Do This In Remembrance Of Me...

[arwalden]

I think I can understand the ritual and symbolism behind communion wine and wafers... and how it represents the suffering and bloodshed of Jesus.

But what's up with "transubstantiation"? Do folks REALLY believe that the wine *literally* turns into Christ's blood? Do they honestly think that that the wheat wafer *literally* turns into the flesh of Christ?

Eating flesh and drinking blood? Ick! -- Isn't that a bit ghoulish? On whose authority do we have it that such a magical transformation takes place?

[beam me up scottie]

1. Last time this was referred to as ritual cannibalism

(which it is) and nobody would touch the thread.:popcorn:

[nini]

2. I'll admit this is a tough one for me.

I find it to be more symbolic though my family feels it literally becomes the body and blood.

one of the many fun aspects of dealing with religion and family :D

[Lerkfish]

3. for protestants its symbolic, Catholics believe in transubtantiation.

I believe Christ was speaking metaphorically, but I am not detracting from whatever catholics wish to believe. Its an important part of their sacrament, and lends weight to the solemnity of the Lord's Supper, for them.

The idea of the Lord's supper is to take in (consume) the sacrifice that Christ made.
You have to realize, that Judaism required sacrifice, animals killed in a certain way to be "clean", and that after the sacrifice, then the animal could be eaten.
In this way, Christ was making a comparison to existing Jewish tradition and pointing out how his own sacrifice performs the duty of the sacrifice of animals on the altar -- the remission of sins.

[arwalden]

5. But Why Do Some Folks Have That Belief? What's Its Origin?

Why do some people only see it as symbolic? Is there some place where this is explicitly expressed as being so? Are Protestants ignoring the facts? Or are Catholics just making them up?

-- Allen

And why are gluten-free wafers frowned upon by some?

[Moochy]

9. We're all making it up

[Lerkfish]

15. why does anyone believe anything?

why do buddhists chant?
why do shintoists make little paper boatst to ferry the souls of dead relatives to heaven?
why do atheists think there is no god?
why do jews not eat pork?

I think many people have explained both the origin of the belief and why it is practiced.

If you are asking on the nature of belief itself, I posted a thread a long time ago on that, and it got sidetracked quite a bit, but there were some worthy posts in it.

if, however, your purpose is to belittle the faith and beliefs of catholics, even though I'm not a catholic, I will not support you in that....nor would I if it was your intent to do that any religion or nonreligion.

investigating faith is worthwhile. Belittling faith is pointless.

[eallen]

18. Don't forget those of us who don't believe.

Rationality isn't nearly as gloomy as some make it out to be.

:hippie:

[Sparkman]

103. Many find indespensible comfort after traumatic life experiences, in faith

Many who are riding the crest (Americans enjoy highest living standards) in this temporal world see no need for spiritual truths.
Then when disaster strikes, seek more than the physical realities have to offer. Long term illness sufferers, in extreme pain or under depressing morphine and other pain suppressors, look to faith and spirituality. And many of the best and most RATIONAL individuals will die for their faith. Much of what we experience in the WESTERN cultures is contrary to reality because of mythology of materialism.
Can you give me any thoughts you may have on the possible non-spiritual myths our culture relys upon?

[beam me up scottie]

21. sigh...atheists do not think there is no god.

Seriously, I really don't understand the difference between the catholic communion and that of other christians'.
I'm sorry I must have missed your thread.



And BTW,I love the (shintoist?) ritual of floating the paper boats.

[Lerkfish]

24. I think its very beautiful.

I saw it in a movie and was very moved by it.
(the shinto paper boat thing)

[beam me up scottie]

37. Is that the ritual where they put

candles on the boats and send them down the river at night?

I have that beautiful image burned into my mind like a painting.

[Lerkfish]

44. yes.

I don't know if I understand it correctly, but my understanding of it, and the visuals of it combine into something beautiful for me.

[Lerkfish]

26. thought I explained it. I'll try again...

protestants feel the lord's supper is a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice, it symbolizes how his body was broken and his blood shed, but we DON"T think the communion wafers actually mystically BECOME his actual body or the wine mystically BECOMES his actual blood.

Catholics do. they call it transubstantian, and they consider it a miracle.

We consider it a tribute, but that the wafers or bread and wine remain bread or wine.

hope that helps.

[beam me up scottie]

36. That does, thanks.

The one priest I remember talking about it made it sound as if those who didn't believe that they were actually eating flesh and blood were bad catholics.

[arwalden]

41. Ick. What Do Vegans Do?

I'm only half-kidding... because I'm sure that this must be somewhat of a dilemma for them.

[beam me up scottie]

48. I'm a vegetarian and I've always

been an atheist.
Any flesh and blood grosses me out.
Bleh

[kestrel91316]

57. Thank you ......... I was raised nominally Presbyterian and I never could

figure out what the deal was with the bread/wine. I thought it was incredibly creepy and cannibalistic to call it literal flesh/blood. I like the idea of a TRIBUTE better.

[DemBones DemBones]

74. We believe the wine mystically becomes the

Blood of Christ and the wafer the Body of Christ but it's a spiritual transformation, not a physical one, so the wine and wafer still have the physical characteristics they did before the consecration.

