The Roman Catholic Eucharist.

[Jonny]

Greetings, I've been on vacation for a while. I did have other conversations going, but I can't find them now. Anyway here's my reason for posting...

I am taking on the role of believing the following statement:

Speaking of the Eucharist...Jesus' literal body becomes present in the bread. And his literal blood becomes present in the wine. When the two elements are ingested, at Mass, we are actually eating Jesus' real flesh and blood.

I am saying that the above statement is TRUE. Yes I know some of you are Christ-mythers and that you don't believe the accuracy of the bible. But just for the sake of debate and challenge, I want to see if you can attack that statement all the while *assuming* that the bible is accurate. Are there any philosophical or moral arguments outside of the bible that can make a case against that statement???

[manhattan]

[quote]Originally posted by Jonny:
<strong> Are there any philosophical or moral arguments outside of the bible that can make a case against that statement???</strong><hr></blockquote> Well, most societies develop a taboo against cannibalism when in the presence of sufficient non-human sources of protien. Do you mean stuff like that?

[sullster]

I thought you were a fundy from other posts and here you are a mainstream catholic.
Yo! Amos! You have a buddy here! Calling Amos!

[IvanK]

[quote]Originally posted by Jonny:
<strong>Jesus' literal body becomes present in the bread. And his literal blood becomes present in the wine. When the two elements are ingested, at Mass, we are actually eating Jesus' real flesh and blood.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Er, I don't think that's quite right even from an orthodox Catholic POV. There's quite a bit of verbiage <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm" target="_blank">here</a> to the effect that the participant in the Eucharist (which refers to the rite, not the elements; it's from the Greek and means "giving thanks") "receives Christ in His entirety," not just the flesh and blood of same. Whatever that means. I recommend the link to those who think they can understand it. Or even stand it.

[ex-idaho]

Does the wine and bread show any visble signs of transformation? If not then I would have to say that it is untrue or atleast very unlikely.

[Jonny]

[quote]Well, most societies develop a taboo against cannibalism when in the presence of sufficient non-human sources of protien. Do you mean stuff like that?<hr></blockquote>

Yes stuff like that. And then I will try and make catholic counter arguments. My counter argument to this would be...It's not cannibalsim, because it's not bread and wine in it's natural condition. The molecular structure doesn't change, the only thing that changes is the substance.

[quote]I thought you were a fundy from other posts and here you are a mainstream catholic<hr></blockquote>

Okay lol...so are you going to participate?

[quote]Does the wine and bread show any visble signs of transformation? If not then I would have to say that it is untrue or atleast very unlikely.<hr></blockquote>

Let the games begin :) . Okay, yes, there have been documented cases of the bread literally turning into flesh, and the wine to blood. Scientists have even investigated it and come to the conclusion that sometimes there is real blood present, even heart tissue. So sometimes God chooses to provide a miracle for the skeptics of the eucharist, but not always.

Also in reply to IvanK. The position for most catholics is that Jesus' literal flesh and blood are actaully present in the bread and wine. That's the statement I am looking to deal with.

[Jonny]

http://members.aol.com/Linden59/img14.gif

This is the evidence I will provide for now, in support of the claim that real blood and heart tissue has been found. There is much more.

[Jonny]

dang, that picture got messed up. Anyway it was a picture of a spot of real blood that was found in the wine...which of course *I believe* belonged to Jesus.

wait never mind it worked

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Jonny ]</p>

[kwigibo]

just a spot of blood, did they match it to jesus' DNA? I don't know about u, but the wine never tasted like blood to me, and it's a pretty stark contrast between bread and human flesh, i think i would have noticed. :rolleyes:

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: kwigibo ]</p>

[Jonny]

[quote]just a spot of blood, did they match it to jesus' DNA? <hr></blockquote>

Yes they did, as far as I know.

[quote]I don't know about u, but the wine never tasted like blood to me, and it's a pretty stark contrast between bread and human flesh, i think i would have noticed. <hr></blockquote>

That's obviously because it only changes in it's substance, not it's natural condition.

[Makai]

I don't think there is a need for a philosophical or moral objection to this...because a scientific one more than suffices.

