The Christian Discussion Thread VI

[Luminesa]

It's the Guardian, feel free to ignore it. In fact, feel free to ignore any secular media when it comes to the Vatican. Secular media always messes things up.

Pope Francis has said we are working on it, and thus WE ARE WORKING ON IT.

There's more news sources:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/vatican- ... mr6v7.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 66061.html
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/internati ... hild-abuse

To be honest Lumi, we really can't just dismiss it like that. I mean, if it's true, then yes I'm rather disappointed with my church; if it's not true, then I'm equally disappointed in The Guardian.

Alas, if it is true though, I'll be disappointed like how I'm disappointed with my own country; I'm unhappy with the leaders, not with the actual message (e.g, for the US, I like living here and in the RCC, the message of Jesus Christ)

Hmmm...well in the Independent article it says the bishops are still held to local laws, and that means since they are in charge of people they still have to report cases of sexual abuse, under secular law, right? (I'm no lawyer, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

[New confederate ramenia]

There's more news sources:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/vatican- ... mr6v7.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 66061.html
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/internati ... hild-abuse

To be honest Lumi, we really can't just dismiss it like that. I mean, if it's true, then yes I'm rather disappointed with my church; if it's not true, then I'm equally disappointed in The Guardian.

Alas, if it is true though, I'll be disappointed like how I'm disappointed with my own country; I'm unhappy with the leaders, not with the actual message (e.g, for the US, I like living here and in the RCC, the message of Jesus Christ)

Hmmm...well in the Independent article it says the bishops are still held to local laws, and that means since they are in charge of people they still have to report cases of sexual abuse, under secular law, right? (I'm no lawyer, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I think so. I think the cause of the whole scandal is that bishops weren't reporting cases.

[Talvezout]

There's more news sources:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/vatican- ... mr6v7.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 66061.html
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/internati ... hild-abuse

To be honest Lumi, we really can't just dismiss it like that. I mean, if it's true, then yes I'm rather disappointed with my church; if it's not true, then I'm equally disappointed in The Guardian.

Alas, if it is true though, I'll be disappointed like how I'm disappointed with my own country; I'm unhappy with the leaders, not with the actual message (e.g, for the US, I like living here and in the RCC, the message of Jesus Christ)

Hmmm...well in the Independent article it says the bishops are still held to local laws, and that means since they are in charge of people they still have to report cases of sexual abuse, under secular law, right? (I'm no lawyer, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I really do hope that the wording is to that; e.g, don't launch a full-blown investigation because an altar boy said that a priest molested him, actually investigate and then conclude whether or not legal action is warranted.

Either way, Bishops are obligated to report cases of child abuse, AFAIK.

[Luminesa]

Hmmm...well in the Independent article it says the bishops are still held to local laws, and that means since they are in charge of people they still have to report cases of sexual abuse, under secular law, right? (I'm no lawyer, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I think so. I think the cause of the whole scandal is that bishops weren't reporting cases.

Wouldn't they be breaking state laws then? That's grounds for arrest, if it is.

[New confederate ramenia]

Hmmm...well in the Independent article it says the bishops are still held to local laws, and that means since they are in charge of people they still have to report cases of sexual abuse, under secular law, right? (I'm no lawyer, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I really do hope that the wording is to that; e.g, don't launch a full-blown investigation because an altar boy said that a priest molested him, actually investigate and then conclude whether or not legal action is warranted.

Either way, Bishops are obligated to report cases of child abuse, AFAIK.

This is what I hope too.

[Luminesa]

...Well, since you responded a lot quicker than I thought you would, two questions:

1.) What religion do you adhere to?

Buddhism.

2.) Have you ever studied WHY the Church believes in transubstantiation? Because from the outside-looking-in, yes it might look weird. But if you actually study from a Catholic's perspective why we believe what we believe, it makes a lot of sense. A book I would recommend is The Last Supper by Dr. Scott Hahn. Great book, I just started it and it's full of scriptural references and everything.