[arwalden]

80. I've Heard That Gluten Intolerant Persons Are Not Permitted To

... take communion using gluten-free or rice wafers. Is this true? If so, why? Why should one be prohibited from taking communion simply because their bodies cannot handle wheat?

[beam me up scottie]

84. I remember reading that.

It was awful for them.
I never heard whether or not they let the woman and her kid substitute gluten free wafers.
Anybody know what the outcome was?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

67. I don't follow.

Surely the definition of an atheist is that they think there is no god? Was that a typo, or are you trying to make a semantic point about atheists not thinking about gods even in terms of denial, or something else entirely?

[beam me up scottie]

68. No, I don't think that's an accurate definition of an atheist.

That is a theist's definition and it begs the question.

I can not possibly be aware of all gods that supposedly exist everywhere and for all time, especially considering the fact that the common garden variety christian god cannot be defined by those who believe in him.

And I'm supposed to claim that none of them exist ?

Sorry, I won't do that.

I can't prevent the theists from tossing out that red herring, but this atheist isn't allowing them to attach it to me.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

75. You don't have to be aware of something to not believe in it.

The noun "god" has a definition in the dictionary. It means, very roughly, "a supernatural being of greatly more than human abilities" (the exact definition could be quibbled over, but it's pretty close to that).

It's possible to say "I believe that nothing satisfying this definition exists" without considering all the possible things that would satisfy that definition - you just have to deduce the non-existance only from the stated properties.

In this case, I believe that nothing satisfying that definition exists because I have no evidence than one does, and it would mean that the Universe would have to operate on principles considerably different to the ones so far observed. I'm not *certain* that one doesn't exist, and don't think it's possible to be so, but it seems sufficiently unlikely that I assume it to be true.

I would say that anyone who believes that the claim "nothing satisfying this definition exists" is an atheist, and anyone who doesn't isn't, and as such I would say that it is the definition of an atheist.

You personally may believe a stronger claim too, but I assume that you still believe that one, and that you wouldn't deny that anyone who believes that but not your version is still an atheist?

[beam me up scottie]

90. Actually, James Randi said it much better than I did:

I’ve said it before: there are two sorts of atheists. One sort claims that there is no deity, the other claims that there is no evidence that proves the existence of a deity; I belong to the latter group, because if I were to claim that no god exists, I would have to produce evidence to establish that claim, and I cannot. Religious persons have by far the easier position; they say they believe in a deity because that’s their preference, and they’ve read it in a book. That’s their right.

http://www.randi.org/jr/080505potential.html

[bobbieinok]

86. if interested, the Hopi and Navajo religions, creation myths sound

interesting

granted, I've gotten my info from Hillerman's books and Scarborough's The Godmother's Web, but it seems accurate, as far as it goes

customer review at amazon.com


"The Godmother's Web" is the third in a series of godmother novels penned by Elizabeth Scarborough. ...

....
Cindy's first indication that the trip was not going to go according to plan was when she picked up an older American Indian woman whom everyone called Grandmother. Shortly thereafter, Cindy discovers that her hitchhiker had a slightly different voyage in mind and had no intention of letting Cindy get rid of her easily. Grandmother seems to be concerned about the pain and anger caused among the Hopi and Navaho by a recent land partition. By no means a political activist, Grandmother is intent on providing wisdom to her many grandchildren.

....

Not only does Scarborough write one of her best tales ever; she shows a grasp of Hopi and Navaho culture that is truly astounding. She weaves legend, myth, culture and politics into the story without missing a step and never lets the story get bogged down by all the details. I learnt as much about these to American Indian cultures in a book intended for entertainment as I have reading books on the same subject. Because of this excellent mix of story and cross-cultural information I would recommend "The Godmother's Web" for everyone, young and old, short and tall.

grandmother is the Hopi spider woman

[beam me up scottie]

89. That is interesting.

I'll have to see if I can find it at one of the used bookstores on line.
It seems like the native peoples had a much better imagination when they were populating their spirit world.
I love Greek mythology for the same reason.

Thank you.

[arwalden]

25. Those Are Excellent Questions... Start Your Own Thread To Find Out

<< I think many people have explained both the origin of the belief and why it is practiced. >>

On this thread? or did you have some other one in mind?

<< If you are asking on the nature of belief itself, I posted a thread a long time ago on that, and it got sidetracked quite a bit, but there were some worthy posts in it. >>

Sorry, that's one that I missed.

My apologies for posting a thread asking a question that's already been asked before. I know that can be annoying for folks who spend every waking hour online... it always needs to be fresh and new.

But, considering how many folks come here, I suppose it's just inevitable --and damn-near unpreventable-- that someone like myself will end up asking a question that has already been asked before.

<< if, however, your purpose is to belittle the faith and beliefs of catholics, even though I'm not a catholic, I will not support you in that >>

So if I don't "get it"... and I say so, then I'm belittling? Oh brother... Get a grip!

This is the religion FORUM, not the Catholic "Group". It's okay to ask questions here and to try and understand how believers reconcile their religion's contradictions, or what their understanding is of a certain ritual, and whether or not they also find it to be disturbing.

[supernova]

70. In protestant theology, communion is symbolic

Jesus literally says in the liturgy "This do, in rememberance of me." (exact wording depending on your translation.) Lerkfish basically says it upthread: Jesus puts himself in place of the usual passover sacrificial animal. Animal sacrifice to the god(s) is very old. Exactly how old is anybody's guess.

