Acceptance Of Church Teaching

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='30 October 2009 - 01:15 AM' timestamp='1256825745' post='1993298']
Firstthe thread has digressed and this isn't the original topic. Second, ifyou think Catholics accept things blindly, you haven't been around usvery long
[/quote]
Greetings and peace be with you. My apologies for taking the thread 'Banned from Catholic Web Sites' off topic. The reference to blindly accepting Church teaching was really in regard to the fact that there are people who make statements which they say are infallible Church teachings. Now I don't wish to insult their knowledge, I'm sure that they are well versed in what they are writing. But this forum has a heading 'Debate forum' it is not written as 'Faith Forum' If someone wants to make a statement that something is a Church teaching then on a debate forum they should back it up by giving us evidence that this is so. Anyone can make a statement and claim it as a Church teaching but that does not make it true. Also it would be nice if they could explain how the Church came to accept a 'truth' ie a scriptural reference and how it is interpreted would be nice. Having said this, we do have to accept many things blindly. It's called faith. so I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence.
BTW I would still like to know how the Catholic Church came to it's version of Transubstantiation as against consubstantiation or symbolism?
And how does the Church determine that animals have temporal souls and are incapable of love on a human par and cease entirely to exist after death.

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='29 October 2009 - 10:28 AM' timestamp='1256772515' post='1992955']
[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='29 October 2009 - 09:42 AM' timestamp='1256769764' post='1992936']
Onesmall after thought. When I was in East Timor it was not practicable tohave wine because of the vast numbers of people and costs etc. Undersuch extreme circumstances I imagine that your councils determinationwould be correct.
[/quote]


Yourlast post indicates a very dangerous philosophy. It indicates that theTruth can be subjective to circumstances and conditions. Not so. It'strue in East Timor, it's true in London, and it's true in Saskatchewan.Both species of Communion in and of themselves impart the same, fullamount of grace.


May God be with you.
[/quote]
I made this statement with the thought in mind of exceptional circumstances. Ie if a person dies without baptism or knowing Jesus through no fault of their own, or if a Christian dies without the opportunity for confession, are they doomed? Generally we place paramount importance on sacraments but there has to be exceptions, yes?
And May God also be with you, which I'm sure he is.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='29 October 2009 - 05:19 PM' timestamp='1256854797' post='1993546']

I made this statement with the thought in mind of exceptional circumstances. Ie if a person dies without baptism or knowing Jesus through no fault of their own, or if a Christian dies without the opportunity for confession, are they doomed? Generally we place paramount importance on sacraments but there has to be exceptions, yes?
And May God also be with you, which I'm sure he is.
[/quote]
To address this briefly, the reason there was disagreement about this point is that to not offer the Blood to the congregation is not at all extraordinary and doesn't necessarily reflect anything negative. After all, in the Extraordinary Form it's never offered.
So yea, what you stated may very well be exceptional circumstances, but that's not at all to say that only exceptional circumstances should lead to that situation.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='30 October 2009 - 09:52 AM' timestamp='1256856739' post='1993560']
To address this briefly, the reason there was disagreement about this point is that to not offer the Blood to the congregation is not at all extraordinary and doesn't necessarily reflect anything negative. After all, in the Extraordinary Form it's never offered.
So yea, what you stated may very well be exceptional circumstances, but that's not at all to say that only exceptional circumstances should lead to that situation.
[/quote]
Thanks for the info! I will do some asking as to why when I first entered the Catholic Church it was only offered under one species then a few years ago the wine was brought in as well. but is now dropped due to fear of flying pig flu. In the Anglican Church we had always taken both. And my main beef was not the fact that sometimes we only take one but the reason for it. In East Timor I did as the Romans do because I could not expect to be given the blood of Christ while the locals weren't. But Rejecting the wine out of fear of what might be in it seems to take the transubstantiation out of it (that's me) As I have previously stated I usually drink the remaining wine even though I find it unpalatable because I feel I could not be true to the belief that it is Jesus blood of everlasting life that I am drinking. There was also an incident when the priest unknowingly dropped a host on the floor. As I was the assistant someone brought it to my notice. Wondering what to do, I remembered it happening once before and the priest had picked it up and ate it, so I did likewise.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='29 October 2009 - 07:08 PM' timestamp='1256861310' post='1993594']
Thanks for the info! I will do some asking as to why when I first entered the Catholic Church it was only offered under one species then a few years ago the wine was brought in as well. but is now dropped due to fear of flying pig flu. In the Anglican Church we had always taken both. And my main beef was not the fact that sometimes we only take one but the reason for it. In East Timor I did as the Romans do because I could not expect to be given the blood of Christ while the locals weren't. But Rejecting the wine out of fear of what might be in it seems to take the transubstantiation out of it (that's me) As I have previously stated I usually drink the remaining wine even though I find it unpalatable because I feel I could not be true to the belief that it is Jesus blood of everlasting life that I am drinking. There was also an incident when the priest unknowingly dropped a host on the floor. As I was the assistant someone brought it to my notice. Wondering what to do, I remembered it happening once before and the priest had picked it up and ate it, so I did likewise.
[/quote]
Seems not the greatest reason to me, I'll agree, but the thing is that the priest doesn't even need a reason if he chooses not to offer the Blood to his congregation.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='30 October 2009 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1256861670' post='1993595']
Seems not the greatest reason to me, I'll agree, but the thing is that the priest doesn't even need a reason if he chooses not to offer the Blood to his congregation.
[/quote]
I just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion_under_both_kinds It appears that the Eastern Orthodox doesn't even allow for exceptional circumstances. I've suddenly got the feeling that the water is way above my head and always will be.
Peace be with you Nihil

