Transubstanciation Questions

[Invictus ChiKen]

Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense in a religious context to consider it symbolic only? Why did the catholic church evolve this philosophy?

Mostly because when Jesus first stated "He that does not eat my flesh and drink my blood has no life in him"

After hearing this a load of people with him took off and Jesus didn't go "Hey you idiots! I am speaking metaphorically. As a remeberance!"

Instead he turned to Peter and the apostles and said "Will you leave over this also?"

This view point can be traced all the way back to the time of th Apostles they had writings that never made it into the Bible like the Diadoche (spelling?) which was the earliest document on how to run the church an what the basic beliefs were.

[Bounty]

Bluntly, the bread doesn't turn into flesh as much as Jesus' flesh takes on the physical properties of bread while still being his living body. It's "we say so" physics.

In other words, it is a symbolic ritual of rememberance, except they use a lot of words to say this

Symbolic to the outside observer. To the catholic, it's a miracle.

[Darth Wong]

Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense in a religious context to consider it symbolic only? Why did the catholic church evolve this philosophy?

Because the early church fathers were ignorant morons who couldn't see why it was so stupid, and Catholics today are morons for still revering them.

[Kitsune]

Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense in a religious context to consider it symbolic only? Why did the catholic church evolve this philosophy?

Mostly because when Jesus first stated "He that does not eat my flesh and drink my blood has no life in him"

After hearing this a load of people with him took off and Jesus didn't go "Hey you idiots! I am speaking metaphorically. As a remeberance!"

Instead he turned to Peter and the apostles and said "Will you leave over this also?"

This view point can be traced all the way back to the time of th Apostles they had writings that never made it into the Bible like the Diadoche (spelling?) which was the earliest document on how to run the church an what the basic beliefs were.

Curious, what are the exact passages so I( can see how the different wording is in different English translations

Also, does anyone know if there are any nuances in the Greek version which are lost into English

[Surlethe]

Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense in a religious context to consider it symbolic only? Why did the catholic church evolve this philosophy?

Chances are that early Christianity took it from other mystery cults of the time, and then once the religion started crystallizing -- between AD 100 and 300 -- the eucharist was the central ceremony of Christianity. It actually hasn't been considered symbolic until after the Protestant reformation. That's relatively recent; in perspective, for 75% of the history of Christianity, transsubstantiation has been accepted generally without question.

There are probably two linked reasons you consider it natural, from a religious perspective, to think of the eucharist as symbolic. First, I'm betting you grew up in a Protestant culture, where communion is symbolic, so it wasn't pounded into you from birth that host is Jesus. Second, since you haven't been indoctrinated and you have at the very least a rudimentary scientific mindset, you recognize that it makes no sense.

For all its worship of the Bible and inconsistency with early Christianity, at least Protestantism doesn't violate reason as flagrantly as the Catholic eucharist. Part of this is because the RCC is so extremely conservative, the basic ritual hasn't significantly changed for two millennia (Vatican II revisions aside). In a sense, it's like a time machine, letting you look back at how early Christianity practiced. If you're not raised in it, it's probably more jarring than entering a Protestant worship service because you're literally entering a relic of a two-thousand-year-old culture.

[Kanastrous]

The concept of the Elect isn't a flagrant violation of reason?

[Invictus ChiKen]

Curious, what are the exact passages so I( can see how the different wording is in different English translations

Also, does anyone know if there are any nuances in the Greek version which are lost into English

Ask and ye shall recieve. John 6: 51-69. However it isn't like they told me in RCIA

51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64
But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65
And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"
68
Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."

[Metatwaddle]

The concept of the Elect isn't a flagrant violation of reason?

No, it's a flagrant violation of compassion.

[Kitsune]

Ask and ye shall recieve. John 6: 51-69. However it isn't like they told me in RCIA

Thanks....strange passage...makes me think of Jim Jones for some reason

[Omeganian]

I wonder how he managed to say that to a group of people with a strict taboo on eating anything containing blood.