I don't believe it's the real body and blood of Christ when I consume it. That's gross to me. But today it's a rememberance of that Last Supper. The last time they were all together.

Other aspects that make it meaningful to me:

I can better connect to what it might have felt like to be there. With the repetition of the litury, I can sort of imagine what it must have been like, this small group of friends. The love, the fear. I feel like a fly on the wall.


• There's the issue of communion being something immediate that you can touch and taste and feel. Most of the time, theology is a very dry, analytical topic, like any other subject at school. This is something tangible.
  
  
• In the presby church, we pass the elements to each other. There's no going up in a line to recieve it from the preacher from on high. It's the idea of each person being equal in the community and serving each other. At it's most basic level, this is where I got the earliest idea to be a liberal. That we are all equal. How revolutionary! :-)
  
  
• It's participatory. One thing I get irritated with at times with protestant worship is the utter passivity of it. You come, you sit, you sing some, and mostly listen. Communion is something you *do*. It's an experience you create. I can well imagine this is why people take up other spiritual paths, wanting more active experience.

That's all I can think of for now.

Good discussion arwalden. :thumbsup:

[DemBones DemBones]

76. At the Last Supper, Jesus broke the bread and said "This is my body"

NOT "Pretend this is my body" or "This is a symbol of my body."


Jesus also said that you must eat His body to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.


The bread and wine are transformed spiritually, not physically, so that Jesus is present in what still appears to be bread and wine.

[arwalden]

81. This Is A Story...

<< NOT "Pretend this is my body" or "This is a symbol of my body." >>

... that wasn't even written down until LONG after his death. And there weren't any stenographers present at this supper. It's impossible to know EXACTLY what words were uttered. And even then... the translations are highly suspect. (Ah... but bible translations, and biblical ERRORS could be a fascinating subject for another thread.)

[Sparkman]

104. This is a form of meditation, the suspension of the physical & temporal...

if not for the moment. If Jesus walked on water, healed the blind, rose from the cross, even created the universe as part of the trinity, why should a Christian doubt the communion or the tribulation? The bigger issues of devotion should also be subject for this forum here.
It's equally important to review and fellowship His teachings every opportunity, and this is one here today.
I urge questioning types to seek out a pastor or a deacon or a priest and give them a chance at helping, with a pragmatic life issue. Then judge if one must. Seeking the truth w/o God's help is like looking through a smoked glass at the world, and spiritual people are annointed with that very ministry.

[Moochy]

4. Whose authority? um how bout the Pope?

Folks do beleive this. I did, but even at age 8 I understood it to be a "holy" thing. Many catholics hold this belief as an article of faith.

To eat god is an ancient tradition, and catholics are continuing this ancient tradition.

Whose authority? pssst. it's called faith. lol

I never felt that the cellular transformation of bread into actual flesh happens, but more that it's a holy transformation, and that Jesus' flesh and blood is even *more* present in the host. That's how I always thought about it. Not as some disgusting or ghoulish thing, rather to me it was a reminder of the omnipresence of God. Eating the flesh and blood of the Son of God reminds you of his sacrifice for our sins.
(Stopping now before I start preaching!)

As to when this became church canon, I'm not sure but probably constantine had something to do with it.

[arwalden]

7. LOL

<< (Stopping now before I start preaching!) >>

Psssst. Too late.

<< Eating the flesh and blood of the Son of God reminds you of his sacrifice for our sins. >>

Surely there are other ways to remind folks of that besides consuming flesh and blood.

[Moochy]

8. I'm a ex-catholic

you post something asking about ghoulish practices in catholicism, and I respond honestly.

>Surely there are other ways to remind folks of that besides consuming flesh and blood.

Yeah why dont you send an email to the pope. :eyes:

[arwalden]

13. I Never Said That...

Here's what I said: "Eating flesh and drinking blood? Ick! -- Isn't that a bit ghoulish?"

<< Yeah why dont you send an email to the pope. :eyes: >>

I doubt he'd respond to me. That's why I posted my query here so that folks like yourself would be kind enough to share their insight.

And I thank you for yours. It's been quite  educational  chatting with you.

[Moochy]

22. I paraphrased your ghoulish comment :)

The thing is, the consumption of god flesh is a symbol, even if church canon says its more than a symbol. It's one of the core things that sets catholics apart from protestants (in their own minds) as part of the canon outside of the bible. I can't recall any sermon or homily that decried protestants, we were taught they were christians who loved Jesus too.

At no point can I imagine any catholic thinking that if you took the host and put it under a microscope that you'd be able to see skin cells, or clone jesus or anything like that.

And the thing is, if the flesh of jesus is divine, why not have some? It's certainly not his fleshy weak *human* part of him that infuses the blood and wine.

This is the post resurrection Jesus, the one whose full of the Holy Spirit and besides he has that meaty tasty looking sacred heart. :yum: (Now that thing scared the hell out of me as a kid )

My sister has gone to the other extreme, feeling that the bible is all she needs. It's taken the place of the black 8-ball toy we used to have as kids. Open the bible up randomly and get inspiration! That useage of the bible as I-Ching scares me.

