Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on June 12, 2015, 01:42:38 PM
-
Yes, there's another trans* that we're all now required to support. The Roman Catholic Church now says that some wine and some bread is actually the blood and body of their Messiah. You are encouraged to use #ConsecratedHost, to show your support.
-
That's not new. I remember asking my mother about it at some point when I was a young-un ca. late 1940s. Her reply was that it was a "Mystery of the faith." Further probing revealed that belief in the "Mysteries" (capitalized) was a test of your faith.
That particular mystery was that the Communion bread and Communion wine, blessed by the Priest during the Mass, was actually the body and blood of Christ. When I was a kid, at least in the Brooklyn Diocese, the wine was not actually drunk by The Faithful during the Mass, but by the Priest, drinking it symbolically "for" the Communicants at that Mass. You will see the Priest wiping the rim of the Chalice (which contained actual wine) before placing it back on the Altar.
The bread and wine was actually called the "Holy Eucharist," and the bread was a small round slice of unleavened wheat bread. One was not supposed to chew it, but to let it get gushy in one's mouth and then swallow it whole.
This was all in replication of Christ's actions at the Last Supper. "This is my body," and "This is my blood" and like that there. See Luke 22:19.
There are several television Masses "seeable" on TV if you want to get a look at the whole Celebration of the Holy Mass. You can look for "Masses for Shut-Ins" as an example, or televised Masses during the big Catholic holidays.
Terry, Altar Boy dropout, 230RN
-
Wasn't there a lot of push-back then, from privileged cisbread and ciswine?
-
Wasn't there a lot of push-back then, from privileged cisbread and ciswine?
I realized that you were trying to make a joke out of the recent cis- and trans- discussions on this board, but this is/was serious business among the faithful, and the idea that it was something "new" had to be approached.
(Not that I haven't told my share of Catholic jokes... and Polish jokes... and German jokes... and French jokes.)
-
That's not new. I remember asking my mother about it at some point when I was a young-un ca. late 1940s. Her reply was that it was a "Mystery of the faith." Further probing revealed that belief in the "Mysteries" (capitalized) was a test of your faith.
That particular mystery was that the Communion bread and Communion wine, blessed by the Priest during the Mass, was actually the body and blood of Christ. When I was a kid, at least in the Brooklyn Diocese, the wine was not actually drunk by The Faithful during the Mass, but by the Priest, drinking it symbolically "for" the Communicants at that Mass. You will see the Priest wiping the rim of the Chalice (which contained actual wine) before placing it back on the Altar.
The bread and wine was actually called the "Holy Eucharist," and the bread was a small round slice of unleavened wheat bread. One was not supposed to chew it, but to let it get gushy in one's mouth and then swallow it whole.
This was all in replication of Christ's actions at the Last Supper. "This is my body," and "This is my blood" and like that there. See Luke 22:19.
There are several television Masses "seeable" on TV if you want to get a look at the whole Celebration of the Holy Mass. You can look for "Masses for Shut-Ins" as an example, or televised Masses during the big Catholic holidays.
Terry, Altar Boy dropout, 230RN
As another altar boy dropout, I concur with everything stated by 230RN.
Speaking with an LCMS pastor many years later, I found out that 'transsubstantiation' was one of the big differences between RCC and LCMS, where RCC believes that it is the body and blood of Christ, the LCMS sees ut as a representation of.
-
LCMS. Had to look that one up: "Lutheran Church Missouri Synod."
RCC I got right off the bat. :)
-
Trans substantiation has long been the RCC and EO teaching, that the bread and wine are literally changed into the body and blood of Christ. This is also why any left over consecrated bread and wine are stored in a tabernacle, as once consecrated they remain the literal body and blood.
The Lutheran teaching is similar, but different in that when consecrated the body and blood of Christ become literally and physically (in, with, and under, as is often said) present with the bread and wine, but the bread and wine are still bread and wine. They are the vehicles or carriers, if you will. Thoughts on what happens with unused consecrated elements vary and are occasionally debated.
Then you have the symbolism/remembrance of many reformed/protestant/etc. That bread and wine are merely symbols of Christ's body and blood, and that Christ's body and blood are not physically present. As the body and blood are never physically present, its kind of a non-issue.
-
As another altar boy dropout, I concur with everything stated by 230RN.
