Question to ex-Catholics

[mofca]

[quote]Objective truth means that something exists outside of ourselves. If God exists, then He exists even if the whole world is full of athiests; it would be an absolute objective truth. If Jesus Christ exists, then it doesn't matter if the whole world says He doesn't... the whole world would be wrong if it was an objective truth that He exists. Truth is not subject to whether or not somebody believes it.

Free thought is not limited at all, no more than it is limited by the lense you take which excludes the purely religious point of view. Some things are within the realm of science, some things are within the realm of philosophy, some things are within the realm of theology. There are objective truths to be found in all three of these realms; objective not because they are observable or provable necessarily, but objective because they are true regardless of who believes them. They can all be approached and argued through different disciplines of thought, understanding, and analysis.

All you have proven here is that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not a provable truth, something I admitted from the get-go in my discussion with Anomaly (it is the summit of a mountain of articals in the Catholic faith, the base of which I believe can be proven philosophically and historically... I didn't want to get sidetracked from the topic though). That does not mean it is not an objective truth.

This is the problem with modern philosophy, it makes the leap from proving something as not materially observable to saying it is not true in and of itself. There is a fundamental philisophical problem to this system, because it excludes all recourse to logic and philosophy while raising observation, which modern physics is increasingly showing to be unable to absolutely know everything (see Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle), up to the level of dogma.

No, the Eucharist cannot be proven true by observation. Philosophers since Aristotle have said that observation does not necessarily get to the substance of any truth, and modern philosophy actually runs away with this idea denying the objective existence of anything. What is observed in the physical world is what Aristotle would call the accidents of the physical world. Its substance, however, must be discovered through philosophy, theology, logic, reason, et cetera.

let me repeat: objectivity means it is true regardless of how observable it is, how widely believed it is, or how provable it is. If there was a rock behind a wall and no one could see it, that rock would still be there. It could be called an objective truth that that rock was there. If somehow, someone on the other side of the wall began to believe that rock was there but everyone else on the otherside of that wall did not believe it was there, it would still be an objective truth that that rock was there. [/quote]

I see your point, however it is always a rock in both cases.

It seems like a lot of malarky just to be able to know Jesus' true presence in the Eucharist. I'd love to meet the second grader who really grasps this when he/she takes their first communion.

[Socrates]

[quote name='mofca' post='1034256' date='Jul 30 2006, 06:11 AM']
I agree there are many things that happen that are not explainable. I am always skeptical of Catholic specific miracles that occur in a Catholic setting and affect only Catholic people. Human beings have an extraordinary ability to convince themselve of things that they really want to believe. Remember when the oil stain was being worshiped on the highway a few years ago? I have personally witnessed many, many alleged miracles in a charismatic setting (cured arthritis, bad backs, etc). Maybe some of those people really did experience relief from their ailments, but I suspect that most of it was either temporary, or exagerated and that the charasmatic setting and group frenzy acted like a placebo. When I used to work in the sound reinforcement business I have witnessed fake miracles being set up behind the stage at evangelical events. Miracles don't equal imperical evidence. Show me a Catholic miracle in a secular setting and I might be more convinced.
[/quote]
There have in fact been a number of "Catholic" miracles which have been witnessed by unbelievers.
A staunchly atheistic doctor was converted at Lourdes, after witnessing a healing for which he could see no natural explanation.

Some unbelievers, who had come to scoff at Fatima, witnessed the "Miracle of the Sun."

There are many other instances as well of skeptical and unbelieving scientists being confounded or converted by study of purportedly miraculous phenomenon.

Of course, one can always question their testimony if they choose, but the fact remains that not all witnesses to "Catholic" miracles were staunch Catholics "seeing what they want to see."

Of course, it is begging the question to object that most "Catholic-specific miracles" (such as those involving the Eucharist) would primarily involve or be witnessed by Catholics. (Mostly Catholics would be present at a Catholic Mass, for instance.)

Edited July 31, 2006 by Socrates

[Aloysius]

that's the point, it's always a rock in both cases. we claim the eucharist is always Jesus even if no one believes it.

you obviously have not met second graders preparing for first communion in any even semi-decent CCD program. they get it much easier than cynical adults. what is so hard to grasp, when you think about it with the simple mind of a child? pretty plain and simple: it's Jesus. I knew that in second grade. they don't have to go into all the complex philosophy behind it; because this truth is like God Himself, so eloquently simple but so infinitely complex.

anyway, it's no more malarky than to know that Jesus Christ is really God incarnate, objectively speaking.

