So WHY Don't you believe in the Real Presence?

[cooterhein]

Hi again my friend!

Hey, good to see you again.

What seems to be missing in your [and others] conclusions is that applying HUMAN REASON to Divine Miracles are never going to reach a proper conclusion.

I have a different idea. I think it has to do with differing understandings of Aristotelian ontology and the nature of “substance” and “accidents.”

Central to the underpinnings of this topic as it relates to Thomistic Christology is the idea that substance is not truly knowable and it may in any case be divorced from an object’s “accidents”…without exception, if an exception is absolutely necessary. So for example, a three-sided polygon could have the “accidents” of a triangle (three sides, closed figure, interior angles adding to 180 degrees) but still be a square or an octagon or a circle with respect to its “substance.” Or as another example, a yeastless string of carbohydrates could be arranged in such a manner as to be “a bread-like wafer” with respect to its “accidents” at every level from the sub-atomic to regular visibility, but its true “substance” is anyone’s guess. It could be hidden, and it could be completely different from what the “accidents” show it to be.

We probably have some differences here. To wit, I have very little use for this sort of ontology. Some things that you might call “mere accidents” are things that I accept as guarantees of what an object’s substance is. For example, I accept that a closed three-sided polygon is always a triangle and it is not possible to divorce one from the other. (Just one example). But there’s one other important detail that must be recognized lest we continuously talk past each other.

While it’s not necessarily possible in every single situation, there are a pretty good number of situations in which something you might call “substance” is knowable. You will put different limits on this. In your mind, anything that you “know” or “observe” or “demonstrate to exist” isn’t really the substance, it’s just the appearance and the substance remains unknowable. I happen to believe the thing you’d call “substance” is, in many instances, truly knowable.

Thus, when I tell you “the nature of the substance of the host is knowable both before and after the blessing, and the substance does not change,” you might assume that I mean to say “the accidents, as far as I can tell, appear to be similar in both cases but the actual substance is anyone’s guess.” Let me be crystal clear. I am not saying that. What I am saying is “the nature of the substance of the host is knowable both before and after it’s blessed, and it does not change.” That’s exactly what I mean to say, and once this is confirmed, it’s the main reason why I can’t believe transubstantiation.

I don’t want to belabor the comparison too much, but it’s kind of like when a young-earth creationist doesn’t believe it’s possible to reliably measure the age of the earth whereas an old-earth person will have to try very hard in order to demonstrate that we know the age of the earth, and this is based on nothing else but the age of the earth.

In the same manner, we can know what sort of substance a wafer is made of before and after a blessing. Not just the accidents, but the actual substance. Knowledge of this substance is not based on preconceived notions or a certain set of beliefs. It is based on nothing else but the actual reality of what the substance is in either case. And when the “before” and “after” shots are compared, we can know that these elements remain unchanged.

The Biblical evidence and Early Church history that support these beliefs is over-whelming.

Aristotelian ontology had widespread credibility at the time. It didn’t deserve it, but that’s what it had. I guess they couldn’t do much better than that at the time, but we can now.

Take all of that and add the PHYSICAL Evidence of Eucharisitic Miracles

You make your standards of ontological certainty impossibly high whenever it suits you, and then you make them absurdly low when you want to guarantee a certain outcome. I do know how this works.

Surely God CAN do this if God chooses to right?

Can God cause a closed three-sided polygon to really, truly, and actually be a rectangle even though it still has just three sides?

I say no. God is not responsible for absurdities. Transubstantiation is one of those absurdities; hence, God cannot choose to do it in the manner described. Now, it would be a different thing if God miraculously transformed something or multiplied it or created it out of nothing. Those are miracles, but they’re not absurdities. Transubstantiation is an absurdity, though.

More to the point, however, He does not do that. This information is knowable. It is attainable. There is no change to the elements. We know this.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Just a reminder…Real Presence <> Transubstantiation.

Real Presence is a term used to categorize a number of distinct beliefs. The common thread in all of these beliefs is that Jesus meant what He said when He said “This is my body…This is my blood” and that there is some type of loss in meaning if the word is becomes represents.

Anyway, I went to google to see if I could find a good and intelligent statement that could persuade me why “is” must mean represents.

Anyway, this does not strike me as good and intelligent (several logical errors)…but may or may not be typical of the case against the “Real Presence”. If I find something better I will let y’all know. If this is all there is, then it really seems that the case against is weak.

As for me…it seems to me that if Jesus said “is” then He meant “is”. What I don’t know is “In what sense is is” (Sorry to get Bill Clinton on you).

 

[rinnie]

When Jesus said unless you eat the flesh of man and drink his blood you have no life in you.

Many walked away that day. Did Jesus say hold on there, let me explain? They KNEW exactly what he said and what he meant. Scirpture prooves it. They said he is MAD.

