Question to ex-Catholics

[mofca]

[quote]Do you consider yourself a Christian? [/quote]

No.

[quote]Do you believe that the Divinity of Christ is universally self-evident?[/quote]

No.

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

Nobody can.

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

For something to be deemed real, or "truth", it should exist as such in the absence of faith.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='mofca' post='1032371' date='Jul 27 2006, 08:55 PM']
For something to be deemed real, or "truth", it should exist as such in the absence of faith.
[/quote]
Just because we cannot use pure logic to discover the Eucharist does not mean it is a false doctrine. It either is the Eucharist or it is not. The truth is when we can match a statement to reality - no matter how that it accomplished.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='thedude' post='1032435' date='Jul 27 2006, 08:01 PM']
Just because we cannot use pure logic to discover the Eucharist does not mean it is a false doctrine. It either is the Eucharist or it is not. The truth is when we can match a statement to reality - no matter how that it accomplished.
[/quote]
We aren't asking for pure logic, we're asking for 'some' logic or reasoning.

"This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "[b]about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason[/b], so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."

Let's get beyond the choice of interpretations and use reason to establish some sort of logical reasoning.

And the 'we're Catholic, you're just a heretic' doesn't float.

[mofca]

[quote] The truth is when we can match a statement to reality - no matter how that it accomplished.[/quote]
Arriving at the truth is accomplished through logic and reason. They are the tools we use to determine what is true. The truth beaks down when logic and reason are removed from an explanation because the issue then becomes subjective.

Edited July 28, 2006 by mofca

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1032772' date='Jul 28 2006, 05:47 AM']
We aren't asking for pure logic, we're asking for 'some' logic or reasoning.

"This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "[b]about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason[/b], so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."

Let's get beyond the choice of interpretations and use reason to establish some sort of logical reasoning.
[/quote]
The Eucharist is one of "those things that exceed [man's] understanding" and we must be "enlightened by God's revelation" to know it - the quote is making the same distinction that I am. Morality, the existence of God, etc. can be known through reason alone. You are asking that reason be used to prove the supernatural - it simply cannot be done, though it does not mean that the Real Presence is false.
If you did not know my name and I told you it was "thedude", that would be the truth even though you could not arrive at my name through the use of reason.
I am not interpreting anything or trying to prove the Real Presence to you. All I am saying is that many tenets of the Christian faith cannot be known through reason. Christianity is a revealed religion, not purely a moral philosophy.
[quote name='Anomaly' post='1032772' date='Jul 28 2006, 05:47 AM']
And the 'we're Catholic, you're just a heretic' doesn't float.
[/quote]
I know I never offered this as a response to anyone, and if someone else has, I apologize on phatmass' behalf.
[quote name='mofca' post='1032794' date='Jul 28 2006, 07:56 AM']
Arriving at the truth is accomplished through logic and reason. They are the tools we use to determine what is true. The truth beaks down when logic and reason are removed from an explanation because the issue then becomes subjective.
[/quote]
Something can be true and not reachable through the use of reason. For instance, the example with my name I used above. What you read in the newspaper everyday is something you are told and place your faith in. You most likely did not personally experience the reported events. That does not mean that the reporters made it all up either.

God bless!

[Aloysius]

ja... er... anomaly,

the eucharist is not a self evident natural occurance. it is supernatural and can only be truly accepted with the supernatural gift of faith. the totality of its logic and reason rests upon the logic and reason which determines Jesus Christ as God-man and Jesus Christ's Church as the one true faithful interpreter of what He wants to say to the world. There is mountains of arguments and logic to this effect, and upon those mountains of logic does the logic of transubstantiation rest. it is the source and summit, not the foundation, of all Christian truth. you are asking us to show that the Eucharist exists as the proof of Christianity and the Church, but we say the opposite: Christianity and the Church prove the Eucharist.

Can one prove the existence of the summit of a mountain without first climbing that mountain? Well, let's try to build a helicopter, I suppose...

of course we must acknowledge the bottom of the mountain on the way up, but I'll do my best to provide other arguments from reason apart from the very basis upon which the Eucharist rests.

1) Christ's words as God man mirror the words of God at the creation of the world when He produces man from clay, by His word He makes the substance of the bread his flesh.