First, to deal with the 'documented cases' of bread turning into heart tissue, or whatnot. Maybe it's just me, but I'd think if these cases were documented by anyone with credentials, and the 'miracle' couldn't have been faked, I would seem to imagine some sort of massive news story. You know, because such an event would only undermind so much of what science has tried to establish. However, the only place a story like this is bound to be published is in some supermarket tabloid. Not only that, but that picture you put up looks like the kind of home videos that people use to 'document' UFOs and alien abductions. If there were *actually* 'well documented' cases of such events, they would have appeared in practically every medical and scientific journal worldwide. Hell, maybe if you had enough miracles of the eucharist, you could do something really useful with them; start a tissue and blood donation center.

Secondly, beyond the absurd claim of 'well documented' transubstantiation, the concept itself flies in the face of everything we know from sensory input, and from logic processes. You seem to be saying that while, according to what chemical tests and observations of the bread and wine we can make, they do appear to be bread and wine. However, you're also saying that at the same time, they 'are' flesh and blood. Clearly they're not 'human flesh and blood' in the commonly concieved sense; because humans aren't made of frail wafers and wine. You say,

"The molecular structure doesn't change, the only thing that changes is the substance."

'The substance' seems more than a little vague, but I think I realize what you're trying to say. Are you saying that while it is bread and wine in the commonly used sense, the essence of the host is no longer 'bread', but rather 'flesh'? If this is the case, I won't even bother directly arguing that scenario. The implications seem to speak more than any objection I could make about that assumption. If the bread can stay, by all scientific standards, as bread, yet in essence become flesh, then you're simply throwing out all means of empirical verification. All your senses tell you, "This is bread.", but, somehow, it is actually flesh. How then, if you believe this, do you know it's actually flesh? I assume you'll know this from the Bible. But...how do you know that the Bible is the Word of God? Even if it appears to be the Word of God, and you can 'assume it is accurate', you don't even know that it means what you say it does. What if it IS accurate, but it doesn't mean what you think it does? It may *appear* to be the Word of God, but since, from the agreement with the transubstantian, appearances have nothing to do with reality, the Bible could just as easily be a cookbook for delicious apple pie. Heck, since your eyes can't even really tell those *are* words, they may actually be alternate universes contained in microscopic peanuts. Do you see what I'm trying to say here? The only way to accept the transubstantiation is to throw out empirical and rational grounds as a basis for accepting 'what things are'. And by doing this, you're throwing out any reasons for the transubstantian to happen in the first place. QED.

-Makai

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Makai ]</p>

[Pitshade]

[quote]Originally posted by Jonny:
<strong>Yes they did, as far as I know. </strong><hr></blockquote>And where did they find the DNA from Jesus? What lab performed the tests? Why should we accept that the red spot in that picture is in fact blood?

[quote]The molecular structure doesn't change, the only thing that changes is the substance.<hr></blockquote>What do you mean by the word 'substance' here?

From Cambridge:

substance: (noun) material with particular physical characteristics.

How can the characteristics of something change without changing it's composition? If the bread becomes tissue, then it's 'molecular structure' cannot stay the same!

Furthermore, are you asserting that the DNA molecules taken from the bread (which did not change) are the same as your DNA samples of Christ? Did Christ have 'bread' DNA?

[kwigibo]

Christ was a scarecrow made from wheat, there i've solved it :rolleyes: I mean he looks like a scarecrow, stuck to a bit of wood with his arms out, and there are no records of birds congregating around calvary. Let's see u refute that u godless heathens!!! ;)

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: kwigibo ]</p>

[Panta Pei]

Surely this thread belongs in the humor section.

:D

I haven't laughed so hard at credulity since watching the testimonials at a Benny Hinn throwdown.
:rolleyes:

Keep 'em coming Jonny, you skeptical christian, you!

[Born Free]

Hey if communion wafer was shown to have his blood and heart tissue even remotely connected, I'd be spending a lifetime throwing up quite a number of years worth of eaten wafers.

I'm curious now, what the heck are they made of anyway???

[Amos]

[quote]Originally posted by Jonny:
<strong> Speaking of the Eucharist...Jesus' literal body becomes present in the bread. And his literal blood becomes present in the wine. When the two elements are ingested, at Mass, we are actually eating Jesus' real flesh and blood.

I am saying that the above statement is TRUE. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Hey Jonny, I believe in the transformation of bread and wine but stuff like this is what makes us good Catholics looks really bad.

Never will you be asked to agree that it is the body and blood of Jesus (the particular) because it is the body and blood of Christ (the universal).

