Transubstantiation is a Device of Man

[Carol_Coombe]

continued from previous

Keikiolu* Truth is not a “commodity” to be held in a box under lock and key. The Church (Catholic) wants nothing more than to distribute the Truth as widely as possible!*
***From Carol **The Catholic Church is not the only perfect and inerrant, infallible authority on all matters pertaining to faith, morals, dog licenses and the sale of olive oil or tea in China. Look back and reread your statement: of course the Church is proselytizing, but at least on this forum it has asked that other faiths and denominations not proselytize, and so I assume that it does not do so either. So we have here on the forum what really constitutes a defence of the faith, the Church as defender of the faith. You will have to think about the truths that you are promoting if you are going to be a defender of the faith in any authoritative way. It is not enough to say, This is the truth. It is correct and absolute. You are a pathetic pagan because you do not believe in this absolute truth. If you do, then you too can be as lucky as me.

Keikiolu Truth must be accepted as truth, by whatever “logic” it is that people accept “truths”.*
***From Carol ***As long as the truth that is accepted, logically of course, is your truth, ie the absolute truth of the CC?Keikiolu If you TRULY think that their religion is as “true” and “full” as yours, then why did you choose yours?
***From Carol ***Because I was a cradle Christian, and was baptized into the Christian faith.Because I traveled all over the world for twenty+ years, and met people of different faiths whom I learned to respect for their faith. Because I visited mosques, cathedrals, shrines, temples, churches, and other places of worship of the faithful. Because I observed and talked to the faithful. Because I read the Bagavad Ghita and the Mahabarata, the Dalai Lama, Krishnamurthy and Vinobha Bave, Vanier, Nouwen, Merton, Nolan and others. Because I worked with the world’s leading peace activists like Adam Curle and Sonny Ramphal inter alia. Because I have been upheld in my faith by Catholic religious, principally Jesuits, with whom I worked, as well as many others of alternative faiths. I was able to choose and I chose, despite my knowledge of other faiths, to grow in strength in my own Christian religion and, for better or worse, to do that within the paradigm of the Catholic Church. I repeat: I made the choice, and I made it on the basis of an informed life experience.

That does not in any sense denigrate others’ faith, their worship, their beliefs. Not one bit. I chose what is best for me in my culture. Being Catholic, incidentally, has not prevented many Catholic Christians like Bede Griffiths (go Google) from combining his Catholic faith with many elements of Buddhism. Keikiolu It’s fine to respect other religions as what they are, but to elevate them to being on par with what you KNOW is a “superior product” is quite simply wrong. Would you not agree?
Who do you think you are? Who do you think we are? Do you think that our beloved God or Christ does not love the divine spark in each human? Who are we to judge? That is not our obligation or responsibility or prerogative. We are ***all ***beloved of God. Please, please, please, we are not talking about a ‘superior product’. How awful! Like Omo over Surf! Or a Subaru over a Ford.

Jabulani

Any comments from Joan P? Am I being too hard on Keikiolu?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Keikiolu* Truth is not a “commodity” to be held in a box under lock and key. The Church (Catholic) wants nothing more than to distribute the Truth as widely as possible!***
***From Carol ****The Catholic Church is not the only perfect and inerrant, infallible authority on all matters pertaining to faith, morals, dog licenses and the sale of olive oil or tea in China. Look back and reread your statement: of course the Church is proselytizing, but at least on this forum it has asked that other faiths and denominations not proselytize, and so I assume that it does not do so either. So we have here on the forum what really constitutes a defence of the faith, the Church as defender of the faith. You will have to think about the truths that you are promoting if you are going to be a defender of the faith in any authoritative way. It is not enough to say, *This is the truth. It is correct and absolute. You are a pathetic pagan because you do not believe in this absolute truth. If you do, then you too can be as lucky as me.

