Were you ever Catholic? If so, how is it that you do not know that transubstantiation does not mean that the host literally turns into a 2000 year old Jewish corpse? (as we discussed before, for example in this post Several States Investigating the Catholic Church and this one Several States Investigating the Catholic Church) Perhaps this is not your fault but the fault of whoever you learned the doctrine of transubstantiation from, but this is absolutely basic knowledge for Catholics.
I grew up in the 1960’s in Catholic School. Masses were in Latin only. I was a friggin’ alter boy for years. Handle the incense cooker during benedictions. Knew my Catholicism inside and out. I was the kind of kid that would ask the nuns if it was a sin if you missed mass on Sunday because you were on a ship that crossed the international dateline? In the 1960s, it was taught that transubstantiation was real and physical. I had to ring the bells at mass at the exact moment that it happened. I was told that only fully ordained priests had this magical power. (I didn’t believe a word of it but I did ring the bells on time.)
This is interesting, especially the claim that in the 1960s transubstantiation was taught to be physical. This is a heretical position at least since the Council of Trent (1551). Perhaps I have to lament the state of Catholic education in the US…
What I remember being taught is that us Catholics believe that the consecrated host was really the Body and Blood of a 2000 corpse. And only ordained Catholic priests has the ability to preform this ritual. We were told that Protestants on the other hand believe that the hosts were just symbols of the Body and Blood of Jesus.
And we were told that the Protestants were correct because they didn’t have Catholic ordained priests who could accomplish this feat. Because, get this one, their ministers could get married while Catholic priest couldn’t. Sounded so reasonable in 1966.
A lot of this is not in line with Catholic teaching and at worst are heretical positions. To wit,
Absolutely false since at least about half a millennia ago (probably more).
Super false, Catholic priests used to be able to marry and consecrate the hosts just fine. Further, priests who converted from the Orthodox church (and thus is married) is allowed to still be Catholic priests and consecrate hosts just fine. The first pope, St. Peter is married.
If you are comfortable, would you mind sharing the name and address of the church (if it is still there), or the orders of the priests/nuns? I have half the mind to report them to their orders/dioceses.
It seems to me that to fully understand the Catholic idea of transubstantiation you have to understand Aristotelian metaphysics (i.e. the distinction between substance and accident), which is very far from the modern metaphysical assumptions of science. So I wouldn’t be surprised that many people untrained in philosophy are unequipped to explain it well.
This brings up the interesting ecumenical point that Protestants aren’t doing anything sacrilegious when they celebrate communion symbolically. They’re just blissfully unaware that it’s not the “full thing”, at least according to the Catholic picture. I guess this is how Catholics view Protestants nowadays?
Not necessarily Aristotelian, but some background in substance theory is a prerequisite in an explanation of transubstantiation.
This depends on the Catholic.
@dga471, I also must emphasize that the reason Catholics think that Protestants do not have priests that can invoke sacraments is not because of clerical celibacy, as I said to Patrick :
But because Catholics believe that the ability of a priest to perform sacraments is endowed upon him through apostolic succession, which is absent in Protestant churches.
How do Catholics view, say, Anglicans who do affirm apostolic succession and can probably trace the lineage of their bishop to a Catholic one? Are the sacraments performed in there valid?
What’s really interesting to me is that according to Catholic teaching, baptism can be validly performed by anyone (even a Protestant or non-Christian) as long as it is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Thanks for telling me this now. I always knew that those Penguins (what we called the nuns when I was a boy) were Blasphemers, heretics, and nasty old birds.
This again depend on the Catholics. However, I think it is not uncommon to say that SOME Anglicans do have valid apostolic succession.
However, apostolic succession only means that the priest is properly ordained and can invoke the sacraments. This is just one ingredient in the validity of the sacrament. Anglican priests who enjoy apostolic succession still do not perform the sacraments with the same intent and procedures as a Catholic priest (because if they did, they would be Catholics), rendering it invalid according to Catholics.
Correct, Catholics hold that one does not need apostolic succession for the validity of baptism.
I still call them penguins (endearingly) now.
I could imagine a case where an Anglican church performs the sacraments with the same understanding and rituals as Catholics, but they do not affirm the infallibility of the Pope, making them not fully Catholic. I don’t see how lack of belief in papal infallibility could affect how you perform a sacrament, so that would be a counterexample.
Sure go ahead. Sacred Heart Catholic Church
South Amboy, New Jersey
Please tell them that I am no longer a member of the Catholic Church and to take me off their roles and mailing lists. They still send my mother envelopes for money to my house even though she died a while back.
Have no idea about the orders of the priests and nuns. But one of the priests 30 years later was defrocked in the priest abuse scandal. I am please to say that neither myself nor my younger brother were ever abused by a priest. Although the nuns did a good job of shaming the girls for such terrible transgressions as wearing lip stick and having glossy shoes where the boys could look up their skirts via the reflection. Something that I wasn’t able to master unfortunately.
This would be exemplified by some of the Old Catholic Churches and Eastern Orthodox Churches. These churches have all the ingredients (like you mentioned) for a valid eucharist sans papal infalibility. Indeed, the Catholic Church accepts these communions as valid.
@dga471 just for extra information, the reverse is not necessarily true. For example, I don’t think that the Orthodox Church holds that the Catholic communion is valid.
@dga471 One last edit: while the Catholic Church indeed hold as valid communions performed in the Old Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Church precisely because they have all the ingredients for valid sacraments even though they lack a belief papal infallibility, it is much harder to think of an Anglican church that can do something similar. This is because of the 1562 convocation of the Church of England which state that:
“Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.”
which is of course, heretical to Catholics.
Thank you for the information!
You are going to find them in less than receptive mood as guess who use to be the Bishop of the dioceses where this church resides? ex-Cardinal Mccarrick (Uncle Ted)
You really want to tear them a new one, don’t you?
How annoying? Over 1000 children abused, over 300 priest involve in abusing children (mostly male alter boys) over a 70 year period. Institutionalize child abuse. And the church of my youth and all of the churches in the dioceses were implicated. When the NJ Attorney General report hits it is going to make the Pennsylvania scandal look like the tip of the iceberg.