I don't understand the Eucharist

[rayteurfs]

There is a dogma of faith that the person of the Son of God is divine so truly God but that other persons are not God having no divine nature but a merely human person can participate.

Vatican Council (1870 A.D.), Denzinger Sources of Catholic Dogma:

1782 [The one, living, and true God and His distinction from all things.] * The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself [can. 1-4].

1786 The necessity of revelation].Indeed, it must be attributed to this divine revelation that those things, which in divine things are not impenetrable to human reason by itself, can, even in this present condition of the human race, be known readily by all with firm certitude and with no admixture of error.* Nevertheless, it is not for this reason that revelation is said to be absolutely necessary, but because God in His infinite goodness has ordained man for a supernatural end, to participation, namely, in the divine goods which altogether surpass the understanding of the human mind, since “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him” 1 Cor. 2:9 ; can. 2 and 3].

Yes, for me, again, this is ALL needless extra. The essence of the Church has nothing to do with dogma. The mystical body of Christ, the true catholicness of it all, is all of humanity. When the word because flesh, that was ALL of creation. I find these doctrines and dogmas, most of which I am quite familiar, to be tired extra stuff that is simply unimportant and are cause for war and separation. The only thing that does not separate is LOVE. The rest, we fight over.

One of the bedrocks of my own thinking is the clear understanding that no one has ever been able to explain to another human the mystery of being itself. Forget the mystery of God, the mystery of being itself is unfathomable. All of our ideas are only metaphor for that Great Mystery. Once we in our hubris think that we have some absolute truth that explains it all, the mystery goes as well. No, the mystery is here to stay and ALL our dogmas and doctrines are but metaphors, attempts at understanding. And, to say that my metaphor is better than yours is nonsensical to me. I would add something to Love and that is Awe. I could add others, too:Good, One, True, Beautiful. These are attributes of God and of all being …this is taught by Thomas Aquinas, too. So, let’s get back to the basics and leave the fluff aside!

 

[Gorgias]

Back some 50 years ago, I concluded that God was more ‘me’ than I was.

But, if your understanding of God is merely metaphorical – as you claim below – then your understanding of yourself… is merely a metaphor? Hmm… doesn’t sound right…

In other words, we cannot but think of God as an object.

Fair enough, if you’re talking about the 1st person or 3rd person of God – or even the Logos, the 2nd person of God. The problem is that your construction starts to break down when you talk about Jesus – as God Incarnate – because He is physical; he is an “object” in the same ways that we as humans have physical existence. Therefore, we can look at Jesus and contemplate Him as physical. Transubstantiation, then, simply describes a sacramental mode of experiencing Him in physical form.

This is all very difficult to talk about with the faithful at large because humanity is not made up of people who have had the time, opportunity or inclination to think on these things from such a perspective.

It’s kinda funny to read this. After all, Scriptures talk explicitly about the wonder of the things revealed to the simple, and Early Church Fathers go on and on about how the faithful aren’t necessarily great scholars or philosophers… and yet, that they are the recipients – and reasonably so! – of the mysteries of Christ!

However, some humility about the limits of our knowledge would be a wonderful thing, I think.

Yes… that might be a good direction for this conversation to take…

The hierarchy in the Catholic Church has no corner or real authority to tell anyone what they ought to think, but that is exactly what the Church has done.

You’re showing your age… that’s far more applicable to the Church of 1960 than the Church of 2017…

…Francis, of course, has been changing that. “Who am I to judge?”

Context, context, context…

Francis was talking about someone who, while struggling with difficulties in following God’s law, was nevertheless faithful to it. That’s a far cry from the assertion that there is no room for fraternal correction when brothers and sisters in Christ misunderstand or misconstrue Christ’s teachings…

For me, the TRUTH in its wholeness and ultimate meaning, is not ours to have with any certainty, not here and not now.

Relativism is a beautiful thing, ain’t it?

The Catholic Church, however, has acted as if it were.

“Thomas said, ‘Lord, we do not know… how can we know the way?’ And Jesus replied, 'I am the way, and the truth.” No… in constructing His Church, I think Jesus imbued it with His Truth.

It is to see Catholics release their awesome power by reclaiming their own autonomy in thought. I think it is what Jesus would want.

Fair enough. That wouldn’t be an orthodox approach to Christianity (let alone Catholicism), though… :nope:

 

[rayteurfs]

But, if your understanding of God is merely metaphorical – as you claim below – then your understanding of yourself… is merely a metaphor? Hmm… doesn’t sound right…

Fair enough, if you’re talking about the 1st person or 3rd person of God – or even the Logos, the 2nd person of God. The problem is that your construction starts to break down when you talk about Jesus – as God Incarnate – because He is physical; he is an “object” in the same ways that we as humans have physical existence. Therefore, we can look at Jesus and contemplate Him as physical. Transubstantiation, then, simply describes a sacramental mode of experiencing Him in physical form.

