I, as a former protestant and current nonbeliever, went to a Catholic Mass today for the first time.
I don't know what I expected, to be honest, but it's not what I got. The Roman Catholic way of worshiping is so much different than that of the Protestants' that I don't think you can really compare the two.
As far as doctrine goes, I can't say much because I don't know much about the Catholic doctrine and how it differs.
Anyway, fill me in on any major doctrine disputes and we'll have a civil discussion
>>762847
>civil discussion
Kek
That'll be the day
Haven't been to a Catholic Mass (I imagine it was more similar to Orthodox before Novus Ordo), but Protestant worship is very different from Orthodox Liturgy, so I do know what you're saying.
Catholics and Orthodox share a great deal of doctrine, but I can't really elaborate on how we're distinct from you unless you specify your sect of Protestantsim
>>762862
My father is Baptist and my mother Presbyterian l, so I've been to both
>>762890
Well, for one thing, we believe that Communion is not just a word, but an actuality. That the Body and Blood of Christ are really His Body and Blood, and that when you eat them, you are COMMUNING with him, physically as well as spiritually. We also think works are necessary, and that faith without works is dead ("faith" and "belief" are the same word in Greek). We affirm the Nicene Creed as the basic confession of faith.
>>762847
The doctrines on what the breaking of bread at the Last Supper are a contention point, as shown here.
>>763025
Calvin's view of the Real Presence does not ascribe any Divinity to the Sacramental elements themselves. Those are merely signs that point elsewhere.
Luther, the Catholics, Orthodox and the High Church Anglicans are generally the same. The elements in the Sacraments mediate Divine Grace. The Eucharist is literally Christ that one is eating and drinking.
The Historic view of the Church Fathers generally follows the Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox and High Church Anglicans. The Eucharist is seen as the body and blood of Christ. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century essentially compares that which is consumed in the Eucharist with the Incarnation. There is however also a symbolic view of the Eucharist but this is not the same as the Baptists or Calvinist's view.
The use of "symbol" in the Church Fathers when referring to the Eucharist denotes a context where the symbol is in some sense the very thing it signifies. The symbol participates in the reality it represents.
>>763025
What's wrong with catholics really, why they gotta take it so literally? I mean, the bread was -obviously- and very cleary not the Jesus' body, it was quite clearly a piece of bread. Jesus was a guy, who was known for using parables, in fact in most of his public speeches he was using comparisons and parables all the time, that was his thing. So when he holds up a piece of bread and says "this is my body", why do catholics gotta think that the bread, by some form of magic, literally becomes Jesus' body? I don't understand this. It's (very) obviously just another parable.
>>763121
Aristotle. Plus Transubstantiation is far, far older a doctrine than any Protestant one.
>>763121
>I mean, the bread was -obviously- and very cleary not the Jesus' body, it was quite clearly a piece of bread
>hurr how does faith work
>>762847
How true is this fellow Anglicans?
Also what's with the reenaction of the last supper? Jesus never told no one to re-enact that shit and try to copy his special moment, still people do that all the time in churches to this day.
>>763121
I'm Orthodox here, not the Catholic, but the material communion is EXTREMELY important. How is the Church the Body of Christ, if they do not fully commune with him? For surely your body is *you* just as much as your soul is.
>>763126
>Aristotle
>Transubstiation
Triggered, desu. It's one thing to say the Bible is not comprehensive elaboration of doctrine, it's quite another to appeal to Aristotle for Christian doctrine. All Church dogma is passed down by Christ, adding or taking away from that is heresy. If a dogma of the Bible is not clear enough, we go to the Church Fathers, not to Aristotle.
>>763133
Some exaggerations. Gay weddings, maybe, not gay orgies. But most of it is true to some extent.
>>762953
>That the Body and Blood of Christ are really His Body and Blood, and that when you eat them, you are COMMUNING with him, physically as well as spiritually
that's what has been pushing me away from thinking of joining a christian sect that isn't protestant
just, why? where'd that idea come from? it's been proven scientifically to be wrong too, so why is it still part of the doctrine? how did it end up being anything more than symbolic anyway?
>>763137
>Jesus never told no one to re-enact that shit
DO
THIS
IN
REMEMBRANCE
OF
ME
He didn't just say, "Do this in recognition," but in remembrance, indicating it should be done again.
>>763154
What do you mean "scientifically"?