2) The testimony of the followers of Christ from the first and second centuries in the Didache evidence that this was what Christ did, and that the Eucharist was truly and substantially Christ.

3) The teaching and understanding of the Christian Church through two millenia testify to the truth of the substantial presence.

4) Miracles spread throughout history which support the divinity of the Eucharist including the turning away of invaders, the recognition of the Eucharist apart from normal bread by satanists, and scientifically verified miracles such as lanciano where it was shown to be tissue from the inside of a human heart (very hard for the time period to have forged, removing flesh tissue from that area would be very difficult)

5) The experience of Christians throughout the world who describe profound spiritual experiences in the presence of the Eucharist

6) The experience of non-Catholics who still attend adoration of the Blessed Sacrament saying that they still feel like there is something there.

7) Personal experience of receiving the Eucharist unworthily leading to increasingly violent temptations and sins

8) The testimony of Ancient Greek philosophy points to the changing of accidents with remaining substance, and alludes to the possibility of a changing substance with accidents remaining with no sufficient examples unless something miraculous could occur; but its existence as a possibility evident to humans before it was ever an actuality speaks to the immense likelihood that transubstantiation is possible, and the obvious and longheld interpretation of Christ's words presents where it has actualized.

9) The beauty of the symbolism of bread and wine being so close to flesh and blood, and how it sustains flesh and blood.

10) The prophesies of the Old Testament that an unbloody sacrifice would be perpetuated throughout the globe until the end of time; the only possible fulfillment of which would be a transubstantiated eucharist.

11) The state of the human race demanded that God must become physical in order to redeem the physical. God must become physical and enter into the physical to redeem a fallen creation. That creation is fallen is an evident truth observed by all human societies in some form or another, it necessitates that a divine physical substance must sustain our fallen physical natures.


I donno if that's what you're lookin for, ja... er... anomaly... yeah that's it, but here's my best multi-faceted approach to attempt to prove the existence of the summit of a mountain without climbing the mountain itself.

I suggest taking the issue directly to the base of the mountain, however, and follow the logic about whether Christ and His Church are true. in that way, you climb the mountain and discover the summit.

[mofca]

[quote] What you read in the newspaper everyday is something you are told and place your faith in.[/quote]
LOL - Don't believe what you read in the papers, right? OK, seriously, logic and reason tells me that a news reporter works for a news agency, therefore by the definition of a News Agency a reporter will be held accountable for his/her accuracy in reporting, so on and so forth.

[quote]If you did not know my name and I told you it was "thedude", that would be the truth even though you could not arrive at my name through the use of reason.[/quote]
If you told me your name was "thedude" and it really wasn't, you would be lying and therefore it would not be the truth. My intellect would tell me that it is probably not your real name because it has the word "dude" in it. I would then be compelled to look for evidence to back up what you told me and I would quickly find out the truth based on overwhelming evidence and corroboration from others. It would be easy to deceive me into thinking you have a different name than your actual name if you wanted to, but in doing so you should choose something more convincing than "thedude". However, I do know that your name is "thedude" on this forum because there is overwhelming evidence to support it. The only truth in your example above is that by telling me your name is "thedude", the words "my name is the dude" came out of your mouth in my direction.

Edited July 28, 2006 by mofca

[Contrary-Mary]

[quote]The Eucharist is one of "those things that exceed [man's] understanding" and we must be "enlightened by God's revelation" to know it - the quote is making the same distinction that I am. Morality, the existence of God, etc. can be known through reason alone. You are asking that reason be used to prove the supernatural - it simply cannot be done, though it does not mean that the Real Presence is false. [/quote]

I am entering in the middle of this debate due to my interest in the subject. What seems to be happening here between everyone is a back and forth 'splitting of hairs'. so may I proceed to split along with you all? Thank you.

I would like to ask first that as Catholics, anyone who deems themselves Catholic, do you believe that EVERYONE else in the world is wrong about the Eucharist and that only those in the Catholic religion may receive the blood and body of Christ? Because in your reading of the Scriptures it must be done through Holy Communion(breaking of bread...) and through Transubstantiation? Therefore those who have not been "enlighted by God's Revelation" are not worthy of His Graces?