It’s kinda funny to read this. After all, Scriptures talk explicitly about the wonder of the things revealed to the simple, and Early Church Fathers go on and on about how the faithful aren’t necessarily great scholars or philosophers… and yet, that they are the recipients – and reasonably so! – of the mysteries of Christ!

Yes… that might be a good direction for this conversation to take…

You’re showing your age… that’s far more applicable to the Church of 1960 than the Church of 2017…

Context, context, context…

Francis was talking about someone who, while struggling with difficulties in following God’s law, was nevertheless faithful to it. That’s a far cry from the assertion that there is no room for fraternal correction when brothers and sisters in Christ misunderstand or misconstrue Christ’s teachings…

Relativism is a beautiful thing, ain’t it?

“Thomas said, ‘Lord, we do not know… how can we know the way?’ And Jesus replied, 'I am the way, and the truth.” No… in constructing His Church, I think Jesus imbued it with His Truth.

Fair enough. That wouldn’t be an orthodox approach to Christianity (let alone Catholicism), though… :nope:

I accept all of your comments. I do not have enough knowledge/skill about how this site works to tend to all of your points. Your (snide?) comment about relativism being a beautiful thing is completely understandable. When a system of thought starts to grow, it becomes unmanageable and meaningless: we keep on trying to define and refine what we are talking about. The struggle to remain clear and objective and certain makes it more and more complex. This is not life; this is not love. This is human folly. Let loose all the definition and certainty. Free yourself from the constraints Church teaching that was always devised by men with an agenda for control.

When I was a young man, I honestly believed that anyone who read the bible and was not Catholic was automatically an unreasonable person. It seemed so obvious to me that if Jesus said, “I say unto thee that thou art Peter and upon this rock (petrous) I will build my Church,” that meant that Peter was the first Pope. And, when he said further something like, “what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” that meant the pope was infallible. The Church and its doctrine had a lock on me. Then, my own conversion to realizing that truth for humans was only relative, metaphorical or what have you, began with my own version of what I later learned was Cartesian doubt. I found myself doubting everything …except my own mystic vision would not allow me to doubt that there was some great mystery out there that was more than what I knew - infinitely more - and was responsible for all that I saw with my own eyes. From there, I added what was added, but little in the way of dogma …except thinks like forget dogma . Reading mystics and practical mystics like Teilhard de Chardin, Richard Rohr and Raimon Panikkar (all Roman Catholic priests) helped me feel validated in my thinking. The one who helped me also form my thinking was Chardin.

While I understand why and how people have so far responded to my unorthodoxy, I am hoping someone will decide to discuss this at more depth with me. I am familiar enough with Catholic teaching to not have to be reminded (as proof, especially) that I am wrong vis a vis much official Catholic doctrine. But, since I do not accept Catholic doctrine as essential to true Catholicism (which I believe needs to become more noncredal), such offerings to me are little more than begging the question …you know: such and such doctrine is true because the Church holds this doctrine as true. I am not expecting such a meeting of minds and hearts, but I still hope for it.

Cheers, and lots of love, ray

 

[Kliska]

The bread and wine were symbols - you call them icons - and, had Jesus been in a different situation, he might have chosen something else. The importance of the symbol is in its ability to bring us to a truth. Unfortunately, that truth may not be some magic trick we call transubstantiation.

Have you told your teachers and spiritual directors all of these beliefs of yours at the seminary you are at?

I’m not Catholic, I’m curious. Does that help you want to answer my question? How about the fact I’m retired from teaching a college philosophy class so this is of interest to me? Again, I’m curious, you mentioned not telling your teachers your beliefs, so when asked to write a paper or when being examined, such as when taking a test or writing essays, or seeking spiritual direction, do you lie, or do you not divulge anything other than is strictly necessary, or do you tell them everything?

How does this relate to the OP? I’m a protestant Christian looking at the claims of the CC, and one of these is the Eucharist. How do you feel your views would impact dialoging with other Christians wanting to know of the exclusive claims of the CC? How would you evangelize me if I was showing interest in joining the CC?

 

[Vico]

Yes, for me, again, this is ALL needless extra. The essence of the Church has nothing to do with dogma. The mystical body of Christ, the true catholicness of it all, is all of humanity. When the word because flesh, that was ALL of creation. I find these doctrines and dogmas, most of which I am quite familiar, to be tired extra stuff that is simply unimportant and are cause for war and separation. The only thing that does not separate is LOVE. The rest, we fight over.

