Eucharist is physical presence

[reason]

I suggest that you are placing your sense of reason above God’s Word and Tradition.

Your suggestion would be right, I do place reason above that. I don’t believe it is God’s word and Tradition. It’s the word and tradition of credulous, silly men, born and honed over millenia of astrological/sun worship in ignorance and superstition, and further maintained and spread by fraudulent men who often don’t even believe it themselves and are only playing the part.

There’s plenty to wonder about in the world we can see and measure and experience without having to believe in ancient sun god mythologies as fact. I wasted enough time with “faith” and praying to deities and spirits who aren’t there to hear me or anyone else. I still like the atmosphere inside an old, architecturally-traditional Catholic church, but I recognize it more as a museum to the old mythology. Now, mythologies aren’t necessarily bad, as long as we don’t mistake them for fact.

Why do people talk about having blind faith as being some kind virtue?

 

[Ignatius]

reason:

Why do people talk about having blind faith as being some kind virtue?

It’s not blind faith and It’s not just the Catholic Church. Every Church that can actually trace back to the Apostles, Catholic, Ultrecht, Coptic, Eretrian, Ge’ez, Orthodox, etc. all received from the Apostles the Truth that the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of our Lord. Even a number of Protestant Denominations know this as well. Taken together, this represents in over 80% of the Christians in the world.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Your suggestion would be right, I do place reason above that. I don’t believe it is God’s word and Tradition. It’s the word and tradition of credulous, silly men, born and honed over millenia of astrological/sun worship in ignorance and superstition, and further maintained and spread by fraudulent men who often don’t even believe it themselves and are only playing the part.

There’s plenty to wonder about in the world we can see and measure and experience without having to believe in ancient sun god mythologies as fact. I wasted enough time with “faith” and praying to deities and spirits who aren’t there to hear me or anyone else. I still like the atmosphere inside an old, architecturally-traditional Catholic church, but I recognize it more as a museum to the old mythology. Now, mythologies aren’t necessarily bad, as long as we don’t mistake them for fact.

Why do people talk about having blind faith as being some kind virtue?

Faith is a gift my friend, one you apparently never received or received and lost. I’ll pray for you.

Iowa Mike

 

[banjo]

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life.
This kind of reinforces what I said above. Christ talks about “spirit” here and says the words he has spoken to the apostles are Spirit, and they are life, not the flesh.

Do you see why me and many others including other Catholics have a problem accepting transubstantiation? Yes, we should accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on this and trust what they say is true, I understand that.

Besides saying the Church said so or Christ said so and leaving it at that, pls poke holes in my rationale above. I’m certainly not trying damage anybody’s faith here, but I have some doubts, so i’m looking for somebody to convince me.

This is an old, frequently repudiated argument. First, it isn’t logical…who would repeatedly stress a particular point and at the very end of their discourse in effect say they didn’t mean what they were stressing? Add to that the fact that Christ then asked His apostles if they too were going to leave. Second, Jesus is not saying His flesh profits nothing but the carnal flesh of His hearers. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch put it well when they commented that v. 63 is, “A contrast between the Spirit’s ability to enlighten our minds and human reason’s inability to comprehend revealed truths apart from faith. It is this earthbound perspective that is profitless in the face of divine mysteries.” (From the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible)

 

[mikew262]

This is an old, frequently repudiated argument. First, it isn’t logical…who would repeatedly stress a particular point and at the very end of their discourse in effect say they didn’t mean what they were stressing? Add to that the fact that Christ then asked His apostles if they too were going to leave. Second, Jesus is not saying His flesh profits nothing but the carnal flesh of His hearers. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch put it well when they commented that v. 63 is, “A contrast between the Spirit’s ability to enlighten our minds and human reason’s inability to comprehend revealed truths apart from faith. It is this earthbound perspective that is profitless in the face of divine mysteries.” (From the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible)

Thanks, I’ll seriously consider what you said.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Originally Posted by mikew262

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life.
This kind of reinforces what I said above. Christ talks about “spirit” here and says the words he has spoken to the apostles are Spirit, and they are life, not the flesh.

Do you see why me and many others including other Catholics have a problem accepting transubstantiation? Yes, we should accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on this and trust what they say is true, I understand that.

Besides saying the Church said so or Christ said so and leaving it at that, pls poke holes in my rationale above. I’m certainly not trying damage anybody’s faith here, but I have some doubts, so i’m looking for somebody to convince me.

Mike, with all due respect you sound more like a Protestant Sola Scriptura guy than a Catholic. You’ve taken a small portion of John’s gospel out of context. You need to take what you have quoted in context with the whole of what Jesus said. I simply don’t understand how you can disregard the enequivocal words that came from Jesus himself:

JOHN 6:53-66

53 Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. 54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven: not as the fathers ate, and died; he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father”. 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?”

