Question to ex-Catholics

[jswranch]

[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]
Sure, there are fakes. Some of the alleged miracles are staged. Yes, people can convince themsleves of that which does not exist. However, I do not find a grease stain of Mary or face of Jesus on grilled coagulated milk to be a miracle. Neither does the church as a whole (some individual Catholics do). That does not deny their existance. This thread is about transubstantiation. I would love to see you start a new thread on faith and reason or on miracles.


[quote name='mofca' post='1034261' date='Jul 30 2006, 06:51 AM']
This is a good point. However, the testimony of the 12 men and the God-man who declares himself to be God does not make it an objective truth that he is God.

The point I want to make is that Christ's presence in the Eucharist can only be known if you have faith. This has been established over and over again on this thread. A conflict occurs when you call this knowledge an objective truth. By definition, something is objective if it is based on observable phenomena. Objective truth is a secular concept that applies to everybody. By contrast, faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or physical evidence. This may seem like splitting hairs, but I think it is a perplexing contradiction and it raises a more important underlying issue. Something that is declared to be objective truth, like the laws of physics, or the earth is round, can be demonstrated over and over again by concrete, observable evidence to every human being with an intellect. This is not true of Eucharistic Presence. With all due respect to the Church, I think the Eucharist should be defined by what it is: a concept and a belief. Calling it objective truth steps beyond the boundaries of ritual and faith, and crosses into secular territory in my humble opinion.
[/quote]
If you do not believe Jesus was God who took human form, gave us a church which later canonized the bible, then we really cannot discuss transubstantiation. Once you have Christ, his church, and the bible, then believing in transubstantiation by reason alone is possible.

[mofca]

[quote]only if you believe in the materialism of the modern age.

true Christianity believes that spiritual truths and all articals of the Chrisitan Faith are true apart from whether or not anyone believes them. "When the Son of Man comes, will there be faith left upon the earth?" Asks Christ, obviously alluding to the possibility that there would be none left. But if there is no faith left upon the earth, Christ will still come. This is because the truth about Christ is objective, i.e. it is outside of ourselves and not subjective to any other criteria; it is true because it is true.[/quote]

The Christian belief comes from the teaching and scripture interpretation that have been passed down through the generations. I argue that the truth about Christ exists inside the teachings of the Christian faith. Outside of that there is no evidence. This same truth certainly does not exist for Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, or Athiests. Christians obviously think that the teaching of the Christian religion is the truth, but other religions have their version of faith and the "truth" which exists on the same platform as Christianity. There is nothing to distinguish the truth in faith and religion besides the statement "we believe because we believe".

[quote]Actually, observational truth as you describe it could be said according to many modern philosophies to be subjective in and of itself. It is subjective to the view and perspective of the observer. Heisenburg's uncertainty principle shows that the very act of observing anything actually alters its location and reality, because the particals of light bouncing off objects actually alter the path of those objects.

When we say something is an "objective truth", we are differentiating it from "subjective truth". if it is objective, that means that it is true without any conditions. If no one believed it was true, it would still be true.

Objective truth is a philisophical concept which needn't be subjected to modern materialistic scientific absolutism. The claim that something is objectively true need undergo philisophical and/or theological tests, not the scientific method.

Anyway, I think you are operating under a false definition of objective truth. objective truth and subjective truth are both terms rooted in philosophy, not necessarily physical science. "objective truth" is not the same as "observable truth" as your post asserts. [/quote]

There are definitely different degrees of objectivity. Philosophically speaking, nothing has true objectivity except for maybe mathmatics. My definition of objective truth strives for, if not absolute objective truth, a degree of objectivity which is as close to true objectivity as intellectualy possible. Like it or not, we do live in a scientific, modern, materialistic age that we humans have created, and for some (like myself), looking at this world through a religious lense limits the ability to truly think freely. Again, I say this with the utmost respect for the Faithful people who read this forum. I know I am the minority here, and I'm grateful that I'm able to say my peace and that we can respectfully disagree. Peace and Love to you.

[Aloysius]

