Proving the Real Presence

[believers]

This is a good question. Eternal life can be better understood as a river that flows from God through His Church. A person does not get into the river by going into the door of the Church. However, a person who approaches in faith may enter into that river while in the Church. The person retains the ability to get out of the river, also.

So, yes, a person who takes the Eucharist in a state of grace experiences that eternal life.

A person who takes Eucharist profanely will experience the opposite. This is one reason there are so many fallen away Catholics today.

So this river of eternal life flows from God and only through the Roman Catholic Church. Eternal life is only for members in the RCC but there is no guarantee of eternal life even if you’re a member of the RCC.

So only the RCC has the flesh of Jesus and not all who eat the flesh of Jesus have eternal life. rt?

Also, how do you know if you are in a state of Grace or not?

 

[Atreyu]

So this river of eternal life flows from God and only through the Roman Catholic Church. Eternal life is only for members in the RCC but there is no guarantee of eternal life even if you’re a member of the RCC.

So only the RCC has the flesh of Jesus and not all who eat the flesh of Jesus have eternal life. rt?

Also, how do you know if you are in a state of Grace or not?

Please, this is mostly way off-topic. Can you start another thread, or just send some pm’s?

 

[Atreyu]

I would disagree regarding your comments on the first cause argument. While it is logical to assume a necessary first cause, that logic itself requires that every cause have a cause and it ends up in an infinite reductionism. I don’t see how this is a “refutation of atheism”. It is probably safer to say “we don’t understand” than it is to try to “prove” via logic that “God necessarily exists”.

OK then, compare it to the Trinity. We can “prove” the Real Presence from Scripture in exactly the same way we can “prove” the Trinity. They are both mysteries.

Is that a valid analogy?

 

[Peregrino]

OK then, compare it to the Trinity. We can “prove” the Real Presence from Scripture in exactly the same way we can “prove” the Trinity. They are both mysteries.

Is that a valid analogy?

I understand what you are saying and yes, I think your analogy is a good one as long as one understand the limitations of this kind of “proof”.

I think though that OS Luke hit on the essence of the matter. His point is also very “Orthodox” in the sense of the Eastern Orthodox. The Real Presence, the Trinity, are mysteries of faith (I agree 100% with your comments Rebecca J). They can be objects of meditation and contemplation which lead us to “understand” the mystery that is God and the incarnation. What is the point of “proving” them in any sense of the word? That is a very “Roman” thing to do. The emphasis in the RC church on squaring faith and theology with philosophy always seemed peculiar to me. And yes, I have read Fides et Ratio (my copy is well marked in the margins…)

Personally, I don’t think that “proving” the “Real” presence will help anyone in their faith. For anyone, it is a matter of faith.

 

[jabelltulsa]

Also, how do you know if you are in a state of Grace or not?

A careful reflection on your past decisions will help you know what you need to confess in order to get back into the state of Grace. This, of course, is not the final word. Only God knows the state of your soul.

My faith teaches that if you do a fearless (read pride-less also) search of your sins, and confess them to the best of your abilities, you have done what you need to do to make a good confession. The Absolution that you receive (John 20:23) puts you back in the state of Grace. At that point, you can receive Holy Communion worthily.

 

[Atreyu]

I understand what you are saying and yes, I think your analogy is a good one as long as one understand the limitations of this kind of “proof”.

I think though that OS Luke hit on the essence of the matter. His point is also very “Orthodox” in the sense of the Eastern Orthodox. The Real Presence, the Trinity, are mysteries of faith (I agree 100% with your comments Rebecca J). They can be objects of meditation and contemplation which lead us to “understand” the mystery that is God and the incarnation. What is the point of “proving” them in any sense of the word? That is a very “Roman” thing to do. The emphasis in the RC church on squaring faith and theology with philosophy always seemed peculiar to me. And yes, I have read Fides et Ratio (my copy is well marked in the margins…)

Personally, I don’t think that “proving” the “Real” presence will help anyone in their faith. For anyone, it is a matter of faith.

Well the point in “proving” it is to eliminate Protestant error. Just as we can eliminate error in the area of the Trinity for Bible-believing Christians, so too we should be able to eliminate error in what it means to eat Christ’s flesh.

 

[Peregrino]

Well the point in “proving” it is to eliminate Protestant error. Just as we can eliminate error in the area of the Trinity for Bible-believing Christians, so too we should be able to eliminate error in what it means to eat Christ’s flesh.

Ahh, I thought it would reduce down to something like this. Why is it that Catholics are so interested in reducing other’s “errors” in belief? What about Catholic “errors”? Oh wait, don’t answer that, the Church is beyond error by definition (the Church’s definition)…

Imagine a world where everyone was “error”-free in belief! What a utopia! Too bad belief and conduct don’t go hand in hand. Personally, I would rather live in a world where everyone was “error”-free in conduct…

 

[Atreyu]

Ahh, I thought it would reduce down to something like this. Why is it that Catholics are so interested in reducing other’s “errors” in belief? What about Catholic “errors”? Oh wait, don’t answer that, the Church is beyond error by definition (the Church’s definition)…

Imagine a world where everyone was “error”-free in belief! What a utopia! Too bad belief and conduct don’t go hand in hand. Personally, I would rather live in a world where everyone was “error”-free in conduct…

What point is there in Apologetics if there is no point in correcting error?

