Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
In some Protestant Communities they do not believe in Transubstantiation and so it is just a memorial to the Last Supper therefore, purely symbolic.Roman Catholics are required to believe that the Blessed Sacraments take on the substance of Jesus' body and blood. That is they become fully his body and blood. However, the accidents (aka appearances) remain bread and wine. So while it looks, feels and appears to be bread and wine to the senses it is actually the blood and body of Christ.
interesting actually
I was most interested in that last part, as I didn't think you would believe you have literal, as in chemically composed, human flesh in the stomach. errr, that didn't sound right, but I think you know what I mean. ie, we wouldn't cut someone open and find flesh and blood.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
What is with the accidents part? I'm just trying to understand this because I've never heard of this before, I've gone to some of my wife's masses during the holidays and always understood this just to be symbolic, its hard for me to fathom that even though all your scenes and science tells you that it is wine and bread that it is really blood and flesh.
It remains in a "physical" sense bread/wine. However, it has actually ceased to be those things and has become the actual blood and body of Christ.
I guess you could say it is a physical versus spiritual thing but really that's not the most accurate answer.
It appears, smells, tastes like bread but it is the body.
I am surprised you've never heard of this before...it is the absolute fundamental practice in Roman Catholicism...
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, literal cannibalism with symbolic overtures towards oneness.
Originally posted by inimalist
interesting actuallyI was most interested in that last part, as I didn't think you would believe you have literal, as in chemically composed, human flesh in the stomach. errr, that didn't sound right, but I think you know what I mean. ie, we wouldn't cut someone open and find flesh and blood.
However, that is not to say it is both bread/wine and the body/blood of Christ (What Luther termed Consubstantiation). It is totally the body/blood, it just does not have the physical attributes of flesh/blood.
Jesus was God, but if you examined him you would never find evidence of that in his body- he didn't have a give away ultra high mediclorian count for example. Though in his case he was both totally man and totally human it still serves as an example of how one can have a substance that does not correspond with their accident.
I should point out that in the Roman Catholic Church this is not up for debate, it is infallible Church Doctrine. The Council of Trent imposed automatic excommunication on anyone who taught/believed that Transubstantiation was not true. Of course, it can be difficult to get your head around, took me some time. However, for Catholics who are unsure it is generally asked that they "increase" the bounds of their faith and accept it- in time (through meditation and prayer) coming to understand it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I know. 😄 He is delusional.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavThey symbolic nature of it yes but never that it "turns" into the blood and flesh of Christ. So what would you think of an Atheist that took part in this ritual?
It remains in a "physical" sense bread/wine. However, it has actually ceased to be those things and has become the actual blood and body of Christ.
I guess you could say it is a physical versus spiritual thing but really that's not the most accurate answer.It appears, smells, tastes like bread but it is the body.
I am surprised you've never heard of this before...it is the absolute fundamental practice in Roman Catholicism...
Originally posted by Da Pittman
They symbolic nature of it yes but never that it "turns" into the blood and flesh of Christ. So what would you think of an Atheist that took part in this ritual?
Yeah, it still surprises me that you never heard of this- though I think something like 80% of U.S. Catholics do not believe in Transubstantiation- again I wonder what the Jesuits in your country are doing...
Umm, non-Roman Catholics are not permitted to receive the Eucharist. They can go to the Mass though and take part in the ritual, just not receive the body/blood.
Though, it is better for the Atheist to eat the Eucharist than what these guys do.
I would not get upset with the Atheist for taking the Eucharist if they were sincere about it but if it was some sort of malevolent motive I would certainly be annoyed.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavWhat is the religious view on this? I wasn't going to piss on it or anything, just playing the role as to not upset my in-laws which do not know that I'm Atheist.
Yeah, it still surprises me that you never heard of this- though I think something like 80% of U.S. Catholics do not believe in Transubstantiation- again I wonder what the Jesuits in your country are doing...Umm, non-Roman Catholics are not permitted to receive the Eucharist. They can go to the Mass though and take part in the ritual, just not receive the body/blood.
Though, it is better for the Atheist to eat the Eucharist than what these guys do.
I would not get upset with the Atheist for taking the Eucharist if they were sincere about it but if it was some sort of malevolent motive I would certainly be annoyed.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
What is the religious view on this? I wasn't going to piss on it or anything, just playing the role as to not upset my in-laws which do not know that I'm Atheist.
If they are strict, and find out you are taking the Eucharist illicitly (i.e. not a Catholic) then they should rightly ask you to desist.
However, they might not believe in Transubstantiation and so won't care...
However, I do and I would ask you not to take communion.
