Home › Forums › General & off-topic › So if transubstantiation is real, as a lot of Christians claim, how does that not make them cannibals?
- This topic has 151 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 3 weeks ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 3:17 pm #100833
-
September 28, 2021 at 3:19 pm #100834
Anonymous
GuestBecause its spiritually the flesh and blood of Christ not literal. Read Wittgenstein on the concept of religious language.
-
September 28, 2021 at 3:28 pm #100835
Anonymous
Guest-
September 28, 2021 at 4:07 pm #100838
Anonymous
GuestYes, I know, I am Catholic and I believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, that is, the bread and wine cease to exist and it does actually become the body and divinity of Jesus Christ, but this doesn’t mean it’s literal, we’re not actually eating a literal body or literal flesh and blood, it is neither literal nor metaphorical, it transcends these categories of language which only apply to states of affairs, religious language is what we are using here, it exists beyond ordinary language. Again, read Ludwig Wittgenstein.
-
September 28, 2021 at 4:14 pm #100839
Anonymous
GuestA lot of semantic trickery here.
>it does actually become the body of Jesus Christ
>we’re not actually eating a literal body
If Jesus was fully human and you transform wafers into the body of Jesus with magic spells in order to eat, then you are in fact eating literal flesh and blood.>read Ludwig Wittgenstein
I don’t have time so explain why your magic witchcraft language makes something clearly contradictory not contradictory.-
September 28, 2021 at 5:42 pm #100846
Anonymous
GuestNo, there is no contradiction here, you’re simply thinking in terms of ordinary language, that is, in terms of states of affairs, or references, and thinking strictly in these terms leads to logical positivism which itself is logically contradictory. Some forms of language, like religious language, do not describe states of affairs, they describe beliefs, attitudes, practices, spirituality, transcendence, etc. This is why Jesus in John 6 emphasizes the fact that indeed his flesh and blood are true food and true drink (John 6:55), yet it is spiritual in nature (John 6:63). It is the Logos which gives reality ontological meaning, it is Logos that constructs truth out of chaos, this is the esoteric meaning behind the Book of Genesis, language has the ability to actually effect reality and can exist beyond simply referencing states of affairs, so when we say the bread and wine cease to exist then they truly do cease to exist, we say that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ because we truly believe that they do, it is a language game, one of faith in what Christ has told us.
-
September 28, 2021 at 5:45 pm #100848
Anonymous
Guest>A lot of semantic trickery here.
At first i read it as semitic trickery, which is also accurate.
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 4:20 pm #100841
Anonymous
Guestyou’re arguing with a scrotebrained shill, don’t cast pears unto swine bro
-
September 28, 2021 at 4:24 pm #100842
Dirk
GuestContradiction
-
September 28, 2021 at 5:43 pm #100847
Anonymous
GuestWrong, but I wouldn’t expect an Evangelical like you, who has an extremely low IQ and shitty theology, to understand.
-
September 28, 2021 at 5:46 pm #100849
Dirk
GuestActual flesh is literal flesh
-
September 28, 2021 at 5:53 pm #100850
Anonymous
GuestLiteral flesh would be made up of skin cells, layers of tissue, blood vessels, etc. i.e. states of affairs, when talking about the Eucharist we are not talking about states of affairs we are speaking spirituality, religiously, we believe it to be true because Christ has told us it to be true and we have faith in Christ, the ability of the priest to invoke the Holy Spirit upon the elements exists beyond ordinary language and ordinary states of affairs, it’s not an observable phenomenon, it is a matter of spirit because it is a matter of religious language games, and language has the ability to shape reality. If you keep thinking in the ways that you do, which is typical of low IQ Protestants, you miss the entire point of what Logos is and you reduce the world into mere atoms and matter, you are therefore a materialist at heart.
-
September 28, 2021 at 5:56 pm #100851
Anonymous
GuestStfu philosophy is stupid. I hate philosophytards holy shit.
-
September 28, 2021 at 5:58 pm #100852
Anonymous
GuestI’m sorry I angered you, please get an education.
