I was raised Catholic (i.e., my parents made me go to church and CCD growing up), took a very long break from any sort of religion for about 20 years, and now find myself going to a Baptist church in east Tennessee with my family. This post is not about that though...

In past sermons, the pastor at the Baptist Church has made mention to how it isn't important to dwell on or argue the differences between various faiths. Last week he talked about first, second, and third level issues (i.e., core tenants of faith and lesser issues). That all seems fine with me.

However, yesterday, on one of the seemingly random days that the "elements" were taken (in very convenient packages that have the wafer on top and grape juice in the bottom which I find odd given my experience with communion) he talked about how the elements were a symbol...and then went on to say that some believe that the bread and wine are actually Jesus' flesh and blood which he said was "weird". I was taken aback by this comment...and find it interesting that of all the things in the bible, water into wine, walking on water, healing of the sick, coming back from the dead....that the idea of Transubstantiation is the weird thing.

I did some research on the subject to remind myself of why Catholics believe this and came across this research: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/05/transubstantiation-eucharist-u-s-catholics/ which basically found that most Catholics don't even believe in it.

Why can't people have and talk about their own faiths without disparaging others? How do Catholics reconcile their lack of belief in what is a pretty core tenet of Catholicism?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Why can't people have and talk about their own faiths without disparaging others?

---

Mate, we're barely past slaughtering each other over whether that wafer is the literal body or not. Disparaging is a step forward.

---

Good point...I just read through the 7 page thread on Mary...I get being passionate about your faith but I don't think Jesus hands out bonus points for telling other people they're wrong?

People really believe Jesus changed water to wine physically. I think a lot of people would leave the faith all together if there was a Time Machine and we went back and saw the water stayed water and the church argued the "substance" changed.

The entire premise forces you to accept Aristotelian metaphysics that many people outright reject as wholly without evidence or even clear coherence. It's not like it's a popular position in philosophy anymore outside it's use for the church.

There are other ways to argue it, the orthodox usually don't mess around with the Catholic argument and simply appeal to divine mysteries. It's both more and less satisfying of an answer. More in that it doesn't carry the baggage of making an argument that can be pulled apart like Catholics, less in that it's a simple honest shrug.

TSJ said:

---

Jesus lost a lot of followers when he reiterated that you have eat his flesh and drink his blood. It's pretty black and white.


That's the wild part, to think of all the miracles through out the Bible but your pastor is hung up on the Eucharist. No problem talking about a guy getting thrown overboard to stop a storm only to be eaten by a fish three days later to be spit out near the town he needed to testify to in the first place.

---

Counterpoint, Jesus lost a lot of followers because Jews are forbidden to eat human flesh by God Himself. So when he said that people must eat his flesh and crunch his bones, they all took him literally and peaced out. Only those that knew it was a parable (or a metaphor, or a symbol, or whatever non-literal word you want to use) stuck around, realizing that Jesus wasn't teaching sinful cannibalism.

Well the only confrontational experiences I have had were from Protestants and other non-Catholics Poo pooing the Catholic Church, but none of that matters. Just providing some context to the OP as he was wondering WHY.

Bird Poo said:

---

Well the only confrontational experiences I have had were from Protestants and other non-Catholics Poo pooing the Catholic Church, but none of that matters. Just providing some context to the OP as he was wondering WHY.

---

Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine. I honestly just think it's a matter of vocabulary. Prior to the Enlightenment, everything non-physical was spiritual. Math was spiritual, logic was spiritual, philosophy was spiritual. After the Enlightenment we had this new category of non-physical but non-spiritual things such as emotions and ideas that are somehow less real. So the Catholic/Orthodox see communion as non-physical, spiritual and real. Some Protestants put it this new category of "symbol" which is non-physical, non-spiritual and less real. I don't think the distinction is a valid one, and prefer the pre-Enlightenment worldview that everything real that is not physical is spiritual. In such a worldview, there is no contradiction between the Protestant and Catholic view. Is the Eucharist physically human flesh and blood? No. It is spiritually Christ's flesh and blood? Yes. Is it really Christ's flesh and blood? Yes.

TSJ said:

---

Jesus lost a lot of followers when he reiterated that you have eat his flesh and drink his blood. It's pretty black and white.


That's the wild part, to think of all the miracles through out the Bible but your pastor is hung up on the Eucharist. No problem talking about a guy getting thrown overboard to stop a storm only to be eaten by a fish three days later to be spit out near the town he needed to testify to in the first place.

---

If those who left were correct in understanding what Yeshua said, then they were correct for leaving, because that would have made Yeshua a breaker of the Law. Did Jesus keep the Law perfectly or not?

point of order.

i think you need to revise to everything not physical is metaphysical. not spiritual. spiritual in the NT should almost always be read as Spiritual, i.e., of the Holy Spirit.

