AP - Priest: No communion for Obama supporters

[DH]

COLUMBIA, S.C. - A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27705755/

[grondramb]

I saw this - one thing that surprised me was that the priest said church law did not allow him to deny communion to parishioners... I thought they did that to Kerry in 2004.

[DH]

I saw this - one thing that surprised me was that the priest said church law did not allow him to deny communion to parishioners... I thought they did that to Kerry in 2004.

Pretty sure they only "advised" him that he shouldn't.

[busyba]

"You voted for someone who likes to kill babies, so no cannibalism and blood-drinking for you!" :rolleyes:


And people wonder why I think all religion is a fucking joke.

[montag]

100% of Catholics voted for McCain.

[Jobeth66]

Heh. I'm sure the Catholic church would LOVE to think so.

[eddyj]

Heh. I'm sure the Catholic church would LOVE to think so.
They know it. Because anyone else is just not a "true" Catholic. You will see this is the argument he uses. :rolleyes:

[Jobeth66]

Except the Catholic church doesn't work that way. It's kinda like being a Jet. :D

[eddyj]

Except the Catholic church doesn't work that way. It's kinda like being a Jet. :D

Actually, I have seen some people claim exactly that (not sure it was montag, though), that anyone that does not follow the Church rules 100% is not a "real" Catholic.

[Jobeth66]

Except the Catholic church doesn't work that way. It's kinda like being a Jet. :D

Actually, I have seen some people claim exactly that (not sure it was montag, though), that anyone that does not follow the Church rules 100% is not a "real" Catholic.

The Church doesn't claim that, though. If some member of the Church wants to claim that, they can do whatever they want. Unless word comes down from the See, though...it ain't Church position. And since the Pope is the only one who gets to dictate the Church's position, whatever some parishoner or anyone else wants to believe is really irrelevant.

[grondramb]

"You voted for someone who likes to kill babies, so no cannibalism and blood-drinking for you!" :rolleyes:

.

I just don't get this smiley thing... does it really make it ok to say something that hateful?

[Squeak]

100% of Catholics voted for McCain.

Nope, not even close.

[Squeak]

"You voted for someone who likes to kill babies, so no cannibalism and blood-drinking for you!" :rolleyes:


And people wonder why I think all religion is a fucking joke.

You have heard of metaphors, right?

[Jobeth66]

"You voted for someone who likes to kill babies, so no cannibalism and blood-drinking for you!" :rolleyes:


And people wonder why I think all religion is a fucking joke.

You have heard of metaphors, right?

?? In what way are you meaning 'metaphor'?

Busyba is exactly correct. Communion in the Catholic church is NOT a metaphor. Catholics believe in transubstantiation. - ie, the Host and wine are *literally* the body & blood of the Christ.

[busyba]

Except the Catholic church doesn't work that way. It's kinda like being a Jet. :D

Actually, I have seen some people claim exactly that (not sure it was montag, though), that anyone that does not follow the Church rules 100% is not a "real" Catholic.

Here's what Palin has to say about that (No.... the sane one, Michael Palin):


There are Jews in the world, there are Buddhists,
There are Hindus and Mormons and then,
There are those that follow Mohammed,
But I've never been one of them...

I'm a Roman Catholic, and have been since the day I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics,
Is they'll take you as soon as you're warm...

You don't have to be a six-footer,
You don't have to have a great brain,
You don't have to have any clothes on -
You're a Catholic the moment dad came...

[JustAllie]

100% of Catholics voted for McCain.
Isn't he divorced and remarried?

I am not sure any of the presidential candidates would have met any rules of perfection.

[busyba]

"You voted for someone who likes to kill babies, so no cannibalism and blood-drinking for you!" :rolleyes:

.

I just don't get this smiley thing... does it really make it ok to say something that hateful?

How is that hateful? It's a perfectly accurate paraphrasing of the stated position.

(Although I will agree that calling pro-life candidates "baby-killers" is pretty hateful, but they're the ones saying it, I'm just quoting them.)

I can see how the "fucking joke" part of my statement can be considered hateful, but you edited it out of the quote.


And this post is especially humorous coming from you, given the combination of your posts about Islam and your posts where you accuse people who don't agree with you of having double standards.

