Catholic Q & A

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

blacksheep, I like how you write. I think I’ll try it.

Stated,

“…(1-9) We have assurance of eternal life if we…”

The Catholic Church does not give full assurance of salvation by accepting Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior. That would be heresy along the lines of salvation by works (the work in question would be ACCEPTING Jesus). The Catholic Church holds salvation as a process, starting at the point of baptism, which, takes no works and just faith in the truths of the Catholic Church to receive that initial justification. After that point you are then to run the race that Jesus has forged ahead of us with perserverance and attempt to become like Jesus.

Any good work we do is not of our own power. I like to explain this through a story of my brother and me at the Christmas time. My brother asks me for money and I ask him, “what for?” He says, “to buy you a Christmas gift,” and I give him the money. Christmas comes around and I open up his gift and it’s the gift he bought for me with my money. I tell him thank you, but did he really get me that gift? No, I bought it with my money.

Same thing with God, when we do good works, we are not being obedient of God’s will by our own power, but the grace of God empowers us to follow his will. That is the reason for the sacraments, because we need to be full of God’s grace in order to follow and obey His will.

As well, from your statement “We have assurance of eternal life if we…” directly tells us that we only have salvation if we do something (list of stuff) that is God’s will.

202

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you saying all of those biblical examples are both/and? The sun standing still? Cutting off your hand to avoid being cast into hell? Straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel?[/quote]

No, I’m saying that the both has both figurative literature and direct literature.

The book of genesis is not a science or historical book, we have to look at it in context, other books are more historical. And we have to apply the four sense of reading scripture, the Bible is not straight forward as some of my protestant brothers like to say it is when studying the Bible.[/quote]

I agree, which is why I take Christ’s statement that the communion is his body and blood as figurative rather than literal. Not everything in the bible is literal, as illustrated by the examples we just discussed.

Out of curiosity though, what do Catholics believe happens when the communion becomes the blood and body of Christ? Exactly when does the transformation take place, and how long does it remain? For example, if you were to scientifically test the sacramental wine while it is still in the stomach of a believer, would it register as blood?

203

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
blacksheep, I like how you write. I think I’ll try it.

Stated,

“…(1-9) We have assurance of eternal life if we…”

The Catholic Church does not give full assurance of salvation by accepting Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior. That would be heresy along the lines of salvation by works (the work in question would be ACCEPTING Jesus). The Catholic Church holds salvation as a process, starting at the point of baptism, which, takes no works and just faith in the truths of the Catholic Church to receive that initial justification. After that point you are then to run the race that Jesus has forged ahead of us with perserverance and attempt to become like Jesus.

Any good work we do is not of our own power. I like to explain this through a story of my brother and me at the Christmas time. My brother asks me for money and I ask him, “what for?” He says, “to buy you a Christmas gift,” and I give him the money. Christmas comes around and I open up his gift and it’s the gift he bought for me with my money. I tell him thank you, but did he really get me that gift? No, I bought it with my money.

Same thing with God, when we do good works, we are not being obedient of God’s will by our own power, but the grace of God empowers us to follow his will. That is the reason for the sacraments, because we need to be full of God’s grace in order to follow and obey His will.

As well, from your statement “We have assurance of eternal life if we…” directly tells us that we only have salvation if we do something (list of stuff) that is God’s will.[/quote]

That’s not the way he writes, it’s cut-and-paste. Second, I would argue that accepting Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior for us is a foregone conclusion. If you are practicing the faith, not accepting Christ in this way will prove fruitless. But it’s part of the process and not the process itself.

204

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you saying all of those biblical examples are both/and? The sun standing still? Cutting off your hand to avoid being cast into hell? Straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel?[/quote]

No, I’m saying that the both has both figurative literature and direct literature.

The book of genesis is not a science or historical book, we have to look at it in context, other books are more historical. And we have to apply the four sense of reading scripture, the Bible is not straight forward as some of my protestant brothers like to say it is when studying the Bible.[/quote]

I agree, which is why I take Christ’s statement that the communion is his body and blood as figurative rather than literal. Not everything in the bible is literal, as illustrated by the examples we just discussed.

Out of curiosity though, what do Catholics believe happens when the communion becomes the blood and body of Christ? Exactly when does the transformation take place, and how long does it remain? For example, if you were to scientifically test the sacramental wine while it is still in the stomach of a believer, would it register as blood?[/quote]

Excellent questions…Sadly I would bet most Catholics don’t know the answer. I will present the layman’s version rather than cut and paste from the Catechism.
First, the last supper translations are very important when it comes to accuracy. I personally use the ESV translation which is the closest to the original language texts that I know of. In most translations Christ says:
“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this IS my body.’” ~ Mt 26:26

Same with the wine. Now unless you are Bill Clinton, ‘is’ means ‘is’. I would figure, that even to most protestants, the last supper discourse were not symbolic.

Now modern communion, the bread and wine are called the “hosts”, i.e. they are to host Christ’s presence. The properties of the bread and wine have to be like the original Passover celebrations.