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:08 pm #100857
Anonymous
GuestI SAID STFU YOU DUMB PHILOSOPHYscrote! YOUR SHITTY SEMANTIC scrotebrainATION IS scrotebrainED! TYPICAL BECAUSE THIS IS ALL PHILOSOPHY IS NOWADAYS, JUST SOPHISTRY BULLSHIT WITH LANGUAGE STFU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 5:59 pm #100854
Anonymous
Guestthis is a weird paraphrase for "it’s a metaphor"
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:05 pm #100855
Anonymous
GuestIt’s not just a metaphor, a metaphor would be a symbolic representation of one sort of states of affairs as another kind, there would still be reference and a one to one correspondence, a mapping if you will, provided we can construct a logical function to relate the two (E is [predicate] like [symbol] F). Now there actually is a way in which the Eucharist is metaphorical in the sense that the bread is a metaphor for the body, and the wine is a metaphor for the blood, so yes indeed there is a metaphor here, but we also believe it to be more than that, because we believe the true body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ annihilate what we once referred to as bread and wine in its literal state of affairs into something that now transcends both the literal state of affairs and metaphorical state of affairs, which we believe in because Christ our God and Savior said so.
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:07 pm #100856
Dirk
GuestSpiritual presence is incompatible with transubstantiation. Transubstantiation teaches that there is actual, literal, flesh and blood despite appearances.
Who taught you this idea that it "transcends literal and metaphorical"? Did you make that up? I don’t think the catholic church teaches that, in fact you would be teaching heresy for saying it’s not literal flesh.
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:16 pm #100859
Anonymous
GuestNo it’s not unless you mean it in a Reformed sense, the Reformed sense is heretical because it denies the reality of Christ in the Eucharist, it separates Christ from the elements and continues to teach the elements are still bread and wine and that Christ only becomes "present" once you eat the bread and wine, this is wrong and heretical, transubstantiation teaches the true reality of Christ in the elements and the anhelation of the bread and wine, to use classical theological language, the form of the bread and wine still exist but the substance ceases to exist. Protestantism denies the reality of Christ in the Eucharist, despite the fact that Christ made it clear in John 6 and the Last Supper, and Paul also makes it pretty clear in 1 Corinthians 11, that the Eucharist actually becomes Christ, this does not mean it’s literal though since Christ himself says it is spiritual in nature.
>Who taught you this idea that it "transcends literal and metaphorical"? Did you make that up? I don’t think the catholic church teaches that, in fact you would be teaching heresy for saying it’s not literal flesh.
Do you not understand Wittgenstein? Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language is taught in many Catholic universities and it describes the reality of transubstantiation in an extremely precise way. However, considering the fact that you’re a typical low IQ Protestant I wouldn’t expect you to understand despite the fact that I have clearly explained it you and dumbed it down for you in a way any midwit like you should be able to comprehend. Please read Catholic philosophers Elizabeth Anscombe and Peter Geach on this subject, though I doubt you would be able to understand them either given how low IQ you appear.-
September 28, 2021 at 6:21 pm #100862
Dirk
Guest>No it’s not unless you mean it in a Reformed sense, the Reformed sense is heretical because it denies the reality of Christ in the Eucharist,
Spiritual presence is still real presence>Protestantism denies the reality of Christ in the Eucharist,
No, only memorialism, which is the minority of Protestant views.
Lutherans even teach that the substance becomes Christ, just not transubstantiation.>this does not mean it’s literal though since Christ himself says it is spiritual in nature.
So you deny transubstantiationShow me the source for your assertion it "transcends literal and metaphorical".
You’re just making up ad hoc explanations and ironically contradicting the view you say you hold.Every single catholic that has ever posted on this website thinks transubstantiation is synonymous with real presence. Without fail.
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:25 pm #100869
Anonymous
GuestLutherans believe Christ is contained in the elements, they believe he is "above, below, and in" the elements, but they continue to believe the elements exist as bread and wine, thus denying the full reality of Christ as the Eucharist. I’m not going to continue to explain what I’ve just explained in multiple posts to the same exact questions.
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:23 pm #100866
Anonymous
GuestIf you replace Jesus with human sacrifice victim X and you are eating his transubstantiated flesh, it doesn’t really sound any better just because the bread is still bread.
-
September 29, 2021 at 8:19 am #100983
Anonymous
Guest>the form of the bread and wine still exist but the substance ceases to exist
this is freaking scrotebrained I hope you don’t actually think this
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:18 pm #100861
Anonymous
Guestand then why jesus didn’t just said "this is my body, but just in a certain way, nor literal or metaphorical"
>again, read this non-catholic opinion on Catholic Doctrine.Lanciano Miracle makes you shut up
you are not catholic if you deny transubstatiation. it is not metaphoric in any way, and if you insist to tell it’s not literal, the only literal affirmation you are making is that you are literally excommunicated.
