Can Catholics tell the difference?

[zaangalewa]

if they cant tell the difference then its not true.

Kinda figured that's where you were going with this........ You aren't one of those who claim Catholics aren't Christians are ya?

If you've ever been to a Catholic Mass, and I'm sure you haven't, the priest consecrates the bread and the wine during the service. Pretty simple answer to your "question".

grew up cradle catholic for 25 years pal. I know exactly what they teach and its lies. There is no difference between a consecrated and unconsecrated eucharist. Why? Because Jesus is not in there.

Cradle catholic? Nice expression - nevertheless: What did they do with consecrated bread on the catholic planet where you never came from?

 

[there4eyeM]

if they cant tell the difference then its not true.

Kinda figured that's where you were going with this........ You aren't one of those who claim Catholics aren't Christians are ya?

If you've ever been to a Catholic Mass, and I'm sure you haven't, the priest consecrates the bread and the wine during the service. Pretty simple answer to your "question".

grew up cradle catholic for 25 years pal. I know exactly what they teach and its lies. There is no difference between a consecrated and unconsecrated eucharist. Why? Because Jesus is not in there.

First, this is not an attack on the poster.
Second, it is not promotion of any religion.
Allow me to explain, at the same time, that the essence of the post expresses essentially the same error as the Roman Church (and others, for that matter) regarding the 'difference' of the bread in a communion service.
Of course it has not changed. That isn't what Jesus said, either. If we take what he did say in a more holistic view, Jesus claimed to be one with the center (God). That center is All. If Jesus is one with the All, then all bread, every time it is eaten, is 'the body' of the All, thus Jesus.
The message of Jesus was unity, between people and between the individual with the universe (the All).
Taking a step back from all the overlay of centuries of various religious interpretation (for various purposes!), looking at just the words of Jesus, we see a very enlightened discourse, not dissimilar to Buddhism.

 

[zaangalewa]

if they cant tell the difference then its not true.

Kinda figured that's where you were going with this........ You aren't one of those who claim Catholics aren't Christians are ya?

If you've ever been to a Catholic Mass, and I'm sure you haven't, the priest consecrates the bread and the wine during the service. Pretty simple answer to your "question".

grew up cradle catholic for 25 years pal. I know exactly what they teach and its lies. There is no difference between a consecrated and unconsecrated eucharist. Why? Because Jesus is not in there.

First, this is not an attack on the poster.
Second, it is not promotion of any religion.
Allow me to explain, at the same time, that the essence of the post expresses essentially the same error as the Roman Church (and others, for that matter) regarding the 'difference' of the bread in a communion service.
Of course it has not changed.

Of course?

That isn't what Jesus said, either.

With the words Jesus did not say you can fill a complete library.

If we take what he did say in a more holistic view,

In what view? What do you think what a "catholic view" is? A universal bridgebuilding view.

Jesus claimed to be one with the center (God).

When someone called him "good master" - what you are doing now - he answered: “Why do you call me good? No one is good except god alone".

That center is All.

The center is god.

If Jesus is one with the All,

What you call "the All" is creation. God is more than the All - he's the creator of "the All".

then all bread, every time it is eaten, is 'the body' of the All, thus Jesus.

Such a thought remembers me to "Bernd das Brot" (Bernard the bread) - a depressive speaking bread for children in the german TV. I don't think "Bernd das Brot" is Jesus nor any other bread is Jesus. But I think in a catholic or lutheran church service a bread becomes in a special way a transport unit for the spirit of god. We eat the bread instead of the lamb like his disciples ate the bread instead of the lamb - but it was the lamb they ate - the spirit of the lamb.

The message of Jesus was unity, between people and between the individual with the universe (the All).

"All" is by the way the german word for universe. We don't use this word in metaphysics. We think only about physics if we use this word. Okay - but this is a short form of "all worlds" or "the whole world" (Weltall). Not directly comparable how you are using the expression "the All" in my "holistic" mind. Your context is another context and because we speak we see more and more other contextes.

Taking a step back from all the overlay of centuries of various religious interpretation (for various purposes!), looking at just the words of Jesus, we see a very enlightened discourse, not dissimilar to Buddhism.

Not dissimiliar to what in Buddhism?

 

[Ravi]

between consecrated bread/wafer and unconsecrated? Why or why not?

Yeah, they watch the priest consecrate it.

 

[there4eyeM]

One's participation in a basically English site implies using definitions in that language. It also entails understanding and using English grammar.

 

[Ringel05]

if they cant tell the difference then its not true.

Kinda figured that's where you were going with this........ You aren't one of those who claim Catholics aren't Christians are ya?

If you've ever been to a Catholic Mass, and I'm sure you haven't, the priest consecrates the bread and the wine during the service. Pretty simple answer to your "question".

grew up cradle catholic for 25 years pal. I know exactly what they teach and its lies. There is no difference between a consecrated and unconsecrated eucharist. Why? Because Jesus is not in there.

Oh, I got it now....... Pretty pathetic.......
I was raised Catholic also, that was a long time ago...... Unlike you I'm not looking for excuses...... or justification.

 

[Penelope]

between consecrated bread/wafer and unconsecrated? Why or why not?

I have never been given one except in the RCC , so how would I know?

 

[zaangalewa]

One's participation in a basically English site implies using definitions in that language. It also entails understanding and using English grammar.

Do you speak another language than english?

 

[there4eyeM]

Than English? Yes, of course. Has that to do with something? (why am I even answering this?)