[mortify]

If we want to learn about Christ it makes sense to go to His Apostles. And if His apostles have passed on it makes sense to go to their successors. And what we find among the successors and long standing tradition is belief in the Real Presence.

Whether one is Christian or not one would have to admit that Christ, His apostles, and successors to the Apostles accepted the real presence as reality.

I guess what some might ask is, how can it be really Jesus when the species remains unchanged. To me it's a mysterious thing, something requiring faith but there are eucharistic miracles which may interest the inquisitive minds. There is an ancient relic of Host that actually transformed into flesh. Studies done on it by modern scientists concluded that the flesh is actually cardiac muscle (flesh from the heart) and of a rare blood type common in the middle east. The more common miracles are those of bleeding hosts.

These are not reasons I believe, or anyone should beleive, but they only confirm the reality of our belief, and aid us in it. A simple google search will reveal much.


Pax Christi

[mofca]

[quote]that's the point, it's always a rock in both cases. we claim the eucharist is always Jesus even if no one believes it.

you obviously have not met second graders preparing for first communion in any even semi-decent CCD program. they get it much easier than cynical adults. what is so hard to grasp, when you think about it with the simple mind of a child? pretty plain and simple: it's Jesus. I knew that in second grade. they don't have to go into all the complex philosophy behind it; because this truth is like God Himself, so eloquently simple but so infinitely complex.

anyway, it's no more malarky than to know that Jesus Christ is really God incarnate, objectively speaking. [/quote]

Actually, the host is bread until it is consecrated, correct? Then it becomes the Eucharist, hence Transubstantiation.

As to not meeting any second graders, I was actually one of those second graders, and I know myself pretty well. And I doubt that all adults who "don't get it" are cynical. In my case, I would consider myself skeptical, not cynical. The simple mind of a child will accept whatever they are taught by their parents as the truth (the reason why Hindu parents raise Hindu children, who teach their children, etc). This does not qualify as "full communion with the church" in my humble opinion.

Edited July 31, 2006 by mofca

[Anomaly]

Second graders are inherently gullible because they don't have the intellect an adult does. Second graders still believe in Santa Claus.

So it seems to boil down to the Church teaches Real Presence so it must be believed. Other theologians are ignored if they have a differing opinion.

No physical evidence of real presence. (Which is un-neccessary as far as I am concerned since God who creates all matter can instaneously change spirit (energy) to matter and why 'heart muscle' "miracles" strike me as completly illogical.)
No philosophical logic as to 'why' real presence.
No evidence of 'real presence' by evidence of it causing effect on material world. (Example, invisible flame does cause heat, so it can be known by it's effects on the environment)

Nothing.

Even Thomas was able to touch Jesus. But it seems that 'real presence' as taught by Christians (not just Catholics, because most Christians teach it, just disagree 'how') just isn't defendible beyond a choice of how to interpret a few Scripture passages.

[jswranch]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1034691' date='Jul 31 2006, 05:41 AM']
So it seems to boil down to the Church teaches Real Presence so it must be believed.[/quote]
Catholics are not the only ones. Orthodox, Anglicans, Nestorians, etc...

[quote]Other theologians are ignored if they have a differing opinion.[/quote] This is not the only issue on which they are ignored. If you teach Jesus was a woman dressed in men's clothes.... For Catholics, theology builds on itself. We do not re-invent the wheel. For example, all christians teach the son is coeternal with the Father. The issue was settled with Fr. Arius at Nicea in 325AD. The reason transubstantiation is no longer questioned by Catholic theologians is the issue was settled many moons ago.

[quote]No physical evidence of real presence. (Which is un-neccessary as far as I am concerned since God who creates all matter can instaneously change spirit (energy) to matter and why 'heart muscle' "miracles" strike me as completly illogical.)
[/quote]
Miracles are by definition, completly illogical with no scientific explanation. There is no logical explanation for the existance of love, and less for the love God is and has for man. There is no logical/physical proof that God became man, yet nearly half the world believe he did (Christians, Hinuds etc). Do you not believe in Miracles?

[quote]No philosophical logic as to 'why' real presence.[/quote] No philosophical logic as to 'why' God wishes to enter into some sort of relationship with his people who continue to reject him. The 'why' of real presence simply does not have anything do to with whether it exists. The answers to what and how real presence occurs then leads to answer why.