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:23 pm #100865
Anonymous
Guest>and then why jesus didn’t just said "this is my body, but just in a certain way, nor literal or metaphorical"
Because Jesus had explained it clearly in John 6, it’s implicit and what we’ve always believed. Read Catholic philosophers Elizabeth Anscombe and Peter Geach.I am on the same side as you if you’re Catholic, I fully believe in transubstantiation, you are misunderstanding what the faith is, you are unknowingly giving into Protestant premises which are heretical.
I’m done trying to explain this to you people, I have tried to explain it in every which way and you keep asking me things which I’ve already explained.
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:26 pm #100870
Dirk
Guest-
September 28, 2021 at 6:27 pm #100872
Anonymous
GuestYou’re strawmaning my argument and have shown that you don’t fully understand what transubstantiation is,
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:29 pm #100875
Anonymous
Guestit’s mental gymnastics to justify your pagan practice
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:29 pm #100876
Dirk
GuestIronic
You don’t understand transubstantiation and I do. The other catholics itt are trying to tell you the same thing, you’re denying transubstantiation.Transubstantiation teaches the elements become literally, actually, entirely, the body and blood of Jesus, and that the substance of bread and wine are no more.
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:38 pm #100890
Anonymous
GuestTransubstantiation is literally not real. So it’s going to be whatever Catholics says it is.
If you disagree with them fine, you’ve also made up your own concept. But you don’t share it with Catholics.
-
-
-
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:22 pm #100863
Anonymous
Guest>yeah I believe it becomes the body of christ
>that doesnt mean I believe it becomes the body of christ
stfu scrotebrain christian jesus fuck. you cant just change the meaning of words and then refer to some brainlet philosopher to cover your ass. So you dont believe in transubstantiation but are unable to cope with it because that would make you a LARPER? fine-
September 28, 2021 at 6:26 pm #100871
Anonymous
Guestthis
I am on the same side as you if you’re Catholic, I fully believe in transubstantiation, you are misunderstanding what the faith is, you are unknowingly giving into Protestant premises which are heretical.
I’m done trying to explain this to you people, I have tried to explain it in every which way and you keep asking me things which I’ve already explained.
no, you are reading Wittgenstein, trying to combine wittgenstein’s view of the Dogma and Doctrine and the actual Dogma and Doctrine of the Church.
>i fully believe in transubstantiation
clearly you dontIf anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, DS 1651).
Christ’s presence on the Eucharist is LITERAL. and denying it is (literally) getting excommunicated.-
September 28, 2021 at 6:30 pm #100877
Anonymous
Guestand one more, just to make you think
If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, DS 1652)
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:32 pm #100880
Anonymous
Guest>If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, DS 1652)
I fully accept this, I am not denying this. You continue to misunderstand everything I am saying. -
September 28, 2021 at 6:37 pm #100886
Anonymous
Guest[…]
no, you are reading Wittgenstein, trying to combine wittgenstein’s view of the Dogma and Doctrine and the actual Dogma and Doctrine of the Church.>i fully believe in transubstantiation
clearly you dontIf anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, DS 1651).
Christ’s presence on the Eucharist is LITERAL. and denying it is (literally) getting excommunicated.to be honest, you’re just talking passed him, because you’re not really addressing what he’s saying.
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:32 pm #100879
Anonymous
Guest>If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, DS 1651).
Yes, I believe in all of that, I believe the Eucharist truly is fully 100% really the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is real and the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine but truly really fully 100% become Jesus Christ in his full humanity and divinity, but that doesn’t mean the Eucharist is literal flesh and blood in the sense that it’s made up of cells and blood vessels and such, it still has the form of bread and wine. Again, using classical language, the substance of the bread and wine cease, but the form stays the same.-
September 28, 2021 at 6:34 pm #100883
Dirk
GuestIt necessarily means that the eucharist is literal flesh and blood. If it’s not literal it’s figurative or metaphorical, no exceptions.
Actual flesh means literal flesh. I don’t know why you’re hung up on "literal"
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:36 pm #100885
Anonymous
GuestLiteral = cells, blood vessels, skin layers, organs, i.e. states of observable affairs
Metaphorical = mapping one state of affairs to another that synthesizes itself as a symbol
Religious = Beliefs, attitudes, practices, spirituality, transcends, beyond ordinary language and states of affairs.