One of the bedrocks of my own thinking is the clear understanding that no one has ever been able to explain to another human the mystery of being itself. Forget the mystery of God, the mystery of being itself is unfathomable. All of our ideas are only metaphor for that Great Mystery. Once we in our hubris think that we have some absolute truth that explains it all, the mystery goes as well. No, the mystery is here to stay and ALL our dogmas and doctrines are but metaphors, attempts at understanding. And, to say that my metaphor is better than yours is nonsensical to me. I would add something to Love and that is Awe. I could add others, too:Good, One, True, Beautiful. These are attributes of God and of all being …this is taught by Thomas Aquinas, too. So, let’s get back to the basics and leave the fluff aside!

The mystical body of Christ is His Church which includes all the faithful. Catholics have the obligation to accept the infallible teaching of the Church, infallible through the Holy Spirit, so do not accept the idea that God became the universe, but that God created it ex nihilo. Genesis 1:1

You can witness with what love the Catholic Church guides the people in the Catechism with the Truth that a human may come into communion with the Word to become a son of God, although not with divine nature as God is.

**460 **The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: 78 “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” 79 “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” 80 “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

78 2 Pt 1:4.
79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.

 

[davidv]

Yes, you are right. However, I do not believe that Catholic theologians have been leading us with the Truth, but with opinion. As I have said, the essence of being Catholic- even by Catholic theological standards - is that we love. I also believe that Jesus was God in the way you and I are also God. All the mystics - and certainly the Catholic/Christian ones - had a hard time distinguishing between the themselves and the Beloved. Doctrinal truths are not truth in any real sense: they are doctrines. Doctrines do little more than enslave. A religion ought not - yes, in MY opinion - have adherents or followers. They ought to have witnesses to the essential truth: love is that essential truth. All the rest is silly stuff to me. So, sorry, but I do know all that stuff about Divine person with two natures. I just apply it more universally than you. There are many hints in the bible, even, where Jesus intimated to us that we are ALL alike in this. Really, brothers are brothers.

Theologians may lead us astray, but the apostles and their successors will not.

 

[Richca]

This will likely sound silly, but I have never really comprehended what exactly people mean when they say that the bread and wine offered during Eucharist become the literal blood and body of Jesus.

By literal, is it genuinely literal? Consuming actual flesh and blood? My understanding of it doesn’t seem complete. I tried reading about Transubstantiation but I still wasn’t fully able to glean understanding.

I read that “The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ.” So is it not meant to be fully understood?

Some denominations say that it does not literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. So why the distinction? Is it an important distinction for denominations to consider it symbolic vs. literal vs. nothing?

If this has been answered before, would you lead me to the answer? Sorry for the confusion I just don’t really understand.

Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” (John 6: 53-56).

So yes, in holy communion we literally eat the flesh or more accurately the whole body of Christ (at the Last Supper upon blessing the bread Jesus said 'take and eat, this is my body) and we literally drink his blood from the chalice. The whole body of Christ is hidden under the appearances or accidents of the bread and the blood of Christ is hidden under the appearances or accidents of the wine. The change that takes place in the bread and wine at the consecration at Mass involves a change of the whole substances of the bread and wine into the whole substances of the body and blood of Christ (this is the dogma of transubstantiation - a change of the whole substance) while the accidents or appearances of the bread and wine remain. St Thomas Aquinas in his treatise on the Eucharist in his Summa Theologica explains the doctrine of transubstantiation, though not lessoning the miracle of it, excellently using the Aristotlelian concepts of substance and accident and which is in conformity with the catholic faith in the eucharist. The Catechism of the Council of Trent also has an excellent article on the doctrine of transubstantiation of which the Council of Trent had just decreed as a dogma of the faith.

One needs at least some familiarity of scholastic philosophy to understand the doctrine of transubstantiation as given by St Thomas Aquinas or the Catechism of the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent decreed that the whole substances of the bread and wine change into the whole substances of the body and blood of Christ while the species, the accidents or appearances, of the bread and wine remain. The question is what does it mean that the body and blood of Christ are substantially present under the accidents of the bread and wine? What is the substance of the body and blood of Christ? Answer in simple terms: the substance of Christ’s body is his whole body, his head, heart, legs, arms, tissue, flesh, etc. The substance of Christ’s blood is literally his blood that flows in his body. Our human bodies as is also with Christ are a part of our substance, the other part being our soul. The soul and the body form the substance of human beings though they are of different heights, weights, colors, etc. which are accidents.

