Another deliberate untruth, and insulting everybody's intelligence
Ditto
The Body and Blood
- Thread starter RJM
- Start date
One .. I have not compared the eucharist to a sausage.
Two .. I HAVE apologised for causing offence.
I think you know why I'm still in this thread.
It is quite clear to me, that you do not like the idea of a Catholic sub-forum.
The pretence of encourging "Interfaith discussion" is just a smoke-screen for Catholics to sit in the "Chrsitianity forum"
and claim that they are insulted by other people, and that they should tread lightly as Catholics are in the majority, imo.
As I've already said, you can please yourselves, but you won't find me discussing anything with you.
It's a loaded dice!
Last edited:
Biblical. When last did you open a Bible?
Another deliberate untruth. The thread is titled the body and blood. In your first response you said:
Then later you said:
Do you think Catholics alone are insulted?
It seems to me, that vegans wouldn't be insulted. I'm sure that there are plenty of vegan Christians around. No!
This is how I see it.
RJM Corbet: starts a thread on "Body and blood"
Muhammad Isa: says he doesn't like the idea of drinking blood
RJM Corbet: doesn't like the tone of the comment and starts a flame war
You and I were raised with different ideas. Some Christians consider eating bodies and drinking blood as sacred.
Others do not.
The same applies to the topic of "Jesus is G-d". Some Christians consider it sacred .. others do not.
..whatever
Last edited:
Nobody is drinking blood. Christ offered His body and blood as bread and wine at the last supper. You didn't even know the story, until I posted the gospel passages, then you did not acknowledge them.
It is deliberate misunderstanding. It is a deliberate warping of the truth and a disgraceful level of debate from a continuously disingenuous poster that brings down the level of the whole IO site, imo
But that's just me ... others can debate with you, I have no more to say to you
It is deliberate misunderstanding. It is a deliberate warping of the truth and a disgraceful level of debate from a continuously disingenuous poster that brings down the level of the whole IO site, imo
But that's just me ... others can debate with you, I have no more to say to you
No .. sad isn't it. I think you want to sit here by yourself. What happened to @PricelessPearl and others?
Check out Religiousforums.com .. it is very active. They have many sub-forums, and it works well.
Bye
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
Well I think self-sacrifice is something that is recognized by people of all faiths, agnostics also, and atheists (being a believer, I would also include angels here, as I think they are being taught by it and are actually amazed at humans from time to time). Self-sacrifice is the highest form of love that we can know in this realm (our present mortal distress).
It is realizing, that in the end, you are bankrupt and have nothing left to give but yourself. In Christianity the old widow only had a mite, and that was everything she had. But that didn't stop her, she threw it in anyway. It was said however, that she gave more than all the rest.
The heart or spirit recognizes love in self-sacrifice wherever it is found, and it can move the hardest of hearts, breaking right through all the walls we have erected in order to defend ourselves from... love? Yes, love, because love makes you vulnerable. The defenses are down and there you are helpless and waiting for the death blow that you think must come.
It is realizing, that in the end, you are bankrupt and have nothing left to give but yourself. In Christianity the old widow only had a mite, and that was everything she had. But that didn't stop her, she threw it in anyway. It was said however, that she gave more than all the rest.
The heart or spirit recognizes love in self-sacrifice wherever it is found, and it can move the hardest of hearts, breaking right through all the walls we have erected in order to defend ourselves from... love? Yes, love, because love makes you vulnerable. The defenses are down and there you are helpless and waiting for the death blow that you think must come.
Perhaps a person responding on a dedicated board could be expected to have a reasonably passing understanding of the religion/scripture in question -- or at least be able to accept information about it?
There is plenty of disinformation on the internet. The Catholic church is a popular target for it. A site like this is in a fortunate position of being able to correct it and explain the reality. When someone consistently ignores that, and continues to spread the same old 'fake news' they arrived with -- that is deliberately disingenuous misunderstanding, imo
It is this that is objectionable, and not a person having a different faith or religion
It is this that is objectionable, and not a person having a different faith or religion
Just a couple of points for our general audience ...
The Christian Board does not assume a de facto belief in or allegiance to a Catholic/Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist.
