Talk:Transubstantiation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Material Removed

"The practical difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation is that, while in transubstantiation the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ through the consecration of the priest, but according to consubstantiation, the change occurs only upon receipt of the communion by the believer."

I'm not sure this is accurate. Consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation generally has to do with the nature of the transformation, not when or how it takes place. Whether this is effected by the faith of the believer or the action of the priest is a different doctrinal issue. --Samuel J. Howard 18:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is wrong. The removed material confuses consubstatniation (Lutheranism) with real presence (Anglicanism). Consubstantiation means that the bread and wine remain physically bread and wine, but spiritually become the body and blood, at the point of consecration, not reception. MnJWalker 14:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

=Once again: Lutherans do not hold to consubstantiation. Not by a long shot. For Lutherans, Christ IS present in the Lord's Supper. Lutherans take the statement "This is my body" at face value. End of story. -Rekleov 15:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That your branch of Lutheranism does not teach consubstantiation does not deny that others do. An Ethiopian Lutheran pastor in my Masters Liturgy class on eucharistic doctrine was quite insistent that Lutherans teach consubstantiation (after a lecture that focused on Anglican and Catholic understandings). I do not understand consubstantiation to deny one iota of the doctrine that Christ is present in the Lord's Supper, it is simply a rejection of the Aristotelian physics that lies behind transubstantiation. Cranmer appears to have gradually rejected the doctrine because it fully identified the elements with Christ, so I remain unclear what interpretation of consubstantiation Rekelov so objects to. MnJWalker 17:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"Branch"? Interesting, as the vast, vast majority of Lutherans, no matter their grouping, do not hold to this doctrine. The central problem with consubstantiation is that it is essentially a form of Nestorianism: just as the Nestorian error is to hold that the connection between the two natures of Christ is akin to two boards which have been glued together, as if the divine and human natures could be separated (a la Zwingli). The same problem holds with consubstantiation: in it the elements are not simply the Body and Blood of Christ, but are instead Christ mixed in there with the bread or wine. It is simply yet another attempt to logically explain how Christ Jesus is present in the sacrament. Such attempts end up causing people to take their eye off of the very point of the sacrament: forgiveness and life through Christ's giving himself to his people. Note also, as per the note of 1 Sept 2005, Christ's presence is not merely spiritual, but, rather, actual.

Yes a branch. Your original claims were absolutist and did not allow for there even being a small minority of Lutherans supporting consubstantiation. But your contribution has led me to research further and discover the clear statements against consubstantiation from LCMS. Thank you esp as you are no longer absolutist "vast vast" does not equal "end of story" in your initial post. As to spiritual/actual, yes for the most part Lutherans appear from my quick research to distance themselves from a Reformed view that there is only a spiritual aspect to the Real Presence, but I have heard it maintained that those Lutherans who discuss the real presence through the language of "in, with, and under" are still engaging in the sort of explanations that consubstantiation was seeking to do. But as this is the article on transubstantiation I declare End of Debate, as you have mostly convinced me. MnJWalker 21:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

All the Lutheran theologians on the Eucharist of whom I am aware reject the label "consubstantiation" for the Lutheran description of the sacramental union involved in the Real Presence. I have consistenly witnessed Lutheran divines bristle at the term. This is because the term was actually coined by Roman Catholic wags as a way to be disparaging and critical of what they believed to be "deficiencies" in the Lutheran belief in the Real Presence, as opposed to their Roman Catholic adherence to the dogma of transubstantiation. Perhaps some Lutherans have simply thrown up their hands in resignation and let the term be used to describe their actually rather more mystical and less philosophical doctrine, at least as a way to distinguish the Lutheran position from the Roman. Nevertheless, consubstantiation is not the Lutheran doctrine. It may well be the case that some Lutherans believe in the idea, as do some Roman Catholics, some Anglicans, and some Orthodox. Yet none of these Churches actually teaches the doctrine of consubstantiation officially. The instrumental documents of full communion between Lutherans and Anglicans make no mention of the term, and affirm that Lutherans and Anglicans share a common faith about he Eucharist (again, see Real Presence and metousiosis). The Book of Concord makes no mention of the word "consubstantiation" and, in fact, repeatedly and explcitly states the objective Real Presence -- that "the true Body and Blood of Christ is present in, with, and under the forms" of the bread and wine, after they are consecrated.

Nrgdocadams 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Removed part about John 6:66 as it was used completely out of context and was very misleading. When Jesus said "And He said, "Therefore said I unto you that no man can come unto Me, unless it were given unto him by My Father" Many disciples went back and walked with Him no more. "From that time many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him." It had nothing at all to do with communion. I don't know why you ever put anything so misleading in there...

I restored it, This is the passages Catholics most often refer to about Communion. Sorry. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Spelling?

A small point, but ... I was brought to attention when I saw a reference in this article to "concillar" doctrines. That looks odd, frankly. Shouldn't it be counciliar? --Christofurio 12:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nope. It should be conciliar. Meriam Websiter Entry.--Samuel J. Howard 00:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks better. --Christofurio 13:11, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Another small point, far less important than the contents of the article. Is nobody else uncomfortable with "If a human loses its hair, it is still human. If a human stops being a mammal, it is no longer a human, because being a mammal is essential to being human"? At the risk of bringing down the anger of the PC mafia can't we say "loses his hair", "he is no longer human", etc.? Avalon 09:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. How can IT be human? Something is human or it isn't. And that opens its own bio ethics discussion. Dave

Reformat

I reformatted the article to give it more of that "Wikipedia" look, and I made a few changes in the process. I added to the "Theology" section from the Real Presence article, and I switched the Lutheran section out with the Lutheran section in Eucharist in line with the discussion at Talk:Real Presence.

-- Essjay · Talk 09:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have returned "generally" and "only" to the article. First, transubstantiation is generally understood to mean what is said; it is not universally understood to mean that. A qualifier is in order.

Second, the Eucharistic elements are spiritually transformed, as well as actually transformed, therefore "only" is appropriate. To suggest that no spiritual change exists is to suggest that Jesus has no spiritual nature.

-- Essjay · Talk 03:57, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Mythology? Mythology usually refers to stories (true or untrue), which this is not. it is just a doctrine, and if it needs a category then 'Christian doctrines' would be a good one. DJ Clayworth 16:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the second view of Transubstianiation. The traditional teaching is Christ is present Human and Divine, Physical and Spiritual; again Christ is present or not. It is an absolute in the teaching's self idenification.

Dave

"Drink of My Blood, and Eat of My Flesh..."

• This doctrine by Jesus divided his audience at the time. When Jesus, according to John's Gospel, said to the crowd which had been following Him, waiting to be fed, "You must drink of my blood, and eat of my flesh, or else you have no part in Me", the crowd grumbled, and most of them left, muttering, "This is a difficult saying; who can listen to it?" Jesus thus divided his audience, apparently on purpose. Jesus also called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers", which seems related to me. After watching the crowd depart, Jesus then turned and asked his disciples, "Will you then leave also?" Simon Peter answered Him (wisely, for once), "To where would we go, Lord? You have the Words of Life." To me, this illustrates the wisdom that, if you don't understand everything that Jesus said, and, who does? It is best not to depart from Him. Stick to the part that you DO understand, and seek salvation; that is all that really matters. Being "faithful unto death", and "receiving the crown of [everlasting] Life", is "the best part". The stark contrast, of "biting and devouring one another" was also commented upon, by Jesus, and by the apostle Paul. Paul said, "Beware, that you do not bite and devour one another, lest you be consumed" (by one another, or by God Himself), which Paul plays upon ambiguously. (Oct.)
• A semi-jocular discussion held between myself (an ecumenical minister) and religious studies teacher concluded that perhaps a link to cannibalism should be included in the 'See Also' section. Anyone concur? 82.4.43.19 00:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this one but had an interesting conversation with a RC friend the other day. She had never heard of transubstantiation (!) and when I explained what it was she said "ugh that sounds just like cannibalism". She then said "well no one believes it really - it's just symbolic" (!). It might be worth a sentence to say something like "This is not to be mistaken for cannibalism because....". I honestly didn't prime her and had not used the c word in my description but I must say the first time I heard of this I thought the same thing. SOPHIA 09:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, I am saddened to hear this but I don't think that the appearent lack of catechesis in your friend's parish (no disrespect intented) is no reason to include "cannibalism" in this article if it doesn't belong here in the first place. Str1977 11:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 I understand your point and am in no way advocating a Gio style in depth description. It's just that in the "real" world away from these theological discussions there are a lot of misunderstandings and erroneous ideas. Is it a good idea to ignore these or is it better to address them? Reading further, as I did when I came across this, I understand the difference and see why it is in no way linked to the christians who believe in this (which is why I kept out of it when Gio was trying to add his stuff here). Not everyone bothers though. SOPHIA 12:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, Sophia, I understand now - and sorry for overreacting a bit. I think you understand that one can develop a allergical reaction under certain circumstances. Please make a suggestion and we will see. Cheers, Str1977 12:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A google search of the two word threw up nearly 1000 pages, transubstantiation alone came up with 310,000. A ratio of 1:300 does seem to make this a very small issue but the ones that deal with both ideas tend to be senational and anyone coming across them will I feel want an answer. Do you have a reference that we can add to any sentence that explains this? The best explainations I have come across deal in the same terms as the definition in the article so would be a good way to go. Something of the type:

Other denominations of Christianity as well as non christians have accused the Roman Catholic church of advocating cannibalism. Since transubstantiation is defined as changes on the eternal and supernatural plane (the substance) with the physical form (the accidents) remaining unchanged these accusations are invalid and arise from not accepting or misunderstanding these essential distinctions.

If I've got it wrong or made some gross theological error I apologise as I have never pretended to be an expert! Please feel free to change at will - this is just meant to be a start. SOPHIA 10:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Further ramblings. I may not believe in this but I can see that unless you accept transubstantiation as it is defined by those that do, you are only eating bread and drinking wine anyway which sounds like the start of a nice italian meal and in no way can be compared to cannibalism. So the arguments for the comparison sort of invalidate themselves anyway right from the start - is this clear or have lost you? I can't think of any encyclopeadic way to put this so I hope the suggestion above expresses that view implicitly. Anyone can believe in anything they so choose as far as I'm concerned but I really don't like logical inconsistencies in any argument which is why I've looked at this. SOPHIA 12:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add this to the end of the theology section as it best sits there but if that is considered to prominent then maybe the historical background bit. SOPHIA 12:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of confusion about the phrase 'eating the body of Christ' and the inference of cannibalism. In fact it was one of the motives for the persecution of Christians in the pre-Constantinian Roman Empire.Protestants have also brought the charge of cannibalism, as well as pointing out that if Christ is consumed on earth, he must also be consumed in heaven. Butin Catholic theology developed through the Middle Ages, it is explained that only the accidents, or appearances of Christ's Body and Blood, which remain the accidents of bread and wine, are destroyed in digestion. So Jesus is not actually consumed. This is, of course, quite subtle, and beyond the explanation of most Catholics. Nevertheless they accept that they eat the Body and Blood of Christ without doing anything against nature.--Gazzster 10:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I QUOTE"If I've got it wrong or made some gross theological error I apologise as I have never pretended to be an expert! Please feel free to change at will - this is just meant to be a start. ??!!!!" I don't want to beat up on one person, but their honesty points out the fundamental problem with wikipedia, especially it seems the religion article. How can someone edit any article on a subject which they do claim to be an expert on??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.222.109 (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually believe that a cannibal eats a human. It doesn't matter what form the body is (standard flesh, bread, rubber), so long as it is a human body eating it makes you a cannibal. If human flesh were made in a lab and someone ate it I would not qualify that person as a cannibal, since no human actually had that flesh as a body. It isn't what some test on the substance says that matters, it is whether it is a human body that matters. 71.17.71.83 (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ever read Trent's decree?

As a Catholic, I do believe in Real Presence. This is an obligation of faith. But, as regaurds to Transsubstantiation, the Council of Trent only says that it is (to paraphrase the Latin) apt and apropriate. IT never defines transubstantiation as the only possible explination for Real Presence. That is why in the 60's you see so much discussion about Transfiguration and transsybolification. The Vatican would finally reject these ideas not as heresy, but as not going far enough to explain the teaching of Real Presence.(anonymous)

From Council of Trent, 13th session, decree on the most Holy Eucharist(1551) "This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly named transubstantiation"

On the basis of this, I dont agree with you.

Cialovesyou 15:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Witchcraft

Just because it is practised and recognised by a billion Catholics it does not mean it is any more authentic than the crackpot who lives in a commune who claims to be be able to perform miracles. Catholicism will always be a cult while it continues to practise sorcery and cannibalism (poor try at trying to rationalise the difference between cannibalism and transubstantiation above: cannibalsim is the practise of eating the flesh of one's own species. Pure and simple.)-

I am an atheist so from my perspective Catholicism or any other God based religion is no more or less authentic then the crackpot in the commune when it comes to ultimate reality. However, Catholicism is a major world religion which influences politics and social policy. Explanations of its beliefs and practices are relevant for inclusion in the wikipedia. A crackpot in a commune is more then likely not relevant as a world religion, and is not likely to have much influence on society. When it comes to supernatural subjects such as God. The objective value or truth of a certain belief can never be ascertained. So for the comment above just because it can not be proven that Catholicism is superor to X does not make the detailing of its beliefs or practices inappropriate here. I don't know why I wasted time explaining all of this, "sigh",65.125.163.221 10:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The person that wrote the above statment should study The Old and New Testament, history of Christianity, the doctrine of God, and the early theologians(as a scholar). THEN this person can make a comment, such as that above. CP 3:19 Jan. 22, 2006

No, the point is not whether you believe in the concept of "transubstantiation" or not. The point is to tell people what the concept is. I can tell people what a dog is, without begging them to go out and get themselves a "rex", or "fido". This is not about making a debate about "how you feel" about it, it is an exposition of a theological concept.