As far as part of the doctrine, we don't have Transubstantiation in the Orthodox Church. It's a divine mystery, we just say it IS his Body and Blood, and leave it at that.
It was always something actual, the idea of it just being a little ceremony and nothing more was introduced in the Reformation. If you read any Church Father talking about communion, it's about physical communion. Why would even call it communion if you weren't communing?
>>763169
Transubstantiation was proven wrong - as in, the bread doesn't become flesh and the wine does not become blood, at all.
I'm pretty sure the epistles of the NT never claim the wine and bread are litterally Christ's body, although they remain sacred and the ceremony remains necessary in remembrance of Christ
What did early Church fathers say about communion?
>>763154
>They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
From the disciple of John, Ignatius of Antioch. Now do you understand why? Besides Jesus was being literal when he said that one must eat his flesh to attain eternal life in John 6.
>>763178
They all saw it as the real body and blood of Christ
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
The Catechism tells you everything you could possibly want to know about Catholic doctrine.
>>763178
>Transubstantiation was proven wrong - as in, the bread doesn't become flesh and the wine does not become blood, at all.
How can you know this?
>
I'm pretty sure the epistles of the NT never claim the wine and bread are litterally Christ's body
Communion was and is considered EXTREMELY Sacred, you weren't even permitted to see it unless you were a full Christian. The Apostles are not going to get into details about how it works, because to do so would be profane. And we feel the same today.
>What did early Church fathers say about communion?
That it's corporeal.
>>763210
>And what of the fact that the wine and bread used during communion do not actually turn into anything else?
Why do you think this?
>>763228
http://atheistcreationist.org/news/dna-analysis-of-consecrated-sacramental-bread-refutes-catholic-transubstantiation-claim.html
>>763238
First of all, that's Roman Catholic, which is an invalid Sacrament. It's not actually His Body and Blood.
Secondly, why do you think the DNA would change? The people of the Church don't have Christ's DNA, they are still His Body with Holy Communion.
>>763210
Yes, I'm lazy to find quotes and cite Mcgowan's "Ancient Christian Worship",
>Most Christian writings from the second century on suggest that the power and character of the eucharistic food were upheld with startling realism. There is no hint that they were merely signs to assist with the remembrance of an idea or understanding of a doctrine, or that their reality depended on the attitude of the recipient. On the other hand, the means of Jesus’ presence in the food or in the act of sharing was not defined by any ancient writer in metaphysical terms like those of medieval theology.-pg 47
Mcgowan cites the Gospel of Judas and the Docetists as examples of rejection of the realist view of the Eucharist in Early Christianity on pg 46.
>>763238
Are you fucking joking with this shit? /his/ trully became a breeding ground for trolls lately.
>>763253
That already invalidates the Roman Catholic doctrine, which is the most spread out in the world today.
Although I don't know how reliable the study is, since it was clearly done by biased people with a further agenda, but it looks legit.
>>763253
The Church is Christ's body, spiritually speaking. Are bread and wine (or all objects generally) considered to have a spirit even if they are not living?
>>763259
Nice, thanks
>>763282
>That already invalidates the Roman Catholic doctrine, which is the most spread out in the world today.
They're schismatics
>The Church is Christ's body, spiritually speaking. Are bread and wine (or all objects generally) considered to have a spirit even if they are not living?
Christ's Spirit.
>>763279
Why should I be? I am looking to be a Christian but I have several questions, and the legitimacy of transubstantiation as defined by the Catholic church is one of them
>>763292
>christ's spirit
Well that makes sense. Thanks
>>763282
>The Church is Christ's body, spiritually speaking.
This, by the way, is a bit misleading. In the Bible, flesh, the carnal, is (generally, not always) the physical without the spiritual, whereas the body, the corporeal, means the physical with the spirit. If the Church were just Christ spiritually, it would be be called the SPIRIT of Christ, not the BODY of Christ.
>>763306
thanks for the precision
Why do Catholics call Protestants retarded for taking the bible as true and then get mad when Protestants don't literally think they're eating human flesh?
>>763282
The study does not refute Transubstantiation. Anything physical of the bread and wine are considered "accidents" which the dogma explicitly states remain unchanged. The substance which becomes the body and blood of Christ isn't physical.
>>763322
So it changes but doesn't change?
Or rather, it looks like it changes but physically it actually doesn't? Isn't that a huge red flag for confirmation bias?
It sounds more sane to me to say it changes spiritually, not physically.