Most of it is justification via a certain reading of the Bible, when the Bible can admit a different, less incredible interpretation.

Okay, what denomination of Buddhism do you adhere to?

Also, what do you mean by 'a certain reading'?

[Czechanada]

Not sure if to make separate thread or to put it here, but here goes:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... tican-says

As a Catholic, this pains me. I'm really hoping this is a mistranslation or a misunderstanding, especially when the Vatican was making some good steps towards healing, on both sides, from the child abuse scandal way back.

It's the Guardian, feel free to ignore it. In fact, feel free to ignore any secular media when it comes to the Vatican. Secular media always messes things up.

Pope Francis has said we are working on it, and thus WE ARE WORKING ON IT.

TiL the Catholic Church must never be questioned.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

...Well, since you responded a lot quicker than I thought you would, two questions:

1.) What religion do you adhere to?

Buddhism.

2.) Have you ever studied WHY the Church believes in transubstantiation? Because from the outside-looking-in, yes it might look weird. But if you actually study from a Catholic's perspective why we believe what we believe, it makes a lot of sense. A book I would recommend is The Last Supper by Dr. Scott Hahn. Great book, I just started it and it's full of scriptural references and everything.

Most of it is justification via a certain reading of the Bible, when the Bible can admit a different, less incredible interpretation.

1. Oh that certainly is rich. And you're saying Catholicism makes fantastical irrational claims about the universe? Yeah, ok.

2. I can make the bible justify the mass murder of all people if I really wanted, turn Jesus into a terrible war Lord if I so desired. It's not about what interpretation is less this or that it's about what interpretation is right.

[Salus Maior]

It's the Guardian, feel free to ignore it. In fact, feel free to ignore any secular media when it comes to the Vatican. Secular media always messes things up.

Pope Francis has said we are working on it, and thus WE ARE WORKING ON IT.

TiL the Catholic Church must never be questioned.

That's not even close to what she was saying.

[Angleter]

Buddhism.



Most of it is justification via a certain reading of the Bible, when the Bible can admit a different, less incredible interpretation.

1. Oh that certainly is rich. And you're saying Catholicism makes fantastical irrational claims about the universe? Yeah, ok.

2. I can make the bible justify the mass murder of all people if I really wanted, turn Jesus into a terrible war Lord if I so desired. It's not about what interpretation is less this or that it's about what interpretation is right.

Q: So you believe there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent God, yes?
A: Yes. Just the one.
Q: Who created us, only for us to fall into an inherent state of original sin?
A: That's us for you. Always falling.
Q: And He revealed himself to one specific nation, whom he protected and occasionally punished over the course of a millennium or two?
A: That's right.
Q: And sometimes he'd appear to and speak through certain selected individuals in that nation?
A: Correct.
Q: But 2000 years ago, that all changed when He sent His only begotten son, who is also God, to Earth, where He was born of a Virgin?
A: Quite.
Q: And at this point he's all God and all Man?
A: Yes. According to most of us, at least.
Q: OK. So after 30 years, Jesus reveals himself and starts preaching, performing miracles, correcting everything the received wisdom of the time has got wrong, etc.
A: Indeed.
Q: And then he's betrayed and killed, as he'd much expected, then descends triumphantly into Hell, before rising again on the third day?
A: Yes!
Q: And this was the plan all along, for by this perfect and eternal Sacrifice, the sins of the world were taken away, Jewish Temple sacrifice was rendered obsolete, and a New Covenant was established?
A: That's right. Again, for most of us, at least.
Q: And then he rose again from the dead on the third day, fulfilling various prophecies, including his own, and confirming his divine authority?
A: Spot on.
Q: And then ascended into Heaven, telling the Apostles to go forth and preach to all the nations?
A: Got it.
Q: So then the Apostles are imbued with the ability to speak various languages, and so they went off preaching?
A: By the Holy Spirit, who is also God.
Q: And when someone converted they'd baptise them in water according to a certain formula, which forgave them their prior sins and wiped away their guilt for the aforementioned original sin?
A: That they did, and that we still do today.
Q: And some of these Apostles, and some of their successors, and some lay people have performed miracles, either when alive or when prayed to after their death; while some have had visions of God or Jesus or Mary, and thus made prophecies?
A: Yes.
Q: And when we die our souls survive and are judged and we either go to Heaven or Hell or possibly somewhere in between for a while?
A: Yes. Then we get new and better bodies when we're all resurrected at the End Times in order to be judged again.
Q: OK. That all sounds entirely reasonable. But please tell me you don't actually believe that when one of the apostles' successors consecrates the bread and wine in imitation of the Last Supper, the bread and wine really becomes the body and blood of Christ?
A: Er, well, yes.
Q: That's mad! Absurd! How can any reasonable person accept that? There should be some kind of Test to ensure that people like you are never allowed anywhere near public office!