Cialovesyou 15:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

moved here from article

I started trying to clean up this section (see "origins of transubstantiation" below --Samuel J. Howard 07:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)) in place, but there's too much that is either plain false or is hugely biased. Hard to say for sure, but it almost reads like a copy-and-pasted essay. No references or citations are provided, even though it's a very, uh, creative look at the history of the Eucharist. Wesley 14:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit morbid and bizarre, and shows a tremendous misunderstanding of Eucharistic theology. KHM03 15:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with KHM03 here and disagree with what he wrote over at Christianity. This piece is irredeedambly POV and inaccurate. It has more inaccuracies than sentences. There's no way of discussing it. Str1977 16:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree. I like that addition. I agree it seems morbid and bizarre but that is because this particular Christian practice is a bit morbid and bizarre. I think understanding the historical context for its evolution is important and worthy of inclusion.

The claim is made that there are things which are false, inaccurate, and POV. Its also claimed that there's "no way of dicussing it?" !! That doesnt make sense and points to bias. What is specifically is factually false? What thing in particular constitutes a misunderstanding? Note this is about the origins/history that attempts to explain how this practice may have evolved as a practice, and not the theology of it. I think its is not a misunderstanding.

History and context that explains the origins of a practice is important and interesting because it can sheds light on the basis for it. This in turn provides an understanding of the nature the religion practice, which is afterall a human creation that is part of human cultural practices--these all have understandable roots in earlier practices and such a history with context for modern practices are important. This attempts to provide exactly that basis of understanding, in a convincing manner. Do you have an alternate theory as to the basis for this practice, other than a biased religious theological one, which ignores historical context? To suppress the secular point of view reflects a huge bias and is itself POV. This Wiki is a secular encylopedia and should include such an analysis.

I'd like to see references and citations, and what and why is this considered biased or POV, as well as suggestoins about how to make it less so. So much for "no way of discussing it."

216.104.211.5 19:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see one recognized, reputable scholar who teaches such nonsense. Also, please get a user name if you plan on making more edits. Anonymous edits carry little to no weight with other editors. -Rekleov 14:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, now, this is interesting. Clearly the writer (citing Paglia, of all people -- someone who writes, by her own declaration, with the intent to be obnoxiously provocative), has a -- pardon the pun, please -- bone to pick with the idea of the Real Presence, and with Christianity in general. His or her anti-Christian bias is fairly evident throughout. However, with sufficient editing, there is a good bit of the writer's writing that might be salavaged as having NPOV, though it probably belongs in an entirely different article. Now, I will make the disclaimer that I happen to believe in the Real Presence, although I do not believe in transubstantiation, per se. In any case, I did find one sentence, for example, in the writer's "transubstantiation" writing that could be rearranged to be considerably less offensive and still make an historically and theologically -- again, pardon the pun -- substantiated point.

He or she writes:

"While Christianity promoted cannibalism in a spiritual sense, it is also true that it was based on the ancient agressively military tribal cults that literally promoted eating the flesh and organs of conquered enemies."

The hostility and POV can be removed from this, and it can be made more accurate, by stating it thus:

SUGGESTED TEXT

(lets try and focus in here)--Samuel J. Howard 06:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In a spiritual sense, Christianity promoted the idea that their "unbloody mysteries" (cf. Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Council of Trent, Theses of Bonn) conveyed in actuality the purported mystical benefits of flesh-eating and blood-drinking proclaimed by the proponents of cannibalism and of animal sacrifices. Ancient militaristic tribal mystery cults had literally promoted eating the flesh and organs of conquered leaders to absorb their power."

What say ye?

Nrgdocadams 06:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

This is very well written and receives my vote of approval.

216.104.211.5 16:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me, the only thing might be to add "...and of animal sacrifices--or in the case of the Jewish temple sacrifices to supercede them. Ancient militaristic and tribal mystery..."--Samuel J. Howard 06:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose adding this to the end of the proposed text above, to wrap up the point in question:

"Accordingly, it has been argued that Christianity in this respect presents, in effect, the last vestiges of cannibalism transferred into modern times."

Notice I do not go as far as Paglia and others to say that it is cannibalism, but rather that they are only vestiges, in keeping with the ideas of these ancient practices, which are just one of the many other parallels we logically expect to find. You can even state this is controversial given that adherents to Christianity dispute the notion. --216.104.211.5 18:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What about places where cannibalism is actually practice?--Samuel J. Howard 18:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Cannibalism has its own page, so listing places where it has been actually practiced doesn't belong here.216.104.211.5 19:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well my point is just that it doesn't make sense to say "last vestiges trans...etc." if there are several places where it is still actually done. (and there are more depending on how you define modern)--Samuel J. Howard 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but only if there are still places where actual ritualisitic cannibalism is still a cultural practice --but not anymore, hence "vestiges" making sense. 216.104.211.5 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If we write that we need a paragraph at least about why Catholics say that this is not cannibalism.--Samuel J. Howard 18:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That is fair and reasonable. 216.104.211.5 19:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that most Christians (except for some Evangelicals, who would make the accusation of Catholics but not of themselves) would say that it is not cannibalism. Nevertheless, the problem with the sentence is a fctual one. In the practice of witchcraft or Wicca, the Great Rite (also known as "drawing down the moon") involves imbuing the cakes and wine (or ale) with the life-force energy of the goddess and the god and, depending on which deities or deiforms are being honored, this may include Energy from a partial human. Consequ3ently, even Christainity's mystical vestiges of the ancient mystery religions are not the only vestiges in "modern" times. And, again, the sentence does not take into consideration the current practice of cannibalism.

Nrgdocadams 06:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

This is easily fixed: ""Accordingly, it has been argued that Christianity in this respect presents, in effect, vestiges of ancient ritualisic cannibalism transferred into modern times." 69.107.7.138 02:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but when was "ancient ritualistic cannibalism" practiced in the region of the Middle East or anywhere in the Roman Empire? (I'm no expert, but as a layman I had somehow always associated cannibalism with parts of Africa and parts of Asia and the Pacific.) Who are the 'ancient militaristic tribal mystery cults' and when were they extant? Is it plausible to think that the early Christians, or some subset of them, were aware of and drew on the ideas from such cannibals as they developed their practice and doctrine of the Eucharist? And most importantly, where has such a theory been published connecting the two? Wesley 05:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Your ignorance is not easily forgiven, since you can look up the info on the net or even on this very encylopedia. Infact, just read below to answer your question "where such a theory has been published connecting the two": "Christianity was a development of Dionysian mystery religion..." "The violent principle of Dionysian cult is sparagmos, which in Greek means "a rending, tearing, mangling" and secondly "a convulsion, spasm". The body of the god, or a human or animal substitute, is torn to pieces, which are eaten... Omophagy, ritual eating of raw flesh, is the assimilation and internalization...Cannibalism was impersonation... You are what you eat. The body parts of dismembered Osiris, scattered across the earth, were collected by Isis, who founded a shrine at each site. Before his arrest, Jesus tears the Passover bread for his disciples: "Take, eat: this is my body" (Mt.26:26). At every Christian service, wafers and wine are changed into Christ's body and blood, consumed by the worshipper. In Catholicism, this is not symbolic but literal. Transubstantiation is cannibalism. Dionysian sparagmos was an ecstasy of sexual excitation and superhuman strength...The scattering of sparagmos inseminated the earth. Hence swallowing the god's parts was an act of love. 16

Paglia buttresses her arguments with quotations from the Greek biographer and moralist Plutarch who lived near the time of Jesus:

"Plutarch says dismemberment is a metaphor for Dionysus' metamorphoses...Dionysus "construct destructions and disappearances, followed by returns to life and regenerations". Mystery religions offered initiates eternal life. Promise of resurrection was and is a major reason for Christianity's spread." 17 64.121.40.153 13:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And here is yet more, taken from none other than our own wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus

"It is possible that Dionysian mythology would later find its way into Christianity. There are many parallels between the legend of Dionysus and the life of Jesus; both were said to have been born from a mortal woman but fathered by a god, to have returned from the dead, and to have transformed water into wine. The modern scholar Barry Powell also argues that Christian notions of eating and drinking "the flesh" and "blood" of Jesus in order for individual followers to celebrate the ratification of the new covenant and to commemorate the sacrifice of the cross and His promise of return, was influenced by the cult of Dionysus. Certainly the Dionysus myth contains a great deal of cannibalism, in its links to Ino. Dionysus was also distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers. In a less benign example of influence on Christianity, Dionysus' followers, as well as another god, Pan, are said to have had the most influence on the modern view of Satan as animal-like and horned.2

According to Martin A. Larson in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Osiris was the first savior, and all soteriology in the region borrowed this religion, directly and indirectly, including Mithraism and Christianity, from an Osirian-Dionysian influence. As with their common dying and resurrected saviors, they all share common sacraments, ostensibly grounded in their reliance on seasonal cereal agriculture, having adopted the rituals with the food itself. Larson notes that Herodotus uses the names Osiris and Dionysus interchangeably and Plutarch identifies them as the same, while the name was anciently thought to originate from the place Nysa, in Egypt (now Ethiopia). 64.121.40.153 14:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Since we seem to have arrived at some level of consenus, I have added this section and removed the POV tag. Here is the final text:

"The historical origins are best understood by looking at the complex origins of Christianity itself, which, in part grew out of various ancient mystery cults. In a spiritual sense, Christianity promoted the idea that their "unbloody mysteries" (cf. Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Council of Trent, Theses of Bonn) conveyed in actuality the purported mystical benefits of flesh-eating and blood-drinking that were proclaimed by the proponents of cannibalism and of animal sacrifices among the mystery cults. Ancient militaristic tribal mystery cults had literally promoted eating the flesh and organs of conquered leaders to absorb their power. Accordingly, it has been argued by scholars that Christianity presents in this respect the vestiges of ancient ritualisic cannibalism transferred into modern times."

My thinking is to expand this section a bit, and provide some links. If this is still disputed as POV, then the POV tag can be inserted back (this time only on this section) and we can keep working on it. 64.121.40.153 09:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It also looks good to me. Are there objections to this proposed text, or do we have consensus? There are some new users who are reverting the new material back. Please state your case here for the reason to suppress material. 69.107.7.138 03:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are:

• The statement "are best understood" is a bit awkward for any encyclopedia.
• It still states that Christianity "grew out of various ancient mystery cults" when this is in fact a contentious thesis.
• The reference to the fathers is correct, but it does not prove a causal relationship but merely one of similarity. The fathers said: these are bloody mysteries (though that originally was refering to the Old Testament's sacrifices now superceded by the unbloody sacrifice of the Eucharist), but here we have unbloody mysteries. That doesn't mean that one was caused by the other, at least not in substance. Some scholars might hold such theses but it is not fact.
• In regard to the last sentence: were are these ancient ritualistic cannibalism, how have they been transferred ... to the mystery cults, to Christianity?

Str1977 11:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Since some mystery cults, like the Essenes, were strict vegetarians, associating them all with cannibalism and animal sacrifice is not factual. Remove the "among the mystery cults" and it should stand for a while to see what other edits come out of the woodwork. SOPHIA 08:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note: the Essenes were no mystery cult but a very strict form of Judaism, insisting on cultic cleanliness, what they considered the proper calendar, the role of the temple priesthood as teachers, the connecton of Jewry to the land of Israel, the fulfillment of prophecy in their day, a comprehensive but nonetheless very strict adherence to the commandments of the Torah. Also, they were not vegetarians as such (though some might have abstained from meat in order to avoid meat sacrificed to idols or by a (in their mind false temple priesthood). They certainly did not object to animal sacrifices - they only insisted on the cult being performed by the proper priesthood (i.e. their priests). As such strict Jews, they of course rejected cannibalism or consuming blood. There is nothing that we know that suggests they were a mystery cult. Str1977 11:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I must dig out my books. My understanding was that they were vegetarian mystics of Jewish background. If this is incorrect you need to go edit the Essenes page as it states there they were a mystical cult that were strict vegetarians. SOPHIA 15:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sophia is correct that they were mystery cults, as well. For some reason the whole section was reverted to nothing under the description of "m" vandalism. Obviously that was not true, so I restored the material. Giovanni33 16:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Rekleov---you are reverting material that was worked out here. Also your reverts are not stated honestly, "m (rv vandalism)" This is not vandalism. You reverted again, this time claiming POV. Make your caes here, state your objections and seek consensus before reverting. Thanks. Giovanni33 16:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, the Essenes were no mystery cult. Any serious scholarly book on them will tell you that. Str1977 17:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Extended discussion

(i've put this header here to try and make developing consensus above it more visible)--Samuel J. Howard 06:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My actual name is not quite relevant; facts and reasoning are, though. Again, I only see a label that this is nonsense but no reason why. Here is a recognized, reputable scholar that connects this Christian practice to cannibalism and the paganism which, we should know, Christianity directly emerges from and emulates. It doen't take a genius to see that "Christianity presents, in effect, the last vestiges of cannibalism transferred into modern times." The language itself (from Christian doctrines) are so clear that it takes considerable mental gymnastics to obfuscate and mysify what is rather plain and obvious to anyone who is not committed to the dogmas and superstitions, and hence with a vested interest not to look at an uncomfortable reality --the roots for such beliefs and practices. This is why your POV/bias is acting to suppress these obvious facts of the origins.