When talking about actual flesh in religious language, that does not equal literal flesh.-
September 28, 2021 at 6:37 pm #100889
Anonymous
GuestActual flesh means literal flesh. I don’t know why you’re hung up on "literal"
I’m done explaining this to you, I’ve just laid it out in the most simply and direct way. Please, just stop.
This-
September 28, 2021 at 6:39 pm #100894
Anonymous
GuestOh no we understand. you are willy nilly changing the meaning of words to fit your argument and calling it "religious language"
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:38 pm #100891
Dirk
GuestArbitrary definition
The substance is said to be flesh. The species is bread. The substance is what matters.You’re wrong. All true Catholics teach literal flesh.
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:47 pm #100899
Anonymous
GuestYes, flesh as substance does not equal flesh as appearance, substance is in the realm of religious language.
Are you talking about the Eucharist miracles in which the bread and wine do literally become flesh and blood? Well in those cases then yes, the Eucharist does literally become flesh and blood, but there’s a reason why those are miracles, because that’s not what ordinarily happens when the Eucharist is celebrated.
>Try to understand logically or philosophically
>Not exegetically
TellingI gave you an exegetical explanation of John 6 above. Why are you lying? You seem like all you want to do is talk past me and lie purposely now.
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:52 pm #100901
Anonymous
Guest>but there’s a reason why those are "miracles"
fraud? -
September 28, 2021 at 6:52 pm #100902
Dirk
GuestIf the substance is flesh, it’s actually flesh and it’s literally flesh
If it’s not literal, it’s spiritual or metaphorical or symbolicFind me any published catholic who holds transubstantiation and says it is not literal flesh
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:54 pm #100905
Anonymous
GuestYou’re confusing literal with actual, they’re not the same thing, they don’t mean the same thing. If it were literal then we would be eating blood vessels, cells, etc. How many freaking times do I need to explain this to you? Also, I did here
Stop intentionally talking past me, you’re doing it purposely now.
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:56 pm #100908
Dirk
GuestYou’re just asserting actual doesn’t mean literal and I’m telling you it does
What definition of literal are you operating on?
Can you find any catholic writers to support your argument? -
September 28, 2021 at 6:59 pm #100911
Anonymous
Guest>Can you find any catholic writers to support your argument?
Yes, I just did are you not reading my posts???Also, I gave you the definitions:
It’s pretty obvious now that you’re intentionally talking past me and ignoring everything I’ve told you thus far, please just stop it. Because it’s either that or you really are just too low IQ to interpret what I’m telling you.
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:01 pm #100914
Dirk
GuestYour ad hoc definitions aren’t relevant
What did that single writer say, can you show me? -
September 28, 2021 at 7:07 pm #100917
Anonymous
GuestSo now you’re just moving the goal post essentially by claiming they’re ad hoc. Seriously, just stop.
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:59 pm #100909
Anonymous
GuestCatholic tradition IS that it’s literal blood and flesh, Catholic tradition is also to not think too hard about this or ask questions
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:07 pm #100916
Anonymous
GuestSo you’re saying the Catholic Church teaches the form of the bread and wine cease to exist? Cuz that’s what that would mean if the Church taught the Eucharist was literally the flesh and blood of Jesus, but the Church teaches very clearly:
>In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ UNDER THE SPECIES OF BREAD AND WINE
>CCC 1378
>This presence is called ‘real’ – by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."
>CCC 1374
The Church talks about Christ being SUBSTANTIALLY present, the Church teaches that the SPECIES/FORM/ACCIDENTS of the bread and wine remain though which excludes it from being literal flesh and blood. It is SUBSTANTIAL flesh and blood, not LITERAL. -
September 28, 2021 at 7:10 pm #100919
Dirk
GuestSubstantial flesh is literal flesh
Actual flesh is literal flesh
Transubstantiated flesh is literal fleshWhat is it literally? Is it literally bread?
Consubstantiation is literal flesh and literal bread
Spiritual presence is spiritual flesh and literal breadThe definitions are ad hoc, you made them up itt
Samescrote
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:12 pm #100921
Anonymous
GuestI’ve given you the definitions, you continue to move the goal post, I’ve explained it to you clearly and precisely, you continue to move the goal post. Just admit it, you have no argument. They are not ad hoc, you don’t even seem to know what that means, once again I’ve given you everything you’ve ask for, you simply refuse to accept it and move the goal post because you do not have any further arguments.
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:15 pm #100926
Dirk
GuestMy goalpost is just any objective definition of "literal"
>adjective
>in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphoricalIn the catholic view, is the eucharist figuratively flesh?
