Is the Eucharist only symbolic.

polonius · Post by **polonius** » Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:11 am

" Paschasius Radbertus was the first to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation in the ninth century. He was opposed by Ratranmus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie. Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi). This controversy between two Catholic monks shows that both views were present in the Catholic church at least up to the eleventh century. The debate continued until the thirteenth century when the final decision was taken by the Lateran Council in 1215.

The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century"

MarysSon · Post by **MarysSon** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:59 pm

Athetotheist wrote:As far as I know, the CC still refuses to use gluten-free bread, only low-gluten----even if gluten-sensitive individuals can't tolerate even that.

The reason for this is because of past abuses.

The host must be made of wheat - and ONLY wheat. In the past, there were abuses where other things were used in place of wheat bread. I suspect things that couldn't even be considered bread.
This is why the church decided that only wheat and water could be used in a communion host. In the Eastern Rites, there is an allowance fro leavened bread - but it must be wheat bread.

Eloi · Post by **Eloi** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:00 pm

Well, maybe that is part of the whole rite ... I mean, it is the explanation inside the lie, but not a logical explanation for people out of the doctrine.

I guess that is enough for yourself and catholic people, but means nothing for people who ask and are not catholics.

Charles · Post by **Charles** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:00 pm

MarysSon wrote: It states that we consume the Lord in a SACRAMENTAL manner.

Will you define for us the meaning of a SACRAMENTAL manner and how it differs from other manners, please? I seem to have missed it...

MarysSon · Post by **MarysSon** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:09 pm

Charles wrote: Will you define for us the meaning of a SACRAMENTAL manner and how it differs from other manners, please? I seem to have missed it...

Sure.

The sacramental manner for Baptism is water.
2 Pet. 3:21 clearly states that the water itself does NOT cleanse you from sin but is "an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

We receive the Eucharist in a sacramental manner by eating the consecrated bread and drinking the consecrated wine which has become the Body and Blood of Christ.
We are NOT eating tissue and muscle and veins.

Hope that helps.

MarysSon · Post by **MarysSon** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:12 pm

Eloi wrote: Well, maybe that is part of the whole rite ... I mean, it is the explanation inside the lie, but not a logical explanation for people out of the doctrine.

I guess that is enough for yourself and catholic people, but means nothing for people who ask and are not catholics.

In other words -= it takes faith to believe in Transubstantiation.
Without faith - it is impossible to believe . . .

Eloi · Post by **Eloi** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:15 pm

[Replying to post 44 by MarysSon]

Faith in Catholic teachings is not the biblical faith. In the Bible, faith is based on knowledge of the truth ... like men mentioned in Heb.11, who were men of faith. They put their faith on Jehovah God.

Athetotheist · Post by **Athetotheist** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:21 pm

MarysSon wrote:Accidents and substance are not two separate things, but rather a way of dividing a thing into non-essentials and essentials, into the qualities of a thing and the thing itself. The accidents are any qualities of a thing that, if changed, do not cause the thing itself to become something else; they are non-essential. The substance is not a quality of the thing, but rather whatever is essential to the nature of the thing; it is the thing itself, apart from particular non-essential qualities. If the substance changes, the thing changes into some other type of thing. Accidents cannot exist without substance, since accidents are not the thing itself, but only qualities of the thing. Substance, in created things, does not exist without accidents; for God has ordained that created things have various changeable qualities. Only the Divine Nature is unchanging substance without accidents.

If "accidents cannot exist without substance" and a gluten-sensitive individual is harmed by the "accident" of gluten, doesn't it make sense to conclude that the gluten-laced substance of the bread is still there?

After declaring that the word of Jesus has the power to bring the nonexistent into existence and then change existing things into other things, it seems ridiculous to say that Jesus has no control over the "accidents" of what his own word has changed into his own body. It's like saying that Jesus wants to give gluten-sensitive people a big hug, but he can't take off that big full-length apron covered with four-inch steel spikes.

MarysSon · Post by **MarysSon** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:21 pm

Eloi wrote:
Faith in Catholic teachings is not the biblical faith. In the Bible, faith is based on knowledge of the truth ... like men mentioned in Heb.11, who were men of faith. They put their faith on Jehovah God.

Jesus told the leaders of His Church that there would be people like you when He said:
Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

This is why He gave His Church SUPREME Authority that WHATEVER His Church ordained on earth would also be ordained in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 20:21-23).
He never gave this Authority to the tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects that came after the 16th century . . .

Eloi · Post by **Eloi** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:22 pm

I could say the same. And I repeat: this is not a place to sermon people.

MarysSon · Post by **MarysSon** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:25 pm

Athetotheist wrote:
MarysSon wrote:Accidents and substance are not two separate things, but rather a way of dividing a thing into non-essentials and essentials, into the qualities of a thing and the thing itself. The accidents are any qualities of a thing that, if changed, do not cause the thing itself to become something else; they are non-essential. The substance is not a quality of the thing, but rather whatever is essential to the nature of the thing; it is the thing itself, apart from particular non-essential qualities. If the substance changes, the thing changes into some other type of thing. Accidents cannot exist without substance, since accidents are not the thing itself, but only qualities of the thing. Substance, in created things, does not exist without accidents; for God has ordained that created things have various changeable qualities. Only the Divine Nature is unchanging substance without accidents.
If "accidents cannot exist without substance" and a gluten-sensitive individual is harmed by the "accident" of gluten, doesn't it make sense to conclude that the gluten-laced substance of the bread is still there?

After declaring that the word of Jesus has the power to bring the nonexistent into existence and then change existing things into other things, it seems ridiculous to say that Jesus has no control over the "accidents" of what his own word has changed into his own body. It's like saying that Jesus wants to give gluten-sensitive people a big hug, but he can't take off that big full-length apron covered with four-inch steel spikes.

Like I said - I can't make you stop limiting God. that's something that only YOU can do with God's help.
I also gave the example of the waters of Baptism.

According to YOU - this is "unnecessary" because water is used - even the the Bible states that it IS necessary (John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 2 Pet. 3:21).