[Salus Maior]

1.From their own perspective. If a Gnostic sect have won out, we would be saying that of the current Church.


2.And yet, that only serves to muddy the water, in that any instances of Change can be caulked up to 'Natural Progression', while all the elements that are extra biblical can be caulked up to tradition. Why continue to use Greek or Church Slavonic, when people no longer understand these as living languages?



3.The Bible does not mention any sort of clergy. They do put a woman in the capacity of ministering and teaching, making her, effectively, a leader within her own congregation and acknowledged by Paul.



4.So?

1. It wouldn't have been the real Church, because for one, their claims to legitimacy doesn't come from the original Scriptures and they don't have origins that can literally be traced back to the original Apostles (In fact, their claims to legitimacy hinge upon their claim that the Apostles/Jesus came to them secretly and told them things only the most "spiritually advanced" could understand. Of course, there is no evidence for either of these claims, and Gnostic texts have been proven to have been written later than texts accepted by the Church as True Scripture.)

2.Greek Liturgy is preserved as part of Church tradition because for the majority of the Church's life for nearly two thousand years this is how it was done. If you want any real connection to Early Christianity, that at the very least is one. But even then, there are Orthodox Churches who have the Liturgy in English, and the vernacular of other countries. Would you say that the U.S banning slavery was "muddying the waters" of what makes a true American? After all, the Founding Fathers did it. Any change made to Church tradition or teaching has been done by Church Councils by the successors of the Apostles, just like the Apostles themselves did in the New Testament in Acts Chapter 15 at the Council of Jerusalem.

3. It does, actually. Bishops, Deacons and Elders are named. And what if I told you both in Catholicism and Orthodoxy there actually are Women-led ministries? They're simply not ordained clergy.

4. So, your point is moot. A lot of your points are based off of biased misconceptions of Church history and a Protestant-centric view of Sola Scriptura, which didn't exist in Christianity until Luther came along nearly 1500 years later.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

1. Oh that certainly is rich. And you're saying Catholicism makes fantastical irrational claims about the universe? Yeah, ok.

2. I can make the bible justify the mass murder of all people if I really wanted, turn Jesus into a terrible war Lord if I so desired. It's not about what interpretation is less this or that it's about what interpretation is right.