The American scholar Camille Paglia refers to herself as a 'disciple of the Cambridge School of Anthropology'. She writes succinctly about pagan mystery religion and Christianity. "Paganism," she states, "recognized, honored and feared nature's daemonism [i.e. its amalgam of both good and evil] and it limited sexual expression by ritual formulae. Christianity was a development of Dionysian mystery religion which paradoxically tried to suppress nature in favor of a transcendental other world." 13 Of the Greek god Dionysus, she writes: "Heir to the Great Mother of chthonian nature, he is, with Osiris, the greatest of the dying gods of mystery religion. Out of his worship came two rituals of enormous impact on western culture, tragic drama and Christian liturgy." 14

Paglia insists "that Christianity could not tolerate the pagan integration of sex, cruelty, and divinity." 15 In the passage below she explains how the worshippers of Dionysus integrated these three elements:

"The violent principle of Dionysian cult is sparagmos, which in Greek means "a rending, tearing, mangling" and secondly "a convulsion, spasm". The body of the god, or a human or animal substitute, is torn to pieces, which are eaten or scattered like seed. Omophagy, ritual eating of raw flesh, is the assimilation and internalization of godhead. Ancient mystery religion was posited on the worshipper's imitation of the god. Cannibalism was impersonation, a primitive theater. You are what you eat. The body parts of dismembered Osiris, scattered across the earth, were collected by Isis, who founded a shrine at each site. Before his arrest, Jesus tears the Passover bread for his disciples: "Take, eat: this is my body" (Mt.26:26). At every Christian service, wafers and wine are changed into Christ's body and blood, consumed by the worshipper. In Catholicism, this is not symbolic but literal. Transubstantiation is cannibalism. Dionysian sparagmos was an ecstasy of sexual excitation and superhuman strength...The scattering of sparagmos inseminated the earth. Hence swallowing the god's parts was an act of love. 16

Paglia buttresses her arguments with quotations from the Greek biographer and moralist Plutarch who lived near the time of Jesus:

"Plutarch says dismemberment is a metaphor for Dionysus' metamorphoses "into winds and water, earth and stars, and into the generations of plants and animals". Dionysus, like Proteus, shifts through all forms of beings, high to low. Human, animal, plant, mineral: none has special status. All are equalized and sacralized in the continuum of natural energy...Plutarch says "riddles and fabulous tales" about Dionysus "construct destructions and disappearances, followed by returns to life and regenerations". Mystery religions offered initiates eternal life. Promise of resurrection was and is a major reason for Christianity's spread." 17

13. Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (New York: Random House, 1991) 25.

14. Paglia 88-89.

15. Paglia 138.

16. Paglia 95.

17. Paglia 95-96. 216.104.211.5 17:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And here I use authoritative Catholic Encylopedia itself to tie these bloodly rituals of to what is essentially a modern Christian "Paganism."

Infact, when we compare Christianity with pagan religions, we will find that there are essentially no differences. What the Christian Fathers did, was invent a new language for the heathen practice of blood sacrifice. The authoritative Catholic Encyclopedia (CE) on sacrifice serves as our sourcebook.

CE tells us that the doctrine of Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation.

The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin.

CE defines sacrifice as a way of attaining communion with God with a sacrificial blood offering.

By sacrifice in the real sense is universally understood the offering of a sense-perceptible gift to the Deity as an outward manifestation of our veneration for Him and with the object of attaining communion with Him. Strictly speaking however, this offering does not become a sacrifice until a real change has been effected in the visible gift (e. g. by slaying it, shedding its blood. burning it, or pouring it out).

It naively goes on to associate Christian sacrifice with the various forms of blood sacrifice among pagan religions.

The Indians went from humans to horses.

It was the acme, "the king of the sacrifices", the solemnities lasting three days and being accompanied by all kinds of public amusements. The idea of this sacrifice was to provide the gods of light with another steed for their heavenly yoke. At first, instead of the sacrifice of the horse, human sacrifice seems to have been in vogue, so that here also the idea of substitution found expression.

The Iranians had a drink concoction made of water and flesh which was believed to bring immortality.

In a roomy antechamber the intoxicating haoma (the counterpart of the Indian soma drink) was brewed, the holy water prepared, and the sacrifice of flesh (myazda) and cakes (darun) offered to the gods. The precious haoma, the drink of immortality, not only conduced in the case of mankind to eternal life, but was likewise a drink for the gods themselves. The Greeks offered human food. The sacrificial offerings, bloody and unbloody, were generally taken from articles of human food; to the gods above pastry, sacrificial cakes, pap, fruits, and wine were offered, but to the nether gods, cakes of honey and, as a drink, a mixture of milk, honey, and water.

The Romans offered sheep, pigs and oxen. There is evidence that humans were once offered.

Sacrifices of atonement (piacula) for perpetrated crimes and past errors were also scheduled. In the earliest times the ancient Indo-Germanic sacrifice of the horse, and also sacrifices of sheep, pigs, and oxen were known. That human sacrifices must have been once usual may be concluded from certain customs of a later period.

The Chinese offered vegetables, oxen, calves, sheep and pigs.

Before every table are set sacrificial offerings of soup, flesh, vegetables, etc. To the ancestors of the emperor, as well as to the sun and moon, a slaughtered ox is offered; to the planets and the stars a calf, a sheep, and a pig. Meanwhile, on a pyre to the south-east of the altar, a sacrifice of an ox lies ready to be burned to the highest god of heaven. While the ox is being consumed, the emperor offers to the soul-table of heaven and the tables of his predecessors a staff of incense, silk, and some meat broth.

The Semites, namely the Babylonians and Assyrians, offered a variety of animals and food.

Both burnt and aromatic offerings were common to the Babylonians and the Assyrians. The sacrificial gifts included wild and tame animals, fowl, fish, fruit, curds, honey, and oil. Sacrificial animals were usually of the male sex; they had to be without defects, strong and fat, for only the unblemished is worthy of the gods.

The Egyptians practiced human sacrifice.

The image of the god was entertained daily with food and drink, which were placed on the sacrificial table. At the laying of the foundation-stone of a new temple human sacrifices were offered, being abolished only in the era of the Ramassides; a trace of this repulsive custom survived in the later ceremony of impressing on the sacrificial victim a seal bearing the image of a man in chains with a knife in his throat.

The CE goes on to describe Jewish and Canaanite sacrifice. Then it boasts of its superiority because "Christianity knows but one sacrifice". Thus, Christians can continue the practice without experiencing the sight of blood.

Christianity knows but one sacrifice, the sacrifice which was once offered by Christ in a bloody manner on the tree of the Cross. But in order to apply to individual men in sacrificial form though a constant sacrifice the merits of redemption definitively won by the sacrifice of the Cross, the Redeemer Himself instituted the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be an unbloody continuation and representation of the bloody sacrifice of Calvary.

In conclusion, Christianity, like other religions, are essentially pagan in its nature and function, and clearly the ritualized blood shedding practices of yore are likewise adopted in a modern fashion both for cannibalism and sacrafice. Changing the language only alters its appearance; it does not change its form and function. As shown above, the doctrine of atonement is of heathen origin. It is based on the assumption that no sin can be expiated without the shedding of blood. Christians might pause to wonder how it is that they can condemn human sacrifice in heathen religions yet glorify it in their own religion. 216.104.211.5 18:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Correspondences are not the same as equivalencies; similarities do not necessitate relation; speculation is not proof. As Dylan sings, "Nothing was delivered..." -Rekleov 18:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Straw man fallacy--I never said speculation was proof. Outside of mathematics there is no such thing as absolute proof. Nor did I insinuate that similarities necessitate relation, merely because they are similar. It takes more than that to establish relation. What I did was produce recognized, reputable scholarship that establishes through research and evidence the argument (point) in question. Specifically scholarship by The American scholar Camille Paglia who refers to herself as a 'disciple of the Cambridge School of Anthropology'.

Do you have something that suggests these are not relations but merely similar by happenstance and coincidence, with no connection to each other and that all this talk about eating body and drinking blood (which is believed to be literally true by Catholic doctrine) has nothing really anything to do with the actual ritual practices and beliefs which, as scholars state as a fact, Christianity directly emerged from? Such a know-nothing possition would be complete nonsense, if it were not for that fact that I know the purpose for why things are often ripped out their historical context as if they suddently dropped out of the sky one day: a way to block a materialist understanding of the reality, which sheds too much light on nature of the phenonmenon in question. The mainstream media with regards to US foreign policy do this all the time with great results. Ignorance then flourishes. I dare say the blinders should be taken off when it comes to an encyclopedia. 216.104.211.5 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Christianity directly emerged from Judaism (or rather the ancient Hebrew religion), which practiced animal sacrifices. It is truly remarkable that the sacrifices of all these other religions and cultures would be listed and compared with Christianity, but those of the ancient Hebrew religion omitted. The Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament makes the connection between those sacrifices and Jesus' sacrifice, as do theologians like Basil the Great and John Chrysostom when they speak of the Eucharist as a "bloodless sacrifice." They are contrasting it with the "bloody sacrifices" of bulls etc. that were formerly offered by the Hebrews. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out either. Wesley 19:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the beginnings of Christianity are still shrouded in mystery. Its true that initially Christianity grew out of Judaism in an almost parasitic fashion. To the Jews the Christians were heretics. Christians used Jewish scriptures as justification of their own teachings and scriptures. But the major Christian doctrines emerged out of the mystery teachings that existed in Greece and the Middle East around 2000 years ago, and became distorted by the Church. Early Christian fathers such as Clement of Alexander and Origen mention the continuity between Greek philosophy, especially Plato, and the inner mystery teachings and Christianity. Both stated that Christianity had secret teachings for the few, just as was the case in the mysteries.

"Around 2000 years ago" isn't nearly precise enough to make your case, as that's also when Christianity appeared. How did Paglia determine who borrowed from whom? Can you tell me where exactly Origen or Clement said that Christianity had secret teachings for the few, or that there was continuity between "inner mystery teachings" and Christianity? Irenaeus denied that Christianity had any such secret teachings, as opposed to the gnostics and mystery religions, in his Against Heresies. Wesley 18:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

In its early years, what came to be called Christianity existed as a variety of mystery cults, limited to a small number of people and expounding esoteric teachings.These included the Nasseni, Essenes, Therapeutae and Gnostics. Over time a church hierarchy developed which wanted to attract the masses, so the mystery teachings were brought out into the open, and then distorted from their original meanings.

The early church was called "catholic", which means universal. It claimed to be for all, and it attempted to combine elements of many religions: there is Judaic monotheism, Persian dualism, eastern otherworldliness and asceticism, and various mystery teachings. A veritable potpourri of religious ideas, bound to cause confusion. 64.121.40.153

The Below section is taking from the encylopedia section on Mithraism, which supports the original addition. I just wonder if you will adopt the same explanation to account for the almost identical story of the new religion, Christianity, to that of the pagen one, which was more successful than Christianity for the first four centuries of the "Christian" era, before the Christians started to murder their leaders off and steal their pagan temples and transform them into Christian Chruches. The Christian's explained the similarities:

"The fact that Christians appeared to have copied many details of the Mithraic mystery-religion, was was explained by Christians with the argument that the devil had anticipated the true faith by imitating it before Christ's birth. Some resemblance between Christianity and Mithraism were so close that even St. Augustine declared that the priests of Mithra worshiped the same deity as they did.2"

The full section, which is heavily referenced and cited in the entry:

"Both Christianity and Mithraism prided themselves in brotherhood and organized their members as church congregations. Both religions purified themselves through baptism, and each participated in the same type of sacrament, bread and wine. Mithra was born in a cave; a cave is likewise the setting for the nativity of Jesus in the widely-read and influential Gospel of James, which though not canonical is the earliest surviving document attesting the veneration of Mary and claiming her continuing virginity. Both nativities were celebrated on December 25th, and each savior was visited by shepherds with gifts. Both Mithraism and Christianity considered Sunday their holy day, despite early Christianity observing the Jewish Sabbath for centuries. Many have noted that the title of Pope is found in Mithraic doctrine and seemingly prohibited in Christian doctrine. The words Peter (rock) and mass (sacrament) have original significance in Mithraism.

Both Mithraism and early Christianity considered abstinence, celibacy, and self-control to be among their highest virtues. Both had similar beliefs about the world, destiny, heaven and hell, and the immortality of the soul. Their conceptions of the battles between good and evil were almost identical, with Christianity adopting millennial epochs that were integral to Mithraism from Zoroastrianism. “They both admitted to the existence of a heaven inhabited by beautiful ones…and a hell peopled by demons situate in the bowels of earth.” (Cumont, 191) Both religions placed a flood at the beginning of history, and both believed in revelation as key to their doctrine. Both awaited the last judgment and resurrection of the dead after the final conflagration of the world. Christ and Mithra were both referred to directly as the "Logos" (Larson 184).

When inducted into the degree of Leo, he was purified with honey, and baptised, not with water, but with fire, as John the Baptist declared that his successor would baptise. After this second baptism, initiates were considered "participants," and they received the sacrament of bread and wine commemorating Mithra's banquet at the conclusion of his labors (Larson 190).