[Darth Wong]

I can never even discuss this topic without wanting to laugh my ass off at the fact that they actually have an important-sounding term like "transubstantiation" to describe such an idiotic idea.

[PeZook]

Symbolic to the outside observer. To the catholic, it's a miracle.

Only because he has been conditioned from childhood not to think about the concept too much.

The explanation itself does basically say it's symbolic: "The physical properties of the waffle don't change, it's the intangible, spiritual properties that change! It's both a wafer and Christ's flesh!"

What can this mean other than symbolism? As far as I know, Catholics don't consider inanimate objects to have souls...

I can never even discuss this topic without wanting to laugh my ass off at the fact that they actually have an important-sounding term like "transubstantiation" to describe such an idiotic idea.

It's just momentum, typical for the catholic church. They came up with a horribly stupid idea in a time when 90% of humanity couldn't even read, and since Catholic doctrine worries about preserving tradition, they started rationalizing it using long-winded explanations based on the ideas of outdated philosophers. After all, if they just said "Hey, it's a symbol, okay?" then they couldn't sound all important and shit, and everyone would know the Fathers Of The Church were wrong on something.

God forbid.

[Metatwaddle]

Reading that bit from John, I now realize where the Catholics get the transubstantiation thing, but I don't understand how anyone can possibly read that and take it literally. I thought the Protestants (minus Anglicans) were more prone to silly literalism like that, not the Catholics.

[Winston Blake]

The idea that the bread and wine magically morph into flesh and blood - actual, independently verifiable flesh and blood - is a massive red herring.

It's also boring. It's much more interesting to speculate about vast organ cloning facilities in heaven linked to multi-story power-humming teleportation rigs. Vats of floating bone marrow producing an endless supply of blood cells; spongy masses of homogenised human tissue growing inch by inch every day. Angels labouring for eternity, clad in stained protective gear, siphoning off crimson fluid and carefully shaving off slices of quivering flesh. All to feed the growling forcefield furnaces of the eucharist-o-porters. All in the service of the Most High.

Actually I have been reading about WH40k recently, why do you ask?

[Themightytom]

The idea that the bread and wine magically morph into flesh and blood - actual, independently verifiable flesh and blood - is a massive red herring.

It's also boring. It's much more interesting to speculate about vast organ cloning facilities in heaven linked to multi-story power-humming teleportation rigs. Vats of floating bone marrow producing an endless supply of blood cells; spongy masses of homogenised human tissue growing inch by inch every day. Angels labouring for eternity, clad in stained protective gear, siphoning off crimson fluid and carefully shaving off slices of quivering flesh. All to feed the growling forcefield furnaces of the eucharist-o-porters. All in the service of the Most High.

Well if they are porting flesh and blood to replace breadd and wine there must be an equally astounding scene somewhere of preople being forecefed crappy bread and wine.

Reading that bit from John, I now realize where the Catholics get the transubstantiation thing, but I don't understand how anyone can possibly read that and take it literally. I thought the Protestants (minus Anglicans) were more prone to silly literalism like that, not the Catholics.

Funcationally speaking it is genius. Every time you go to mass, you participate in a miracle in a group setting. Adults explain it to children, newbies have it explained by their friends, and it is essentially a peer pressure environment that contributes to your inclusion of miracles and by extension the supernatural into your mindset. This event is preceded and followed by continual repetitions of devotion to the faith, acceptance of the interpretation that you have stated is silly etc. That is probably why it reminds kitsune of Jim Jones. Also obviously because wine remonds him of kool-Aid.

[Themightytom]

I thought of a new explanation! Jesus resides within us all as a string of genetic material that was supernaturally introduced trhough Mary's immaculate conception. in the generations between now and then this genetic material has been distributed throughout the human population.