It's my personal experience with my sister's born-again transformation "I dont need no steenking priest to interpret the bible" that has irked me about her brand of protestantism. (It may be generic brand, she shops at CostCo alot... :) )

The bible is all you need, everything else is lies from the eeevil of the satans's church. It's just too convenient to ignore the historical background of the bible, and its context. I respect the protestants who see that, and look at in its historical context.

I personally feel the bible is not holy, nor the word of God. but hey
Different strokes. :)

Having been through 12 years of Post-vatican II catechism, alot of if by Maryknoll nuns and Dominican nuns. (no horror stories, these nuns were very kind and gentle souls) I have a very slanted, liberation theology type view of the catholic church.

[Lerkfish]

14. hey! its not my idea.

just explaining it to you.

sorry, this went under the wrong post.

[arwalden]

16. Thanks For Your Responses.

I certainly realize that it's not YOUR idea... I was just hoping that someone who participates in the communion ritual of eating wafers and drinking wine would understand why they were doing what they were doing and could offer some insight as to the origins of the belief in transubstantiation.

Folks will just have to get-over being offended at my question and my reaction to this belief... but frankly, I find the thought of eating FLESH and drinking BLOOD to be really disgusting. Ick!

I understand that the ritual and ceremony is to REMIND people of the ultimate sacrifice, but does grossing them out help to reinforce that reminder?

What were they thinking?!

If I was of a mind to ACTUALLY believe that the substance had transformed into flesh and blood, I'd become nauseous (and I'd probably avoid the ceremony.)

[Moochy]

27. being grossed out

I think that "being grossed out" a modern reaction, not something that the popes or whoever first argued about transubstatiation would even care about.

Put yourself in Rome or Trent, or wherever the first Transubstantiation meeting was held. It was another world.

Revulsion at the consumption of Blood and Flesh are a legacy of modern civilization and our specialized labor around food production.
Even back in Rome, the flesh and blood sacrifices that were made in Rome had specialized butchers and slave occupations set up for this act.

However, I think most households would have no revulsion at killing a food animal, and bleeding /dressing meats.

So to ask "what were they thinking" is a question whose answer needs historical context, which I'm sadly unable to provide.

[arwalden]

33. Good Points...

<< Revulsion at the consumption of Blood and Flesh are a legacy of modern civilization and our specialized labor around food production. >>

Indeed that's true. That surely has a lot to do with how I view this topic. --- But even back in the "old-days", they didn't EAT PEOPLE did they?

<< Even back in Rome, the flesh and blood sacrifices that were made in Rome had specialized butchers and slave occupations set up for this act. >>

Surely you're talking about ANIMALS... not HUMANS, right? Or is this something that ought to be on TLC's "Hidden History".

<< So to ask "what were they thinking" is a question whose answer needs historical context, which I'm sadly unable to provide.>>

Oh well... I'm glad that you understood what my question was about and where my confusion was.

The rationale behind such a thing is what puzzles me the most. I was hoping that if someone here actually believed in such a thing they might also know WHY and HOW such a belief came into being.

Thanks very much for your thoughts and explanations.

[Moochy]

42. Human sacrifice in Rome

http://home.tiscali.be/mauk.haemers/collegium_religionis/human_sacrifice.htm
Rome accused carthage of sacrificing infants. (Eerily similar to the stories about babies in the incubators that Saddams's soldiers threw on the ground?)

But its not clear that by 33 ad, that revulsion to human sacrifice had made its way to the Levant, or wherever the first notion of Transubstantiation was established and became canon. My suspicion is that its a holdover from Mitraism. There is much evidence that Mithraism influenced early christianity greatly, as a religion of the soldiery. By 33, the Legions were very powerful and growing in power.
He who had the Legions support could hold his claim to title of emperor.

Steven Saylor has an great story in his first Roman Whodunnit series, called "Roman Blood" about a ritual sacrifice as punishment for the crime of patricide. The ritual is quite horrific, and its cultural context was the appeasment of the gods who must be outraged at the son killing his father. Patricide of the most reviled feared crimes of ancient rome, since absolute rule of the paterfamilias means that the father has the right to execute any of his charges.

I'll look around to see if I can find when it first became the canon.

[arwalden]

45. Thanks. I Believe You... And

I believe that such horrible things happened in ancient Rome. But does that have anything to do with consuming flesh and drinking blood?

<< I'll look around to see if I can find when it first became the canon. >>

Thanks again. Don't spend too much time on it, but if you're a master Googler and can put your fingers right on the information, I'd enjoy seeing and reading about when and WHY such a thing was decided.

[Moochy]

54. I think It's got everything to do with it

>I believe that such horrible things happened in ancient Rome. But does that have anything to do with consuming flesh and drinking blood?

I think so, in as much as the traditions of the Roman Catholic church should be seen as a continuum from the Roman Paganism.
The symbolism of consuming the Lamb of God, is central. Lambs are very trusting and were seen as the perfect sacrificial animal.

The Lambs flesh was eaten in a feast for the priests of the rituals, and maybe the lay adherents too if they were lucky. Jesus own personal human sacrifice leads to the consumption of his flesh.

Not sure if we'll ever know why something was established but we can speculate about the cultural origins and influences that would justify such a decision.

[Lerkfish]

28. and I DID offer that explanation...

repeatedly, but you keep acting like your questions were never addressed.

