Observations by a non believer

[WmJackP]

I am not a Roman Catholic, though I think I can contribute something on faith.

My faith, for me, is a way of looking at the world. It is not factual. It is not objective. It is not science, and it should not be confused with logic. It is not rational. Rather, it is a way of seeing. It is a way of trusting.

I believe that what Christianity has lost in modern, post-enlightenment times is the ability to see in any other way than a cold, calculating, rational way. We no longer read mythology as mythology. We read mythology as historical fact. We don’t look at our faith as one way of seeing the world. It is the absolute, factual truth, in the sense that mathematics is true, or proven hypotheses.

For me, the stories, the rituals, the Sacraments, the Virgin birth, the resurrection, and so forth, are windows into another way of seeing the universe and all of reality, and that way of seeing changes our heart and thus the way we relate to the universe and the rest of humanity. I don’t need my way of seeing to be “right” in the sense that 2 + 2 = 4 is a correct statement. I need it to pull me beyond myself, into transcendence, and to feel that transcendence become immanence. This is what the Eucharist is to me. The Sacred in humble, material bread.

This is faith for me. A form of trust. A way of seeing. A means of grace. I should also point out that faith had more than one meaning in ancient times, and unfortunately we tend to focus on only one interpretation.

Faith is assensus, faith as belief. This is the dominant emphasis today, but faith is more than mere assent, and it must also be pointed out that a dogma can be assented to as truth but interpreted in more than one way, not only literally.

Faith is fiducia. This is trust, radical trust in God, in the goodness of the universe. It takes a certain way of seeing to enter into this trust, to maintain a contemplative state even while in distress.

Faith is fidelitas. Faithfulness, fidelity. It is a commitment of the heart, loyalty.

And faith is visio. This is vision, and it suggests a way of seeing, as I’ve been explaining. It is how we see the whole of all that is.

The concept of “faith” is bantered about as though everyone knows what it is and intentionally uses the word in phrases that conote that one truly experiences faith in this or that precept. I personally think we use language withot meaning and mis-use language as though we did.

Recognizing that faith has a defined (dictionary) meaning, I think we can say that it is consistent with “trust”; or, perhaps, valid to say that it operates as a basis of arriving at a belief in the absence of direct evidence

To be worthy of compelling one’s belief, however, faith must rely upon something grounded in reality, rather than upon the fanciful. For example, I can have faith that my dog won’t bite the mailman—because in the years I have known that mutt, its never bitten anyone. I have no direct evidence that my dog will not bite–I base my “faith” on past experience. Therefore it is reality based.

On the other hand, If I have no experience for a particular proposition, I can hardly have “faith” that justifies belief. For example, I cannot legtimately claim that I have faith that the moon is madeof blue cheese. I have no past experiences to that effect. I know of no reliable basis by which such can be true. Therefore, while, I might “hope” that the moon is made of green cheese, I can neither know that it does, nor, can I have “faith” that it does.

So for the poster who thinks that “faith” is a way of seeing without really knowing, I am not sure that is possible. It leaves one quite vulnerable to being foolish. There are people still looking for the culprit on the grassy noll or who think the mafia shot JFK. There are people who put stock in the belief that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration. Rosswell N.M and the UFO crash landing of the 1940’s is another example? How about Bigfoot? The really pernicious examples though are the mystry religions. Islam and the beliefs which inspire jehad? Do Christians really think they are exempt from the foolisness which is bred from seeing without knowing?

 

[jmcrae]

Recognizing that faith has a defined (dictionary) meaning, I think we can say that it is consistent with “trust”; or, perhaps, valid to say that it operates as a basis of arriving at a belief in the absence of direct evidence.

With the caveat that we can base it on things that we already know.

To be worthy of compelling one’s belief, however, faith must rely upon something grounded in reality, rather than upon the fanciful. For example, I can have faith that my dog won’t bite the mailman—because in the years I have known that mutt, its never bitten anyone. I have no direct evidence that my dog will not bite–I base my “faith” on past experience. Therefore it is reality based.

Faith in God is also reality-based. When you obey the 10 Commandments, you live a happy and peaceful life. When you don’t, everybody is mad at you all the time. Therefore, based on lived experience, the 10 Commandments (which were given by God) function as advertised - they are good for us.

When you pray, miracles happen. Now, most of the time, they can be explained away - you found your medal in the drawer when you prayed to St. Anthony, because that was where you left it, and somehow praying to St. Anthony triggered some kind of psychological response that reminded you of where you had left it.