When the priest touches the bread, he is losing skin cells that carry this material into the porus wafers he is handing out, thus we are ingesting genetic material that can be traced back to Jesus. And the wine well we all know what backwash is and there are minute traces of DNA in saliva.


Hitler didn't have children did he?

But nseriously yeah this is why we stick "Its a GLORIOUS mystery!" as an explanation. Anything else sounds either implausible or unhygenic

[Melchior]

I can never even discuss this topic without wanting to laugh my ass off at the fact that they actually have an important-sounding term like "transubstantiation" to describe such an idiotic idea.

It gets worse. The competing idea (consubstantiation) was basically more irrationalistic drivel that roughly stated that the bread and wine continued, in their deep essence, to be bread and wine even when they were, in they deep essence, Jesus.

[Melchior]

I thought of a new explanation! Jesus resides within us all as a string of genetic material that was supernaturally introduced trhough Mary's immaculate conception. in the generations between now and then this genetic material has been distributed throughout the human population.

Actually, Mary was immaculately conceived (i.e., she was born without the burden of the original sin and not needing to be baptised) according to the dogma, Jesus sidestepped the problem by being the son of God.
The above is notable because it is the first and one of the very few instances in which papal infallibility was ritually claimed. In the year of the Lord 1854, laughably.

[Surlethe]

Reading that bit from John, I now realize where the Catholics get the transubstantiation thing, but I don't understand how anyone can possibly read that and take it literally. I thought the Protestants (minus Anglicans) were more prone to silly literalism like that, not the Catholics.

The joke is that it's the one part of the Bible where Catholics are more literal than fundamentalists. As for why it's read literally, it's simply a difference in mindset. Protestant fundamentalists start with the literality of the Bible and try to construct their worldview as a deductive system from it, much like how mathematics can be derived from a basic axiom system. It's an artifact of the Reformation: once the Catholic Church lost its accepted authority in matters of faith, Protestants had nowhere to turn but the Bible. Hence, sola scriptura.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is an entirely different bag of cats. It does not approach constructing theology solely from the Bible; instead, it is actually far more arrogant: it constructs its theology from its own proclamations of doctrine. Of those proclamations of doctrine, transsubstantiation is quite simply central. Therefore, in its interpretation of scripture, the Church has far less leeway than in, say, heliocentrism.

One more thing to bear in mind: the Catholic Church and belief in transsubstantiation actually both predate the Bible. It's no surprise that there are indicators in the Bible of the doctrine. At the same time, the Bible is not the only source of Catholic beliefs; it's more like a mixed source and repository. In some sense, it's another conservative influence on a conservative institution; like the Nicene Creed, it is an artifact of beliefs in 300 AD which functions to slow the change away from those beliefs.

Edit: wording

[Themightytom]

I thought of a new explanation! Jesus resides within us all as a string of genetic material that was supernaturally introduced trhough Mary's immaculate conception. in the generations between now and then this genetic material has been distributed throughout the human population.

Actually, Mary was immaculately conceived (i.e., she was born without the burden of the original sin and not needing to be baptised) according to the dogma, Jesus sidestepped the problem by being the son of God.
The above is notable because it is the first and one of the very few instances in which papal infallibility was ritually claimed. In the year of the Lord 1854, laughably.

"conception" in the infintive sense as I used it could have been interpreted either as the concception OF Mary or the conception THROUGH Mary. I intended it as THROUGH Mary, as an example of how supernatural DNA was introduced into the human Gene pool.

Mary was immaculately conceived, but she had two genetic parents. She was forgiven the original sin so taht God could then use her as the vessel to give birth to jesus. The conception of Mary is not relative to my case for any reason other than it allowed God to use her as a vessel through which to introduce SuperDNA which we could ingest thousand of years later in Communion.

Don't debunk my crazytalk, I'm trying to generate a following here, I've discovered the tax benefits to saving a cult. If I can successfiully generate a large following based on my Personal Whim I will be able to further discredit Catholicism. And write off my expenses.