In that way, the Eucharist is both metaphysical and Spiritual.

Baptists view it as 'purely symbolic' - a practice to recall or remember only - which is neither metaphysical nor Spiritual, and that is the rub. Your confession that it is spiritually and really Christ's flesh and blood is perfectly small-o orthodox, and to be honest I don't think it is at odds even with the extreme position of Transubstantiation (which I personally think is over-defined).

Quote:

---

point of order.

i think you need to revise to everything not physical is metaphysical. not spiritual. spiritual in the NT should almost always be read as Spiritual, i.e., of the Holy Spirit.

---

fair enough. I'm the one that started the terminology criticism, so I shouldn't complain. Metaphysical is the better term.

As far as the rest, I was raised Southern Baptist across a few different churches. We were always taught that communion was a symbol in that it was a physical representation of a spiritual reality. So it's still a situation where a ritual makes a metaphysical but not a physical change.

Zobel said:

---

I don't know what a physical representation of a spiritual reality means. What is the spiritual reality being represented?

Anyway the thing that is weird about it is that it seems that the Eucharist as a concept and mystery was universal for centuries and centuries. Then the reformation comes and the core, the central defining practice of the Faith is suddenly fractured. It's incredible to me.

---

That's pretty common Baptist speak. Imagine there's a parallel world of the metaphysical where these things happen. So when you read the Bible in the morning, your metaphysical self is putting on the Armor of God. When you eat the bread and drink the wine, then your metaphysical self is eating the body and drinking the blood of the metaphysical Christ. This is also where the devil and demons are present tempting your metaphysical self. Like you have an avatar in the metaphysical realm having constant battles with personified evil forces. At least that's how it always came across to me. I'm not a Baptist seminarian or anything.

I think the Eucharist in the Reformation is emblematic of the Reformation in general. It involves Rome stepping too far to one side of the line, the initial Reformers stepping back to the line and then one step too far the other way, and then the kookier Protestants diving off the deep end in earnest.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I don't know what a physical representation of a spiritual reality means. What is the spiritual reality being represented?

Anyway the thing that is weird about it is that it seems that the Eucharist as a concept and mystery was universal for centuries and centuries. Then the reformation comes and the core, the central defining practice of the Faith is suddenly fractured. It's incredible to me.

---

That's pretty common Baptist speak. Imagine there's a parallel world of the metaphysical where these things happen. So when you read the Bible in the morning, your metaphysical self is putting on the Armor of God. When you eat the bread and drink the wine, then your metaphysical self is eating the body and drinking the blood of the metaphysical Christ. This is also where the devil and demons are present tempting your metaphysical self. Like you have an avatar in the metaphysical realm having constant battles with personified evil forces. At least that's how it always came across to me. I'm not a Baptist seminarian or anything.

I think the Eucharist in the Reformation is emblematic of the Reformation in general. It involves Rome stepping too far to one side of the line, the initial Reformers stepping back to the line and then one step too far the other way, and then the kookier Protestants diving off the deep end in earnest.

---

This is hard to understand because it seems like we're not our metaphysical selves. Like the metaphysical is not a really existing thing, but things that happen in the physical world are symbols of things that happen in the metaphysical world or vice versa.

The notion of metaphysical body and blood is hard to wrap my head around.

Win At Life said:

---

TSJ said:

---

Jesus lost a lot of followers when he reiterated that you have eat his flesh and drink his blood. It's pretty black and white.


That's the wild part, to think of all the miracles through out the Bible but your pastor is hung up on the Eucharist. No problem talking about a guy getting thrown overboard to stop a storm only to be eaten by a fish three days later to be spit out near the town he needed to testify to in the first place.

---

If those who left were correct in understanding what Yeshua said, then they were correct for leaving, because that would have made Yeshua a breaker of the Law. Did Jesus keep the Law perfectly or not?

---

Fair enough. They did not understand His meaning.

Yeah… but I don't believe that. It sounds suspiciously dualistic. I am me, there's no shadow version of me.

Zobel said:

---

Yeah… but I don't believe that. It sounds suspiciously dualistic. I am me, there's no shadow version of me.

---

Not a proponent but that's how I always understood it. For instance, I was taught that people receive Holy Spirit baptism at the time of conversion. So that metaphysical self is being baptized while the physical self is giving themselves to Christ. That's why the water baptism of the physical body is more of a formality.

The dual charge is spot on, and it dovetails well with my assertion earlier that later Protestant branches were heavily influenced by the Enlightenment

Bob Lee said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I don't know what a physical representation of a spiritual reality means. What is the spiritual reality being represented?

Anyway the thing that is weird about it is that it seems that the Eucharist as a concept and mystery was universal for centuries and centuries. Then the reformation comes and the core, the central defining practice of the Faith is suddenly fractured. It's incredible to me.

