Difference between revisions of "Talk:1152: Communion"
m |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
This doctrine is of course highly outdated and I can't think of why the Catholics haven't dropped it yet. It also causes a lot of confusion. --[[User:Artod|Artod]] ([[User talk:Artod|talk]]) 09:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC) | This doctrine is of course highly outdated and I can't think of why the Catholics haven't dropped it yet. It also causes a lot of confusion. --[[User:Artod|Artod]] ([[User talk:Artod|talk]]) 09:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| − | :If it's middle age Christian, what was the | + | :If it's middle age Christian, what was the explanation before that? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:20, 27 December 2012
This was one of the reasons early Christians were persecuted by the Romans. They thought the Christians were cannibals. 76.20.159.250 00:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Did they actually though that or did they only used it as pretext for persecution? -- Hkmaly (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Isn't he making fun of that doctrine?Guru-45 (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Transubstantiation isn't about bread literally turning into flesh. I don't know how to explain it properly, but it is based on Middle Age Christian philosophy (scholastic, St. Thomas, I think) that differentiates the accidents (appearance, taste etc.) of a thing from its true substance. Transubstantiation means that the bread becomes flesh (acquires the substance of Jesus' flesh) even though it retains the appearance and all qualities of bread. This doctrine is of course highly outdated and I can't think of why the Catholics haven't dropped it yet. It also causes a lot of confusion. --Artod (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