Now did Jesus say hold on, let me explain? No he said this is a HARD Saying. not many CAN EXCEPT IT. Then he turned to Peter and said are you going to leave also? Peter said where would I go Lord you are the way to eternal life.

The moment of that saying MANY turned away from Christ. That is also the moment the devil entered into Judas. I don’t think many People know that.

Judas could NOT accept this teaching. IT was at this moment that Judas snapped. Our Lord saw it. It was then he was looking for ways to betray our lord. Judas was not the only one who could not accept this teaching.

Jesus said I am the living bread from heaven whoever eats my flesh, he knew what he was saying. He said to the Apostles DO THIS. And they DO IT and will continue to DO IT until Jesus comes again in glory.

So we are down to 2 solutions here, Either Jesus is right and he is the living bread that came down from heaven and the bread and wine are transformed into his real body and blood, or Jesus is not who he said he was and as the crowd was correct and he was crazy.

I believe that the bread and wine are the true body and blood of Christ simply because he told me so. He has never lied nor will he ever. He is my Lord and my Savior. If he says it, I am like ST Peter then its so. Who am I to question my lord and master. I never will.

Again if this were not the truth Jesus would have never let all of those people walk away. I pray that each and every one of you can receive the Grace of God to come to understand the full meaning of his words.

Again for me it was simply, he said it, he meant it, I believe.

 

[Godith]

My dear friend in Christ,

Thanks for taking the time read and consider what we share. May I suggest a GREAT next step for you would be to investiage “Eucharisitc Miracales.” There are some in every generation although not widely reported.

God does this to “bump” us past doubt. There are great amounts of evidence for those seriously looking and seeking Christ.

God Bless, please PM me if you have any other issues you’d like to discuss.

PAT

Thank you for your suggestion. I may well do that. It could be very interesting.

.

Interesting responce: YOUR RIGHT, I do see all other faiths is competition with the CC. There is very good reason for this.

No where in the Bible can one point to God being willing to tolerate any God BUT HIM, or any set of Faith beliefs other than that which He God teaches. In that the CC is the ONLY church, ONLY set of beliefs founded by God and COMPLETELY acceptable to Him,and warranted personally By Him. [John 14:16-17, John 17:15-19, Mt. 16:19, and John 20:19-23] give evidence of these facts.

Catholic DO see other Christians as BREATHERN; but nevertheless understand that this is in great part, because God commads us to LOVE everyone. The beliefs and understading differences between us are signifiant, notable and many. Followship is wounderful. But always needs to be founded on God’s Single TRUTH.

THANK you for your KIND responce:thumbsup:

God Bless you,
Pat

Since I started reading a little about Catholicism, I’ve actually found the differences to be fewer than I first thought. Very often, a difference in the language used, and the way of describing things, hides the fact that we are basically on the same page. That might just be me, of course, over-estimating what the differences would be. lol

There are, however, as you rightly say, significant, non-trivial differences in theology and understanding. I agree that there can only be one Truth, and that Jesus clearly intended for all believers to be fully united as one Church. Sadly, we are human, and subject to the weaknesses of our human nature. The need historically for the various church councils, to try to agree on what is truth and what is falsehood, and what it means to be Christian, shows that we have disagreed pretty much since the beginning. For a long time, by the grace of God, Christians managed to preserve some unity amongst the differing opinions and interpretations. However, as time has progressed, positions have become more entrenched, and things like secular politics have become involved, so that we’ve not been able to hang on to that unity. Where I differ from you is that I don’t see one group of Christians as being the ‘real’ church, or as having the right answers. We are all to blame for the disunity, and, at times, all equally bad at discerning the Truth. On the flip-side, we are all the real Church, because we are all children of God by faith and baptism. That’s how I see it, anyway.

What I was commenting on originally, though, when I said what I did about churches being in ‘competition’, was this. You said (bold added):

I have given MUCH prayerful thought and consideration to the lack of understanding; especially when it seems to me to be completely illogicial. HOW MANY TRUTHS can there be one One precise issue? Even if you accept more than One, there certanily are NOT humdreds or thousands of possibilities

The Bible actually supplies the answer BUT for one of two possible reasons; it too is ignored, overlooked, forgotten or denined.

**REASON #**1. Is Widom… TRUE WISDOM is a fruit of TRUE FAITH. TRue faith comes ONLY and exclusively from God. So God witholds TRUE Wisdom form some for rerasons we might understand and MANY that only God Himself understands.

REASON #2. Is Logical [at least it seems so to me:shrug:], a direct but perhaps not always a known and delibert fact that **in order to compete for congregation members, one must eiter do someting; offer something that is “easier” or proveably better. **This results in all other faiths competating with the One Catholic Faith, founded by Christ. This fact is indispuitable and historically proveable.