Q: So you believe there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent God, yes?
A: Yes. Just the one.
Q: Who created us, only for us to fall into an inherent state of original sin?
A: That's us for you. Always falling.
Q: And He revealed himself to one specific nation, whom he protected and occasionally punished over the course of a millennium or two?
A: That's right.
Q: And sometimes he'd appear to and speak through certain selected individuals in that nation?
A: Correct.
Q: But 2000 years ago, that all changed when He sent His only begotten son, who is also God, to Earth, where He was born of a Virgin?
A: Quite.
Q: And at this point he's all God and all Man?
A: Yes. According to most of us, at least.
Q: OK. So after 30 years, Jesus reveals himself and starts preaching, performing miracles, correcting everything the received wisdom of the time has got wrong, etc.
A: Indeed.
Q: And then he's betrayed and killed, as he'd much expected, then descends triumphantly into Hell, before rising again on the third day?
A: Yes!
Q: And this was the plan all along, for by this perfect and eternal Sacrifice, the sins of the world were taken away, Jewish Temple sacrifice was rendered obsolete, and a New Covenant was established?
A: That's right. Again, for most of us, at least.
Q: And then he rose again from the dead on the third day, fulfilling various prophecies, including his own, and confirming his divine authority?
A: Spot on.
Q: And then ascended into Heaven, telling the Apostles to go forth and preach to all the nations?
A: Got it.
Q: So then the Apostles are imbued with the ability to speak various languages, and so they went off preaching?
A: By the Holy Spirit, who is also God.
Q: And when someone converted they'd baptise them in water according to a certain formula, which forgave them their prior sins and wiped away their guilt for the aforementioned original sin?
A: That they did, and that we still do today.
Q: And some of these Apostles, and some of their successors, and some lay people have performed miracles, either when alive or when prayed to after their death; while some have had visions of God or Jesus or Mary, and thus made prophecies?
A: Yes.
Q: And when we die our souls survive and are judged and we either go to Heaven or Hell or possibly somewhere in between for a while?
A: Yes. Then we get new and better bodies when we're all resurrected at the End Times in order to be judged again.
Q: OK. That all sounds entirely reasonable. But please tell me you don't actually believe that when one of the apostles' successors consecrates the bread and wine in imitation of the Last Supper, the bread and wine really becomes the body and blood of Christ?
A: Er, well, yes.
Q: That's mad! Absurd! How can any reasonable person accept that? There should be some kind of Test to ensure that people like you are never allowed anywhere near public office!

You sir, win 12 internets

[Mishpat and Tzedek]

( ... )

Q: OK. That all sounds entirely reasonable. But please tell me you don't actually believe that when one of the apostles' successors consecrates the bread and wine in imitation of the Last Supper, the bread and wine really becomes the body and blood of Christ?
A: Er, well, yes.
Q: That's mad! Absurd! How can any reasonable person accept that? There should be some kind of Test to ensure that people like you are never allowed anywhere near public office!

The absurdity isn't so much the problem, as is the fact that it simply doesn't happen. I've taken of the Eucharist in a catholic mass before and it tasted suspiciously much like wine for something that's supposed to be blood - note, they were quite liberal and for some reason allowed me as a Protestant to take it and I didn't know too much about theology back then; nowadays, even if there is some silly liberal priest who would offer it to me, I still wouldn't take it, out of respect for Roman-Catholic doctrine.

If somebody told me Jesus was resurrected, while I could see His corpse, I wouldn't believe it either. Even if I was told that while as far as physical properties are concerned the body might be dead, but actually as far as its substance is concerned, it's alive and kicking. Fortunately the grave was empty so and we have several eye witnesses that report Jesus as clearly being alive for everyone to see. Believing in a miracle is one thing. Believing in something absurd is one thing. Believing in x when my physical senses tell me y, now that's quite another thing. And a weird application of Artistotelian philosophy talking about 'substance' and 'accidents' isn't going to help much.

Now if you just say, Jesus is really present in the celebration of the Eucharist and believers effectually receive grace through the Eucharist - I'm not saying I agree with that, but that's not a weird idea at all and we can talk about that. Giving me bread and wine and saying it's flesh and blood, despite clearly physically still being bread and wine, now that's another story......

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Because it is an positively anti-rational belief. It commits people to the absurd.

And not a single one of us really gives a shit over your opinion, so why not piss off and leave us to our own devices?

Getting a little heated in here.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

And not a single one of us really gives a shit over your opinion, so why not piss off and leave us to our own devices?

Getting a little heated in here.

I don't mind if people have different beliefs or even think beliefs are wrong. But I take principled offense when people are just being blatantly disrespectful.