Is the eucharist metaphorically flesh?No, and no. Find any catholic who disagrees and show me.
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:18 pm #100927
Anonymous
GuestStop trying to claim the high ground which you do not have, everything in the defnition you gave I agree with, you are creating a false dichotomy in order to straw man my position, and whenever I give you precise definitions you lack any argument whatsoever and just move the goal post.
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:26 pm #100930
Dirk
GuestI’m not strawmanning anything because I’m not representing you
My point is that transubstantiation teaches literal flesh and blood
Heres a catholic writer making that exact point
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/albertlittle/was-jesus-speaking-literally-when-he-said-this-is-my-flesh/To deny that it’s literal is to deny transubstantiation. I think that one should reject transubstantiation personally.
Protestants are the ones content to take a mystical view, is this a joke? Transubstantiation is the scientific systematization of the mystery of the eucharist
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:14 pm #100925
Anonymous
Guest>samescrote
Whatever helps you sleep at night. -
September 28, 2021 at 7:12 pm #100920
Anonymous
Guest"very clearly"
it’s not clear, and you saying it is clear does not make it so, neither does it make your assertion correct -
September 28, 2021 at 7:13 pm #100923
Anonymous
GuestSo, it’s a metaphor?
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:52 pm #100947
Anonymous
Guestnice, now post CCC 1376
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."
>WHOLE SUBSTANCE
>WHOLE
>SUBSTANCE
you are saying that it’s not "literal" because the appearance doesn’t change. i’m saying it’s literal because the substance change. "under the species of bread and wine" means that only bread and wine can be consecrated.kek, literal in a figurative way is the most nonsense i’ve ever read. it’s an anonymous board, why don’t you just give up, say that you’re wrong, apologize for saying that the transubstantiation is a "irrelevant doctrine" and move on?
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:54 pm #100950
Anonymous
GuestYour metaphysical premises are flawed and Protestant in nature.
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:55 pm #100952
Dirk
GuestTalk to your priest and come back
Ask "is the substance literally flesh?", Then "is the eucharist literally flesh"?"Lol
It was a yes or no question
You said the question is meaningless, so you didn’t answer -
September 28, 2021 at 7:58 pm #100953
Anonymous
Guest>It was a yes or no question
And I told you that it was meaningless, there is no answer to it because it is built on a logically flawed premise. It would be like asking "What’s outside of the universe?" -
September 28, 2021 at 7:59 pm #100954
Anonymous
GuestI know my priest pretty well and I’ve asked him many questions like this, especially when I decided to convert from Protestantism into the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:59 pm #100955
Anonymous
Guestnope. protestant’s take on the eucharist is call it a symbol/metaphor/not literal. protestant’s take on the mass is the denial of the Sacrifice, transforming it in a mere congregation/feast.
you are saying that "in a figurative way the substance is literally flesh".
why are my premises (and the premises of the Trent Council) "flawed and protestant"? this doesn’t even makes sense -
September 28, 2021 at 8:01 pm #100957
Anonymous
Guest>you are saying that "in a figurative way the substance is literally flesh".
I am not sayin that at all.
>why are my premises (and the premises of the Trent Council) "flawed and protestant"? this doesn’t even makes sense
Your premises aren’t the premises of Trent at all, your premises are built on a protestant straw man of what Catholics believe. -
September 28, 2021 at 8:06 pm #100960
Anonymous
Guest>I am not sayin that at all.
excuse me? the question of the other anon was:
>Is the substance of the Eucharist literally flesh?
your answer was:
>Yes. In a figurative way.
>Your premises aren’t the premises of Trent at all, your premises are built on a protestant straw man of what Catholics believe.
yeah yeah, my premises are built on a protestant straw man. you, on the other hand call the transubstantiation an "irrelevant doctrine" and are very catholic. -
September 28, 2021 at 8:08 pm #100961
Anonymous
Guest>>Yes. In a figurative way.
That wasn’t me, that was another anon.
>yeah yeah, my premises are built on a protestant straw man. you, on the other hand call the transubstantiation an "irrelevant doctrine" and are very catholic.
What? I never said that. -
September 28, 2021 at 8:12 pm #100964
Anonymous
Guest>What? I never said that.
>I was born and raised Catholic. I know what I’m talking about. You probably converted last week and began arguing on LULZ with Protestants and Orthodox about irrelevant doctrines like transubstantiation and filioque. If you have actually been to a Catholic church you would realize nobody cares.