This requires then that everyone hold positions different form those taught and practiced by the CC. One must be different in order to justify there existence and differences become “Key.”

This may not be true of all churches, but in my experience, the non-Catholic churches I have known don’t teach what they do in the hope that they will win Catholics (or any other Christians) over to an ‘easier’ or ‘better’ way of life. What is taught and believed, is taught and believed with sincerity. People are seeking what is the Truth. As part of that process, people have come up with different answers. Some of those people are or were hugely learnéd and prayerful scholars of Scripture. It’s partly what makes the whole thing so difficult, is that godly and intelligent people can make sensible arguements on both sides. The Real Presence is an example of that.

Hopefully, with all that, I’ve made myself clearer, and not gone too far off topic.

 

[cooterhein]

So my friend,

Faith, Mysteries and Miracles have no legitmacy? What, God can’t do this?

God Bless,
Pat

God does miracles, but He’s not responsible for every absurdity and illogical inconsistency that the mind can come up with. For example, God cannot be held responsible for creating an object that is, on its outermost edges, both a circle and a pentagon. Nor can God be held responsible for causing an enclosed three-sided polygon to have these “accidents” yet also have the “substance” of an octagon. Nor can God be held responsible for causing an atom with five protons, neutrons, and electrons (and every other “accident” associated with Boron) to actually have the “substance” of Strontium.

Faith, mysteries, and miracles absolutely do have legitimacy. Absurdity does not. When you ask “What, God can’t do this?” I must give two answers. Yes, God does miracles. But no, God does not do absurdity.

 

[PJM]

=cooterhein;8161906]Hey, good to see you again.

I have a different idea. I think it has to do with differing understandings of Aristotelian ontology and the nature of “substance” and “accidents.”

Central to the underpinnings of this topic as it relates to Thomistic Christology is the idea that substance is not truly knowable and it may in any case be divorced from an object’s “accidents”…without exception, if an exception is absolutely necessary. So for example, a three-sided polygon could have the “accidents” of a triangle (three sides, closed figure, interior angles adding to 180 degrees) but still be a square or an octagon or a circle with respect to its “substance.” Or as another example, a yeastless string of carbohydrates could be arranged in such a manner as to be “a bread-like wafer” with respect to its “accidents” at every level from the sub-atomic to regular visibility, but its true “substance” is anyone’s guess. It could be hidden, and it could be completely different from what the “accidents” show it to be.

We probably have some differences here. To wit, I have very little use for this sort of ontology. Some things that you might call “mere accidents” are things that I accept as guarantees of what an object’s substance is. For example, I accept that a closed three-sided polygon is always a triangle and it is not possible to divorce one from the other. (Just one example). But there’s one other important detail that must be recognized lest we continuously talk past each other.

While it’s not necessarily possible in every single situation, there are a pretty good number of situations in which something you might call “substance” is knowable. You will put different limits on this. In your mind, anything that you “know” or “observe” or “demonstrate to exist” isn’t really the substance, it’s just the appearance and the substance remains unknowable. I happen to believe the thing you’d call “substance” is, in many instances, truly knowable.

Thus, when I tell you “the nature of the substance of the host is knowable both before and after the blessing, and the substance does not change,” you might assume that I mean to say “the accidents, as far as I can tell, appear to be similar in both cases but the actual substance is anyone’s guess.” Let me be crystal clear. I am not saying that. What I am saying is “the nature of the substance of the host is knowable both before and after it’s blessed, and it does not change.” That’s exactly what I mean to say, and once this is confirmed, it’s the main reason why I can’t believe transubstantiation.

I don’t want to belabor the comparison too much, but it’s kind of like when a young-earth creationist doesn’t believe it’s possible to reliably measure the age of the earth whereas an old-earth person will have to try very hard in order to demonstrate that we know the age of the earth, and this is based on nothing else but the age of the earth.

In the same manner, we can know what sort of substance a wafer is made of before and after a blessing. Not just the accidents, but the actual substance. Knowledge of this substance is not based on preconceived notions or a certain set of beliefs. It is based on nothing else but the actual reality of what the substance is in either case. And when the “before” and “after” shots are compared, we can know that these elements remain unchanged.

Aristotelian ontology had widespread credibility at the time. It didn’t deserve it, but that’s what it had. I guess they couldn’t do much better than that at the time, but we can now.

You make your standards of ontological certainty impossibly high whenever it suits you, and then you make them absurdly low when you want to guarantee a certain outcome. I do know how this works.

Can God cause a closed three-sided polygon to really, truly, and actually be a rectangle even though it still has just three sides?

