My understanding is the scriptural base is the last supper, where Jesus says "this bread is my flesh" ... "this wine is my blood". After that, like many Christian beliefs, it became accepted by the general Christian community and passed on as part of that common body of belief. By the time you had the first counsels of bishops, it was just an accepted belief that, AFAIK, never warranted any further discussion. It's what was taught, basically since the beginning.

As a clarification, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ at the moment that the priest performs the blessing, NOT when it enters the parishioner. This is why there's a plate to catch the crumbs when the bread is passed from priest to parishioner, because even those crumbs are in fact holy relics, and must be specially stored and cared for.

Thanks.  That was my understanding, though I wasn't clear about when it became the flesh.

What I don't get is the jump from Jesus performing this, which makes sense, to it being interpreted as literal transmutation.

(I would totally understand if the Catholics, like in the LDS church, meant it as a symbolic gesture, where the ingester accepts Christ and the eating is a symbol of his penitence.  Although a key difference with the Catholic Eucharist and the LDS Sacrament is that the Sacrament is symbolic, but because the bread is blessed by priesthood authority, the forgiveness is done through priesthood, not just by way of the bread; also, the LDS church makes a direct claim to latter day revelation for this practice, whereas the Catholic Church just references the last Supper and no further authority.)

I mean, look at it this way:  Jesus was sitting there in front of them, and it was a symbolic gesture, as was common among the early Jews.  How could it literally become his flesh when he is whole and sitting right there?

Not only that, but the interpretation doesn't make sense.  Jesus was not yet resurrected into his perfected body, and therefore not only would the bread have had to literally transmute into his flesh while his flesh was still on his body, but it would also have to transmute from the future, after his resurrection.  So I don't see that as an indication of any "literal" transmutation.

We might have to call it the time-traveling mutating bread.  :)
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:50, Wed 16 Mar 2011.

I have posted this elsewhere, but as a sidewise point- a lot of catholic traditions are borrowed from earlier pagan traditins- and the god of the fields/grains was *litterally* the bread, and wine was litterally considered to be the blood of Bachus/Dionysus, not simply as a matter of transformation but as it's innate nature and the nature of those divine beings (a sort of limited pantheism/panentheism- the god of grain was, or was in all grain, the god of wine was or was in all wine) so I suspect this is something that got swept up in the transition and allowed catholicism to incorporate aspects of those existing traditions.

I suppose it was an attempt at giving new meaning to old symbols and thus further undermine the preexisting systems.

I certainly think silveroak's posit has a lot of weight, especially as Christianity spread through Rome.

To answer Heath's question, yes, the bread is indeed 'time-travelling mutant bread'. Through the eucharist, we are present at the last supper, and partaking of the living son of God.

How could the first bread of Jesus have literally become Jesus's flesh? The same way it becomes his flesh every Sunday at mass. Obviously, it isn't medically his flesh, but it is the essence and nature of his flesh, which is the important part.

I do not know if the Eucharist is supposed to be his perfect, post-resurrection flesh or his imperfect pre-resurrection flesh. However, at this point I think it's getting caught up on technicalities, like asking if it's made of thigh or breast. The intent isn't that it's meat you can cook in oil. It's that it is Jesus.

From what I can tell, this belief was just sort of accepted by everyone at the time. I've never seen any indication of disagreement (I'm sure there was some, but there was disagreement about whether Jesus had a body at all too). There's so much that happened in the early Church that was never committed to writing though, I'm sure we're missing a lot of those early debates.

That's because you use those little wafers. If you made an effigy bread man and cut that up it not only works better symbolicly but then you know if you are getting the thigh or the breast.

Perhaps, but the blood aspect promises to make it a bit messy.

I have to admit, transubstantiation always struck as entirely bizarre.  I mean, you can see it, taste it, feel it, smell it.  It is as plain as day not been turned into flesh and blood.  By any method of observation you choose to employ, it appears entirely as if its still bread and wine.  I can seen how someone might feel it's symbolically been changed, but actually, literally changed into flesh and blood?  It just seems to take the complete disregard of all our senses to believe that.  It's a spectacular claim, and all the evidence seems to contradict it, and yet people still believe it.  It sort of boggles my mind.  If you could convince people that you turned lead into gold as easily, you'd be rich.  But who would accept "sure, it still looks like lead, but its essence is now gold, and that's the important thing!" as an argument?