Or, you prayed that the Bishop wouldn’t ask you any questions because you are extremely shy, and he got sick with the flu the day that he was supposed to come - and, well, you know, it does happen to be flu season, and he’s not a young man any more, so there was always a likelihood that it could happen. (Never mind that this is the first time the man has been sick in forty years.)

Or, you prayed that a solution would be found to the problems in the Gulf, and then the next day you read in the paper that they are close to a solution - well, they’ve been working on it for several weeks now, so it was bound to come about sooner or later.

Still - that’s a lot of coincidence, all those things that you pray about, and all happening just as if they had always been going to happen, even when you didn’t see at the time how it could come about.

This sort of thing happens to you enough times, and you lose any doubts that you may have had, that there is a God who loves you.

Just curious - have you tried praying?

On the other hand, If I have no experience for a particular proposition, I can hardly have “faith” that justifies belief.

Nor would anyone expect you to.

For example, I cannot legtimately claim that I have faith that the moon is made of blue cheese.

No one is asking you to.

 

[Alindawyl]

To be worthy of compelling one’s belief, however, faith must rely upon something grounded in reality, rather than upon the fanciful.

I agree. That’s why our faith does rely on something grounded in reality rather than the fanciful. Or more accurately, someONE grounded in reality. That someone is Jesus Christ.

Faith is usually defined as belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Jesus Christ is the object of our faith. Not an idea or a thing but a person. We trust the teachings of the Church because we trust Him. If Jesus through His Church tells us that some bread and wine becomes His body, blood, soul and divinity at the Mass, then we accept that because of our faith in Him.

Seeking to understand mysteries such as transubstantiation without having the person of Jesus in the picture is an exercise in futility. It’s like trying to understand how digestion works without bringing up food, or explain what molecules are without bringing up atoms. Faith in Jesus is why people you consider to be intelligent believe in “hocus pocus” or “magic” or “arcane beliefs”.

 

[yppop]

WmJackP:

Shall we be absolutely fair? Isn’t it likely that we both have our minds made up? However, that shouldn’t prevent us from seeing how close or apart we are. It might surprise us both.

Yes, but at my age, 77, it is extremely unlikely that I am going to change my mind, especially since I have expended an enormous amount of time and study to develop a coherent philosophy based on my belief in God, the Catholic church, and all that so-called “mystical stuff”.

For one thing, I am a Jesuit product myself. At least, the Jebbies provided me with the inspiration and curiosity to think “outside of the box” You may then be surprised that one of my heros was (is) Fr.Teilhard de Chardin. Now, that was a guy who thought “outside the box” as indeed he was soundly criticized for. Since then, I am nearly two decades beyond the Jebbie influences of my h.s. and university under-grad days. So I have had time to acquire some new heros and ideas of my own.

Looks like the Jebbies taught you to think yourself right out of the box. It doesn’t surprise me since I don’t consider the modern Jesuit order to be Catholic.

I always thought that the distinction between pantheism and panentheism was intellectually dishonest. God is the universe verses God permeates every nook and cranny of the universe? It seems like a lot of unnecessary work to feel good about RC doctrine.

Pantheism is the belief that God is the universe and universe is God, not anything before or beyond. Panentheism is the belief that God exists not only throughout the universe, but also before and beyond it. Big difference!

I don’t need to work to feel good about Roman Catholicism,

If the universe is rational–a point on which I am certain you and I agree on–why don’t we just leave it that way. I will be the first to acknowledge that there is a rational universe. However, does that mean we have to personalize it, and, invent a diety to be the wizard behind the curtain? Then all the other stuff about virgin births, the triune godhead, transubstantiation? Is all that mystical stuff necessary to (1) understanding reality (2)living a good life? These doctrines can’t be proven, can’t be investigated; they, smack of the mediteranean mystry religions of the first century and really don’t add much to intellectual growth.

The existence of a rational universe is all by itself a thing to marvel at; but as awe invoking as it may be, it is not necessarily a “personal diety” to worship. Ocham’s razor, right?