I say no. God is not responsible for absurdities. Transubstantiation is one of those absurdities; hence, God cannot choose to do it in the manner described. Now, it would be a different thing if God miraculously transformed something or multiplied it or created it out of nothing. Those are miracles, but they’re not absurdities. Transubstantiation is an absurdity, though.

More to the point, however, He does not do that. This information is knowable. It is attainable. There is no change to the elements. We know this.

***Its so good hearing from you again.

So if I inderstand your position [reading between the lines] there is no possibility of Mystery or Miracle. It, in an absolute sense must be understandable to our minds. Sounds kind of like the Gosnics?

Can God do this IF Go so chooses would be a more fertile question? Before asking the next ncessary question. If He could, why would he do or NOT do it?***

**Isa.55 Verses 8–9 **“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

This seems completely logical to me, given what little I know about God.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=Godith;8162207]

Thank you for your suggestion. I may well do that. It could be very interesting.

There are, however, as you rightly say, significant, non-trivial differences in theology and understanding. I agree that there can only be one Truth, and that Jesus clearly intended for all believers to be fully united as one Church. Sadly, we are human, and subject to the weaknesses of our human nature. The need historically for the various church councils, to try to agree on what is truth and what is falsehood, and what it means to be Christian, shows that we have disagreed pretty much since the beginning. For a long time, by the grace of God, Christians managed to preserve some unity amongst the differing opinions and interpretations. However, as time has progressed, positions have become more entrenched, and things like secular politics have become involved, so that we’ve not been able to hang on to that unity. Where I differ from you is that I don’t see one group of Christians as being the ‘real’ church, or as having the right answers. We are all to blame for the disunity, and, at times, all equally bad at discerning the Truth. On the flip-side, we are all the real Church, because we are all children of God by faith and baptism. That’s how I see it, anyway.

What I was commenting on originally, though, when I said what I did about churches being in ‘competition’, was this. You said (bold added):

This may not be true of all churches, but in my experience, the non-Catholic churches I have known don’t teach what they do in the hope that they will win Catholics (or any other Christians) over to an ‘easier’ or ‘better’ way of life. What is taught and believed, is taught and believed with sincerity. People are seeking what is the Truth.

***I certainly agree with you completely on the sincereity comment. The issue for me is TRUTH. There can be only One per issue. As Bishop Shen says: if everyone believes a lie it is still “a lie.” And if everyone denies a TRUTH it is still the truth."

Have you considered these three proveable biblical facts: 1. No where in the entire Bible does God permit or encourgae more than One God; One set of Faith beliefs or One religion[church.] 2. It is undeniable fact that todays Catholic Church is the ONLY, the One true Church, the One completely true faith, and the only faith/religion founded by God Himself; not some mortal man. 3. That the bible clearly supports these claims.

In seeking TRUTH it seems prudent to go where it is and therefore MAY be found.***

Eph. 3: 9-10 “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; ***that through the church [singular] ***the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,

THE ONLY “CHURCH” IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME THIS WAS SPOKEN AND WRITTEN IS TODAYS CATHOLIC CHURCH. IT WOULD BE MORE THAN 1,000 YEARS BEFORE THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION.

Phil.2: 2 “complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, **being in full accord and of one mind.” **

**Eph. 4: 1-7 **“I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body [WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH] and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, [Meaning only One set of beliefs] one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

**Eph. 2: 18-22 **“ for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,[noteably SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

John.10: 16 “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”

**John 17:18-24 **"As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. "I

1 John 4: 4-9 “Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them. We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”

**John 8: 31-32 **”Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

***Gal. 2: “5 **to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.”

**2 John 8-9 **Anyone who is so “progressive” as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son

God Bless YOU!
Pat

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cooterhein;8161906]While it’s not necessarily possible in every single situation, there are a pretty good number of situations in which something you might call “substance” is knowable. You will put different limits on this. In your mind, anything that you “know” or “observe” or “demonstrate to exist” isn’t really the substance, it’s just the appearance and the substance remains unknowable. I happen to believe the thing you’d call “substance” is, in many instances, truly knowable.

Thus, when I tell you “the nature of the substance of the host is knowable both before and after the blessing, and the substance does not change,” you might assume that I mean to say “the accidents, as far as I can tell, appear to be similar in both cases but the actual substance is anyone’s guess.” Let me be crystal clear. I am not saying that. What I am saying is “the nature of the substance of the host is knowable both before and after it’s blessed, and it does not change.” That’s exactly what I mean to say, and once this is confirmed, it’s the main reason why I can’t believe transubstantiation.

Hello cooterhein; You agree that the bread and wine remain these after the invocation of the Word of God. Transubstantiation agrees that the bread and wine remain these only to our senses.