Ye of little faith? :P

I don't know. The idea of Jesus being 'RIGHT HERE' doesn't seem much more outlandish than 'God is watching you all the time' or 'when we die, we actually go to a different place called heaven, which is undetectable by any measures'.

Hmm, perhaps, though I guess the thing about those is that they're not right in front of our eyes.  Heaven is "someplace else," God is outside the universe or something, but the bread and wine is there, right in front of (or inside!) you.  Maybe what I'm getting at is that it seems easier for me to believe in something they can't see at all, then to believe something has change when they can watch it not changing right in front of them.  I might be talked into believing someone if they say they've got $1000 in their wallet, but I don't see them convincing me that the bill they're handing with a picture of Lincoln and $5 in the corner is actually $1000 worth of currency.

But different strokes for different folks, I guess.  Judging by the number of Catholics in the world, there is pretty clearly a large number of people who don't seem to struggle with the idea as much as me!

Just speaking for myself, whether believing something highly improbable because of what I know, or highly improbable because of what I sense, it doesn't seem like it should make a lot of difference. Once I'm willing to accept "it's a miracle!" on faith, the contrary evidence becomes pretty irrelevant.

Most Catholics don't really pay much attention to it. Many are completely unaware of it. I'd prefer we had fewer Catholics, but they knew their beliefs :P

Alright this is one huge thread.  I read the first couple of pages but then just came to the end due to how long ago the posts were.

Protestant means to protest.  So this group protested against the Roman Catholic Church. This was the Reformation that happened in the 1517 lead by Martin Luther.  Many others began to back this man as he preached that the bible was the true way to salvation and not the Pagan ways of the RCC.  "The Bible alone and its scripture is to be the standard." The RCC banned the possession of the common man of owning a Holy Bible by decree of Pope Innocent III in 1199.  This ban was not lifted till just recently in 1983 by the CODE OF CANON LAW.  Now, this was never a state enforced law, but all members of the church were to practice this otherwise they would be lost for misinterpreting the word of god.

Heresy: Roman Catholic Church . the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church. - From www.dictionary.com

Many of these new churches fled Europe.  United States being one that was founded on Protestant beliefs.  Their beliefs being read from the scriptures of god and now what the RCC said the words to be.

What really shut the protestant movement down from reforming the church was the fact that from what little time Martin had and his followers to comprehend the book.  They still had not managed to press out all of the traditions of the RCC.  On this argument alone, a speech given by a Cardinal at the council of Trent paraphrased said "Since you follow some of our ways and don't do exactly as the bible says, then you are just heretic."  Though before their departure, the protestants declared who they believed to be the Anti-Christ as the Pope him self.  Though by 1910 most protestant churches have taken back this proclamation and no longer teach that to its members.

Translated from bibles before the RCC changed a few things, the second commandment was removed.  To keep the illusion of 10 commandments, the RCC split the 10th commandment into two parts.



This Commandment was a leading reason with Martin.  It was not the only reason but when he read this, and saw the masses worshiping a cross with Jesus on it.  This was in contrast to what the commandment put out in law.

I could keep going, but I find the larger the post is the more people who just avoid reading it.  Even I have skipped the last 500 posts of this thread.
This message was last edited by the player at 09:09, Tue 29 Mar 2011.

I would overall agree (although I'm not a history major).

I would disagree on two points:
1) That laypeople couldn't own bibles. I knew they couldn't for a while, but that the ban only ended in 1983 sounds suspicious. If you're making that the lynchpin of your argument, someone will need to research it.

2) That the second commandment was 'removed'. If you read the actual passage, it's a mish-mosh. They aren't numbered. I can see either numbering system as equally valid. The RCC accepted the Ten Commandments as they were numbered at the time at the synagogues.

As for quick research of Point 1




Point 2.
I pulled it from online using a King James Version.  So it was numbered as it came from Exodus 20 and the numbers are what verse they are.

But, if any thing, the bible does repeat it self, so if we look over at the book of Deuteronomy Chapter 5

Ah, I see the issue. If you notice the second quote, it forbids the bible in Romance Languages (as opposed to Greek or Hebrew, the original translations). This is because the process of translating a bible also necessarily impacts the meaning of the words. So in order to help people get the most pure understanding, rather than a version corrupted by accidents of language, people should read it in the original language.

It is an extremely conservative stance and, IMO, an ineffective one (since most likely you'll get people who don't read the bible whatsoever, rather than people who learn Hebrew and get the 'most true' interpretation). But it isn't an attempt to forbid people from reading the bible, just pushing them to read it 'properly'.