So then in second grade when I took my First Communion...Did the Church believe I was old enough to be "enlightened"...or was I merely performing a ritual that has been handed down. I can tell you that at that age I was just doing what I was told to be the truth. Did I receive the body and blood?
I think if one is told something long enough, it becomes thier truth and I think that human nature shows us that we as a species believe what we WANT to believe to help us survive. SO, can it not be ok for Catholics to say, Hey this is what we have chosen to believe , we are taking a leap of Faith and it Serves us to do so. As for others who don't chose to believe the way we do...we accept your path to your own salvation. NO WAY.....Because it would throw a monkey wrench into all of your beliefs...and all would fall apart. So OBVIOUSLY, one who is of religious faith must claim thier belief to be the one and only true path to Christ,Allah Buddah or else...what's the point.
As you say, the supernatural cannot be proven through the use of Reason... However, through the use of Reason i am able to disprove that there is something Supernatural that actually exists. And no it does not mean that Real Presence is False...Because the Mind is a wonderful tool that allows us to choose what we want to be our Reality. Therefore it is your reality, however , it is not mine.
Thanks for reading this lengthy thing, i am just getting started and hope to learn from all of your thoughts and comments.peace

Edited July 28, 2006 by Contrary-Mary

[mofca]

[quote]the eucharist is not a self evident natural occurance. it is supernatural and can only be truly accepted with the supernatural gift of faith [/quote]

Not to start another debate, but I would consider faith to be an exercise of free will rather than a supernatural gift. Don't we have a choice as to our faith, and whether we even want to have faith or not? Saying that it is a "gift" implies that it is for special people and not for everyone.

Edited July 29, 2006 by mofca

[Socrates]

[quote name='mofca' post='1032371' date='Jul 27 2006, 06:55 PM']
No.
No.
Nobody can.
For something to be deemed real, or "truth", it should exist as such in the absence of faith.
[/quote]
Well, the first step then is to establish that it is reasonable and logical to beleive in Christ as the Son of God, and Redeemer of Man.

If we establish from the evidence in the Gospels and from the historical evidence, that it is reasonable to believe in the divinity of Christ, we can then reason that it is reasonable to accept what Christ teaches us. We then look at the evidence that Christ did indeed establish a Church to pass down His teachings, and do His work. It is reasonable, by studying the evidence, that this Church believed from the beginning in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Of course, this will have to be broken down step-by-step, and there is not room to argue all the evidence in one post.

However, the first step is to establish that it is reasonable to believe Christ is God.
If one does not believe this, but believes that Jesus Christ was a mere man, then of course it would be absurd to believe He is present in the Eucharist.

And the Christian religion, by its nature, is belief in revelation of truths by God to man, which man cannot know by his reason alone. Christianity involves belief in God's [i]revelation[/i], not merely a reiteration of the self-evident.

Edited July 29, 2006 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Contrary-Mary' post='1033095' date='Jul 28 2006, 04:13 PM']
I am entering in the middle of this debate due to my interest in the subject. What seems to be happening here between everyone is a back and forth 'splitting of hairs'. so may I proceed to split along with you all? Thank you.

I would like to ask first that as Catholics, anyone who deems themselves Catholic, do you believe that EVERYONE else in the world is wrong about the Eucharist and that only those in the Catholic religion may receive the blood and body of Christ? Because in your reading of the Scriptures it must be done through Holy Communion(breaking of bread...) and through Transubstantiation? Therefore those who have not been "enlighted by God's Revelation" are not worthy of His Graces?[/quote]
Yes, to be blunt, we believe everyone who does not believe in the True Presence in the Eucharist is wrong. And only those who believe in the Eucharist should receive.
This has nothing to do with "enlightenment" or "being worthy of His graces." God's graces are a free gift and are not merited by anyone. It is simply that those who do not belive and are not in communion with the body of Christ should not receive this sacrament until they believe and come into full communion with the Church.

[quote]So then in second grade when I took my First Communion...Did the Church believe I was old enough to be "enlightened"...or was I merely performing a ritual that has been handed down. I can tell you that at that age I was just doing what I was told to be the truth. Did I receive the body and blood?[/quote]
Yes, you received the Body and Blood of Christ, whether you realized this or not. The True Presence is not dependent on the mind or state of the recipient. That idea is heresy.