Keikiolu Truth must be accepted as truth, by whatever “logic” it is that people accept “truths”.**
From Carol **** As long as the truth that is accepted, logically of course, is your truth, ie the absolute truth of the CC?Keikiolu If you TRULY think that their religion is as “true” and “full” as yours, then why did you choose yours?
***From Carol ***Because I was a cradle Christian, and was baptized into the Christian faith.Because I traveled all over the world for twenty+ years, and met people of different faiths whom I learned to respect for their faith. Because I visited mosques, cathedrals, shrines, temples, churches, and other places of worship of the faithful. Because I observed and talked to the faithful. Because I read the Bagavad Ghita and the Mahabarata, the Dalai Lama, Krishnamurthy and Vinobha Bave, Vanier, Nouwen, Merton, Nolan and others. Because I worked with the world’s leading peace activists like Adam Curle and Sonny Ramphal inter alia. Because I have been upheld in my faith by Catholic religious, principally Jesuits, with whom I worked, as well as many others of alternative faiths. I was able to choose and I chose, despite my knowledge of other faiths, to grow in strength in my own Christian religion and, for better or worse, to do that within the paradigm of the Catholic Church. I repeat: I made the choice, and I made it on the basis of an informed life experience.

---

That does not in any sense denigrate others’ faith, their worship, their beliefs. Not one bit. I chose what is best for me in my culture. Being Catholic, incidentally, has not prevented many Catholic Christians like Bede Griffiths (go Google) from combining his Catholic faith with many elements of Buddhism. Keikiolu It’s fine to respect other religions as what they are, but to elevate them to being on par with what you KNOW is a “superior product” is quite simply wrong. Would you not agree?
Who do you think you are? Who do you think we are? Do you think that our beloved God or Christ does not love the divine spark in each human? Who are we to judge? That is not our obligation or responsibility or prerogative. We are ***all ***beloved of God. Please, please, please, we are not talking about a ‘superior product’. How awful! Like Omo over Surf! Or a Subaru over a Ford.

Jabulani

---

Any comments from Joan P? Am I being too hard on Keikiolu?

 

[Mannyfit75]

When it comes to moral and faith issues, yes the Church is correct all the time because the Church received its authority from Jesus Christ.

The Church has taught against the use of contraceptions, homosexuality, abortions, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, because these are immoral acts against God.

I would re frame from being tempted to fall into grumpiness least you commit a sin against your own brother. Remember Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, “You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgement. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his own brother, shall be liable to judgment.”

So I ask that you pray to God not to be lead into temptation. You may not be Catholic but you are Christian. Therefore do not be grumpy.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Acts 8 (KJV)

Philip and the Ethiopian

26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

I love this story, and keeping coming back to it in my mind. There is such an element of fresh spontaneity in it; such trustful seeking by an eminent man, and help sent to him; and a very basic requirement of the Ethiopian: that he believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

He was baptised at once. Where does this leave us wrt doctrine and dogma and particularly the difficult issue of transubstantiation? The question could be made much more complex, but I shall leave it at that.

Jubulani

 

[Sixtus]

If God can become man, can He not become bread?

 

[Truthstalker]

If God can become man, can He not become bread?

As I understand it, in transubstantiation the substance of the bread is annihilated and replaced with the substance of Christ. So He does not become bread.

God did not become man. Rather, he took on human form.

Phil 2:7

but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

God is immutable, not subject to change.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Originally Posted by Carol Coombe

If I am a literalist, I would need a bit of Christ’s body to eat - His right finger? a left toe, a bit of hair? Disgusting thought, heinous sin, grotesque cannibalism.

The Catholic argument that it is through the process of transubstantiation that the bread and wine of Communion become, in substance but not appearance, the body and blood of Jesus Christ at consecration is not acceptable - for a variety of reasons - to many Christians, Catholic Christians, and moral non-Christians.

And because we cannot literally eat the body of the man Jesus of Nazareth, 2000 years after His death, it is evident that the communion bread and wine we take must be symbolic representations of His flesh and blood.

Why? Understanding our Creator God, and the laws of nature, makes it clear that natural laws of the universe/multiverse are fixed and immutable. as far as we know. Our current belief is that God will not intervene in the physical, chemical or biological laws which He has established for all time. If He did, we would be confronted by chaos and anarchy. Our brains have likely not evolved sufficiently to catch up with the true magnificence of His creation - but they will. (Even if one believes He did not create the laws which Newton, Einstein, Hawking et al are defining for us, the laws are still immutable. We must accept this at least until our brains catch up with a law that is not. There are suspicions, admittedly, about both brain and laws.)

The mandatory stability of physical matter means that the substance of the bread and wine of the Eucharist does not and cannot change into blood and flesh. I know, I know, you will say that according to the teaching of theology a revealed fact can be proved solely by recurrence to the sources of faith viz. Scripture and Tradition, with which is also bound up the infallible magisterium of the Church (Catholic Encyc).