I find your intellectual interpretations very interesting and enlightening. You claimed this; "What I am saying is “the nature of the substance of the host is knowable both before and after it’s blessed, and it does not change.” That’s exactly what I mean to say,

You are claiming to know the NATURE of the substance of the host. I find this fascinating. Can you describe or define what the nature of the substance of bread and wine is?

Bread and wine are created by the hands of men. Could this be the nature of the substance? Bread is “created” from the substance of wheat and water, wine likewise is “created” from the blood of grapes. Is this your Nature’s substance that is knowable?

Being that by man’s powerful wonders “created” the bread and wine from the substances of nature which God created for man to live. How hard is it to believe that God changed the substance of man by taking upon himself human flesh being incarnate, fully human and fully divine?

We know man’s substance is water and dust. God changed the substance of water and dust and created man. If God can take the substance of “MUD” and (change it) create a man from this substance of nature by speaking His Word.

Then can you describe the substance which changed the “Mud” and made man?

What is the substance that keeps the earth and all the universe orderly? Do you know and can one see this substance?

 

[PJM]

=cooterhein;8164751]God does miracles, but He’s not responsible for every absurdity and illogical inconsistency that the mind can come up with. For example, God cannot be held responsible for creating an object that is, on its outermost edges, both a circle and a pentagon. Nor can God be held responsible for causing an enclosed three-sided polygon to have these “accidents” yet also have the “substance” of an octagon. Nor can God be held responsible for causing an atom with five protons, neutrons, and electrons (and every other “accident” associated with Boron) to actually have the “substance” of Strontium.

Faith, mysteries, and miracles absolutely do have legitimacy. Absurdity does not. When you ask “What, God can’t do this?” I must give two answers. Yes, God does miracles. But no, God does not do absurdity.

***So my FRIEND, an easy question for you. Can we agree on the accuracy of this short defination of God?

“God is All Good things [and only good things], PERFECTED”? ***

And as to your question. IF Not God, who or how?

God’s Ccontinued Blessings,

Pat

 

[cooterhein]

**So if I inderstand your position [reading between the lines] there is no possibility of Mystery or Miracle. It, in an absolute sense must be understandable to our minds. Sounds kind of like the Gosnics?**I’m saying the particular kind of ontology you depend on for this dogma is unworkable. Working from that starting point, transubstantiation cannot avoid the “absurdity” tag. If you worked from a different starting point- ie., one where this kind of ontology is useful in describing how things actually are- it would be possible. But the ontology isn’t workable, and neither is the dogma that depends on it.

No, that’s not particularly gnostic.

Can God do this IF Go so chooses would be a more fertile question?

 

[cooterhein]

You are claiming to know the NATURE of the substance of the host. I find this fascinating.

I emphasized substance, you emphasized nature. Are you claiming that the substance is unknowable? Because if you are, Catholics seem to think they know a lot more about its specifics than anyone else who affirms the RP.

I realize I claim to know quite a bit about it too, but that’s consistent with the claim that substance is knowable. If you are claiming that substance is unknowable, that appears to be inconsistent with the comparatively large and relatively specific information you claim to have on the topic.

Can you describe or define what the nature of the substance of bread and wine is?

Yes. Can you?

Bread and wine are created by the hands of men. Could this be the nature of the substance? Bread is “created” from the substance of wheat and water, wine likewise is “created” from the blood of grapes. Is this your Nature’s substance that is knowable?

Ok, now you’re capitalizing “Nature.” What’s up with that? And no, that’s not where I’d go with it.

I don’t think you’re really confused by this. I think you’re trying to play a game.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t think you’re really confused by this. I think you’re trying to play a game.

Correction I am not confused about my faith; What I am asking of you? from my simple deductions about nature and substance to compare to your knowing the “substance”, not nature.

No game here, I respectfully asked you to reveal what the substance is that you claim to have full knowledge of? You claimed to know the “substance” from your previous post.

I am hopeful that you can reveal who or what the substance you claim to know? without any strings attached.

Peace be with you

 

[cooterhein]

Correction I am not confused about my faith; What I am asking of you? from my simple deductions about nature and substance to compare to your knowing the “substance”, not nature.

I initially said something about knowing the “nature of the substance,” which clearly means I know something about the type, kind, or sort of substance that we’re dealing with.

What kind of substance,
What sort of substance,
What type of substance.

Or, the nature of the substance. That should have been quite clear to you. But you seized upon the word “nature” after I clearly emphasized “substance.” I interpreted this as an attempt to derail me rather than engage with me, and I’m still kind of thinking you might be doing that.

No game here,

I seriously doubt you would tell me if there was.

I respectfully asked you to reveal what the substance is that you claim to have full knowledge of? You claimed to know the “substance” from your previous post.

