Let's talk about transubstantiation.

[pam]

What???? You are saying our modern apostles have no understanding of the Old Testament?

[Dominic_Korozya]

What???? You are saying our modern apostles have no understanding of the Old Testament?

Yeah. Will I get an infraction now?

[Dominic_Korozya]

That was a bit harsh.

[Just_A_Guy]

This is because they have no understanding of the Old Testament.

That's a subjective judgment.

FWIW: the seder ends with the "afikoman", which is matzah (unleavened bread - not flesh), followed by the fourth cup of wine. As a seder meal, the Last Supper would have ended--as the Bible says it does--with broken bread and a final drink of wine. Therefore, when Jesus institutes the Sacrament/Eucharist/Communion, He is adapting and explaining the fuller meaning of an existing Jewish ritual.

Beyond that, though, I don't see how the seder (in its ancient or modern forms) supports transubstantiation per se. If anything, it begs the question of why Jesus instructed His followers to use bread rather than lamb's flesh (which was present at seder meals prior to the destruction of the Temple).

[Wingnut]

Yeah. Will I get an infraction now?

Problably:

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

That was a bit harsh.

What was? Are you referring to an email from a moderator?

6. Posting issues you have with a moderator or administrator anywhere on the site will not be allowed. Please follow the chain of authority if you have any concerns. Any such posts will be removed and the poster will be subject to the consequences of breaking the rules.

(Both sets of italics are from the Site Rules.)

[Dominic_Korozya]

That's a subjective judgment.

FWIW: the seder ends with the "afikoman", which is matzah (unleavened bread - not flesh), followed by the fourth cup of wine. As a seder meal, the Last Supper would have ended--as the Bible says it does--with broken bread and a final drink of wine. Therefore, when Jesus institutes the Sacrament/Eucharist/Communion, He is adapting and explaining the fuller meaning of an existing Jewish ritual.

Do you notice where the forth cup was used (and why)...?

Beyond that, though, I don't see how the seder (in its ancient or modern forms) supports transubstantiation per se. If anything, it begs the question of why Jesus instructed His followers to use bread rather than lamb's flesh (which was present at seder meals prior to the destruction of the Temple).

This is the problem Just_A_guy, what you just said was very wrong. I underlined the points you stated that indicate your ignorance of the scripture backed up for the CC's belief in the Eucharist. When I say ignorance I only mean what you do not know about the side of Catholic apologetics.

It is very late here in London, so I will try to explain this to you tomorrow. It will take quite some typing......

[Connie]

Do you notice where the forth cup was used (and why)...?

But that wasn't wine. It was vinegar. I'm not convinced that was the fourth cup.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Connie

[prisonchaplain]

Thought I'd jump in the middle of this conversation and just throw in an outside comment. IMHO, the Eucharist is for Catholics what temples are for LDS--a theological domain that offers mystery and wonder, and deep spiritual truths. The most crass critics have charged Catholics with a kind of spiritual canabalism, and LDS with performing secret Pagan rituals (not to mention all the alleged Masonic similarities).

Although I do not subscribe to Transubstantiation, I dare say I prefer the reverence of it to the too often cavalier nature of our Protestant communion services. Luther tried to maintain the best of both by saying that the presence of Christ was "above, beneath, around, and in" the Eucharist, but that his flesh was not the Eurcharist. One truth is certain...observed properly...the Lord's Supper should be a tremendous experience with the presence of Christ.

[Just_A_Guy]

Do you notice where the forth cup was used (and why)...?

From what I gather, some schools of Hebrew thought understood it as representing a future deliverance by the Messiah.

This is the problem Just_A_guy, what you just said was very wrong. I underlined the points you stated that indicate your ignorance of the scripture backed up for the CC's belief in the Eucharist.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, unless you're suggesting here that Christ did instruct them to use lamb's flesh (which I doubt was your point). I look forward to further explanation.

When I say ignorance I only mean what you do not know about the side of Catholic apologetics.

No offense taken. :)

[mrmarklin]

I didn't answer the poll. I don't think believing in transubtantion rises to the level of sin. There are no other answers to make for me.

[Dominic_Korozya]

Thought I'd jump in the middle of this conversation and just throw in an outside comment. IMHO, the Eucharist is for Catholics what temples are for LDS--a theological domain that offers mystery and wonder, and deep spiritual truths. The most crass critics have charged Catholics with a kind of spiritual canabalism, and LDS with performing secret Pagan rituals (not to mention all the alleged Masonic similarities).

Although I do not subscribe to Transubstantiation, I dare say I prefer the reverence of it to the too often cavalier nature of our Protestant communion services. Luther tried to maintain the best of both by saying that the presence of Christ was "above, beneath, around, and in" the Eucharist, but that his flesh was not the Eurcharist. One truth is certain...observed properly...the Lord's Supper should be a tremendous experience with the presence of Christ.

I'll agree with you on one point; the bread at communion should indeed be held in great reverence.

