Transubstantiation is an explanation of the Real Presence done within an Aristotelian philosophical framework. If you do not see the world in an Aristotelian framework then quite naturally an Aristotelian term like 'transubstantiation' will make no sense to you.I believe in a Real Presence, but have no explanation for it. Transubstanstian confuses me.
It's true that Aristotle was on a pedestal during the high Middle Ages when the Eucharistic doctrine called Transubstantiation was ordered. The irony is, however, that that the (Catholic) doctrine is the inverse of what Aristotle had claimed is true about appearances and substance. In other words, what happens at Mass is a miracle because it defies Aristotle! Most moderns would consider that to be astonishing if they only knew.I was never Aristotelian.
The word Eucharist appears often in the early Church Fathers. It is even in the New Testament, though in the original Greek.I agree on the languistic confusion. Before joining CF, I had never heard of the Eucharist. Conversely, not one Catholic CF poster uses the word Communion as far as I can tell. I feel weird saying Communion here even though literally every church member I knew offline calls it that.
i don't know why you do(or believe) these things, i would like to know how do you feel doing these works, and if you feel nearer to god working like this.
#purgatory
#rosary
#transubstantiation (the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration, only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining)
#mary and the saints as mediators between god and me.
#baptism since child
#penance for sins
#pope vicar of christ, infallibility of the pope
#sacraments:
>initiation
baptism
confirmation
eucharit
restored order of initiation
>sacraments of healing
penance and reconciliation
anointing of the sick
>sacraments of service
holy orders
matrimony
#demonic possessions
#apocryphal books
#sign of the cross
I really don't understand why this is a problem, apart from the silly idea of "believer's baptism", which is found nowhere in scripture.The mystery about baptism is doing it on children who are too young to understand Christianity and have faith, much less make a decision to follow Him.
We believe in it.
Here, you are focusing on Catholicism. The Nicene Creed eliminates most cults such as Jehovah's Witnesses (I handed a printed copy of this to the JW to explain my position and they stopped coming around). It also eliminated the Christian Scientists (Mary Baker Eddy) with their nice reading rooms. AFAIK, the Catholics still recite it at "mass" and are quite famous for reciting it, but am not sure what their position is on it today.
I really don't understand why this is a problem, apart from the silly idea of "believer's baptism", which is found nowhere in scripture.
The reality is that parents have authority over their children. The parents are the ones who make the promise on the infant's behalf during his baptism. When the child is older, he confirms the promise and takes it upon himself. So there does come a time when he assents to the promise and assumes responsibility for his own religious development.
Really? When in scripture are anyone but new believers baptized? It's either new believers or new believers and their families.
We believe in it.
After all, we're the ones who wrote it.
The problem is people who support infant baptism claim its purpose is to save people like that is how kids are saved. Meaning the baby is saved right then when water is poured on his head. Uh, no way, that does not affect the need to learn about Jesus and make a decision for himself.
Lutherans are Protestants. You must be thinking of Baptists and Pentecostals.
Baptism only rebirths and gives a child a new life within the Church. They still will have to have faith and live a Christian life once they can understand to be saved.
You just confirmed what I was taught Methodists believe. Rebirth is salvation.