[Themightytom]

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is an entirely different bag of cats. It does not approach constructing theology solely from the Bible; instead, it is actually far more arrogant: it constructs its theology from its own proclamations of doctrine

What??? How dare they! Who died and put THEM in charge of everything!!

Oh Right HIM...

"I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you prohibit on earth will have been prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will have been permitted in heaven."
mathew 16:19

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah, the Catholic Church declaring the Pope infallible is substantially less offensive to sanity than the Protestants declaring a book infallible. The book is a permanent, fixed, unchanging quantity which is contradictory, whereas the Pope at least has a theoretical possibility of not contradicting himself. *grins*

[Kanastrous]

Really, it's just another facet of the same overall game: show us you're subservient by rejecting consensus-reality and substituting ours.

[Metatwaddle]

The joke is that it's the one part of the Bible where Catholics are more literal than fundamentalists. As for why it's read literally, it's simply a difference in mindset. Protestant fundamentalists start with the literality of the Bible and try to construct their worldview as a deductive system from it, much like how mathematics can be derived from a basic axiom system. It's an artifact of the Reformation: once the Catholic Church lost its accepted authority in matters of faith, Protestants had nowhere to turn but the Bible. Hence, sola scriptura.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is an entirely different bag of cats. It does not approach constructing theology solely from the Bible; instead, it is actually far more arrogant: it constructs its theology from its own proclamations of doctrine. Of those proclamations of doctrine, transsubstantiation is quite simply central. Therefore, in its interpretation of scripture, the Church has far less leeway than in, say, heliocentrism.

Interesting. But I think most Protestants don't take that part of the Bible literally - even Luther, who AFAIK was quite the literalist, rejected transubstantiation. I guess I'm not mystified by the Catholics' acceptance of transubstantiation as the Protestants' rejection of it. Normally everything is literal for them.

One more thing to bear in mind: the Catholic Church and belief in transsubstantiation actually both predate the Bible. It's no surprise that there are indicators in the Bible of the doctrine. At the same time, the Bible is not the only source of Catholic beliefs; it's more like a mixed source and repository. In some sense, it's another conservative influence on a conservative institution; like the Nicene Creed, it is an artifact of beliefs in 300 AD which functions to slow the change away from those beliefs.

The church predates the Gospel of John? I was under the impression that the Gospel of John was written sometime between 50 and 100 AD. That seems early for the Catholic Church to exist, let alone have an established belief in transubstantiation.

[Surlethe]

Interesting. But I think most Protestants don't take that part of the Bible literally - even Luther, who AFAIK was quite the literalist, rejected transubstantiation. I guess I'm not mystified by the Catholics' acceptance of transubstantiation as the Protestants' rejection of it. Normally everything is literal for them.

I had thought that Luther accepted transubstantiation. Maybe I'm thinking of reverence of Mary. In any case, I'm not sure why Protestants rejected it; I'll mull that while I'm mowing here in a few minutes. I'll also ask Rachel to see if she has any insight.

The church predates the Gospel of John? I was under the impression that the Gospel of John was written sometime between 50 and 100 AD. That seems early for the Catholic Church to exist, let alone have an established belief in transubstantiation.

The church doesn't necessarily predate any individual documents that are in the Bible, but it does predate the collection of those documents into the Bible and the acceptance of the Bible as inerrant and holy. The canon of the Bible was pretty much set in the Council of Carthage around 300, IIRC; by that time, the church's beliefs and traditions were pretty much set. Therefore, there is a substantial selection bias in the Bible: purportedly historical documents proliferated as Christianity flourished and evolved in the Hellenic world; the dominant variation, Catholicism, essentially got to pick and choose from among them which ones it wanted to accept as divinely inspired and which ones were not. (As an aside, this is a good reason why the New Testament is not to be entirely trusted as a historical document.)

By the way, transubstantiation was accepted in practice as early as 110: link.