[JustAllie]

Communion in the Catholic church is NOT a metaphor. Catholics believe in transubstantiation. - ie, the Host and wine are *literally* the body & blood of the Christ.
And Jesus offered the first communion to Judas, who he knew was about to betray him, and to Peter, who he knew was about to deny him three times.

This is why I've never understood the Catholic approach to holy communion. Why put a barrier in the way of anyone seeking redemption and a connection to God? But my church views the holy communion differently than the Roman Catholic church.

[JYoung]

Communion in the Catholic church is NOT a metaphor. Catholics believe in transubstantiation. - ie, the Host and wine are *literally* the body & blood of the Christ.
And Jesus offered the first communion to Judas, who he knew was about to betray him, and to Peter, who he knew was about to deny him three times.

This is why I've never understood the Catholic approach to holy communion. Why put a barrier in the way of anyone seeking redemption and a connection to God? But my church views the holy communion differently than the Roman Catholic church.

The idea is you need to be forgiven for your sins first through the Sacrament of confession, then you can receive communion first.

Although I wonder if voting for Obama is a venial sin (which doesn't require confession and is covered in the forgiveness rite in Mass) or a mortal sin (requiring the sacrament of the Confessional booth).

[busyba]

Although I wonder if voting for Obama is a venial sin (which doesn't require confession and is covered in the forgiveness rite in Mass) or a mortal sin (requiring the sacrament of the Confessional booth).
I'm sure they'll declare it to be the eigth Deadly Sin.


I also heard a rumor that the next Harry Potter book is going to declare voting for McCain to be the fourth Unforgivable Curse.

[retrodog]

"You voted for someone who likes to kill babies, so no cannibalism and blood-drinking for you!" :rolleyes:

.

I just don't get this smiley thing... does it really make it ok to say something that hateful?

How is that hateful? It's a perfectly accurate paraphrasing of the stated position.

(Although I will agree that calling pro-life candidates "baby-killers" is pretty hateful, but they're the ones saying it, I'm just quoting them.)

I can see how the "fucking joke" part of my statement can be considered hateful, but you edited it out of the quote.


And this post is especially humorous coming from you, given the combination of your posts about Islam and your posts where you accuse people who don't agree with you of having double standards.
I think he's referring to your remarks of insuniating that the wafer and wine (or grajejuice or whatever) are actual human body parts and blood, while they are only meant to represent it and remind the person of that which was given by Jesus. A pretty asinine remark to make.

But I'm not catholic so I don't care. Or at least I didn't feel insulted by it. I just thought it was pretty stupid.

[busyba]

I just don't get this smiley thing... does it really make it ok to say something that hateful?

How is that hateful? It's a perfectly accurate paraphrasing of the stated position.

(Although I will agree that calling pro-life candidates "baby-killers" is pretty hateful, but they're the ones saying it, I'm just quoting them.)

I can see how the "fucking joke" part of my statement can be considered hateful, but you edited it out of the quote.


And this post is especially humorous coming from you, given the combination of your posts about Islam and your posts where you accuse people who don't agree with you of having double standards.
I think he's referring to your remarks of insuniating that the wafer and wine (or grajejuice or whatever) are actual human body parts and blood, while they are only meant to represent it and remind the person of that which was given by Jesus. A pretty asinine remark to make.

But I'm not catholic so I don't care. Or at least I didn't feel insulted by it. I just thought it was pretty stupid.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation so you can enjoy the irony of your throwing terms like "asinine" and "stupid" around.

[retrodog]

How is that hateful? It's a perfectly accurate paraphrasing of the stated position.

(Although I will agree that calling pro-life candidates "baby-killers" is pretty hateful, but they're the ones saying it, I'm just quoting them.)

I can see how the "fucking joke" part of my statement can be considered hateful, but you edited it out of the quote.


And this post is especially humorous coming from you, given the combination of your posts about Islam and your posts where you accuse people who don't agree with you of having double standards.
I think he's referring to your remarks of insuniating that the wafer and wine (or grajejuice or whatever) are actual human body parts and blood, while they are only meant to represent it and remind the person of that which was given by Jesus. A pretty asinine remark to make.