[Diopolis]

( ... )

Q: OK. That all sounds entirely reasonable. But please tell me you don't actually believe that when one of the apostles' successors consecrates the bread and wine in imitation of the Last Supper, the bread and wine really becomes the body and blood of Christ?
A: Er, well, yes.
Q: That's mad! Absurd! How can any reasonable person accept that? There should be some kind of Test to ensure that people like you are never allowed anywhere near public office!

The absurdity isn't so much the problem, as is the fact that it simply doesn't happen. I've taken of the Eucharist in a catholic mass before and it tasted suspiciously much like wine for something that's supposed to be blood - note, they were quite liberal and for some reason allowed me as a Protestant to take it and I didn't know too much about theology back then; nowadays, even if there is some silly liberal priest who would offer it to me, I still wouldn't take it, out of respect for Roman-Catholic doctrine.

If somebody told me Jesus was resurrected, while I could see His corpse, I wouldn't believe it either. Even if I was told that while as far as physical properties are concerned the body might be dead, but actually as far as its substance is concerned, it's alive and kicking. Fortunately the grave was empty so and we have several eye witnesses that report Jesus as clearly being alive for everyone to see. Believing in a miracle is one thing. Believing in something absurd is one thing. Believing in x when my physical senses tell me y, now that's quite another thing. And a weird application of Artistotelian philosophy talking about 'substance' and 'accidents' isn't going to help much.

Now if you just say, Jesus is really present in the celebration of the Eucharist and believers effectually receive grace through the Eucharist - I'm not saying I agree with that, but that's not a weird idea at all and we can talk about that. Giving me bread and wine and saying it's flesh and blood, despite clearly physically still being bread and wine, now that's another story......

So you don't believe in the supernatural at all? Because that's the only way this position makes sense.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

( ... )

Q: OK. That all sounds entirely reasonable. But please tell me you don't actually believe that when one of the apostles' successors consecrates the bread and wine in imitation of the Last Supper, the bread and wine really becomes the body and blood of Christ?
A: Er, well, yes.
Q: That's mad! Absurd! How can any reasonable person accept that? There should be some kind of Test to ensure that people like you are never allowed anywhere near public office!

The absurdity isn't so much the problem, as is the fact that it simply doesn't happen. I've taken of the Eucharist in a catholic mass before and it tasted suspiciously much like wine for something that's supposed to be blood - note, they were quite liberal and for some reason allowed me as a Protestant to take it and I didn't know too much about theology back then; nowadays, even if there is some silly liberal priest who would offer it to me, I still wouldn't take it, out of respect for Roman-Catholic doctrine.

If somebody told me Jesus was resurrected, while I could see His corpse, I wouldn't believe it either. Even if I was told that while as far as physical properties are concerned the body might be dead, but actually as far as its substance is concerned, it's alive and kicking. Fortunately the grave was empty so and we have several eye witnesses that report Jesus as clearly being alive for everyone to see. Believing in a miracle is one thing. Believing in something absurd is one thing. Believing in x when my physical senses tell me y, now that's quite another thing. And a weird application of Artistotelian philosophy talking about 'substance' and 'accidents' isn't going to help much.

Now if you just say, Jesus is really present in the celebration of the Eucharist and believers effectually receive grace through the Eucharist - I'm not saying I agree with that, but that's not a weird idea at all and we can talk about that. Giving me bread and wine and saying it's flesh and blood, despite clearly physically still being bread and wine, now that's another story......

From what you've written here it tells me you actually just don't know what transubstantiation is...

[Mishpat and Tzedek]

So you don't believe in the supernatural at all? Because that's the only way this position makes sense.