>>763316
Only one is dogma
>>763238
Anybody doing "DNA analysis" of the consecrated Host is hilariously missing the point.
Like, this is some Sam Harris shit. I'm embarrassed for them.
>>763327
He's spouting Roman Catholic doctrine, it has nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity.
In Orthodox Christianity, the bread becomes the Body of Christ. We don't separate accidents from substance. The Bread becomes truly His Body. There is no really to understand that, so elaborating further can only lead to error.
>>763327
It changes but it doesn't physically change in a nutshell.
>It sounds more sane to me to say it changes spiritually, not physically.
That's basically Transubstantiation in a nutshell. However the bread and wine are objectively the body and blood of Christ. It isn't like Calvin's view where they are merely symbols that testify to the body and blood of Christ or point towards them.
>>763293
The traditional Catholic doctrine is that the bread literally and materially changes into the body of Christ, but all the external phenomena by which it is observed do not change, so that it appears to the sight, taste, touch, scientific probing, etc. to be simply bread. The substance itself is Christ's body in underlying substance, but this is imperceptible to the senses.
The traditional Eastern Orthodox doctrine is that the bread, in terms of its ousia, really changes into the body of Christ, but further philosophical speculation is refrained from, because the change is a Mystery of the faith not amenable to human reason.
>>763349
>How is it missing the point if the bread really is expected to become the body of Christ according to >>763337 ?
If you follow the Catholic doctrine, then you won't expect to see shit, because the bread physically appears to be just bread.
If you're following the Orthodox doctrine, you're just committing a category error by confusing the mystical and the rational.
Either way, you're not actually checking if the thing the doctrines claim is true.
>>763382
Yeah I see, thanks
Clarifies things a lot for me, since that's a part of Christianity I couldn't understand, doesn't help that the NT doesn't mention it a lot
>>763388
The NT doesn't mention it a lot because the Orthodox policy is not to codify and define things unless heresy forces you to. The fact is the Reformation attitude came about 1,500 years later, and I think the understanding of the first 1,500 years, including the Church Fathers, is more reliable. You see, the Orthodox Church doesn't believe just the Scripture was transmitted, but the *meaning* that goes Scripture along with it. The Protestant meaning was purely invented, it does not have any continuous line attesting to it. If you want to say, "I feel Scripture means this," anyone can say Scripture means anything.
The West got a little muddled because they were more interested in Aristotle than the Church Fathers, and they started saying "It appears to be bread, but it is REALLY the Body of Christ, you are rused," which of course sounds ridiculous. Over in the Orthodox Church, we never had that issue, because we never thought of communion as ruse. We just thought, "The bread is Christ's Body," not, "the appearance is bread, the substance is Christ's Body" For one thing, we don't see ousia (substance) as something material, Christ's ousia is the essence of God shared by all three existences of the Trinity, the idea of Body as ousia is nonsensical in Orthodox Christianity.
>>763328
But communion comes from the bible and Catholics take it literally...then call Protestants stupid when they do that
>>763238
>I'm the bread of life
>surprised they find wheat DNA
>>763552
Communion is dogma. The idea that humans appeared on the earth literally six days after its formation, was never, ever dogma.
I wouldn't call Protestants "stupid" for taking Genesis literally, I would just say they are in err, which is a product of being separated from Christ's Church. Those who have a Sadducee take in the Bible are understandable, as every time a Protestant sect ceases to do so, it starts tending toward doing whatever it wants and saying anything can mean anything and having gay marriage and things like that. So they pretty much have to take it all literally, or open the doors to super liberal Christianity, that's what comes with Protestantism.
>>762847
Ok first for your bullshit OP picture.
Protestant burned just as many heretics/witches as Catholics.
Convanters were good boys that did nothing wrong and were betrayed by the vile snakes Charles I and Charles II
>>763238
I'm triggered
>This study could be criticized on ethical grounds for using deception to collect samples. Indeed, the individuals who provided us with the consecrated hosts obtained them during communion, pretending to be believers, and transferred them discretely into plastic bags instead of ingesting them. However, these individuals were all former Catholics who had felt victimized by the Church's dogmatic teachings and saw this action as contributing to their recovery.
Let me see is I have understood this correctly. Protestants are idiots for not believing the bread doesn't literally turn into Jesus' body, and scientists are idiots for looking (and failing to find) evidence that the bread literally turns into Jesus' body?