The acquisition of the presence occurs during mass during the ‘Liturgy of the Eucharist’. The Christs presence is ‘called down’ (for lack of a better description) during the ‘Consecration’. The ritual in short is presenting the gifts at the alter, and then reviewing the Last Supper discourses during which the ‘Transubstantiation’ takes place. At that point, the bread and the wine have acquired the full presence of Christ.

Now the hosts loose the presence and the properties of the host disintegrate, so once the host gets digested it can no longer host Christ’s presence and ‘it’ goes back from whence it came. Same with the wine.

So if you spill the hosts they must be consumed. As in the case of wine, it must be diluted with pure water until there is nothing left of the wine, thus disabling the substance to host Christ.

The rituals are aikin to those of the OT regarding the Arc and the Bread of the Presence.

During apostolic times, ‘Mass’ as it came to be called was celebrated at people’s houses, especially because of the wide spread persecutions of Christians. I know of at least 2 occasions it being mentioned in Acts, though I cannot remember where (I don’t like to mark up my Bible). And in 1 Cor 11:18 - 26, you have Paul bitching out the Corinthians for having clicks, and misusing the “mass” and an excuse to feast and get drunk. They were naughty.

The process was formalized and ritualized to keep everybody on the same page and to keep people from doing what they want with it which as I am sure you know was a big problem in the early church.

Now as for testing ‘It’ for blood, this has happened on occasion that the ‘hosts’ became actual flesh and blood during the consecration. My brother has visited one of these “Eucharistic Miracles” in Portugal, there are a couple in Italy, etc. I don’t remember where exactely, but you can see them if you wanted to tour Europe.

205

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you saying all of those biblical examples are both/and? The sun standing still? Cutting off your hand to avoid being cast into hell? Straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel?[/quote]

No, I’m saying that the both has both figurative literature and direct literature.

The book of genesis is not a science or historical book, we have to look at it in context, other books are more historical. And we have to apply the four sense of reading scripture, the Bible is not straight forward as some of my protestant brothers like to say it is when studying the Bible.[/quote]

I agree, which is why I take Christ’s statement that the communion is his body and blood as figurative rather than literal. Not everything in the bible is literal, as illustrated by the examples we just discussed.

Out of curiosity though, what do Catholics believe happens when the communion becomes the blood and body of Christ? Exactly when does the transformation take place, and how long does it remain? For example, if you were to scientifically test the sacramental wine while it is still in the stomach of a believer, would it register as blood?[/quote]

Excellent questions…Sadly I would bet most Catholics don’t know the answer. I will present the layman’s version rather than cut and paste from the Catechism.
First, the last supper translations are very important when it comes to accuracy. I personally use the ESV translation which is the closest to the original language texts that I know of. In most translations Christ says:
“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this IS my body.’” ~ Mt 26:26

Same with the wine. Now unless you are Bill Clinton, ‘is’ means ‘is’. I would figure, that even to most protestants, the last supper discourse were not symbolic.

Now modern communion, the bread and wine are called the “hosts”, i.e. they are to host Christ’s presence. The properties of the bread and wine have to be like the original Passover celebrations.

The acquisition of the presence occurs during mass during the ‘Liturgy of the Eucharist’. The Christs presence is ‘called down’ (for lack of a better description) during the ‘Consecration’. The ritual in short is presenting the gifts at the alter, and then reviewing the Last Supper discourses during which the ‘Transubstantiation’ takes place. At that point, the bread and the wine have acquired the full presence of Christ.

Now the hosts loose the presence and the properties of the host disintegrate, so once the host gets digested it can no longer host Christ’s presence and ‘it’ goes back from whence it came. Same with the wine.

So if you spill the hosts they must be consumed. As in the case of wine, it must be diluted with pure water until there is nothing left of the wine, thus disabling the substance to host Christ.

The rituals are aikin to those of the OT regarding the Arc and the Bread of the Presence.

During apostolic times, ‘Mass’ as it came to be called was celebrated at people’s houses, especially because of the wide spread persecutions of Christians. I know of at least 2 occasions it being mentioned in Acts, though I cannot remember where (I don’t like to mark up my Bible). And in 1 Cor 11:18 - 26, you have Paul bitching out the Corinthians for having clicks, and misusing the “mass” and an excuse to feast and get drunk. They were naughty.

The process was formalized and ritualized to keep everybody on the same page and to keep people from doing what they want with it which as I am sure you know was a big problem in the early church.

Now as for testing ‘It’ for blood, this has happened on occasion that the ‘hosts’ became actual flesh and blood during the consecration. My brother has visited one of these “Eucharistic Miracles” in Portugal, there are a couple in Italy, etc. I don’t remember where exactely, but you can see them if you wanted to tour Europe.

[/quote]

I would add, as the host breaks down in your body, you become the vessel of Christ. You take Christ into your body and assume his presence. This is why it is a sin to receive the Eucharist while in a state of sin (i.e., before confession).