Since several of us have given you honest and thought out answers to your questions, but you think you have not been answered, what answers were you fishing for?

[arwalden]

29. You And I Just Aren't Connecting Here.

Thanks for trying.

[Lerkfish]

32. shrugs

all I can do is answer your questions honestly.

if that is "not connecting", that's all on your end, I'm afraid.

[arwalden]

38. Others In This Thread...

<< all I can do is answer your questions honestly.>>

... have been far more helpful and much less accusatory than you. Just take it at face value and quit looking for ways to be insulted.

Clearly our exchanges are going nowhere. I made a generic no-fault comment pointing out that we were not connecting. I even thanked you for your efforts. -- That was my way of politely letting you know that we had reached an impasse. Whether it was an impasse of ideas or of personalities, for most reasonable people, it would have been their cue to cease and move on.

But that wasn't enough for you, apparently. Instead you were compelled to drop this charming line:

<<if that is "not connecting", that's all on your end, I'm afraid.>>

Frankly, I do not understand why you had to make it personal and find fault specifically with ME. :shrug: What purpose did THAT serve? My-my-my... how witty! Do you feel better now?

[Sparkman]

105. Sunday worshipers, coming to commune, can use it as focus point, a ritual

and any tradition that doesn't make void the word, may serve many of us. The Christmas season brings family together from long distances, even athiests find it comforting more than challanging, IF we can get into the SPIRIT?

[quisp]

6. Maybe you should talk to the clergy at your church...

and not a political forum. Or are you just trying to have some fun?
:evilgrin:

[arwalden]

10. I'm Sorry, I Thought This Was The "Religion And Theology" Forum.

Aren't questions like mine permitted here?

<< Or are you just trying to have some fun? >>

Yes. This is a topic that I enjoy discussing and reading about.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO CONTRIBUTE?

[beam me up scottie]

12. jinx!

[quisp]

17. Sorry, it's just that your initial post sounded a little snarky

to me.
"Ick! -- Isn't that a bit ghoulish? On whose authority do we have it that such a magical transformation takes place?" That just sounds a little condesending and dismissive to me.

I partake in communion as often as I can and I don't know that the bread and wine ACTUALLY become flesh and blood. That's really a Catholic dogma.

But I do believe that by taking the bread and wine I become part of the body of Christ (the Christian community).

If I offended you with my first response, I apologize.

[beam me up scottie]

19. So, it's not just the catholics who get communion?

Do all christian churches practice this ritual?

[quisp]

20. Yes, I think so...

it's pretty central to a Christian church service.

It's different where ever you go. Some churches are very strict about who recieves communion, but we're very free at my church; "This is the Lord's supper and all who are drawn to Jesus are encouraged to partake." It's actually more about community and sharing than about blood and flesh and suffering and death.

[beam me up scottie]

23. So it's open to all at your church.

See, I never realized that.
I grew up in a mostly catholic area and communion was very mysterious and definitely off limits to anyone else.

[Moochy]

31. Clarification

The Catholic Eucharistic sacrament is not available to any but baptized catholics, but there's no catholic ID card.

I imagine if you had a turban on, or a bindi, or a yamulke on, they might not give you a wafer.

[beam me up scottie]

39. Now some catholics abstained

from accepting communion, why is that?
Was divorce or another "sin" preventing them from partaking?

[Lerkfish]

46. not sure.

I can only guess that perhaps they were told or felt "unworthy" for some reason, or had not had time for a confessional?
kind of lost on catholism on that point.

[Moochy]

51. Sometimes I was just lazy :)

Personal worthieness is a consideration. If you are feeling like you need to attend confession, the priests are there before the eucharist.
Lots of folks dont go to confession, very often, and others just fall asleep during the eucharistic procession. (from my expierince)

[quisp]

34. Yes it's open to all at my church...

and if you ever find yourself in Williamsburg, Virginia let me know and I'd be happy for you to come to church with me and maybe remove some of the mystery.

But not ALL of the mystery, because that's where the faith part comes in!

[Lerkfish]

35. at the UCC, its open to all

who want to partake, young or old.

[Lerkfish]

30. yes, on varying schedules...

some denominations practice it every sunday, some once a month, some just on particular church dates.

depends on the church, but both catholic and protestant churches practice communion.

They also share baptism, with varying modes: sprinkled or dunked, infant only or adult or adult only, etc.

[beam me up scottie]

40. I could never ask my friends all of this

when I was growing up.
People don't discuss religion where I'm from, it's too personal.
You would just as soon ask someone about their sex life.

[Lerkfish]

43. I'm sorry for that.

I think that's why some people have a bad taste in their mouth about religions.

I feel all or most religions should be trying to do the same things -- to find out how they relate to God(s) and to decide, once they have reached an understanding, what they should do in their own lives based on that knowledge.

the UCC has a slogan (something like): To Love is to Care, to Care is to Do.

basically, that if you understand God, you understand compassion and want to practice it on your fellow humans.


But I have been interested in various religions, in understanding them. I find more similarities than dissimilarities with the INTENT of the religions. Now, as we see with fundamentalists of any religion, throwing away the compassionate intent in favor of judgementalism causes a whole host of problems.

[beam me up scottie]

50. Good point.

Not many UCC's around here, I'm afraid.
Baptists up the wazoo, though.