I'm quite happy to believe in miracles and such matters which are usually classified under the banner of 'supernatural'. I'm also quite happy to believe in things that I cannot physically experience (yet). I'm not happy to believe something that goes against what my physical senses tell me, unless I have good reasons to suspect that my physical senses aren't functioning properly at the moment. Believing in a resurrection, which, though it be supernatural, can be seen, is fine for me. Believing in a God Whom I cannot not see is also fine for me. Believing that a piece of bread became a piece of flesh, while as far as I can see it is still a piece of bread, that's not so easy for me......

From what you've written here it tells me you actually just don't know what transubstantiation is...

As far as I know the Roman-Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation relies upon Aristotelian philosophy, making a distinction between the 'substance' of something, i.e. it's essence, what it really is, an the 'accidents' of something, i.e. its properties. According to Catholic doctrine, as I understand it, the essence of the bread and wine (the 'substance' in Aristotelian terms) changes to the flesh and blood of Jesus, while as far as physical appearance goes, (which would be part of the 'accidents' in Aristotelian terms) it doesn't change. I know this specific terminology and way of explaining it developed in Medieval scholastic theology and I was under the impression that this idea made it into official Roman-Catholic doctrine. Please correct me if I am wrong on either this idea or the fact that this idea made it into official Roman-Catholic doctrine!

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So you don't believe in the supernatural at all? Because that's the only way this position makes sense.

I'm quite happy to believe in miracles and such matters which are usually classified under the banner of 'supernatural'. I'm also quite happy to believe in things that I cannot physically experience (yet). I'm not happy to believe something that goes against what my physical senses tell me, unless I have good reasons to suspect that my physical senses aren't functioning properly at the moment. Believing in a resurrection, which, though it be supernatural, can be seen, is fine for me. Believing in a God Whom I cannot not see is also fine for me. Believing that a piece of bread became a piece of flesh, while as far as I can see it is still a piece of bread, that's not so easy for me......

From what you've written here it tells me you actually just don't know what transubstantiation is...

As far as I know the Roman-Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation relies upon Aristotelian philosophy, making a distinction between the 'substance' of something, i.e. it's essence, what it really is, an the 'accidents' of something, i.e. its properties. According to Catholic doctrine, as I understand it, the essence of the bread and wine (the 'substance' in Aristotelian terms) changes to the flesh and blood of Jesus, while as far as physical appearance goes, (which would be part of the 'accidents' in Aristotelian terms) it doesn't change. I know this specific terminology and way of explaining it developed in Medieval scholastic theology and I was under the impression that this idea made it into official Roman-Catholic doctrine. Please correct me if I am wrong on either this idea or the fact that this idea made it into official Roman-Catholic doctrine!

No that's about right, I'm just confused as to why you would still then list the wine tasting winey and not bloody as a cause for your doubts?

[Mishpat and Tzedek]

No that's about right, I'm just confused as to why you would still then list the wine tasting winey and not bloody as a cause for your doubts?

Because I don't subscribe to Artistotelian philosophy.

But yeah I can see in hindsight how what I said could be confusing! My point was something like, in a common sense down to earth way I just don't see it happening and while I'm familiar with the explanation of the substance changing etc., I don't really buy into that type of thinking.

Anyway, I must say, I used to subscribe to a more strict Zwinglian 'basically, nothing special is happening, it's just a nice ritual to commemorate the death of Jesus' type of view, but I have become dissatisfied with that. So to be honest, at the moment, I'm not really sure what I do think, but I know I don't like Aristotle and I know I don't like Zwingli (at least I don't like either of them as far as they are relevant for this particular issue). Though it's really important, so I should really come around to forming a proper opinion about this!

[Nordengrund]

No that's about right, I'm just confused as to why you would still then list the wine tasting winey and not bloody as a cause for your doubts?

Because I don't subscribe to Artistotelian philosophy.

But yeah I can see in hindsight how what I said could be confusing! My point was something like, in a common sense down to earth way I just don't see it happening and while I'm familiar with the explanation of the substance changing etc., I don't really buy into that type of thinking.