---

That's pretty common Baptist speak. Imagine there's a parallel world of the metaphysical where these things happen. So when you read the Bible in the morning, your metaphysical self is putting on the Armor of God. When you eat the bread and drink the wine, then your metaphysical self is eating the body and drinking the blood of the metaphysical Christ. This is also where the devil and demons are present tempting your metaphysical self. Like you have an avatar in the metaphysical realm having constant battles with personified evil forces. At least that's how it always came across to me. I'm not a Baptist seminarian or anything.

I think the Eucharist in the Reformation is emblematic of the Reformation in general. It involves Rome stepping too far to one side of the line, the initial Reformers stepping back to the line and then one step too far the other way, and then the kookier Protestants diving off the deep end in earnest.

---

This is hard to understand because it seems like we're not our metaphysical selves. Like the metaphysical is not a really existing thing, but things that happen in the physical world are symbols of things that happen in the metaphysical world or vice versa.

The notion of metaphysical body and blood is hard to wrap my head around.

---

If I were talking to evangelicals I would say the spiritual world. This is where you have angels, demons, and souls. These things all interact on a spiritual level. Since humans are body and spirit, our physical actions can have spiritual effects and vice versa. Metaphysical is a more accurate word, but the jargon in evangelical speak is spiritual

I believe that we are caught up
in the heavens when we partake of the Gospel
tasted, felt, seen, and heard.
I also believe God is condescending to
us by His sheer grace.

Bob Lee said:

---

This is hard to understand because it seems like we're not our metaphysical selves. Like the metaphysical is not a really existing thing, but things that happen in the physical world are symbols of things that happen in the metaphysical world or vice versa.

The notion of metaphysical body and blood is hard to wrap my head around.

---

For those having difficulty understanding the metaphysical world, the first question you have to ask yourself is are you a theist or an atheist. An atheist by definition, I would argue, has no belief in a metaphysical world. End of discussion.

If you are theist, you are now operating in a world where a Creator exists and as such, you make the presumption that a metaphysical world exists. Perhaps then the simplest question is, do you have a soul? If yes, by default you have further belief in the existence of a metaphysical world. I have seen a lot of anatomical books but I have never seen a "soul". Should I then doubt its existence despite the fact that I feel something within me yearning to be closer to God? No, because I understand that what exists in the metaphysical world cannot be measured by physical tools. Similarly, I have never seen a physical measurement of love? Yet, we all know it exists because we feel it. I sense many of us have lost the sense of connection to the metaphysical world because we have had science crammed into our throat as the only source of authority on our world. Yet, so much of what we feel and so much of our existence can't be measured by scientific methods. Nonetheless, we are often pressured by society to deny the existence of the metaphysical for the appearance of being intellectual and that numbs us to its presence in our daily lives.

Perhaps the best analogy I can come up with at the moment, and perhaps somewhat weak, is that your soul is the projection of your physical self into the metaphysical world. It cannot be separate from you any different than your own shadow. What you do in the physical world directly affects that projection. The more you conduct yourself in the light, the greater your projection. The more you conduct yourself in the darkness, the dimmer that projection becomes. Spend time in prayer and faith in Him in the physical, the more your soul moves closer to communion with Him in the metaphysical. There is nothing symbolic about it because you will feel His presence in the physical world. Those two things are not separate in their existence.

Now if you accept that the Creator created our physical existence from nothing and that there continues to be an interaction between the physical and metaphysical worlds, then why is so difficult to accept that that same Creator can turn something, i.e. bread, into His physical body. Be cautious in saying what God can and/or cannot do. The bread does not turn into "human flesh" (although there are quite a few impressive miracles well documented) and as such, it is not "cannibalism" as many like to cry out. The bread becomes the physical presence of Christ on Earth on the Altar where Catholics (and perhaps Orthodox? Zobel will correct me) believe that metaphysical world most strongly connects with our physical one. The Eucharist is Divine. For me, it if very clear in John 6:51-58, as mentioned earlier, what we are expected to do and have faith in. Keep in mind that the Gospel of John is the only Gospel in which there are no parables. John isn't giving us a story to discern. He is giving us to formula to follow.

I would also add the continuation of John 6: 59-69

"59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to youthey are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."

Zobel said:

---

When y'all start talking about your soul as your true self it sounds an awful lot like Plato and dualism.

---

Go on…

FIDO95 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

This is hard to understand because it seems like we're not our metaphysical selves. Like the metaphysical is not a really existing thing, but things that happen in the physical world are symbols of things that happen in the metaphysical world or vice versa.

The notion of metaphysical body and blood is hard to wrap my head around.