>>763121
it's an apostolic tradition, i.e. the apostles were taught this by christ and passed it down to their successors
>>764663
>Protestants are idiots for not believing the bread doesn't literally turn into Jesus' body,
*Idiots for believing the bread doesn't literally turn
>>764663
They're all silly for thinking Christ's Body is defined by DNA. Although to be fair, that absurdity started with Roman Catholics who claimed that it wasn't bread, but that the bread was just an illusion, a ruse. It is bread, but it's quite truly Christ's Body.
>>764675
Did Jesus not have DNA? A Y chromosome from where? But all humans have DNA and Jesus was fullt human in addition to being fully divine, right? Surely at least he would have inherited mitochondrial DNA from Mary.
>>764675
Catholics dont say the bread is an illusion, Constantine. The Orthodox believe the same thing Catholics do, they just refrain from making any dogmatic declaration on it (which is why some think Lutheran/Anglican dogma is accurate)
Also, I wonder if you can ever defend one of your doctrines without wandering into anti-Catholic polemics
>>764690
The Church is His Body too, that doesn't mean it has his DNA. We are His Body through partaking of Communion, and that doesn't affect our DNA
>>764696
>The Orthodox believe the same thing Catholics do
If your conception of substance is synonymous with "essence". Christ has two essences, God (an essence shared by all three existences of the Trinity) and human (his human soul). The idea of Christ's Body having a distinct essence in addition to Christ's two essences is not compatible with Orthodox theology.
>>764697
So wait, Jesus's actual human body was his body, but the bread he was using during the last supper was not that body but "body" in terms of spirituality/the Church? Which body do people need to eat to attain eternal life? If it's not the body with DNA in it, then it's the spiritual body, and Protestants do partake of the spiritual body of a church (you may think their church is invalid, but from their perspective they are communing with the church-body of Christ rather than the DNA-body of Christ. ) So what's the difference? You're both using bread to Remember a church Body.
>>764706
>Latin=Greek
lol, no, try using a dictionary to actually know what Catholics believe and try not to read Catholicism through Greek lenses.
Here's an Orthodox confession of faith
>As an explanatory and MOST ACCURATELY SIGNIFICANT DECLARATION OF THIS CHANGE of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word TRANSUBSTANTIATION, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the MOST FITTING STATEMENT OF THIS MYSTERY. Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in leavened bread, as had been the custom from the first in the Catholic Church of Christ.
>>764719
That is generally rejected by the Orthodox Church at large. See the Orthodox Church, by Timothy (now Kallistos) Ware. That is not binding or recognized. The Orthodox Church strongly rejects the use of the term "transubstantiation" in application to the Eucharist. Acceptable terms include transformation and metamorphosis..
>>764719
>lol, no, try using a dictionary to actually know what Catholics believe
I'm also curious that if you don't mean "ousia" when you say "substance", then what exactly are you referring to when it comes to the one substance of the Trinity?
>>764663
It's based on an old Hebrew tradition called
אָלֶףעִבְרִי־בֵּית ־בֵּית עִבְ
Which roughly translates to "slow-minded Goy"
The tradition was that a Jew would dress up in traditional clothes of a seer or wizard and sell 'magic bread' at outrageous prices to gullible foreigners, claiming to have enchanted it with the essence of God. Eventually Jews started performing the trick on each other and believed they really did have magic bread and it became a standard part of Christian dining.
>>764775
>old
As in written long after the advent of Christianity in order to deride Christianity
>>764775
lol how the hell does thay translate to "slow minded goy"? "aleph ivri bet bet iv" sounds like gibberish.
>>764797
>reads Hebrew
>c'mon goys it doesn't say anything against you hehehe
>>764801
there's plenty of anti goy stuff in judaism, but that just sounds like gibberish
>>764743
I dont believe you. Why would the "unchanged" church change sides on this debate?
Also Kallistos' book has undergone through a lot of changes (going from "All contraceptives are bad" to "Condoms are ok", among others) so it cant be a source on Orthodox doctrine
>>764856
>Why would the "unchanged" church change sides on this debate?
The Council you're talking about never spoke for the Church, it was never, ever accepted as Ecumenical. Basically what happened was that the East was coping with Protestantism incoming, at the same time having more contact with the West, and so a lot of Orthodox theologians saw the Roman Catholic Church already had a ton of argumentation against Protestantism, and they started propagating that as much as possible to stop Protestants from disrupting the Church were heresies. Unfortunately, this lead to a streak of Romanbooism within the Church--for example, for the first time in history, indulges were also adopted in the Orthodox Church, just because different bishops were emulating the Roman Catholic Church. Those of course were done away with down the road, along with the rest of the Roman Catholic ideas floating around. None of these ideas were ever fixed dogma, they were just imported and propagated. No synod or council expressing them was convened to express dogma.
