What would it take for non-RC Christians to join the RCC?

bbbbbbb · Jul 21, 2015

concretecamper said:
Whole substance means nothing? You are reaching. Reading the text, finding a word that is not there, then building an argument around that word. Ok, the word physical is not there. Next please.

So, what is the "species" which remains after consecration?

That is the power of the Christ working through the priest. Isn't it awesome? Unless you are poking fun at the mercy of God, then I'll let you deal with it on your own.

Btw...I am still waiting for you to show us all that the RCC changed its teaching on the Eucharist.

As for Saint John Wayne, when will I see any churches, chapels, or shrines constructed in his honor?

concretecamper · Jul 21, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
As for Saint John Wayne, when will I see any churches, chapels, or shrines constructed in his honor?

Not sure, does it really matter?

bbbbbbb · Jul 21, 2015

concretecamper said:
Not sure, does it really matter?

bbbbbbb said:
As for Saint John Wayne, when will I see any churches, chapels, or shrines constructed in his honor?

Not to me at all because I don't venerate saints in the Catholic sense of the word, but it did matter to some Catholics. Why, I cannot speculate.

concretecamper · Jul 21, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Not to me at all because I don't venerate saints in the Catholic sense of the word, but it did matter to some Catholics. Why, I cannot speculate.

Then don't put a question mark at the end of your speculation....sort of makes it a question.

Open Heart · Jul 21, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Thank you for assisting me in proving my point. In not a single citation you have provided will you find the word, "physical". You will see all sorts of other words which might be mistaken for "physical" such as real and true, but you cannot find any statement that the bread becomes "physical" flesh and wine becomes "physical" blood. There is an amazing dance around the definition, but the Catholic Church today denies the "physical" aspect of the doctrine of transubstantiation. I would tell you to try harder, but I know that in the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church it is never stated that your denomination believe that the bread becomes "physical" flesh and wine becomes "physical" blood.

In all the quotes I gave you the word flesh was used. Furthermore, one source specifically appealed to Trent and mentioned transubstantiation. Wasn't it your point that Catholicism no longer preached transubstantiation, no longer supported the doctrines of Trent? And what the heck does flesh mean if not the literal physical meat?

samcarternx · Jul 21, 2015

Does rcc consider their "laity" to be "priests"? Only priests could eat the temple sacrifice.

Open Heart · Jul 21, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.

What he is saying is that the "species" remains of the bread and wine. This means that the physical atoms and molecules that make up the bread and wine remain even though it has been truly and actually transubstantiated into the actual and real body and blood of Jesus Christ. Christ is present beneath (apart) from the "species". Christ is not to be confused or conflated with the "species" which, as he stated, is what remains after consecration.

The point of the quote is that Christ is physically present.

bbbbbbb · Jul 21, 2015

Open Heart said:
In all the quotes I gave you the word flesh was used. Furthermore, one source specifically appealed to Trent and mentioned transubstantiation. Wasn't it your point that Catholicism no longer preached transubstantiation, no longer supported the doctrines of Trent? And what the heck does flesh mean if not the literal physical meat?

Those are excellent questions. They are, in fact, questions that I have been asking my Cathoic friends for some time now. If, in actual, fact after consecration the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ are actually present, but actually underneath the "species" (i.e. the physical bread and physical wine) then how can it be said that the bread has been actually transformed completely into flesh and the wine into blood?

bbbbbbb · Jul 21, 2015

Open Heart said:
The point of the quote is that Christ is physically present.

There is a vast difference between a person being physically present and something being magically transformed into that person's flesh and blood. You are physically present at the mass, but I daresay you would be quite amazed if anyone could take something else, say your purse, and pronounce some words over it, and presto-bingo turn it into your physical flesh and blood.

Albion · Jul 21, 2015

Open Heart said:
And what the heck does flesh mean if not the literal physical meat?

It could mean that it symbolizes flesh or it could mean that it is flesh in a spiritual sense only. Or it could mean that we think it to be flesh but we don't know how that occurs. Come on, O.H., you're aware of all this.

concretecamper · Jul 21, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
If, in actual, fact after consecration the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ are actually present, but actually underneath the "species" (i.e. the physical bread and physical wine) then how can it be said that the bread has been actually transformed completely into flesh and the wine into blood?

This is a heresy. Some Lutherans believe this....the Church never taught this.