 

[zaangalewa]

Than English? Yes, of course. Has that to do with something? (why am I even answering this?)

Do you like to say you don't understand "english" instead of "English"? And what do you call "Yes, of course"? ... You are by the way wrong. As far as I can see the first letter of the word "english" is written in small letters. Example: "Do you speak english" is correct. No one writes "Do you speak English". This is unimportant - nevertheless: What's your real problem?

 

[there4eyeM]

Have a nice day.

 

[turzovka]

if they cant tell the difference then its not true.

Kinda figured that's where you were going with this........ You aren't one of those who claim Catholics aren't Christians are ya?

If you've ever been to a Catholic Mass, and I'm sure you haven't, the priest consecrates the bread and the wine during the service. Pretty simple answer to your "question".

grew up cradle catholic for 25 years pal. I know exactly what they teach and its lies. There is no difference between a consecrated and unconsecrated eucharist. Why? Because Jesus is not in there.

First, this is not an attack on the poster.
Second, it is not promotion of any religion.
Allow me to explain, at the same time, that the essence of the post expresses essentially the same error as the Roman Church (and others, for that matter) regarding the 'difference' of the bread in a communion service.
Of course it has not changed. That isn't what Jesus said, either. If we take what he did say in a more holistic view, Jesus claimed to be one with the center (God). That center is All. If Jesus is one with the All, then all bread, every time it is eaten, is 'the body' of the All, thus Jesus.
The message of Jesus was unity, between people and between the individual with the universe (the All).
Taking a step back from all the overlay of centuries of various religious interpretation (for various purposes!), looking at just the words of Jesus, we see a very enlightened discourse, not dissimilar to Buddhism.

It is much more succinct than that. There are times for a universal message of love and acceptance, and there are times for essential distinctions.

While they were eating, He took some bread, and]after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.”

It is no trick for Jesus our Lord to allow Himself to be bodily present in the host. No different than it is for Him to consciously listen and devote Himself fully to one million voices at once praying to Him. The glorified body of Jesus Christ can easily be at two places at once. Many saints have been granted the gift of bilocation, including many well documented cases with St. Padre Pio. So, at a minimum, if Jesus wants to have His glorified body, flesh and blood, present in the host He has the power to do so. His Words in John 6, His words in other parts of Scripture, Old Testament references to the same, the countless parallels between the Catholic mass and the Passover sacrifice of the lamb are all very convincing for me and for the Church. The early Christian fathers spoke very clearly on the real presence. St. Paul spoke profoundly on it as well including --- [1 Cor. 11:27 "Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."]

John 6 53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

Finally, there are so many miracles of the Eucharist where it has been witnessed by the many to turn into flesh and blood that I believe God is making the point for the doubters amongst us.

 

[there4eyeM]

It isn't a question about 'God's power'. It is a question of placing a totally unnecessary, insurmountable stumbling block between a reader and the many interpretations of Jesus' words.

 

[turzovka]

It isn't a question about 'God's power'. It is a question of placing a totally unnecessary, insurmountable stumbling block between a reader and the many interpretations of Jesus' words.

Maybe you are onto something. But sounds vague to me.

One man's interpretation is not as good as the next (generally speaking).

 

[zaangalewa]

Have a nice day.

Same to you.

 

[zaangalewa]

It isn't a question about 'God's power'. It is a question of placing a totally unnecessary, insurmountable stumbling block between a reader and the many interpretations of Jesus' words.

Why do you care what we Catholics are doing in our church services? No one forces you to understand what you don't like to understand.

 

[there4eyeM]

It isn't a question about 'God's power'. It is a question of placing a totally unnecessary, insurmountable stumbling block between a reader and the many interpretations of Jesus' words.

And why is this interesting for an atheist like you?

Trick question, eh? If I just answer, I have to accept your inherent statement of my being an atheist, or I have to deny it. Either way, you manipulate me into defining myself according to your measure.

So, without allowing myself to be so controlled, I will say that the subject interests me, and that I would not have to be a Zen student to be interested in Zen.

 

[zaangalewa]

It isn't a question about 'God's power'. It is a question of placing a totally unnecessary, insurmountable stumbling block between a reader and the many interpretations of Jesus' words.

And why is this interesting for an atheist like you?

Trick question, eh? If I just answer, I have to accept your inherent statement of my being an atheist, or I have to deny it. Either way, you manipulate me into defining myself according to your measure.

So, without allowing myself to be so controlled, I will say that the subject interests me, and that I would not have to be a Zen student to be interested in Zen.

Ask a ZEN-priest of the holy catholic church who speaks your language, maybe he has the right catholic Koan for you.

 

[there4eyeM]

'Catholic', meaning 'universal' is a ridiculous title for that denomination.
I understand English and the translation into that language of the Bible. No more is needed, and certainly not any 'priest' or intercessor.

 

[Avatar4321]

between consecrated bread/wafer and unconsecrated? Why or why not?

In my words: We believe spirit is a living substance and not nothing. We believe that god is very concrete present in a consecrated bread. It's better for everyone in the world to respect this belief. We remember our savior not only in words - we try to be in him and we try to take him in us in all dimensions of our existance.

why does it matter

Why does what matter?

If Catholics can tell the difference. Their ability to tell the difference doesn't effect the efficacy of it in the slightest.

Efficacy of what?

Or the Eucharist. If it has meaning what does it matter if they can recognize the change. If it doesn't who cares?