Speaking with an LCMS pastor many years later, I found out that 'transsubstantiation' was one of the big differences between RCC and LCMS, where RCC believes that it is the body and blood of Christ, the LCMS sees ut as a representation of.
I don't think that pastor is representing any sort of official position of the denomination. The LCMS guys I listen to on the local LCMS radio station would be mortified to hear such spoken of themselves. They insist on the "real presence."
I think, if the LCMS has an official position, it's consubstantiation, like lupinus said. Though I would also say that the symbol of Christ's body is no "mere" symbol. I thought the Bible said that the spiritual was more real than the physical. Perhaps the LCMS missed that part. :)
-
Yes, there's another trans* that we're all now required to support. The Roman Catholic Church now says that some wine and some bread is actually the blood and body of their Messiah. You are encouraged to use #ConsecratedHost, to show your support.
What is this "now" you speak of? Most folks consider Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours in the 11th century, to have the first to have put forth this concept. That was **uses fingers to check subtraction** 1100 years before "now".
This requires the high priest to utter the proper spells to make the change. Lesser priests and lay persons cannot pull it off. And one of those high priests (a Jesuit no less) explained to this non-Christian that it was an obligation of the high priest (but nobody else) to prevent the spoilage of the wine/blood which is why after the Mass he would ritually consume the left-overs. The wafers/body were not in danger of spoilage so could be held over till the next Mass, but still needed to be treated as consecrated items.
I learned all that when I wandered back behind the alter to explore after attending my friend's sabbath service after he had attended mine the week previously.
It's amazing what an 8 year old can learn by wandering where they are not supposed to be and asking impertinent questions. I never did get an explanation of why the priest could not use the wine to make the wafers, like the Jews use the blood of Christian children to make Passover matzo. It will probably remain one of life's mysteries.
stay safe.
-
What is this "now" you speak of?
Is joke thread. Some of yous no have humor sense.
-
Yeah, lupinus gets closest thus far for the LCMS take.
What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and drink.
Goes on into where it is written and more detail.
Later, in the Question/Explanation part, it goes into more even more detail.
289. What are the visible elements in the Sacrament?
The visible elements are the bread and wine.
(Leaving out references)
290. Do Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament replace the bread and wine, so that the bread and wine are no longer there?
No, the bread and wine remain in the Sacrament.
(Leaving out references)
291. How then are the bread and wine in the Sacrament the body and blood of Christ?
The bread and wine in the Sacrament are Christ's body and blood by sacramental union. By the power of His word, Christ gives his body and blood in, with, and under the consecrated (blessed) bread and wine.
(Leaving out references)
1. Confessional Lutheranism sees their (fewer then RC) sacraments as having a material/mundane component in addition to God's power.
2. The body and blood are there because Christ said they would be. No need for fancy explanations. Thus, confessional Lutherans treat the remaining bread and water with the respect it is due and do not toss it into the trash. For instance, the unused wine is poured into a drain that goes to a dry well in the earth.
2. Transubstantiation, RC-style, is viewed as something of a double miracle: transforming the bread/wine in to body/blood; making the body/blood look like bread/wine.
Wasn't there a lot of push-back then, from privileged cisbread and ciswine?
Indeed. The bigger problem came about when in 2008 the (themselves discriminated-against) dark cis-bread pushed back mightily against the largely white trans-bread, giving trans-bread supporters the fits. Not to worry, white trans-bread supporters blamed the whole deal on numerically insignificant super-lily-white cis-bread. This warping of pan-reality has brought about the rye cis-bread observation that trans-bread supporters and the media with torture the truth without pita.
-
I always found it amusing that Catholics call the little bread wafer the "Host." Kind of a disjunct there between it literally being the body of Christ and it merely being a "host."
But maybe it works better in Latin.
This warping of pan-reality has brought about the rye cis-bread observation that trans-bread supporters and the media torture the truth without pita.
Bold = ouch.
Ouch.
Ouch.
Ouch.
:rofl:
-
Doing laps in the communion line just for the wine shots is frowned upon.
-
Doing laps in the communion line just for the wine shots is frowned upon.
So is sampling the wine if you are an altar boy
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
So is sampling the wine if you are an altar boy
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
And so is sampling the alter boys if you're a priest.