As a Christian I am not bound by this belief, I will not eat Christ’s (literal) body, I am not interested in eating his transubstantiated flesh (which is itself but a symbol of the literal flesh and blood), but I do accept that the bread and wine we offer during the Eucharist, through Him, with Him and in Him, in memory of the death he freely accepted, represent his flesh and blood.

Do you think Jesus the man, before recognising His own Divinity on the cross, had any concept of transubstantiation when, 2000 years ago, he commanded us to drink and eat his body? He did not. Therefore how did he assume we were going to eat his flesh and body literally down through the ages?

Transubstantiation, as a concept, is a device of man and not of the Scriptures, whatever Jesus or the apostles are reported to have said about what we should eat and drink in His memory. It is the memory of His sacrifice that matters.

Do you really think that our God, a God of ineffable love and compassion, will send to hell (that is, make separate from His grace) all those who cannot or will not accept the concept of transubstantiation? Reading the Bible literally, as inerrant, in cases like this is quite certainly unChristian, an anathema to the loving grace of our compassionate God. This is the test by which we must read Scripture intelligently.

Blessings.

Carol began by saying, “If I were a literalist…” and then goes on to prove that she is one in her subsequent remarks. She makes no effort to cover up her contempt for the Catholic Church by attacking one of the core tenants of the faith; transubstantiation. Her arguments that natural laws preclude the possibility of transubstantiation are nothing new. I’ve been talking to non-Catholics about this since I was a kid. From her (sometimes offensive) remarks this is what I took away from her post:

1. Her remarks are anti-Catholic in tone and context.
2. She can’t believe that the Bible is inspired because it’s content challenge ‘natural law’ all over the place.
3. Her literalist beliefs make her more of an Agnostic than a Christian.
4. Her arguments conflict. On the one hand she refutes the miracle of transubstantiation on the basis that it is a violation of natural law. On the other hand she professes to be a Christian. Therefore she has either accepted God’s existence as a matter of faith or, she has literal proof of God’s existence…something I’d hope she’d share with the rest of us. Since we all know there is no ‘literal’ evidence of God’s existence…her natural law denial of transubstantiation and her faith based acceptance of God’s existence conflict, either she is a literalist or she is not. If God’s existance can be accepted as a matter of faith, why then can’t transubstantiation?

Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.
Demosthenes:

Iowa Mike

P.S. “Anything is possible for God”

 

[nerfherder]

Carol makes no effort to cover up her contempt for the Catholic Church by attacking one of the core tenants of the faith; transubstantiation…From her (sometimes offensive) remarks this is what I took away from her post:

I suppose the best defence is an attacking offence. But I do wish you would keep in mind that I am a would-be convert to Catholicism by choice. I am a baptised Christian, with an international background. I have learned as much as I can, and I am committed to this journey (sannyasi). There is no offence meant, because I do not intend to be offensive: why should I? All questions, all thinking, all ratiocination, should not be interpreted as an attack on the Church and its doctrines. Please give me the benefit of your doubt.

1. Her remarks are anti-Catholic in tone and context.

Because I come out of a different religious paradigm, to the Catholic paradigm, by choice, some of my questions may seem stupid by their nature. I am not inclined to be anti any belief system, as you would see from postings I have written all over the place. Go search.

1. She can’t believe that the Bible is inspired because it’s content challenges ‘natural law’ all over the place.

One must question what is ‘divinely inspired’ and what is not, or one becomes a mushy Catholic, unable to make a true commitment to the Church. The world ‘divine’ is used again and again (Google it) to legitimise the words of the one who is speaking - and I do not always trust that oral history is recorded correctly (I am a historian in a previous incarnation). Have you ever played pass the message.

1. Her literalist beliefs make her more of an Agnostic than a Christian.

Who are you? Who am I? Who are you to make this statement? I am a baptised Christian and continue to make my journey to Christ, guided by YOUR Church. Pray for less arrogance and more sensitivity to one of God’s children.

1. Her arguments conflict…If God’s existance can be accepted as a matter of faith, why then can’t transubstantiation?

You know perfectly well that the issue of transubstantiation is a difficulty for many Catholics; that the concept was promulgated under difficult circumstances; that it may keep many would-be Catholics out of the Church (you may prefer that perhaps); and that lack of belief, or failure to engage with the challenge of this belief, is leaving many Catholics in mortal sin when they participate in the Eucahrist. It is right to question, or I cannot join the Church in honesty.

