Transubstantiation v Consubstantiation

[Japanrocks12]

which do you believe?

Transubstantiation is the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist according to the teaching of some Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church.


Consubstantiation holds that during the sacrament the fundamental "substance" of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present.

 

[LightFang]

Consubstantiation, maybe.

Transubstantiation, no. What the heck. The whole shebang is obviously symbolic; we're not cannibals. The bread represents Jesus's body and the wine represents His blood. Who would take this literally? -.-

 

[Bill3000]

Transubstantiation.

You can't pick and choose your Christianity just because you want to be a cool empiricist at the same time. Christianity is an excellent religion precisely because it synchronizes Hellenism and Judaism.

And quite frankly, the idea that you are literally eating the flesh and blood of Christ is inherently awesome.

 

[CCA]

Transubstantiation.

You can't pick and choose your Christianity just because you want to be a cool empiricist at the same time.

And quite frankly, the idea that you are literally eating the flesh and blood of Christ is inherently awesome.

Exactly,
God darn super-market christians. We ought to have ourselves another inquisition.



This is true because we're eating the blood and flesh of GOD. Which shows how much he cares.

amirite?

 

[bhsup]

THe passage in Luke is clearly symbolic. It doesn't actually transubstantiate into anything, nor does anything consubstantiate alongside the bread and wine.

 

[Bill3000]

THe passage in Luke is clearly symbolic. It doesn't actually transubstantiate into anything, nor does anything consubstantiate alongside the bread and wine.

That is not the rite itself, though.

Why are you bothering to have communion in the first place? It's a farkin' rite based on the idea of Holy Tradition, and is essentially an oral law of Christianity. Something akin to transubstantiation is present in all non-protestant derived forms of Christianity.

Fundamentalists are still inherently cafeteria christians.

 

[Fifty]

I refuse to believe that Jebus would make his body into gross church wafer bread.

Jesus body = French toast.

 

[bhsup]

Bill, every Easter we do it "in remembrance" just like he say to do. This is in the current Church I go to. I have gone to others that did it every week and still others that did it at Christmas, Easter, and a couple of other times a year spaced out roughly evenly.

 

[CCA]

I refuse to believe that Jebus would make his body into gross church wafer bread.

Jesus body = French toast.

I was talking to a Religious Studies teacher in my school. Great guy, really old.

Apparently during the 60's there were people who substituted the wafer cakes for hashish cakes.

 

[Bill3000]

Bill, every Easter we do it "in remembrance" just like he say to do. This is in the current Church I go to. I have gone to others that did it every week and still others that did it at Christmas, Easter, and a couple of other times a year spaced out roughly evenly.

The bible is not the sole source of your form of Christianity. You still have your very own traditional interpretations.

And that's not enough. You're not getting Christ. As Christ said himself, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you. John 6:53-56.

 

[bhsup]

What?! Have I ever said, anywhere, that the Bible is the sole source of traditions? No, I haven't. Traditions are nice, but I can do without them fine if I want to. I just like them.

EDIT: Wow. soul > sole

 

[bigfatron]

Trying to decide between one 100% theoretical and pointless doctrine and another 100% theoretical and pointless doctrine, both of which are as barmy as a box of frogs? Only organised religion can do this for you, folks...

As well ask yourself if the Flying Spaghetti Monster has the tips of its tentacles purple on both sides or only the bottom side! After all, it's just as important and just as meaningful a question.

Crazy. Absolutely, totally crazy...

BFR

 

[LightFang]

Trying to decide between one 100% theoretical and pointless doctrine and another 100% theoretical and pointless doctrine, both of which are as barmy as a box of frogs? Only organised religion can do this for you, folks...

As well ask yourself if the Flying Spaghetti Monster has the tips of its tentacles purple on both sides or only the bottom side! After all, it's just as important and just as meaningful a question.

Crazy. Absolutely, totally crazy...

BFR

You're a funny kid, you know that?

 

[Elrohir]

The bible is not the sole source of your form of Christianity. You still have your very own traditional interpretations.

And that's not enough. You're not getting Christ. As Christ said himself, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you. John 6:53-56.

He was being metaphorical Bill.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Besides which, anyone can decide what Christian doctrines they want to accept. What they end up with might not actually be correct, but forcing yourself to believe something that you don't think makes sense isn't better.

(Also, I don't believe either.)

 

[zxcvbnm]

I don't believe either either. You could eat Jesus if you found his grave, or then the stolen body, but wine and bread is just another symbolic holy thing inevitable for religions.

Trying to decide between one 100% theoretical and pointless doctrine and another 100% theoretical and pointless doctrine, both of which are as barmy as a box of frogs? Only organised religion can do this for you, folks...

As well ask yourself if the Flying Spaghetti Monster has the tips of its tentacles purple on both sides or only the bottom side! After all, it's just as important and just as meaningful a question.

Crazy. Absolutely, totally crazy...

BFR

FSM is the truth, convert the heretics!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Stating that you don't believe either because you reject the underlying doctrine, and that you thus think the debate is silly, is possibly less sueful as an answer than you might think . . .

 

[zxcvbnm]

Stating that you don't believe either because you reject the underlying doctrine, and that you thus think the debate is silly, is possibly less sueful as an answer than you might think . . .

Said I that the debate is silly?

I joked about bringing up the truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bigfatron.

But I think there should be a third option: other/neither

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, 90% would pick that one, so it is just as good not to vote at all.

 

[zxcvbnm]

Only 50-70% of CFCers are atheists, it's not necessarily 90%