H
halogirl
Guest
Oh strengthens! Absolutely!
- Status
B
BartholomewB
Guest
I thought maybe both at once?
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
God can of course know about logical entities that we don’t have access to. What is logical to God may not appear so to us. But it still passes your logical test.Frankenfurter:
Of course it is; otherwise logical would be incoherent.
This is true of any two persons who have distinct points of view of a complex thing. For example, when you visit a doctor and he looks at your symptoms and discerns the need for certain tests, and concludes that you have a certain bacteria and then cures you with a certain mold. Meanwhile, with your limited viewpoint (not knowing micro biology say), the cure seems illogical since you don’t have access to the under-working logical entities.
Sometimes though, the unseen logical entities are BIGGER than the thing, so you can’t see them again because of your perspective. For example, everyone in your town is running out of water. The lakes are drying up and the ground water is going deeper. People try conserving water but it doesn’t help. You need a miracle! Turns out that 1000 miles away, some new developments have tapped into the ground water and that water used to flow to your and surrounding towns, but no longer does. The logical entities in play are much BIGGER than you thought.
God’s creation has logical entities that are invisibly small to us, and invisibly vast to us. Everything is interconnected. We see some of what we can from our perspective.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
No, it wouldn’t seem illogical. Unexpected, yes, or surprising, or even contrary to common sense. But not illogical.
N
Neithan
Guest
Karlo Broussard wrote a good article on the “fruit of the vine” objection for CA. It is frustrating how there are these discrepancies in the the Bible, but the message of salvation is preserved inerrant. Even if Jesus said “fruit of the vine” after consecration, he could be referring to the appearance (phenomenon) of what is consumed. This is why I like the Kantian language for the Eucharist, even though it’s not traditional, and I’m sympathetic to the Lutheran understanding, although I disagree that what remains after consecration is truly bread or wine in a substantial (or noumenological) sense. [Jesus, in the Gospel of John, also called himself the “vine” and the Apostles the “branches” metaphorically, after the last supper. So then the Eucharist could also be called the fruit of the vine, because it is Christ’s offering to us.]
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
I don’t know…this transubstantaiation thing still seems illogical, …to start out with one thing, turn it into another thing , while still looking or resembling the first thing…all this science and quantum stuff doesn’t seem to cover or explain that…i mean water into wine is more logical as supernatural, logical because we understand that the two things are not one, wine is wine and water is water. Natural is natural, and supernatural is supernatural.
Last edited:
N
Neithan
Guest
It’s unique, but so are the Incarnation and Resurrection — Christ Himself is unique. And if He only meant this symbolically, like a poetic prophet, then why did even the Apostles almost leave him entirely after He preached about it (John 6)?
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Well, I think and hope you meant apparent discrepancies. I really don’t think there is any discrepancy. Jesus did call it fruit of the vine after consecration.
If you mean He transubstantiated (even before tha actual Cross), then you can say He was referring to it’s appearance. Still does not do away with explanation that to the Jewish apostles, who are celebrating a Passover ritual full of symbols, that they see Jesus fully alive and well, and see bread and wine fully “alive and well” ( physically unchanged), and you still hear Jesus calling it such twice in scripture "friut of the vine (before and after consecration), that they, the apostles, are fully satisfied in understanding, not seeing any discrepancy.
As to Himself being fruit of the vine perhaps, but He also calls it fruit of the vine before consecration also
But thanks for response.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
They stayed because they believed in Him, as Messiah. They were called of God and responded to Jesus, before His miracles. The others that left did not, and that from the beginning, way before the discourse, as referenced in chapter 3, and in ch 6 again.
Do you think the symbolism of Passover elements are only poetically prophetical ?
Do you think the symbolism of Passover elements are only poetically prophetical ?
Last edited:
N
Neithan
Guest
“Apparent” discrepancy is a better way to put it, thank you. The Jewish Passover was prophetic yes, and poetic. Not “only” poetic, as prophets in the Old Testament used poetic (symbolic) language to convey their meaning. Jesus was more than a prophet; but he taught often in parables, so if the sermon he gave about himself being “flesh to eat” was just another parable, why did people desert him and why did he not clarify (as he did with the parables) for the Apostles? He simply asked them if they were going to leave as well — a symbolic meaning doesn’t explain the reaction of the listeners. I agree that the Apostles stayed because they believed in Him, as Peter stated, but why the shocking reaction this time? The gospel writer records the literal words, “My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink,” (John 6:56) and implies that they understood it literally, “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” The disciples were deeply troubled by this new teaching (6:62) — why would they be so bothered if it was symbolism?
