A Roman Miracle

It was changed in "substance" but not "really".

And as we all know - "substance is not real" according to that tradition from the dark ages.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No, Bob. It is precisely the substance which IS real.

If a person has been blind all their life, and you tell them, "Hey, the stop light is green now," he won't have a clue as to what green really is. If a man who is paralyzed from the neck down is given a pencil in his hand, he won't be able to tell you what it feels like. Yet, in both cases, the stop light still exists, and the pen still exists. The form is how we perceive the "thing," and the substance is what it really is. Ice, water, steam...it's always two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen per molecule, even though it appears differently. This is transformation. However, when the appearance does not change even though the "thing" itself changes, this is called "transubstaniation," which is a big word, but no more fancy than "transformation," which is a common word. One is a change in form, the other in substance.

Form is dependant on the senses, and it really doesn't exist apart from them. What we perceive as "blue" really isn't blue. Whatever the substance is, it merely absorbs certain light rays and reflects others, and our BRAIN tells our EYES to see this as blue. What something "feels" like is how our brain reacts to the nerves in our skin. Etc, etc. Form is a product of the mind. Substance is what is actually there, regardless of how I see it, smell it, taste it, etc. In transubstantiation of bread and wine, our senses do not detect the changes, but what is there actually changes.

 

Please be sure to explain to me how this insulting little ditty is not hate speech, bigotry, and offensive to us who know that it is the Body and Blood of Christ as He promised it would be.

 

CC,

This has been posted here before. I threw a tantrum here before. It did nothing.

Ignore it. People of God can recognize it for what it is without us having to point it out.

 

Yes, a charming little bit of sewage, isn't it. Too bad it doesn't say whether the "pretty maid" was destroyed by serpents for her affront to the Lord (1Cor10:9)

 

You just killed the Catholic argument "dead".

Christ did not say "the bread becomes buzzerkerzoid in the mass - and that is something you know nothing about". IF He HAD said something like that - THEN the RCC COULD make the argument that what the bread is becoming - is something totally alien to human experience - untouchable, unknowable and available to us living in this world.

But INSTEAD of that "unknown sense" that your illustration "needs" Christ appealed to the KNOWABLE - EXPERIENCABLE - VERIFIABLE - PHYSICAL description saying this "IS MY FLESH" as it turns out "FLESH" is KNOWN - it is SENSED it is a PHYSICAL thing. When He "really" sacrificed His Flesh on the Cross - the Romans were not saying "HEY wait a minute! That is an empty Cross!! Where is the body!!" and the Disciples did NOT answer them "Well you have no way of detecting the flesh of Christ so you can not see it"!

Wrong again. The RCC Does NOT CLAIM that the atoms of the bread - are arranged as in the case of those expected in flesh NOR that the molecules of the bread become molecules expected in flesh in exact proportion - there is NO level at which the RCC will claim that the bread in any way reconstitutes into anything else such that it is phyisically different EVEN at the level of electrons numbers, spin, disposition. NOT in ANY way. Absolutely NO change.

The claim of the RCC is that substance is defined as "A non-physical entity that can not be seen or detected. That has no physical properties at all". So what real people would consider "substance" remains "bread" and at the same time the Catholic-dark-ages-substance is magically created - such that it can not be detected in any way known to man.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I wouldn't call it hate speech or bigotry but I can definitly see how it is seen as offensive.

Still made me smirk the first time I read it, but then that depends on a person's sense of humor I guess.

Bryan
SDG

 

Thank you Bob for clearly demonstrating that you didn't understand what I said. I really enjoyed that "This is what the RCC claims" remark at the end, in which you "quoted" what we claim, when in fact that is your own word based on what you want to think we believe.

You didn't describe transubstantiation nor demonstrate that you have an understanding of it.

But that's not new.

 

Well, outside of the pejorative language that Bob is so fond of...

Could you please demonstrate Bob, in a way known to man, that God exists? I'm looking for some tangible, scientific proof, since that is what you demand of God's presence in the Eucharist. I figure, since you reject God there, you must have some sort of physical evidence to prove His existence elsewhere.

Oh, and you can't use the Bible, because that just happens to say that the bread IS HIS BODY and that we must EAT HIS FLESH. Besides, that's not evidence of God's existence, but testimony.