In particular, how can there be “error-free conduct” if it is impossible to tell what error-free conduct is in the first place? If someone believes abortion is ok, then should we just leave them in their error, or should we correct them?

You write like a Subjectivist.

 

[desertwoman]

Didn’t our fellow brothers and sisters loose their lives because of the real presence? One of the many charges against them was cannibalism, and this goes hand and hand with what the reformers threw at many Catholics trying to say that it was just symbolic and not literal.

 

[Peregrino]

What point is there in Apologetics if there is no point in correcting error?

Good question. I can’t think of any…

In particular, how can there be “error-free conduct” if it is impossible to tell what error-free conduct is in the first place?

I am not saying that there is such a thing that truly exists named “error-free” belief or conduct. However, if I had to choose, I would take conduct. I think “error free conduct” is understood much more instinctively and is probably more valuable given the golden rule. Any imperialist or dictatorial regime can dictate the grounds of “proper belief” or thought.

You write like a Subjectivist.

Although you clearly meant this as an insult, I will take it as a compliment given that you probably considered yourself to be on the opposite end of the spectrum as an “objectivist”. Your position is anything but. Duplicity has never been my strong suit…

 

[Atreyu]

I am not saying that there is such a thing that truly exists named “error-free” belief or conduct. However, if I had to choose, I would take conduct. I think “error free conduct” is understood much more instinctively and is probably more valuable given the golden rule. Any imperialist or dictatorial regime can dictate the grounds of “proper belief” or thought.

Without knowing what error-free conduct is, it is impossible to have error-free conduct!

Although you clearly meant this as an insult, I will take it as a compliment given that you probably considered yourself to be on the opposite end of the spectrum as an “objectivist”. Your position is anything but. Duplicity has never been my strong suit…

I did not mean it as an insult. But do you not believe in an objective truth?

 

[Peregrino]

Without knowing what error-free conduct is, it is impossible to have error-free conduct!

I disagree. You are arguing that I am a subjectivist. Your comment above reduces to subjectivism. Lets explore your logic:

Is it impossible for me to perform a “good” act if I do not know what “good” is? That is to say, does my awareness or knowledge of the “moral valuation” of an act or behavior change the status of that act? If you believe that, then you are the subjectivist! Saving a person from harm is a good act in and of itself, even if I do not know it! (actually I can come up with some subjectivist counter arguments to this but I will let you sort them out if you want).

I do believe in an objective truth. What I do not believe is that anyone one person, organization or group holds it, can encompass it or has a monopoly on that truth.

You obviously believe that the whole truth is held by the Church. That is an article of faith and I respect that.

What is the point of apologetics? In my opinion it is merely (good intentioned) partisan rhetoric that ultimately says “I’m am right and you are wrong if you do not believe as I do”.

Right and wrong are present irrespective of belief. The golden rule is understood and present in almost every culture and Jesus considered it to be one of the two great commandments. IMHO, “right belief” should take a backseat to emphasizing the common denominator of our humanity and our conduct towards our neighbors, irrespective of their beliefs and the manner in which they worship God with all their heart, mind and soul.

 

[Atreyu]

I disagree. You are arguing that I am a subjectivist. Your comment above reduces to subjectivism. Lets explore your logic:

Is it impossible for me to perform a “good” act if I do not know what “good” is? That is to say, does my awareness or knowledge of the “moral valuation” of an act or behavior change the status of that act? If you believe that, then you are the subjectivist! Saving a person from harm is a good act in and of itself, even if I do not know it! (actually I can come up with some subjectivist counter arguments to this but I will let you sort them out if you want).

I admit I made a mistake here. I suppose I should have said something like, “it is impossible to know if a particular act we have made is good or not, if we do not know what constitutes a morally good act”.

I do believe in an objective truth. What I do not believe is that anyone one person, organization or group holds it, can encompass it or has a monopoly on that truth.

You obviously believe that the whole truth is held by the Church. That is an article of faith and I respect that.

What is the point of apologetics? In my opinion it is merely (good intentioned) partisan rhetoric that ultimately says “I’m am right and you are wrong if you do not believe as I do”.

Right and wrong are present irrespective of belief. The golden rule is understood and present in almost every culture and Jesus considered it to be one of the two great commandments. IMHO, “right belief” should take a backseat to emphasizing the common denominator of our humanity and our conduct towards our neighbors, irrespective of their beliefs and the manner in which they worship God with all their heart, mind and soul.

Catholics and Protestants alike hold the Scriptures to be inerrant. If Protestants believe in an error, then I believe it to be a worthwhile exercise to show them this error from the Scriptures. Now what is so bad about that?

 

[Sixtus]

I cannot prove the Real Presence to anyone but I can vouch for the fact that I, as His most unworthy servant and the least in the Kingdom, have tasted ‘real’ blood immediately after consuming from the Challice.