In conclusion, we literally eat the body and drink the blood of Christ in the eucharist because his body and blood are literally and substantially present under the accidents of the bread and wine. The substances of the bread and wine are changed into the substances of the body and blood of Christ while the accidents or appearances of the bread and wine remain. Transubstantiation is a wholly supernatural miracle done by God at every Mass the likes of which we do not observe in the natural order of things. In the natural order of things, substantial changes involve a change of accidents, for example, if we set fire to a piece of wood we get ashes; a dead animal body turns or decays into earth. In the miracle at Mass, the accidents of the bread and wine remain while the substance changes. This God does by his almighty power so that though we literally eat the body and drink the blood of Christ, we do so under the appearances of bread and wine and not under the natural appearances of human flesh and blood which we sort of have a natural revulsion for. Although, in partaking of the eucharist we are not eating just any human body or drinking just any human blood, but we are eating the body and drinking the blood or our God and Savior.

Recommended reading: The Hidden Manna - A Theology of the Eucharist by Rev. James T. O’Connor.

 

[rayteurfs]

I’m not Catholic, I’m curious. Does that help you want to answer my question? How about the fact I’m retired from teaching a college philosophy class so this is of interest to me? Again, I’m curious, you mentioned not telling your teachers your beliefs, so when asked to write a paper or when being examined, such as when taking a test or writing essays, or seeking spiritual direction, do you lie, or do you not divulge anything other than is strictly necessary, or do you tell them everything?

How does this relate to the OP? I’m a protestant Christian looking at the claims of the CC, and one of these is the Eucharist. How do you feel your views would impact dialoging with other Christians wanting to know of the exclusive claims of the CC? How would you evangelize me if I was showing interest in joining the CC?

…I am not sure how your being not Catholic will help me answer your question…though it does seem that you have more than one, which is already answered, an implied no. Your retirement from teaching a college philosophy class is also not of particular concern or help to me in answering your question.

…about not telling my teachers my beliefs. I think what you are referring to was when, at the age of about 22 when I did not think to tell my superior of my doubts. I looked back on that shortly after, some years (but at 73 it seems a short span) and thought it funny/strange that I did not discuss this with my superior. However, I did go for a long walk with Fr. Occhio and explain to him some serious philosophical doubts I was having after Nietzsche’s comment about “being lost between two nothings.” That comment made sense to me, and it was, really, part of my own intellectual awakening.

As far as lying is concerned, I have often thought of myself as a compulsive truth teller. I can count on one hand the number of times I have lied, but the only one I can think of was when I used someone else’s DMV test when I was retaking a written motorcycle test. Funny, I never felt guilty about that lie. Since you are interested in what I told and did not tell my teachers, here is one for you. At 17, Brother Ben tried to molest me. He got as far as sitting behind me rubbing my belly under my shirt. I got away from him two times on the same day and escaped molestation, but it was not until many years later that I reported him. I was that naive. I did not have the framework within which to make it something real. In what was called out ‘monthly manifestation’ in seminary, I told the Director everything that came into my mind that made any sense. I had no fear of revealing myself. You might pick that up from this writing, or you may not.

I would not try to evangelize you or anyone. I am, as I said before, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Jain, Jew, and many more. I do not believe in any scripture literally. I believe that divine inspiration comes from deep within the divine heart of each person and that is travels to some degree through our human and fallible filters.

…a small clarification: you wrote, “so when asked to write a paper or when being examined, such as when taking a test or writing essays, or seeking spiritual direction, do you lie, or do you not divulge anything other than is strictly necessary, or do you tell them everything?” The clarification is from your using the present tense in your question. This all was over 50 years ago that I was in seminary college, 50 years and seven months to be more exact. While I did answer the question in the quote I just made, I did not answer it completely, maybe. Your question with the string of ‘or’s’ implies it was one or another of all those alternatives. It was, really, none of the above: much of my early thinking was just that: thinking. I was not coming down hard and fast with what I thought was so: this process was over many years. I left the seminary two years after college (have taught two years in the order), and I got married two years after that, and had two children baptized in the Church. Some time after all that, I stopped going to church and for some years became clearer and clearer about where the Catholic Church stood in my life. What I did essentially was not let go of the Catholic Church and all I learned, only all the dogma and doctrine, and I kept the love part and I also accepted the cultural part of being Catholic, something that no one who was as Catholic as I can ever realistically totally escape.

Unless I am tone deaf, I think your reply was a bit on the sarcastic side …so, it felt to me. I don’t know how well I answered your questions, but I certainly gave it my best shot.

…oops, I am 690 characters too long. I will try to put the rest in another post.

