Ask A Catholic III

[GhostWriter16]

If I disagree with the Church I go and study why she says it, then it makes sense.

Has there ever been a case where it hasn't?

Transubstantiation doesn't make much sense to me, but it's an infallible teaching of the Church therefore I accept it (it is also in the Bible).

It is a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, but the Bible doesn't necessarily teach it. Many Bible-Believing Protestants reject ANY physical presence in communion at all. Others have varying opinions of "Physical precense" that fall short of outright transsubstantiation.

I'm not looking to argue too much, but its FAR from clear Biblical teaching.

 

[civ_king]

Has there ever been a case where it hasn't?



It is a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, but the Bible doesn't necessarily teach it. Many Bible-Believing Protestants reject ANY physical presence in communion at all. Others have varying opinions of "Physical precense" that fall short of outright transsubstantiation.

I'm not looking to argue too much, but its FAR from clear Biblical teaching.

Only if you can't read very well

Ego enim accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis, quoniam Dominus Iesus in qua nocte tradebatur, accepit panem, et gratias agens fregit, et dixit: Accipite, et manducate: hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur: hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Similiter et calicem, postquam cœnavit, dicens: Hic calix novum testamentum est in meo sanguine. hoc facite quotiescumque bibetis, in meam commemorationem. Quotiescumque enim manducabitis panem hunc, et calicem bibetis: mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat. Itaque quicumque manducaverit panem hunc, vel biberit calicem Domini indigne: reus erit corporis, et sanguinis Domini. Probet autem seipsum homo: et sic de pane illo edat, et de calice bibat. Qui enim manducat, et bibit indigne, iudicium sibi manducat, et bibit: non diiudicans corpus Domini.

It's bloody obvious

Spoiler English :

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

Calix benedictionis, cui benedicimus, nonne communicatio sanguinis Christi est? et panis, quem frangimus, nonne participatio corporis Domini est? Quoniam unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus, omnes, qui de uno pane participamus.

Either it's the Body and Blood of Christ (along with the Soul and Divinity) or Paul is full of crap, pick your poison mate.

Spoiler English :

The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What translation are you using? Are you quoting the Latin Vulgate?

I honestly, being a Protestant, don't give the Latin Vulgate the time of day.

*Digs out some Protestant Translations*

New International Version

16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

King James Version

16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

17For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

English Standard Version

16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

New American Standard

1 Corinthians 10:16-17

16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body ; for we all partake of the one bread.

All of these translations suggest a symbolic, not literal, communion (The Communion is a Memorial of Christ's death.)

And yes, I know you Catholics have your own translations. To "Decide a Winner of" the war we'd need to go to Greek, something I'm not equipped properly to do. All I'm trying to do is get you guys to admit there is a legitimate dispute in the first place.

And BTW: I choose the following poison, the Latin Vulgate Translation is full of crap.

 

[civ_king]

What translation are you using? Are you quoting the Latin Vulgate?

I honestly, being a Protestant, don't give the Latin Vulgate the time of day.

*Digs out some Protestant Translations*

New International Version

King James Version

English Standard Version

New American Standard

All of these translations suggest a symbolic, not literal, communion (The Communion is a Memorial of Christ's death.)

And yes, I know you Catholics have your own translations. To "Decide a Winner of" the war we'd need to go to Greek, something I'm not equipped properly to do. All I'm trying to do is get you guys to admit there is a legitimate dispute in the first place.

And BTW: I choose the following poison, the Latin Vulgate Translation is full of crap.

Douay Rheims obviously, what do you think I am a Protestant? I was using the Vulgata Sixto-Clementina

Because they reject it they can't have any supporting evidence of it. You've just fallen for the Jehovah's Witness Bible Trick™ AKA let's change the wording so it agrees with what I say regardless of how much I must adulterate the text.


The Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental) agree that the bread and wine turn into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Greek Orthodox know Koine Greek damn well.

 

[Jehoshua]

For your viewing pleasure, a parallel greek, english and latin new testament site.