-
September 28, 2021 at 8:13 pm #100966
Anonymous
GuestThat was another anon that wasn’t me.
-
September 28, 2021 at 8:10 pm #100962
Dirk
GuestI assumed that was someone being cheeky who said "yes in a figurative way"
This guy didn’t answer. Objecting the question is refusing to answer.
He said from the start it’s not literal and accused all who disagree of being low iq -
September 28, 2021 at 8:12 pm #100965
Anonymous
Guest>Objecting the question is refusing to answer.
Whatever helps you sleep at night bud, not like you kept rejecting my answers and then moving the goal post. -
September 28, 2021 at 6:52 pm #100903
Anonymous
Guestso you are saying that the bread and the body of christ cohesist in the consecrated host? the bread still being bread, but it’s also the body of christ?
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:55 pm #100907
Anonymous
GuestNo, the bread and wine cease to exist at all, it only becomes Christ, this is so because we believe it to be so, religious language comes to take precedence over other language in such a way that it becomes an ontological reality, not that language in general doesn’t do that to reality, but that’s besides my point.
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:00 pm #100913
Anonymous
Guest>this is so because we believe it to be so,
nope. the transubstantiation don’t depend on MY or YOUR faith to happen. according to your logic, there is no transubstantiation in masses in the USA because 7 in 10 people don’t believe it. or there is just transubstantiation for some people. but the only person who consecrates the host is the priest. not me, not you, not the assembly.
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:39 pm #100893
Anonymous
Guestagain, lanciano miracle makes you shut up
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:46 pm #100898
Anonymous
GuestWTF, Catholics would never cheat/lie
this is a confirmed catholic miracle™
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:09 pm #100918
Anonymous
Guest>it is neither literal nor metaphorical, it transcends these categories of language which only apply to states of affairs, religious language is what we are using here, it exists beyond ordinary language.
Wonderfully put. I wish more people were able to understand this.-
September 28, 2021 at 7:12 pm #100922
Anonymous
GuestYou are a freaking scrotebrain who spends 3 hours every day trying to lick your own anus.
This is a super deep statement that you would understand and wholly agree with if you spoke the transcendent language of magic which exists beyond ordinary language.-
September 28, 2021 at 9:12 pm #100974
Anonymous
GuestForm and content both matter if you’re trying to make a profound statement, which is why religion is of infinite more value than your degenerate filth.
-
-
-
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 4:18 pm #100840
Anonymous
GuestThey actually do claim it’s literal
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:14 pm #100858
Anonymous
Guest>yes, i know, i’m catholic and believe the doctrine of transubstantiation, but read this non-catholic author who explains catholic doctrine way better than the church itself.
>Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
>look how this protestant explain catholic dogma, it will help you understand.
you are not catholics, and your quotes and quoted authors are not catholic.
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:17 pm #100860
-
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 3:54 pm #100836
Anonymous
Guest-
September 28, 2021 at 4:49 pm #100843
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 3:56 pm #100837
Anonymous
GuestIt’s only flesh and blood in Aristotelean terms, the substance changes but the accidents remain the same.
-
September 28, 2021 at 4:50 pm #100844
Anonymous
GuestIt’s cannibalism
-
September 28, 2021 at 4:55 pm #100845
-
September 28, 2021 at 5:58 pm #100853
Anonymous
Guest>another intentionally misinterpreting the bible thread
This board is dead -
September 28, 2021 at 6:22 pm #100864
Anonymous
Guest-
September 28, 2021 at 6:24 pm #100867
Dirk
GuestStop living a contradiction and become protestant, you won’t regret it
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:25 pm #100868
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:27 pm #100873
Anonymous
Guestnot believing in transubstantiation = not catholic.
>is not that big of a deal anymore
for non catholics it obviously isn’t-
September 28, 2021 at 6:30 pm #100878
Anonymous
GuestI was born and raised Catholic. I know what I’m talking about. You probably converted last week and began arguing on LULZ with Protestants and Orthodox about irrelevant doctrines like transubstantiation and filioque. If you have actually been to a Catholic church you would realize nobody cares.
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:33 pm #100882
Anonymous
Guest>nobody of importance cares
ftfy. Come back when the pope confirms your bullshit or something -
September 28, 2021 at 6:37 pm #100888
Anonymous
Guest>IRRELEVANT DOCTRINES
>TRANSUBSTANTIATION
>CATHOLICwhy don’t you just go to a Lutheran church, where there are ((("masses"))) but nobody cares about transubstantiation too?
i will post once more: not believing in transubstantiation = anathema. anathema = excommunicated.If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, DS 1651).
