Originally posted by snowinscotland Yea but I don't even like black puddings....
No seriously surely the bread and wine remain representations, they don't actually become something materially different? Am I dumb or too thick to get it?
Catholics believe that it really *is* the body and blood of Christ. Protestants believe that it's just symbolic.
Lucifershammer will elaborate on Catholic thinking. Something about a disjunction between properties and essence, I think.
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole Catholics believe that it really *is* the body and blood of Christ. Protestants believe that it's just symbolic.
Lucifershammer will elaborate on Catholic thinking. Something about a disjunction between properties and essence, I think.
Lucifershammer basically said 'so what'?
I didn't realise that people thought there was a literal transformation, and was curious as to how the thought process went - I guess if it's purely a matter of faith then perhaps I should let it lie...
Originally posted by snowinscotland I pretty much follow what you are saying, Jaywill, what I do not understand is the insistence on transubstantiation rather than transignification. You agree that there is a [b]literal change of bread into flesh?[/b]
No, I do not believe the physical bread becomes the physical body of Jesus.
Originally posted by snowinscotland Lucifershammer basically said 'so what'?
I didn't realise that people thought there was a literal transformation, and was curious as to how the thought process went - I guess if it's purely a matter of faith then perhaps I should let it lie...
If it's "purely a matter of faith" then you should wake up these brainwashed people who think bread is meat and wine is blood.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung If it's "purely a matter of faith" then you should wake up these brainwashed people who think bread is meat and wine is blood.
We teachers of the Bible's truth try by God's grace to teach it as accurately as we can and we try live Christ
Don't expect us to run into buildings shouting and shaking people by the shoulders to make a commotion. That is not our place.
We present the truth as accurately as God's mercy will allow us. And we allow people the freedom of conscience to accept the truth or to take another way.
Believing in transubstantiation doesn't really put a person outside of the Christian faith altogether. It is rather a misunderstanding which could be had by a true believer in Christ.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung If it's "purely a matter of faith" then you should wake up these brainwashed people who think bread is meat and wine is blood.
From what I was reading is not the minority of Christians who believe that - it is the majority. (ie the The Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East and the Roman Catholic Churches)
That is a substantial number of people. I guess I'm not smart enough to understand the theology behind it all, in that while bread and wine still appear to be bread and wine, they are not, and in fact become flesh and blood. The bread and wine appear to our senses to remain as bread and wine, but the substance of the bread becomes the flesh and the substance of the wine becomes blood. The appearance or accidents of the bread and wine remain, but the substance is that of the Lamb of God. Is that right? Can anybody enlighten me?
Originally posted by jaywill .... Believing in transubstantiation doesn't really put a person outside of the Christian faith altogether. It is rather a misunderstanding which could be had by a true believer in Christ.[/b]
I still don't follow. This is a misunderstanding of theology or physics?
Originally posted by snowinscotland From what I was reading is not the minority of Christians who believe that - it is the majority. (ie the The Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East and the Roman Catholic Churches)
That is a substantial number of people. I guess I'm not smart enough to understand the theology behind it all, in that while ...[text shortened]... remain, but the substance is that of the Lamb of God. Is that right? Can anybody enlighten me?
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole Catholics believe that it really *is* the body and blood of Christ. Protestants believe that it's just symbolic.
Lucifershammer will elaborate on Catholic thinking. Something about a disjunction between properties and essence, I think.
Accidents and essence, actually.
In classical terminology (borrowed from Greek philosophy), the consecrated species have the essence of Christ's body, blood, soul and divinity while retaining the accidents (external appearance and physical properties, for the purposes of this discussion) of bread and wine.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Accidents and essence, actually.
In classical terminology (borrowed from Greek philosophy), the consecrated species have the essence of Christ's body, blood, soul and divinity while retaining the accidents (external appearance and physical properties, for the purposes of this discussion) of bread and wine.
You don't think that there is something enormously gratuitous about this formulation?
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole Do you believe that either of the following is superstitious:
(a) People talk to God, and God hears them.
(b) God talks to people, and they hear him.
If you mean that all instances of people talking to God are of equal realism. I do not believe that. That should be obvious. Some of those instances would be not effective.
If you mean that all instances of people believing God talked to them are equally realistic. I do not believe that all such claims of God speaking to people would be real. Some would be not genuine.
If you mean normally people audibly hear the voice of God. I would say that that is not typical and probably obsession or superstition.
Now if you are willing to relinquish broad brushed generalizations.
I do believe that some instances of God speaking to people and people speaking to God are realistic and normal.
I do not expect that many hear an audible voice of God.
Originally posted by jaywill If you mean that all instances of people talking to God are of equal realism. I do not believe that. That should be obvious. Some of those instances would be not effective.
If you mean that all instances of people believing God talked to them are equally realistic. I do not believe that all such claims of God speaking to people would be real. Some would ...[text shortened]... ing to God are realistic and normal.
I do not expect that many hear an audible voice of God.
So, both (a) and (b) are sometimes superstitious, and sometimes not, in your view?
11 Nov '06 22:27
transubstantiation is cannabilism?
Back to Top