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B46C011.htm

 

[El_Machinae]

I quite like this one. The drop-down allows you to choose an english translation.
If you push the 'c' beside a verse, you get access to the concordance (which defines a word (sometimes I disagree with the translation though)) and the usage of that word.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

 

[Arakhor]

I have to say, Domination, that quoting a modern Protestant Bible to support your beliefs of a Catholic principle being non-Biblical is enormously self-defeating.

 

[NBAfan]

What translation are you using? Are you quoting the Latin Vulgate?

I honestly, being a Protestant, don't give the Latin Vulgate the time of day.

*Digs out some Protestant Translations*

New International Version



King James Version



English Standard Version



New American Standard




All of these translations suggest a symbolic, not literal, communion (The Communion is a Memorial of Christ's death.)

And yes, I know you Catholics have your own translations. To "Decide a Winner of" the war we'd need to go to Greek, something I'm not equipped properly to do. All I'm trying to do is get you guys to admit there is a legitimate dispute in the first place.

And BTW: I choose the following poison, the Latin Vulgate Translation is full of crap.

I'm missing how that passage means it's symbolic. I would like to hear you explanation why.

You can't refute the Gospel of John where Jesus says 3 times he who eats His flesh and drinks His blood will have eternal life. The disciples even ask Him how this is possible, but he just says the same thing and adds on after that it is true flesh and blood. That is obviously meant to be taken literal.
Therefor saying St. Paul calling it symbolic would be contradicting the Gospel.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't understand your reasoning. The gospels are a third-hand recording of Jesus's words. Isn't it okay if they contradict with Paul's writings? If Paul says something differently to the Gospel, we'd just figure out which one was more believable. Ostensibly, if you believed in such things, you'd use a spiritual leader to clarify the controversy. But, since Paul is assumed to be a 'clarifier', wouldn't you just go with Paul?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

You could also choose follow The Didache, which dates to about the same time as Paul epistles. This makes no mention whatsoever of the bread and wine being the body and blood.

CHAPTER 9 : eucharistic consecration

9:1 Now regarding the eucharist, give thanks in this way :
9:2 First concerning the cup :

"We thank You, our Father,
for the holy vine of David Your servant,
which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant.
To You belongs the glory for ever."

9:3 And concerning the broken bread :

We thank You, our Father,
for the life and knowledge which You made
known to us through Jesus Your servant.
To You belongs the glory for ever."

9:4 As this broken bread was scattered over the mountains, and was brought together to become one, so let Your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your Kingdom, for the glory and the power are Yours through Jesus Christ forever.
9:5 But let none eat or drink of your eucharist except those who have been baptized in the Name of the Lord. For concerning this did the Lord say : “Give not what is holy to dogs.”

CHAPTER 10 : thanksgiving after communion

10:1 But after you are satisfied with food, give thanks in this way :
10:2 We give thanks to You, O Holy Father, for Your Holy Name which You made to live in our hearts, and for the knowledge, the faith and the immortality which You did made known to us through Jesus Your servant. To You belongs the glory for ever.
10:3 You, Lord Almighty, did create all things through Your Name, and did give food and drink to men for their enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You, but us have You blessed with spiritual food, drink and eternal light through Your servant.
10:4 Above all we give thanks to You because You are mighty. Yours is the glory for ever.
10:5 Remember, Lord, to deliver Your church from all evil and to make it perfect in Your love, and gather it together from the four winds, holy in Your kingdom which You have prepared for it. For Yours are the power and the glory for ever.
10:6 Let grace come and let this world pass away. Hosannah to the God of David. If any man be holy, let him come ! If any man be not, let him repent. Marana tha ! Amen.
10:7 But permit the prophets to hold the eucharist as they see fit.

 

[Cannae]

What is the general view with Roman Catholics about the recent scandals. Why do you think so much media attention is being focused on it? Btw when I ask about the general Roman Catholic view on the scandals, I'm talking about any personal expereinces you've might have had and in discussions with other catholics.

 

[NBAfan]

You could also choose follow The Didache, which dates to about the same time as Paul epistles. This makes no mention whatsoever of the bread and wine being the body and blood.