Last edited:
M
MAS79
Guest
Because the world is not interested in the truth.
you got people like St. Pio (1887-1968), Eucharistic Miracles (which are hundreds of years ago but yet the bleeding Host still remains which should not be impossible), Our Lady of Fatima image from the year 1531, Our Lady of Las Lajas (image on a rock from I think it was the 1700’s or so in which the rock itself is that image and it’s deep into it (highly unlikely that’s just a coincidence)), Our Lady of Fatima in 1917 with ‘the miracle of the sun’ etc.
but yet, people still continue to deny God’s existence and His truths.
but like I always say, I think for many it simply boils down to this…
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible” - St. Thomas Aquinas
basically God gives us evidence but not everyone can ‘see’ it. but at the same time leaves just enough doubt to where faith is still required on some level.
K
KevinK
Guest
These are not examples of logic.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Transubstantiation doesn’t require eisegesis. It’s not attempting to be an argument from Scripture, but rather, from philosophy.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
“This is my body,” Matt 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24
“This is my blood,” Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
I know. The whole transubstantiation thing is described in archaic language. Remember that physical science was considered ‘natural philosophy’ . They did not have a handle on all the theory and processes that we do now, so they still describe things in much vaguer terms. Now that we know about atoms, the periodic table, etc. this all seems silly and illogical.Frankenfurter:
I don’t know…this transubstantaiation thing still seems illogical, …to start out with one thing, turn it into another thing , while still looking or resembling the first thing…all this science and quantum stuff doesn’t seem to cover or explain that…i mean water into wine is more logical as supernatural, logical because we understand that the two things are not one, wine is wine and water is water. Natural is natural, and supernatural is supernatural.
But turning to scripture, we see that clearly what is being described (in John 6) is the way that spirit and life are communicated between God and his creation. Do we really expect that this can be explained with the logic of microscopic physical science? I don’t. Spirit and life are in ALL of creation and are derived from it. God has imbued his spirit into all of creation and we must discern this spirit. We cannot do that without his help, or we will miss it. The scriptures are necessary. We cannot discern everything on our own. Take the scriptures, and take transubstantiation as necessary, and needed to understand God’s creation and your place in it. Don’t assume you can logically figure it out completely apart from that. If you could, there would be no need for scripture, no need for Christ to die on the cross for you. But there is a need. And that need is to give you the message that you cannot discern on your own.
M
mcq72
Guest
And why would they be bothered if He ascended.? Christ certainly intimated that they would be.
Why would they be bothered if the eating and drinking was in an unbloody manner, and thru Passover elements that they were familiar with?
Why was Peter offended that Christ should suffer?
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Not sure about this. Definitely getting into philosophy that may run parralel to some aspect of Christianity, but darkness also dances parallel to light.
Yes, we can discern God in everything but I would not say His spirit is in everything.
Of the several views of eucharist, none claim to be on their own, to be apart from scripture, or the Cross, or revelation, or even history. Yet to the point that if any view has aspects in error, then indeed that is apart from His revelation and guidance.
Last edited:
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
From the Cathecism:Frankenfurter:
Not sure about this. Definitely getting into philosophy that may run parralel to some aspect of Christianity, but darkness also dances parallel to light.
Yes, we can discern God in everything but I would not say His spirit is in everything.
In creation
[703] The Word of God and his Breath are at the origin of the being and life of every creature:63
It belongs to the Holy Spirit to rule, sanctify, and animate creation, for he is God, consubstantial with the Father and the Son. . . . Power over life pertains to the Spirit, for being God he preserves creation in the Father through the Son. 64
So, thank you for the correction. I should not say that God’s spirit is in all of creation, but that his spirit is the origin of all creatures. There is indeed room in creation for things that are apart from or even counter to God as you noted.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Which is fine. Don’t get caught up in the “how?” that transubstantiation explains, and just believe in the “what?” of the Real Presence. You’re all good.
That’s your interpretation. Another valid one is that He simply pointed out that He wasn’t going to be drinking any wine until after His resurrection.
Umm… those are arguments for the Real Presence, not transubstantiation.
I know! Really! How dare Aquinas use archaic language! If he were really the “Angelic Doctor”, he should have had the courtesy to use 21st century idiomatic American English!!!
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Can a Catholic believe in the Real Presence but not in Transubstantiation? Can we accept one but reject the other?Umm… those are arguments for the Real Presence , not transubstantiation .
- Status