Catholic's, at what point does it become the body?

[LittleLambofJesus]

Ok, so they are not really eating Jesus then and allergic to the composition substance of the bread.... but the substance changes? Or no?

What part of the substance changes?

What I was asking is what if they are allergic to both?

Take 2 Benadryls and see yer doctor in da mo'ning

Young LT) Mark 5:25 and a certain woman, having an issue of blood twelve years,
26 and many things having suffered under many physicians, and having spent all that she had, and having profited nothing, but rather having come to the worse,

 

[Uphill Battle]

No it means we have just always gone by Aristotles traditional philosophic definitions of the words and not modern 21st century definitions of what accidents and substance means.

Natural Philosophy - Substance and Accident

so then.... supposed beliefs of the apostles themselves, depend on philisphical definitions of a man dead some 300 years prior, with no connection with a ritual not in existance until Christ instituted it while he was bodily present on earth....


interesting.

 

[Fireinfolding]

No no you would not be considered allergic to Jesus. You would be allergic to wheat bread and its chemical composition.

Which would make sense seeing when we do this we do "shew" his death TILL he come, that its the bread with having chemical composition that some can infact be allergic to and not Jesus (in reality) that they are allergic to. The chemical composition that represents his body then.

 

[Athanasias]

Which would make sense seeing when we do this we do "shew" his death TILL he come, that its the bread with having chemical composition that some can infact be allergic to and not Jesus (in reality) that they are allergic to. The chemical composition that represents his body then.

Yes your right the chemical composition of bread does not change so you can be allergic to it as it remains the same, but the substance( which cannot be seen and means what a thing actually is) Changes to Christ Body and Blood soul and Divnity.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Ephesians 1:13-14, And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession, to the praise of his glory.

There's no need for transubstantiation in the eucharist as it's simply our faith in the word of truth that makes the Holy Spirit act as a seal within us forever guaranteeing our salvation.

 

[Athanasias]

so then.... supposed beliefs of the apostles themselves, depend on philisphical definitions of a man dead some 300 years prior, with no connection with a ritual not in existance until Christ instituted it while he was bodily present on earth....


interesting.

No. The doctrine is not dependent on the definition. The apostles believed the same thing they just just expressed it differently. They believed the bread and wine changed into the body and blood of Christ. The Church in the west just used aristotles explanation to explain it scientificially because of heresies. The eastern Catholic Churches used the term Meta-ousia which means the same thing.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Well, ok, you guys continue to argue over the chemical composition of bread then...

 

[Uphill Battle]

No. The doctrine is not dependent on the definition. The apostles believed the same thing they just just expressed it differently. They believed the bread and wine changed into the body and blood of Christ. The Church in the west just used aristotles explanation to explain it scientificially because of heresies. The eastern Catholic Churches used the term Meta-ousia which means the same thing.

1) There is no evidence the apostles believed any such thing. There is no writting of those at that table, that indicated they understood the bread and wine transformed.

2) It isn't a scientific explaination. It's philosphical theory. There is no science involved whatsoever.

 

[boswd]

Hate to sound crude, forgive me, but when?
The mouth, the digestive tract?
The colon?

In all fairness, if just saying they opened up a person on a hospital table, would they actually find flesh in a person after Eucharist?

With all due respect, the wafers are probably made in a factory, or a super huge kitchen, or something like that.

My pal and I were talking about this today, so I thought a simple blunt question, might prevail.

I promise, this is not a flame, but sometimes simplicity trumps a bunch of theology, and heady arguments from those for and against this doctrine.

God bless, frogster.

Out of curiosity how come you only ask the Catholics, they are by far not the only ones who believe in Christ's Body and Blood being truely Real in the Eucharist.

I mean come on Froggy you've been on this forum long enough to know which Christian Faiths subscribed to that theology.

How come it's wasn't phrased To the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, some Methodists etc when does the bread become the body? and let's us not forget all the other Christians who believe in the Real Presence but in a Spiritual Sense? When does the bread change to become Christ's spiritual body and blood such as the Presbyterians and others?


Just curious?

 

[Fireinfolding]

We do this TILL ((HE COME))

Chemical compounds arent any fun though

 

[boswd]

Well, ok, you guys continue to argue over the chemical composition of bread then...

Tha's what I love about the Eastern Orthodox when it comes to this issue. They argue it is because Christ said it is, It's a mystery, you don't want to believe it, then that's your loss.