That talks about what to pray when having the Eucharist. There was no question was about whenever it was true flesh so it doesn't address that. It also continues in chapter 14 of The Didache

But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

This is referring to the sacrifice of Jesus in the Eucharist. That is quite literal
Many of the Church Fathers preached the real presence of the Eucharist. St. Ignatius

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.

St. Justin Martyr

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

You can find a lot more here.

 

[Takhisis]

As a general commentary, Domination, if you're asking about Catholics then read our version of the Bible and not whatever else you're reading.

 

[Jehoshua]

Well our version is basically the same except that the protestants omit several books. The problem however lies in the translation into the vernacular (from the koine greek or the latin vulgate), which in several protestant versions is rather poor

-.

As to the general Catholic opinion on the various scandals, basically everyone is extremely angry at the perpetrators for violating the sanctity of holy orders by their abomination and bringing shame on the entire Church and the great majority which has nothing to do with their perversions. As to bishops who failed in their duty, not even following canon law on the matter, not to mention not following the laws of the lands in question, well its more of a cold rage since they have doubly failed their duty and shamed the entire Church.

Amongst orthodox Catholics this is excacerbated even further since a lot of the bishops who failed in their duty to begin with in this area, failed in their duty as bishops period, both in preaching the gospel and in general advancing the faith. Indeed if you look at ireland the Church there has been without effective Catholic leadership for decades due to inept, weakwilled and less than orthodox and fervent bishops who have utterly failed in their duty to the faith.

Indeed it is like Pope Benedict said about "professional catholics (which is by extension the staff of diocese)/ He said that It is sad that there are what you might call professional Catholics who make a living on their Catholicism, but in whom the spring of faith flows only faintly,in a few scattered drops. "

 

[_random_]

Do you consider the apparitions at Fatima and Loudres to me legit? Are Catholics required to?

 

[civ_king]

Do you consider the apparitions at Fatima and Loudres to me legit? Are Catholics required to?

Yes. No because they are private revelation.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Douay Rheims obviously, what do you think I am a Protestant? I was using the Vulgata Sixto-Clementina

My point, (And this response goes to a lot of people) was not to PROVE anything, but to say that there is legitimate debate (Beyond either its literal or Paul is full of crap.)

I'm honestly not smart enough to absolutely prove that point. AT LEAST a few of you guys know the Bible better than I do. That's great, a lot of people do. I'm not the professional Protestant debater. I'm just someone constantly searching for the Truth.

I'm missing how that passage means it's symbolic. I would like to hear you explanation why.

Well, as I said I was quoting a Protestant translation. That said, your comment is correct that my argument isn't as clear as I first believed.

That said, in Luke Jesus clearly says the body and blood are a REMEMBRANCE of him. They are not him himself. Besides, how could Jesus be physically present in the sacrament when he was physically sitting at the temple eating bread? Was Jesus eating his own essence at the Lord's Supper?

You can't refute the Gospel of John where Jesus says 3 times he who eats His flesh and drinks His blood will have eternal life. The disciples even ask Him how this is possible, but he just says the same thing and adds on after that it is true flesh and blood. That is obviously meant to be taken literal.

"Eat My Flesh" I don't believe to reference communion, but to the words of Christ, his teaching.

QUESTION:

I know Catholic teaching basically teaches that a Catholic can confess to a priest and be forgiven even if his repentence is imperfect (Motivated at least in part by fear of Hell or loss of Heaven.) However, for a Protestant to repent this way would be utterly useless to absolve him of his sin, as only PERFECT Repentence will allow a non-Catholic to be liberated of his sin (I think most Catholics think repentence to an Orthodox Priest also works, but that isn't really relevant to the question.)

The question is this, say there is a Protestant who is either convinced of Catholicism and wishes to convert, is in the process of conversion, or a Catholic who has not been as faithful as he should have been in seeing a priest. Now, in either of the cases, this person knows he has what would be considered a "Mortal sin" and while he is repentent, he does realize that fear of Hell has in some sense motivated him, and so he cannot be forgiven without seeing the priest.

