Question to ex-Catholics

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Budge' post='1023635' date='Jul 13 2006, 09:49 AM']
No.

It is a piece of bread.

Most Catholics do not know the teaching of Transubstantiation.

I told three Catholic friends after Mass about Transubstantiation, this was while I was on my way out....

two told me...'NO WAY!' and didnt believe me when I explained what it meant.

One said, "well I believe like the Protestants do"...

I have faith in God, I do not have faith in a piece of bread.

Jesus himself said this:

Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

The piece of bread is how Rome gets its power, it tells people ONLY WE have the VALID wafer-"God." You are stuck with us no matter how corrupt things get...

Christians receive Jesus Christ via FAITH, and form a relationship with Him.

Catholics "receive" what they believe is Jesus Christ going back for weekly 'fill-ups"
[/quote]Do you really expect us to believe you had that conversation.

[mofca]

Transubstantiation requires a leap of faith. Without faith, it remains what it is: bread and wine.
It has always puzzled me that you are required to belong to the Church in order to experience Christ in the Eucharist. When I used to go to Mass occasionally with my friends, I would stand in line and receive a blessing during Communion. I always thought that was kinda cool, and at least it showed some acceptance of my presence there as a non-Catholic. That changed a couple of years ago when the local Bishop decided that it was no longer appropriate to stand in line for Communion if you weren't receiving it. Nail in the coffin, and I haven't gone to Mass since then.
It seems to me that if Christ were truly present in the Eucharist, He would want to reveal himself to everyone who was willing to experience His presence regardless of their faith. The "rules" in the Church that come with experiencing God seem to me like they only strengthen the dividing lines between people of differing faiths.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='mofca' post='1030441' date='Jul 25 2006, 07:01 AM']
Transubstantiation requires a leap of faith. Without faith, it remains what it is: bread and wine.
It has always puzzled me that you are required to belong to the Church in order to experience Christ in the Eucharist. When I used to go to Mass occasionally with my friends, I would stand in line and receive a blessing during Communion. I always thought that was kinda cool, and at least it showed some acceptance of my presence there as a non-Catholic. That changed a couple of years ago when the local Bishop decided that it was no longer appropriate to stand in line for Communion if you weren't receiving it. Nail in the coffin, and I haven't gone to Mass since then.
It seems to me that if Christ were truly present in the Eucharist, He would want to reveal himself to everyone who was willing to experience His presence regardless of their faith. The "rules" in the Church that come with experiencing God seem to me like they only strengthen the dividing lines between people of differing faiths.
[/quote]

If one tries to understand the Catholic position, it actually will make sense. Catholics believe that Christ really is present in the appearance of bread and wine. Moreover, because that is [i]really[/i] Christ, presenting Himself as the holy offering of the Church to the Father, to receive the Eucharist is not simply a communion between the individual and God, but also between the individual and all those who are also receiving the Eucharist. But if two people who receive the Eucharist have contradictory faith, then that would be introducing a division into the Body of Christ, when there ought to be only a unity of faith.

As such, it becomes clear why St. Paul repremands those who receive the Eucharist without being properly disposed - he says that they "eat and drink judgment upon themselves." So, in the Catholic mind, the person who does not hold the Catholic faith would be introducing division into the Body of Christ (the Church) if they received the Eucharist, and, moreover, that person would be doing harm to their own salvation because he or she would be receiving without being properly disposed (that is, without being in union with the whole Church).

So, it isn't that Catholics are trying to exclude you from the liturgy, they desperately [i]want[/i] you to be a part of it. But they want you to be a part of it totally and fully, without bringing division into Christ and the Church and without eating and drinking judgment upon yourself.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Anomaly]

What evidence is there to support 'transubstantiation' since most Christians and Catholics do not believe it. I'll grant there are some logical arguments based on certain interpretations of Scripture or logical arguments for a Church Athority. But there is not a preponderance of logic or reason to jump to a conclusion that it's the most reasonable conclusion.

But where's the evidence, man? If it is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of God, where's the evidence of the Grace? Catho's should be kicking it in the holy department...

Edited July 25, 2006 by Anomaly

[mofca]

How would one be aware that Christ is present in the bread and wine if they did not witness or were not told of the Consecration of said bread and wine?

[jswranch]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1030484' date='Jul 25 2006, 08:29 AM']
What evidence is there to support 'transubstantiation' since most Christians and Catholics do not believe it. I'll grant there are some logical arguments based on certain interpretations of Scripture or logical arguments for a Church Athority. But there is not a preponderance of logic or reason to jump to a conclusion that it's the most reasonable conclusion.