Simple and straight forward to the fact.

 

[Athanasias]

1) There is no evidence the apostles believed any such thing. There is no writting of those at that table, that indicated they understood the bread and wine transformed.

2) It isn't a scientific explaination. It's philosphical theory. There is no science involved whatsoever.

Actually science is involved. Any university could explain this to you. What you mean is there is no empirical science involved. Philosophy is a science as well as theology.

We do believe that the apostles especially St. Paul and all the early Church fathers did teach that the bread and wine are truly transformed into the body and Blood.

 

[Athanasias]

Tha's what I love about the Eastern Orthodox when it comes to this issue. They argue it is because Christ said it is, It's a mystery, you don't want to believe it, then that's your loss.

Simple and straight forward to the fact.

Actually he Catholic Church teaches this as mystery too and the Eo's do teach transubstantiation and have even said so on thier websites . Sometimes they used the words meta-ousia which means the same.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Actually science is involved. Any university could explain this to you. What you mean is there is no empirical science involved. Philosophy is a science as well as theology.

We do believe that the apostles especially St. Paul and all the early Church fathers did teach that the bread and wine are truly transformed into the body and Blood.

I know you do. You just cannot show any evidence of such.

Actually he Catholic Church teaches this as mystery too and the Eo's do teach transubstantiation and have even said so on thier websites . Sometimes they used the words meta-ousia which means the same.

a mystery, that you've defined, so that the mystery is removed, but is still a mystery.

anyone want to tell me the real mystery in that?

 

[Thaeoles]

We do believe that the apostles especially St. Paul and all the early Church fathers did teach that the bread and wine are truly transformed into the body and Blood.

Belief is not evidence. Just because you believe some to be so, does not make it true. It is mere assumption.

 

[boswd]

I know you do. You just cannot show any evidence of such.


a mystery, that you've defined, so that the mystery is removed, but is still a mystery.

anyone want to tell me the real mystery in that?

in all fairness Transubstantion never explains the "How" only the "what'

It always contends the "how" remains a mystery

 

[Uphill Battle]

Belief is not evidence. Just because you believe some to be so, does not make it true. It is mere assumption.

let's test that.


I believe 2 million dollars were just deposited in to my account.


















darn.

 

[Athanasias]

I know you do. You just cannot show any evidence of such.


a mystery, that you've defined, so that the mystery is removed, but is still a mystery.

anyone want to tell me the real mystery in that?

No one knows how this happens or how God does this we just know He does. Alot like the Trinity. we can explain the relationship behind the triune God but its still a mystery how. In other words we can understand many things but not fully comprehend. The mystery of the Eucharistic is such a beautiful mystery.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Tha's what I love about the Eastern Orthodox when it comes to this issue. They argue it is because Christ said it is, It's a mystery, you don't want to believe it, then that's your loss.

Simple and straight forward to the fact.

If that's your attitude about me believeing what the Eastern Orthodox say then why do you even care what I have to say on this subject or whether or not I agree with them? Or am I misjudging your comment here?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

How come it's wasn't phrased To the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, some Methodists etc when does the bread become the body? and let's us not forget all the other Christians who believe in the Real Presence but in a Spiritual Sense? When does the bread change to become Christ's spiritual body and blood such as the Presbyterians and others?

Just curious?

If that's your attitude about me believeing what the Eastern Orthodox say then why do you even care what I have to say on this subject or whether or not I agree with them?

Umm...aren't there differences between the way the EO view the eucharist in relation to Roman Catholicism?
At least that is the impression I get

http://www.christianforums.com/t7238262-11/#post47135982
Catholic communion by Orthodox... oh joy...

This doesn't help much; it scandalizes both the Orthodox and us as well.
Why would we inter commune with a Schismatic! He has not abjured his schismatic status; thus until he does so, his reception of the Most Blessed and Holy Eucharist is as much affront to God as those Pro-Abortion Politicians, who while having de-facto excommunicating themselves, receive the most Blessed Holy Eucharist anyways.
This does nothing, but scandalizes the Church and commits sacrilege. I cannot understand why folks are so nonchalant about this, as if it were "Ecumenical" or something---------well, it's not, it's mortal sin--------which is damnable error if one does not repent of it! He knew that he was in schism from the Holy Catholic Church; In spite of this committed mortal sin and sacrilege by receiving the Holy Eucharist anyways! The Saints and Martyrs would be weeping in Heaven over this!