Open Heart · Jul 21, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Those are excellent questions. They are, in fact, questions that I have been asking my Cathoic friends for some time now. If, in actual, fact after consecration the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ are actually present, but actually underneath the "species" (i.e. the physical bread and physical wine) then how can it be said that the bread has been actually transformed completely into flesh and the wine into blood?

We are taught that all that remains of the bread and wine are its accidents. IOW it still looks and tastes and feels like bread and wine (it can even get you drunk) but it's no longer bread and wine. The reality is the substance is now really the flesh and blood of Jesus, and by that we don't mean some spiritual symbol. This is the essense of transubstantiation. Anyone who says we teach anything other than this is misrepresenting Catholic teaching.

Open Heart · Jul 21, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Those are excellent questions. They are, in fact, questions that I have been asking my Cathoic friends for some time now

How odd, seeing as they were all rhetorical questions.

Open Heart · Jul 21, 2015

Albion said:
It could mean that it symbolizes flesh or it could mean that it is flesh in a spiritual sense only. Or it could mean that we think it to be flesh but we don't know how that occurs. Come on, O.H., you're aware of all this.

I disagree. I think the whole purpose of the pope rewording it from body to flesh is to try to find ways to say that it is really Christ's literal body and not a symbol. Bbbbb is trying to say that Catholics don't believe it's really the literal body and blood which is preposterous. He wants to say that because no one has used his particular choice of word (physical) that the body and blood are only spiritual representations.

Albion · Jul 21, 2015

Open Heart said:
I disagree. I think the whole purpose of the pope rewording it from body to flesh is to try to find ways to say that it is really Christ's literal body and not a symbol.

I guess that when you said this:

"And what the heck does flesh mean if not the literal physical meat?"

I mistakenly took it to be an open question asking about what alternative understandings are possible.

BobRyan · Jul 21, 2015

concretecamper said:
Come to think of it, wouldn't "whole substance" be a more complete description than "physical". Something can physically change such as water but is still in substance H2O. However, to change in substance, that is a real change. Next please bbbbbbbbb

I thought the story was that no matter if you look at the bread with an electron microscope you will find no human DNA no sign of anything human... but those carbon atoms --- well they may turn out to be special -- not just the carbon atoms of bread.

of course - where does bread get its carbon atoms? - the dirt? And where did the dirt get its carbon atoms? so then "Whose carbon atoms" were they to start with ... in that "bread"?

So then... outside of the RCC - did the body soul and divinity of Christ ever show up as literal bread right down to the carbon atoms in the Bible?

concretecamper · Jul 21, 2015

BobRyan said:
I thought the story was that no matter if you look at the bread with an electron microscope you will find no human DNA no sign of anything human... but those carbon atoms --- well they may turn out to be special -- not just the carbon atoms of bread.

of course - where does bread get its carbon atoms? - the dirt? And where did the dirt get its carbon atoms? so then "Whose carbon atoms" were they to start with ... in that "bread"?

If your looking for a logical explanation of a miracle , you will always be disappointed . I just go by what Jesus said.

BobRyan said:
So then... outside of the RCC - did the body soul and divinity of Christ ever show up as literal bread

The Last Supper.

Albion · Jul 22, 2015

concretecamper said:
If your looking for a logical explanation of a miracle , you will always be disappointed . .

If the bread and wine do not cease to be bread and wine (as Bob has pointed out), but they only are changed to flesh and blood in some mystical, inexplicable way, you've got the Anglican view of the Real Presence.

bbbbbbb · Jul 22, 2015

Albion said:
If the bread and wine do not cease to be bread and wine (as Bob has pointed out), but they only are changed to flesh and blood in some mystical, inexplicable way, you've got the Anglican view of the Real Presence.

Exactly. You have helped make my point that the Catholic Church has shifted its definition of transubstantiation. It is now much closer, if not identical, to the view of the Eucharist held by the Anglican Church and many Lutheran bodies.

Albion · Jul 22, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Exactly. You have helped make my point that the Catholic Church has shifted its definition of transubstantiation. It is now much closer, if not identical, to the view of the Eucharist held by the Anglican Church and many Lutheran bodies.

Has it shifted, though?

What would it take for non-RC Christians to join the RCC?

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

saint

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Junior Member

Member of His Church

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Similar threads