Mitrha was perceived as the the persian savior, whose cult was the leading rival of Christianity in Rome, and was more successful than Christianity for the first four centuries of the "Christian" era. In 307 A.D. the emperor officially designated Mithra "protector of the Empire."1

That fact that Christians appeared to have copied many details of the Mithraic mystery-religion, was was explained by Christians with the argument that the devil had anticipated the true faith by imitating it before Christ's birth. Some resemblance between Christianity and Mithraism were so close that even St. Augustine declared that the priests of Mithra worshiped the same deity as they did.2

Mithra was born on the 25th of December, called "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun," which was finally taken over by Christians in the 4th century A.D. as the birthday of Christ.3 Some said Mithra sprang from an incestuous union between the sun god and his own mother, just as Jesus, who was God, was born of the Mother of God. Some claimed Mithra's mother was a mortal virgin. Others said Mithra had no mother, but was miraculously born of a female Rock, the petra genetix, fertilized by the Heavenly Father's phallic lightning.4

Mithra's birth was witnessed by shepherds and by magi who brought gifts to his sacred birth-cave of the Rock.5 Mithra performed the usual assortments of miracles raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind see and the lame walk, casting out devils. As a Peter, son of the petra, he carried the keys of the kingdom of heaven6 His triumph and ascension to heaven were celebrated at the spring equinox (Easter), when the sun rises toward its apogee.

Before returning to heaven, Mithra celebrated a Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac. In memory of this, his worshipers partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross.7 This was one of seven Mithraic sacraments, the models for the Christian's seven sacraments. 8 It was called mized, Latin missa, English mass. Mithra's image was buried in a rock tomb, the same sacred cave that represented his Mother's womb. He was withdrawn from it and said to live again.9

Like early Christianity, Mithraism was an ascetic, anti-female religion. Its priesthood consisted of celibate men only. 10 Women were not to enter Mithraic temples.11 The women of Mithraic families had nothing to do with the men's cult, but attended services of the Great Mother in their own temples of Isis, Diana, or Juno.12

To eliminate the female principle from their creation myth, Mithraists replaced the Mother of All Living in the primal garden of paradise (Pairidaeza) with the named Sole Ceated. Instead of Eve, this bull was the partner of the first man. All creatures were born from the bull's blood. Yet the bull's birth-giving was oddly female-imitative. The animal was castrated and sacrificed, and its blood was delivered to the moon for magical fructification, the moon being the source of woman's magic lunar "blood of life" that produced real children on earth.13

Persians have been called the Puritans of the heathen world. They developed Mithraism out of an earlier Aryan religion that was not so puritanical or so exclusively male-oriented.14 Mithra seems to have been the Indo-Iranian sun god Mitra, or Mitravaruna, one of the twelve zodiacal sons of the of the Infinity-goddess Aditi. Another of Aditi's sons was Aryaman, eponymous ancestor of "Aryans," whom the Persians transformed into Ahriman, the Great Serpent of Darkness, Mithra's enemy.15

Early on, there seems to have been a feminine Mithra. Herdotus said the the Persians used to have a sky-goddess Mitra, the same as Mylitta, Assyria's Great Mother. 16 Lydian combined Mithra with his archaic spouse Anahita an androgynous Mithra-Anahita, identified with Sabazious-Anaitis, the Serpent and Dove of Anatolian mystery cults.17

Anahita was the Mother of Waters, traditional spouse of the solar god whom she bore, loved and swallowed up. She was identified with the Anatlian Great Goddess Ma. Mithra was naturally coupled with her, as her opposite, a spirit of fire, light and the sun.18 Her "element', water overwhelmed the world in the primordial flood, when one man built an ark and saved himself, together with his cattle, according to Mithraic myth19 The story seems to have been based on the Hindu Flood of Manu, transmitted through Persia and Babylonian scriptures to appear in late, rather corrupt version in the Old Testament.

What began in water would end in fire, according to Mithraic eschatology. The great battle between the forces of light and darkness in the Last Days would destroy the earth with its upheavals and burnings. Virtuous ones who fallowed the teachings of the Mithraic priesthood would join the spirits of light and be saved. Sinful ones who followed other teachings would be cast into hell with Ahriman and the fallen angels. The Christian notion of salvation was almost wholly a product of this Persian eschatology, adopted by Semitic eremites and sun-cultists like the Essenes, and by the Roman military men who thought the rigid discipline and the vivid battle-imagery of Mithraism appropriate for warriors. Under emperors like Julian and Commodus, Mithra became patron of Roman armies. 20

After extensive contact with Mithraism, Christians also began to describe themselves as soldiers for Christ; to call their savior light of the World. Helios the Rising Sun, and Sun of Righteousness; to celebrate their feats on Sun-day rather than the Jewish Sabbath; to claim their savior's death was marked by an eclipse of the sun; and to adopt the seven Mithratic sacraments. Like Mithraists, Christians practiced baptism to ascend after death through the planetary spheres to the highest heaven, while the wicked (anabaptized) would be dragged down to darkness.21

Mithra's cave-temple on the Vatican Hill was seized by Christians in 376 A.D. 22 Christian bishops Rome pre-empted even the Mithraic high priest's title of Pater Patrum, which became Papa, or Pope.34 Mithraism entered into many doctrines of Manichean Christianity and continued to influence its old rival for over a thousand years.24 The mithraic festival of Epiphany, marking the arrival of sun-priests or Magi at the Saviors birthplace, was adopted by the Christian church only as late as 813 A.D. 25

It is probable that Christianity emphasized common features that attracted Mithra followers, perhaps the crucifix appealed to those Mithra followers who had crosses already branded on their foreheads. In art, the halo was a well-known depiction of Mithra, a true sun god, but which also depicts Christ in the same way. However, the similiarities were an embarrassment, and differences such as star gazing were persecuted as heresy. Trypho wrote that “Justin Martyr declared that in a certain cave near Bethlehem…Mary brought forth the Christ…those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place called among them a cave, they were initiated by them” (LXXVIII). Tertullian seems to have feared the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity the most, demonizing Mithraism as a perverted truth planted by the devil." 216.104.211.5

Yet more....

During the first century B.C. the Ossirian religion was established in all parts of the Roman Empire. The notion of resurrection through identification with a resurrected god "by eating his flesh in the form of an 'Eucharist' was in itself a ritual practiced by pagans and idolaters, and this practice became the basis of the Christian "Salvation" dogma. Each of the ancient pagan religions had a "Sacred Meal" and "Holy Eucharist" by which they "supposedly" obtained salvation. The ritual involved "eating the essence of the god" to be unified with him in order to become one. Over time they began to offer sacrifice of human beings to their gods in atonement for sins (Encyclopedia of Ancient Religions).

Let's take a look at a particular primitive practice by which congregants "supposedly" attained salvation.

The Omophagia

Omophagia means "Eating-into-the Belly." It was a pagan Greek ritual of holy communion by eating the flesh of sacrificial victims, human or animal. This custom goes back to primitive tradition when worshippers would tear apart the victims with their hands and teeth as supposedly happened in the earliest cults of Dionysus, Orpheus, Ziagreus, and other gods torn apart in their myths. They ate the victim raw, believing that the god was resident in the offering. It was believed thus there took place an identification with the god himself, together with a participation in his substance and qualities ("The Myth of Attis and Cybelle").

The Apostle Paul, in trying to make converts of these "blood-sacrificing" pagans, opened his religion to non-Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles (who brought with them these horrendous practices that were part of the Greek ritual of "Holy Communion").

Christians today do not realize that many of their doctrines stem from pagan practices. They do not realize that they are worshiping a pagan god-man figure (IHS or IHSous or ISeous), born on December 25 (the day of the rebirth of the Sun), who (according to pagan mythological religions) ascended into heaven to become the intercessor of the human race, and whose followers drank the bulls' blood in order to be "Born Again" (Mithras, the Secret God, by M.J. Vermaseren, 1963).

The (so called) "Holy Communion", the "Holy Eucharist" or the "Blessed Sacrament" which is taken every Sunday (Sun Worship day) in Catholic and Christian churches is considered today the center of the christian life. 216.104.211.5 23:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Origins of transsubstantiation

The Christian religion could be said to have, in part, grown out of the ancient Persian religion of the "Mithra Cult." Indeed, all the fables of virgin birth, the three "wise men," born on Dec. 25th of a virgin, died, and was resurrected, had 12 apostles all are found in Mithra. Christianity tried to gain poltical power in the Roman empire by trying to reform Judaism and making it into an agressive cult, turning its back on the idea of the "chosen people" which isolated Judaism as an elite group not accessible to "the others," and borrowing heavily from the Mithra cult which was accepted by the Roman legions (the "military") as an agressive power schema. Eventually, the Mithra cult was replaced by an equalliy agressive Roman Catholicism that had "conquering" other cults as its primary goal. The denigration of the Jews was part of the whole plan which involved having an easy target, an "enemy" that did not fight back. It worked extraordinarily well as we have witnessed throughout history. Another side-effect is interesting, however.

While Christianity promoted cannibalism in a spiritual sense, it is also true that it was based on the ancient agressively military tribal cults that literally promoted eating the flesh and organs of conquered enemies. In early tribal societies cannibalism was commonplace (even in more recently discovered tribes in the 20th century). Human meat can be very tasty; it has a tinge of mutton if properly prepared. But the practice of cannibalism also has religious (or "spiritual") connotations (some differences from tribe to tribe notwithstanding).

In those tribes that practiced cannibalism, after a bloody war, the victors prepared and ate the flesh of their victims. The preference was commonly to consume the flesh and organs (particularly the heart) of those who were most heroic in their fighting. For example, by eating their hearts, the victors expected to subsume their heroism. From that we can conclude that Christianity presents, in effect, the last vestiges of cannibalism transferred into modern times.

In the holy sacrament of communion, the priest, through strictly regulated rituals, transform the host into the body (i.e., the flesh) of Christ, and the communion-wine into the blood of Christ. This is called "transsubstantiation." Websters' Dictionary defines this thusly: "...the eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearances of bread and wine."

The communicants then, by eating the host and drinking the wine, in effect, eat the flesh and drink the blood of their savior, Jesus Christ. By that ceremony each communicant expects to assume the qualities of Christ with the final event, after an earthly death, to rise just like Jesus into heaven to sit at the right side of the Lord. Like the cannibals of yore, the Christian communicants expect to assume the heroism of the hero whose body and blood they consume--an analogy which is as simple as it is stunning.

How is supposedly 'eating human flesh' not cannibalism if it is living flesh? (Ignoring that it is really bread and wine, not flesh and blood). This is in reference to the addition by Jtocci.

• Cannibalism is different in several ways. The flesh of a human can be eaten 'raw' but it will still die in the process of digestion. No part of God dies at any time. Human flesh benefits the body in a way like any other food, whereas the consumption of Christ has spiritual aspects only interesting to believers. Cannibalism is, at least speculatively, proposed as sometimes morally acceptable and definitely at other times morally wrong depending on the physical situation. Communion is morally governed only by the state of the soul in the receiver. I could go on. Jtocci 06:31 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is this difference also: in cannibalism, the physical substance of the person consumed is broken down and incorporated into the physical substance of the cannibal. This is not the case in communion, for according to Catholic teaching, the body and blood of Christ are really present only so long as the appearance of bread and wine remain. Once the elements of the Eucharist no longer present this appearance, the body and blood of Christ are no longer present. So Christ, unlike the victim of cannibalism, is not 'digested' or incorporated physically into the communicant.

It is important to remember that Christ's physical existence is eternal -- it is not constrained by time or space. Every drop of the consecrated wine, every tiny crumb of the consecrated host is the whole body and blood of Christ, not a fragment of it. Just as Christ's body is not literally broken when the priest breaks the consecrated host, neither is his body literally broken down by the digestive juices of the communicant. Athanasius 16:08 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

• Agreed, but that the Body can be whole and exist in many places at the same time is another mystery and I thought it more appropriate to bring up more easily understood issues with the unconfirmed, I encourage you to do the same. See pearls before swine. Jtocci 17:18 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

• • There has actually never been a better period in history to bring this mystery before educated unbelievers. Who is not aware that reality is not limited to the four dimensions of space-time that we perceive with our senses? The idea that God exists outside of our space-time, and can therefore interact with it in ways that appear 'miraculous'is not so strange to anyone who has read, for example, Abbott's classic mathematical adventure, Flatland. I think there are possibilities for apologetics here that have barely begun to be explored (except by the Evangelical astronomer Hugh Ross). Athanasius

• • • Apologies for jumping in the middle but the reference to "Flatland" caught my eye. The reason apologists do not use this is that it is about how a known phonomena can appear miraculous if it is extended. The example of "Flatland' is the interaction of a 3D object in a 2D world. Mathematicians and theoretical physicists do this sort of research all the time, the important point is that these are known, measurable, quantifiable phonomena that are extended beyond their currently known limits. When a completely new idea (theory) is suggested (current hot topics are String Theory and Quantum Gravity) they are subjected to savage peer review and will be thrown out if even one, repeatable, experiment shows them to be false. At the begining of the 20th Century the scientific concensus was that most phonomena were fully explained and Newton was spot on. The photoelectric effect was a bit of a puzzle though. Along came Einstein, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. Newton is now know to be only correct in a limited way - he didn't have the full picture. Science did not try to suppress these ideas and the text books were rewritten accordingly. Throwing your lot in with theoretical physicists and mathematicians is too high a risk for a religion.SOPHIA 09:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Perhaps a sample of the transubstantiated flesh of christ should be biopsied at the of communion. This DNA could then be sequenced to examine how it differs from the genome of conventional human beings. In addition, human cloning techniques are perfected, a clone could be created to hasten the Second Coming.

