Oh. And Does someone want to explain the "Eucharist" to me? :)

[nerdinred]

I just wanna know, I'm sort of just researching my faith and also Catholocism. :) So you know any thing about Catholocism would be nice.
hannah.

[spl_cadet]

Hmm, weird. Didn't see this before.
Anyway, Catholic teaching about the Eucharist:
When the priest performs the words of consecration during Mass, the Holy Spirit transforms the bread and wine into the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. However, the accidentals (taste, texture, and such forth) remain, except in isolated cases known as Eucharistic miracles. Usually the Eucharist starts bleeding and such and it's rather cool.

[Solly]

sorry spl, but if something starts bleeding that shouldn't, I'm outta there.

[Bill the Cat]

It's called consubstantiation, I think. We do not believe as the Catholics do that it literally becomes the body and blood of Christ. It is a symbol in the same fashion that the OT passover meal was a symbol of the future Christ's sacrifice.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

nerd in red writes:

I just wanna know, I'm sort of just researching my faith and also Catholocism. :) So, you know... Any thing about Catholocism would be nice.
hannah.

It is called Communion [com=together with, and union=union], and is a great Mystery of the Church, where the materiality of creation becomes the Body and Blood of our Lord God and Savior, and we take His Holy Body and Blood into our own bodies, as He commanded us to do, by eating and drinking them, unto the remissin of sins and purification of our souls and bodies.

For our Savior told us that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we will have no Life in us... Our salvation is brought with this table set for us in the midst of our enemies, the powers of evil and darkness, in which we live and are dying outside of the Body of Christ, the Church...

geo [Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church of Antioch]

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 06:35 AM post located here
Solly:

sorry spl, but if something starts bleeding that shouldn't, I'm outta there.

Heh. I take it same goes for apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary or when statues/icons begin weeping oil?

Bill the Cat
It's called consubstantiation, I think.

That depends for Protestants actually. I believe that Lutherans and Anglicans are the only ones that hold to this, which is that the bread and wine is still there, but Christ is spiritually there as well. Most protestants simply think it's plain bread and wine with no Jesus in my experience.

[Solly]

Today @ 04:04 PM post located here
spl_cadet:
Heh. I take it same goes for apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary or when statues/icons begin weeping oil?

You bet. Give me a scripture to test them by, and I'll think about it.

That depends for Protestants actually. I believe that Lutherans and Anglicans are the only ones that hold to this, which is that the bread and wine is still there, but Christ is spiritually there as well. Most protestants simply think it's plain bread and wine with no Jesus in my experience.

Yes, Trans- for Catholics, Con- for Lutherans and Anglicans. Bread and Wine for Reformed, and most Evangelicals (unless they are going "High". We don't "simply think" it is bread and wine, it IS. Firstly, since we are not catholics without the succession, it is highly doubtful whether you would consider it a eucharist in a meaningful way anyway; secondly, it is bread and wine, but there is a "yes Jesus in our experience"; he is present to faith, and does not need any hocus pocus (hoc est corpus meum), because we are remembering his death till he come, "representing" it, not "re-presenting" it.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 08:34 AM post located here
Solly:
You bet. Give me a scripture to test them by, and I'll think about it.

The Transfiguration. Apparition of Sts. Moses and Elijah.

[Solly]

That is the test of bleeding bread and leaky statues?

Somehow I knew you were going to say that. However, mary ain't Moses, or Elijah, and represents nothing in a salvation historical way, whereas M&E represent the law and the prophets, and they happened to be alongside JESUS, and then they saw JESUS alone. Nothing further required.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 08:57 AM post located here
Solly:

That is the test of bleeding bread and leaky statues?

Apparitions actually. Not sure what those would be. Not like it matters though.

Somehow I knew you were going to say that. However, mary ain't Moses, or Elijah, and represents nothing in a salvation historical way, whereas M&E represent the law and the prophets, and they happened to be alongside JESUS, and then they saw JESUS alone. Nothing further required.

And Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. I believe that that is rather important salvation-wise

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 12:55 PM post located here
spl_cadet:

And Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. I believe that that is rather important salvation-wise

Um, no. Christ is the Ark of the New Covenant. the ark was a type of Christ, not Mary.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01721a.htm

Catholic tradition, led by the Fathers of the Church, has considered the Ark of the Covenant as one of the purest and richest symbols of the realities of the New Law. It signifies, in the first place, the Incarnate Word of God. "Christ himself", says St. Thomas Aquinas, "was signified by the Ark. For in the same manner as the Ark was made of setim wood, so also was the body of Christ composed of the most pure human substance. The Ark was entirely overlaid with gold, because Christ was filled with wisdom and charity, which gold symbolizes. In the Ark there was a golden vase: this represents Jesus' most holy soul containing the fulness of sanctity and the godhead, figured by the manna. There was also Aaron's rod, to indicate the sacerdotal of Jesus Christ priest forever. Finally the stone tables of the Law were likewise contained in the Ark, to mean that Jesus Christ is the author of the Law". To these point touched by the Angel of the Schools, it might be added that the Ascension of Christ to heaven after His victory over death and sin is figured by the coming up of the Ark to Sion.

Not until St Bonaventure did this change to incorrectly attempt to include Mary:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01721a.htm

St. Bonaventure has also seen in the Ark a mystical representation of the Holy Eucharist. In like manner the Ark might be very well regarded as a mystical figure of the Blessed Virgin, called by the Church the "Ark of the Covenant"

[Jin-Roh]

I fail to see how Mary could be presented as "the ark of the new covenant." That's another one that needs to be tested with scripture.

[Jezz]

There seems to be a little confusion about the Eucharist and the various different beliefs. I thought I might add to this by throwing in my understanding.

spl_cadet:
Hmm, weird. Didn't see this before.
Anyway, Catholic teaching about the Eucharist:
When the priest performs the words of consecration during Mass, the Holy Spirit transforms the bread and wine into the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. However, the accidentals (taste, texture, and such forth) remain, except in isolated cases known as Eucharistic miracles. Usually the Eucharist starts bleeding and such and it's rather cool.

Ok, that's the proper Roman Catholic understanding. This is known as transubstantiation, because the substances "transform".

The Lutheran belief is called cosubstantiation. This is almost the same as transubstantiation. The primary difference is that it does not require the magical abilities of a priest to transform the bread and wine - the flesh and blood are simply there, co-existing with the bread and wine in the Eucharist. Lutherans do not believe in the bread and wine occasionally being turned into real flesh and blood as spl_cadet indicated of the Catholics.

It may seem like a trivial difference, but it actually has one quite important ramification: cosubstantiation means that anyone can administer a Eucharist, and it's still a Eucharist. With cosubstantiation, it is God who performs the miracle, not the priest. Thus priests no longer have power over individuals to withhold the Eucharist from them. This power was wielded by corrupt priests prior to the Reformation.

Both the "transubstantiation" and "cosubstantiation" beliefs are "true presence" beliefs - ie, they believe that Jesus body and blood is truly present in the bread and wine. It is a modern-day miracle.

Most other protestant churches don't believe in "true presence". They believe that the bread and wine are mere symbols of the flesh and blood of Jesus.

As I understand it, the Anglican church varies in its position on this matter. Some Anglicans (I guess the more Catholic or High Anglicans) believe in cosubstantiation, along with the Lutherans. However, others (probably the more Protestant Anglicans) follow the "symbolic" interpretation of the other Protestant churches.

Having said all that, I am not really sure which category the Orthodox churches fall into. It would appear from George's post that they adhere to some sort of "ture presence", I'd be interested to hear from George which - whether it's transubstantiation, cosubstantiation, or some other type of substantiation.

[spl_cadet]

Actually, it's the Holy Spirit that does it according to Catholic belief.

And the Orthodox believe in transubstantiation as well, though they don't call it that (the name came after the split).

[Jezz]

spl_cadet:
Actually, it's the Holy Spirit that does it according to Catholic belief.

That might be the official understanding of the Catholic Church, but then tell me: why does it have to be administered by a priest?

And the Orthodox believe in transubstantiation as well, though they don't call it that (the name came after the split).

Thanks for that.

I actually think the scriptural evidence and the testimony of the Early Church Fathers combined with the tradition of both the Catholic and Orthodox churches is quite strongly indicative of some form of substantiation. This is one of those rare occasions where I am inclined to disagree with the likes of JP Holding (who, it seems, believes that it is merely symbolic).