 

[rayteurfs]

…the rest of my last post:

Now, the part about your wanting some evangelizing advice: if you want answers and a strict credal religion, Catholicism is great. They are pretty clear on so much of their dogma and doctrine. I believe, especially if you count on a recent missive from San Francisco’s archbishop, that masturbation is still a mortal sin and you will go to hell for it if not confessed with a promise to sin no more. There is the virgin birth where Mary was, well, a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. There is the Immaculate Conception, that one that protestants and Catholics alike confuse with the virgin birth where Mary herself was conceived without original sin. Ah, original sin, that is a good one, too, but not particularly Catholic. Then there is papal infallibility. I find this abhorrent. But, you may like it.

So, if I am kicked off this site because someone thinks I do not speak the party line enough, that is fine. I have been on only a couple of days. However, I do take everything I have written seriously and think that freedom from dogma is the way to live your life spiritually free. Autonomy in one’s spiritual life, for me, allows one to be creative and in touch with your deeper self. With the burden of doctrine, that is difficult. There are noncredal religions that do not require any particular belief. The Unitarian Universalists are one such religion. I would recommend taking a look. They have every kind of religion accepted while being a “UU”. When I was a member of a congregation in Northern California, the first minister was agnostic; the second a Buddhist, and there were many atheists in the congregation, some of the most loving and moral people I have met in my life.

I will happily take any other questions, probing or semi-accusational, because I am happy to simply spew out what I think. My outlook has been under construction so long that revealing what I have come to feels good.

Thanks for asking and much love in this life to you,
ray

 

[panevino]

Yes, you are right. However, I do not believe that Catholic theologians have been leading us with the Truth, but with opinion. As I have said, the essence of being Catholic- even by Catholic theological standards - is that we love. I also believe that Jesus was God in the way you and I are also God. All the mystics - and certainly the Catholic/Christian ones - had a hard time distinguishing between the themselves and the Beloved. Doctrinal truths are not truth in any real sense: they are doctrines. Doctrines do little more than enslave. A religion ought not - yes, in MY opinion - have adherents or followers. They ought to have witnesses to the essential truth: love is that essential truth. All the rest is silly stuff to me. So, sorry, but I do know all that stuff about Divine person with two natures. I just apply it more universally than you. There are many hints in the bible, even, where Jesus intimated to us that we are ALL alike in this. Really, brothers are brothers.

I think this view misses the idea of a unique sacrifice that is efficacious and made for us.
We can’t achieve that on our own, we are not God ‘in a way that Jesus was God’

 

[Kliska]

Unless I am tone deaf, I think your reply was a bit on the sarcastic side …so, it felt to me. I don’t know how well I answered your questions, but I certainly gave it my best shot.

As my posting history here would show, I’m a curious person. My degree is in psychology, not philosophy, though obviously philosophy is a favorite of mine. So, I’d bet you can imagine instead of sarcasm that I was being both honest and accurate when I said I ask out of curiosity. Your reply illuminated some information that I was confused on as to your current station in life and your connection (or disconnect) from the CC. Thank you for taking the time to answer.

 

[PRmerger]

And, Love is the essential and only needed message of Jesus.

No. This is not correct.

And there is no reason to reduce the message of Christ to any “ONLYs”.

This is a very curious reduction I’ve seen in my many years of discussing religion.

I ask myself, why is there this need to insert ONLYs where none are requred?

There are:

• The Bible ONLY folks.
• The Faith ONLY folks.
• The King James Version of the Bible ONLY folks.
• The Latin ONLY folks
• The Communion Should Be In The Hands ONLY folks
• The Science ONLY folks.
• The English ONLY folks.
• The Intercessory Prayer should be done in Private ONLY folks
• The Jesus is Man ONLY folks.
• The Jesus is God ONLY folks.
• The We should follow the words of Jesus ONLY folks
• The We should follow the words of Paul ONLY folks
• God is spirit ONLY

Why not be Catholic and embrace the BOTH/AND?

 

[PRmerger]

How about this explanation:

When the Jews celebrate Passover, they do not imitate it, but are experiencing the only Passover as it is happening.

Yes. Anamnesis.

Doing this in memory of…

Not a re-enactment.
Not an imitation.
But a *participation *in it, through space and time as it were.

 

[PRmerger]

.why do you think priests have been molesting kids? …

Annnndddd here it is, folks. What I have coined the CAFs Version of Godwin’s Law:

Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions —regardless of topic or scope —inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis. Also the poster who mentioned Nazis loses all debates/discussions they had in said topic, and their insults are nullified.

Here’s the CAF version of Godwin’s Law I’m proposing: “As an online discussion about the CC grows longer, the probability of a reference to sexual abuse by priests approaches 1”

However, the poster who mentions the abuse loses all debates/discussions said in topic, and his insults are nullified.