But I'm not catholic so I don't care. Or at least I didn't feel insulted by it. I just thought it was pretty stupid.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation so you can enjoy the irony of your throwing terms like "asinine" and "stupid" around.Silly boy. That is no more than an elaborate explanation of how the bread and wine take on the representation of the embodiment of Jesus. They do not actually change their molecular structure. It's a representation of Jesus' body and blood, not actual canabalism. So yes, it was a stupid (or at least terribly rude) thing to say.

[busyba]

I think he's referring to your remarks of insuniating that the wafer and wine (or grajejuice or whatever) are actual human body parts and blood, while they are only meant to represent it and remind the person of that which was given by Jesus. A pretty asinine remark to make.

But I'm not catholic so I don't care. Or at least I didn't feel insulted by it. I just thought it was pretty stupid.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation so you can enjoy the irony of your throwing terms like "asinine" and "stupid" around.Silly boy. That is no more than an elaborate explanation of how the bread and wine take on the representation of the embodiment of Jesus. They do not actually change their molecular structure. It's a representation of Jesus' body and blood, not actual canabalism. So yes, it was a stupid (or at least terribly rude) thing to say.

No.

Go back and read it again, only slower this time.

[JoeyJoJo]

I think he's referring to your remarks of insuniating that the wafer and wine (or grajejuice or whatever) are actual human body parts and blood, while they are only meant to represent it and remind the person of that which was given by Jesus. A pretty asinine remark to make.

But I'm not catholic so I don't care. Or at least I didn't feel insulted by it. I just thought it was pretty stupid.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation so you can enjoy the irony of your throwing terms like "asinine" and "stupid" around.Silly boy. That is no more than an elaborate explanation of how the bread and wine take on the representation of the embodiment of Jesus. They do not actually change their molecular structure. It's a representation of Jesus' body and blood, not actual canabalism. So yes, it was a stupid (or at least terribly rude) thing to say.

Retrodefinitelydoesn'tunderstandCatholicismdog

[retrodog]

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation so you can enjoy the irony of your throwing terms like "asinine" and "stupid" around.Silly boy. That is no more than an elaborate explanation of how the bread and wine take on the representation of the embodiment of Jesus. They do not actually change their molecular structure. It's a representation of Jesus' body and blood, not actual canabalism. So yes, it was a stupid (or at least terribly rude) thing to say.

Retrodefinitelydoesn'tunderstandCatholicismdog
So do you call taking the communion canabilism?

JoeymissesthepointJoJo

[busyba]

Even if one were to accept your premise that Communion isn't actually cannabilism, my statement still works stylistically because, despite the church's position to the contrary, Obama isn't actually a baby-killer.

So, if you think that it is cannabilism, my statement is an accurate comment on the irony of how the church looks down on one practice while engaging in unsavory practices of their own.

And if you think that it isn't cannabilism, my statement is an accurate comment on the ridiculousness of the rhetoric that each side uses to paint the other.

Either way, it works and neither way is asinine or stupid.

So check and mate, bitch.

[JoeyJoJo]

Silly boy. That is no more than an elaborate explanation of how the bread and wine take on the representation of the embodiment of Jesus. They do not actually change their molecular structure. It's a representation of Jesus' body and blood, not actual canabalism. So yes, it was a stupid (or at least terribly rude) thing to say.

Retrodefinitelydoesn'tunderstandCatholicismdog
So do you call taking the communion canabilism?

JoeymissesthepointJoJo

Well, I'm not Catholic, but my wife just went through RCIA a couple of years ago. She converted. Transubstantiation was the one thing that she had a very hard time with and she had a lot of conversations with the priest about it. The belief is not that it is a representation of the body and blood of Christ, but that at some point it actually BECOMES the body and blood of Christ. Protestant religions all accept it as a symbol, but for Catholics it's the real deal.

[retrodog]

Retrodefinitelydoesn'tunderstandCatholicismdog
So do you call taking the communion canabilism?

JoeymissesthepointJoJo

Well, I'm not Catholic, but my wife just went through RCIA a couple of years ago. She converted. Transubstantiation was the one thing that she had a very hard time with and she had a lot of conversations with the priest about it. The belief is not that it is a representation of the body and blood of Christ, but that at some point it actually BECOMES the body and blood of Christ. Protestant religions all accept it as a symbol, but for Catholics it's the real deal.So do we classify it as cannabalism or not?

[busyba]

So do you call taking the communion canabilism?