I asked for bread and you gave me a stone.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

The previous posting is from Carol Coombe. Sorry for the mistake.

One last question: why are you so angry when a question is asked that causes you to revisit your core beliefs? We know that our progress to Christ is a life’s journey and that you too must grow in stature and belief through God’s grace, in the company of Christ.

Did you read what I wrote above? How else can I justify myself? What is it that you want me to say?

**How do I know I am Christian? **Because I was a cradle Christian, and was baptized into the Christian faith.Because I traveled all over the world for twenty+ years, and met people of different faiths whom I learned to respect for their faith. Because I visited mosques, cathedrals, shrines, temples, churches, and other places of worship of the faithful. Because I observed and talked to the faithful. Because I read the Bagavad Ghita and the Mahabarata, the Dalai Lama, Krishnamurthy and Vinobha Bave, Vanier, Nouwen, Merton, Nolan and others. Because I worked with the world’s leading peace activists like Adam Curle and Sonny Ramphal inter alia. Because I have been upheld in my faith by Catholic religious, principally Jesuits, with whom I worked, as well as many others of alternative faiths. I was able to choose and I chose, despite my knowledge of other faiths, to grow in strength in my own Christian religion and, for better or worse, to do that within the paradigm of the Catholic Church. I repeat: I made the choice, and I made it on the basis of an informed life experience.

CEC

 

[Iowa_Mike]

nerfherder

I am a baptised Christian, with an international background. I have learned as much as I can…There is no offence meant

Three points:

1. I fail to understand how an international background adds to this debate. Are you saying those without such a background are less?
2. I truly hope you’re open to more learning.
3. If it is your true intention not to be offensive you might avoid the use of invectives like ‘mushy Catholic’ or mocking descriptions to make your points. I don’t believe the use of these language conventions accidental.

One must question what is ‘divinely inspired’ and what is not, or one becomes a mushy Catholic, unable to make a true commitment to the Church.

Your suggestion that a ‘mushy Catholic’ is unable to make a true commitment to the Church is facinating when I compare this remark to your stated desire not to offend. The notion that a faithful Catholic cannot make a commitment to the Church is absurd.

The world ‘divine’ is used again and again (Google it) to legitimise the words of the one who is speaking - and I do not always trust that oral history is recorded correctly

I am sure you are aware that the Catholic Church was around for 1500 years before Luther’s heresy. Luther’s teachings regarding Sola Scriputra promulgated the belief that each individual can read and interpret the Bible as they see fit e.g. your views on divinity. This has led to thousands of Protestant denominations. Even within a given denomination they don’t believe or teach the same things, it’s pretty obvious they all can’t be right. This is where the Chair of Peter and the Magesterium of the Catholic Church comes in; Catholic doctrine and teachings have remained consisent over the centuries because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Who are you? Who am I? Who are you to make this statement?

I assume are reacting to my observation that you sound more like an Agnostic than a Christian? An Agnsotsic holds that knowledge of a Supreme Being is impossible. Since you are quick to apply the natural law argument to refute things you don’t believe but profess to being a Christian, I asked you for proof of God’s existence. Since you did not provide literal proof of His existance then your believe must be faith based ergo you are a Christian. So I think the arrogance is coming from your willingness to accept your faith based beliefs and reject mine out of hand.

You know perfectly well that the issue of transubstantiation is a difficulty for many Catholics; … and that lack of belief, or failure to engage with the challenge of this belief, is leaving many Catholics in mortal sin when they participate in the Eucahrist. It is right to question, or I cannot join the Church in honesty.

Catholics that struggle with transubstantiation are ignorant of their own faith. If a Catholic believes that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit then they are not difficult to bring back into the fold. Some, like yourself, pick and choose what they want to believe. Many don’t want to accept teachings on abortion, euthanasia, divorce etc. Too bad, their refusal to accept the Church’s teachings doesn’t make them wrong. With respect to your joining the Church, I hope and pray that you will continue your journey. But, you cannot become Catholic until you accept all of the Church’s doctrines and teachings.

Even in Jesus’ day there were those that refused to believe in transubstantiation. Read the following… But then you dismiss the writings of the eye witnesses to Christ’s life.