But that wasn't wine. It was vinegar. I'm not convinced that was the fourth cup.

I will explain in the next post.

[Elgama]

actually for us it doesn't even need to be bread, for us its the prayer that makes it the sacrament - have a couple of times found an oatcake/ricecake/other undescribable in my mouth instead of Hovis when we have someone with a dietary requirement

[Dominic_Korozya]

actually for us it doesn't even need to be bread, for us its the prayer that makes it the sacrament - have a couple of times found an oatcake/ricecake/other undescribable in my mouth instead of Hovis when we have someone with a dietary requirement

Do you use things with yeast in them?

[Elgama]

Do you use things with yeast in them?

Hovis has yeast in it:) as long as we can partake of it with the eye single to the glory of God the substance is unimportant its the blessing that turns it into the emblem representing Christs body or blood, we use water for the blood.

[Dominic_Korozya]

Hovis has yeast in it:) as long as we can partake of it with the eye single to the glory of God the substance is unimportant its the blessing that turns it into the emblem representing Christs body or blood, we use water for the blood.

That is completely contrary to the ancient Jewish tradition. It is not suppose to have yeast in it.

[Elgama]

That is completely contrary to the ancient Jewish tradition. It is not suppose to have yeast in it.

I'm not an ancient Jew:), we have modern revelation relating to the sacrament as it should be performed in 2010. Also maybe this is not in a sacred tone but at the Last Supper Jesus hadn't risen yet, He is now risen. Never thought of that as symbolism before next time I take the sacrament will be thinking of it - not sure where that leaves the oatcakes though:)

[Connie]

I will explain in the next post.

I look forward to it. Thanks.

[prisonchaplain]

That is completely contrary to the ancient Jewish tradition. It is not suppose to have yeast in it.

:::Wonders aloud if the wine used in Catholic Eucharist is certified kosher or not...:::

[Jason_J]

That is completely contrary to the ancient Jewish tradition. It is not suppose to have yeast in it.

Eastern Catholic (in communion with Rome) and Eastern Orthodox churches use leavened bread in their Divine Liturgy, while the Roman Catholic church uses unleavened bread. Since the Eastern Catholic churches are all in communion with the Roman Catholic church (together making up "The Catholic Church"), and the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Orthodox sacraments, the use of leavened bread is not a problem, since it is used in the Eastern churches of the Catholic Church.

[Dominic_Korozya]

Eastern Catholic (in communion with Rome) and Eastern Orthodox churches use leavened bread in their Divine Liturgy, while the Roman Catholic church uses unleavened bread. Since the Eastern Catholic churches are all in communion with the Roman Catholic church (together making up "The Catholic Church"), and the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Orthodox sacraments, the use of leavened bread is not a problem, since it is used in the Eastern churches of the Catholic Church.

It is an issue that *should* be dealt with.

:::Wonders aloud if the wine used in Catholic Eucharist is certified kosher or not...:::

What!?

[Jason_J]

It is an issue that *should* be dealt with.

Why "should" it be dealt with? The Eastern Churches have always (i.e. since ancient times) used leavened bread in their Liturgy, and those Eastern Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome still do. It is tradition in the Latin rite to use unleavened bread, while it is tradition in the East to use leavened bread. It is not an issue.

[Blackmarch]

I have a good idea on how we can begin, do you know about the Seder meal?

P.S. But go ahead and post what ever you please.

How prevalent is the belief that it literally turns to blood at some point when partaking the of the sacrament/communion?

[Blackmarch]

That is completely contrary to the ancient Jewish tradition. It is not suppose to have yeast in it.

That is correct for the rites of the passover. The last supper as given by Christ is linked to the passover, but is not the passover.

In jewish tradition leaven usually symbolises how a taint can affect the whole, however Christ also taught his followers to be the leaven, to basically be the small part that changes the whole thing.

So you can use yeast as either a good or bad symbol.

[Dominic_Korozya]

How prevalent is the belief that it literally turns to blood at some point when partaking the of the sacrament/communion?

What do you mean, how many Catholics actually believe it?

That is correct for the rites of the passover. The last supper as given by Christ is linked to the passover, but is not the passover.

In jewish tradition leaven usually symbolises how a taint can affect the whole, however Christ also taught his followers to be the leaven, to basically be the small part that changes the whole thing.

So you can use yeast as either a good or bad symbol.

It is important to symbolise fasting.

Why "should" it be dealt with? The Eastern Churches have always (i.e. since ancient times) used leavened bread in their Liturgy, and those Eastern Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome still do. It is tradition in the Latin rite to use unleavened bread, while it is tradition in the East to use leavened bread. It is not an issue.

The widely used host contains no yeast.

[Jason_J]

The widely used host contains no yeast.

Right, however the host is not used in most Eastern churches. My point is simply that unleavened vs. leavened bread is not an issue, since the Catholic Church uses both types of bread in its Eastern and Western churches, and has done so since ancient times. The Orthodox Church also does so, and the Catholic Church of course recognizes the validity of all its sacraments.