Having said that, generally the vast majority of Christians believe in 'communion' in one form or another, the Catholic/Orthodox being the most 'mystical' interpretation.
The Christian Board does not assume a de facto belief in or allegiance to a Catholic/Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist.
Having said that, generally the vast majority of Christians believe in 'communion' in one form or another, the Catholic/Orthodox being the most 'mystical' interpretation.
I wonder.why, if you found everything you need.there why you chose to come raise hell here?
I have related before that as a child communion was always a thing that I didn't participate in. Did I wasn't invited to participate in. That was done with the club that I didn't join and wasn't part of that club. We went to Catholic weddings and occasional masses because we were visiting Catholic friends or relatives. So when I was older and went to a church that had communion oh, I still sat there just like I always did oh, cuz I wasn't part of that club.
But when the preacher got up and discussed what communion was and this is obviously not totally the Catholic View, she discussed community. She discussed the taking communion was an indication that as a group we agreed on something oh, that we were part of something. That resonated because I wasn't Catholic or I was an Episcopalian and I didn't take part in the Eucharist. It also resonated because I was in a church where I did agree with much of what was said and I did feel like part of the community and I did feel like I wanted to identify as such.
But there I sat in my chair, because she gave the explanation after the communion. I don't see how it's that much different than an Irish toast everybody raising a glass and drinking their drink in memory of somebody or to highlight an event. Am I saying that I am not trying to diminish what the Eucharist means to Catholics in any way shape or form oh, I just see the similarity. I have also been to two Services where at the end they stand in a circle and break the challah bread and pass around the cup of wine oh, the tradition that Jesus did at the Last Supper.
The Catholics have their tradition of that event, the Jews have their tradition that is similar to me, but of course as I said a toast in a bar is also us Gathering Together and raising a glass to a common cause a common belief in that moment.
OK .. I concede.
As @Thomas says, the vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus is G-d and the eucharist is sacred.
Again, as the majority of people see Muslims as "non-Christians", I am not particularly welcome in this section.
I therefore will not enter this section in the future. It is a promise.
@muhammad_isa it sometimes takes a bit for others to realize how to play nice in our group...the sandboxed allow groups.to discuss nuances within a belief system to argue and discuss nuances particular to their faith. (There is a reason there are.thoudands of.denominations of Christianity...they don't all agree on everything.)
I take the above post as a step in tje right direction...however.it IS appropriate for all to play in other.sandboxes! Knowing you come in respectful, as an insider, hat in hand looking for.clarification and understanding. Asking questions (not pointed ones with an agenda to trip up or discredit) or.cause.altercations like you.and 123.got into.
I hope you have gained an understanding of how to play in our sandbox (they.are NOT litter.boxes, the mods want to play too, not just hold.their nose and clean out poo)
I take the above post as a step in tje right direction...however.it IS appropriate for all to play in other.sandboxes! Knowing you come in respectful, as an insider, hat in hand looking for.clarification and understanding. Asking questions (not pointed ones with an agenda to trip up or discredit) or.cause.altercations like you.and 123.got into.
I hope you have gained an understanding of how to play in our sandbox (they.are NOT litter.boxes, the mods want to play too, not just hold.their nose and clean out poo)
I have seen Catholic priests invite those 'who feel so moved' to come and celebrate the Eucharist, and he wasn't struck down where he stood! Pretty sure that's not according to Canon Law, though.
Again, when a family friend was serving as a missionary in Uganda (before they were thrown out), he was working with the Karamajong (phonetic spelling, they were a Masai people), he converted the chieftain, his wives, and married him to them, on the basis that polygamy was Masai cultural practice, and he saw a distinction between culture and the sacred. Again, in contravention of Canon Law.
And this is why we are here, imo
Here's the thing ...
... I wanted to reply to @muhammad_isa's implied idea that Catholics are, in effect, cannibals. It's not the first time that's been said, indeed, it's been said to me before now.
So I thought I'd post on the matter.
Rather than a long, laborious essay in defence of the Doctrine of the Eucharist (and it would be long), I'm trying a different tack ... a series of posts, thoughts on the topic, bits I've picked up here and there ... so rather than a long lecture, a series of paragraphs which may have only a tenuous connection to each other, but under the general topic ... hopefully these might trigger debate ...