JOHN 6:53-66

54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father”. 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?”

Mary McLeod Bethune:
Without faith, nothing is possible. With it, nothing is impossible.

Iowa Mike

 

[Eireann]

**

I love this story, and keeping coming back to it in my mind. There is such an element of fresh spontaneity** in it; such trustful seeking by an eminent man, and help sent to him; and a very basic requirement of the Ethiopian: that he believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

He was baptised at once. Where does this leave us wrt doctrine and dogma and particularly the difficult issue of transubstantiation? The question could be made much more complex, but I shall leave it at that.

Jubulani

You ask questions and expect responses, I asked you a question in post #125 and you never answered.

So what are you getting at by quoting Acts ? spell it out.

One last question: why are you so angry when a question is asked that causes you to revisit your core beliefs? We know that our progress to Christ is a life’s journey and that you too must grow in stature and belief through God’s grace, in the company of Christ.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

from Carol Coombe

1. I fail to understand how an international background adds to this debate. Are you saying those without such a background are less? 2. I hope you’re open to more learning. 3. … you might avoid the use of invectives like ‘mushy Catholic’ or mocking descriptions…to make your points. I don’t believe the use of these language conventions accidental.

I was given huge opportunities for learning internationally, which I used. We must all be open to learning: that’s why I’m asking questions here. *Mushy Catholic’ *is *not *invective, and you know it: you are not one, nor will I be. Your perception of language usage is entirely misplaced, hateful on a Christian worksite. The depth of your antagonism, for which I refuse to accept responsibility, is astonishing.

Your suggestion that a ‘mushy Catholic’ is unable to make a true commitment to the Church is facinating when I compare this remark to your stated desire not to offend. The notion that a faithful Catholic cannot make a commitment to the Church is absurd.

Your language conventions are carefully chosen. I would prefer not to engage with such hostility. I want to be an honest Catholic, one who understands and accepts the true essence of the Catholic faith in daily prayer and action. Otherwise I cannot with integrity be confirmed in RCC.

You are aware the Catholic Church was around for 1500 years before Luther’s heresy… Catholic doctrine and teachings have remained consisent over the centuries because inspired by Holy Spirit.

Your ignorance is your bliss I am sure. I am an historian among other things.

I assume are reacting to my observation that you sound more like an Agnostic than a Christian? …Since you did not provide literal proof of His existance then your believe must be faith based ergo you are a Christian. So I think the arrogance is coming from your willingness to accept your faith based beliefs and reject mine out of hand.

I am so pleased you accept my profession of faith! I have not rejected your faith-based beliefs - you gave me insults and misplaced perceptions of what I think, who I am, what I should think. I have no idea who you are, why you are, and have no interest in rejecting your thus-far unknown beliefs. Are they worth hearing - do they contain literal truths? Or is it more: this is the truth because I am telling you this is the truth, and if you question or disagree, I shall finger you as Agnostic and you will go to Hell?

Catholics that struggle with transubstantiation are ignorant of their own faith. If a Catholic believes that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit then they are not difficult to bring back into the fold. Some, like yourself, pick and choose what they want to believe.

I think there are lots of Catholics who do not even *think *about transubstantiation. What makes you say I pick and choose? Because you say it so often you cannot avoid saying it again? Cafeteria Christian? How many times, my Lord, have I heard this phrase. Get a new one!

With respect to your joining the Church, I hope and pray that you will continue your journey. But, you cannot become Catholic until you accept all of the Church’s doctrines and teachings.

Thank you but I shall let my Bishop, my Jesuit colleagues, and my spiritual director be judges of that, as they walk with me. Please do not worry yourself.

Even in Jesus’ day there were those that refused to believe in transubstantiation. Read the following… But then you dismiss the writings of the eye witnesses to Christ’s life.

I did not dismiss! I asked a question! Read what is in front of you, please, before you commit further unjustice, and cause more sorrow and anger.

Iowa Mike

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Well whatever works for you…and a question for you.

What do you make of the verses below ? I mean if it’s only bread and wine how can we profane it ?

[27]
**Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. **

[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Thank you.

I agree with your concern about those who profess to be Catholics needing to understand and accept the full implications of these verses. That is why I am determined to understand their implications for my belief before I undertake any conversion to the Church: I cannot be less than honest in the face of Church doctrine. Mind you, it seems to me that if I waited until I understood every nook and cranny of The Truth I would be dead. So what to do?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

You ask questions and expect responses, I asked you a question in post #125 and you never answered.