But where's the evidence, man? If it is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of God, where's the evidence of the Grace? Catho's should be kicking it in the holy department...
[/quote]
Luckily, truth is not decided by popular vote. Besides, you will be hard pressed to find a Catholic who does not believe in transubstantiation here.

Two questions for you:
1. Without logic, reason or church authority, can you disprove Monophysites and Monophysitism? I say no.
2. What year did the Catholic Church begin teaching that the consecrated bread and wine were more than a symbol? Who first taught it as such?

[quote name='mofca' post='1030671' date='Jul 25 2006, 04:36 PM']
How would one be aware that Christ is present in the bread and wine if they did not witness or were not told of the Consecration of said bread and wine?
[/quote]
By the grace of God.
1. Acts 8:31 "How can I, unless someone instructs me?"

Essentially, the apostles selected their successors who carried the message on through teaching (sacred tradition) and scripture.

2. Mt 26:26-27, Mk 14: 22-24, Lk 22:19-20, "...this is my body... this is my blood of the covenant..."
3. Jn 6:35 "Jesus said to them, 'I am the the bread of life;"
4. Ex 13:35 "The Israelites [old covenant] ate this manna for forty years, until they came back to settle the land; they ate manna until they reached the borders of Cannan.
5. Jn 6:48-51 "[Jesus said] I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the mana in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
Jn 6:53-58, 66 "...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.... As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him."
6. Acts 2:42 "They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.
7. Read I Cor 11:23-34

[jswranch]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/46"][u]For multiple articles from Catholics defending this belief, click here[/u].[/url]

[Anomaly]

Nobody still responded to my question with a specific answer. Yes, there are scripture interpretations that 'may' support the idea of transubstantiation. There are many legitimate analysis that support the 'symbolism'. Move beyond Scripture and work on step 2. But if it is the B,B,S, &D of God, where is evidence of the 'Grace' that would be ascendent if this were true?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1031010' date='Jul 26 2006, 04:18 AM']
Nobody still responded to my question with a specific answer. Yes, there are scripture interpretations that 'may' support the idea of transubstantiation. There are many legitimate analysis that support the 'symbolism'. Move beyond Scripture and work on step 2. But if it is the B,B,S, &D of God, where is evidence of the 'Grace' that would be ascendent if this were true?
[/quote]

It is interesting that you take this to be your main line of argument, as I find it to be (personally) the weakest of the arguments against transubstantiation. If one asks me for evidence, I would point to two major factors:

First, every ancient church (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, etc) maintains belief in the Real Presence, which, if not an absolute proof, certainly constitutes [i]prima facie[/i] evidence that faith in the Real Presence was the faith of the early church.

Second, a [i]vast[/i] number of Saints, both recent and ancient, have testified to the fact that they could never have attained the level of holiness that they did without the graces they received from the Eucharist. Grace doesn't [i]force[/i] you to be holy, it enables you to be holy - so if we want evidence that the Eucharist confers grace, we shouldnt be looking for everyone who takes communion to be holy, but rather, we should be looking for holy people who testify to the necessity of the Eucharist. When one does this, they find an abundance of evidence in its favor.

[mofca]

Again I ask: How would one be aware that Christ is present in the bread and wine if they did not witness or were not told of the Consecration of said bread and wine? Providing scripture as evidence does not answer the question because it assumes that the Catholic interpretation of scripture is universally believed to be the truth.
Another way to ask this is: If I walked into a room with bread and wine on the table, how would I know whether Christ was present or not?

[Anomaly]

Without a 'data dump' or a generalized statement, answer my question for evidence or simply answer mofca.

[mofca]

I'm asking for any evidence (besides scriptural evidence) of Christ's presence in the Eucharist at all. With all due respect to faithful Catholics, I maintain that Transubstantiation requires a leap of faith to be considered true, because there is absolutely no evidence to otherwise demonstrate this as a universal truth.

Edited July 26, 2006 by mofca

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Would you be able to tell if a host was consecrated if you did not witness/hear about it happening? No. The Body and Blood of the Lord remain under the appearance of bread and wine. I guess you could look at Eucharistic miracles or the writings of early Christians testifying to such a belief if you need to go beyond Scripture.

Is there a reason you are seeking proof outside of Divine Revelation? The fine points of Christianity cannot be known by reason alone. Without Revelation, we do not know Christ, the Trinity, etc. To quote the Catechism:
[quote][b]1381[/b] "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"[/quote]

[Anomaly]

Beyond 'Divine Revelation'? Wha???

The reason is God provided us intellect and reason. The should be able to be used, shouldn't they?