Now, this person plans to confess as soon as possible (In the first or second case, after conversion, in the last case, tomorrow) but that day someone points a gun at him and asks if he is a Christian, with clear intent to pull the trigger if the answer is "Yes."

Now, if the person does deny Christ, he can confess this denial, as well as his other sins, to his priest as soon as he can, be absolved, and potentially attain Heaven. But if he refuses to deny, he's going to Hell as he is not perfectly contrite and knows this.

Now, you might say "A person who isn't perfectly contrite would automatically deny Christ" but that definitely isn't necessarily true, as someone could be willing to die for his faith but still have a small part of his repentence motivated by being terrified of Hell.

So, what should this person do? And if he stands firm, will God somehow miraculously save him?

I'd appreciate a thought through answer to this, I really think it is an important question worth the time of day, so take your time

Also note that this is addressed to ALL Catholics here. In fact, I'd appeciate as many answers as possible to get a glimpse into how a Catholic would think about such a scenario.

 

[Takhisis]

Why do you keep insisting on posting highly unlikely situations and then eventually extending the results to a whole lot of other situations like you did on my VM stack when you insisted on what would happen if the Chinese invaded the US?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why do you keep insisting on posting highly unlikely situations and then eventually extending the results to a whole lot of other situations like you did on my VM stack when you insisted on what would happen if the Chinese invaded the US?

That may be unlikely in America (Though it has happened, people are martyred for their faith even here, though obviously not by the government).

That said, I wasn't trying to stack it onto anything else. I think that's a question that definitely is worth exploring. What SHOULD the person do in that situation?

Normally I'd PM someone that particular question, but I am more wondering about the broad spectrum of Catholic opinion, as I suspect this may be a topic with more than one opinion.

 

[NBAfan]

That said, in Luke Jesus clearly says the body and blood are a REMEMBRANCE of him. They are not him himself. Besides, how could Jesus be physically present in the sacrament when he was physically sitting at the temple eating bread? Was Jesus eating his own essence at the Lord's Supper?




"Eat My Flesh" I don't believe to reference communion, but to the words of Christ, his teaching.

Jesus was telling the Apostles to do what He just did. He said"Do this in remembrance of me," not that the bread and wine are symbols.

Why didn't Jesus just say that then? Why would He keep repeating that we should eat His Flesh and Blood?

Spoiler :

I know Catholic teaching basically teaches that a Catholic can confess to a priest and be forgiven even if his repentence is imperfect (Motivated at least in part by fear of Hell or loss of Heaven.) However, for a Protestant to repent this way would be utterly useless to absolve him of his sin, as only PERFECT Repentence will allow a non-Catholic to be liberated of his sin (I think most Catholics think repentence to an Orthodox Priest also works, but that isn't really relevant to the question.)

The question is this, say there is a Protestant who is either convinced of Catholicism and wishes to convert, is in the process of conversion, or a Catholic who has not been as faithful as he should have been in seeing a priest. Now, in either of the cases, this person knows he has what would be considered a "Mortal sin" and while he is repentent, he does realize that fear of Hell has in some sense motivated him, and so he cannot be forgiven without seeing the priest.

Now, this person plans to confess as soon as possible (In the first or second case, after conversion, in the last case, tomorrow) but that day someone points a gun at him and asks if he is a Christian, with clear intent to pull the trigger if the answer is "Yes."

Now, if the person does deny Christ, he can confess this denial, as well as his other sins, to his priest as soon as he can, be absolved, and potentially attain Heaven. But if he refuses to deny, he's going to Hell as he is not perfectly contrite and knows this.

Now, you might say "A person who isn't perfectly contrite would automatically deny Christ" but that definitely isn't necessarily true, as someone could be willing to die for his faith but still have a small part of his repentence motivated by being terrified of Hell.

So, what should this person do? And if he stands firm, will God somehow miraculously save him?

I'd appreciate a thought through answer to this, I really think it is an important question worth the time of day, so take your time

If you are really sorry for your sins and was striving to get absolution, I'm sure God will forgive you. And besides, being willing to die for your faith like that is probably sign of love of God, therefor it would be perfect contrition.

Keep asking questions Dom, you will find the truth.