over 400 years ago. At the time, the state-of-the-art language of natural philosophy distinguished between the substance of a thing and its accidents. “Accidents” are properties of a thing that we encounter, from which we know what that thing is, but accidents can be changed or modified. For example, water can be encountered as a liquid, a solid or a vapour, but it’s always water; its “essence” or “substance” is unchanged by the change in state. A chair can be made of metal or wood (accidents), but it’s still a chair (substance). Things which exist only a substance, with no accidents, are ideals (a perfect circle, the number 2). In general, we can only experience the accidents of a thing, but the accidents are what point us to the substance.

This way of speaking about things goes back to Aristotle; it’s not much in vogue among philosophers today, which is why the language is hard for us to get to grips with, but it was very much standard stuff in 1600. Trent represents the Catholic church’s efforts to explain its doctrine of “real presence” in the language of their day. It’s not so helpful to us because it’s not the language of our day.

OK. A little thought shows that the physical properties of a thing - colour, weight, structure, shape, fabric, etc - are all accidents, in this sense, not substance. So when Trent says that the “substance” of the consecrated elements has changed, they’re not making any claim about a physical change. In fact, although the point is not addressed in the extract you quote from the Catechism, fuller explanations from the time explicitly state that the “accidents” of bread and wine remain - i.e. it is acknowledged that there is no physical change. The change claimed is not in any physical property, but in an essence or substance which lies under, beyond or behind the physical properties - not a physical change but a metaphysical change.


There is a diversity of belief in the reformed churches. They mostly reject the Council of Trent’s teachings about transubstantiation, but they mostly accept, or at least can accommodate, a teaching that Christ is “really present” in the eucharist. The view that the eucharist is purely symbolic is known as the Zwinglian view; it’s most commonly found in Baptist and Evangelical (in the American sense) churches. But Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians all adhere (at least formally) to a “real presence” teaching which, while rejecting the technicalities of transubstantiation, also affirm that the “Real Presence” is, indeed, real, and not purely symbolic.

To a neutral observer such as myself, this is all playing with words. My interpretation of transubstantiaton in the RC church is that the bread and wine, by way of miracle, becomes the body and blood of Jesus in substance. We can argue semantics of this until the cows come home but will still not agree.
My understanding of the Reformed churches, particularly the Anglican church, and I thank my parents for having the foresight to provide me with a secular education for this, is that they reject this. The belief is that Jesus is present only in spirit.

rorypb1

Life itself is a miracle.

There seems to a be confusion and misconceptions on this thread as to what the Catholic belief and teaching is regarding, the Eucharist, and the terminology.

Christ is really and truly present, in the form of the Eucharist, but in that form, he has, what we usually know as, the "physical properties" (more correctly "accidents") of bread and wine. i.e. taste, smell, texture, physical structure etc.

"God said . . . Let there be light . . and there was light"
"The word was made flesh and dwelt among us"
"This IS my body, this IS my blood"

It is no longer bread and wine, if any bread and wine remained, as St. Thomas Aquinas said, it would be idolatry.

Some useful ( and correct ) links :

From the Baltimore Catechism
"ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST"
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bsacr-e.htm

Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap. from EWTN
"MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE EUCHARIST"
http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/MODMISC.TXT

Also a short vid by Fr. Barron

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgy_TFeIyiM