See reply.

So what are you getting at by quoting Acts ? spell it out.

Yes, sir! Between the Ethiopian’s sufficient belief, and his baptism into the faith, there is a very short contretemps with Phillip. It was sufficient for him to say *I believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. *Simple as that. Me, I have to go through the aftermath of 2000 years of thinking, praying, contemplation, scholarship, infallible bulls etc., to understand the essence of the faith, and to join the Church in all honesty.

Don’t know who your referring to here, but posts work better if it’s a two way road.

This was for Iowa Mike - think that’s clear. Sorry.

Anyway what in Acts is so revealing to you, that it brings the Catholic Church to it’s knees ?

See above. I just wish, I suppose, that it was rather more pleasant to be with Christ than it is at present, undergoing this kind of Inquisition. I really thought I would find help. Instead I find a very rocky road indeed, with little succour. I try to follow Christ’s examples, but am completely thrown off-base.

 

[guanophore]

Three points:

1. I fail to understand how an international background adds to this debate. Are you saying those without such a background are less?

If you are in doubt about Carol’s sincerity, Mike, you need to go back and read some of her previous posts. You have grossly misjudged her. Having travelled and studies widely is relevant because she has seen and experienced all these other faiths and practices,and has gradually and continually realized that her heart is not only Christian, but Catholic!

1. I truly hope you’re open to more learning.

I can assure you that you will find few on this forum more open to learning than Carol, which is why I think you have misjudged.

1. If it is your true intention not to be offensive you might avoid the use of invectives like ‘mushy Catholic’ or mocking descriptions to make your points. I don’t believe the use of these language conventions accidental.

She was speaking about herself, Iowa Mike. She said that if she does not question and study, and comprehend with the mind, she would seem to hersel flike a mushy Catholic, and she is not interested in that.

Your suggestion that a ‘mushy Catholic’ is unable to make a true commitment to the Church is facinating when I compare this remark to your stated desire not to offend. The notion that a faithful Catholic cannot make a commitment to the Church is absurd.

It is not absurd to her, IowaMike. Carol is a person who is both passionate and doggedly meticulous. She would not be able to make the commitment she intends to make at Easter if she was “mushy” about it. In reference to your other statements, you know yourself that there are plenty of “faithful” Catholics who are committed to the Church, yet very ignorant about their faith.

So I think the arrogance is coming from your willingness to accept your faith based beliefs and reject mine out of hand.

It is hard to know the source of someone’s inquiry. It may be that what seems to you like arrogance is really hurt. If indeed it is, then it might be as well ascribed to the prejudicial attitude with which you have responded.

Catholics that struggle with transubstantiation are ignorant of their own faith.

This is just horse hockey, IowaMike. Faithful Catholics have struggled with Transubstantiation since the first century. Let’s distinguish between accepting a teaching in faith, and struggling because it doesn’t make any rational sense. I speak for myself in this matter.

If their refusal to accept the Church’s teachings doesn’t make them wrong. With respect to your joining the Church, I hope and pray that you will continue your journey. But, you cannot become Catholic until you accept all of the Church’s doctrines and teachings.

Questioning and failing intellectual grasp is not the same as refusing teaching. This is where I think you have been inappropriately judgemental. The whole reason Carol is here is that she intends to make a profession of faith at Easter to accept doctrines and teachings she does not understand.

Even in Jesus’ day there were those that refused to believe in transubstantiation.

Again, failure to intellectually grasp is NOT the same as not believing. But for the active and researching mind, one must supplement belief with understanding. 2 Peter 1:5
5 For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge"

 

[Eireann]

Thank you.

I agree with your concern about those who profess to be Catholics needing to understand and accept the full implications of these verses. That is why I am determined to understand their implications for my belief before I undertake any conversion to the Church: I cannot be less than honest in the face of Church doctrine. Mind you, it seems to me that if I waited until I understood every nook and cranny of The Truth I would be dead. So what to do?

Well it looks like below Peter took a great leap of faith, he didn’t walk away when many did, as Jesus said, " does this scandalize you" ?
And Peters answer as you know, " to whom shall we go Lord, you have the message of eternal life."

If your observant you’ll notice that Jesus didn’t correct Himself on this one, He let them walk away.

