Question to ex-Catholics

[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.

[mofca]

[quote] 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. [/quote]

I should clarify that I meant the concept of Sacramental truth as a whole.

Edited August 1, 2006 by mofca

[mofca]

[quote]now you must begin with the universal fallen nature of humanity and thus all the physical world. [/quote]

This is where faith is introduced to the explaination, and therefore is no longer objective. I read and understand everything about the philosophy behind Eucharistic truth. There are aspects that I find very poetic and beautiful. However, if faith is taken out of the equation, there is no logical ground for it to stand on.
I disagree that people have a tendency towards evil. I think the opposite is true, that people all have a desire to do good. It is when we are taught from infancy that we are not worthy and have shame woven into our being, that we are set up for failure. I wonder what would happen if we entered the world and we were told instead that we have great tendencies, and it is good to be kind to your fellow man for the sake of being true to those tendencies. Instead, most of us have a worldview consisting of judgement, punishment and unworthyness, and our behavior falls into that line of thinking.

[Aloysius]

[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.[/quote]
You're still mixing up "objective truth" and "observable truth"

what you describe as "objective truth" is absolutely and completely subject to human observation... i.e. very much subjective. whether or not a truth can be proven or observed does not affect whether or not it is an "objective truth". all discussion of what "objective truth" is, therefore, is subject to philosophy. physical science cannot and does not reach beyond the accidents of the world. it describes the way the physical world works. but it cannot adequately describe WHAT the world IS or WHY the world IS. These are both philosophical questions, as is the question of what anything is.

Physics can cut all matter down to different assemblances of the same 7 quarks, but the substance of those quarks remains a mystery. Their attributes can be described, but precisely what they are and how they exist is inexplicable, unobservable, unprovable. Philosophy and logic say what their substance is and what causes them to exist instead of a vaccuum of nothingness in their place. The substance of a quark reaches the point at which human words begin to fail: that's how mystery existence itself is. Sure it's interesting and amazing to see the way the accidents of the world work, and it tells us much about their substance (which is why Christ clearly chose two foods which had accidents which would remind one of the substance He changed them into, bread and wine, body and blood), I've been known to spend nights on end writing on the walls all sorts of equations and cosmological theories myself, but the core of substance is unanswerable by physical, accidental, science.

see that's why it is called "accidental", it indirectly points to what is the true substance but is completely subject to fallible human observation. approaching substance is subject to the failings of fallible human logic as well, but at least it can be discussed and argued.

[quote name='mofca' post='1035509' date='Aug 1 2006, 11:56 AM']
This is where faith is introduced to the explaination, and therefore is no longer objective. I read and understand everything about the philosophy behind Eucharistic truth. There are aspects that I find very poetic and beautiful. However, if faith is taken out of the equation, there is no logical ground for it to stand on.
I disagree that people have a tendency towards evil. I think the opposite is true, that people all have a desire to do good. It is when we are taught from infancy that we are not worthy and have shame woven into our being, that we are set up for failure. I wonder what would happen if we entered the world and we were told instead that we have great tendencies, and it is good to be kind to your fellow man for the sake of being true to those tendencies. Instead, most of us have a worldview consisting of judgement, punishment and unworthyness, and our behavior falls into that line of thinking.
[/quote]

"Original sin is really original. Not merely in theology but in history it is a thing rooted in the origins. Whatever else men have believed, they have all believed that there is something the matter with mankind This sense of sin has made it impossible to be natural and have no clothes, just as it has made it impossible to be natural and have no laws." -- GK Chesterton

If you are right, that there is absolutely no tendency towards sin, then the very first beginnings of every civilization would never have introduced it. It has its origins somwhere... somwhere original (the Bible points to Adam and Eve, but in any event it begins somewhere)

Human beings are by nature good. They have a tendency to fail to live up to their full good potential. If it is merely perpetuated by society, then it could never have been introduced in the first place. There had to be something that started it, started doing evil and teaching their kids that they had a tendency towards evil. It makes more sense that everyone has this potentiality within themselves... Occam's Razor, that's much simpler than trying to argue that there was a few originators of evil plans and they just convinced all their successive generations that they should have evil plans too.

The fact of humanity's failure to live up to its full good potential is self evident, and it is in the substance of humanity that this shortcoming arrives. Go back to your praise for observational evidence: observe the human race and discover that in all cultures and all peoples independent of each other (well, I suppose there could be some really really ancient cultural diffusion in the source of all the civilizations, but it still proves the point) they originate the concept that they are prone to fail at their potential goodness: there you have it: observable and provable truth of what Chrisitans label as "fallen nature" due to "original sin"

[Anomaly]

great points for observable evidence for original sin.

observable evidence for real presence?

[Aloysius]

I told you that cannot be done. The Eucharist is a summit and as such its proof lies in philosophical and logical conclusions resting upon truths that are observable. I laid out in my other post that transubstantiation is the only logical conclusion to lift humanity out of original sin; that if Jesus didn't do it with the Eucharist it would have to be done with some other food being transubstantiated into a divine substance.

Of course, I've been known never to let go of a challenge even trying to prove the truth of the Trinity by reason alone apart from Divine Revelation... so I'll attempt a stab at observable evidence.

This thread alone was begun as an observation which tends to ring true on a large part throughout the Church: those who truly believe in the Real Presence tend to remain in the Church-- their faith in the Church is observably sustained by the Eucharist. Then there is the large number of faithful who still attend adoration after leaving the Church and no longer positively believing in the Real Presence, saying that they feel something there. And my point in the negative that those who receive it unworthily pile on more and more sins and that hard core satanists can tell the difference between a consecrated and unconsecrated host. Of course all of these things are too hard to gage, otherwise I'd like to see statistics of some sort on some of them... but it seems to be a consistent observation among those who work with Catholics and ex-Catholics et cetera that the Eucharist is always such a key factor in remaining in or leaving the Church... pointing towards my argument that it sustains faith.

Ehh... I said all that before though. I really gotta rest on my strongest argument two posts ago that the Eucharist is the logical conclusion if one is to be lifted out of a substantial human fallen nature, so the fact that so many historical forces pointed towards it from the greeks to the hebrews makes it the most likely candidate to sustain a person whose substance is lifted from fallen nature.

Because of its role-- sustaining already existing faith-- it really is hard to gauge observably the extent of whether it acheives its goal. It's not the origin point, it's not the conversion point, it's the daily sustinence. I still feel safe saying that those who receive the Eucharist worthily are by far more secured and sustained in their faith and in their moral conduct of their daily lives as humans sustained in a lifted nature... still struggling from the effects of original sin but no longer substantially fallen.