And, I must say, with only about a dozen posts to your name, and a join date of 1/27/17, I think you win the record for the earliest and fastest submission to Godwin.

 

[rayteurfs]

I think this view misses the idea of a unique sacrifice that is efficacious and made for us.
We can’t achieve that on our own, we are not God ‘in a way that Jesus was God’

We are if you believe in the totality of the Word Was Made Flesh. This is the gift of creation itself. It is no less efficacious to understand how enormous this gift is. To “be God in the way Jesus was God” is not an achievement. It is a reality. I believe it was St. Bonaventure who talked of the ‘contuition of God’. When you look deep inside your own being and sense the immenseness and center of your own being, at that point you intuit God as well. When, this was explained to me around the year 1965, I immediately penned a little poem because it brought up what I had previously sensed many years before that:

I am a self, deep down inside
But I am not my author
Though authorized
But, who could make a me
So deep down inside?
An Artist?
A Sculptor?
His art just acquired?
No!
Never!
This could not have been.
For I see my Author
With his art unacquired.

The Core of our own being is Being Itself. This does not have to be the same as ego aggrandizement. It can be a humbling way to see the world, a way that makes all sacred without exception. Everything is 100% endowed with divinity from the moment it exists. It is complete mystery to our minds. It allows us to be at once humble and in awe of the Being of our own nature. Once we have seen the Core of our own self, we can no longer feel inadequate for very long. We are still human. We are still prone to negativity and fear, but we are also always in awe, always seeking to love all because that divinity is in all of us, in all of creation.

…the foregoing is my own impromptu expression. Read some modern Roman Catholic priests on this subject. I have mentioned some before: Teilhard de Chardin, Raimon Panikkar (The Experience of God), and Richard Rohr (Immortal Diamond). I am sure there are others …I am poorly read, really.

Thank you for your willingness to engage with this upstart old man.

 

[Mammoths]

Annnndddd here it is, folks. What I have coined the CAFs Version of Godwin’s Law:

Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions —regardless of topic or scope —inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis. Also the poster who mentioned Nazis loses all debates/discussions they had in said topic, and their insults are nullified.

Here’s the CAF version of Godwin’s Law I’m proposing: “As an online discussion about the CC grows longer, the probability of a reference to sexual abuse by priests approaches 1”

However, the poster who mentions the abuse loses all debates/discussions said in topic, and his insults are nullified.

And, I must say, with only about a dozen posts to your name, and a join date of 1/27/17, I think you win the record for the earliest and fastest submission to Godwin.

Hilarious.

 

[Mammoths]

We are if you believe in the totality of the Word Was Made Flesh. This is the gift of creation itself. It is no less efficacious to understand how enormous this gift is. To “be God in the way Jesus was God” is not an achievement. It is a reality. I believe it was St. Bonaventure who talked of the ‘contuition of God’. When you look deep inside your own being and sense the immenseness and center of your own being, at that point you intuit God as well. When, this was explained to me around the year 1965, I immediately penned a little poem because it brought up what I had previously sensed many years before that:

I am a self, deep down inside
But I am not my author
Though authorized
But, who could make a me
So deep down inside?
An Artist?
A Sculptor?
His art just acquired?
No!
Never!
This could not have been.
For I see my Author
With his art unacquired.

The Core of our own being is Being Itself. This does not have to be the same as ego aggrandizement. It can be a humbling way to see the world, a way that makes all sacred without exception. Everything is 100% endowed with divinity from the moment it exists. It is complete mystery to our minds. It allows us to be at once humble and in awe of the Being of our own nature. Once we have seen the Core of our own self, we can no longer feel inadequate for very long. We are still human. We are still prone to negativity and fear, but we are also always in awe, always seeking to love all because that divinity is in all of us, in all of creation.

…the foregoing is my own impromptu expression. Read some modern Roman Catholic priests on this subject. I have mentioned some before: Teilhard de Chardin, Raimon Panikkar (The Experience of God), and Richard Rohr (Immortal Diamond). I am sure there are others …I am poorly read, really.

Thank you for your willingness to engage with this upstart old man.

How does this harmonize with the Jesus prayer, “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner?”

How does this harmonize with God’s answer to Job?"

How does this harmonize with Paul’s description advice to Timothy, “in a great house there are vessels of honor and of dishonor. If anyone cleanse himself from the latter he will be a sanctified and ready for the master for every good work.”

Or perhaps you disagree with Peter and Jude, “…like brute beasts destined for destruction.”

Your overall philosophy reminds me of eve’s discussion with the serpent. You see we can infer that perhaps eve heard from Adam what God said about the tree of knowledge. Partly because of the chronology of Genesis 2 and partly because she adds a law for herself that God did not, “nor shall you touch it lest you die.” What does the serpent say? “You shall not SURELY die for God knows that as soon as you eat it you will become like God knowing both good and evil.”