It is manifestly self-contradictory to speak of obtaining a 'sample' of the indivisible Body of Christ. That which cannot be divided obviously cannot be sampled. Athanasius 00:33, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• • • • I'm sorry, but what feeble and let's face it desperate attempts to defend this absurd medieval and cultist practise. Cannibalism is defined as the practise of eating the flesh of one's own species, full stop. It is not defined as what happens to the flesh after it is consumed, the social morals surrounding the practise, the allegedly eternal nature of the flesh one is eating, etc. This sophistry merely exposes the weakness of the defence. Roman Catholicism remains mired in the Dark Ages. 80.6.30.128 11:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That nonsense isn't even worthy of a response. KHM03 13:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Never before has so much bandwidth been wasted for so little 68.183.129.15 (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish that were true. 74.92.43.201 (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ancient doctrine

The only recent change made by Pdfox that raised an eyebrow for me, was the last:

However, such an origin in pagan religions is unlikely, given the early evidence of the doctrine in Christian history.

I'm not sure that this statement can be agreed to by any, except a Roman Catholic. The non-Catholic Eastern churches do not hold a doctrine of Transubstantiation; and no protestant group does. I certainly don't think that the doctrine came in by assimilation, as the closing paragraph implies; but it is, I think, by nearly all accounts a very late doctrine - or perhaps more neutrally, a formula which only very lately has been used to explain a very early practice. Would it be acceptable to tweak the article to agree with my previous sentence? Mkmcconn 00:14, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, as the article points out, the Eastern Churches DO accept something equivalent to transubstantiation. The evidence is that communion is a very old ceremony. The idea of transubstantiation is so outwardly strange, and likely to be misinterpreted as cannibalism, that it seems unlikely to have been grafted onto Christianity at a later date (like the Immaculate Conception or the Trinity).

Exile 14:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the non-Roman Catholic Churches all hold the doctrine of Real Presence, but they do not hold an "equivalent" of transubstantiation. The hideous "confession" that the Pope forced Berengarius to sign before he had him killed anyway pretty much guaranteed that. That went a long way to solidifying what the Roman Catholic Church now calls "misunderstandings" about the doctrine. In any case, it generally seems obvious to me that the detractors here have a bone to pick (no pun intended), and are trying to engage in reductio ad absurdam arguments that I, as an Anglican, consider to be at least as picayune as the Thomistic formula itself. Most Roman Catholic divines -- even those uber-Traditionalists who steadfastly defend the most greusome readings of the Scholastic doctrine -- would reject the charge of cannabalism on (pardon the pun, this time) substantive grounds. Now, it is true that many pagan mystery religions had ceremonies similar to Communion which involved the progressive divinization of the partaker by the ingestion of something meant to contain the life-force of the deity (or general Divinity) being worshipped. The practice of withces of "drawing down the moon," in particular, is akin to this. However, Judaism -- mainstream and otherwise -- also had rites such as these (prior to the destruction of the Temple and the triumph of Pharasaic philosophy -- variations of which are now the extant forms of Judaism, except for Kabballa). The visceral (sorry: can't seem to keep away from the puns) reaction by some of the detractors here suggests that they have an acute inability to think creatively.

Nrgdocadams 06:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Refactoring the talk page

I've reorderded the page to move this ongoing discussion to the top here, so that it can be worked on and not be overshadowed where it was sort of in the middle between extended citations and lots of jokes and settled matters.--Samuel J. Howard 06:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

And I've moved it back down again, Samuel. Hope you don't mind. I just think that people will be more likely to look for newer posts at the bottom. AnnH ^(talk) 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

N.B. Berengarius of Tours was not executed by the Pope. He passe the rest of his life in retirement and prayer near Tours and died in 1088. Ref. Encyclopedia Britannica 3, p. 500. 1966. from E.J. Smith smitheu1@msu.edu

Consensus, what consensus?

Giovanni33 claims in an edit summary that the cannibalism stuff is the product of consensus. I've looked through the page, but I don't see any clear consensus. For the record, I object. It seems that Str1977 and Rekleov also object. And perhaps KHM03 does as well, though his objection may have been on the grounds that consensus had not been reached. In any case, it was rather hard to find the discussion on this talk page, so I have refactored it. I acknowledge that such an action is always controversial, so I hope it won't cause offence. However, the normal expectation of Wikipedians looking at a talk page is that the more recent discussions will be at the bottom. If a talk page is long, I often don't even look at the top. AnnH ^(talk) 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

These others were not part of the discussion over this topic that led to the consensus. See above under the section "Suggested Text." If someone new comes in, before reverting to supressed the section, they should chime into the talk here to reach a new consensus before simply making the revert. Since an objection is now being made (and on behalf of others too), we can start to discuss these objections so that a new consensus can be arrived at. Giovanni33 05:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've read that section, and I still question that there was "consensus". In any case, there certainly isn't consensus now. AnnH ^(talk) 08:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus (see WP:CON). Aside from that, the edits really demonstrate an ignorance of Eucharistic theology, in my view. Transubstantiation, as I understand it, springs not from any mystery religion stuff, but from Thomism. Big difference. KHM03 10:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you are confusing historical origins of a practice--what I'm talking about--with the modern philosophical underpinning of religious views on the nature of matter, specifically, Thomism which is basically philosophical dualism, a development of Platonism (realism, idealism). The dualist notion here is that is that body (matter), is separated from"substantial form" (the soul). Much of this whole article is only an elaboration of this theological doctrine of faith, and my section did not have anything to do with the Church's own ideas (philosophical underpinnings), but rather tracing the pre-Christian historical origins for this notion, which I have shown, is based in the beliefs of much more ancient practices, of which Christianity may have developed out of in part, and among the ancient practices included ritual cannibalism and its magical notion as described. Infact, the similarities are striking that it’s interesting to see the blinders being put up here. hehe But, if you dispute it, please provide an argument with cited support (as I have done already). Again, please make your case with specific objections and provided referenced support to back them up. Otherwise, there is no basis to supress this section other than the fact the Christians don't like to talk about their origins. hehe64.121.40.153 11:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Dont try to be cute, there is no real basis for claiming the origins of Christianity are in cannibalism. There is no cult that advocated cannibalism. The charge has been made from Roman times as a justification fo the oppression and murder of Christians, similar to this is the charge that druids would heard victims into large burning wicker men. There is no historical basis for either rumor. The claim was made in the same document that Christians would worship genetals, a humorous, demeaning act to a Roman, and they would practice incest which would be an outrage against a Roman family. These were crafted to make Roman citizens think if a family member became Christian they would start becoming incestuous, genetal worshipping cannibalists.

It is easy to make the charge of suppression. If I posted that Jesus was actually an advocate of mushroom eating Jews, who had hallucinations of Godhood, I would expect such statements not based in fact would be supressed. Wikipedia means anyone can edit, as long as they have verifiable sources for the facts. Since you don't have a single verifiable source it is going to be removed. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be cute. I never said the origins of Christianity are in cannibalism. That is a straw man fallacy, just like your "what if" example since that is not what I have done. I didnt make this up, I provided sources above for my claims so they have to be taken seriously. If you want to refute it, then cite your sources that denies these connections. Like it or not there is a basis for what I do say, as reflected in the writings of scholars who are both reputable and recognized. Granted its a minority of scholarship which delves into these controverial matters, as most simply prefer to remain silent about it, but thats no reason why we should supporess it. A section from Paglia that I quote, along with other modern scholars that I provided above,which all back up my claims, here. If you dipute this, then please provide your scourced critism as I have:

"Christianity was a development of Dionysian mystery religion..." "The violent principle of Dionysian cult is sparagmos, which in Greek means "a rending, tearing, mangling" and secondly "a convulsion, spasm". The body of the god, or a human or animal substitute, is torn to pieces, which are eaten... Omophagy, ritual eating of raw flesh, is the assimilation and internalization...Cannibalism was impersonation... You are what you eat. The body parts of dismembered Osiris, scattered across the earth, were collected by Isis, who founded a shrine at each site. Before his arrest, Jesus tears the Passover bread for his disciples: "Take, eat: this is my body" (Mt.26:26). At every Christian service, wafers and wine are changed into Christ's body and blood, consumed by the worshipper. In Catholicism, this is not symbolic but literal. Transubstantiation is cannibalism. Dionysian sparagmos was an ecstasy of sexual excitation and superhuman strength...The scattering of sparagmos inseminated the earth. Hence swallowing the god's parts was an act of love. 16 Paglia buttresses her arguments with quotations from the Greek biographer and moralist Plutarch who lived near the time of Jesus:

"Plutarch says dismemberment is a metaphor for Dionysus' metamorphoses...Dionysus "construct destructions and disappearances, followed by returns to life and regenerations". Mystery religions offered initiates eternal life. Promise of resurrection was and is a major reason for Christianity's spread." 17 64.121.40.153 13:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And here is yet more, taken from none other than our own wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus "It is possible that Dionysian mythology would later find its way into Christianity...The modern scholar Barry Powell also argues that Christian notions of eating and drinking "the flesh" and "blood" of Jesus in order for individual followers to celebrate the ratification of the new covenant and to commemorate the sacrifice of the cross and His promise of return, was influenced by the cult of Dionysus. Certainly the Dionysus myth contains a great deal of cannibalism, in its links to Ino. Dionysus was also distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers. In a less benign example of influence on Christianity, Dionysus' followers, as well as another god, Pan, are said to have had the most influence on the modern view of Satan as animal-like and horned.2

According to Martin A. Larson in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Osiris was the first savior, and all soteriology in the region borrowed this religion, directly and indirectly, including Mithraism and Christianity, from an Osirian-Dionysian influence. As with their common dying and resurrected saviors, they all share common sacraments, ostensibly grounded in their reliance on seasonal cereal agriculture, having adopted the rituals with the food itself. Larson notes that Herodotus uses the names Osiris and Dionysus interchangeably and Plutarch identifies them as the same, while the name was anciently thought to originate from the place Nysa, in Egypt (now Ethiopia). 64.121.40.153 14:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)" 64.121.40.153 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Gio

History and context that explains the origins of a practice is important and interesting because it can sheds light on the basis for it. This in turn provides an understanding of the nature the religion practice, which is afterall a human creation that is part of human cultural practices--these all have understandable roots in earlier practices and such a history with context for modern practices are important. This attempts to provide exactly that basis of understanding, in a convincing manner. Do you have an alternate theory as to the basis for this practice, other than a biased religious theological one, which ignores historical context? To suppress the secular point of view reflects a huge bias and is itself POV. This Wiki is a secular encylopedia and should include such an analysis. I await a substancial refutation from equally reputable scholarship. Otherwise, I dont see how this can be legitimately supressed. 64.121.40.153 15:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni or 64...,

• It is against wiki policy to use wiki articles as sources for other wiki articles.
• We neither need to include any fringe extremist thesis that comes along. We don't include the "findings" of Henry Ford in our article on the Jews.

Str1977 15:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Prove to me that this is a fringe extremist thesis, before you dismiss it as such. Even this it should not be dismissed Also your analogy to Fords's anti-semitic view on the Jews is a fallacious argument as it is completely inappriate; Ford was in no way an authority on the subject, not even a scholar--or even very educated. On the other hand the modern scholars, Barry Powell, Paglia, Larson, are. Giovanni33 20:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"It is possible that Dionysian mythology would later find its way into Christianity" WIkipedia articles aren't about possibility. First you need to prove that the Dionysian ritual tradition was factual, and Paglia did use secondary sources for the ritual. Bacchus is the Roman name, but that doesn't mean the same practices were in Rome, as the worship of Zeus and Jupiter were different. Does she have an account for the ritual as it was in the original Greek practice? The belief, for her writings would then need to show diffusion to Rome. Even if that description of the ritual and the diffusion theory is true, this wasn't notable in Rome, as we know the similar Osiris cult was popular in Egypt, and lends itself to Syncretism which means that we don't really know how the ROmans really worshipped Bacchus. Then you would need to show, from a reference, that that tradition was popular among the leaders of the Early Christians.