I believe the term you use for it is “the Host.” It’s a circular wafer made of unleavened bread. The other element of interest is red wine, although in my experience, it tends to be grape juice. My people tend to have some of that as well; your people tend to leave it to the priest.

I am hopeful that you can reveal who or what the substance you claim to know? without any strings attached.

You’re being very polite right now, but I still don’t think I can trust you. And you didn’t answer any of the questions I put to you. They weren’t rhetorical, you know. You at least know that I purport substance to be knowable. I think you have a different idea about its knowability, but you’re not sharing. Having bypassed that, you’re already moving on to open-ended questions. And there’s nothing wrong with open-ended questions, of course, but I don’t trust them in your hands. I already feel like you’re not interested in genuine engagement and you’re far more likely to seize upon a single word, conflate its meaning, and spin out three to five paragraphs of something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I’m saying. If I did give an open-ended response, I’d put in more time than it’s worth because I’d have to try and make sure I give you absolutely nothing to screw with. And even if I did marginally succeed at that, the payoff- in the extremely specific example of “you”- would be pretty much nothing.

In other words, the whole NATURE thing you did in your previous post was a mistake. If I don’t tell you about it now, I think you might keep doing that kind of thing.

 

[rinnie]

Cooterhein, what you were told was quite clear from what I read and quite simple.

God took water and mud and created man. You cannot dispute that fact. You can only go so far with science and then science itself cannot solve the mystery.

God is a Mystery, He reveals to us what he wants us to know and when he wants us to know it.

Science is easy to understand once the Mystery is solved.

What Gab. of 12 told you was simple God took water and mud and turned it into Man, If this is so simple and not a miracle of God why can Man not do the same?

A Priest has the Power of the Holy Spirit to also change wine and bread into the living body of Christ. If this were not from the Holy Spirit why can Man not do this own his own either? God said it must be passed on by the power of the Holy Spirit by the laying of hands. We call that Holy Orders.

There is much as you were shown that is too far above our understanding to ever figure out. Because the wisdom of God is so above the wisdom of Man.

If this were not true, Man could explain everything from science. But as science itself can show you there are thing’s that are not possible to be proved, and there are things that happen that are impossible, but somehow they become possible and even science remains mystified by the Power of God.

We know they are the Miracles of God. The Miracles of God are not new, nor are they not written about. People have seen them with their own eyes. Not just thousands of years ago it still happens to date.

Go to any Clinic and you will find that a person who according to Science has a terminal brain turmor and has days to live, turns around and prays to God and walks right out the door. Cured!!

Until you can prove that Miracles Cannot happen, you will never disprove God.

 

[Roy5]

Just watched the morning mass on TV. I have to say that there is power in it. However, I can’t bring myself to believe that anything miraculous happens to the bread and wine. Christ is present - there is a ‘Real Presence’ - but the doctrine of transubstantiation is simply something that I cannot honestly accept. Christ promised to be with us always - whenever and wherever. No argument there.

Jesus was always speaking in metaphors, parables and alike. Two thousand years ago people could easily have interpreted his words literally, since the Near East and the entire world was so full of superstition. There were ghosts and demons, Satan was roaming the earth, people saw all manner of visions and heard all sorts of voices. There were other cults, such as Mithraism, which emphasized blood sacrifices and incarnate deities. Read the literature of those ancient times and you will find this true. I fear that some of this paganism appears to have crept into the early church. 

In this 21st century we better understand many things and discard myths that our ancestors were quick to believe.

I am not critical of those who accept transubstantiation. "Different strokes for different folks." Just explaining in brief and clear lamguage why I can't believe it. I reject evangelical Protestantism, too. What I do find attractive is most of mainline Protestantism where there doesn't seem to be an insistent on uniform thinking, where different opinions are accepted without charges of heresy.

 Some will say - but there has to be only one truth. Okay. But my view is that none of us have that. We all are limited by our humanity. God knows the truth, and that's enough for me. Meanwhile, I will try my best to live by the gospel of love and not be all that concerned about doctrinal or liturgical differences. These are of minor importance compared to what we read in such places as Micah 6:8, Matt. 25 and I Cor. 13.

Meanwhile, God bless everybody of faith. May religion become a bridge rather than a barrier.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cooterhein;8172948]I initially said something about knowing the “nature of the substance,” which clearly means I know something about the type, kind, or sort of substance that we’re dealing with.

…Or, the nature of the substance. That should have been quite clear to you. But you seized upon the word “nature” after I clearly emphasized “substance.” I interpreted this as an attempt to derail me rather than engage with me, and I’m still kind of thinking you might be doing that.