Amos

[abe smith]

RC Eucharist: In arguments of this sort, it is up to the allegator/asserter [if someone challenges the allegation] to PROVE the assertion; it is not required that the challenger DISprove the assertion. As RCatholicism asserts that the substance[s] of the sacraments CHANGE while the accidents [allthe physical characteristics] remain as before, this totally contra-sensory assertion needs to be substantiated. It's based on Aristotle &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; thru Aquinas; and for those who don"t buy that stuff, it's therefore already junk-thinking. To be sure the Cheuch's answer is it's a matter of FAITH; and that's that. Abe

[Grizzly]

[quote]Originally posted by alli:
<strong>
I'm curious now, what the heck are they made of anyway???</strong><hr></blockquote>

Miracle cardboard (I mean before the transubstantiation :rolleyes: )

[Amos]

[quote]Originally posted by abe smith:
<strong>. It's based on Aristotle &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; thru Aquinas; and for those who don"t buy that stuff, it's therefore already junk-thinking. To be sure the Cheuch's answer is it's a matter of FAITH; and that's that. Abe</strong><hr></blockquote>

As usual, you have this just backwards Abe. It is Plato through Augustine and perhaps reinforced by Aquinas. It is a matter of faith (Aquinas) until understanding reveals the truth behind it (Augustine). Is there something wrong with this or is it because you never come to the understanding behind this jewel of faith, which was then, is now, and always will be the envy of protestantism).

[IvanK]

[quote]Originally posted by alli:
<strong>I'm curious now, what the heck are they made of anyway???</strong><hr></blockquote>

My understanding is that the wafer can be made only of wheat flour and water. The latest controversy surrounds Catholics who are allergic to wheat gluten and whether some alternate provision can be made for them or whether they just need to suffer, physically and literally, from the "accidental" effects of the same element of the Eucharist that is supposedly so efficacious in the area of eternal salvation.

Those above who assert no need to believe that the Eucharistic elements actually contain or become actual human flesh and blood to be consistent with Catholic doctrine are correct IMO. It's a mystery thang.

[Boro Nut]

That's a relief to hear. I was once told they were the crusts that form over nun's cunts, and left the catholic church forthwith. I may consider rejoining seeing as how it's really just a pasta of sorts.

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Boro Nut ]</p>

[Ernest Sparks]

Scientist George Gamow tells of his experience as a little boy in Odessa, on the north side of the Black Sea. His father was a school teacher and a rationalist. He brought young Georgie science books and stuff like microscopes, chemicals, and telescopes. He talked over math puzzles with Georgie. The mother, on the other hand, came from a family of Orthodox christian monks, priests and even one bishop. She saw to it that little Georgie trotted off to church school every Sunday. One time, a deacon taught the kids that the bread and wine were changed into Christ's body and blood during the liturgy. So Georgie carefully hid the particle of communion (, both species are mixed and served out of a chalice with a golden spoon in the Orthodox Church) under his tongue, ran home after church, sliced sections of the particle and mounted them on a microscope slide. Observation revealed no muscle cells and no red blood corpuscles, just glutin strings. It was all just a big story as far as he was concerned. He said he had to go along with equally big whoppers during the communist era in Leningrad, where he went to university.

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Ernest Sparks ]</p>

[manhattan]

[quote]Originally posted by abe smith:
<strong> this totally contra-sensory assertion needs to be substantiated.</strong><hr></blockquote> Don't you mean transsubstantiated?

::d&r::

[Jonny]

lol. Okay I thank all of you for the feedback. I'd just like to say that I don't believe in the eucharist, I was *taking on the role* (which I stated ealier) of believing, in an effort see if the doctrine could be defended among Atheists. Obviously the doctrine is unstable when it is knocked by science. Okay...if possible, can you guys provide anymore moral or philosophical refutations? The scientific stuff was good...

[Amos]

[quote]Originally posted by Jonny:
<strong>. Obviously the doctrine is unstable when it is knocked by science. </strong><hr></blockquote>

That only proves that science is behind the eightball and will never be big enough to masure omniscience.

[Mageth]

You can't measure what's not there. ;)

What I've always wondered is what the proponents of transsubstantiation think about defecating Christ? It's bound to happen. If the eucharist is holy, why isn't the by-product? This may seem a joke, but are there profound theological implications?