JoeymissesthepointJoJo

Well, I'm not Catholic, but my wife just went through RCIA a couple of years ago. She converted. Transubstantiation was the one thing that she had a very hard time with and she had a lot of conversations with the priest about it. The belief is not that it is a representation of the body and blood of Christ, but that at some point it actually BECOMES the body and blood of Christ. Protestant religions all accept it as a symbol, but for Catholics it's the real deal.So do we classify it as cannabalism or not?

Assuming JJJ's assertion is correct, how do you not?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cannibalism

can⋅ni⋅bal⋅ism   /ˈkænəbəˌlɪzəm/ [kan-uh-buh-liz-uhm]

–noun

1. the eating of human flesh by another human being.

2. the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind.

3. the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.


#1 fits, unless you contend that Christ was not human.

#3 makes it fit even more, assuming that the "as to acquire the power or skill..." is an example and not a requirement.

[retrodog]

Even if one were to accept your premise that Communion isn't actually cannabilism, my statement still works stylistically because, despite the church's position to the contrary, Obama isn't actually a baby-killer.I just skimmed through the entire article. I didn't see the words "baby killer" anywhere. Did you just make that up?

So, if you think that it is cannabilism, my statement is an accurate comment on the irony of how the church looks down on one practice while engaging in unsavory practices of their own.Even if they transmutated (my made up word) the bread and wine into actual flesh and blood, they wouldn't have been killing anyone to make it. So it's hardly in the same category as killing a baby. You're just exagerating for effect. And then you got really rude about how you did it.

And if you think that it isn't cannabilism, my statement is an accurate comment on the ridiculousness of the rhetoric that each side uses to paint the other.That might be a good/valid point.

Either way, it works and neither way is asinine or stupid.

So check and mate, bitch.No, it's still asinine and stupid. I'm not your bitch, but I'll be you huckleberry.

:D

[JoeyJoJo]

So do you call taking the communion canabilism?

JoeymissesthepointJoJo

Well, I'm not Catholic, but my wife just went through RCIA a couple of years ago. She converted. Transubstantiation was the one thing that she had a very hard time with and she had a lot of conversations with the priest about it. The belief is not that it is a representation of the body and blood of Christ, but that at some point it actually BECOMES the body and blood of Christ. Protestant religions all accept it as a symbol, but for Catholics it's the real deal.So do we classify it as cannabalism or not?


Depends on the point of view I guess.

I don't think it is, because I don't have their belief that it turns into the body and blood of Christ.

A Catholic probably wouldn't classify it as cannibalism because they wouldn't want to, likely citing something of the Godliness of Christ.

[walters]

Protestant religions all accept it as a symbol, but for Catholics it's the real deal.

Not all. Lutherans, for example, see it as being both things simultaneously (rather than changing from one to the other).

He laid it all out pretty explicitly, BTW.

43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31#fen-NIV-26292d)] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

[retrodog]

Well, I'm not Catholic, but my wife just went through RCIA a couple of years ago. She converted. Transubstantiation was the one thing that she had a very hard time with and she had a lot of conversations with the priest about it. The belief is not that it is a representation of the body and blood of Christ, but that at some point it actually BECOMES the body and blood of Christ. Protestant religions all accept it as a symbol, but for Catholics it's the real deal.So do we classify it as cannabalism or not?

Assuming JJJ's assertion is correct, how do you not?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cannibalism
can⋅ni⋅bal⋅ism   /ˈkænəbəˌlɪzəm/ [kan-uh-buh-liz-uhm]

–noun

1. the eating of human flesh by another human being.

2. the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind.

3. the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.
#1 fits, unless you contend that Christ was not human.

#3 makes it fit even more, assuming that the "as to acquire the power or skill..." is an example and not a requirement.
Christ was God's son in human form. Then you get into a big discussion about what "human form" means.

I guess even if you wanted to stretch it that far (exagerate) to make it standard human flesh, it is more of a "pick and chose" technique to take that part (essentially out of context) and then ignore the whole purpose and/or significance of the association.

Now again, I'm not catholic, so I'm not even remotely defending myself here. So I think it's with a pretty decently unbiased basis that I continue to point out here that you've just twisted some things around to insult the group that you apparently dislike.