Please forgive my simple and slow mind, because when I read your quote from a previous post you stated, "**What I am saying is “the nature of the substance of the host is knowable both before and after it’s blessed, and it does not change.” **“That’s exactly what I mean to say”. Sorry I did not get exactly what you mean, I thought you knew the “nature of the substance of the host knowable”. Reading words like this is easy to get misunderstood. So you clarified later you speak of knowing the substance type, kind or sort of substance.

For clarification, I was only introducing here the substance from which all things created derive from “God” (Gen.1-2, Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, so that what is visible came into being through the invisible)
which is our Catholic revealed understanding and faith. I mistakenly took your “nature of substance to be knowable” by you and asked if you can reveal it?

Not to change your subject matter here, and thanks for your clarification of a “knowable substance”. I believe your doubt and question regarding the True presence can be solved by a scientific proven method. It is called “Cause and Effect”. This scientific rule deals also with the True presence both for believers and non believers.

One, the believers faith in the True presence is effected by the Cause of the passion and death our Lord Jesus, Faith is heightened and effected by the Cause of the Word spoken by God in persona Christi (a valid ordained priest) to the bread and wine, which become the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ Truly present. Just as God the substance which created our human nature by speaking His Word to the dust and water.

The scientific proven method of “Cause and effect” also follows the unbelievers, who are also effected (be it in the negative of doubters or disbelievers) in either case pro true presence or anti- true presence both of these have been scientifically effected by the Cause of Jesus True presence in the Eucharist.

They are both effected in the same way, be it psychologically, emotionally and physically be it by postures, defiance or physical healing miracles. In either case the True presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucahrist is the Cause which effects “all people”, including those unknown to this revelation because the cause of the prayers attached to the True presence effect them in world by one way or another.

Try the “unseeable” Cause and effect method to the True presence and things may be more revealing than what meets the seeing eye. Because this “Cause and effect” method also applies to the blind and those who do not have faith, to see with new eyes.

Peace be with you

p.s If you think I am here to play games with you, I would ask you please do not respond to my post, no harm done.

]

 

[rinnie]

Back to the point of the Real presence Jesus picked up the bread and Said this IS my Body which will be given up for you.

Then he picked up the wine held it up also and said this is my Blood which will be shed for you.

DO THIS. in memory of me.

Now why would Jesus do this, then turn around before this was done, tell us that if we DO NOT eat his body and drink his blood we have not life in us, and we must DO THIS in order to have eternal life.

He said to us we must DO THIS. HE told the Apostles to DO THIS.

Now how can anyone deny that Jesus did not mean what he said when he said it and showed the Apostles how to DO it?

So if Jesus did not mean what he said, why would he command it of us? ANd how are we to eat the bread of life in order to have eternal life if it is not available for us to do so?

Because People who deny the Bread of LIfe which is the real presence of Christ are saying it is impossible to have eternal life in Christ then, Are they not?

Now my turn, If the Catholic Church is wrong, and Christ is not present in the Eucharist then how do protestants and non-believers of the Eucharist claim that we gain eternal life without eating the bread from heaven? Because it is quite clear that Christ said we MUST.

 

[PJM]

=cooterhein;8172726]I’m saying the particular kind of ontology you depend on for this dogma is unworkable. Working from that starting point, transubstantiation cannot avoid the “absurdity” tag. If you worked from a different starting point- ie., one where this kind of ontology is useful in describing how things actually are- it would be possible. But the ontology isn’t workable, and neither is the dogma that depends on it.

No, that’s not particularly gnostic.

The only way it’s possible- with or without God- is if the ontology works.

But the ontology’s no good.

So it’s not happening. It’s like a never-ending staircase, or a square with three sides, or any of the “impossible images” that can be drawn in two dimensions but not made in three. A particular kind of ontology is what you depend on in order to avoid absurdity. But the ontology’s no good, and it doesn’t save the dogma. That’s what I’m saying.

I don’t think I get that far. It’s about the ontology.

Again, it’s about the ontology. You need it in order for this thing to work. But it’s no good, so your thing doesn’t work. That’s where I am. That’s where you find me.

I’m not entirely sure.

I would have to know more about it.

Try as I do to follow you is still not leading me to your understanding of 1. God [the nature and attributes of] and Both Mystery and Miracles. By their defintions we SIMPLY ARE UNABLE TO Know, to Understand.

What is the ROLE of “Faith” if IT MUST rely on human logic?

There seems to be a HUGE disconnect in your personal philosophy.

OMNIPOTENCE. The almighty power of God. He can do whatever does not deny his nature or that is not self-contradictory. Since God is infinite in being, he must also be infinite in power. (Etym. Latin omnis, all + potentia, power: omnipotens, all-powerful.)

OMNISCIENCE. God’s knowledge of all things. Revelation discloses that the wisdom of God is without measure (Psalm 146:5). And the Church teaches that his knowledge is infinite.

