The Not-so-elephant In The Room

[Catholic_Lady]

Yes, perhaps spiritual is not the right word to explain it. But obviously we don't believe it physically becomes skin and blood, since it is still bread and wine when we consume it. It is still in the form of bread and wine, but Jesus is physically present. I'd say that's the best way to describe it.

The Catechism says differently, though. It specifically states that the substance of the wafer becomes the substance of Christ's body.  It is very clear on this matter.

Do you reject this part of the Catechism, then?

But they are still in the physical shape of bread and wine, that's what I'm saying.

[Catholic_Lady]

Here's some info on the belief:

"When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, why do they still look and taste like bread and wine?"

In the celebration of the Eucharist, the glorified Christ becomes present under the appearances of bread and wine in a way that is unique, a way that is uniquely suited to the Eucharist. In the Church's traditional theological language, in the act of consecration during the Eucharist the "substance" of the bread and wine is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit into the "substance" of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. At the same time, the "accidents" or appearances of bread and wine remain. "Substance" and "accident" are here used as philosophical terms that have been adapted by great medieval theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas in their efforts to understand and explain the faith. Such terms are used to convey the fact that what appears to be bread and wine in every way (at the level of "accidents" or physical attributes - that is, what can be seen, touched, tasted, or measured) in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ (at the level of "substance" or deepest reality). This change at the level of substance from bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is called "transubstantiation." According to Catholic faith, we can speak of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because this transubstantiation has occurred (cf. Catechism, no. 1376). This is a great mystery of our faith—we can only know it from Christ's teaching given us in the Scriptures and in the Tradition of the Church. Every other change that occurs in the world involves a change in accidents or characteristics. Sometimes the accidents change while the substance remains the same. For example, when a child reaches adulthood, the characteristics of the human person change in many ways, but the adult remains the same person—the same substance. At other times, the substance and the accidents both change. For example, when a person eats an apple, the apple is incorporated into the body of that person—is changed into the body of that person. When this change of substance occurs, however, the accidents or characteristics of the apple do not remain. As the apple is changed into the body of the person, it takes on the accidents or characteristics of the body of that person. Christ's presence in the Eucharist is unique in that, even though the consecrated bread and wine truly are in substance the Body and Blood of Christ, they have none of the accidents or characteristics of a human body, but only those of bread and wine.

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

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Live and let live. If a person is a good person and isn't harming anyone, then I don't see why it should bother you whether or not they believe in God.

Catholic Lady, do you have children?

     If so,

• What do you teach them about "sin"? Do you define it as acts of consequence with other people and/or their own health, or as things which your holy leaders dislike, and are able to convincingly tell you are "displeasing to your God"?
  
• Do you teach them that they are natural-born sinners who cannot possibly live wholesome and morally right lives, not even in this one life which is certain without the grace of their god, or that they make mistakes and sometimes do wrong things because this is how children (as do adults in later live) learn to get along better in this life and enjoy good health and happiness? You cannot teach them both - if the latter is true, then there's no need for any part or version of the former.
  
• What would you rather have for them - the belief that they have a primary obligation in life to please what cannot be proven to actually exist, which demands their allegiance, their income, and their obedience on certain issues which are moral issues only because their religion makes them so, and the constant fear that this god is watching them and may be unhappy with them...or would you rather they live free and without such fear, free to explore their world and face whatever they learn of it, and free to decide for themselves, according to their own good conscience what is right and fair in their society?
  

    
     If not, and you plan on having children, now is the time to seriously reconsider just how good and healthy it is to raise children religiously. Because most religious people today are so because they had their ideas drummed into their heads before they developed the reasoning capacity to decide their veracity for themselves, and that is not an example of "live and let live"!

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

[Regina]

I don't care what people believe, honestly.

It's not the belief in a God that offends me. It's the dogma, rules and objective morality. It's the pushing of "moral values" that you disagree with in your face and being told "you have to respect this because it's their belief". When it gets to that point, that's when I get all "fuck your beliefs". I see wanting to believe in an afterlife and something higher as something very normal actually. I don't think it makes you sick to want to believe there's something for us after we die, it makes you human. Sure, I don't believe in it, but I see the appeal.

If someone wants to believe there's a colony of faeries living at the bottom of their garden, yes I'll think they're nuts. Honestly though, if they're not harming anyone in the name of said faeries, I'd just let them live on in their delusion.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

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.

Do you understand what I am trying to say regarding a child's developing brain? If you raise your children to believe certain ideas from the time that they are first able to understand language, then they will believe those ideas for the same reasons that you do. Children don't develop their reasoning capacity until long after they have these ideas placed into their heads by parents and teachers. This means they (as with you) are unable to filter out ideas as either sensible or silly, therefore any ideas handed to them by an authority figure will mortar themselves in under the category "TRUE" until they begin to develop their reasoning skill at around the age of 7. Once an idea is implanted into one's head without the filtration of skillfully applied reason, getting it out can be very difficult - in fact, it can be so difficult that the ideas placed in your head under such conditions are still there! Therefore, if you really mean that as you said about letting them do their own "soul searching" and decide for themselves, then you should not teach them any religious ideas before the age of 7 - to do otherwise is cheating.

[Whateverist]

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.

[Catholic_Lady]

^Exactly. I will teach my children what I sincerely believe to be the truth. There's no reason why I wouldn't.

[Alex K]

^Exactly. I will teach my children what I sincerely believe to be the truth. There's no reason why I wouldn't.

Yes there is a reason.
I won't do that for example. I will not teach my daughter that there is no god. I will tell her that I sincerely believe that there is no god, but I will try to avoid telling her that as a truth behind which I put my authority as a parent, because her thinking about it freely is a higher good than her adopting my point of view on the matter.

[Heat]

^Exactly. I will teach my children what I sincerely believe to be the truth. There's no reason why I wouldn't.

Hopefully you recognize that this is what you believe to be the truth, and that by definition it is a subjective truth. The reason people wouldn't want you to raise them within the faith, is for fear that you would raise them to believe that this is an objective truth, when it is not.