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='29 October 2009 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1256862272' post='1993604']
I just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion_under_both_kinds It appears that the Eastern Orthodox doesn't even allow for exceptional circumstances. I've suddenly got the feeling that the water is way above my head and always will be.
Peace be with you Nihil
[/quote]
They have completely different communion practices than Latins do, i.e. intinction. Don't worry, I didn't know that either until a couple years ago.
Nevertheless, their knowledge of the Real Presence being fully present in either and both species is identical to our own.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='29 October 2009 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1256863403' post='1993621']
They have completely different communion practices than Latins do, i.e. intinction. Don't worry, I didn't know that either until a couple years ago.
Nevertheless, their knowledge of the Real Presence being fully present in either and both species is identical to our own.
[/quote]
The wiki article itself is equivocal on the issue, because infants in the Eastern Orthodox Churches (and Eastern Catholic Churches) are often communed with just the consecrated wine, while the sick are often given communion from the consecrated bread alone (softened, as the article itself says, with unconsecrated wine). This practice, i.e., of distributing pieces of the consecrated Lamb softened in unconsecrated wine, is also normative during the pre-sanctified liturgies of Great Fast.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='29 October 2009 - 08:49 PM' timestamp='1256867352' post='1993654']
The wiki article itself is equivocal on the issue, because infants in the Eastern Orthodox Churches (and Eastern Catholic Churches) are often communed with just the consecrated wine, while the sick are often given communion from the consecrated bread alone (softened, as the article itself says, with unconsecrated wine). This practice, i.e., of distributing pieces of the consecrated Lamb softened in unconsecrated wine, is also normative during the pre-sanctified liturgies of Great Fast.
[/quote]
Oh, cool. I didn't read the article, because I figured that what I've heard before on Phatmass was more reliable.

[mommas_boy]

Hi Mark,

Below, please find a (shamelessly stolen) article from Catholic Answers.

You can read the original here:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

Christ in the Eucharist


Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that chapter.

John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.



Again and Again


Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).



No Corrections


Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?



Merely Figurative?


They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.



Their Main Argument


For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).



Paul Confirms This


Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.



What Did the First Christians Say?


Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).



Unanimous Testimony


Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.

One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='30 October 2009 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1256871743' post='1993703']
Hi Mark,

Below, please find a (shamelessly stolen) article from Catholic Answers.

You can read the original here:

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp"]http://www.catholic....e_Eucharist.asp[/url]


[/quote]