The primary object of divine cognition is God himself, whom he knows immediately, that is, without any medium by which he apprehends his nature. He knows himself through himself.

The secondary objects of divine knowledge are everything else, namely the purely possible, the real, and the conditionally future. He knows all that is merely possible by what is called the knowledge of simple intelligence. This means that, in comprehending his infinite imitability and his omnipotence, God knows therein the whole sphere of the possible.

He knows all real things in the past, present, and the future by his knowledge of vision. When God, in his self-consciousness, beholds his infinite operative power, he knows therein all that he, as the main effective cause, actually comprehends, i.e., all reality. The difference between past, present, and future does not exist for the divine knowledge, since for God all is simultaneously present.

By the same knowledge of vision, God also foresees the future free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. As taught by the Church, “All things are naked and open to His eyes, even those things that will happen through the free actions of creatures” (Denzinger 3003). The future free actions foreseen by God follow infallibly not because God substitutes his will for the free wills of his creatures but because he does not interfere with the freedom that he foresees creatures will exercise. (Etym. Latin omnis, all + scire, to know.)

Do you beleive that God exist?

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[PJM]

Roy5:

Just watched the morning mass on TV. I have to say that there is power in it. However, I can’t bring myself to believe that anything miraculous happens to the bread and wine. Christ is present - there is a ‘Real Presence’ - but the doctrine of transubstantiation is simply something that I cannot honestly accept. Christ promised to be with us always - whenever and wherever. No argument there

***My dear friend, lets discuss this

IS your understanding from Only a biblical standpoint? Or is this 1. Something God cannot do? 2. Someting that God would not do. 3. Someting that God could do but choose not to?

What is your understanding of the merits of the Bible?

What would you accept as vaild evidence?***

Jesus was always speaking in metaphors, parables and alike. Two thousand years ago people could easily have interpreted his words literally, since the Near East and the entire world was so full of superstition. There were ghosts and demons, Satan was roaming the earth, people saw all manner of visions and heard all sorts of voices. There were other cults, such as Mithraism, which emphasized blood sacrifices and incarnate deities. Read the literature of those ancient times and you will find this true. I fear that some of this paganism appears to have crept into the early church.

We can agree with your Objective statements; but the subjective ones…not so much.

*Are these passages either Subjective or Objective [please reply to each of them.

John.3: "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Matt.5: 19 “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Matt.19: 17 "And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. **If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” **

Luke.14: 27 “Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”

Matt.8: 27 "And the men marveled, saying, “What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?”

John.3: 36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him”.

Matt.3: 2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

[16] "And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; 17 and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

Matt. 6: 14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you

I look forward to an interesting debate

God Bless you,
Pat**

 

[Roy5]

One can quote all sorts of verses to prove all sorts of things. Among those that always have troubled are Matt. 19:17. Jesus, you remember, says: ‘Why do you call me good? There is none good but one, that is, God…’ That is often quoted by those who question the Trinity, or the divinity of Christ. What does it mean? Christ wasn’t good?

 Or, what about the time Jesus says that to follow him we must hate father and mother, wife and children, etc. Luke 14:26. How does that fit in with the commandment that tells us to honor our parents? How is that compatible with the gospel of love that Christ emphasized? 

 This 'proof-texting' - picking out a verse here and there to prove a point - is tricky. There are verses in the Old Testament that I abhor. See Ex. 22:18 and 20 as simple examples. And what about II Kings 2:23-24?

 As for the Baptism of Jesus, I'm sure that you're aware that the Biblical account is used by those who don't baptize babies and require immersion (e. g., Baptists) to make their case. 

 The old expression is true: "Even the devil can quote scripture!" 

 I employ four ways of arriving at my own faith: scripture, reason, tradition and experience. It is characterized, frankly, by less dogma and provides plenty of space for different opinions among Christians. Those who believe in an infallible magisterium just follow what it says. I can't do that. To begin with, I am old enough to recall being told that unbaptized babies go to limbo, that it was a serious sin for Catholics to worship in a Protestant church, etc. So, I developed a reluctance to accept everything the church is saying as it may change. Some day - I predict - priests will have the option to marry and woman will be ordained Deacons, both changes that I personally endorse.

 God bless everybody. Believe as you choose. Perhaps democracy has impacted me too much, but I believe that freedom of religion also includes that Christians have considerable latitude when it comes to doctrine. Transubstantiation? Mary's perpetual virginity, Immaculate Conception and Assumption? Various Marian apparitions? The power of priests to forgive sins? We could go on. "Think and let think" is a concept I embrace without judging the beliefs any who sincerely seek to live lives based on the gospel of love. Did I mention Hosea 6:8, Matt. 25 and I Cor, 13 already. Three of my favorite passages.