Anyway, I must say, I used to subscribe to a more strict Zwinglian 'basically, nothing special is happening, it's just a nice ritual to commemorate the death of Jesus' type of view, but I have become dissatisfied with that. So to be honest, at the moment, I'm not really sure what I do think, but I know I don't like Aristotle and I know I don't like Zwingli (at least I don't like either of them as far as they are relevant for this particular issue). Though it's really important, so I should really come around to forming a proper opinion about this!

My view is that Jesus will not cast you out of heaven because you did or did not believe in transubstantiation or as a mere symbol. The most important thing is that we do it because Jesus told us to. To me, the different views of Christ's presence in the communion seems to be a fairly minor issue. What's important is that we participate because it has been commanded.

I personally believe it is just a symbol commemorating what Jesus has done for us, but I am open to accepting a spiritual presence. Whatever we may think about His presence, we should not be dogmatic about.

[Atelia]

Anyone else interested in seeing what comes out of the Papal-Patriarch meeting in Cuba?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Because I don't subscribe to Artistotelian philosophy.

But yeah I can see in hindsight how what I said could be confusing! My point was something like, in a common sense down to earth way I just don't see it happening and while I'm familiar with the explanation of the substance changing etc., I don't really buy into that type of thinking.

Anyway, I must say, I used to subscribe to a more strict Zwinglian 'basically, nothing special is happening, it's just a nice ritual to commemorate the death of Jesus' type of view, but I have become dissatisfied with that. So to be honest, at the moment, I'm not really sure what I do think, but I know I don't like Aristotle and I know I don't like Zwingli (at least I don't like either of them as far as they are relevant for this particular issue). Though it's really important, so I should really come around to forming a proper opinion about this!

My view is that Jesus will not cast you out of heaven because you did or did not believe in transubstantiation or as a mere symbol. The most important thing is that we do it because Jesus told us to. To me, the different views of Christ's presence in the communion seems to be a fairly minor issue. What's important is that we participate because it has been commanded.

I personally believe it is just a symbol commemorating what Jesus has done for us, but I am open to accepting a spiritual presence. Whatever we may think about His presence, we should not be dogmatic about.

'


The problem with that, as far as Catholicism goes, is that the Eucharist is an important part of the Soteriology because of the Levitical sacrificial system. The presence Must be there, in order for us to take part in the Sacrifice.

[Luminesa]

It's the Guardian, feel free to ignore it. In fact, feel free to ignore any secular media when it comes to the Vatican. Secular media always messes things up.

Pope Francis has said we are working on it, and thus WE ARE WORKING ON IT.

TiL the Catholic Church must never be questioned.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the secular media does not like the Church. Of course you're free to ask questions, it's just most of the media is at best suspicious and at worst against the Catholic Church.

@Angleter: I was gonna say something, but I think you summed it up pretty well.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

You do realize that all of this is make believe, right? Beside, it is rather strange to characterize Pokémons are supernatural, as in the world of Pokémon, the Pokémon creatures are just hyper intelligent animals with the ability to blow flames and shock other Pokémons and such. Likewise, Harry Potter does not present itself as being about real magic, and has about as much problematic use of magic as a Catholic Favourite, Lord of the Rings (Gandalf is about as much a devil worshipping witch as Harry is).

Here's my thing:

I've read all the Harry Potter books, I've loved Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh all my life, and I'm still a devout Roman Catholic who loves her Jesus and her Mamma Mary and all the angels and saints. Maybe I'm an exception? Maybe some kids are more easily persuaded into witchcraft? I dunno. But if I had kids, I'd see nothing wrong with them reading Harry Potter or playing Pokemon or any of that. I might actually encourage it, if it will keep them away from Disney and Teen Titans Go! And none of that changed after I watched the Harry Potter marathon maybe three times, last June. I'm still a bible-loving, Rosary-praying Christian. So I don't see the problem with it. Now tarot cards and ouija boards? Stay away from playing with those.

what's wrong with Disney? don't tell me you don't like Disney Pixar?