Yes, the universe is rational; it can be no other way. I just don’t understand those who are satisfied with the materialistic-secular view of reality that is based solely on science’s description. Science doesn’t explain why reality is rational. Consider gravity, for which there is plenty of evidence. Science merely describes what seems to be observed, and doesn’t explain what causes gravity. And you have your choice, gravity is: (1) action at a distance (Newton), the force exerted by a gravitational field (Lorentz); the curvature of space (Einstein), or the exchange of gravitons (particle physics). Seems to me that invoking Ocham’s razor (a much over-used and misused idea) would be better served to point to the proposition that “God caused gravity”. On the other hand, science has no answer as to what causes gravity, not at least an answer that would satisfy the demand (science’s and yours) that to be believed there must be evidence, which of course there isn’t and can never be. So science (and you) are married to the view that because there is no evidence, we can’t “believe” that gravity is caused. There is plenty of evidence (unfortunately it is inductive evidence) that gravity exists and I believe with my whole body, mind, and soul that it does. But what causes it? I say God, what do you say? Please don’t say “mass” because then you are going to have to explain what mass is and be warned, there is a circular argument waiting down that path. Fact is: science can give no “cause” for gravity. Consequently, unless you can explain the cause of gravity and the rest of the rationality of reality, I have given you my reason for believing in personal deity, God. But I don’t stop there because I have personally worked out an answer to the question: HOW does God exists?

I hope I haven’t offended you. That isn’t my purpose. But you do seem bright, and, someone who nonetheless thinks differently than me. So I’m curious about that.

You haven’t! On the contrary I found your post to be polite and considerate. Although we’re certainly at opposite ends of the belief spectrum, I perceive that you can’t let go of God, even if His hold on you is in the form of denial. I could be wrong. Anyway I’d be willing to satisfy your curiosity about why I believe the way I do, but it would get to be too personal and boring for the general audience. Let me just say I have lived a long happy life as the patriarch of a large, trouble-free, divorce-free, dependency-free Catholic family consisting of 8-children, 22-grandchildren, 5 son-in-laws, 2-daughter-in-laws, 2-granddaughter-in-laws, and 1-Catholic priest and I cannot imagine how I could have done it without our (all 41 of us) active involvement in the Catholic church and a wife whose depth of faith is beyond imagination.

Yppop

Regards,

 

[Abu]

WmJackP(#215)
Now in the 21st century, don’t we have sufficient science and cause to declare that these mythologies and attempts to “personalize” reality have all lost their useful shelf life. I mean Thomas believed in spontaneous generation—now of course, since Pasteur and others, that view is discredited. Why, remain stuck in 13th century rationales anymore than in 13th century science?
Does it not seem to you–as it does to me— that by saying God is a person–a being (albeit the Supreme Being) that we are just like primitives who made persons of thunder, lightening or who invested personal qualities in natural phenonomen?

The historical person of Jesus of Nazareth and His Resurrection – a myth? Is this a god of science speaking? Since when has the Resurrection of Jesus been a “natural phenomenon”, or the medically certified cures at Lourdes?

In fact, this is St Thomas Aquinas: “In the first institution of things the active principle was the Word of God, which produced animals from the material elements." The text of St. Thomas says “ex materia elementari,” which is literally translated “from elementary matter.” [S. Th. I, q. 71, ad l]. [LT64 - THEISTIC EVOLUTION: A VAIN SEARCH FOR SPONTANEOUS GENERATION / CONTRADICTIONS IN SCRIPTURE?]]](LT64 - THEISTIC EVOLUTION: A VAIN SEARCH FOR SPONTANEOUS GENERATION / CONTRADICTIONS IN SCRIPTURE?]]). St. Thomas assumed that if spontaneous generation was a fact, it was because the Creator had willed it so.

BTW, it was the reason based on the cause and effect of God’s laws taught by Christ’s Catholic Church that enabled such scientific discoveries as Pasteur’s. Science consists of an organized effort to explain natural phenomena. Why did this effort take root in Europe and nowhere else? Because Christianity depicted God as a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being, and the universe as his personal creation. The natural world was thus understood to have a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting (indeed, inviting) human comprehension. (Post #25).

The proofs for the existence of God can be found at: aquinasonline.com/Topics/5ways.html

Of Anthony Rizzi’s, *The Science Before Science *(Baton Rouge, LA: IAP Press, 2004), Msgr John F McCarthy comments: “It is refreshing to read how a qualified physicist takes up the five proofs of St. Thomas for the existence of God and shows that they are all still valid in terms of modern science. Of course, elements of physics and chemistry that have been updated since the middle ages need to be adjusted, but the fundamental arguments remain the same. In reaffirming these five proofs, Rizzi opposes the nominalism and occasionalism of William of Ockham (p. 263) and develops the Thomist argument for the need of a necessary Being in order that all unnecessary beings may exist."