[Toto]

[quote]Originally posted by Mageth:
<strong>What I've always wondered is what the proponents of transsubstantiation think about defecating Christ? It's bound to happen. If the eucharist is holy, why isn't the by-product? This may seem a joke, but are there profound theological implications?</strong><hr></blockquote>

You have just explained those "caganers" (defecating holy Catalan figurines) that have been the subject of so much controvery lately. The Catholic league sees an insult to Catholics, but the Catalans defend them as part of their tradition.

Does the term "holy shit" cover it?

[Jonny]

That is a good philosophical point about crapping it out. AMOS, hey buddy. Explain...what happens to the universal "christ" when he travels down to the stomach. Is he eventually digested and crapped out?

As far as I can see, science pretty much smashes this doctrine to pieces. But now I want to see what the Moral and Philosophical implications are. So I have been defeated scientifically. How about morally and philosophically. Here are statements...(yes I know I'm assuming a bunch of stuff ("Jesus lives"), but please just *assume* that the assumptions are correct for the sake of the nature of this discussion, thanx guys.)

1.There is nothing morally wrong with eating Jesus or the universal "Christ".

2.There aren't any philosophical objections with eating Jesus or the universal "Christ".

*Definition of Jesus- Divine human being who rose from the dead and who commanded us to literally eat him.

*Definition of Universal Christ- A universal force/spirit that some catholics claim is present in the bread and wine.

[Bill Snedden]

[quote]Originally posted by Jonny:
<strong>This is the evidence I will provide for now, in support of the claim that real blood and heart tissue has been found. There is much more.</strong><hr></blockquote>

&lt;tsk, tsk&gt; Jonny, Jonny, Jonny...

You really should be more careful when researching the evidence for these claims (although I realize that you're probably not used to wading through this type of nonsense).

The picture you posted refers to the alleged <a href="http://members.aol.com/linden59/EucharisticMiracles.html" target="_blank">Eucharistic "miracles"</a> of one Marissa Rossi, of Rome, Italy.

Unfortunately, there were no tests performed on the hosts in question as Ms. Rossi consumed them immediately after their appearance (how convenient!).

The site from which you extracted the photo does have some references to tests performed on a "miraculous" host that allegedly transformed into flesh (and wine that became blood). While the tests did reveal that the objects in question were indeed human flesh and blood, the alleged "miracle" occurred in the 8th century, long before truly scientific determinations were possible. The tests that confirmed their substance were not performed until the twentieth century. The elapsed time between the occurrence and the testing (some 1200 years) is surely long enough to allow for at least the possibility of tampering.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[Toto]

[quote]Originally posted by Jonny:
<strong>
*Definition of Jesus- Divine human being who rose from the dead and who commanded us to literally eat him.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I wouldn't touch that line with a ten foot pole.

[Jonny]

Bill, what if they were to match the DNA in that blood to the blood of the historical Jesus?

Toto, yes I know you would never *snort that line* in reality. But I just want to see if you can still show my statements to be false, all the while taking on the role of believing in Jesus.

[Mageth]

You would have to have DNA from a source certified to be from Jesus to match the blood to. So before you proved the blood was Jesus's you'd have to prove that the source was from Jesus, and so on, and so on...

[Jonny]

Okay, well obviously the whole DNA of Jesus thing is out of the question. How about any moral reasons and philosophical reasons to reject the doctrine.

I can think of a moral one being that it is considered cannablism, but a counterargument would be that in this case, Jesus is consenting (he wants us to eat him) so it's not really morally wrong.
And philosophically or maybe still morally, the crap thing seems to be a good reason to reject the doctrine (cause it's blasphemous to anyone who believes in Jesus, if he winds up being flushed down the toilet). I can't think of a counterargument for that...unless I say that Jesus (or the Christ) magically flies out of the body before it's digested and defecated. Or if I say that crapping out Jesus somehow isn't "blasphemous".

[Boro Nut]

[quote]Originally posted by Jonny:
<strong>I'd just like to say that I don't believe in the eucharist, I was *taking on the role* </strong><hr></blockquote>

There are two sides to most stories. I was at communion once with my tongue stuck out and could clearly see a pube sticking out of the eucharist when the priest picked it out of the chalice. This could be construed as evidence of Jesus hiding inside. I ate it anyway.

Boro Nut

PS - I think they are more a wafer than a roll

PPS - The pube was ginger, so I suspect it wasn't Jesus. Probably St Cuthbert.