So Eve believed this cutting edge theological innovation that made her out as though she could approach divinity and her misplaced faith killed her and her husband and all her descendants.

While I believe you can meditate and discipline yourself into a sensual experience of enlightenment, I would warn that just because you have this ‘aha thought’ does not make that thought worthy of the time it takes to think it. There are two big red balloons that make it evident your doctrine is false. One, a juxtaposition of liberated self determined freestyle thought against the authority. Two, your philosophy not only rejects authority but disagrees with its teaching. In other word, what you are saying disagrees with what Jesus said and the smart bet for my soul is on Jesus not you.

2peter2

18 For, speaking proud words of vanity, they allure by the desires of fleshly riotousness, those who for a little while escape, such as converse in error:
19 Promising them liberty, whereas they themselves are the slaves of corruption. For by whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude

 

[Mammoths]

I certainly understand what you are saying. Such was what I believed/thought for many years. However, if you even use Catholic theology itself, you can see where you might be wrong and where your opinion is no more than that, an opinion. Let me explain…

According to Catholic theology, the essence of being in the Church is to be a member of the mystical body of the Church. In order to be in the mystical body of the Church, you need to be in a state of sanctifying grace. In order to be in a state of sanctifying grace, you need to be first baptized. Baptism can be by water, fire (martyrdom) or desire (love). So, the pagan who loves is essentially and really a “Catholic”.

Being a Catholic is also a cultural thing, something that Catholics have been long happy to say about Judaism. And, Love is the essential and only needed message of Jesus. So, when someone in the Church becomes enlightened in their own way and realizes that many of their religion’s doctrines are simply not important or, even, necessarily true, they must - if your conclusion holds true - get out of the Catholic Church. You are right that this is the commonly held belief, but I reject it. Let me go through some interesting things for you: Christ became God in the 4th century for political power (read ex nun Karen Armstrong’s A History of God). The story of Jesus is taken from many sources and a lot from the Egyptian god, Horas (theologian, Tom Harpur’s The Pagan Christ). Masturbation is a mortal sin? …why do you think priests have been molesting kids? …it is not for failure to vet seminarians or because they are homosexual: it is because the Catholic Church has an awesomely dysfunctional record on teaching about sex (I, for instance, was told more than once by Catholic clergy that sex was a necessary evil). Heck, you ought to read the discussion of oral sex needing to come to completion in the vagina for it not to be another sexual sin capable of sending one to hell. This stuff is all bad theology.

Here is another one. How can the doctrines of the Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception be important in God’s eyes if humans cannot keep them even separate in their own minds. Most Catholics think the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary conceiving as a virgin. And, of course, it has nothing to do with that. In fact, the Immaculate Conception has nothing to base it in the bible. It was invented to support other doctrines.

All this stuff, this stuff to believe in, is left over from centuries of mixed temporal and spiritual authority in the Church. The authority part keeps Catholics from using their own minds. This in turn locks up the creative thinking that Catholics could apply to the problems of this world. Catholics do not need to believe in anything they do not want to: the theological doctrine of the primacy of conscience demands this.

So, I go to Church when I want to. I receive communion despite any technical rules that say I should not. And, if someone comes with me, I tell them to feel free to receive the Eucharist while I inform them of the Church’s antiquated rules against it. I mean, really, if you invite someone to dinner and then say, “no food!”

Again, one thing necessary to be good and to be a good Catholic, love your neighbor. All else is unimportant.

I consider myself Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, Jain, Taoist, Agnostic, Jew, Mormon and a lot more.

Cheers and much love,
ray

What you are doing is lying and committing sacrilege. Your world view is a contradiction of all the above. If I were to claim to be a Unitarian and then say I believe Catholicism is the only religion God accepts, wouldn’t I be denying the very religion I claim! Your whole point of view disagrees with itself. Even if you don’t believe in the Eucharist, have enough respect not to profane the religion of the people who do. What you say sounds to me like if --my religion is to bless people by hocking my divine loogy in their eye, I should pay no heed to their disgust. --Obviously your heart is so full of this love you speak of that respect, honesty, and reverence are excluded.

Look: the fundamental laws of logic are

The law of identity: everything is identical to itself
The law of non-middle: a and not a simaltaneusly is impossible
The law of non contradiction: mutually exclusive propositions cannot both be true simaltaneusly

Your philosophy contradicts the dogmas of Catholicism therefore it is not catholic
You claim it is therefore you claim a falsehood.
You claim you understand catholic teaching better than most so you know it is a falsehood
Therefore you are a liar.