And what's the big surprise here. There's plenty of hypocrisy with the Catholics supporting their priests that fondle little boys. But telling someone who voted for a pro-abortion candidate that they shouldn't partake of the communion is pretty consistent with their agenda. Where's the confusion come from?

[JoeyJoJo]

Protestant religions all accept it as a symbol, but for Catholics it's the real deal.

Not all. Lutherans, for example, see it as being both things simultaneously (rather than changing from one to the other).

He laid it all out pretty explicitly, BTW.

43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31#fen-NIV-26292d)] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.


If I say "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse," would you expect me to sit down and actually eat a horse?

[davebogart]

"You voted for someone who likes to kill babies, so no cannibalism and blood-drinking for you!" :rolleyes:

.

I just don't get this smiley thing... does it really make it ok to say something that hateful?If you're an asshole you really don't care.

[walters]

Protestant religions all accept it as a symbol, but for Catholics it's the real deal.

Not all. Lutherans, for example, see it as being both things simultaneously (rather than changing from one to the other).

He laid it all out pretty explicitly, BTW.

43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31#fen-NIV-26292d)] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.


If I say "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse," would you expect me to sit down and actually eat a horse?

If you said that, and I argued with my friends saying "no way is he going to eat a horse", and you, on hearing this, said "I tell you the truth, I'm going to eat this horse", then yes.

[JoeyJoJo]

Not all. Lutherans, for example, see it as being both things simultaneously (rather than changing from one to the other).

He laid it all out pretty explicitly, BTW.




If I say "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse," would you expect me to sit down and actually eat a horse?

If you said that, and I argued with my friends saying "no way is he going to eat a horse", and you, on hearing this, said "I tell you the truth, I'm going to eat this horse", then yes.

Read on a little further:

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31#fen-NIV-26310e)] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

Christ was often misunderstood by those around him. He's obviously speaking metaphorically, telling the people assembled that they needed to "partake" of him to reach eternal life. The problem is that simple people don't "get" the higher ideas that he presented, and fell back on silly things like believing that the bread and wine actually are flesh and blood.

[busyba]

"You voted for someone who likes to kill babies, so no cannibalism and blood-drinking for you!" :rolleyes:

.

I just don't get this smiley thing... does it really make it ok to say something that hateful?If you're an asshole you really don't care.

Expressing your philosophy succinctly like that certainly clears up a lot of questions that I and others have had about the bulk of your posts.

Of course, your particular lack of apprehension regarding the use of the "baby-killer" slur is well documented, so your apparent objection to a similar characterization of the other side's behavior would be one of those "double-standard" things that grond likes to tell us so much about.

[walters]

The problem is that simple people don't "get" the higher ideas that he presented, and fell back on silly things like believing that the bread and wine actually are flesh and blood.

Hmm, was going OK until the personal attacks. Oh, well.

[JoeyJoJo]

The problem is that simple people don't "get" the higher ideas that he presented, and fell back on silly things like believing that the bread and wine actually are flesh and blood.

Hmm, was going OK until the personal attacks. Oh, well.


Where are there personal attacks? You're an intelligent man. The idea that bread and wine transform into flesh and blood is against any logic. It is an easier and more logical reading to see that he was speaking metaphorically. The vast majority of Roman Catholic parishiners throughout history have been uneducated peasants who wouldn't understand the higher concepts of metaphor. So The Church dumbed it down for them and made the ritual that there was "magic" happening to really make the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. It would have been dangerous to bring the peasants along intellectualy because The Church would lose power. If the people realized that Christ actually provided for people to come to the Father directly through the Son, there would be no need for Confession, or the See to be an intercessor on behalf of the common believer.

[pseudonym]

Where are there personal attacks? You're an intelligent man. The idea that bread and wine transform into flesh and blood is against any logic.
I'm sorry, I have to stop you right there. Logic? I thought we were talking about religion.

I have no desire to insert myself into a transubstantiation debate, but if you're going to assert that a given religion could not possibly hold a particular belief because it wouldn't be logical, prepare yourself to have to explain the logic behind a host of other supernatural religious beliefs.

[JoeyJoJo]

Where are there personal attacks? You're an intelligent man. The idea that bread and wine transform into flesh and blood is against any logic.
I'm sorry, I have to stop you right there. Logic? I thought we were talking about religion.