206

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you saying all of those biblical examples are both/and? The sun standing still? Cutting off your hand to avoid being cast into hell? Straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel?[/quote]

No, I’m saying that the both has both figurative literature and direct literature.

The book of genesis is not a science or historical book, we have to look at it in context, other books are more historical. And we have to apply the four sense of reading scripture, the Bible is not straight forward as some of my protestant brothers like to say it is when studying the Bible.[/quote]

I agree, which is why I take Christ’s statement that the communion is his body and blood as figurative rather than literal. Not everything in the bible is literal, as illustrated by the examples we just discussed.

Out of curiosity though, what do Catholics believe happens when the communion becomes the blood and body of Christ? Exactly when does the transformation take place, and how long does it remain? For example, if you were to scientifically test the sacramental wine while it is still in the stomach of a believer, would it register as blood?[/quote]

To understand the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you can observe other aspects of Chrisianity. If you are religious, you most likely believe you are made up of both a temporal body (which will rise from the dead) and a soul. When you die, your body remains on earth, but your soul is separated and goes to Heaven. If you test your body, it will still be a body, but it won’t contain a soul. During Mass, Jesus’s spirit becomes one with the host. If you test the host, it will still be the same bread and wine, but now it contains Jesus’s presence.

There are numerous books on the miracles of the Eucharist: from people making miraculous recoveries to the hosts bleeding when cut.

Also look at John 6:53. Jesus says we have to drink His blood and eat His flesh.

207

Thanks Pat. So what do you mean when you say the bread and wine acquire the full presence of Christ? Are you talking about a spiritual presence that isn’t reflected in the chemistry of the bread and wine?

Your last paragraph makes me think I’ve misunderstood the doctrine. You said that certain miracles have occurred where the bread and wine literally became flesh and blood, but does that mean you don’t believe this literal transformation happens every time?

208

[quote]forlife wrote:
Thanks Pat. So what do you mean when you say the bread and wine acquire the full presence of Christ? Are you talking about a spiritual presence that isn’t reflected in the chemistry of the bread and wine?

Your last paragraph makes me think I’ve misunderstood the doctrine. You said that certain miracles have occurred where the bread and wine literally became flesh and blood, but does that mean you don’t believe this literal transformation happens every time?[/quote]

When we die and our soul departs our body, our chemistry does not change. When we die, our bodies are simply incapable of containing the soul any longer. Like wise with the bread and the wine, they are containers for Christ until such time that the bread and the wine become transformed or diluted so they can no longer contain his presence. They are therefore, his body for they contain Him. Our bodies contain our spirit, those bodies contain his. They are his body because they contain him.

Yes, there are miricles of the Eucharist where the hosts have changed to flesh and blood. Heart tissue, living heart tissue. The blood was verified as belonging to a male in the low to mid thirties, but I forgot the blood type. I am going from memory…
The most famous is in Italy. They are still there and can be seen with your own two eyes. Europe ain’t like here, you can get right up close to this stuff. My brother has a picture kissing the monstrance of one of the miracle Eucharists’.

209

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you saying all of those biblical examples are both/and? The sun standing still? Cutting off your hand to avoid being cast into hell? Straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel?[/quote]

No, I’m saying that the both has both figurative literature and direct literature.

The book of genesis is not a science or historical book, we have to look at it in context, other books are more historical. And we have to apply the four sense of reading scripture, the Bible is not straight forward as some of my protestant brothers like to say it is when studying the Bible.[/quote]

I agree, which is why I take Christ’s statement that the communion is his body and blood as figurative rather than literal. Not everything in the bible is literal, as illustrated by the examples we just discussed.

Out of curiosity though, what do Catholics believe happens when the communion becomes the blood and body of Christ? Exactly when does the transformation take place, and how long does it remain? For example, if you were to scientifically test the sacramental wine while it is still in the stomach of a believer, would it register as blood?[/quote]

Excellent questions…Sadly I would bet most Catholics don’t know the answer. I will present the layman’s version rather than cut and paste from the Catechism.
First, the last supper translations are very important when it comes to accuracy. I personally use the ESV translation which is the closest to the original language texts that I know of. In most translations Christ says:
“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this IS my body.’” ~ Mt 26:26

Same with the wine. Now unless you are Bill Clinton, ‘is’ means ‘is’. I would figure, that even to most protestants, the last supper discourse were not symbolic.

Now modern communion, the bread and wine are called the “hosts”, i.e. they are to host Christ’s presence. The properties of the bread and wine have to be like the original Passover celebrations.

The acquisition of the presence occurs during mass during the ‘Liturgy of the Eucharist’. The Christs presence is ‘called down’ (for lack of a better description) during the ‘Consecration’. The ritual in short is presenting the gifts at the alter, and then reviewing the Last Supper discourses during which the ‘Transubstantiation’ takes place. At that point, the bread and the wine have acquired the full presence of Christ.