>Also Kallistos' book has undergone through a lot of changes (going from "All contraceptives are bad" to "Condoms are ok", among others) so it cant be a source on Orthodox doctrine
Orthodox doctrine was that all contraceptives are bad due to contraceptives being oral until the relatively recent prominence of the condom. Since coitus interruptus is not, nor never was, a sin in the Church, condoms are not classified with oral contraceptives, since the latter poses a thread to post-conception fetus.
>>764856
>Orthodox Eucharistic theology does not explain the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ as a result of “transubstantiation,” the teaching that the “accidents” (visible properties) of the elements remain unaltered, while their “substance” or inner essence becomes the actual Body and Blood. Orthodox tradition speaks of “change” or “transformation,” (metamorphôsis; in the Eucharistic Divine Liturgy metabalôn, “making the change”) but always with a concern to preserve the mystery from the probings of human reason. It also speaks of the Body and Blood of the glorified Christ, making the point that our communion is in the personal being of the Resurrected and Exalted Lord, and not in the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus, torn and shed on the Cross. The incarnate Jesus and the risen Christ are certainly one and the same Person (“Jesus Christ is Lord,” the apostle Paul declares in Philippians 2:11). But our communion is in the radically transformed reality of the risen Christ, who ascended into heaven and makes Himself accessible to us through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit within the Church.
https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/why-not-open-communion
>>764881
If you want an Orthodox understanding of sex and its function, by the way, you might take a look at Saint John Chrysostom "On Marriage and Family Life". We definitely have a different than the West does, which was more informed by Saint Augustine
http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Family-Life-Saint-Chrysostom/dp/0913836869
>>764881
>"Further, we believe that after the consecration of the bread and the wine the SUBSTANCE of the bread and the wine NO LONGER REMAINS, but there is the body itself and the blood of the Lord in the species and form of the bread and the wine, that is to say, under the ACCIDENTS of the bread. Further, that the all-pure body itself and blood of the Lord are distributed and enter the mouth and stomach of the communicants, both pious and impious, only they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and eternal life, but they involve to the impious and unworthy condemnation and eternal punishment.
from the Council of Jerusalem 1672, a far more authoritative source than the liberal OCA
>Romanbooism
the same text I quoted affirmed that unleavened bread was haram, how it that "Romanbooism". Also, I expect more than buzzwords from a member (or should i say "meme"-ber) of the "unchanged" church.
>due to contraceptives being oral until the relatively recent prominence of the condom.
barrier methods have always existed, what are you talking about. Also Athenagoras agreed that all contraception was bad, but that is another issue. My main point was that Kallistos' book cant be an authoritative source on Orthodoxy, given that (1) It has gone through revisions on matters of doctrine (2) Kallistos doesnt speak for the whole Church and (3) He is a liberal by Orthodox standards
>>764925
>from the Council of Jerusalem 1672, a far more authoritative source than the liberal OCA
No, actually it's not. The Council of Jerusalem is exactly what I'm talking about, and a lot of what explicitly corrected in later councils. No one in the Church considers it a precedent-setter of the expression of Church dogma. It was convened mainly to quickly express a position in contrast to Protestantism.
>he same text I quoted affirmed that unleavened bread was haram, how it that "Romanbooism
Romanbooism doesn't mean outright heresy.
>. My main point was that Kallistos' book cant be an authoritative source on Orthodoxy, given that (1) It has gone through revisions on matters of doctrine (2) Kallistos doesnt speak for the whole Church and (3) He is a liberal by Orthodox standards
His book was revised because the exception to condoms wasn't pronounced at the time of his first edition. When it was pronounced, he updated it.
We don't have a liberal-conservative dichotomy regarding dogma, dogma is dogma. There are theologoumena which can be more liberal, but that's about it--when we use the word "liberal" to apply to Orthodox stances, we mean people who are sympathetic toward Roman Catholics--not surprising, considering the Ecumenical Patriarch who did so much to improve relations with Rome, and lifted the anathemas, was found out after his death to be a Freemason . His two major works, the Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Way, are endorsed by pretty much every single Orthodox bishop and priest who has English speaking parishioners.
