Can one be Catholic without all the Superstition?

[Church_Militant]

Wounded Is correct and just as with the church itself they are all extensions of the most unique aspect of Christianity, the incarnation, whereby the 2nd person of the Trinity takes on the human nature of mankind. Christ used physical things as conduits of grace and healing during His public ministry, and that has continued in many various ways over the last 2,000 years.

 

[steve_b]

Some of the greatest theology, moral philosophy, and arguments for the existence of God I have read have been written by Catholics, but then I see prayer candles*, transubstantiation, scapulars, etc*., and I’m wondering if one has to accept all those things as well in order to be a Catholic.

I think these things can be excellent faith devices, I just don’t want to walk around saying they are actually true.

What’s wrong with my thinking?

Transubstantiation is not a device. Transubstantion is a word the Church uses to describe a truth, a reality that takes place at the consecration of bread and wine by an apostolically, validly ordained, priest. Transubstantion describes a truth because Jesus said what happens at consecration, is true. “This IS my body”…“This IS my blood”… NOT representative of, not symbolic of… etc etc, but His real body and blood, sacramentally present.

Paul would be speaking nonsense in the following teaching if that reality wasn’t true

1 Cor 11:27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

One can’t eat and drink condemnation on themselves with a symbol, only with something that is real and true, given to us by God.

BTW, the Holy spirit inspired Paul to write that. Which means it came straight from Jesus as something He taught, and the HS is reminding Paul of what Jesus taught.

Jn 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

 

[midori]

First of all, I’m rather ashamed of the tendency of modern Catholics to duck all accusations of superstition by reducing things like sacramentals to mere symbols.

Didn’t want to turn Catholicism 101 into Catholicism 201. (Ever read a Blessed Salt thread? ) Starting with the OP’s perspective that sacramentals = superstition, and doctrine = superstition, it seemed sufficient to say, “Hey, sacramentals =/= superstition. The use of Holy Water reminds us of our Baptism…” rather than going in-depth into the remittance of venial sin, the usefulness of sprinkling it for the Souls in Purgatory, and various miracles associated with its use.

 

[rfournier103]

Some of the greatest theology, moral philosophy, and arguments for the existence of God I have read have been written by Catholics, but then I see prayer candles, transubstantiation, scapulars, etc., and I’m wondering if one has to accept all those things as well in order to be a Catholic.

I think these things can be excellent faith devices, I just don’t want to walk around saying they are actually true.

What’s wrong with my thinking?

Transubstantiation is not a superstition, my friend. Read John 6. Also, good on you for actually asking about these things. Maybe you could ask WHY these things are important to Catholics instead of dismissing them as nonsense. Just a suggestion…

 

[Qoeleth]

Some of the greatest theology, moral philosophy, and arguments for the existence of God I have read have been written by Catholics, but then I see prayer candles, transubstantiation, scapulars, etc., and I’m wondering if one has to accept all those things as well in order to be a Catholic.

I think these things can be excellent faith devices, I just don’t want to walk around saying they are actually true.

What’s wrong with my thinking?

The ‘Catholic’ Church, being catholic (universal), includes a pretty broad range of beliefs. Belief in the effects of scapulars, etc., is totally inessential, and, in soem cases, a superstition.

As for transubstantiation- it remains a mystery. A ‘change of substance’- but what is ‘substance’? No-one really knows. To be Catholic, it is simply necessary to accept Eucharist as a sacramental presence of Christ (whatever that might mean…).

It is, in fact, a heresy to say that it is the physical presence of Christ, if this is what was worrying you.

 

[adrift]

It is, in fact, a heresy to say that it is the physical presence of Christ, if this is what was worrying you.

Would you substantiate this as the Catechism says.

1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.

 

[Qoeleth]

Would you substantiate this as the Catechism says.

My wording was not the best. What I mean is, the change of substance is NOT accompanied by a change of accidents (i.e. physical composition). In other words, there is no physical change, since the physical structure of the Sacred Species are it accidents, not its substance.

So, it is not, in physical ‘accidents’ flesh and blood, but still bread and wine. This becomes confusing, because the term ‘substance’ today tends be used as referring to ‘physical accidents’ (chemical and physical structure), rather than in its earlier philosopical sense.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)