[Megatron]

[quote]Originally posted by Boro Nut:
<strong>
There are two sides to most stories. I was at communion once with my tongue stuck out and could clearly see a pube sticking out of the eucharist when the priest picked it out of the chalice. This could be construed as evidence of Jesus hiding inside. I ate it anyway.

Boro Nut

PS - I think they are more a wafer than a roll

PPS - The pube was ginger, so I suspect it wasn't Jesus. Probably St Cuthbert.</strong><hr></blockquote>

&gt;dies laughing&lt;

Dammit Boro Nut!!! You're doing it again! &gt;almost choked this time&lt;

[Born Free]

[quote]Originally posted by Boro Nut:
<strong>That's a relief to hear. I was once told they were the crusts that form over nun's cunts, and left the catholic church forthwith. I may consider rejoining seeing as how it's really just a pasta of sorts.

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Boro Nut ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


Aaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhh damn you boro do you have any idea the awful images that has conjured up in my mind???? :eek:

&lt;Cries&gt; &lt;pukes&gt; &lt;cries again&gt; &lt;chokes&gt;

[Boro Nut]

Sorry about that.

Another time I remember going to communion just after being to the dentist. Being young and impressionable we were always told not to chew because it was the body of Jesus, but I couldn't feel it in my mouth so I had no option but to. Unfortunately I was so numb I bit right through my tongue and there was blood everywhere. I was totally mortified because I thought I'd bitten his cock off.

[daemon]

Just as a side note to this little thought experiment, Jonny's explanation of the Eucharist is inaccurate. The real explanation doesn't make a hell of a lot more sense, really, as it requires that one accept dualism in the first place, but, still...

[abe smith]

Response to Amos aloft ^^^^^^^: 0000000000000000. Abe.

[Eudaimonist]

<a href="http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Catechism/3/l22.html" target="_blank">On the Holy Eucharist</a>

Jonny, here's a link from catholic.net for your research.

Interestingly, the Q&A says that the substance, but not the appearance, of the Eucharist changes, and the new substance exists in a "glorified state".

[Grace M]

Aaargh…

It’s not pieces of his body—I don’t worry about what “part� I’m getting when I receive communion. They’re not pieces of his flesh; we’re not cannibals. That would be extremely disgusting. It’s not like each wafer is a hacked up bit of his dead body—he's not dead. It’s him, his real, physical, living presence, the man himself, the living body and blood that were sacrificed on the cross. It still reacts chemically like bread, looks like bread, tastes like bread, but it’s no longer bread, it’s him. The essence, the substance of it changes, from bread to flesh—all his flesh, all his presence. Each bit of bread is just as much him as all the bits put together, because he’s there in each of them, as much as he was two thousand years ago. Dividing them up doesn’t cut him up, it just makes him physically present in more places than one. Defiling the Eucharist isn’t like taking a bit of a finger and throwing it into the dirt, it’s taking his living, breathing, speaking body, at the very instant that he’s hanging there on the cross and dying for us, and dashing him to the ground.

Receiving communion is being physically with him. It’s not the eating of dead flesh, it’s unison with his physical living presence. It’s like….

Think of it this way (if you’re even still reading this). Jesus is God hidden in man. Once the last supper is reenacted, the wafers and the wine are God hidden in man hidden in bread and wine. So receiving communion is like kissing the face of God.



(As for “holy ****�—I don’t even want to acknowledge the idea, but I’ll say this, at least. As Catholics, we’re taught that the presence of Jesus leaves approximately fifteen minutes after we receive communion, ‘cause the communion wafer has been digested by the saliva and stomach and no longer has the physical attributes of bread.)

[Chaupoline]

Recieving Communion is a ritual. It only really matters to those who are Catholic. It is supposed to represent the Last Supper, and allow the practicioners a feeling of being one with Christ. Hence the name Communion.

It can be seen as just as silly as a tradition that my family would have around Christmas of hanging stockings near the fire place, and decorating a Christmas tree, with the same ornaments and lights every year. Other people may see it as rediculous, but the people who are a part of this culture couldn't imagine doing anything other than this. There are some Jews who do not believe in God but still perform all the rituals associated with Judaism. It is a cultural thing.

[Bright Life]

It is not considered good form to bring up long dead threads. Please start a new thread if you have something to add to the topic. It is unfair to the posters of the old thread, as they may no longer be users of the forum, and therefore unable to respond.