On top of that Str1977 is right, the view is a fringe view, and the extreme deconstruction of the traditional understanding. A layman studying the topic needs the basic concept and some notable criticisms, not a view that is not founded in anything but speculation. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't have to prove the Dionysian ritual cult was factual, only that scholarship knows about the Dionysian myth, its cannibalism, and links its influence with Christianity in general and this practice in particular. It is perfectly acceptable for me to cite modern scholars who are resputable and highly regarded in their field which make this argument. That should be good enough, even if they might be a minority view. Professor Barry Powell, who I quote above holds a PhD from the University of California-Berkeley and is a professor of classics. His research includes include Greek poetry, mythology and Egyptology. He specifically argues that "Christian notions of eating and drinking "the flesh" and "blood" of Jesus in order for individual followers to celebrate the ratification of the new covenant and to commemorate the sacrifice of the cross and His promise of return, was influenced by the cult of Dionysus. Certainly the Dionysus myth contains a great deal of cannibalism, in its links to Ino. Dionysus was also distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers. In a less benign example of influence on Christianity, Dionysus' followers, as well as another god, Pan, are said to have had the most influence on the modern view of Satan as animal-like and horned." Maybe you should take it up with Prof. Powell, if you say hie is a fringe view enganging an extreme deconstruction of the traditional understanding, founded in speculation. Somehow that doesnt ring true given his textbook from which this is quoted, Classical Myth Third Edition [1] is a standard and universally accepted university text. Giovanni33 20:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The very word possible indicates original research - see WP:NOT on that matter. The fact that this is a small minority view, as User:Giovanni33 himself admits, means that if included at all, the reference to origins in cannibalism should be an extremely small one, and indicate it is a minority view; and I say if at all b/c by WP:NPOV Undue Weight, minority views do not need to be represented on main articles. That said, you could start a page on Transubstantiation:Minority Views of Origins, or something like it, in accordance with the WP:NPOV guidelines, provided the article clearly indicates it is a minority view. In this manner, you can represent the speculated views, with sources, fully. DonaNobisPacem 17:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know that this is a minority view. Is this view even disputed among other scholars? I'd like to see the refutations, which places this interpretation in the minority. I'd like to see the other views regarding the roots of the practices if it is said that there are not ties to Omophagy and the cult of Dionysus cult with its prevalent myths of cannibalism. Much as been written about the influence of the Dionysus myth and its influence in the origins of Christian myths.Giovanni33 20:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There's also a glaring logical fallacy here: "Christianity was a development of Dionysian mystery religion..." "The violent principle of Dionysian cult is sparagmos, which in Greek means "a rending, tearing, mangling" and secondly "a convulsion, spasm". The body of the god, or a human or animal substitute, is torn to pieces, which are eaten... Omophagy, ritual eating of raw flesh, is the assimilation and internalization...Cannibalism was impersonation... We're essentially equating any 'rending, tearing, mangling' with cannibalism, and treating animal sacrifice as though it were cannibalism as well, even though most readers will recognize a vast qualitative difference between tearing bread and sacrificing a bull, as well as between animal and human sacrifice. Who exactly are the cannibals that the Christians are supposed to be emulating? That the Greeks or Egyptians had myths with elements of cannibalism doesn't mean that's what they practiced or advocated. The myths also had instances of god's committing adultery, treachery, and all kinds of misdeeds, but it doesn't follow that the Greeks therefore encouraged such behaviour or considered it moral. Wesley 18:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Its only a logical fallacy if one is making that argument. The Greeks or Egyptians had myths with elements of cannibalism and I agree it doesn't mean that's what they practiced or advocated. Christians don't practice or advocate that either, yet, that doesnt mean that the notions, idea, doctrines, and practices can not be traced back influenced from there mystery cults--at least according to many scholars. Barry Powell, for example argues that Christian notions of eating and drinking "the flesh" and "blood" of Jesus was influenced by the cult of Dionysus, which contains a great deal of cannibalism, in its links to Ino.Giovanni33 20:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We've moved from Granted its a minority of scholarship which delves into these controverial matters above, to according to many scholars. Let's avoid the use of ambiguity here - it is a minority view, and so far there is only one scholar you have cited that supports this view. And in his case, if you go to [2], you will see he is not an expert on Christianity or its origins, but rather Greek poetry (he teaches classics), mythology and Egyptology. And in regards to the first point - many scholars, secular and religious, have studied the origins of Christianity; it is not necessarily that a minority of scholarship delves into these controversial matters; rather, it is a significant body that delves into the origins, and a minority which resurfaces with these controversial speculations. DonaNobisPacem 20:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I said that I think its only a minority that has devled into this quesiton, probably because of the controvery, not that the possition iself was a minority view. Silence, if anything, signifies aquiences. If you say he is, then I'd like to see the majority view on the origins of the practice, and refutations of the connections argued for here. And, no, I did not only cite one scholar. I cited at least four, among them Martin A. Larson who is a religion scholar specializing in theological history and the Essenes. He was originally from a fundamentalist Evangelical background [1], he rejected "its dogmas and practices" when he was about 20 years old [2]. His writings include a disquisition on the similarities among the cults of Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras and Jesus. He earned a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in 1927 with a thesis on the unorthodoxies of Milton, whom he found to have rejected the doctrine of the Trinity [3]. Larson's lifelong body of work reconstructs a complete story of Christian origins and its theological controversies, detailing Christian evolution from beginning to now. This includes the synthesis of ideas, deities and personalities that historically gave favor to Christianity against religious competitors such as Mithraism, which lacked a human founder and barred the general public, or Manichaeism, which lacked a deified founder.

Giovanni33 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Silence signifies acquiescence? I wonder how many Egyptologists have delved into the question of whether the pyramids were constructed with the help of aliens? I suppose by your logic, all those archaelogists who fail to mention this published theory must be in silent agreement with it, but fearful of being subjected to public ridicule. Regarding Martin A. Larson, you failed to mention that his "lifelong body of work" also describes how the Internal Revenue Service oppresses U.S. citizens and how those citizens can fight back. Wesley 17:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, one aspect this scholarship neglects is the uniqueness of the theology of transsubstantiation, and the subsequent reception of the Eucharist (or host, communion, etc - insert term of preference here). The important thing is that through the Eucharist, the receiver does not believe he is necessarily taking on the characteristics or powers of Christ - rather he believes that in physical union, he receives graces (assistance) from Christ. The more apt comparison, and that employed in both the Bible and Catholic theology and doctrine, is that of marriage rather than that of cannibalism - a one flesh union of partners in love. The cannibalistic rites were done out of a respect for an individual's perceived powers or traits - strength, endurance, courage - in the hopes one would take on those characteristics; whereas the whole basis for the reception of communion lies in that of love - of wanting an intimate union with Christ, of wanting an intimate means of prayer (ie, communication), and an exchange of love. The difference is astounding - hence the rejection of the opinion that the practice originated in the mystery religions' practice of cannibalism. DonaNobisPacem 06:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus poll

Do we agree the Mystery religeon text is misplaced in this article? Please answer with a bolded '''answer''' and give an opional short summary. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Remove This is about the concept and theology of this specific technical term, not about possibility. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is about established scholarship on the question of the historical origins for the pratice, which is both interesting and relevant to the article. Supression is unjustified. Giovanni33 14:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove I am stunned that this is even up for discussion. -Rekleov 15:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove; very little (if any) credible scholarship has been offered detailing the cannibalism/mystery cult thing regarding this doctrine (which dates, as I understand it, from the medieval era of Aquinas, not the pre-Christian era when MCs were prominent). Suppression of the truth is unjustified; suppression of OR is completely justified. KHM03 16:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• KeepCredible scholarship has been cited and quoted above already by Giovanni, therefore this can not be OR. At worst it's a fringe view; if kept it should mention that fact. Supression is NOT warrented unless goal here is only for a POV article. BelindaGong 17:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agree to Remove. This is about credible scholarship, which the addition doesn't fit into. Apart from this, the article is on "Transubstantiation" - a theological concept formulated in the Middle Ages (to describe something much older). The concept has nothing to do with supposed ancient ritual cannibalism. Str1977 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove KHM03 is right when he says this doctrine originated around the time of Aquinas, in scholasticism. Wesley 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep KHMO3 only expresses the dominant view from the Church’s history of itself. That is not absolute or beyond question. Clearly origins have been traced to much earlier and these theories represent a significant minority view. Suppression of it is POV and unjustified. Kecik 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove as irrelevant fringe scholarship. I agree with KHM03's last sentence about difference between suppression of truth and suppression of original research. AnnH ^(talk) 19:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove because it is not pertinent enough to the article to remain within the article. Note, however, that the research cited by Giovanni is neither original nor fringe; it is commonly accepted in secular academic circles that the Chistian shape of the sacred mysteries -- while developed out of creations of Jesus and his apostles -- is strongly influenced by the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and the Near East in which it developed. Nevertheless, the problem here is twofold. First, the writer has an extremely biased, anti-Christian (especially anti-catholic) POV, and writes in a way that is meant to be derogatory. The second is a lack of direct relevance to this particular scholastic term. I suggest that there be placed in the article an innocuous reference:

"Many secular scholars note the connection of the idea of feeding on the life-force of a mystical entitity being characteristic of the central rites of Greco-Roman and Near-Eastern mystery religions, the context in which the acts and ordinances of Jesus and his apostles came to be memorialized. For further information on this aspect, see the article on Mystery Rites."

Then, I suggest this highly contentious topic be hashed out into a NPOV article under "Mystery Rites."

Nrgdocadams 23:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

• Remove It could be its own article identified by its adherents (those who propose it for belief, those who believe it). There is nothing commonly accepted about this. My suggestion for an article title would be Pagan influences upon Christianity and be suppaged under Christianity. It's very much POV to give to a handful of contemporary anti-Catholics equal weight in this particular article to posit conspiracy theory claims about what Catholics really, truly believe about Transubstantiation against the written evidence of nearly 2,000 years of belief that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Commenting on its origin with St. Thomas Aquinas: the belief originates in the words of Christ himself and the definition develops through the centuries to its current expression from the Council of Trent. patsw 03:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Pure religious dogma--"the belief originates in the words of Chist himself..."--is fine for your faith but it does nothing to refute scholarship that shows otherwise. To suppress it on this basis is sheer bigotry and intolerance of the secular point of view. I'll fight against these POV pushers of no-knowthing dogmatism tooth and nail. It cannot stand EVER. I agree with Nrgdocadams, who I noticed has a Ph.D in divinity (education is a good thing!) and states factually that the research cited by Giovanni is neither original nor fringe; it is commonly accepted in secular academic circles; MANY elements of Christianity are strongly influenced by the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and the Near East in which it developed. Ignorance of these facts blinded by religious bigotry is utterly disgusting! And, this poll will not determine the truth which I hope all parties opposed to this unjustified distasteful suppression will continue to fight for.MikaM 05:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Isn't the secular view of Transubstantiation that the bread and wine remain bread and wine? If you have so-called scholarship that discusses the pagan influences upon Christianity, it would belong in that article. patsw 21:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: And, Mika, you're welcome to edit the article to say that "the RCC believes the belief to originate from Christ" or something like that. But failing to rephrase it in an NPOV manner doesn't mean we can introduce material which is really only peripherally related to this doctrine, which, again, originated primarily from the medieval theological great Aquinas, not pre-Christian mystery cults; no scholar disputes that fact. KHM03 22:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Although I don't think a poll is necessarily the right way to go here (Wikipedia guidelines suggest discussion as the first recourse to consensus), I think the fact being ignored here is that Catholic theologians/historians, although biased through faith, cannot be discounted any more than secular historians, who are just as biased by their lack of beliefs and possibly anti-religious/anti-Christian/anti-Catholic leanings. Catholic scholars qualify as experts on their faith and its practices and origins. And part of the argument that I think has been mentioned is that although it may bear similarity to flesh-eating rites, it (Catholic belief) is unique, and differs in many aspects; Catholic scholars have seen this as reason to believe the practice originated with Jesus, as opposed to evolving from previous practice. In this case, Catholic scholarship remains the majority view by far; it is not inherently POV, as just as there is nothing to refute the belief it evolved (other than the many distinct differences....), there is also nothing to show that it did not originate with Jesus. I hold to my previous standpoint that by WP:NPOV Undue Weight this section should not be included. DonaNobisPacem 06:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep The concept of Transubstantiation, whilst having no direct equivalent, has close parallels in older Mystery tradition. Hence, I'd suggest that a link to the appropriate section on relevant Mystery religion page is both educational & appropriate. TheShriek 22:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably moot, but I agree with its Removal. I thought this anti-Catholic cannibalism garbage was 19th century. I guess not... --Elliskev 13:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Poll result

I see 10 votes to Remove and 5 votes to Keep the section, after about a week of voting. This appears to be a 2:1 ratio in favor of removing the section in question. Wesley 17:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion for Compromise (Part 1)

Ok, now that we know where most of us stand and why, lets see if we can work out an acceptable compromise. I think reasonble people can tell that this is a point of view. The question is is this a signifiant minority view as evidenced by prominent scholars who argue these links to pre-Christian influences? I think the evidence suggests that it is. acording to NPOV we should therefore include it, give it appropriate attention (minor) and fairly represent the viewpoint and add any comments by the mainstream theory.

I want to second the promosed compromise above, by Nrgodocamas. To review, he said, "it is commonly accepted in secular academic circles that the Chistian shape of the sacred mysteries -- while developed out of creations of Jesus and his apostles -- is strongly influenced by the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and the Near East in which it developed. Nevertheless, the problem here is twofold. First, the writer has an extremely biased, anti-Christian (especially anti-catholic) POV, and writes in a way that is meant to be derogatory. The second is a lack of direct relevance to this particular scholastic term. I suggest that there be placed in the article an innocuous reference:

"Many secular scholars note the connection of the idea of feeding on the life-force of a mystical entitity being characteristic of the central rites of Greco-Roman and Near-Eastern mystery religions, the context in which the acts and ordinances of Jesus and his apostles came to be memorialized. For further information on this aspect, see the article on Mystery Rites."

Then, I suggest this highly contentious topic be hashed out into a NPOV article under "Mystery Rites."