-
The non-denominational Church I grew up with still just uses a wafer and grape juice. It is all symbolic. As far as I know, they don't attempt to bless anything. Very little if any ritual or ceremony at that Church. That Communion service was about the only thing I can think of outside of normal Bible study.
I can't think of anything funny to add. Sorry.
-
The non-denominational Church I grew up with still just uses a wafer and grape juice. It is all symbolic. As far as I know, they don't attempt to bless anything. Very little if any ritual or ceremony at that Church. That Communion service was about the only thing I can think of outside of normal Bible study.
I can't think of anything funny to add. Sorry.
Do they have drunk alter boys?
-
"Do they have drunk alter boys?"
Hmmm, just because they wear dress-like vestments doesn't mean...
-
As another altar boy dropout, I concur with everything stated by 230RN.
Speaking with an LCMS pastor many years later, I found out that 'transsubstantiation' was one of the big differences between RCC and LCMS, where RCC believes that it is the body and blood of Christ, the LCMS sees ut as a representation of.
I also concur with 230RN. My roommate for three out of four years of undergraduate college was a history major bound for seminary -- he later became an Episcopal minister. I typed one of his term papers, on the subject of transubstantiation. We discussed it at length, and it was clear that the historical view of the Roman Catholic Church has always been that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of the Christ. As far as I know, all Protestant denominations (except one -- see below) do not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, and instead view the bread and wine as symbolic, relying on Jesus' words at the Last Supper: "Do this in remembrance of me." (The RCC, by contrast, takes literally the statements, "This is my body" and "This is my blood.")
The Episcopal Church, of course, sits squarely on the fence regarding the doctrine of transubstantiation, as it does with so many matters of faith. The Episcopalians do not explicitly accept transubstantiation, but they also don't reject it. Their view is as much a mystery as their (and the RCC's) characterization of the Holy Eucharist as "mystery." The Episcopal view is that the bread and wine do not literally become the physical body and blood of Jesus (maybe), but that the Christ is mysteriously "present in" the bread and the wine.
I don't think I have ever attended a RCC service at which the parishioners partook of both the bread and the wine. As Terry commented, only the priest sips the wine. In the Episcopal Church, however, parishioners receive both bread and wine. (And in some other Protestant churches they don't even use wine, they use grape juice.)
The Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation is certainly not something new. It's VERY old, and is central to the faith.
-
And so is sampling the alter boys if you're a priest.
No, no ... that's accepted practice, but you're not supposed to tell anyone.
-
Did anybody really think that transubstantiation was new? :lol:
As far as I know, all Protestant denominations (except one -- see below) do not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, and instead view the bread and wine as symbolic, relying on Jesus' words at the Last Supper: "Do this in remembrance of me." (The RCC, by contrast, takes literally the statements, "This is my body" and "This is my blood.")
Many Lutheran groups also believe in the physical presence of Christ, and I would guess there are others. Calvin, I think, dissented. I think that also goes for most American evangelicals, though I don't know for sure. Personally, I don't understand the LCMS argument I've heard, that Christ's words ("This is my body," etc.) must be taken to mean His physical presence in the Communion elements. I thought "this is this" was standard metaphor language. Either way, I don't think anyone's missing heaven over it.
-
I go further even than most protestants. I reject the doctrine of transsubstantiation, not because such miracles cannot happen, but because I believe this particular one does not. Also, the entire communion thing is part of Catholic "bible++" theology that should have been jettisoned by protestants, but some traditions die hard.
-
It's a bit funny that the idea of bread and wine being Magic flesh and blood is controversial in a religion that believes a limitless, all seeing God was actually also flesh and blood at the same time.
-
It's a bit funny that the idea of bread and wine being Magic flesh and blood is controversial in a religion that believes a limitless, all seeing God was actually also flesh and blood at the same time.
How so?
I go further even than most protestants. I reject the doctrine of transsubstantiation, not because such miracles cannot happen, but because I believe this particular one does not. Also, the entire communion thing is part of Catholic "bible++" theology that should have been jettisoned by protestants, but some traditions die hard.
That sounds like a mainstream Protestant view to me. Still, I don't see how transubstantiation could be attacked as extrabiblical. Jesus did say, after all, that the bread is his body.
-
How so?