BTW: According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June 2009, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not. fusionfilter.com/?p=5036 Scientists Don’t Hate God After All, Nov 25th 2009].

 

[Abu]

WmJackP
You may then be surprised that one of my heros was (is) Fr.Teilhard de Chardin

It doesn’t surprise me in the least for he was one of the most confused thinkers, if not the most, among the Jesuits.

Perhaps you’ve heard of Dr Dietrich von Hildebrand, arguably one of the greatest Catholic philosophers of the twentieth century. In *Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet *(an appendix to his book, Trojan Horse in the City of God) Dr von Hildebrand wrote: “I do not know of another thinker who so artfully jumps from one position to a contradictory one, without being disturbed by the jump or even noticing it.” (p 229).

 

[grannymh]

They are being used to mean the same things:

The durability of a substance refers to the concept that substance is not transient but extensive in time, and thus the idea that the substance of an entity, which can clearly be determined to be the same entity with the same properties, changes from one moment to the next violates the criterion of durability.

Still thinking about this and thinking about wheat to bread to mold to penicillin. Could one say that substance was changed into something else? Would transformed be a better word? Would there be the potential for transformation in the wheat that would not be in a butterfly which experienced its own kind of transformation?

Separability means that the substance of an entity is such that the entity exists independently of other things and can be discerned as being different from them. So the idea that the communion wafer can be different from the flesh, blood, spirit and divinity of Christ in one instant and identical to it in another instant violates the criterion of separability.

Somehow I know that what you are saying would not be applicable to the Catholic Eucharist. But I can’t quite p(name removed by moderator)oint it. That may be due to the fact that my theology course coincided with my nap time. At this point, I don’t believe that one can say that the communion wafer can be identical to the flesh, blood, spirit and divinity of Christ because Catholicism holds that the accidents or signs of the wafer remain.

By the way, are you using the word properties in the same way I am?

Identity means that the entity is identified by belonging to a class that encompasses itself - and that is plainly and clearly violated by transubstantiation, as the Host has the identity of a bread wafer but is claimed to have the substance of Whole Presence.

To me, identity is something that is expressed through the accidents or signs which can change. Bread is still bread even when it is wet, stale or burnt in the toaster. My dictionary definition is that identity is “the set of characteristics by which a thing is recognized or known.” I think the book and I are basically saying the same thing??

Would you help me out by telling me what I am trying to say? I have too many thoughts going through my mind. I keep seeing the accidents or signs as changeable whereas the identity of bread remains somehow. Then there is this thought. Christ is truly present as long as the signs of bread are recognizable. In my personal opinion, in order for a divine spirit to present in a way that we can understand is to be present in something material which can be experienced by our senses. Christ’s choice of bread is logically reasonable.

Perhaps, the Catholic Eucharist reverses the concept of identity or substance and accidents or signs. The matter or physical signs remain for our human benefit but the identity transforms from material to spiritual or some will use the words sacramentally present or substantially present in reference to Christ. Somehow, I think Christ was being practical.

Blessings,
granny

John 3:16-17

 

[inocente]

Would you help me out by telling me what I am trying to say? … Somehow, I think Christ was being practical.

Earlier on, I asked whether trying to rationalize transubstantiation is in keeping with the promise of Jesus (“I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom." – Mat 26:29 NIV).

Not many took me up on that, possibly due to me being a Baptist and all. My intent was not to argue against transubstantiation, but rather that by focusing on detailed mechanisms we lose the entire purpose and meaning of the Eucharist. Christ is not just making a theoretical promise in some old Book but is present with you (and me!) personally to renew His pledge.

I’ll go back to sleep now.

 

[WmJackP]

It doesn’t surprise me in the least for he was one of the most confused thinkers, if not the most, among the Jesuits.

Perhaps you’ve heard of Dr Dietrich von Hildebrand, arguably one of the greatest Catholic philosophers of the twentieth century. In *Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet *(an appendix to his book, Trojan Horse in the City of God) Dr von Hildebrand wrote: “I do not know of another thinker who so artfully jumps from one position to a contradictory one, without being disturbed by the jump or even noticing it.” (p 229).