[arwalden]

49. I Get The Metaphors And Symbolism...

... I understand it and why it's important for Christians to participate in that ceremony/ritual. I just want to know what authoritative figure decided what... and when and why? What was their rationale for such a thing?

Why would they think it to be attractive or compelling to tell people that wheat and wine became flesh and blood?

Are any Catholics as turned off to the idea of swallowing flesh and blood as I am? Do most modern Catholics think that this miracle really happens, or is it mostly symbolic for them too?

-- Allen

You didn't offend me. All is good.

[Lerkfish]

53. the authority figure was Christ himself, FWIW.

He started the sacrament at the Last Supper.

He broke the bread, saying, "this is my body, which is broken for you"
he poured the wine, saying "this is my blood, which is shed for you"

and then he said, "as oft as you do this, do so in remembrance of me".

so....Jesus started the sacrament, according to the gospels, not some later church leader.
now, as to HOW different denominations follow that example is various.

[Moochy]

55. Church leader made it Law

But the dogmatic aspect must have been established at a certian time.
Early christains were all over the map in terms of their beliefs, and had many differing belief systems before the chuch became the official religion of Rome.

Alex, I'll take Early Church Heresies for $500!

[arwalden]

56. "Alex, I'll take Early Church Heresies for $500!"

:spray:

[beam me up scottie]

11. This is the Religion and Theology Forum, is it not ?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. There are three currents of thought on this:

1) Transubstantiation, the traditional Roman Catholic view, which says that the bread and wine are the actual blood and body of Christ. Not sure where they got it, but the "worlds of institution," the part of the service that starts, "In the night he was betrayed, our Lord Jesus Christ took bread..." is one of the oldest extant parts of the liturgy. It's so old that pagan Romans accused the early Christians of cannibalism on that basis.

In the Catholic church, Communion is the central ritual, the heart of the Mass, and is so important that every priest is required to say it every day of the year except Good Friday.

2) However, Protestants in the Lutheran and Anglican traditions reject transubstantiation and have a doctrine called the Real Presence, saying that Jesus is spiritually present in the bread and wine. Within the past thirty years, Lutheran and Episcopal churches have placed increasing importance on Communion. Where they used to celebrate it only once a month, they now celebrate it every Sunday.

3) Protestants in the Calvinist tradition say that Communion is simply a memorial ritual. They usually have Communion only four times a year.

[arwalden]

52. Interesting Stuff. Thanks...

<< It's so old that pagan Romans accused the early Christians of cannibalism on that basis. >>

So the pagan Romans must have also believed that some miracle was taking place as well.

Just to be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of cannibalism. I'd first have to believe that such a thing was happening before I'd make that accusation. -- But even though I don't believe transubstantiation is taking place, the whole idea of it is a bit unnerving to me.

<< Protestants in the Calvinist tradition say that Communion is simply a memorial ritual. >>

I think these folks have got the right idea.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. No, they simply overheard the priests saying,

"This is my body broken for you...This is my blood, given and shed for you"

It's not known whether the earliest Christians took it literally.

[bobbieinok]

88. years ago I was touring the castle at Marburg; the guide said that

during the Reformation Luther and the Calvinist Zwingli held a major debate in the great hall of the castle.....the debate was over what took place in communion

the two could not agree; therefore the split between Lutheranism and Calvinism continued and made things much easier for Catholics to win back lost lands and peoples in the Counter-Reformation

the city and the castle of Marburg are fascinating; this info just added to the fascination

[NAO]

58. Someone got a bit of consecrated host and had it analyzed by GC/MS

Somebody I know secured a bit of "consecrated host" and took it to an analytical laboratory where he worked.

He ran it thru a GC/MS (Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer - an extremely sensitive scientific instrument used for determining the exact chemical composition of a sample) and it was negative for human flesh. It was, after all, just a flower-based cracker.

So there you go.

And as far as your commentary - yes, the xtian communion ceremony IS ritual cannibalism, and the central xtian doctrine IS human sacrifice. And they sure do talk a lot about blood. Fountains of blood, being washed in blood, etc. yeech.

[DemBones DemBones]

73. I think you mean it was "flour-based," not "flower-based."

Transubstantiation is a spiritual change in the consecrated Host; spiritual changes are not measured by GC/Mass Spec. Thus, your friend/acquaintance wasted his time doing the analysis. Any well-informed Catholic could have told him that the consecrated Host would have the chemical traits of flour and water. It was also a sacrilegious act for him to steal a consecrated Host.

The Host and wine become the Body and Blood in a spiritual sense, not in a physical sense. Chemical tests would show the consecrated Blood of Christ to have the physical characteristics of wine.

[NAO]

78. Yes, flour. Also, a Catholic friend did explain the test results

in fairly the same way as you did.

To me, it seemed like a Platonic notion; something like the distinction between the sensible world, which is not really real; and the Forms which are truly real.

I suppose Catholicism incorporated much of Plato and the Neo-Platonists (before destroying their schools and burning their libraries and completely wiping the works of many sages from the pages of history).

[nemo137]

79. Stuntster posted a long elaboration on that in a previous thread

From what I remember the material didn't change, but somehow (and it was a scholastic/neoplatonic explanation) the answer to the queastion "What is it?" changed.