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.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Contrary-Mary' post='1033161' date='Jul 28 2006, 06:18 PM']
Actually, your comment as you stated it lacked all respect for another's beliefs. might i say, with all due respect Catholisim is total nonesense? no, i would not. because i have an open mind that is willing to be presented with new ideas so that i may examine each and use my reason,logic, spirit to decide whether it holds enough evidence to be believable or if i do not think so, i may not reject the idea, but rather accept it as an option that i do not understand fully or as an option that i do not choose for myself. when i think i know the truth...i can be certain that i don't . when i think i know all the answers , then certainly there will be more questions....
yes, lots of things are objectively true or false, i do not disagree... however by what measure do you say one thing is true and another false....it is through YOUR PERSPECTIVE whether you believe it to be true or false regardless of what tool you have used such as your mind, your spirit ,or what you feel, see, touch, have been told....etc. there is no thing that proves that what we as humans 'know' is the actual reality at all. it is what we perceive with our minds and if you will, our spirit, that is true for us.
actually we are all gods of this world, we constantly create our own reality with our thoughts and our actions. god created us in his image and likeness...would he not give us the ability to create the world around us? are we not destroying the world around us with war and pollution? can we not fix the problem and 'create' a new world without war, without pollution. yes, we have the capabilities of these and many other great things. i am creating a reality for you as you see these words and read them.
reality can ONLY exist inside of our minds because we are the observer inside of a mind. if we lacked the ability to observe, there would be no reality. you know the whole...if a tree falls in a forest....we MUST exist and experience for there to be a reality. what of this reality that you say exists outside of the mind....there is no said reality without our observing it and experiencing it , we cannot seperate ourselves from our own perception, EVER...that is all we have.
[/quote]
I must strongly disagree you that we each "create our own reality."
There is objective reality beyond what we beleive and what our minds perceive, and I believe our minds are capable of knowing this reality.
If nothing is real beyond what each individual thinks, or if this objective reality is completely unknowable, then there is really no point debating issues of religion or anything else.

To use your example, are you saying that it is "reality" that "we are destroying the world through war and pollution"?
If I chose to believe that we are not, would my belief that, say, pollution and war are good for the world, or are non-existent, be a "reality," or would it be delusional?

You have not in fact "created a reality" by merely talking about a world without war and pollution.
This would be properly considered "imagination" or "fantasy." It would only rightly be considered "reality" if indeed war and pollution were in fact ended in the real world.
As long as war and pollution exist in the real world, that is reality.
If people choose to deny the existence of war and pollution, or simply imagine a world in which they do not exist, that will not change objective reality.

To use the pollution example, let's take the issue of global warming. If man-made gases are drastically raising the earth's temperature, is that a "reality" which exists outside people's minds?
If everybody disbeleived in global warming, would global warming then no longer be reality?
If that were the case, the solution to the problem of global warming would be simple - everybody could believe the world was getting cooler, and the cooler world would be reality!

And yes, if a tree falls in a forest, it would still fall whether anyone heard it or not. (The "sound" might be a different question).

[Socrates]

[quote name='Contrary-Mary' post='1033185' date='Jul 28 2006, 06:49 PM']
you have labeled what i spoke of as relativism...something that you have learned about in philosophy class or something you read. don't instantly assume that i have taken an idea as my own and have done no thinking on it myself. you are missing what i am saying by instantly labeling what you 'think' i am saying and what i have REALLY said.
i am saying that what we percieve as our reality is our reality. period. if we were able to perceive two realities at the same time, that would be cool but we are not 'made that way' . all we have been given or possess as our tool to survive in reality is our own perception and it will always be subjective therefore NOTHING in one's reality is truly objective. as for the truth....well, that is another thing.
as for something to be contrary to reason and common sense, i would say one might have to fall back on 'Faith'. would you agree? ( i think you already said when it is beyond man's understanding one must rely on faith)just as those who have religious beliefs that they cannot prove objectively rely on faith , those very religious beliefs that to others might seem to lack reason and common sense. what makes your belief in Christ anymore real then my beliefs in 'x', but Faith. we just have Faith in different things.
[/quote]
It seems you are confusing "perception of reality" with "reality."
"Reality" and "truth" are one and the same.

Two people may just as sincerely and firmly believe in two opposing things, but this does not mean they both are equally correct.
One man may be an adament atheist, who says that when we die, we simply cease to exist.
The other may be a fervent Christian, who says that God will reward us all after death with heaven or hell.

However, both cannot be equally true.
If there is no God or immortal soul, the Christian will experience nothing after death, no matter how fervently he may believe.
If there is a God, the atheist will meet his Maker and his eternal reward, no matter how firm his atheistic unbelief in life.

As we see here, religious beliefs (or unbeleifs) cannot be simply labeled subjective, but must each be objectively true or false.

You can argue that my Christian beliefs are indeed false and unreasonable, but to claim that my Christian beliefs and those of an atheist can both be "reality" is indeed nonsense.

[quote name='mofca' post='1033156' date='Jul 28 2006, 06:07 PM']
Is a second grader considered to be a believer and in full communion with the Church? How would a second grader be able to even remotely comprehend the teachings and the philosophy of the Church? I would argue that it is a decision made by the second grader's parents, and therefore it is impossible for the second grader to be in full communion with the Church. The poor kid has enough problems with simple arithmetic at this point in his/her life. It is on this point where I see a contradiction in the above statement.
[/quote]
The most intelligent and learned scholars cannot remotely comprehend the divine Mystery of the Eucharist. Fully understanding the mysteries of God is beyond human intellect.
As long as the second-grader is able to beleive that he is indeed receiving Jesus, and not mere bread, the child is in communion with the Church.

Only if he refuses to believe would he cease to be in full communion with the Church.
The reason reception of the Eucharist is postponed in the Western rite is not because baptised babies are not in full communion with the Church, but so the communicant can understand the importance of this sacrament. (In the Eastern Rites, infants receive after baptism).

[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