[mofca]

I would not classify scripture or the Catechism as a divine revalation. In my opinion, they have just as much validity as any other writing or teaching that is considered sacred by a human being. In order for something to be considered the 'truth', its validity should be self evident. Otherwise the burden of proof is on the person proclaiming it to be true. The Catechism basically says, if I may paraphrase and please correct me if I'm interpreting this incorrectly: that it is true because we have faith that it is true, and furthermore you shouldn't question its validity.
With all due respect, and I hope this is not offensive to anybody, if you want to try my version of holy communion, all you have to do is take a nice deep breath of fresh air and look at the sky. It's there for everyone and it is truly glorious, my friend.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1031509' date='Jul 26 2006, 07:56 PM']
Beyond 'Divine Revelation'? Wha???

The reason is God provided us intellect and reason. The should be able to be used, shouldn't they?
[/quote]
We cannot use reason to discover something supernatural like transubstantiation.

[quote name='mofca' post='1031566' date='Jul 26 2006, 09:37 PM']
I would not classify scripture or the Catechism as a divine revalation. In my opinion, they have just as much validity as any other writing or teaching that is considered sacred by a human being. In order for something to be considered the 'truth', its validity should be self evident. Otherwise the burden of proof is on the person proclaiming it to be true. The Catechism basically says, if I may paraphrase and please correct me if I'm interpreting this incorrectly: that it is true because we have faith that it is true, and furthermore you shouldn't question its validity.
[/quote]
Re-read it again, the Catechism is saying that the Eucharist cannot be known through reason, it is a matter of faith. To use reason to percieve the supernatural is like using mathematics to read my mind. It is not in the same catagory. All one can do is prove the Scriptures and use those to prove the Eucharist. No Christian in their right mind would try and prove the Eucharist through reason, and to do so would be an insult to our Savior.

[mofca]

[quote name='thedude' post='1031585' date='Jul 26 2006, 08:07 PM']
We cannot use reason to discover something supernatural like transubstantiation.
Re-read it again, the Catechism is saying that the Eucharist cannot be known through reason, it is a matter of faith. To use reason to percieve the supernatural is like using mathematics to read my mind. It is not in the same catagory. All one can do is prove the Scriptures and use those to prove the Eucharist. No Christian in their right mind would try and prove the Eucharist through reason, and to do so would be an insult to our Savior.
[/quote]
Would it be fair to say that it is necessary to use reason to know if something is true or not true?

[jezic]

What of Eucharistic Miracles such as Lanciano?

In my mind they lend great weight to the Catholic argument.

Bread became heart flesh and wine became blood pellets. (blood coagulates) And even though flesh should decay, one can still go to Lanciano today and see this miracle for his or herself.

[url="http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html"]http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html[/url]

by the way, this is 1200 years later, so yes under ordinary circumstances it would have decayed.

[mofca]

[quote name='jezic' post='1031835' date='Jul 27 2006, 06:51 AM']
What of Eucharistic Miracles such as Lanciano?

In my mind they lend great weight to the Catholic argument.

Bread became heart flesh and wine became blood pellets. (blood coagulates) And even though flesh should decay, one can still go to Lanciano today and see this miracle for his or herself.

[url="http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html"]http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html[/url]

by the way, this is 1200 years later, so yes under ordinary circumstances it would have decayed.
[/quote]
Belief in alleged miracles such as Lanciano certainly back up the Catholic arguement. I am very skeptical about such miracles given that they occured so long ago, and they could have easily been faked.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='mofca' post='1031777' date='Jul 27 2006, 02:34 AM']
Would it be fair to say that it is necessary to use reason to know if something is true or not true?
[/quote]
Not in every circumstance. When somebody tells you something, you put trust in them that they are telling you the truth. This is an act of faith. In the same way, we make an act of faith in believing the [i]revealed[/i] precepts of Christianity (the Prophets, Christ, etc.).

[quote name='mofca' post='1031921' date='Jul 27 2006, 10:40 AM']
Belief in alleged miracles such as Lanciano certainly back up the Catholic arguement. I am very skeptical about such miracles given that they occured so long ago, and they could have easily been faked.
[/quote]
I would think given that it happened so long ago it would be harder to fake. If I am not mistaken, the Eucharistic miracles all have the same, relatively rare blood type - but one that is far more common in people of Jewish ancestry. Their are many more modern miracles to investigate if you wish. Read up on Pio of Pietrelcina - it's really quite interesting.



I think this is a good website for you: [url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/"]http://www.peterkreeft.com/[/url]

Edited July 27, 2006 by thedude