If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, DS 1652)
the council of trent was called to stop the spread of protestant heresies among the catholics in the 16th century. if this is so "irrelevant", why excommunicate people "just" because they deny such "irrelevant" doctrine?
you are not catholic, and it doesnt matter if you think you are. the doctrine is clear about people like you-
September 28, 2021 at 6:38 pm #100892
Anonymous
Guest
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 8:01 pm #100956
Anonymous
GuestIt’s a shame you don’t actually know anything about Catholicism
-
September 28, 2021 at 9:07 pm #100973
Anonymous
Guest> If you have actually been to a Catholic church you would realize nobody cares.
Not if your going to one of those super conservative Churches, but you’re right, at least in the US most Catholics don’t follow the rules very closely. That doesn’t mean the rules don’t exist. If you were an academic theologian who expressed those ideas for example the Church probably would publicly excommunicate you, but they aren’t going to shoot themselves in the foot by enforcing the rules on Catholics who still go to Church and give money.
-
-
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:27 pm #100874
Anonymous
Guestprotties out here denying what christ says AND making the same arguments roman pagans did
barbarians never change it seems -
September 28, 2021 at 6:32 pm #100881
Anonymous
GuestObviously Jesus was made of crackers.
-
September 29, 2021 at 10:41 am #100984
Anonymous
GuestAh, I see you also attended the churches Of Christ.
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 6:40 pm #100895
Anonymous
Guest-
September 28, 2021 at 6:41 pm #100896
Dirk
Guest>Try to understand logically or philosophically
>Not exegetically
Telling-
September 28, 2021 at 6:53 pm #100904
Anonymous
Guest>if i use the Greek word for interpretation that means it’s different from philosophical logic and thus jesus approved
kek this autism
-
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:00 pm #100912
Anonymous
GuestI would say so, but people in America have a right to worship God how they want to, so as long as they call it Christian, they can apparently make it as depraved as they want unless people do call on God and make them stop. Jesus is coming back again soon and will throw out the antichrist but after that Gog and Magog is just going to continue where the antichrist left off except they won’t be in the temple, Jesus will be at that point.
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:06 pm #100915
Anonymous
GuestNo, it’s not a literal metaphor, it’s an actual metaphor…
How you differentiate these two? -
September 28, 2021 at 7:14 pm #100924
Anonymous
Guest-
September 28, 2021 at 7:21 pm #100928
Anonymous
Guest>the powerfully autistic inability of protestants to understand mysticism and the human desire for transcendent meaning is what stops me from embracing them
autismo Protestantism is religious modernism to a T, and that is why larpers reject it
protestants don’t start being fun and interesting until they start believing goofy shit like reptilian nephilim half breed kings and flat earth -
September 28, 2021 at 7:25 pm #100929
Anonymous
GuestPretty much this, that’s why the Protestant poster here keeps misunderstanding what the Catholic anon is actually saying, they lack the ability to understand metaphysics and mysticism.
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:33 pm #100931
Anonymous
Guest>all of these "big words" and complicated debate
It is bread and wine which represents His flesh and blood and sacrifice. He was sitting at the table with them giving them literal bread and wine and telling them "this is my flesh and blood", yet there His actual flesh and blood was right there in front of them, still on and in His body.Only Satanic pagan Catholics and Orthodox could cause such a commotion with their spoiling you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:36 pm #100932
Anonymous
Guest-
September 28, 2021 at 8:04 pm #100958
Anonymous
Guest>muh "high church"
How much arrogance does that require, to see your "Church™" as "high" and others’ as "low"? I wonder what God thinks about someone’s haughty extravagances compared to a humble little backwoods believer doing the best they can with what they are and have? Be careful that you bring not the offerings of Cain.-
September 28, 2021 at 8:06 pm #100959
Anonymous
GuestThe distinction between High and Low Church is mainly just about liturgy, Churches which have worship heavily steeped in liturgy are known as High Churches, those that are much looser in terms of liturgy are called Low Church.
-
September 28, 2021 at 8:12 pm #100963
Anonymous
GuestYes, I am well aware of that, but that concept doesn’t seem to understand that all of it is "liturgy", and it’s saying that *their* "liturgy" is "high", *above*, *superior*, and others’ is "low", below, inferior. It’s primarily essentially a matter of surface complexity/simplicity. One truly cannot judge what is going on inside a humble Baptist (for example, and I am not Baptist) standing in a backwoods country church compared to someone standing in an Orthodox ritual, especially from a God’s eye view.