Now the hosts loose the presence and the properties of the host disintegrate, so once the host gets digested it can no longer host Christ’s presence and ‘it’ goes back from whence it came. Same with the wine.

So if you spill the hosts they must be consumed. As in the case of wine, it must be diluted with pure water until there is nothing left of the wine, thus disabling the substance to host Christ.

The rituals are aikin to those of the OT regarding the Arc and the Bread of the Presence.

During apostolic times, ‘Mass’ as it came to be called was celebrated at people’s houses, especially because of the wide spread persecutions of Christians. I know of at least 2 occasions it being mentioned in Acts, though I cannot remember where (I don’t like to mark up my Bible). And in 1 Cor 11:18 - 26, you have Paul bitching out the Corinthians for having clicks, and misusing the “mass” and an excuse to feast and get drunk. They were naughty.

The process was formalized and ritualized to keep everybody on the same page and to keep people from doing what they want with it which as I am sure you know was a big problem in the early church.

Now as for testing ‘It’ for blood, this has happened on occasion that the ‘hosts’ became actual flesh and blood during the consecration. My brother has visited one of these “Eucharistic Miracles” in Portugal, there are a couple in Italy, etc. I don’t remember where exactely, but you can see them if you wanted to tour Europe.

[/quote]

I would add, as the host breaks down in your body, you become the vessel of Christ. You take Christ into your body and assume his presence. This is why it is a sin to receive the Eucharist while in a state of sin (i.e., before confession).[/quote]

I need to look that up, my understanding is the presence departs but the indelible mark remains. My local deacon explained it that way, I just don’t know a good source. We become tabernacles temporarily, otherwise we’d only need to take communion one time ever. We’d be the Arc of the Covenant, so to speak.

If you have a link or something I’d like to see it. This is not easy info to find I am finding.

210

Ok, that makes a lot more sense now that you’ve explained it. I was under the impression that transubstantiation meant the literal physical transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, every time communion was conducted. Do some Catholics believe this, or is it generally understood to be as you’ve described it?

I was in Italy last Fall, and saw quite a few fascinating relics, including body parts of various Catholic saints.

211

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you saying all of those biblical examples are both/and? The sun standing still? Cutting off your hand to avoid being cast into hell? Straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel?[/quote]

No, I’m saying that the both has both figurative literature and direct literature.

The book of genesis is not a science or historical book, we have to look at it in context, other books are more historical. And we have to apply the four sense of reading scripture, the Bible is not straight forward as some of my protestant brothers like to say it is when studying the Bible.[/quote]

I agree, which is why I take Christ’s statement that the communion is his body and blood as figurative rather than literal. Not everything in the bible is literal, as illustrated by the examples we just discussed.
[/quote]

No, everything in the Bible is literal, there is two different meanings for different Christians though. There is the literal of the word, and there is a literal of the message. Of course there is everything in between, but we’ll start with the literal of the word. This is the idea that every word is as if it were in an academic historical, scientific, mathematic text book. The problem with this, besides the fact that those that attach themselves to this idea of interpretation don’t actually follow it 100%, is that words change. They change from today to tomorrow. Their connotation and denotation drastically changes over just twenty years, let alone in 1600 years. The distinction between the literal of the word and the literal of the message is this, the literal of the word takes into no consideration of anything else besides the literal meaning of that very word. They will have their dictionaries out reading the Bible, making sure that they understand fully what that very word means. And the literal meaning of the message is the historical/heavenly/moral/allegorical meaning of the text. Now, the books weren’t written in verses, it was just written. So you have sentences which are complete thoughts and paragraphs that are complete ideas and books that are sometimes a complete problem or problems. Another problem with the idea of literal meaning of the scripture is this, us being lower than God and God being infinitely higher, and Scriptures being that of the word of God, we don’t necessarily have the capacity to understand and interpret the Scriptures, only the one that inspired it, which is the Holy Ghost, does.

You can sit down with the Bible and read it and derive an interpretation of the Bible for your personal situation, maybe. However, to say you can pull out the doctrinal meaning of Scripture is different, no private person can, only the Holy Ghost. So that means that only those truly ordained with the Holy Ghost to teach are blessed with the ability to interpret the Bible for doctrinal use. That is why the Catholic Church holds to the fact that no one else can interpret the Bible except for the Catholic Church.

As well, I point out that Jesus asked those people to gnaw on his flesh and drink his blood, and people walked away for good reason. It is an insane command, if he was being figurative no one would have walked away, it is not a big deal to eat crackers and wine as a symbol for a feast, the Jews were eating the same meal already for the remembrance of the killing and passover of the first born sons in Egypt. No reason to walk away unless there was some outrageous command like to eat the the skin/meat of a man and drink his blood. This makes even more sense when you realise that in Rome there were pagan religions who committed human sacrifice and practiced cannibalism.