[quote]No evidence of 'real presence' by evidence of it causing effect on material world. (Example, invisible flame does cause heat, so it can be known by it's effects on the environment)[/quote] Did you not read my thread on numerous eucharistic miracles?

[quote]Even Thomas was able to touch Jesus. But it seems that 'real presence' as taught by Christians (not just Catholics, because most Christians teach it, just disagree 'how') just isn't defendible beyond a choice of how to interpret a few Scripture passages.
[/quote]
1+1=2 no matter what the varying opinions may be (4, 8, 16). Does a lack of consensus mean lack of truth of transubstantiation? No logical person can say yes.

The number of scriptures declaring the consecrated host BBSD of Christ= 15 (which is approx as many verses as those proving Jesus was God, not great prophet, king)
The number of scriptures declaring the consecrated host not BBSD of Christ= 0 (Prots try to use 'rememberance' to disprove, but Catholics fully agree it is a 'rememberance' along with other characteristics.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1034691' date='Jul 31 2006, 05:41 AM']
Second graders are inherently gullible because they don't have the intellect an adult does. Second graders still believe in Santa Claus.[/quote]
"Amen I say to you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter into it." Mark 10:15

[quote]So it seems to boil down to the Church teaches Real Presence so it must be believed. Other theologians are ignored if they have a differing opinion.

No physical evidence of real presence. (Which is un-neccessary as far as I am concerned since God who creates all matter can instaneously change spirit (energy) to matter and why 'heart muscle' "miracles" strike me as completly illogical.)
No philosophical logic as to 'why' real presence.
No evidence of 'real presence' by evidence of it causing effect on material world. (Example, invisible flame does cause heat, so it can be known by it's effects on the environment)

Nothing.

Even Thomas was able to touch Jesus. But it seems that 'real presence' as taught by Christians (not just Catholics, because most Christians teach it, just disagree 'how') just isn't defendible beyond a choice of how to interpret a few Scripture passages.[/quote]
"Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?"
(John 6:61)
"After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him."
(John 6:63-67)

Christ asks His followers to have Faith in Him, and believe, whether it was easy to believe or not.

And belief in the Eucharist is not just "an interpretation of Scripture," but what was beleived from the Church from the beginning. Only after the Protestant Revolt of the 16th century was it denied.

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1034691' date='Jul 31 2006, 06:41 AM']


So it seems to boil down to the Church teaches Real Presence so it must be believed. Other theologians are ignored if they have a differing opinion.
[/quote]

Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me"

[mofca]

[quote]"Amen I say to you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter into it." Mark 10:15 [/quote]
This verse reads "kingdom of God", not "Eucharist" or "Holy Communion". It can be interpreted a hundred different ways. It still doesn't answer the question: is a seven year old child considered to be in full communion with the Church?

Edited August 1, 2006 by mofca

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='mofca' post='1035010' date='Jul 31 2006, 08:20 PM']
This verse reads "kingdom of God", not "Eucharist" or "Holy Communion". It can be interpreted a hundred different ways. It still doesn't answer the question: is a seven year old child considered to be in full communion with the Church?
[/quote]
2 Peter 1:20Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.



2 Peter 3:16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

[Socrates]

[quote name='mofca' post='1035010' date='Jul 31 2006, 07:20 PM']
This verse reads "kingdom of God", not "Eucharist" or "Holy Communion". It can be interpreted a hundred different ways. It still doesn't answer the question: is a seven year old child considered to be in full communion with the Church?
[/quote]
Other translations say "have the faith of a little child." My point was against Anomaly's scoffing at the faith of a second-grade child because he does not have the "intellect" of an adult.

We are to come to Christ with child-like faith and trust, not an attitude of pride, cynicism, and superiority.
We will be judged on our Faith, not our intellect or sophistication.

As to your question, all baptized Catholics who are not in heresy or schism are in full communion with the Church. It is not a matter of intellectual sophistication.