This was corrected during the Second Vatican Council, when they changed from the Latin mass and Greek, Hebrew or Latin bibles to services and bibles in the local languages. Second Vatican Coucnil was in the 50s. The practice of doing so likely predates it, but again, I'm not a history major. All I can say is, I'm sure in '85 my parents, with approval of their priest, had no shortage of Catholic-approved bibles around the house.

If your argument is that the RCC was behind the times, and should have begun translating the bibles earlier, I would agree 100%. If there's one thing the RCC struggles with, it's keeping up with the modern day. I understand why, since you don't want to make a decision for good PR. But I think it's still hurting them a LOT, and since a number of the changes Luther pushed for actually got made only a century or two after the Reformation anyway, I think it's pretty clear how much damage that slow change is causing.


Regarding the Ten Commandments:
2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
3 Do not have any other gods before me.

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

8 Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.

10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

13 You shall not kill/murder.

14 You shall not commit adultery.

15 You shall not steal.

16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.


I count 12 possible 'commandments' there.


Wikipedia goes into a nice breakdown of these. The Talmud groups 'no other gods' and 'no idols' together. The RCC groups those two together and 'I am the Lord, your God' (not a huge change). Meanwhile, the Anglican Church drops off the first one altogether ('I am the Lord, your God', seeing it as a preface, not a commandment), then breaks the Talmud's second commandment into two.

Ultimately though, it's all aesthetics. All the same lines are there. The RCC didn't 'hide' anything because the line is still there. In fact, they're perhaps a bit more accurate because they stick to the Jewish sources closer.

Interesting news from Ireland

In addition to passing laws making it a crime not to report sexual abuse of a child, specifically including church officials (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15fri3.html); the Irish government is also planning to expand that law to include the confessional (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14152454)

In short; priests, should someone confess to sexual abuse of a child in a sealed confession, will be required to report it the police, or face up to five years in jail on felony charges. I believe this is the first time any western democratic nation has attempted something like this.

Personally... I support this. In my opinion, the Catholic Church, after the utterly despicable way it has behaved in Ireland, has given up any right to have special considerations or exemptions from the law applied to it.

Yeouch. I don't know how often this comes up, but should it, it's going to result in some very conflicted priests. Ultimately though, at best it might get some guys who had a role in actively hiding bad behavior. More likely though, if it's applied at all, it's going to be to put innocent priests in jail for following their beliefs.

Honestly; I think it's more of a symbolic part of the law (the one with real teeth is the one punishing the higher ups for concealing it), since there's no real way to enforce it. Basically telling the Catholic Church that their actions and, more important, inactions will not be tolerated.

There's also talking of diplomatically expelling the representative from Vatican City.

This message was deleted by the player at 18:10, Thu 21 July 2011.

Firstly, please remove that statement. It's pretty clearly a violation of the forum's rules, and not a great way to start a dialogue.

Secondly, why are you judging an organization based solely on someone playing the prosecution? Isn't it custom to let the other side say their piece before condemnation?

Catholics are always guilty until proven not-so-guilty.  I am thinking that an institution with over a billion members is not going anywhere.

Taking his statement into consideration, one can make a case that wrong-doings were covered up on some levels and they need to be held accountable.  But is that any reason for such venom towards the entire Catholic Church?

There is also the question of how to deal with the Institution of teh Catholic church seperate from the religion of the catholic church. More modern religions (in terms fo founding dates) tend to have an organizational system which addresses these issues- if the Episcople Church (pulled from a hat) were facing similar crisis it's leadership would be forced to resign, those responsible would be arrested, and then it would get back to rebuilding.
The day a pope reigns* and bishops are taken to jail on charges of criminal conspiricy we can make some progress on this, and state we are treating the catholic religion with equinimity instead of giving it preferential treatment. These aren't the middle ages any more, the catholic Church does not stand above government.

*actually the current pope, having come in after this mes was uncovered and witha history of working on cleaning up this mess might not have to resign, but allegorically the point stands as to how the religion is different.

This message was deleted by the player at 18:10, Thu 21 July 2011.

Moderator Post

In reply to Falkus (msg #564):

This is an over the top statement, and contrary to the purpose of the forums.  We're here to discuss ideas, not simply to insult large groups of people.  If you want to talk about what should be done in response to such actions, feel free.  But "they don't deserve to exist" isn't really an argument, or a lead in to a discussion, it's just an insult.

Falkus has deleted his post, so I will repost his link for anyone trying to follow the conversation:

http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011.../media-3007425.html#