I have no desire to insert myself into a transubstantiation debate, but if you're going to assert that a given religion could not possibly hold a particular belief because it wouldn't be logical, prepare yourself to have to explain the logic behind a host of other supernatural religious beliefs.


I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about the teachings of Jesus Christ. They're quite different.

[grondramb]

It is perfectly possible to say you don't believe in something without using hostile language or denigrating believers.

[pseudonym]

Where are there personal attacks? You're an intelligent man. The idea that bread and wine transform into flesh and blood is against any logic.
I'm sorry, I have to stop you right there. Logic? I thought we were talking about religion.

I have no desire to insert myself into a transubstantiation debate, but if you're going to assert that a given religion could not possibly hold a particular belief because it wouldn't be logical, prepare yourself to have to explain the logic behind a host of other supernatural religious beliefs.


I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about the teachings of Jesus Christ. They're quite different.

They are different. But you were talking about the teachings of the church.

[JoeyJoJo]

It is perfectly possible to say you don't believe in something with using hostile language or denigrating believers.


The Catholic Church is a reprehensible creature. Local Dioceses sit in financial ruin while The Vatican sits on countless wealth and treasures. The Pope wears opulent robes and expensive shoes while his sheep suffer in poverty. My wife's church is near financial ruin because the money that they were paid by the town when the original church was taken by eminent domain to make a road was gambled away by the local priest and the local diocese swept it under the rug. They've made no effort to help repay the local church and as a result the church is sitting on several hundred thousand dollars of debt.

People are free to believe whatever they want, especially in this case they need to realize that The Church has bastardized the teachings of Christ to fulfill her own selfish needs.

[JoeyJoJo]

I'm sorry, I have to stop you right there. Logic? I thought we were talking about religion.

I have no desire to insert myself into a transubstantiation debate, but if you're going to assert that a given religion could not possibly hold a particular belief because it wouldn't be logical, prepare yourself to have to explain the logic behind a host of other supernatural religious beliefs.


I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about the teachings of Jesus Christ. They're quite different.

They are different. But you were talking about the teachings of the church.

No I was relating how The Church has bastardized the teachings of christ for her own needs.

[busyba]

It is perfectly possible to say you don't believe in something without using hostile language or denigrating believers.

Ummmmm....

[...]If you read tomorrow that three bombs went of in some city, the odds are very high is was Muslims who did it. If there is a riot because of someone else's free speech the odds are high the rioters are Islamic. If women are killed almost anywhere in the world for exercising the same rights as men, it is likely Muslims doing it.

This religion is not equal because its not civilized[...]

[mmg]

Very detailed discussion here: http://www.crossandflame.com/forum2/printview.php?t=6511&start=175&sid=f6b560ff055475b5734f5ae5aed5612e

Here's a few snippets:

It is believed that the substance of the bread and wine is replaced by the Body and Blood of Christ at the Consecration. The accidents (the physical and studyable elements of the bread and wine remain the same, but the substance becomes the body and blood) of the bread and wine remain. In other words, it is physically the Body and Blood of Christ while retaining the appearance of bread and wine.

Since Jesus says in John 6 that we need to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life within us, and it's pretty safe to say He didn't mean to impart salvation only to the 12, its fairly obvious He meant this to continue. He also commanded it to continue.

It's also obvious that Paul teaches that it continues in 1 Corinthians 12.

Jesus explicitly denies a metaphorical meaning in John 6. The literal meaning is also far more meaningful in the context of the Passover and makes a lot more sense when one examines the four cups of Passover and Christ's "It is finished" on the Cross. As someone who used to ascribe to the "its just symbolic" version of theology anytime something seemed odd or too Pauline, it is delightful to realize that the Incarnation was just that- God interacting with man on a physical, human level- it's not all "just spiritual."

There are quite a lot of scholars on the matter and virtually all agree (even those who deny the Real Presence) that this was a near unanimous belief of the early Church and not questioned until fairly recently.

Unanimity of belief does not even imply, let alone prove, correctness of belief. Remember that it was once lethally heretical to claim that Earth is round when it was unanimously believed to be flat.

Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. That is, they believe that Christ's Body and Blood are "with, in, and under" the bread and wine. During the Eucharist, a third essense is formed and wraps the elements in the body and blood of Christ. However, after the sacrament, the elements lose that essense and go back to being bread and wine again.