[quote] I think if one is told something long enough, it becomes thier truth and I think that human nature shows us that we as a species believe what we WANT to believe to help us survive. SO, can it not be ok for Catholics to say, Hey this is what we have chosen to believe , we are taking a leap of Faith and it Serves us to do so. As for others who don't chose to believe the way we do...we accept your path to your own salvation. NO WAY.....Because it would throw a monkey wrench into all of your beliefs...and all would fall apart. So OBVIOUSLY, one who is of religious faith must claim thier belief to be the one and only true path to Christ,Allah Buddah or else...what's the point.
As you say, the supernatural cannot be proven through the use of Reason... However, through the use of Reason i am able to disprove that there is something Supernatural that actually exists. And no it does not mean that Real Presence is False...Because the Mind is a wonderful tool that allows us to choose what we want to be our Reality. Therefore it is your reality, however , it is not mine.
Thanks for reading this lengthy thing, i am just getting started and hope to learn from all of your thoughts and comments.peace[/quote]
With all due respect, this relativism is total nonsense.
Things are objectively true or false, whether people believe in them or not.
We humans are not God. Our beliefs do not create reality, and reality exists outside of our own minds.

Something can not be objectively true and false at the same time.
For instance, the world is either round or flat. If everybody believes the world is flat, that would not stop it from being round.
Either God exists or God does not exist.
Either Jesus Christ is God or Jesus Christ is not God.
Either He rose from the dead, or He did not rise from the dead.
Either Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, or He is not truly present in the Eucharist.

Relativism, where truth exists only in the minds of individuals, may sound nice (because, hey, nobody's wrong and everybody's right about everything!), but it is contrary to reason and common sense.

Edited July 29, 2006 by Socrates

[mofca]

[quote] It is simply that those who do not belive and are not in communion with the body of Christ should not receive this sacrament until they believe and come into full communion with the Church. [/quote]
[quote]Yes, you received the Body and Blood of Christ, whether you realized this or not. The True Presence is not dependent on the mind or state of the recipient. That idea is heresy.[/quote]
Do these two statements not contradict each other?

[Contrary-Mary]

[quote]This has nothing to do with "enlightenment" or "being worthy of His graces." God's graces are a free gift and are not merited by anyone. It is simply that those who do not belive and are not in communion with the body of Christ should not receive this sacrament until they believe and come into full communion with the Church. [/quote]
in the latter part of this statement you say one should not recieve unless they believe and are in full communion with the church.....
[quote]Yes, you received the Body and Blood of Christ, whether you realized this or not. The True Presence is not dependent on the mind or state of the recipient. That idea is heresy.[/quote]
then you proceed to say this....how can both be true at the same time when they contradict each other , simply that is obvious to you that you contradicted yourself. please accept my apology if i say accusingly but when you look at the two you must see that you did.

[mofca]

[quote] If one does not believe this, but believes that Jesus Christ was a mere man, then of course it would be absurd to believe He is present in the Eucharist.
[/quote]

Why? If it is objective reality that He is present in the Eucharist, then it is a matter of knowing rather than believing, is it not?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Contrary-Mary' post='1033144' date='Jul 28 2006, 05:46 PM']
in the latter part of this statement you say one should not recieve unless they believe and are in full communion with the church.....

then you proceed to say this....how can both be true at the same time when they contradict each other , simply that is obvious to you that you contradicted yourself. please accept my apology if i say accusingly but when you look at the two you must see that you did.
[/quote]
No contradiction at all.
Whether the consecrated Host is truly the Body of Christ and whether one should receive the Body of Christ are two completely different issues.

For instance, if I receive the Body of Christ in a state of mortal sin, or if I receive while disbelieving in the Real Presence, I have received unworthily, yet Christ remains just as Truly Present in the Eucharist.
One's belief effects one's own worthiness of receiving Christ, but does not effect the Presence of Christ in the least bit.

[quote name='mofca' post='1033146' date='Jul 28 2006, 05:47 PM']
Why? If it is objective reality that He is present in the Eucharist, then it is a matter of knowing rather than believing, is it not?
[/quote]
You could say so. Belief and knowledge are not necessarily contradictory.
One can believe in something objectively true. For instance, someone can believe the earth revolves around the sun. This would not make that fact subjective or false.

Edited July 29, 2006 by Socrates