Peace and greetings to you 'Mommas_boy' Thanks for that, it is interesting reading. Someone has given you a thumbs up for your post and I would agree. However I'm not very keen on that [u]anonymous[/u] method and never use it, I would prefer to tell you in words that I liked it.
Our RCIA group is supplied with handouts on a subject each week to give to the enquirers. These are very well written and cover such things as Hell being more of a 'state' of isolation from God rather than a 'place' of eternal torture and purgatory more of a time for reflection on our failings, which can be during this life rather than that halfway house of solitary confinement after death. A priest gave me an example, he explained to me that when Jesus pointed out to Peter that he would betray him three times, Peter would have hung his head in disillusionment with himself and for a time things may not have been as they were. While at the same time Peter and Jesus would not have wished their love and friendship to end. This state would have been a kind of purgatory for Peter. It is also our practice for a team member to give a short talk on the subject. While we cannot hope to match what our learned writers of the handouts achieve, we do wish to endeavour to make our talks interesting and informative without crossing the line into error where we are at odds with Church teaching. Last year I endeavoured to take on the transubstantiation. Recently I have learned that what I described would have been closer to consubstantiation which is not the Churches view. No one took me to task over it and it was an honest mistake, however I take my faith seriously and do not wish to repeat such errors. That is why I try vehemently to understand things better. There are people here who make statements and claim they are infallible Church teachings and they may well be correct. However I do not know these people and if they really do speak for the Church and that is why they cannot expect people to just unquestioningly accept what they say without some support document such as you have provided.
My problem with transubstantiation has been the importance of the 'Physical' body. One would logically think that the 'spiritual or eternal' body would be the important one. However Having said that, Jesus did have a supernatural body. Even though he suffered and was killed like any mortal, he also was able to walk on water. After the resurrection he entered the room though the door was locked and let Thomas touch his wounds without pain I would presume and then he ascended to heaven. This is quite different than what one would expect of a normal earthly body. So presently I have absolutely no difficulty with the concept of Jesus Body and blood in the Eucharist and that is why it is so important to me and to do things right as a special minister of the Eucharist. My only problem would be with the concept of the bread and wine no longer being physically present. The word [i]substance[/i] can have duel meaning depending on how it is placed. If we say "The substance of the human body is mostly water." We are obviously talking about it's physical characteristic. But if we say. "He was a man of substance." we are talking about his character. What is wrong with the idea of the bread and wine co existing rather than appearing to exist but not?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='30 October 2009 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1256948514' post='1994143']
Peace and greetings to you 'Mommas_boy' Thanks for that, it is interesting reading. Someone has given you a thumbs up for your post and I would agree. However I'm not very keen on that [u]anonymous[/u] method and never use it, I would prefer to tell you in words that I liked it.
Our RCIA group is supplied with handouts on a subject each week to give to the enquirers. These are very well written and cover such things as Hell being more of a 'state' of isolation from God rather than a 'place' of eternal torture and purgatory more of a time for reflection on our failings, which can be during this life rather than that halfway house of solitary confinement after death. A priest gave me an example, he explained to me that when Jesus pointed out to Peter that he would betray him three times, Peter would have hung his head in disillusionment with himself and for a time things may not have been as they were. While at the same time Peter and Jesus would not have wished their love and friendship to end. This state would have been a kind of purgatory for Peter. It is also our practice for a team member to give a short talk on the subject. While we cannot hope to match what our learned writers of the handouts achieve, we do wish to endeavour to make our talks interesting and informative without crossing the line into error where we are at odds with Church teaching. Last year I endeavoured to take on the transubstantiation. Recently I have learned that what I described would have been closer to consubstantiation which is not the Churches view. No one took me to task over it and it was an honest mistake, however I take my faith seriously and do not wish to repeat such errors. That is why I try vehemently to understand things better. There are people here who make statements and claim they are infallible Church teachings and they may well be correct. However I do not know these people and if they really do speak for the Church and that is why they cannot expect people to just unquestioningly accept what they say without some support document such as you have provided.
My problem with transubstantiation has been the importance of the 'Physical' body. One would logically think that the 'spiritual or eternal' body would be the important one. However Having said that, Jesus did have a supernatural body. Even though he suffered and was killed like any mortal, he also was able to walk on water. After the resurrection he entered the room though the door was locked and let Thomas touch his wounds without pain I would presume and then he ascended to heaven. This is quite different than what one would expect of a normal earthly body. So presently I have absolutely no difficulty with the concept of Jesus Body and blood in the Eucharist and that is why it is so important to me and to do things right as a special minister of the Eucharist. My only problem would be with the concept of the bread and wine no longer being physically present. The word [i]substance[/i] can have duel meaning depending on how it is placed. If we say "The substance of the human body is mostly water." We are obviously talking about it's physical characteristic. But if we say. "He was a man of substance." we are talking about his character. What is wrong with the idea of the bread and wine co existing rather than appearing to exist but not?
[/quote]
We take Church teaching very seriously at phatmass. If you look under someones avatar, you will generally see a title.We do have clergy and religious who post regularly. If you see scholar you are getting church teaching from someone who has or is getting a degree in some area of catholic theology. Church Militants are also people with a background or competancy in some area of catholic beliefs. So if they tell you its infallible its infallible. If you ask nicely you will be supplied with any documentation required, but usually we start with a general explanation and get more detailed if required.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='31 October 2009 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1256948514' post='1994143']
What is wrong with the idea of the bread and wine co existing rather than appearing to exist but not?
[/quote]

Maybe the answer is in the literalness of what he said. "This is my body." He didn't say "This bread is my body" or "This wine is my blood."

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='31 October 2009 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1256956470' post='1994181']
Wetake Church teaching very seriously at phatmass. If you look undersomeones avatar, you will generally see a title.We do have clergy andreligious who post regularly. If you see scholar you are getting churchteaching from someone who has or is getting a degree in some area ofcatholic theology. Church Militants are also people with a backgroundor competancy in some area of catholic beliefs. So if they tell you itsinfallible its infallible. If you ask nicely you will be supplied withany documentation required, but usually we start with a generalexplanation and get more detailed if required.
[/quote]
Do you think I'm researching in a forum way out of my league? Should I find a learners forum?

Edited October 31, 2009 by Mark of the Cross

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='30 October 2009 - 10:10 PM' timestamp='1256958655' post='1994201']

Do you think I'm researching in a forum way out of my league? Should I find a learners forum?
[/quote]
No! This forum is for everyone! You can't water down the faith. It's up to us to explain it better.

[mortify]

"God has taught it, I believe it, that settles it."

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='31 October 2009 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1256963046' post='1994245']
No! This forum is for everyone! You can't water down the faith. It's up to us to explain it better.
[/quote]
Thanks Nihil you are so kind. This could force me to add you as a friend. I could be wrong, but I just keep getting the feeling that cmother follows me around hitting me with a stick