>>764750
By the way, this was never addressed, and I don't think we can proceed any further until it is, because it is the crux of the matter.
>>764710
Does this mean this whole thousand year theological argument is not over whether something is metaphorical or literal, or whether it's metaphorical or literally metaphorical?
>>764959
>No, actually it's not.
It is, it has been considered as such through history and it's canons are authoritative
>Romanbooism doesn't mean outright heresy.
it doesnt mean anything, it's a buzzword
>His book was revised because the exception to condoms wasn't pronounced at the time of his first edition.
There wasnt any exception to condoms, it was made up by the Russian in the 70s because of cultural pressures. Most arguments from silence (like the ones you push) are post hoc rationalizations by liberals
>We don't have a liberal-conservative dichotomy regarding dogma, dogma is dogma.
of course you do, since some Orthodox have agreed that Catholic Filioque is orthodox doctrine.
>His two major works, the Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Way, are endorsed by pretty much every single Orthodox bishop and priest who has English speaking parishioners.
Anglos are liberal, gee what a surprise! Also, there are some Orthodox that still hold on to Kallistos' unrevised edition of his book and reject revised versions
>>762847
You mean how they forget the end of the Lord's Prayer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdzmbNkmJfI
>>764710
It's his physical body. Not just a sign, not just something physical "containing" the spirit (as if the spirit is contained by the material), but physically His Body.
The argument comes from Catholics saying there is some sort of illusion.
>>764972
It's a fairly complicated topic, something that cant be dealt appropiately in a Wapanese forum. I'd recomend the works of Catholic theologian Reginald Garrigou Lagrange for a in-depth treatment
>>765006
>It's his physical body.
Which body? If it's the one birthed by Mary it should contain her mitochondrial DNA. If it's the church Body, that's only physical in the sense that all the church members are physical, but no Protestant sect would disagree that worshippers are physical.
>>765006
>The argument comes from Catholics saying there is some sort of illusion.
Seriously, why cant you quit the polemics everytime you post?
I went to a mass celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI once, it was pretty cool. My family is catholic but I'm agnostic sadly. Catholicism does seem dope.
>>765017
Well I'm not going to continue to go into this unless there is some sense of what "substance" means in Roman Catholicism. How many substances do you think Christ has?
>>765019
Christ does not have distinct bodies. That's the point of communion, that we become ONE. We become physically the Body of Christ by ingesting His physical Body. We ceases to physically commune with Christ if we forego Communion for too long. This is why even Orthodox hermits who don't attend Liturgy but sit meditating all day and night, are still brought Communion.
Why do Catholics demand you to be Catholic to receive communion? Brother Rodger wasn't Catholic, but he got to receive it
>Brother Roger received the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist at the Catholic Mass celebrated every morning in his monastery, and he received the sacrament from both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, seemingly in contravention of canonical prohibitions on administering the sacrament to those not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. According to Cardinal Walter Kasper, this was accomplished as though there was a tacit understanding between Brother Roger and the Catholic Church "crossing certain confessional" and canonical barriers through what Brother Roger called a gradual enrichment of his faith with the foundations of the Catholic Church including "the ministry of unity exercised by the bishop of Rome." [3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_Roger
>>765048
So the bread he was holding during the last supper was his one and only body? He was holding onto himself? What happened to the DNA-Body as it ascended into heaven? Did it cease to exist as a separate entity?
>>765073
He was holding onto his Body and Blood, yes.
You will have to elaborate on what you mean by "separate". Do you mean something "real", or "separate" just in the sense of useful distinction, like national borders?
>>765103
How is a Body and Blood different from body and blood?
"Separate" as in "Jesus could hand people the bread, therefore it was separate. " For example, if he ripped an arm off or something the arm would be separate.
>>765108
But the Body and Blood is living. If you mean he took his arm off and it was still fully living, then that might be a reasonable way of looking at it.
>>765117
Sure, in this scenario he ripped off his arm but it was still alive over the course of the examination period. Is that separate?
>>765122
I can't even begin to get into the examination, because, being Orthodox, I do not believe the Catholic Sacrament is valid to begin with. I don't think it's anything more than a wafer and wine.
>>765130
>I don't think it's anything more than a wafer and wine.
So how is that any different than a Protestant who believes islt's nothing more than wafer and wine? Why have people argued for so long over whether it's wafer and wine or wafer and wine?