That sounds like a mainstream Protestant view to me. Still, I don't see how transubstantiation could be attacked as extrabiblical. Jesus did say, after all, that the bread is his body.
The necessary elements of buying the trinity require no more mental stretching than believing that a ceremony makes wine and bread into divine flesh and blood. Divine fleshy things are an inherent part of the religion.
-
Greater minds have already covered this about 50 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvhYqeGp_Do
Oh, and thank you. For years I've always wondered what Trans-substantiation meant, and now I know. I don't care, but I know.
-
Good old Tom Lehrer. He and Scott Joplin and Il Papa make a good group.
I've often felt pity for all those souls who were put in Purgatory before Il Papa rescinded that little puppyma.
Terry
ETA: Forgive me in advance, though --it's been a while. Was that a mortal or a venial sin, or even a sin at all? Or just "recommended procedure?"
-
The necessary elements of buying the trinity require no more mental stretching than believing that a ceremony makes wine and bread into divine flesh and blood. Divine fleshy things are an inherent part of the religion.
I don't know much about that whole debate, but I would think it's more a question of whether it happens than whether it's possible. When I read the relevant passages, I read it as metaphor. Others obviously differ. I think this may be another instance where the Bible is purposefully ambiguous. Perhaps, for the first-century mind, accustomed to physical, blood sacrifice, it was comforting to have the physical connection to Christ's physical, sacrificed body. Perhaps some find it comforting, still.
-
An article of faith requires no resolution with science or philosophy or anything. Either you believe or you don't. If you don't you are not a member of the tribe.
Much like the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. If you believe they exist they do; if you don't they don't. Ask any 4 year old and then any 10 year old.
stay safe.
-
An article of faith requires no resolution with science or philosophy or anything.
It does, if you're interested in true things. If you just want to have faith in magical rainbow unicorns, that's different.
-
No, no ... that's accepted practice, but you're not supposed to tell anyone.
No the Dirtbags scam is you can tell somebody but in this context to confession so then they are sworn to secrecy and can't reveal what you tell them
-
It does, if you're interested in true things. If you just want to have faith in magical rainbow unicorns, that's different.
Without belief in magical rainbow unicorns, or the Trinity, or Buddha, or the spirits of the forest or the Great Spaghetti Monster (and apologies to all the others I did not list) there is no religion. Even your "worship" of true things is based on an article of faith - or perhaps you would like to explain what there was before there was The Big Bang?
stay safe.
-
It does, if you're interested in true things. If you just want to have faith in magical rainbow unicorns, that's different.
Unintentionally Hilarious.
-
Without belief in magical rainbow unicorns, or the Trinity, or Buddha, or the spirits of the forest or the Great Spaghetti Monster (and apologies to all the others I did not list) there is no religion. Even your "worship" of true things is based on an article of faith - or perhaps you would like to explain what there was before there was The Big Bang?
stay safe.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm just saying that your dicta about faith may be true for those uninterested in truth. For those who want truth, an unsubstantiated faith in Whatever will not satisfy. Some want to have faith in those things for which we also have very compelling evidence. Could be Christ's resurrection for some; Man's descent from the lower orders, for those of that persuasion.
Which brings us to the point of this thread. It took only a few election cycles for the Left to go from their slogan of "fact-based politics" to their firm belief in the transgender phenomenon. They boisterously rejected faith-based "magical thinking" politics, only to fall for a politics in which men are women, etc. Schadenfreudelicious, no?
-
Without belief in magical rainbow unicorns, or the Trinity, or Buddha, or the spirits of the forest or the Great Spaghetti Monster (and apologies to all the others I did not list) there is no religion. Even your "worship" of true things is based on an article of faith - or perhaps you would like to explain what there was before there was The Big Bang?
stay safe.
Even having a casual knowledge of philosophy would inform a person that everyone is acting on faith based on presuppositions, even materialistic atheists.
We don't really know most of what we claim to know.
Choose wisely what you decide to have faith in.
-
I'm just saying that your dicta about faith may be true for those uninterested in truth. For those who want truth, an unsubstantiated faith in Whatever will not satisfy.
For some, "truth" is whatever they choose to have faith in.
-
For some, "truth" is whatever they choose to have faith in.
I know:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/northwest/questions-raised-about-race-of-spokane-naacp-head/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlyn_Jenner