Question to ex-Catholics

[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

[Anomaly]

dude,
Go to peter's web site and you can easily see ways that include logic, reason, eperience, etc., that prove the existence of God.

My challenge to you is to provide something from 'somebody' that 'proves' the teaching of real presence using a reasonable and multi-faceted approach such as kreet's "12 ways to know God".

[Socrates]

[quote name='mofca' post='1031448' date='Jul 26 2006, 04:15 PM']
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.
[/quote]
Do you consider yourself a Christian?

Do you believe that the Divinity of Christ is universally self-evident?

If we discard the Scriptures and Christian tradition, how can anyone know for certain that Jesus is Lord?

This requires a decision of Faith. Faith is not contrary to reason, but one must decide to believe that the Gospels are worthy of beleif, and from there, decide to believe that Jesus is indeed Our Lord and Savior.
If we believe in Christ's Church, and decide that what the Scriptures and the Church teach about the Eucharist is true, then we can conclude, from our Faith in Christ, that the Eucharist is also true.

But one must first have Faith in Christ to have faith in His Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Read John 6 again. Many left Christ rather than accept this "hard teaching."

Edited July 28, 2006 by Socrates

[Anomaly]

Socrates,
Faith is not without reason.
Why the absolute absense of any use of 'reason' for the teaching of the 'real presence'?

Many Christians don't interpret John the way you do. Besides, it doesn't make clear the exact interpretation as applicable to the eucharist, does it?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1032188' date='Jul 27 2006, 05:41 PM']
dude,
Go to peter's web site and you can easily see ways that include logic, reason, eperience, etc., that prove the existence of God.

My challenge to you is to provide something from 'somebody' that 'proves' the teaching of real presence using a reasonable and multi-faceted approach such as kreet's "12 ways to know God".
[/quote]
I am sorry but that is not possible. The Church regards the Eucharist as something Jesus told us about, not something we can figure out on our own. A Catholic apologist would try to prove the reasonability of Scripture and Christ's divinity, etc. and, building off that, prove the Real Presence after Scripture has been established. God bless.

Edited July 28, 2006 by thedude

[Socrates]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1032264' date='Jul 27 2006, 06:08 PM']
Socrates,
Faith is not without reason.
Why the absolute absense of any use of 'reason' for the teaching of the 'real presence'?

Many Christians don't interpret John the way you do. Besides, it doesn't make clear the exact interpretation as applicable to the eucharist, does it?
[/quote]
Not everything in the Faith can be known by reason alone. Nothing in Faith is [i]contrary[/i] to human reason, but unaided reason can only take you so far. That is why we have Divine Revelation. The Catholic Faith is a [i]Faith[/i]; it is not just natural philosophy.

And the Catholic "interpretation" as i see it, is the most rational way of reading John 6. Many Christians disagree about the correct interpretation of [i]many[/i] things in Scripture.
That is why we have the living Tradition and teaching of the Church (which the Scriptures are a part of).
Protestants reject the authority of the Church, and thus are left on their own with regards to interpretation of Scripture. Thus, they have many varying interpretations of many things written in Scripture. These things can not all be "figured out" by unaided reason.

How does one know by "reason" for instance what happens at Baptism, or what the nature of the Holy Trinity is? These teachings must be believed by Faith.

As regards the Eucharist, we have Faith that Scripture speaks truly about what Jesus taught. As Catholics, we have faith that the Church has truly handed down Christ's teachings on the Eucharist. This is backed up by reason, as the evidence shows that this was what was believed as far back as we have records.

Edited July 28, 2006 by Socrates