Do you have an example of such a contradictory jump as von Hildebrand intended to describe?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Uncertainty is not altogether as comforting nor as “warm and fuzzy” as believing something (Allah, God, Baal, totems, the Pope, amulets, rabbit’s feet, etc, etc) exists which offers certitude. It is so much easier on the psyche to believe that spiritual beings are looking after you, or, that you can propitiate divine aide by prayer and sacrafice; but, all you really accomplish is anesthetizing your fears by magical thinking. On the other hand, by living realistically, you, at least, have the satisfaction of having been true to your own self, and, the answers which you do find will be reality based.
Make sense?

Basically, WmJackP, you have insulted Astronaut Gordon Cooper.:tsktsk: Therefore you have also insulted NASA! Truth is WmJackP, Astronaut Gordon Cooper named and flew FAITH 7 - Spacecraft No. 20, Launch Vehicle 130. *Faith 7, symbolizing “my trust in God, my country, and my teammates” * history.nasa.gov/SP-4201/ch14-5.htm

Show a little courtesy in the future.

 

[WmJackP]

Basically, WmJackP, you have insulted Astronaut Gordon Cooper.:tsktsk: Therefore you have also insulted NASA! Truth is WmJackP, Astronaut Gordon Cooper named and flew FAITH 7 - Spacecraft No. 20, Launch Vehicle 130. *Faith 7, symbolizing “my trust in God, my country, and my teammates” * history.nasa.gov/SP-4201/ch14-5.htm

Show a little courtesy in the future.

Do you honestly hold the belief that Gordon Cooper would be insulted, if he learned that I held beliefs differing from those expressed in your “soundbite”? I suspect he is a good deal more tolerant than that. In fact, I rather suspect that he recognizes that there is a proponderance of opinion in the scientific community with views similar to mine.

There was a time when such Catholic orthodox views were so rigedly enforced that departure was was seen as heresy, punishable by the most inhumane means. Luckily for me (and, I daresay, luckily for all of us), that level of intolerance no longer has political backing. We can only hope that remains the case in the decades to come. I suggest we all dispense the same courtesy that is preached in your gospels.

 

[WmJackP]

I perceive that you can’t let go of God, even if His hold on you is in the form of denial. I could be wrong. Anyway I’d be willing to satisfy your curiosity about why I believe the way I do, but it would get to be too personal and boring for the general audience. Let me just say I have lived a long happy life as the patriarch of a large, trouble-free, divorce-free, dependency-free Catholic family consisting of 8-children, 22-grandchildren, 5 son-in-laws, 2-daughter-in-laws, 2-granddaughter-in-laws, and 1-Catholic priest and I cannot imagine how I could have done it without our (all 41 of us) active involvement in the Catholic church and a wife whose depth of faith is beyond imagination.

That is very perceptive of you. I do myself wonder often why I find these topics so compelling. Regardless, you have lived a long and productive life, and, I can see you are proud of your family and its tradition. I would never want to distract from that, in the least.

I am afraid, however, I would never be able to intellectually accept those beliefs–even though, I find it fascinating and compelling to try to understand how others can do so.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Do you honestly hold the belief that Gordon Cooper would be insulted, if he learned that I held beliefs differing from those expressed in your “soundbite”? I suspect he is a good deal more tolerant than that. In fact, I rather suspect that he recognizes that there is a proponderance of opinion in the scientific community with views similar to mine.

Yes WmJack, I most certainly do think Gordon Cooper would be insulted by your snide remarks that I presented in my previous post. You imply religious people are magical thinkers for believing in God. That is pure nonsense. Are you aware that ‘almost half of all scientists in the US are religious’? You seem to be poking fun of religous folks that are scientists as well. The following abstract from Harvard that was also in the peer-reviewed journal NATURE:

SAO/NASA ADS
Title: God in the lab
Authors: Toumey, Chris
Affiliation: AA(Chris Toumey is at the University of South Carolina NanoCenter.
Publication: Nature Nanotechnology, Volume 4, Issue 11, pp. 696-697 (2009).
Publication Date: 11/2009
Origin: NATURE
DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2009.321

Abstract
Surveys have found that almost half of all scientists in the US are religious. Chris Toumey explores what this might mean for nanotechnology.
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009NatNa…4…696T

I also wish to encourage and inform the religious youth of today that it’s a fallacy that “all” scientists are atheists.

 

[reggieM]

I am afraid, however, I would never be able to intellectually accept those beliefs–even though, I find it fascinating and compelling to try to understand how others can do so.

It might be worth exploring what might lie beyond the necessary limits of your own intelligence. It’s great that you find fascination and a compelling interest in this also. If the topic was something easily closed by logic or demonstrable proof, then it wouldn’t provide interest for intelligent people.
You observe intelligent people taking a deep interest in the topic – and thus the mystery and fascination.
But perhaps beyond this, you might have direct interest in the topic yourself also?