Nrgdocadams 23:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Well, this is acceptable to me. I'd like to know if others would accept this compromise and if not, lets discuss it to see if we can reach a consenus. Thanks. MikaM 23:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Chistian shape? Get real. feeding on the life-force of a mystical entitity?? Utter nonsense. The next thing will be a suggestion that vampires are the source of the Christian belief of the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting. Did anyone proposing these so-called compromises read the objections raised in the poll above, or for that matter, seriously study Catholic doctrine or just Paglia? Patsw 03:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Nameless One, I have studied Catholic doctrine (both Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic) quite considerably -- literally, ad nauseam sometimes (particularly when I have to pore through the rantings of Triumphaslists such as yourself). I have also read Paglia, and I find her obnoxious but, also, occasionally hitting-the-nail-on-the-head. The reality here is that, if you go back and trace the history, you will see that what I have written is quite frimly in the mainsteam of the historical and archeaological evidence. Moreover, connecting it in a NPOV, innocuous way, as I have suggested, to an article about the mystery rites, is a way to keep the information from becomming too disconnected and tangential (which disconnection I suppose you and the writer below want, since it would preclude others from challenging your bias). I have challenged Giovanni's bias, and I am just as happy and as prepared to challenge yours. If there is legitimate historic evidence about the promptings of pagan stories (note, I did not write "pagan origins") with regard to the Christain doctrine of the Virgin Birth, etc., then let each one of those articles be linked to an article about the pagan similarities.

Nrgdocadams 01:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Discussion for Compromise (Part 2)

Take the discussion of the pagan influences upon Christianity to its own article or a subpage under Christianity, and add a "see also" or other reference.

Why stop with Transubstantiation? After all, there are speculative connections between pagan ritual and belief with the Holy Eucharist, the Virgin Birth, the Transfiguration, the Resurrection of the Dead, puragatory, relics, saints, stigmata, the symbols of the papacy. etc.

This article should be about the definition of the term Transubstantiation, and it historical development based upon the evidence of the written record, and not on a flippant comment in Sexual Personae : Art & Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson ISBN 0679735798 patsw 03:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like Paglia, how about Professor Barry Powell, who holds PhD from the University of California-Berkeley and is a professor of classics, whose dont a lot of research in Greek poetry, mythology and Egyptology. He specifically argues that "Christian notions of eating and drinking "the flesh" and "blood" of Jesus in order for individual followers to celebrate the ratification of the new covenant and to commemorate the sacrifice of the cross and His promise of return, was influenced by the cult of Dionysus. Certainly the Dionysus myth contains a great deal of cannibalism, in its links to Ino. Dionysus was also distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers. In a less benign example of influence on Christianity, Dionysus' followers, as well as another god, Pan, are said to have had the most influence on the modern view of Satan as animal-like and horned." This is quoted from, Classical Myth Third Edition, which is a standard and universally accepted as a university text. I also think that all the other aspects of Christian mythology where it deals with a specific concept, should be historically linked to its antededants in pre-Christian beliefs, i.e the myth of the virgin birth, etc. I'll or others will get to those others in due time. I agree it should not get in depth (that should be saved for its own page), but it should make a brief mention with an link to the page. Remember an encylopeadia is here to expand knowlege not protect the contstructs of one POV. Giovanni33 08:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Do Paglia and/or Powell specifically address the doctrine of transubstantiation, or do they more generally comment on the Eucharist? The quote above seems more the latter. In what way(s) do they deal with this particular doctrine (transubstantiation)? KHM03 12:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible in this gereralized context to comment on the probably origins of the ideas of the Eurcharist and not have it also be a commentary at the same time of the doctrine of transubstanciation, when the latter is but a more literal interprestion of the same notions? I think its encompasing of both, one being a subset of the other. To the RCC, when the bread and wine are consecrated in the Eucharist, they cease to be bread and wine, and literally become the flesh and blood. The reason they say that we cant take it to the labratory and verify this is because of problems with our perceptions (accidents)--but that through mystery its not just symbolic but really blood and flesh. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think this doctrine of transubstanciation to explain the mysterious change of the reality of the bread and wine used in the Eucharist in the twelfth century was simply to help clariy what was rather ambiguous in its distinction between "substance" or underlying reality, and " accidents" (humanly perceptible appearances), and they did this to strike a balance between the extremes of a cannibalistic interpreation and a merely symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist. However, in ay case the whole notion itself, irrespective of these specific doctrines still pertain to the above refrenced scholarly discussion of pre-Christian orgins. 64.121.40.153 19:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Sorry I got logged off again. It's Gio.

I think these issues are about the Eucharist, not about transubstantiation. Best to be precise. This is a Thomistic doctrine; what do Powell/Paglia say about this specific doctrine? KHM03 21:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that these and other authors say exactly the same thing, in fact they like to specifically use the RCC version because of its literal intentions, i.e. they say they are really eating the flesh and blood of Jesus. This makes the point even stronger. The thomistic nature of this as embodied in the notions of transubstantiation only deal with the RCC's mental gymnastics in explaining the seemingly nonreconcilablity of their assertion of literalness and what appers us as the reality, i.e. that it's really still bread and wine. But, all this while important in understanding from the RC point of view, is besides the point regarding the origins of the practice that a Thomistic doctrine is used to explain. Real Presense, the Eucharist, etc, should all thus have a similar mention with its own link to an artcle that deals with mystery rites.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MikaM (talk • contribs)

So, then, you can see why Eucharist is more appropo for this discussion. And to call the work of Aquinas - one of history's greatest minds - "mental gymnastics" not only displays an almost supernatural ignorance of the subject, but is offensive and truly sad. KHM03 22:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I only see why it should be mentioned with the other varients of this same practice. Also, I didnt know that the term mental gymanstics is a put down on ones mental abilities itself--not al all--it's means that the arguments being made are a quite a stretch, and in this case anti-scientfific, resting on an irrational dismissal of the powers of our senses. But make no mistake, it is what some philosophers of the greatest talent are able to do to make an argument, however deeply flawed they are in my opinion and that of the majority of those who adopt a scientific approach. I happen the philosophical thinking Aquinas, this argument, and even that of Plato who Aquinas basically copies along with other religous philosophers, is likewise flawed. Obviously I ascribe to the materialism, or naturalism school of thought. But, all this is besides the point and not a matter of debate amoung us, nor should it be. It's completely irrelevant to this issue which is one of a historical nature not a philosphical one. 69.106.226.3 02:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Many secular scholars note the connection of the idea of feeding on the life-force of a mystical entitity being characteristic of the central rites of Greco-Roman and Near-Eastern mystery religions, the context in which the acts and ordinances of Jesus and his apostles came to be memorialized. For further information on this aspect, see the article on Mystery Rites."

I've taken this out again. This is just confusing..."the context in which" the societal context? the early christians saw themselves as being like/opposed to/in geographic proximity of the mystery rites. I think the ambiguity is being left there to put the weight on interpretative charity, but if what the writer was trying to say was actually written out rather than implied I think there'd probably be objection.--Samuel J. Howard 21:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and as someone said above, all this is really not about transubstantiation more than real presence or eucharist.--Samuel J. Howard 21:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary its just as much about transubstantiation, if not more for its literalness in concept, than it is for eucharist and real presence. But, I think the original version is clearer and direct to the point, or perhaps include both?Giovanni33 05:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is basis for a reasonable and valid compromise. Those who want to exclude it totally are wrong, and that can't stand. BelindaGong 08:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is about transsubstantiation and not about the eucharist in general, hence this addition, even if it were valid, does not belong here. Or would you include the information in this section into this article?

Quite apart that the ominous "secular scholars" appear here again.

Str1977 08:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy is interesting but not quite fitting. The relationship of Soccer to Goal is that of a one aspect in isolation from the whole, so any talk of the origins of soccer, let say, would not be applicable in goal, but fit in soccer. However, the relationship between transubstantiation and the Eucharist and Real Presence are all just different theological variants in doctrine among the same phenomenon in question, as such talking about pre-Christian origins in any of these variants are all equally applicable. The correct analogy would be to describe, say, different model cars, and the origins of the wheel, better, or internal combustion engine. It doesn’t matter what model, it still pertains equally as relevant given the same family historical orgins broadly encompass them. 64.121.40.153 09:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The "secular" is not the only objection I make, Giovanni,though its constant resurfacing quite clearly indicates bias.

I think my analogy is fitting enough. And no, Transubstantiation is not just a theological variant of Eucharist or Real Presence - Eucharist is the sacrament, the whole thing, and RP is one element of this (though denied by the Reformed branch of Protestantism) - Transubstantiation is a theological theory (later defined as dogma) of how Real Presence works, as opposed to Consubstantiation or other theories. (BTW, T. is not Thomistic, as Thomas was born around the time of the definition, but based on the methods of Aristotelian philosophy applied to Christian theology).

What is relevant here is that there is no way you can argue for the theory (and subsequently) dogma of T. having its roots the "idea of feeding on the life-force", or Mystery cults or cannibalism. Can you give evidence that the MCs believed in T.

Str1977 10:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What's also interesting is that the disputed section refers to theologians who never affirmed transubstantiation, and who adhered to a different understanding of the Eucharist (Basil & Chrysostom). More evidence that this section is really about the Eucharist, and not really the particular doctrine of transubstantiation. What bothers me is this imprecision. KHM03 12:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Eastern Orthodox Church today specifically rejects the doctrine of Transubstantiation as such, mainly because it gets too specific and says more about the mystery than it's possible for us to know, and more than has actually been revealed to us. They just continue to say of the Eucharist what has always been said before about it. So conflating transubstatiation with the Eucharist is grossly inaccurate. To say that transsubstantiation is influenced by the mystery cults, you would have to have them somehow exerting influence when T. was promulgated, not just from 700 or 1000 years earlier. Sorry if I missed it, but I don't think that's been shown or even claimed as of yet. Wesley 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the word rejection applies to the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church. For it to be a rejection, the Eastern Orthodox doctrine would be that the substance of the bread and wine remain as well as the appearances of bread and wine after the Consecration. It may be the case that they would deny the contradiction of Transubstantiation while not affirming it as doctrine. I will see if I can get a reference to this. patsw 17:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Officially, it's probably most correct to say that they are silent regarding it, as authoritative Orthodox councils have probably not been forced to specifically address the doctrine. And they probably won't until the time comes for serious talks about somehow reuniting with the Roman Catholics, whenever that finally comes about. In general though, they are careful to avoid being too specific about the "technicalities" of what goes on, in the spirit of apophatic theology. Wesley 17:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been convinced its probably better at Eucharist as KH03 had argued. So I dont have any more objections about not including it here. I dont know if the POV tag is related to this isssue or not but if it is, I suggest it should be removed unless someone wants to make a case otherwise. Giovanni33 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits that would normally not require explanations

After recounting how the attempt at tolerance under the Duke of Somerset was a failure, the Encyclopedia Britannica 1998 (CD-ROM edition) speaks of his successor, "John Dudley, Earl of Warwick, who became duke of Northumberland. The duke was a man of action who represented most of the acquisitive aspects of the landed elements in society and who allied himself with the extreme section of the Protestant reformers. Under Northumberland, England pulled out of Scotland and in 1550 returned Boulogne to France; social order was ruthlessly reestablished in the countryside, the more conservative of the Henrician bishops were imprisoned, the wealth of the church was systematically looted, and uncompromising Protestantism was officially sanctioned. The Ordinal of 1550 transformed the divinely ordained priest into a governmental appointee, the new Prayer Book of 1552 was avowedly Protestant, altars were turned into tables, clerical vestments gave way to plain surplices, and religious orthodoxy was enforced by a new and more stringent Act of Uniformity" (emphases mine). For this reason I replace the unsourced phrase "adopted theology that allowed greater tolerance for the range of Protestant views" that has been inserted in the text today as an account of what the short reign of Henry VI brought about.

In the same paragraph, the unnecessary addition of the phrase "the Scholastic theological formula of" to the word "transubstantiation" is an insertion of a personal point of view.

What evidence is there that "'most expound ... metousiosis"? If there is no evidence, why not use the neutral "and others"?

Lima 14:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an exceedingly biased citation by an editor who has a personal vendetta. Also, I'll assume Lima's writing about Henry VIII and Edward VI, rather than Henry VI. While the Encyclopedia Brittanica may sanction such a POV reading, it has been clear from the writers ranging from the Caroline divines, up through the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in Saepius Officio, and opponents of the Anglicans, from the Puritans to the Presbyterians, that the bishops themselves certainly did not believe that what they were doing was transforming the divinely ordained priest into a government appointee. The conention that this ws their plan is the discredited contention argued by Leo XIII in his Bull, Apostolicae Curae, and reflects a position that even many current Roman Catholic theologians (though not the current Pope) cannot support. Moreover, while Northumberland might have held uncompromisingly Reformed Protestant views, that was certainly not the case among all -- or even a majority -- of bishops, else there would have been none left to insist on keeping salient pieces in the Book of common Prayer whcih the Puritans and other groups felt were decidedly too "papist." Moreover, when Elizabeth took the throne, she purged Mary's pro-Roman bishops, but was still left with an episcopate that had a broad range of theological leaning, from very Catholic to very Reformed. To ignore this history is simply Roman catholic Triumphalism at work (again). It is an exterme point of view, and does not belong in this article, hence, I have reverted it. In addition, the Anglican communion firmly holds to the doctrine of the Real Presence, and a reading of current works on the matter will reveal a clear preference for metousiosis over and against the Scholastic theological formula (whcih is, factually, not "unnecessarily," what it is) of transibstantiation.Nrgdocadams 22:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Nrgdocadams, your comments may be valid in regard to what Lima wrote here, on the talk page, as indeed he didn't mince his words. However, I agree with his edits which removed the wording "more tolerant", as Edward VI's reign way things but not more tolerant. What it was is more Protestant. I retained the rest of your reverting. Str1977 22:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"In this context, substance is a philosophical, not a chemical term, though that has historically been a matter of considerable disagreement and, perhaps, misunderstanding." The doctrine of transubstantiation, which is what is discussed, is unquestionably not about chemical substance.