>>765149
Because I consider Orthodox Communion to be a lot more than that (not just because we don't even use wafers). The Orthodox Eucharist is truly Christ's Body and Blood. The Catholic Eucharist is not, neither is the Protestant Eucharist.
>>765159
So what is the Orthodox Eurachrist? Non-wafer bread and wine? That doesn't change any of my questions.
>>765171
It's the actual Body and Blood of Christ. The Catholic Eucharist isn't, because they are not Christ's Church, none of their sacraments are valid. Their baptism, for instance: not valid (although it can be made retroactively so if they are received into the Orthodox Church). So it's ridiculous of me to even get into with defending the their Eucharist with the whole DNA silliness when I don't believe it to be valid in any sense to begin with.
>>765177
>It's the actual Body and Blood of Christ.
Okay, we'll rephrase. Prior to consecration, what is the Orthodox Eurachrist? Is it the body that came out of Mary or not, and was the bread that Jesus was holding the body that came out of Mary?
>>765177
Strange, we believe your sacraments are all valid and that you are Christ's Church as well as us.
>>765190
>Prior to consecration, what is the Orthodox Eurachrist? Is it the body that came out of Mary or not,
Prior to consecration? Not
>and was the bread that Jesus was holding the body that came out of Mary?
Yes.
>>765191
Feel is not mutual, I'm afraid. Just like Anglicans recognize all your Sacraments, but you don't necessarily recognize Anglican Sacraments
>>765201
>Prior to consecration? Not
Okay. So prior to consecration, what are they?
>>765203
Mere bread and wine.
>>765191
The Orthodox need a few more decades to come to terms with how little really differentiates them from Catholics theologically. Give 'em time.
>>765212
Unfortunately what differentiates us increases with every passing year. We did manage to give full recognition to Coptics, though, after finding out they use nature to mean "hypostasis", since of course we agree Christ has only one hypostasis.
>>765210
Okay. So we have mere bread and wine pre, and Christ's Body post. Christ's body was human born of Mary, yes?
Or is this one of those things where Christ's body has two substances/natures or whatever term you are using and one is human and one is spiritual, and the spiritual nature/whatever goes into the bread but it still counts as Body by technicality?
>>765243
"Nature" means something different depending on whether you're talking about Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox. So to be less ambiguous, I will use the term essence. Christ has two essences, human and divine. There is no "essence of Christ's Body". There is an essence of Christ's divinity, which is God, and there is an essence of humanity, which is a human soul, but there is no third essence, the idea of an essence of a body distinct from the essence of a person is is silly.
The Bread counts as Body because it is His Body. In a material sense. Flesh, generally applied, means just the material, body, generally applied, means the material plus the spiritual. If it were just Christ in a spiritual sense, not a material, he would say, "Take, eat, this is my spirit."
>>765265
>because it is His Body
So material + spritual, then? The spiritual portion is obvious. The material portion is Flesh that came out of Mary's womb, or bread?
>>765265
>The Bread counts as Body because it is His Body.
this is a mere tautology, explain more
>>765270
Did the bread come out of her womb? Obviously not. Does it share a single existence with Christ's Body? Absolutely.
>>765277
I can only explain what the Church Fathers did. Saying I know more than them would be hubris, as it would not be knowledge, it would be speculation..
>>765201
So Catholics are like the Orthodox's Anglicans according to Orthodoxy?
>>765283
No, that's not what I mean. Is the material portion of a consecrated eurachrist identical to the "flesh' that emerged from Mary's womb?
>>765289
Well youre not doing justice to the Fathers either
>>765295
Actually makes sense in some ways
As far as apostolic traditions go, the chain is roughly
Oriental Orthodox -> Eastern Orthodox -> Roman Catholic -> Anglican
with each link accepting a few more doctrines that the last one didn't accept
>>765382
Oriental and Eastern each fully recognize each other.