... and to those anonymous witnesses we are always mindful of at IO, please, please do post a comment, even if only to say "I read this ..."
I'm thinking of numbering the paragraphs, so if anyone wants to discuss a particular point, we can say "Regarding P1" (I know posts are numbered, but I'm just trying this out, to keep discussions on track?)
... I wanted to reply to @muhammad_isa's implied idea that Catholics are, in effect, cannibals. It's not the first time that's been said, indeed, it's been said to me before now.
So I thought I'd post on the matter.
Rather than a long, laborious essay in defence of the Doctrine of the Eucharist (and it would be long), I'm trying a different tack ... a series of posts, thoughts on the topic, bits I've picked up here and there ... so rather than a long lecture, a series of paragraphs which may have only a tenuous connection to each other, but under the general topic ... hopefully these might trigger debate ...
... and to those anonymous witnesses we are always mindful of at IO, please, please do post a comment, even if only to say "I read this ..."
I'm thinking of numbering the paragraphs, so if anyone wants to discuss a particular point, we can say "Regarding P1" (I know posts are numbered, but I'm just trying this out, to keep discussions on track?)
Paragraph 1: Where it all began.
It all depends on how we choose to read Scripture.
In the Last Supper narratives Jesus says: "this is my body, this is my blood" (Matthew 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-25, Luke 22:7-20). St Paul also writes about the body and blood of Christ in the breaking of bread in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, so in Paul we see the Eucharist, as a participation in the Body and Blood of Christ, was a well-established Christian practice by the mid 50s.
Although John does not refer to this in his account, he locates the Eucharist in a broader context in the 'bread of life' discourse in John 6, and this chapter is pretty graphic in detail. It talks about eating His flesh and drinking His blood for everlasting life. It contextualises the Eucharist in the broader vista of salvation history – He refers to the 'manna sent down from heaven' but highlights the fact that their fathers ate the manna and are now dead, whereas anyone who eats 'the living bread' will live forever.
Read it ... it's so 'in-your-face' He loses a number of 'disciples'. It's a significant blow to His ministry. He turns to the twelve and says:
"Will you also go away?"
It all depends on how we choose to read Scripture.
In the Last Supper narratives Jesus says: "this is my body, this is my blood" (Matthew 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-25, Luke 22:7-20). St Paul also writes about the body and blood of Christ in the breaking of bread in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, so in Paul we see the Eucharist, as a participation in the Body and Blood of Christ, was a well-established Christian practice by the mid 50s.
Although John does not refer to this in his account, he locates the Eucharist in a broader context in the 'bread of life' discourse in John 6, and this chapter is pretty graphic in detail. It talks about eating His flesh and drinking His blood for everlasting life. It contextualises the Eucharist in the broader vista of salvation history – He refers to the 'manna sent down from heaven' but highlights the fact that their fathers ate the manna and are now dead, whereas anyone who eats 'the living bread' will live forever.
Read it ... it's so 'in-your-face' He loses a number of 'disciples'. It's a significant blow to His ministry. He turns to the twelve and says:
"Will you also go away?"
Paragraph 2: Some time later...
For centuries, the teaching that the Eucharist was Christ went unquestioned. The Gospels said it. St Paul said it. the Fathers said it. Quite how, technically, was never asked. The vast majority of believers, then as now, do not bother into getting into theological debate.
My late mum once said how she loved listening to me talk about theology. Then she said, "As long as I receive the Eucharist, I don't care." That about sums it up. That's the way people are. Most people just ain't bothered in the technicalities.
So everything went along quite nicely until Paschasius Radbertus (785–865) wrote "De Corpore et Sanguine Christi."
Paschasius was abbot of Corbie, a monastery about 10 miles from Amiens, in the valley of the River Somme in France. He wrote of a complete identity between the historical, physical body of Jesus Christ, and the Eucharist. Christ's actual body is eaten mystically, not perceptible to the senses, but no less real for all that. He used the multiplication of the loaves as an example for the miraculous multiplication of Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist. Radbertus also said that Christ suffers and dies again in the Mass.