Those that walked away could not accept the concept of eating his flesh and drinking his blood
I hope you noticed that Jesus did not try to pusuade those that walked away. He didn’t say, “Oh I you misunderstood me” or “Oh, I really didn’t mean that you actually eat my flesh and drink my blood.” He simply let them leave. It is the whole point of these passages, Jesus didn’t back down…he didn’t waiver…he didn’t recant…he stuck to his guns and let them leave.

At the Last Supper…

LUKE 22:19-20

19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, [even] that which is poured out for you.

Here Jesus was again unequivocal in his words…"This IS my body…This cup IS the new…

He didn’t say, this represents my body[blood], this is also my body[blood], this is a symbol of my body[blood] or this is a substitute for my body[blood]. He very clearly said…this IS…IS.

Trouble with the concept of transubstantiation…Why? I suggest you talk with your priest about this.

Iowa Mike

 

[mikew262]

Mike, with all due respect you sound more like a Protestant Sola Scriptura guy than a Catholic. You’ve taken a small portion of John’s gospel out of context. You need to take what you have quoted in context with the whole of what Jesus said. I simply don’t understand how you can disregard the enequivocal words that came from Jesus himself:

Those that walked away could not accept the concept of eating his flesh and drinking his blood
I hope you noticed that Jesus did not try to pusuade those that walked away. He didn’t say, “Oh I you misunderstood me” or “Oh, I really didn’t mean that you actually eat my flesh and drink my blood.” He simply let them leave. It is the whole point of these passages, Jesus didn’t back down…he didn’t waiver…he didn’t recant…he stuck to his guns and let them leave.

At the Last Supper…

Here Jesus was again unequivocal in his words…"This IS my body…This cup IS the new…

He didn’t say, this represents my body[blood], this is also my body[blood], this is a symbol of my body[blood] or this is a substitute for my body[blood]. He very clearly said…this IS…IS.

Trouble with the concept of transubstantiation…Why? I suggest you talk with your priest about this.

Iowa Mike

Actually, I don’t understand why Sola Scriptura folks have any problem with this at all. Don’t they believe the Bible should be taken literally?

IMO, I think many Catholics have a problem with the concept of Transubstantiation. They accept it because it’s what the Church teaches, but do they really understand or believe it? I wonder. It goes against all common sense. You are asked to believe it based soley on faith, and maybe thats part or all of my problem; maybe my faith is weak, at least in this area. I acknowledge that; every Sunday and more I ask God for help in understanding this particular matter. Believing Christ is using symbols to explain his real meaning or that Christ is just spiritually in the bread and wine is much more believable.

Talking to a priest probably won’t help, because he’ll just tell me what many of you have mentioned already, plus what I’ve read. I’m well aware of the Church’s teaching on it.

Hopefully God will make it clear to me one way or another in his own good time.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Mike262,

I contend that the reason there are so many Protestant denominations stems from Sola Scriptura. Protestants believe that they do not need assistance to interpret the Bible. Since they all interpret it very differently they have ended up with a zillion protestant denominations. We Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals and look to the Church for guidance in interpreting scripture.

I suggest you consult your parish priest and ask for guidance…don’t sit out there and try to figure this out alone. I also highly recommend you to ask the Holy Spirit more directly. Pray for guidance. Take an hour of Eucharistic Adoration and ask God for understanding. Pray some more.

Iowa Mike

 

[tassitus]

…Hopefully God will make it clear to me one way or another in his own good time.

Mike, if you are truly serious about wanting to understand this, I highly recommend you participate, on a regular basis, in eucharistic adoration. Try it for one hour a week for, say 6 months. Then let us know what you believe.

In peace.

 

[banjo]

Actually, I don’t understand why Sola Scriptura folks have any problem with this at all. Don’t they believe the Bible should be taken literally?

IMO, I think many Catholics have a problem with the concept of Transubstantiation. They accept it because it’s what the Church teaches, but do they really understand or believe it? I wonder. It goes against all common sense. You are asked to believe it based soley on faith, quote]

 

[reason]

Believing in something by faith alone is not much different than pretending to believe, and pretending to believe, or playing at believing, has no more value than just being honest to oneself by admitting unbelief.

 

[m134e5]

Christ, whole and entire, in His physical “reality” is bodily present, although not in the same way that bodies are present in a given place."

I think Thomistic philosophy tries too hard to explain what cannot be explained (which is why he eventually stopped trying!), and I think Thomistic philosophy is employed too much by theologians. Physical things can potentially be detected by the senses (either the object itself, evidence of it- like the feeling of wind, or visible objects that are affected by an invisible source- like magnetism). In that sense, there is no physical change (except for Eucharistic miracles of course). (basically, who cares HOW it happens? It happens, so contemplate His presence in the Sacrament with awe and reverence and let that be the end of it.)