Edited August 1, 2006 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510frs.asp"]Writings of the early Church Fathers on the Real Presence[/url]

[mofca]

It is firmly established, and has been said over and over on this thread that objective truth is that which is true, whether we believe it or not. This statement is clear, concise, and is very easy for a child to understand.
My question is also a very simple question, what evidence is there for the objective truth of Christ's presence in the Eucharist? It is a question that I have always asked since I was a child. The answers to this question have always been lengthy, scripture based, mixed in with heady philosophy, and comes with the requirement of having faith. It is the only concept that I know of that is claimed to be an objective truth, yet there is no observable evidence, there is no easy answer to explain its existence, and it's not even universally accepted as truth by all Christians.
The statement "We are to come to Christ with child-like faith and trust, not an attitude of pride, cynicism, and superiority.
We will be judged on our Faith, not our intellect or sophistication." is a Catholic teaching, and frankly it implies that our intellect and sophistication, or the use of such, can be a bad thing. Another interpretation of this teaching might be: "as long as you believe everything we tell you, God will look kindly upon you." And yet, we're supposed to be able to think freely with these kinds of teachings?
When it comes to religious matters such as this, people who are "in the know" are the vessels of information. Religion aside, in all cases of something being objectively true, and universally known to be true, the truth is revealed because the alleged truth can provide for itself the information needed to know whether its true or not, and this information is observable to every human being with an intellect. I keep saying intellect because even a child at age seven, granted it is not as developed as an adult, has an intellect. A child at this age is capable of figuring out whether things are true or not. A child is capable of asking the question:
"hey, i can't tell whether Christ is in this bread or not. How do you know He is?"
Is the Church saying to this child, "believe what we teach you to be the truth, because if you do, God will be pleased with you. By the way, in doing so try not to think about it too much because if you question it, you may be punished."?
A child is baptised because it is forced upon him when the child is born. It is not a decision that the child makes (which I consider to be one of the worst evils of mankind). The child at this point in his life has no intellect, which make him safe from heresy, and is in full communion with the church, so why wait to give him/her Communion?
How can we as humans, each with an intellect of our own, justify teaching our children that inquiry can be considered an attitude of pride, cynicism and superiority? I am truly perplexed

Edited August 1, 2006 by mofca

[jswranch]

Have you read Thomas Aquinas' philisophical proof for Transubstantiation?

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4.htm"]Here is a link. [u]Scroll down to see THE HOLY EUCHARIST[/u].[/url]

[mofca]

The problem with the proof you're offering is that it requires religious faith, therefore it is not objective proof.

[jswranch]

[quote name='mofca' post='1035220' date='Jul 31 2006, 10:27 PM']
My question is also a very simple question, what evidence is there for the objective truth of Christ's presence in the Eucharist?

A child is baptised because it is forced upon him when the child is born. It is not a decision that the child makes (which I consider to be one of the worst evils of mankind). The child at this point in his life has no intellect, which make him safe from heresy, and is in full communion with the church, so why wait to give him/her Communion? [/quote]

Answer 1. There are many things held by all Christians that have no evidence for objective truth. Do you doubt all of those items? Transubstantiation is an item of faith, though such conclusion can be reached by reason once we establish certain data are true, namely Jews as people of God, Jesus as Christ/God/Messiah, Church established, Bible infallible.

Answer 2. For this exact reason, the Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox give these sacraments to infants. They get Baptism, Eucharist, and Confirmation at the same time. The Latin Church disapproves of such actions, but tolerates it. The Latin Church requires certain commitments from the parents prior to baptism to raise their kids in the faith.

Edited August 1, 2006 by jswranch

[jswranch]

[quote name='mofca' post='1035351' date='Aug 1 2006, 05:52 AM']
The problem with the proof you're offering is that it requires religious faith, therefore it is not objective proof.
[/quote]
I would rather prove Christ/Messiah/God to you before I tried to prove Transubstantiation. Actually, I am forced to do so. If Jesus was not God, then Transubstantiation cannot occur. If you do not believe he was, then why are we wasting time discussing his sacraments? If we do not believe in aliens, then why would we spin our wheels on discussing their space ships?

Not all that is of religious faith, has no objective proof. For example, God can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason. Do you not agree? Other examples may include natural law/ moral law. We are stuck on the relationship between faith and reason.

[Aloysius]

how is it the only thing you know of that is claimed as objective truth that requires faith? have you heard of the incarnation? the Trinity? every Christian doctrine regarding the faith? they all are claimed as objective truth and require faith.

philosophically, it makes sense that something would fit into the category of transubstantiation. there are two dimensions to everything: accidents and substance. this leaves three categories for types of change that can occur.