Some people might get very upset, which I think is permissible considering, however the real factor is how you would respond to their concerns.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavI will respect their wishes just as I wish they would respect mine, after all that is why I'm going to their church in the first place. They only know me as being "non-religious" but not an Atheist which they would have real issues with which bothers me because I have to hide it to keep fighting out of the family but I will keep up the charade until they push me to my limit. I don't go to their church often, normally only once a few years during Christmas and I only did the Eucharist once the first time, even I thought that is a bit of disrespect to them but didn't want to make a scene at that time. Now I just sit back while they do their thing and they seem to be OK with it.
If they are strict, and find out you are taking the Eucharist illicitly (i.e. not a Catholic) then they should rightly ask you to desist.However, they might not believe in Transubstantiation and so won't care...
However, I do and I would ask you not to take communion.
Some people might get very upset, which I think is permissible considering, however the real factor is how you would respond to their concerns.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
I will respect their wishes just as I wish they would respect mine, after all that is why I'm going to their church in the first place. They only know me as being "non-religious" but not an Atheist which they would have real issues with which bothers me because I have to hide it to keep fighting out of the family but I will keep up the charade until they push me to my limit. I don't go to their church often, normally only once a few years during Christmas and I only did the Eucharist once the first time, even I thought that is a bit of disrespect to them but didn't want to make a scene at that time. Now I just sit back while they do their thing and they seem to be OK with it.
Chances are they hope it will rub off on you...
This Eucharist thing certainly confuses me... You are saying that in all conceivable attributes it is bread but that it in fact is not even bread in the slightest, but actually the body of christ. If something is bread, then it is bread. Bread is something defined by it's physical attributes, therefore if something has the physical attributes of bread then it is defined as bread. This idea goes against the very definition of "bread".
Originally posted by King Kandy
This Eucharist thing certainly confuses me... You are saying that in all conceivable attributes it is bread but that it in fact is not even bread in the slightest, but actually the body of christ. If something is bread, then it is bread. Bread is something defined by it's physical attributes, therefore if something has the physical attributes of bread then it is defined as bread. This idea goes against the very definition of "bread".
In Roman Catholic theology we call it a miracle.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavSo miracles happen every Sunday? This seems a little weird to me, in the face of all evidence, science and even your own scenes it is wine and bread but you must believe that it turns into blood and wine? I could see the spirit of his blood and flesh but not the actually oxygen carrying blood.
In Roman Catholic theology we call it a miracle.
Re: 10 year old minister?
Originally posted by chithappens
VideoDoes anyone else have a problem with this?
Goddamn right I do, its ****ed up.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
So miracles happen every Sunday? This seems a little weird to me, in the face of all evidence, science and even your own scenes it is wine and bread but you must believe that it turns into blood and wine? I could see the spirit of his blood and flesh but not the actually oxygen carrying blood.
It really isn't that hard to believe...scientific evidence of your body would never reveal a soul. However, I still believe you have one.
Originally posted by .😮U812:.
This is the one that I saw
sort of back on topic
I see your point, and I think it is fair to say that 4 years old is way different than 10, though I still don't see any problems in theory
case by case, I would say the son of the man who got visually upset when the interviewer said she had not been baptised might not have as much say as the black kid did (we get no real information on how he got into it [and I don't see the faith healing as being that bad, maybe letting him think he is a prophet...]) but, the real question then becomes, are we upset that the 4 year old is preaching these things, or do we just not like the fact that they are being taught these things in the first place.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavYou still believe that there is a soul even though there is no evidence of it just as the Eucharistic, both of these are hard to believe if you do not have the faith. There is not evidence, nothing to prove of its existence.
The Eucharistic miracle happens millions of times every day.It really isn't that hard to believe...scientific evidence of your body would never reveal a soul. However, I still believe you have one.
Originally posted by inimalistIf you think that the 4 year old is touched by god then why would it make a difference if he was 10?
sort of back on topicI see your point, and I think it is fair to say that 4 years old is way different than 10, though I still don't see any problems in theory
case by case, I would say the son of the man who got visually upset when the interviewer said she had not been baptised might not have as much say as the black kid did (we get no real information on how he got into it [and I don't see the faith healing as being that bad, maybe letting him think he is a prophet...]) but, the real question then becomes, are we upset that the 4 year old is preaching these things, or do we just not like the fact that they are being taught these things in the first place.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
If you think that the 4 year old is touched by god then why would it make a difference if he was 10?
none
my only concern would be in the coercion of the child, though, as I have tried to point out, religion is certainly not the only or most salient thing that children have no choices over.