It was positively amazing. I thought that maybe I had a problem in my mouth. Close inspeciton proved negative. By which time I realised that I had receieved the Saviour and tasted His blood.

 

[Peregrino]

I admit I made a mistake here. I suppose I should have said something like, “it is impossible to know if a particular act we have made is good or not, if we do not know what constitutes a morally good act”.

If you had made that statement, I would have responded:

"your statement really reduces to the following:

–it is impossible to know (what) is good or not, if we do not know what (is) a good act., i.e.

–it is impossible to know X if we don’t know X."

While not illogical, it is certainly a truism…but since you didn’t say this, I won’t respond in this manner

Catholics and Protestants alike hold the Scriptures to be inerrant. If Protestants believe in an error, then I believe it to be a worthwhile exercise to show them this error from the Scriptures. Now what is so bad about that?

The problem is, how do we know they are in error or vice versa?

There are many interpretations of scripture. Take for instance the fundamentalist “strict interpretation approach”. The Gospel of John says that Jesus is the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29). Using this perspective we would have to conclude that Mary had a little lamb. Sounds ridiculous to our ears.

Yet to some Protestants who believe that the Eucharist is only a symbol, saying “Jesus is bread” is equally ridiculous.

Which is more credible? “Mary had a little lamb” or “Jesus is bread”?

This is part of the reason I threw out the “Pascalian wager” question. “Knowing” that the bread is Jesus doesn’t change its ontological status. The Truth is the Truth whether we know it or not. Does the atheist get eternal life if he can sneak into the communion line? The passage highlighted in John at the beginning of this thread seems to indicate that this is the case. Of course the Church will shake its finger. :tsktsk:

No one responded to my question regarding St. Paul and his passage about “discerning” the body of the Lord and condemnation. How is discerning different than perceiving?

 

[Atreyu]

The problem is, how do we know they are in error or vice versa?

If there is a self-contradictory position, then this position must be in error. Protestants believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. They also believe in the Sacrifice of Christ. The point of this thread is to show that if one believes in these two things, one must also necessarily believe in the Real Presence.

There are many interpretations of scripture. Take for instance the fundamentalist “strict interpretation approach”. The Gospel of John says that Jesus is the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29). Using this perspective we would have to conclude that Mary had a little lamb. Sounds ridiculous to our ears.

Yet to some Protestants who believe that the Eucharist is only a symbol, saying “Jesus is bread” is equally ridiculous.

Which is more credible? “Mary had a little lamb” or “Jesus is bread”?

But it is not a matter of interpretation; their interpretation is self-contradictory. You cannot believe in:
inerrancy of Scripture + the Sacrifice of Christ - the Real Presence
as Scripture does not allow for this to happen. It is the whole point of this thread. If we can discern anything from the Bible, then we can discern this simple fact (I call it “fact”, but it is only a fact if Scripture is indeed inerrant, which I am implicitly assuming).

This is part of the reason I threw out the “Pascalian wager” question. “Knowing” that the bread is Jesus doesn’t change its ontological status. The Truth is the Truth whether we know it or not. Does the atheist get eternal life if he can sneak into the communion line? The passage highlighted in John at the beginning of this thread seems to indicate that this is the case. Of course the Church will shake its finger. :tsktsk:

No one responded to my question regarding St. Paul and his passage about “discerning” the body of the Lord and condemnation. How is discerning different than perceiving?

We need more information to form the full doctrine than just these Biblical passages I have mentioned. But as far as I am concerned, this extra information is off-topic.

 

[believers]

A careful reflection on your past decisions will help you know what you need to confess in order to get back into the state of Grace. This, of course, is not the final word. Only God knows the state of your soul.

My faith teaches that if you do a fearless (read pride-less also) search of your sins, and confess them to the best of your abilities, you have done what you need to do to make a good confession. The Absolution that you receive (John 20:23) puts you back in the state of Grace. At that point, you can receive Holy Communion worthily.

So if you confess every single sin you’ve ever committed then God owes you Grace? Or is it that you believe you are deserving of Grace?

 

[Atreyu]

So if you confess every single sin you’ve ever committed then God owes you Grace?

If you confess that Jesus is Lord, does God owe you Grace?

 

[believers]

If you confess that Jesus is Lord, does God owe you Grace?

Grace is a gift. AND, I can’t DO anything to deserve it. However, to obtain salvation by Grace, I must do it solely through faith. If I try to DO anything to obtain grace, then grace is no longer grace but debt.

Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

 

[Allweather]

Grace is a gift. AND, I can’t DO anything to deserve it. However, to obtain salvation by Grace, I must do it solely through faith. If I try to DO anything to obtain grace, then grace is no longer grace but debt.

Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

When you’re visiting your sins through examination of conscience, you’re doing so in the presence of Jesus, which in and of itself is a confession that Jesus is Lord. When you sit in the confessional and confess your sins, and receive absolution from the priest, that is an act of faith, and a confession of faith, that Jesus is Lord, and that Jesus has the power to forgive your sins, and that He is most urgently wanting to do so.