#1 a change of both substance and accidents
#2 a change of only accidents but not substance
#3 a change of only substance but not accidents

until the Eucharist, only the first two really had concrete examples.

now you must begin with the universal fallen nature of humanity and thus all the physical world. all human cultures witness to the fact that humanity has a fallen nature-- we cannot survive in a purely natural state like the animals do, we have shame (to different degrees in different cultures but it is present everywhere) and have a tendency towards doing that which is evil. this is the fallen nature of our substance; but on the outside everything about the human person remains good and perfect the way it was created, everything works fine from our heads to our toes, that acccidents is not fallen; just the substance.

the purpose of Christ was to lift human nature up to its former greatness of nature, of substance, and even lift it beyond that sharing His divinity with us. the first step is thorugh the supernatural cleansing of ordinary water instilling within us the Blessed Trinity and cleansing our nature of the weight it previously carried. The effects of that fallen nature remain because we still live in the same world full of a fallen humanity, but our souls are restored to a state able to receive, accept, and obey God. But then, what food is sufficient to sustain such a state?

If our bodies work perfectly fine on the appearance and physical aspects, then we require food which has all the appearance and physical aspects of a food which can feed such a body. It is our substance that requires food to sustain its journey of sanctifying grace.

Then it makes perfect sense, and indeed fits in with all scripture has pointed to about an unbloody sacrifice perpetuated to the end of time and the words of Our Savior at the Last supper, that God would offer us a food which at the same time acts perfectly in line with the remaining good accidents of the human body while also feeding the substance of our body and soul with the substance of Divinity which Christ came to life us up to.

Our substance is not just our "soul". It is our soul and our body. The accidents are the physical aspects of our body, but our body has a substance too. This is why the substance must be a substance of the complete and whole Christ, body blood soul and divinity, so that it can infuse our body, blood, and soul with the Divine body blood and soul to lift us up to the glory that is our destiny.

This type of change was pointed to as a potentiality without concrete examples by philosophers before Christ. The unbloody sacrifice was pointed to by the Old Testament. The effects of original sin described in the bible and observed throughout all cultures throughout the world attest to the simple fact: if our total substance was raised out of that fallen nature all humanity recognizes, it could not be sustained by bread alone. the substance (body and soul) of the person would have to be fed by something wholely different, with the following criteria:

1 that it looks and acts compatibally with our non-fallen human accidents
2 that it has has a divine substance to lift our fallen human substance

Unless such a food just plopped out of the clear blue sky, the best and most logical way for the Eternal Logos to bring such sustinence to us would be to change something already created using the third mode of change described above, keep the accidents of a food we eat the same but change its substance.

I think this is an absolute necessity for any religion which claims to life humanity out of a fallen nature. It also happens to fit in perfectly with the words of Our Divine Savior and the teachings of His apostles and their successors.

[mofca]

[quote]I would rather prove Christ/Messiah/God to you before I tried to prove Transubstantiation. Actually, I am forced to do so. If Jesus was not God, then Transubstantiation cannot occur. If you do not believe he was, then why are we wasting time discussing his sacraments? If we do not believe in aliens, then why would we spin our wheels on discussing their space ships? [/quote]
The important point here is that the sacrament of the Eucharist is declared to be an objective truth, and I argue that it is not. As I have said before, objective truth in reality does not rely on belief in a deity to exist. If the Eucharist is truly objective, I should be able to know it regardless of what I believe. If somebody declared that the planet Mars was an alien space craft roaming the sky (or a God, as it was actually believed at one time) but offered no proof of alien beings other than ancient stories and a book about it, and then somebody else explained that it is another world that orbits the sun, and here's the evidence that shows why we know, and on top of that it is clear, concise, observable evidence that can be demonstrated over and over, and corroberated by people everywhere on the planet from every culture and religious sect . . . . I would tend to go with explanation #2.
You could tell me that Christ/Messiah/God is true, but you can't prove it. On the other side of the coin, I can't prove to you that He doesn't exist either. At the risk of conveying an attitude of pride, cynicism and superiority, I am a person who uses his intellect to determine what is true and what isn't. We may be spinning our wheels at this point. I admit that I will never consider the Eucharist an objective truth, simply because I've reasoned that it isn't. If you are curious about my worldview, I find the universe to be fascinating and wonderous, filled with many great things that are beyond our comprehension, one of those being the concept of God. However, that does not sway me from the search for truth. History clearly demonstrates that Religious beliefs have been at the root of some of the greatest atrocities ever committed by humans, and it is still happening today. Look at the Israel/Palestine conflict, a conflict that will seemingly never end until one side ceases to exist. All of this is because of declarations of truth that cannot be accepted by everyone. Therefore, doesn't it make sense to use our intellect to figure stuff out? Clearly, religion hasn't got it right, and that is one of many reasons why I choose not to participate.