 

[WmJackP]

Yes WmJack, I most certainly do think Gordon Cooper would be insulted by your snide remarks that I presented in my previous post. You imply religious people are magical thinkers for believing in God. That is pure nonsense. Are you aware that ‘almost half of all scientists in the US are religious’? You seem to be poking fun of religous folks that are scientists as well. The following abstract from Harvard that was also in the peer-reviewed journal NATURE:

SAO/NASA ADS
Title: God in the lab
Authors: Toumey, Chris
Affiliation: AA(Chris Toumey is at the University of South Carolina NanoCenter.
Publication: Nature Nanotechnology, Volume 4, Issue 11, pp. 696-697 (2009).
Publication Date: 11/2009
Origin: NATURE
DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2009.321

Abstract
Surveys have found that almost half of all scientists in the US are religious. Chris Toumey explores what this might mean for nanotechnology.
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009NatNa…4…696T

I also wish to encourage and inform the religious youth of today that it’s a fallacy that “all” scientists are atheists.

If I cannot express opinions which may be inconsistent with your views, then we really cannot have an open and free discussion.

 

[sharp]

Not quite…

93% of all scientists who are registered with the NAS (National Academy of Sciences are atheist. The membership requirements are a Phd.

 

[Alindawyl]

Yes WmJack, I most certainly do think Gordon Cooper would be insulted by your snide remarks that I presented in my previous post.

I think you’re being a bit unfair. If someone doesn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Catholic Church, then what’s taught by the Church (or any of the numerous non-Catholic Christians) is basically a load of nonsense. From his perspective, we really do believe in superstition and magic.

His perspective is wrong, but wrong doesn’t automatically equal spiteful. There’s a vast difference between “You are a load of blithering idiots for believing fairy tales” and “How can you believe what appears to me to be nothing more than fairy tales?” The former isn’t interested in any kind of dialogue. The latter is an honest question seeking an answer.

If you turn away the inquirer because you don’t care for how they phrase their questions, you will stop receiving them in short order.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

If I cannot express opinions which may be inconsistent with your views, then we really cannot have an open and free discussion.

“The aim of argument, or of discussion, should be not victory, but progress” Joseph Joubert Pensées. Your failure to progress in this topic has to do with insulting religous folks as noted in your most recent postings that are contained within my postings on this topic. You may wish to review them. They are not only on this page. Furthermore, the evidence of such is factual. Opinionated as you think your remarks are gives me reason to think you are bias.

Also your observations have been incorrect. Please refer to post #193. And who were you addressing in post #230 to? I noted the comment therein, “I perceive that you can’t let go of God, even if His hold on you is in the form of denial.” Who is the you you are referring to?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Not quite…

93% of all scientists who are registered with the NAS (National Academy of Sciences are atheist. The membership requirements are a Phd.

I would like from you a document (url - link) from the National Academy of Sciences stating what you have stated. I would like to review the document. Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

Earlier on, I asked whether trying to rationalize transubstantiation is in keeping with the promise of Jesus (“I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom." – Mat 26:29 NIV).

Not many took me up on that, possibly due to me being a Baptist and all. My intent was not to argue against transubstantiation, but rather that by focusing on detailed mechanisms we lose the entire purpose and meaning of the Eucharist. Christ is not just making a theoretical promise in some old Book but is present with you (and me!) personally to renew His pledge.

I’ll go back to sleep now.

There is no doubt that Christ is personally present with you and me regardless of our faith labels and He is just as personally present with non-theists and all those in between.

Catholicism recognizes the presence of Christ in numerous ways; however, His presence in the Catholic Eucharist is unique.

As for rationalizing transubstantiation, my guess is that it began with the crowd in John, Chapter Six. Extreme rationalization would not be good. Nonetheless, I think most of us do a bit of rationalizing. We can accept Jesus’ presence on His word; yet, there is a part of us that says that we know it happens in real time, but we don’t know how exactly. So what? We will believe.

The Catholic Eucharist is a mystery that brings us Jesus Christ. The word mystery simply means “that which is really there, but cannot be easily seen nor readily understood.” The key, as you point out, is to get beyond human reasoning about detailed mechanisms and place ourselves with Jesus at the Lord’s Supper. Matthew 26; 26-30.

Blessings,
granny

*Luke 24: 13-35 *