[quote]
Out of curiosity though, what do Catholics believe happens when the communion becomes the blood and body of Christ? Exactly when does the transformation take place, and how long does it remain? For example, if you were to scientifically test the sacramental wine while it is still in the stomach of a believer, would it register as blood?[/quote]

There is no transformation, there is a transubstantiation big difference (I’ll explain below), the former is a false teaching if I am not incorrect. The time in which the transubstantiation happens exactly is unknown, but it is guessed (theological hypothesis) to happen during the consecration or at the very end of it. It lasts until the host is the host.

The closest thing (which isn’t close at but is about as close as I can think of at the moment) in nature we have to this is petrified wood. You have a piece of wood, but now the substance is a stone material. It looks like wood, and feels like wood, but is stone. Now, I understand scientifically it is not really stone, but you get my drift. As well, the host is not merely turned into the blood and body of Christ, it is turned into the blood, body, soul and divinity of Christ.

Now, to the distinction between transformation and transubstantiation of the host (this probably should have been put up in front) is this, when Jesus was on the mountain he transformed his face was different, his closes were different, he was brighter, &c. Transubstantiation is the change of the substance not the form. So, if a host were to transform it would transform into…a duck or a steak or something.

Now, you asked about if it would register as blood if it were to be scientifically studied. I’ll explain something first, when the host is no longer recognizable as the host, it no longer holds the presence. Let me explain further, you have the wine and the crumbs from the unleavened bread after mass, now the priest puts that all in the cup and drinks it, well there is some wine still left at the bottom, you know that stuff that you just seem to never be able to get out of the cup. Well, the priest can’t fling that last drop of wine onto the ground in fear of it coming into something profane. So, the priest has to fill up the cup with water and dilute the water and the crumbs until they are no longer recognizable as the host and it can then be disposed of respectfully, this is usually done in a font somewhere in the church that has a pipe that goes straight into the ground so that 1) it won’t come into contact of anything profane and 2) so no one can desecrate the Lord.

So, I’m going to do some hypothesizing because I couldn’t find any solid information, when one consumes the Eucharist, the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord comes into the person, but once the host enters the stomach it will start to be diluted and digested and will no longer itself hold the presence, but the person will still have the presence of the Lord within them. So, to my understanding, no it would not register as the blood and flesh of a human.

That brings up another thing, has a host ever been found to have the medical characteristics of flesh and blood? Yes, there is a few Eucharist miracles were a host not only had transubstantiation happen during consecration, but it also transformed into the actual human blood and flesh of a human heart, conveniently the blood was atype O- blood.

212

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
blacksheep, I like how you write. I think I’ll try it.

Stated,

“…(1-9) We have assurance of eternal life if we…”

The Catholic Church does not give full assurance of salvation by accepting Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior. That would be heresy along the lines of salvation by works (the work in question would be ACCEPTING Jesus). The Catholic Church holds salvation as a process, starting at the point of baptism, which, takes no works and just faith in the truths of the Catholic Church to receive that initial justification. After that point you are then to run the race that Jesus has forged ahead of us with perserverance and attempt to become like Jesus.

Any good work we do is not of our own power. I like to explain this through a story of my brother and me at the Christmas time. My brother asks me for money and I ask him, “what for?” He says, “to buy you a Christmas gift,” and I give him the money. Christmas comes around and I open up his gift and it’s the gift he bought for me with my money. I tell him thank you, but did he really get me that gift? No, I bought it with my money.

Same thing with God, when we do good works, we are not being obedient of God’s will by our own power, but the grace of God empowers us to follow his will. That is the reason for the sacraments, because we need to be full of God’s grace in order to follow and obey His will.

As well, from your statement “We have assurance of eternal life if we…” directly tells us that we only have salvation if we do something (list of stuff) that is God’s will.[/quote]

That’s not the way he writes, it’s cut-and-paste. Second, I would argue that accepting Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior for us is a foregone conclusion. If you are practicing the faith, not accepting Christ in this way will prove fruitless. But it’s part of the process and not the process itself. [/quote]

Hallelujah, praise the Lord, Jesus! Gracious God, glory be Yours! Amen, the Angels are singing, can I get an amen? Preach it Brother pat! Process.

213

[quote]forlife wrote:
Ok, that makes a lot more sense now that you’ve explained it. I was under the impression that transubstantiation meant the literal physical transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, every time communion was conducted. Do some Catholics believe this, or is it generally understood to be as you’ve described it?

I was in Italy last Fall, and saw quite a few fascinating relics, including body parts of various Catholic saints.[/quote]

Catholics believe that the substance changes into the blood, body, soul, and divinity of Christ. If you look at the word transubstantiation (I love that word, makes me sound smart), trans of course means change, substan = substance, tion is action, so the substance changes, the form stays the same, however in some miracles both happen at the same time.

And, here is the link all about the Eucharist Miracles. I wish I could go to one this year.

214

Chris, it sounds like you believe the bread and wine are always chemically changed into the body and blood of Christ, but only until they are digested and lose the presence of Christ?

That is a little different from what Pat was saying, if I understand correctly.

