(December 18, 2015 at 12:50 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 13, 2015 at 4:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Here's some info on the belief:



They are still in the shape of bread and wine, but we do believe that Jesus is present within them.

Well, that's not what the Catechism says.  It says that there is a change in the substance -- "transubstantiation". Your quote cites CCC 1736 as if it's relevant, but it isn't, if you'll do yourself the favor of reading it.

This quote compares the doctrine of wine changing into blood -- physically, according to Catechism -- to a child changing into an adult.  The comparison is clearly faulty, for while children, so long as they are nurtured indeed grow into adults, wine, no matter how long it is prayed-over, will never change into the blood of a man. You appeal to a meaningless spirituo-theological definition of "substance" in this special pleading of yours, but the fact is, your Catholic Catechism makes no such claim, distinguishes no such nuance. It simply states that the wafers turn into the substance of flesh -- they take on that material form. The wine turns to blood.

The quote you've provided is a combination of semantics and appeals to authority that carry no weight. These bishops can redefine substance as "deepest reality" (whatever that horseshit means!), but the fact is, they did not write the Catechism. The authors of the Catechism left no doubt in their words that they thought of transubstantiation as a physical thing.

Your post puzzled me because it didn't seem to line up with what I understand of Catholic theology. So, I decided to look it up myself.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states:

1376 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."

1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses [emphasis added],' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"

"Cannot be apprehended by the senses" means that the bread and wine still look like bread and wine even though the change in substance has occurred. In summary:

When a child becomes an adult, it does not change in substance...only the accidents have changed. This is not transubstantiation.

When a person eats an apple, both the accidents and the substance change as the apple is absorbed into the person. This is not transubstantiation.

When the bread and wine are consecrated by a priest with valid holy orders, the substance changes while the accidents do not. This IS transubstantiation.

---

(December 18, 2015 at 1:02 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Question: do the faithful who engage in the Eucharist actually notice the transubstantiation?  Because whenever I engaged in the ritual (remember, I grew up in a barely practicing Catholic household) it all tasted like a crappy stale wafer and wine, and I didn't feel blessed or energized or content afterward.  Then again, I was one of those kids who just kind of went through the motions because it's what my elders expected of me and I didn't want to get into trouble.  I never actually believed, even back then.

So, what do the faithful experience when they do it?

If the accidents are unchanged, then the "faithful" experience what you experienced because that is all that the senses can detect.

LOL, bread is a species!


Behold, the Resurrection:

(December 18, 2015 at 5:53 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: LOL, bread is a species!


Behold, the Resurrection:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=ch...definition

(December 18, 2015 at 6:04 pm)athrock Wrote:

(December 18, 2015 at 5:53 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: LOL, bread is a species!


Behold, the Resurrection:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=ch...definition

Somehow I think the first, and non-Christian definition came first - before some papal wordsmith hijacked it for the purpose of making bread and wine "alive", like his dead god's body once was.

(December 13, 2015 at 6:31 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Not from their perspective.  Do you wait until seven to teach your values?  Don't think so.  If you don't hold that your god belief is suspect, why would you hold back?  It is to be expected.

All child-rearing is a form of programming. Parents should indeed program values -- it's part of the job.

(December 18, 2015 at 5:20 pm)athrock Wrote:

(December 18, 2015 at 12:50 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Well, that's not what the Catechism says.  It says that there is a change in the substance -- "transubstantiation". Your quote cites CCC 1736 as if it's relevant, but it isn't, if you'll do yourself the favor of reading it.

This quote compares the doctrine of wine changing into blood -- physically, according to Catechism -- to a child changing into an adult.  The comparison is clearly faulty, for while children, so long as they are nurtured indeed grow into adults, wine, no matter how long it is prayed-over, will never change into the blood of a man. You appeal to a meaningless spirituo-theological definition of "substance" in this special pleading of yours, but the fact is, your Catholic Catechism makes no such claim, distinguishes no such nuance. It simply states that the wafers turn into the substance of flesh -- they take on that material form. The wine turns to blood.

The quote you've provided is a combination of semantics and appeals to authority that carry no weight. These bishops can redefine substance as "deepest reality" (whatever that horseshit means!), but the fact is, they did not write the Catechism. The authors of the Catechism left no doubt in their words that they thought of transubstantiation as a physical thing.

Your post puzzled me because it didn't seem to line up with what I understand of Catholic theology. So, I decided to look it up myself.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states:

1376 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."

1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses [emphasis added],' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"

"Cannot be apprehended by the senses" means that the bread and wine still look like bread and wine even though the change in substance has occurred. In summary:

When a child becomes an adult, it does not change in substance...only the accidents have changed. This is not transubstantiation.

When a person eats an apple, both the accidents and the substance change as the apple is absorbed into the person. This is not transubstantiation.

When the bread and wine are consecrated by a priest with valid holy orders, the substance changes while the accidents do not. This IS transubstantiation.

---

(December 18, 2015 at 1:02 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Question: do the faithful who engage in the Eucharist actually notice the transubstantiation?  Because whenever I engaged in the ritual (remember, I grew up in a barely practicing Catholic household) it all tasted like a crappy stale wafer and wine, and I didn't feel blessed or energized or content afterward.  Then again, I was one of those kids who just kind of went through the motions because it's what my elders expected of me and I didn't want to get into trouble.  I never actually believed, even back then.

So, what do the faithful experience when they do it?

If the accidents are unchanged, then the "faithful" experience what you experienced because that is all that the senses can detect.

^This.

Thanks Athrock.

(December 18, 2015 at 2:35 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(December 18, 2015 at 9:00 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No, it still looks/feels/tastes like bread and wine.

What about the second part of my question?  Do you feel different/better/changed/blessed when you take it?

Oh, sorry Kev. 

It really depends on my mentality when I take it. If I'm not really focused on what is happening, and just going through the motions, no, it doesn't feel any different. If I really reflect on the fact that this is Jesus, then yes. I do feel a sense of "empowerment", if you will.

(December 18, 2015 at 5:19 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 13, 2015 at 6:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't have children yet, but when I do I fully intend on raising them within the faith, which is the same way my parents raised me. However, once they start growing up I would hope the do their own "soul searching" to see if this is really what they believe. And if not, I will love them and accept them regardless.

Once you've raised them within your own faith, don't you think that will necessarily constrict their search?

I didn't raise my son to think a particular way. I didn't lie about my atheism, nor did I denigrate his mother's beliefs; but I did teach him to question everything, including my own statements, and taught him the use of reason as a tool.

I didn't program him what to think. I taught him reasoning and let him program himself.

Not necessarily. A lot of people are raised into a particular faith but do their own soul searching later on and decide it doesn't make any sense to them. I will teach my children what I believe to be the truth, but will tell them that there will come a point in their lives when they should seek their beliefs for other reasons besides just "because mom and dad told me so."

(December 18, 2015 at 6:30 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 13, 2015 at 6:31 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Not from their perspective.  Do you wait until seven to teach your values?  Don't think so.  If you don't hold that your god belief is suspect, why would you hold back?  It is to be expected.

All child-rearing is a form of programming. Parents should indeed program values -- it's part of the job.

WRONG!


Child-rearing is not programming - it is teaching, and the difference is important! More important is that it is (or should always be) teaching with love, and if you love your own children then you will love them regardless of the values which they decide on for themselves. Child-rearing is helping children discover their own values, while helping them learn best how to live by them.

(December 18, 2015 at 2:43 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(December 11, 2015 at 5:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: In what way am I making the world a worst place?

Well all that forcible vajay sucking for one.  Forced oral copulation is just your way to feel power over others.

If that is the expression of power, color me weak.