I think if you start meditating on true things instead of things you wish to be true, you might peal back some of the habitual non-sequitor arguments with which you delude yourself. In the meantime have a little honesty and post your religion to that which corresponds to reality. We all know the truth about you anyway.

 

[rayteurfs]

As my posting history here would show, I’m a curious person. My degree is in psychology, not philosophy, though obviously philosophy is a favorite of mine. So, I’d bet you can imagine instead of sarcasm that I was being both honest and accurate when I said I ask out of curiosity. Your reply illuminated some information that I was confused on as to your current station in life and your connection (or disconnect) from the CC. Thank you for taking the time to answer.

…the part that made me think you were being sarcastic was your suggestion that maybe I just lied when dealing with my teachers in seminary. It seemed an odd suggestion to me. The last thing anyone who knows me would think is that I (1) would lie to a teacher or (2) that I would be afraid to tell the truth …and, therefore, see lying as a way out. Neither applies.

I am glad you learned something. …and, btw, I had no thought of your being sarcastic when you said you were asking out of curiosity …just the lying part.

Cheers, ray

 

[Mammoths]

Yes, words have meaning. And, those meanings often come with a host of other attitudes and ideas. The truth is, as we all must at some level know, that you cannot really define some things. For instance, as I have already said, the essence of a Christian is to be someone who understands and accepts love. The essence of a Catholic is to be a member of the mystical body of Christ. I then accept both of these labels, if you will, while also accepting that someone else - not me - wants to label me a pantheist. Yes, part of me is a pantheist - from one aspect of the myriad aspects from which you can view me. And, I am also Buddhist.

You may not understand how what I am talking about makes sense. I get that. However, you make your judgments based on ‘truths’ that are not all that fundamentally understood. For instance, probably less than 1% of people have ever thought that God is not an object. Yet, God cannot be an object. Yet, we pray to an object. No one thinks of this. Yet, it is fundamentally and profoundly true …not just because I said it. Not at all. Ask Raimon Panikkar. Ask anyone who understands the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas (THE philosopher of the Catholic Church).

The bible is written by man. It is a book filled with fallacies if taken anything like literally. I do not “believe in” the bible in the traditional sense.

I don’t mean to insult your intelligence, but I certainly don’t mind challenging it. I have thought as a good, orthodox person for many years. I did not read anyone who convinced me to do differently. I got here mostly on my own. My support did come from the inspiration of many Church writers, but they were not telling me to leave, and I have not. I just think radically different whilst I make intelligent claims that the orthodoxy is not necessary to be ‘essentially’ a good Christian or Catholic. Indeed, I believe orthodoxy gets in the way. I believe that orthodoxy is a prison of the mind and heart. I am not telling you to think that. I am telling you that this is how I think. It is an alternative way of thinking, of course. Is it invalid …well, you have tried to tell me it is. I don’t accept it.

By the way, Jesus was human. He behaved like a hothead in the temple (we make it into a virtuous act, of course). If he was human, he had to bumble along sometimes. Humans are only human, no. If he suffered on the cross, why would you deny him the ability to suffer a little human bumbling. The bread and wine were symbols - you call them icons - and, had Jesus been in a different situation, he might have chosen something else. The importance of the symbol is in its ability to bring us to a truth. Unfortunately, that truth may not be some magic trick we call transubstantiation. That truth just may be - as practically all mystics have tried to tell us - that we and it are all one. That oneness is not pantheism as pantheism is thought of in Catholic orthodoxy. All mystics in the Catholic tradition were suspected of being pantheistic. The Catholic Church had to let that notion slide or there was no way to accept them as saints. That, of course, is the power of interpretation. You have decided how to interpret me, and the Catholic Church has decided how to interpret things, too. I am sure we all make errors.

(1 Corinthians 15)
You say the essence of the Catholic Church is “love.” That is only correct where love is understood correctly. If love just means a mystical disposition of goodwill, than no. Christian love is clearly explained at length in scripture and in the apostles creed. It is that God eternal and uncaused, independent took on the sin of created and evil man at the cross and suffered and died literally and historically paying the sins of the world with his own death and rose again on the third day. This historical view of what love is to Christianity is anathema to Islam which counts this view of love to be blasphemy, “God is not begotten and he does not beget.” You can’t hold them both together. You can respect and love the people in your own way but you can’t believe them both with intelligence.
“God demonstrates His love for us in this, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for the ungodly.” He died for you too, Ray. Not as in a fable or just to set an example. He actually paid for your sin. This was necessary because you have a debt of judgement you cannot afford to pay without His sacrifice.

If He did not actually die and actually rise, than the whole of Christian faith is vanity.