So if you were to test the bread and wine after it was blessed, but before it was digested, would it show any measurable changes in physical composition compared to before it received the presence of Christ?

215

[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, it sounds like you believe the bread and wine are always chemically changed into the body and blood of Christ, but only until they are digested and lose the presence of Christ?

That is a little different from what Pat was saying, if I understand correctly.

So if you were to test the bread and wine after it was blessed, but before it was digested, would it show any measurable changes in physical composition compared to before it received the presence of Christ? [/quote]

No he said it correctly. He said the same thing, really. The bread become his body because he clothes himself in it. Same with the wine. If we could drive our spirit or soul or what ever you want to call it, the true you, in to a piece if bread on lieu of our bodies, then the bread would be our body. By putting his presence in the bread and wine he makes himself physically present.
So technically speaking, your body is where the physical object or space where the ‘you’ is. If you put your spirit in to a light pole, then that pole is your body. Jesus said he put his presence in the bread and wine when consecrated.
It may be all in my head, but I can ‘feel’ it when I walk in proximity of the tabernacle. On Good Friday when the Eucharist is removed from the church its seems much more like just another building…I can’t prove it’s not in my head though.

I like that word too, Catholics are the one true religion because we have the coolest words :wink:

216

[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, it sounds like you believe the bread and wine are always chemically changed into the body and blood of Christ, but only until they are digested and lose the presence of Christ?

That is a little different from what Pat was saying, if I understand correctly.

So if you were to test the bread and wine after it was blessed, but before it was digested, would it show any measurable changes in physical composition compared to before it received the presence of Christ? [/quote]

Sadly, many Catholics don’t understand the Eucharist either. They should as it is the cornerstone of our faith. The physical transformations are miracles.

217

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you saying all of those biblical examples are both/and? The sun standing still? Cutting off your hand to avoid being cast into hell? Straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel?[/quote]

No, I’m saying that the both has both figurative literature and direct literature.

The book of genesis is not a science or historical book, we have to look at it in context, other books are more historical. And we have to apply the four sense of reading scripture, the Bible is not straight forward as some of my protestant brothers like to say it is when studying the Bible.[/quote]

I agree, which is why I take Christ’s statement that the communion is his body and blood as figurative rather than literal. Not everything in the bible is literal, as illustrated by the examples we just discussed.
[/quote]

No, everything in the Bible is literal, there is two different meanings for different Christians though. There is the literal of the word, and there is a literal of the message. Of course there is everything in between, but we’ll start with the literal of the word. This is the idea that every word is as if it were in an academic historical, scientific, mathematic text book. The problem with this, besides the fact that those that attach themselves to this idea of interpretation don’t actually follow it 100%, is that words change. They change from today to tomorrow. Their connotation and denotation drastically changes over just twenty years, let alone in 1600 years. The distinction between the literal of the word and the literal of the message is this, the literal of the word takes into no consideration of anything else besides the literal meaning of that very word. They will have their dictionaries out reading the Bible, making sure that they understand fully what that very word means. And the literal meaning of the message is the historical/heavenly/moral/allegorical meaning of the text. Now, the books weren’t written in verses, it was just written. So you have sentences which are complete thoughts and paragraphs that are complete ideas and books that are sometimes a complete problem or problems. Another problem with the idea of literal meaning of the scripture is this, us being lower than God and God being infinitely higher, and Scriptures being that of the word of God, we don’t necessarily have the capacity to understand and interpret the Scriptures, only the one that inspired it, which is the Holy Ghost, does.

You can sit down with the Bible and read it and derive an interpretation of the Bible for your personal situation, maybe. However, to say you can pull out the doctrinal meaning of Scripture is different, no private person can, only the Holy Ghost. So that means that only those truly ordained with the Holy Ghost to teach are blessed with the ability to interpret the Bible for doctrinal use. That is why the Catholic Church holds to the fact that no one else can interpret the Bible except for the Catholic Church.

As well, I point out that Jesus asked those people to gnaw on his flesh and drink his blood, and people walked away for good reason. It is an insane command, if he was being figurative no one would have walked away, it is not a big deal to eat crackers and wine as a symbol for a feast, the Jews were eating the same meal already for the remembrance of the killing and passover of the first born sons in Egypt. No reason to walk away unless there was some outrageous command like to eat the the skin/meat of a man and drink his blood. This makes even more sense when you realise that in Rome there were pagan religions who committed human sacrifice and practiced cannibalism.

[quote]
Out of curiosity though, what do Catholics believe happens when the communion becomes the blood and body of Christ? Exactly when does the transformation take place, and how long does it remain? For example, if you were to scientifically test the sacramental wine while it is still in the stomach of a believer, would it register as blood?[/quote]

There is no transformation, there is a transubstantiation big difference (I’ll explain below), the former is a false teaching if I am not incorrect. The time in which the transubstantiation happens exactly is unknown, but it is guessed (theological hypothesis) to happen during the consecration or at the very end of it. It lasts until the host is the host.