-
-
-
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:36 pm #100933
Dirk
Guest[…]
Where do the catechism and councils say it’s substantial and not literal? Bcause my entire point is that substantial means literal
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:38 pm #100934
Anonymous
GuestI just showed you in the above, I literally quoted the Catechism here.
Nowhere in the CCC does it say the bread become literal flesh and blood that we tear a part.
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:39 pm #100935
Anonymous
GuestOops didnt mean to delete my last post sorry.
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:41 pm #100936
Anonymous
Guest>The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" – gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.
>CCC 1333
This is basically what I said here: -
September 28, 2021 at 7:41 pm #100938
Dirk
GuestThis quote doesn’t make your point, it makes mine. The flesh and blood is present in the FULLEST SENSE, which means, literally.
I know you’re arguing that since the species of bread remains it’s not literally flesh. So I ask, is it literally bread?
To say "neither literal nor figurative or spiritual" is a non answer.It never uses the term "literal", but if I’m not mistaken it condemns "figurative" and "metaphorical"
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:44 pm #100940
Anonymous
GuestNo, that does not mean literally.
> So I ask, is it literally bread?
No because religious language ontologically changes it and the bread and wine become annihilated.
>It never uses the term "literal", but if I’m not mistaken it condemns "figurative" and "metaphorical"
Yes, and rightly so, those would be heretical.-
September 28, 2021 at 7:46 pm #100941
Dirk
GuestIs the substance literally flesh?
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:47 pm #100942
Anonymous
GuestYes. In a figurative way.
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:49 pm #100943
Anonymous
GuestThe Logos constructs substance out of chaos/state of affairs, which means your question is meaningless. You’re confusing reference with meaning.
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:51 pm #100945
Dirk
GuestIts an extremely basic question that any catholic can answer
Is the substance of the Eucharist literally flesh?-
September 28, 2021 at 7:52 pm #100946
Anonymous
GuestAnd I just answered it yet you refuse the answer. If it doesn’t satisfy you then that’s your problem, not mine.
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:53 pm #100949
Dirk
GuestIts not an answer
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."
>WHOLE SUBSTANCE
>WHOLE
>SUBSTANCE
you are saying that it’s not "literal" because the appearance doesn’t change. i’m saying it’s literal because the substance change. "under the species of bread and wine" means that only bread and wine can be consecrated.[…]
kek, literal in a figurative way is the most nonsense i’ve ever read. it’s an anonymous board, why don’t you just give up, say that you’re wrong, apologize for saying that the transubstantiation is a "irrelevant doctrine" and move on?Exactly
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:54 pm #100951
Anonymous
GuestIt is an answer, you just refused it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 7:53 pm #100948
Anonymous
Guest>does that not make them cannibals
Since he’s the son of God so not an equal human I would say the definition doesn’t fit here. -
September 28, 2021 at 8:22 pm #100968
Anonymous
GuestSorry if I’m speaking out of my ass as someone who isn’t really Christian but: couldn’t the catholic explanation for why the bread and wine are literally flesh and blood of Christ even though they technically aren’t, also be applied to the other stuff that doesn’t add up?
Like, how the Earth was formed over billions of years but per the Bible was literally made in seven days by God, even though that contradicts natural evidence.
But then, isn’t that kind of like doublethink? Or is it okay as long as it’s from God?-
September 28, 2021 at 8:30 pm #100970
Anonymous
GuestIt’s a mystery, aka it doesn’t make sense but fuck you. And yes, it can be used to explain anything.
-
-
September 28, 2021 at 8:56 pm #100972
Anonymous
GuestTurning point Rome
-
September 28, 2021 at 11:54 pm #100978
Anonymous
GuestIt is cannibalism, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
-
September 28, 2021 at 11:58 pm #100980
Anonymous
Guestit is sacrificial cannibalism, what else? Even when you don’t believe in transubstantiation, you’re commemorating a human sacrifice. That should be enough for scaring people like you, OP.
-
September 29, 2021 at 1:36 am #100981
Anonymous
Guest>NOOOOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST BE CANNIBALS NOOOOOOOOOOO
Dilate chud -
September 29, 2021 at 6:48 am #100982
Anonymous
Guesti’d like it better if it was milk and cookies
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.