[Zhade]

92. Ah, Stuntster, how we DON'T miss you.

The guy who continuously insisted that his alleged subjective personal interactions with 'god' somehow proved that said 'god' exists.

:rofl:

[arwalden]

93. Oh That's Right...

... I had almost forgotten. Those were, uh, enlightening... if for no other reason... at least as far as letting us get a peek into how his mind worked.

[kwassa]

94. Stunster knows far more than anyone else I've met here yet.

But he was casting pearls before, um, some who had no clue.

[arwalden]

95. Oh Bro-ther!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=158307

So that explains it, eh? :eyes:

[kwassa]

96. What is your point?

[arwalden]

97. If He Is Someone Who "Knows Far More Than Anyone Else"...

... you've met here, he certainly didn't demonstrate it. If he's someone you admire for how much they know, then the standards for what you qualify as smart are set exceedingly low.

[kwassa]

99. I thought he most certainly demonstrated it.

And obviously you and I would disagree as what qualifies as either intelligent or knowledgeable.

I doubt that we agree on much.

[arwalden]

100. Heroes And Martyrs

<< I thought he most certainly demonstrated it. >>

How odd that someone as 'smart' as you believe him to be wasn't smart enough to follow the rules and keep from getting his own ass tombstoned. Looks like you're crediting him with more than he was entitled.

But, I suppose it's not uncommon for many folks to turn a blind-eye to the faults of our fallen heroes and martyrs.

<< I doubt that we agree on much. >>

Certainly not when it comes to woo-woo magical-thinking shit.

And now... you may have the last word. I see where you're trying to lead this. Not interested in playing that game right now... maybe later.

[kwassa]

101. oh please, again

"How odd that someone as 'smart' as you believe him to be wasn't smart enough to follow the rules and keep from getting his own ass tombstoned. Looks like you're crediting him with more than he was entitled."

Getting tombstoned has nothing to do with a poster's intelligence. It has to do with behavior, it has a lot to do with the rules, and also how the rules are enforced, and who is enforcing them.

Is is within the rules to make personal attacks on posters, if the poster is no longer here? You seem to be doing that, to me.

"But, I suppose it's not uncommon for many folks to turn a blind-eye to the faults of our fallen heroes and martyrs."

He is neither, to me. Just an intelligent and unusually knowledgeable poster, on the subject of Christianity.

[arwalden]

102. Oh... what the hell...

... changed my mind. I'll respond anyway.

<< Getting tombstoned has nothing to do with a poster's intelligence. >>

Unless he WANTED to be tombstoned, then clearly he wasn't smart enough to AVOID being tombstoned.

<< It has to do with behavior, >>

Some people just can't control themselves...

<< it has a lot to do with the rules, >>

I guess sticking to the rules were beneath him.

<< and also how the rules are enforced, and who is enforcing them. >>

Take it up with the admins. I'm not sure they respond positively to public critiques of "how the rules are enforced".

<< Is is within the rules to make personal attacks on posters, if the poster is no longer here? >>

I think the rules are pretty clear that they apply to making personal attacks on DU members. Which he is NOT.

<< You seem to be doing that, to me. >>

Yes, and? So? You got a problem with that? Take it up with the admins.

<< He is neither, to me. >>

Yeah, right. We can all see that you're not at all fascinated with him. :eyes:

<< Just an intelligent and unusually knowledgeable poster, on the subject of Christianity. >>

Yes... "unusual" is definitely a word I'd use. But please go indulge yourself with these vanity posts and go ahead and continue to publicly sing his praises (only... I don't think that that's something the admins are too receptive about either. I could be wrong, but if history is any indication, I'm probably correct.)

[arwalden]

83. Oh Dear

<< It was also a sacrilegious act for him to steal a consecrated Host. >>

Fact-finding is sacrilegious? I guess he'll burn in Hell for all eternity.

I've heard others postulate that the deity was aware of the "theft" and therefore the deity magically transformed it back into its original state so that the "consecrated host" could not be tested.

[beam me up scottie]

59. How do people explain this to small children without

scaring them to death?

[arwalden]

60. Interesting Question

I would imagine that most children who are taught to perform religious rituals are not taught what they mean. And if an effort IS made to teach the little one what the significance is (and the miracle that's happening) it's doubtful that their immature mind can comprehend it all.

I know from my own experiences, the prayers I recited were completely rote. I just parroted a sequence of syllables without knowing or understanding what they meant. (Want an example of this... just ask any first grader to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. She can probably do it. Now ask her to tell you what it means. It's doubtful that you'll get a meaningful response because in her mind it's just a sing-songy poem called the "Plejah Leejunce".)

[kwassa]

61. There is good teaching and bad teaching, like everything else.

It is not safe to project your own experience with religious teaching on to the experience of everyone else. This concept is really very easy to teach. It is simply the concept of taking God within oneself, of becoming one with God. That's it.

In this thread you are choosing to take the body and blood literally. Who really believes that? One is clearly drinking wine, and eating a wafer, or bread, not eating flesh and blood, like a rare steak.

By doing so, you raise the false argument of cannibalism, which indicates to me that this is just one more religion-bashing thread. Your "blind men and the elephant" approach is false, of course.

[arwalden]

62. Hello, Kwassa.

<< It is not safe to project your own experience with religious teaching on to the experience of everyone else. >>

I think it's only fair that I do so. Shouldn't anyone who responds to my question be made aware of what my exiting thoughts and perspectives are?