 

If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? etc., I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.
Luther's Large Catechism

 

"bigoted hate speech"

I'm in the body of Christ, a born again, spirit filled, heaven bound Christian, who was not offended.

With some of the anti-baptist posts I have read on this BLOG, your cries of foul play humor me.

 

Well, I am think-skinned anough to take the original post with a grain of salt, having busted out the slats in my crib in laughter when I first read it! (Although deep down, it saddens me to see it constantly repeated over the years.)

Anyway, Bro. Curtis, I am glad you are a part of the "body of Christ" which I am also, "spirit filled," but with room for more, and "bound for heaven" as I know the state of my soul today.

I hope I was not one of the authors of such, Bro. Curtis. But I am at a loss as to who has cried "foul play" lately. Perhaps you can enlighten me...

Anyway, for you and the others in this thread, The Church has long since declared the ingredients that would be used to make the hosts that would be consecrated during the Mass. It is a natural ground wheat flour, mixed with water, without leaven (The Eastern Church uses leaven) and lightly baked in sheets and them embossed and cut out to form the round pieces. No other ingredients may be mixed in the natural dough, such a suger, salt, flavoring, coloring, etc., and that includes even arsenic, as to add such ingredients renders the product worthless for consecration. And attempts and consecration would be invalid.

And incidently, the production of these hosts, from the earliest of times, were done by nuns in convents under strict guidance. And even so, to inspect the hosts for age, mould, funny smell, etc, would have them discarded as well, and not used in the Mass.

We Catholics are serious in our beliefs about the Holy Eucharist. To belittle this sacrament, no matter how gentle the comments, puts a barrier between us and our relationship with each other. It certainly does not bring us closer together as we should in love and understanding, as Christ would have it.

For what it is worth...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

In my ceasless quest ( ) for Catholic websites spouting venom, I'd sure like to hear about Catholic websites with similar ditties directed against non-Catholic Christians. Know of any, Bro. Curtis?

BTW, Google found 38 websites carrying this particular bit of Christian love. I'm sure there must be at least 38 Catholic websites with as bad or worse.

 

Phatmass.

 

Post a link to something offensive on the site. Of course I'm not referring to individual forum posters, but something posted (and thus endorsed) by the site itself. If it's as bad as the anti-Catholic stuff I see all the time, I'll write them a email telling them of my strong disapproval.

 

I have been called a heretic here a lot. Look thru the posts. Carson Webber called me a heretic because I believe in eternal security. We are very often attacked and ridiculed, on this board, for our stances on the Bible. To deny that would make you a liar.

So cries of foul play from the Roman Catholic Church representatives humor me.

 

Curtis,

Thank you (sarcasm) for not providing an ounce of any sort of insight or charity.

1) The challenge was to find a website offering CONTENT that BASHES Baptists or non Catholics. So far, the PhatMass Forums and BaptistBoard are the only two examples that have been offered, both of which are DISCUSSION forums and not content-based websites.

2) Your remark can only serve as a justification for the original post of this thread, i.e., since Catholics "call me a heretic," it is okay for this thread to exist.

3) This thread was not posted for discussion; it was posted to make fun of the Catholic belief of transubstantiation, and part of the joke was to either poison or make someone believe they were poisoned; when that becomes a Christian method of reproach, be sure to let me know, ok? Do you think that this kind of humor is becoming of a born again Christian? Would you tell this joke to your children? If not, then you should not support it on a religious board that has as its goal the reaching of souls. If doctrine is false, then this is not the method to reproach it.

4) Telling someone that they are a heretic, according to your own words in the past, is a good thing, because it we should let people know their error so that they can believe the truth. However, making fun of them is not an equivalent to pointing out heresy.

 

Grant, what you see as making fun is more like pointing out the unbiblical doctrines from hell that permeate the RCC.

Like it or not, this is a Baptist board, and we see plenty of attacks against us, so either get some thicker skin, or go to one of your "nice" message boards.

Yes, I like it when you guys get angry. It means someone here is telling the truth.

Right now, I won't tell my daughter the joke, but I won't tell her about Lot and his daughters yet, either. When the time comes I may tell her. I'm honest with her, and she knows exactly how I feel about the RCC, I can promise you that.

If you ever have kids, what will you tell them about Baptists ?