"a great relational mystical change of essence ... in the bread and wine" - Eastern Orthodox Christians certainly do not think the change affecting the bread and wine is just something relational: they see it as an objective change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ. Besides, relational to what or to whom?

"most expound a doctrine of the Real Presence akin to the concept of metousiosis" - Does any other contributor think this is true? I leave it in the text to see this unsourced statement gets the support of anyone who can quote even a few notable Anglicans who, while denying transubstantiation, propose anything like the theory given in the article Metousiosis, or even mention the term metousiosis with approval.

Lima 13:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Errors in "Theology of Transubstantiation" section

I am new to this talk page, but have formally studied Catholic Philosophy in a Catholic Institution. My prof. was Peter Kreeft in philosophy, and Dr. Peter Fehlner, STD, in theology. For that reason, when I read this section I noticed a great number of erros in the explanation. I will attempt to cite them all.

1)"It indicates what something is in itself. A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour the hat, nor is its size, nor its softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the colour, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. The appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not."

WRONG: because you can touch and see and feel the substance just as much as you can the accidents, because though "Accidents manifest Substance" (Bernard Wuellner, SJ: Summary of Scholastic Principles, Loyola University Press, 1956, axiom 516; hereafter cited as BW), they are never separate from the substance to which they belong. And so, this section errs, because it follows a Kantian criterion, that phenomena are knowable but noumena are not knowable. That is not what the doctrine of transubstantiation is, because it is not a Kantian philosophic theory, but a Scholastic one. Also this paragraph errs, because it defines "substance" as "what someting is in in itself", which is an insufficient description, which could equally apply to "essence"; rather a "subtance" is "that which a thing is in itself considered in the totality of its being as a real thing", thus every individual real thing is an individual subtance.

2) "When at his Last Supper Jesus said: "This is my body", what he held in his hands had all the appearances of bread. However, though the accidents of bread remained as before, the Roman Catholic Church believes that the underlying reality was changed in accordance with what Jesus said, that the substance of the bread was converted to that of his body. And it believes that the same change of the substance of the bread and a similar change of the substance of the wine occurs at every celebration of the Eucharist."

CORRECTION: What He held in his hand was bread and wine, but after He blessed it saying, "This is My Body etc., this is My Blood etc." the Catholic Church teaches that it became that which He said it was, though it still appeared to be that which is was before He spoke these words. This change is called by Scholastics "transubstantiation" because it posits a change in the real being of the gifts offered, which by a singular act of Divine intervetion retain the proper accidents of the gifts before they were offered.

3) "The bread is not changed into Jesus: it is changed into his body. But where Jesus' body is, there now is Jesus. Accordingly, when bread is converted into his body, Jesus as a whole, body and blood, soul and divinity, is present by concomitance. In the same way, the wine is not changed into Jesus, but into his blood; but where his blood is, Jesus, whole and entire, is present, not just his blood."

WRONG: The bread and wine are changed into Jesus, because in Catholic Theology "Jesus" refers to the Divine Person, Man and God, which is what the Eucharist, according to Catholic Theology is. But the Eucharist is this, by virtue of the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood. Nor is the bread converted, according to Catholic teaching, into only the body, nor the wine only into the blood, but rather each into both; they are termed the Body and Blood of the Lord, inasmuch as they by their outward appearances retain a solid and liquid form which are appropriated to the Body and Blood respectively.

2) "The Roman Catholic Church considers the doctrine of transubstantiation the best defence against what it sees as the mutually opposed errors of, on the one hand, a merely figurative understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (the change of the substance is real), and, on the other hand, an interpretation that would amount to cannibalistic eating of the flesh and corporal drinking of the blood of Christ (the accidents that remain are real, not an illusion)."

CORRECTION: The Church does not hold the doctrine to defend against anything; the Scholastics proposed it as that explanation which best reconciles the teaching of the Fathers with the philosophical categories of Aristotle and Plato. The doctrine in now way supposes cannabalism or refutes it, because cannabalism is the corporal eating of a part of a human body, but in the Eucharist, catholics believe they eat the entire Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity and Person of Jesus Christ, spiritually. Which is not to say that the Church teaches that Christ is not present there really, trully and substantially, but because he is there circumscriptively and not in the same manner that you or I or any piece of food is physically present, that is with its proper appearances and substances, in a manner that these cannot be divided or multiplied.

For all these reasons, I believe this section would do better to quote some Scholastic Theologians, and take their words, or the words of some Catholic Theologian, that are citable, than to attempt a paraphrase, which is just a mishmash of terminology.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 23:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Normally, "accidents manifest substance"; but it is Catholic faith that in the Eucharist they do not. In the case of the Eucharist, Catholic faith denies that the accidents "are never separate from the substance to which they belong", since the accidents of bread and wine remain, but the substance or inner reality (not, of course, the material or chemical substance, which can be touched) has been changed.

2. "When Jesus said ..." It is strange that anyone would interpret this as meaning "Until Jesus said ..." Compare: "When my friend said: 'Look at the clock,' I realized I was late."

3. The Council of Trent defined the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. The Council's statement is given in the article. It is also quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1376.

4. While "the Church does not hold the doctrine to defend against anything", it does see that the doctrine serves to exclude certain errors.

Lima 07:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

When discussing matters of Doctrine we must not rely on our own reasoning but rather on the scriptures. It is my suggestion that if you wish to find out about the validity of any doctrine (in this case transubstantiation) that you search the scriptures for yourself. Relevant passages to read include, Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22 (The Lords supper - note, John does not give an account.) John 6, Exodus 12, Deuteronomy 8:3 Just to give a few.

No amount of logic and arguement can substitue for the scriptures from which all Christian Doctrine is to come.

From my examination of the scriptures i can only conclude that transubstantiation is not biblical, but rather a missunderstanding of the scripture, but rather than taking my word, check it out for yourself.

Excellent way to post your POV here, but your opinion that all Christian Doctrine should come from the Bible is just that, opinion. That view is also historically ignorant, considering there was no New Testament until the late 4th century. ( And who put the New Testament together? The Catholic Church, which does not hold all doctrine must necessarily come from the scripture, particularly since Christianity predates the writing of the New Testament.) Next time though, try leaving a name. Guldenat 18:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Transubstantiation and English

While there are issues of belief and theology, some of the article as it was before I changed it doesn't make sense in ordinary English. It might help to analyse the logic if we use another word than "Jesus".

The bread is not changed into Jesus: it is changed into his body. But where Jesus' body is, there now is Jesus. Accordingly, when bread is converted into his body, Jesus as a whole, body and blood, soul and divinity, is present by concomitance. In the same way, the wine is not changed into Jesus, but into his blood; but where his blood is, Jesus, whole and entire, is present, not just his blood.

"When bread is converted into his body ... Jesus .. is present by concomitance" (what's that? Why not use ordinary English). Even more clearly nonsensical: "where his blood is, Jesus is". I have seen dead people. Where there body is, they aren't. Where only there blood is, they are even less present.

While there are things that can be said that some may disagree with, I think we must all agree that each and every sentence must make sense. I can't think how to reword the paragraph, and have just deleted it.

Pol098 19:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

History

From what I understand transubstantiation only became a serious doctrine of the Church in the 1100s. Could this be incorporated into the article somehow? 141.157.75.97 01:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There were Christians (believers in Christ) before the word "Christian" was invented to describe them (Acts 11:26). And Christians believed that the reality of the bread and wine was changed into that of the body and blood of Christ centuries before the word "transubstantiation" was invented to describe the change. Lima 04:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

And the trinity existed before it was formulated, and agreed on?Research Method (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Cannibalism

You cant be serious? This is about telling people what the word/concept is. It is very specific. This is not about how you feel about it. The last thing anyone needs is the view of critics of this term waxing lyrical about why they believe it is wrong. It might be helpful to list some historical opinions about it, from someone who matters, as milestones in its development.(Ignatious of Antioch,Luther,Trent etc). It is helpful to no one to make an impassioned plea for people to reject this concept because YOU believe, or uncited academics believe it is wrong/cannabilistic/pagan/unchristian/too liberal/too literalist/whatever. This is an encyclopeadia, leave your opinion in the loungeroom, and be objective. Cialovesyou 16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an important part of the history of Transubstantiation. Perceptions of Transubstantiation as cannibalism occurred commonly during missionary work, and Jesuits were forced to disguise it as feast ceromonies. cf Sensible Flesh By Elizabeth D. HarveyResearch Method (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Substance

First, I appreciate Vaquero101's attempts to improve this article. One particular phrase seems odd however:

"Substance" here means what something is made of, that is, the matter of which it is made. For example a door itself is made of a substance or material, say vinyl but may be painted to look like wood. Vinyl is the door's substance.

The classic definition of substance is "that which is apt to exist in itself and not in another as in a subject." Or, from Aristotle, "Substance, in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word, is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject" (Categories, 5) It seems confusing to use the word "matter" here, as scholastics often think of material substance as a composition of matter and form. Gimmetrow 14:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Computer programmers and transubstantiation

You know, I reckon computer programmers would have no troubles understanding the description of transubstantiation in the article. By analogy, the "accidents" of bread could be considered the interface. During communion the underlying object changes class but the IBread interface is still implemented. I'm not intending to be blasphemous or irreverent here, sorry if it comes across that way. --Surturz 05:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Like running my machine under Linux with the KDE interface, and then restarting in BSD but also with the KDE interface?72.155.127.123 (talk)

As a computer programmer and practicing Catholic, I find this funny. Although, I feel it would be too much to analogize the Eucharist as such and would rather be like the Orthodox, recognizing the mystery of the Sacrament.--Francis419jn655 21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As another computer programmer and practicing Catholic, I actually think the metaphor is entirely apt and doesn't deny the mystery any more than existing Catholic theology already does. As I understand it, the original understanding of transubstantiation owes a lot to Plato's forms. The idea is essentially that the elements of communion are originally informed by the 'forms' of bread and wine. During the liturgy, however, they switch associations to 'the body of Christ' and 'the blood of Christ'. All physical properties remain the same, but the underlying nature - what the elements really ARE - is fundamentally altered. The Platonic underpinnings of this theology seem almost identical to the programming metaphor to me.Yakaji (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Many Roman Catholics

I've added "Many individual Roman Catholics do not believe that the bread they eat is Jesus's body, or the wine his blood; some priests play down the importance (or existence) of transubstantiation" because this is true, but would welcome comments as to the best place for this.Jonathan3 17:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I think the group already showed their view on the addition, I would like to comment. I think the statement for wikipedia does not show justice to "many individual Roman Catholics." You need to be careful when you use many and some, particularly in an encyclopedia context so as to accurately describe the entirety of what the article defines. As a Roman Catholic and one who deals with teens in a youth group, I think it is incorrect to say "many individual Roman Catholic" do not believe in transubstantiation. There are those who outrightly do not believe in the Eucharist, but they are typically few, and most likely do not attend the Mass. What I think you are including are those who have doubts in the entirety of transubstantiation theology or a lack of understanding and knowledge of the devotion and greatness the Catholic Church proclaims of the Eucharist. In my own personal viewpoint it was incorrect to say "Many individual Roman Catholics do not believe..."--Francis419jn655 21:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I confess I have not read anything else here so don't know what "the group" think. You are right that I am referring to social Roman Catholics (perhaps the majority) rather than devout church-goers (or chapel-goers?). I have yet to meet a Roman Catholic who believes in transubstantiation; perhaps this is because I obviously do not attend RC churches. In fact, a friend put me in touch with an RC priest via email because I insisted it was RC doctrine: the priest just would not be tied down on the subject. He said he was a Vatican II man and that he "didn't find the topic helpful". You are quite right that this is just based on my experience and not fit for an encyclopedia (your opinion based on the youth group falls into the same category).

As an aside, I note that Pope John Paul's encyclical of a couple of years ago on this very subject is not mentioned in the article. Finally, I will change the opening sentence "...belief of the Roman Catholic Church and other Christians..." to "...belief of the Roman Catholic Church and some other Christians..." for accuracy. Jonathan3 22:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A sad example of someone claiming to represent Vatican II, as if that had (or could) changed anything in that regard or now prescribed fuzziness. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A person who disputed transubstatiation would no longer be a Catholic in good standing. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A problem I have with Jonathan's suggested sentence is that it implicitly states that the gifts after consecration are still "bread" and "wine". It's hard to find a balanced NPOV language that doesn't imply either that they are or that they are not. I'll give some examples to show what I mean. Let's say you have a certain fruit. The Catholic Church says (and orthodox Catholics belive) that it's a lemon; Protestants think it's a grapefruit, and that therefore the Catholic Church is wrong, and the dissenting Catholics right.

• "Many individual Catholics do not believe that this fruit is a lemon." Assuming that there's no problem with the use of the word "many" (as opposed to "some"), it's perfectly NPOV.
• "Many individual Catholics do not believe that this grapefruit is a lemon." This violates NPOV, as it states that the fruit in question actually is a grapefruit.

Other hypothetical examples

• "Many individual Catholics do not believe that this piece of furniture is a table." Potentially NPOV.
• "Many individual Catholics do not believe that this chair is a table." Violates NPOV.
• "Many individual Catholics do not believe that this animal is a dog." Potentially NPOV.
• "Many individual Catholics do not believe that this cat is a dog." Violates NPOV.

Okay, the Church, of course, does not define pieces of furniture, fruits, or animals. But I thought those examples would make the POV problems clearer. I'm qualified as a linguist, not as a theologian! AnnH ♫ 18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)