I thought I share some insights from the Anchor Bible Dictionary regarding the Last Supper on the Real Presence,
>Without yet entering into the question of literary genre, two reflections should be made about the Last Supper. It is questionable whether ―"parabolic" adequately explains Jesus‘ words and actions. Rather, Jesus performs an efficacious sign, a prophetic symbolic act. As Ezekiel (5:1–5) had identified his hair with Jerusalem, so Jesus has identified himself with the bread and wine (Beck 1970: 192–97). However, ―symbolic is not to be opposed to ―real; on the contrary, the symbolic is the depth dimension of the real (Léon-Dufour 1987: 10, 162–65). The Last Supper likewise resembles a farewell meal. This is the context in which it now appears in Luke 22:14–38, and John 13–17 supports such an understanding (cf. Gen 27:1–40; Jub 22:1–9; 31:22; T. Napht. 1:1–4; 9:2). The solemn nature of a farewell meal marks the significance of what is said by the one departing (Friedrich 1978: 310–14).-pg 5182
>During the course of the meal, Jesus, in prophetic manner, identified himself with both the bread and the wine in the cup. At a meal people are fed, and Jesus did identify himself in some way with this nourishment.(pg 5189)
The Anchor Bible Dictionary is free to download at bookos.
>>763025
so mormons are the best?
>>762847
Bump
>>765265
The Last Supper itself is symbolic.
Jesus did not rip off bloody chunks of Himself to eat, and did not open a vein into a chalice.
Saying the literal is allegorical is a lie; so is saying that the symbolic is literal.
>>766627
Read the CES Letter.
It is an astonishing rebuke and expose of everything wrong with Mormonism.
>>768418
It is certainly symbolic since symbol does not oppose to real as the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes. This line of thought we also find in the Church Fathers who supposedly take a 'symbolic' view of the Eucharist.
>>763121
You are correct, and the cannibals and vampires in this thread are obviously wrong.
Judas ate at the Last Supper of Christ. And went to hell.
>christfags spend 100+ posts arguing about the metaphysics of bread
this is why islam is taking over
>>763182
So nobody has ever gained eternal life.
Because I guarantee you nobody has ever eaten Jesus' body, and nobody has ever drunk His blood.
So, once again, your godlessness has led you to an absurd conclusion.
>>765191
Left leg, right leg.
West leg, east leg.
You two are both scheduled for destruction.
>>768471
Only the heretics like you who will never be able to partake of this eternal nourishment.
What you are is simply a Docetist who agrees with you!
>>768450
There is no valid literal interpretation. Jesus did not, and never would, condone violating the Law in order to have His followers be cannibals and vampires.
It's disgusting.
>>768484
Yet another foolish and absurd conclusion.
You relish in foolishness.
>>768495
And of course no citations for your claim.
The Anchor Bible Series explicitly notes that Jesus somehow identified himself with the bread and wine in the Last Supper and shows how despite its being symbolic, it is symbolic in the ancient sense where the "Symbol" is in some sense the thing it signifies.
Too bad if history and context oppose your position.
>>768471
>nobody has ever drunk His blood.
i bet that roman soldier guzzled it like he was at the water fountain
>>768497
I don't see Protestants ITT citing academic works to back their points up. None.
Moron.
>>768483
>No leg
damn, wouldn't want to be you
>>763133
I'm a UCC Congregationalist and I find this mostly accurate
>>768531
Mainline Protestant, close enough.
>>768518
Why do you put more faith in fallible men than you put in the very words of God?
>>768518
Hey Sakurhime. You like mysticism. Do you have any thoughts on them in other religions: Sufism, Kabbalah, Jung's seven sermons, Hegelianism, or Hindu stuff?
With 500 years of hindsight, is there any worthy defense of Protestantism, in theory or in practice?
It's hard to imagine.
>>769414
You should ask yourself that question my friend
>>770699
Those who were adopted by God as His children have always had the same faith because God gave them that faith by grace.
>>770727
Protesrants don't have this. They can't even agree on what the Eucharist is
>>770763
Jesus is the head of the church and commands us who are his family members to follow him.
Please show us where indulgences are taught in the Bible. Please show us where purgatory is taught in the Bible. Please show us where praying to the dead is taught in the Bible.
>>770910
That Doesn't answer the problem I posited. You are asking something else unrelated to the topic
>>762847
Henry VIII wasn't a protestant, he was Henrician.
>>770910
>Jesus is the head of the church and commands >us who are his family members to follow him.
So easy follow to dead, because they can't say: "You are did mistake, dude!". 2000+ years of vacation to long even for a God. Why that guy did not rewpawn into this year?
>>763178
>Transubstantiation was proven wrong - as in, the bread doesn't become flesh and the wine does not become blood, at all.
The platonic substance changes. The empirically tangible material itself, called accidenta, doesn't.
And it's not like you need molecular science to see this. The wine doesn't taste like blood, nor does the bread taste like human flesh.
That said, eucharistic miracles do happen, where the material changes to flesh and blood, but that's different.