There was a contrary theological view of the 'triforme Corpus Christi' that distinguished the historical body – born of the Virgin, died on the Cross, ascended into heaven; the eucharistic body and the mystical body – that is the church of believers. All three are bodies of Christ, but not identical.
In response to the book, the Frankish king, Charles II the Bald, asked a monk of Corbie – Ratramnus (died around 868) two questions: is Christ’s presence in the Eucharist only visible with the eyes of faith, or do our eyes actually see the body and blood of Christ? And is the body of Christ in the Eucharist the same as that "born of Mary, suffered, died and was buried and ascended to the heavens to the right hand of the father"?
Ratramnus wrote a response also (and unhelpfully) called De Corpore et Sanguine Christi. Christ, he said, is truly present in a mystical way, just not physically.
+++
Both Paschasius and Ratramnus drew on Augustine’s categories of veritas and figura. Veritas is knowledge through the senses. Figura is knowledge through the intellect informed by the senses. The veritas of the Eucharist is bread. The figura is the body of Christ. We might, in hindsight, say 'literally' and 'symbolically', but we'd be wrong, because that's not how our two contenders understood the term.
There's no mention of controversy, dispute or condemnation (there would be later) ... it seems just two views, although Paschasius was Ratramnus' abbot, and was in a position to discipline him, there's no evidence that he did.
+++
As ever, once a dispute begins, partisans of either side take over and begin a more emphatic dialogue. I cannot remember the details, but I do vividly recall a tutor taking us through the debates, and saying that if you read some of Paschasius' supporters, asserting a real, physical, flesh-and-blood presence, you'd think the altar cloth would be awash with blood and gore by the time Mass was over!
For centuries, the teaching that the Eucharist was Christ went unquestioned. The Gospels said it. St Paul said it. the Fathers said it. Quite how, technically, was never asked. The vast majority of believers, then as now, do not bother into getting into theological debate.
My late mum once said how she loved listening to me talk about theology. Then she said, "As long as I receive the Eucharist, I don't care." That about sums it up. That's the way people are. Most people just ain't bothered in the technicalities.
So everything went along quite nicely until Paschasius Radbertus (785–865) wrote "De Corpore et Sanguine Christi."
Paschasius was abbot of Corbie, a monastery about 10 miles from Amiens, in the valley of the River Somme in France. He wrote of a complete identity between the historical, physical body of Jesus Christ, and the Eucharist. Christ's actual body is eaten mystically, not perceptible to the senses, but no less real for all that. He used the multiplication of the loaves as an example for the miraculous multiplication of Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist. Radbertus also said that Christ suffers and dies again in the Mass.
There was a contrary theological view of the 'triforme Corpus Christi' that distinguished the historical body – born of the Virgin, died on the Cross, ascended into heaven; the eucharistic body and the mystical body – that is the church of believers. All three are bodies of Christ, but not identical.
In response to the book, the Frankish king, Charles II the Bald, asked a monk of Corbie – Ratramnus (died around 868) two questions: is Christ’s presence in the Eucharist only visible with the eyes of faith, or do our eyes actually see the body and blood of Christ? And is the body of Christ in the Eucharist the same as that "born of Mary, suffered, died and was buried and ascended to the heavens to the right hand of the father"?
Ratramnus wrote a response also (and unhelpfully) called De Corpore et Sanguine Christi. Christ, he said, is truly present in a mystical way, just not physically.
+++
Both Paschasius and Ratramnus drew on Augustine’s categories of veritas and figura. Veritas is knowledge through the senses. Figura is knowledge through the intellect informed by the senses. The veritas of the Eucharist is bread. The figura is the body of Christ. We might, in hindsight, say 'literally' and 'symbolically', but we'd be wrong, because that's not how our two contenders understood the term.
There's no mention of controversy, dispute or condemnation (there would be later) ... it seems just two views, although Paschasius was Ratramnus' abbot, and was in a position to discipline him, there's no evidence that he did.
+++
As ever, once a dispute begins, partisans of either side take over and begin a more emphatic dialogue. I cannot remember the details, but I do vividly recall a tutor taking us through the debates, and saying that if you read some of Paschasius' supporters, asserting a real, physical, flesh-and-blood presence, you'd think the altar cloth would be awash with blood and gore by the time Mass was over!