<< This concept is really very easy to teach. It is simply the concept of taking God within oneself, of becoming one with God. That's it. >>

That's an interesting explanation and one that I've never heard before.

<< In this thread you are choosing to take the body and blood literally. >>

No. It is not *I* who chooses to take it literally. Others are choosing to take it literally, I'm merely questioning it.

<< Who really believes that? >>

Apparently there are a great many who do believe that.

<< One is clearly drinking wine, and eating a wafer, or bread, not eating flesh and blood, like a rare steak. >>

Yes! That's what I've been saying all along. But clearly, there are many who believe otherwise.

<< By doing so, you raise the false argument of cannibalism, >>

I don't recall making such an argument.

<< which indicates to me that this is just one more religion-bashing thread.>>

There are many people here who are under the impression that any thread which is not PAY DUE RESPECT to religion is a "religion-bashing thread".

<< Your "blind men and the elephant" approach is false, of course.>>

I understand the reference, but I don't see how such a comparison applies here.

[FloridaPat]

63. When I was a kid in a Catholic grade school, the nun was explaining

how we aren't suppose to bite into the wafer which is the body of Jesus. She told us a story about someone who did bit into it and it started bleeding all over the place. The priest had to take it from her and do some extra prayers over it to make it stop bleeding.

Go ahead, ask me why I am no longer Catholic.

[arwalden]

64. Oh For Pete's Sake... What A HORRIBLE Thing To Tell A Child!!

And what possible reason could the nun have for telling the child that?? That's nothing more than psychological cruelty. Mental terrorism.

<< Go ahead, ask me why I am no longer Catholic. >>

I think I know. And it's probably a reason that's shared by many other reasonable, rational and thoughtful people just like yourself.

[supernova]

69. Ewwww.

That's just gross.

[Nihil]

85. Not quite as extreme ...

... but when we were preparing for our first communion, the point was
made that under no circumstances can you touch the host (yes, I know
the rules have changed since then) as it was consecrated and you were
unworthy. This led directly to a lot of small children having problems
after communion when they desperately tried to use their tongue to peel
off the host from the roof of their mouth (where the thing inevitably
lodged) ...

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

66. Hello, Kire. What Do You Mean By That?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

91. So You Believe The Bible Is Inerrant And To Be Taken LITERALLY, Correct?

The fact is that nobody knows WHAT Jesus actually said. The story you refer to was written down many many years AFTER he ceased to exist on earth. There were no scribes at this event, and there were no tape recorders.

<< Jesus said "This is my body" not "Pretend this is my body." >>

Even if he did actually say those words, are we to believe that the people he was speaking to were not smart enough to understand the symbolism?

<< "I'd explain it but, based on your" Posted by DemBones DemBones response to my answers to a previous questions of yours, I'm not sure you'd understand my explanation. >>

Oh, nice! Such passive-aggressive personal swipes aren't necessary.

[renter]

77. arwalden,

No Christians that I know believe Jesus was mentioning cannibalism. Think of it as a symbolic reminder, an edible yellow post-it note. Bread and wine were common food items back then. Every time someone broke a piece of bread from the larger loaf and drank wine it would serve as a reminder of Jesus.

[arwalden]

82. renter,

Hi!

<< No Christians that I know believe Jesus was mentioning cannibalism. >>

Thank you. Same here.

<< Think of it as a symbolic reminder, an edible yellow post-it note. >>

LOL! Funny! -- But if it's only "symbolic" then why are gluten-free wheat-free substitutes frowned upon? The cross and wearing the cross is a symbolic reminder too. People wear all sorts of crosses: silver, gold, wooden, ivory... you name it. But can you imagine if the Catholic church decreed that only GOLD crosses were appropriate and thus prohibited prohibit people from wearing SILVER crosses as charms on their necklaces?

<< Bread and wine were common food items back then. Every time someone broke a piece of bread from the larger loaf and drank wine it would serve as a reminder of Jesus. >>

Thanks again... your response is one of the more reasonable and rational ones here. But it still doesn't explain how and why so many folks do believe that the food products are LITERALLY and MIRACULOUSLY transforming into flesh and blood.

[bobbieinok]

87. years ago I heard a sermon on this that has really stuck with me

I don't know which passage was used, but it was one that readily lent itself to the following interpretation

'this is my body that was broken for you; do this in remembrance of me' 'this was my blood that was shed for you; do this in remembrance of me'......minister said Jesus was saying Christians should be ready to follow his example to the end, ie, we should be prepared at any moment to sacrifice ourselves for others: to let our body be literally broken and our blood be literally shed for others.....minister said further that we should only take the Lord's Supper/communion if we were willing to follow Jesus in this way

[H2O Man]

98. Ritual

is often based on symbolism.

If my younger son and I do a sweat today in our lodge, the structure we sit in represents the womb of Mother Earth. There will be earth, rock, fire, air, and water. They are real, yet they too serve as symbols of something more.

When we finish, we will eat and drink. I am not a "Christian" in the general sense of the word. But that food and drink will be that same body and blood that the Master spoke of. It does not mean what some of the people on this thread assume it does. It is not symbolic for consuming human flesh and blood. It means something different, and either you understand it, or you don't. Another person can not explain it in so many words.