The closest thing (which isn’t close at but is about as close as I can think of at the moment) in nature we have to this is petrified wood. You have a piece of wood, but now the substance is a stone material. It looks like wood, and feels like wood, but is stone. Now, I understand scientifically it is not really stone, but you get my drift. As well, the host is not merely turned into the blood and body of Christ, it is turned into the blood, body, soul and divinity of Christ.

Now, to the distinction between transformation and transubstantiation of the host (this probably should have been put up in front) is this, when Jesus was on the mountain he transformed his face was different, his closes were different, he was brighter, &c. Transubstantiation is the change of the substance not the form. So, if a host were to transform it would transform into…a duck or a steak or something.

Now, you asked about if it would register as blood if it were to be scientifically studied. I’ll explain something first, when the host is no longer recognizable as the host, it no longer holds the presence. Let me explain further, you have the wine and the crumbs from the unleavened bread after mass, now the priest puts that all in the cup and drinks it, well there is some wine still left at the bottom, you know that stuff that you just seem to never be able to get out of the cup. Well, the priest can’t fling that last drop of wine onto the ground in fear of it coming into something profane. So, the priest has to fill up the cup with water and dilute the water and the crumbs until they are no longer recognizable as the host and it can then be disposed of respectfully, this is usually done in a font somewhere in the church that has a pipe that goes straight into the ground so that 1) it won’t come into contact of anything profane and 2) so no one can desecrate the Lord.

So, I’m going to do some hypothesizing because I couldn’t find any solid information, when one consumes the Eucharist, the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord comes into the person, but once the host enters the stomach it will start to be diluted and digested and will no longer itself hold the presence, but the person will still have the presence of the Lord within them. So, to my understanding, no it would not register as the blood and flesh of a human.

That brings up another thing, has a host ever been found to have the medical characteristics of flesh and blood? Yes, there is a few Eucharist miracles were a host not only had transubstantiation happen during consecration, but it also transformed into the actual human blood and flesh of a human heart, conveniently the blood was atype O- blood.[/quote]

I asked our very well versed deacon who said that the Presence goes back to Christ once the host is no longer holds the properties of being the host. Next time I see him I will confirm and also ask him where he got the info.
It makes sense though, if we were to assume the presence of Christ as the Eucharist does we’d never need to take communion again, just once would be sufficient.

218

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, it sounds like you believe the bread and wine are always chemically changed into the body and blood of Christ, but only until they are digested and lose the presence of Christ?

That is a little different from what Pat was saying, if I understand correctly.

So if you were to test the bread and wine after it was blessed, but before it was digested, would it show any measurable changes in physical composition compared to before it received the presence of Christ? [/quote]

No he said it correctly. He said the same thing, really. The bread become his body because he clothes himself in it. Same with the wine. If we could drive our spirit or soul or what ever you want to call it, the true you, in to a piece if bread on lieu of our bodies, then the bread would be our body. By putting his presence in the bread and wine he makes himself physically present.
So technically speaking, your body is where the physical object or space where the ‘you’ is. If you put your spirit in to a light pole, then that pole is your body. Jesus said he put his presence in the bread and wine when consecrated.
It may be all in my head, but I can ‘feel’ it when I walk in proximity of the tabernacle. On Good Friday when the Eucharist is removed from the church its seems much more like just another building…I can’t prove it’s not in my head though.

I like that word too, Catholics are the one true religion because we have the coolest words :wink:
[/quote]

Ok, if that’s what he’s saying it makes sense to me. I thought he was arguing that a physical change took place in the bread and water, until it was diluted or digested. If the belief is more that the bread and wine remain physically the same (i.e., the body) but are spiritually transubstantiated through the presence of Christ, I can see why you wouldn’t notice any chemical changes as a result of the bread and water hosting the divine presence.

219

[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, it sounds like you believe the bread and wine are always chemically changed into the body and blood of Christ, but only until they are digested and lose the presence of Christ?

That is a little different from what Pat was saying, if I understand correctly.

So if you were to test the bread and wine after it was blessed, but before it was digested, would it show any measurable changes in physical composition compared to before it received the presence of Christ? [/quote]

No, bread and wine has to be consecrated not blessed, I get my bread and wine blessed around thanksgiving and Christmas, however at the altar they consecrate it bringing the true presence of Christ into the hosts.

220

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you saying all of those biblical examples are both/and? The sun standing still? Cutting off your hand to avoid being cast into hell? Straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel?[/quote]

No, I’m saying that the both has both figurative literature and direct literature.