---

For those having difficulty understanding the metaphysical world, the first question you have to ask yourself is are you a theist or an atheist. An atheist by definition, I would argue, has no belief in a metaphysical world. End of discussion.

If you are theist, you are now operating in a world where a Creator exists and as such, you make the presumption that a metaphysical world exists. Perhaps then the simplest question is, do you have a soul? If yes, by default you have further belief in the existence of a metaphysical world. I have seen a lot of anatomical books but I have never seen a "soul". Should I then doubt its existence despite the fact that I feel something within me yearning to be closer to God? No, because I understand that what exists in the metaphysical world cannot be measured by physical tools. Similarly, I have never seen a physical measurement of love? Yet, we all know it exists because we feel it. I sense many of us have lost the sense of connection to the metaphysical world because we have had science crammed into our throat as the only source of authority on our world. Yet, so much of what we feel and so much of our existence can't be measured by scientific methods. Nonetheless, we are often pressured by society to deny the existence of the metaphysical for the appearance of being intellectual and that numbs us to its presence in our daily lives.

Perhaps the best analogy I can come up with at the moment, and perhaps somewhat weak, is that your soul is the projection of your physical self into the metaphysical world. It cannot be separate from you any different than your own shadow. What you do in the physical world directly affects that projection. The more you conduct yourself in the light, the greater your projection. The more you conduct yourself in the darkness, the dimmer that projection becomes. Spend time in prayer and faith in Him in the physical, the more your soul moves closer to communion with Him in the metaphysical. There is nothing symbolic about it because you will feel His presence in the physical world. Those two things are not separate in their existence.

Now if you accept that the Creator created our physical existence from nothing and that there continues to be an interaction between the physical and metaphysical worlds, then why is so difficult to accept that that same Creator can turn something, i.e. bread, into His physical body. Be cautious in saying what God can and/or cannot do. The bread does not turn into "human flesh" (although there are quite a few impressive miracles well documented) and as such, it is not "cannibalism" as many like to cry out. The bread becomes the physical presence of Christ on Earth on the Altar where Catholics (and perhaps Orthodox? Zobel will correct me) believe that metaphysical world most strongly connects with our physical one. The Eucharist is Divine. For me, it if very clear in John 6:51-58, as mentioned earlier, what we are expected to do and have faith in. Keep in mind that the Gospel of John is the only Gospel in which there are no parables. John isn't giving us a story to discern. He is giving us to formula to follow.

I would also add the continuation of John 6: 59-69

"59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to youthey are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."

---

I have no trouble with the existence of the metaphysical world. My issue is with our soul as distinct from our bodies. Like our bodies are a vehicle for our soul, but that we're not our bodies. Or else we're two selves. I was struggling with the explanation of our metaphysical selves doing something separate and distinct from our physical bodies.

Similarly in light of the last part of the paschal mystery, Jesus is really present in the Eucharist. We literally eat Him, the living sacrifice. Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. I'm not uncomfortable with that at all, and I accept Aquinas' explanation that the Eucharist retains its accidental properties, but is changed substantively.

I agree with you also that it seems strange to apply a different level of scrutiny to this miracle over others. It doesn't make sense that you acknowledge God created something from nothing, is omnipotent, omniscient, immutable, etc, but you're a radical empiricist when it comes to Christ's real presence in the Eucharist.

I liked your post in general, but atheists also believe in the metaphysical. Math, logic, and physics are metaphysical and objective. Dreams, desires, suffering, trust, love, dread and more are metaphysical. Money and debt are metaphysical. Justice, fairness, equity, equality, and law are all metaphysical. Human experience is built on the metaphysical

Zobel said:

---

When y'all start talking about your soul as your true self it sounds an awful lot like Plato and dualism.

---

Don't shoot the messenger. I might be way off, but that's how it made sense to me growing up in evangelical churches

Zobel said:

---

When y'all start talking about your soul as your true self it sounds an awful lot like Plato and dualism.

---

Given that Neo-Platonism was a huge part of the philosophical milieu of late Antiquity and heavily influenced a number of Christian theologians of that era, why would that be surprising?

Understood. 8 just think this is example #37593 of how the modern folk religion of the US is more than a little gnostic.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Zobel said:

---

When y'all start talking about your soul as your true self it sounds an awful lot like Plato and dualism.

---

Given that Neo-Platonism was a huge part of the philosophical milieu of late Antiquity and heavily influenced a number of Christian theologians of that era, why would that be surprising?

---

Like Zobel said it was just another form of rejected secular heresy.

The Christian worldview is that you are a soul, you don't have a soul like you have a heart or a liver. God breathed life into flesh and that the animated flesh form of you is good. When you die your flesh dies, you are in a temporary state that is spirit but not flesh. Eventually after the last judgement and making the world new again, those who have served God regain perfect flesh like adam and eve had before the fall.