The book of genesis is not a science or historical book, we have to look at it in context, other books are more historical. And we have to apply the four sense of reading scripture, the Bible is not straight forward as some of my protestant brothers like to say it is when studying the Bible.[/quote]

I agree, which is why I take Christ’s statement that the communion is his body and blood as figurative rather than literal. Not everything in the bible is literal, as illustrated by the examples we just discussed.
[/quote]

No, everything in the Bible is literal, there is two different meanings for different Christians though. There is the literal of the word, and there is a literal of the message. Of course there is everything in between, but we’ll start with the literal of the word. This is the idea that every word is as if it were in an academic historical, scientific, mathematic text book. The problem with this, besides the fact that those that attach themselves to this idea of interpretation don’t actually follow it 100%, is that words change. They change from today to tomorrow. Their connotation and denotation drastically changes over just twenty years, let alone in 1600 years. The distinction between the literal of the word and the literal of the message is this, the literal of the word takes into no consideration of anything else besides the literal meaning of that very word. They will have their dictionaries out reading the Bible, making sure that they understand fully what that very word means. And the literal meaning of the message is the historical/heavenly/moral/allegorical meaning of the text. Now, the books weren’t written in verses, it was just written. So you have sentences which are complete thoughts and paragraphs that are complete ideas and books that are sometimes a complete problem or problems. Another problem with the idea of literal meaning of the scripture is this, us being lower than God and God being infinitely higher, and Scriptures being that of the word of God, we don’t necessarily have the capacity to understand and interpret the Scriptures, only the one that inspired it, which is the Holy Ghost, does.

You can sit down with the Bible and read it and derive an interpretation of the Bible for your personal situation, maybe. However, to say you can pull out the doctrinal meaning of Scripture is different, no private person can, only the Holy Ghost. So that means that only those truly ordained with the Holy Ghost to teach are blessed with the ability to interpret the Bible for doctrinal use. That is why the Catholic Church holds to the fact that no one else can interpret the Bible except for the Catholic Church.

As well, I point out that Jesus asked those people to gnaw on his flesh and drink his blood, and people walked away for good reason. It is an insane command, if he was being figurative no one would have walked away, it is not a big deal to eat crackers and wine as a symbol for a feast, the Jews were eating the same meal already for the remembrance of the killing and passover of the first born sons in Egypt. No reason to walk away unless there was some outrageous command like to eat the the skin/meat of a man and drink his blood. This makes even more sense when you realise that in Rome there were pagan religions who committed human sacrifice and practiced cannibalism.

[quote]
Out of curiosity though, what do Catholics believe happens when the communion becomes the blood and body of Christ? Exactly when does the transformation take place, and how long does it remain? For example, if you were to scientifically test the sacramental wine while it is still in the stomach of a believer, would it register as blood?[/quote]

There is no transformation, there is a transubstantiation big difference (I’ll explain below), the former is a false teaching if I am not incorrect. The time in which the transubstantiation happens exactly is unknown, but it is guessed (theological hypothesis) to happen during the consecration or at the very end of it. It lasts until the host is the host.

The closest thing (which isn’t close at but is about as close as I can think of at the moment) in nature we have to this is petrified wood. You have a piece of wood, but now the substance is a stone material. It looks like wood, and feels like wood, but is stone. Now, I understand scientifically it is not really stone, but you get my drift. As well, the host is not merely turned into the blood and body of Christ, it is turned into the blood, body, soul and divinity of Christ.

Now, to the distinction between transformation and transubstantiation of the host (this probably should have been put up in front) is this, when Jesus was on the mountain he transformed his face was different, his closes were different, he was brighter, &c. Transubstantiation is the change of the substance not the form. So, if a host were to transform it would transform into…a duck or a steak or something.

Now, you asked about if it would register as blood if it were to be scientifically studied. I’ll explain something first, when the host is no longer recognizable as the host, it no longer holds the presence. Let me explain further, you have the wine and the crumbs from the unleavened bread after mass, now the priest puts that all in the cup and drinks it, well there is some wine still left at the bottom, you know that stuff that you just seem to never be able to get out of the cup. Well, the priest can’t fling that last drop of wine onto the ground in fear of it coming into something profane. So, the priest has to fill up the cup with water and dilute the water and the crumbs until they are no longer recognizable as the host and it can then be disposed of respectfully, this is usually done in a font somewhere in the church that has a pipe that goes straight into the ground so that 1) it won’t come into contact of anything profane and 2) so no one can desecrate the Lord.

So, I’m going to do some hypothesizing because I couldn’t find any solid information, when one consumes the Eucharist, the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord comes into the person, but once the host enters the stomach it will start to be diluted and digested and will no longer itself hold the presence, but the person will still have the presence of the Lord within them. So, to my understanding, no it would not register as the blood and flesh of a human.

That brings up another thing, has a host ever been found to have the medical characteristics of flesh and blood? Yes, there is a few Eucharist miracles were a host not only had transubstantiation happen during consecration, but it also transformed into the actual human blood and flesh of a human heart, conveniently the blood was atype O- blood.[/quote]

I asked our very well versed deacon who said that the Presence goes back to Christ once the host is no longer holds the properties of being the host. Next time I see him I will confirm and also ask him where he got the info.
It makes sense though, if we were to assume the presence of Christ as the Eucharist does we’d never need to take communion again, just once would be sufficient.[/quote]

No, not the same as the bread and wine, that is ridiculous, that would have to mean that we were God.