Yes, sir! Between the Ethiopian’s sufficient belief, and his baptism into the faith, there is a very short contretemps with Phillip. It was sufficient for him to say I believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

And this is all the Ethiopian had to do, and they all lived happily ever after ?..no.
Being Baptized doesn’t guarantee Salvation, it is for the removal of original sin, that doesn’t mean we can’t fall again.

See above. I just wish, I suppose, that it was rather more pleasant to be with Christ than it is at present, undergoing this kind of Inquisition. I really thought I would find help. Instead I find a very rocky road indeed, with little succour. I try to follow Christ’s examples, but am completely thrown off-base.

Well I haven’t been rude to you, as for being pleasant, well every Rose has thorns, at least the ones I’ve seen, Matt: 1624 Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

It never was easy to be a follower of Christ, not at the beginning, and certainly not in these times either, when there is attacks on the Church from with-in and with-out.

“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE WITHIN YOU.”
**
How can eating something symbolic give you eternal life ?**

Eucharist

 

[RobbyS]

Exactly. There is no point in trying to understand what is beyond our ability to understand. Western philosophy seems to tell us we have to figure everything out- that we can’t contemplate the mystery of God and appreciate that He is greater than words can describe. God reveals himself more as people draw closer to Him, so the way to learn more about God is to go deeper in prayer. People get so excited about St. Thomas Aquinas’ writings, and don’t seem to understand that he stopped writing because he realized that everything he could write is nothing compared to the greatness of God.

One thing to remember is that owing to the Christological debates of the 4th Century, “Substance” took on a new meaning. Hitkerto, it was given the philosophic meaning and the Church had said this was not proper. At Nicaea and later, the term was given a new meaning. The “substance” of Jesus is to be undertood in terms of its relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit. When we worthily take the body and blood of Christ, we come as close as we can on this earth to a holy relationship with the Holy Trinity.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

**

How can eating something symbolic give you eternal life ?

**

This is an interesting comment I think. Do you believe that partaking of the Eucharist will give you eternal life?

Or is it all part, and perhaps the ultimate confirmation of, our lives as Christians, bringing us into full intimacy with Christ?

I am not sure that I would agree that it is the Eucharist which bestows a guarantee of life everlasting.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

By your definition, God does not intervene with the laws of nature and in so, God cannot make the bread and wine into His body and blood and so forth.

I have proposed that God has chosen not to interfere with the laws he established to govern the material world. God of course *can make bread and wine into flesh and blood - *but on the evidence, it seems probable that he might choose not to do so. On the evidence, I have not decided if I have enough faith to overcome the obstacles I encounter in believing this kind of miracle worked on the material world.

God, who created the universe and its laws, are above the natural law, would you agree with me on this point?

Yes.

You would also agree with me that natural laws do not bind on him, right?

Yes.

Woud you agree that God, being all powerful, knowing, and goodness, can do all things possible that is in accordance with His Will?

Yes. The question is whether He chooses to do so or not. He does choose to intervene in the social aspects of His Creation; I am convinced that He does not in the material world. But this is partly a matter of logic, and partly a matter of faith. My experience has been with humanity not scientific laws.

Since God is the Creator of the universe and its laws, by His being, he can well indeed interfere(intervene) into the universe that is His.

He can if he chooses to do so, but why would He not then, as far as the material world and the laws that govern it, stop the tsunamis and earthquakes, correct the drought and flooding in southern Africa, stop the HIV pandemic, prevent the flooding of New Orleans, or step in to stop global warming in its tracks, and alleviate the suffering it is causing and will cause? I think, because these natural calamities smite His people whom He loves, He would be more likely to intervene in these events - which we are powerless to stop, than focusing on the ‘miracle’ at Lanciano, or transubstantian as a support for His people who are already in his fold.

You must realize that God can indeed bend his “immutable laws of nature” to his Will.

Of course: but does He choose to?

How would you explain all the “miracles” Jesus performed be of nature since it itself defies nature. Turning water into wine? Raising the dead? Curing the blinds? Healing the sick? And especially, ESPECIALLY His own RESURRECTION! That by itself is truly a MIRACLE. Miracles are called miracles because they DEFIED the LAWS of NATURE.

Jesus was divine, and therefore not bound by the laws of nature. He chose to use apparent and often highly visible miracles as part of His teaching mission.

If there’s a logically explanation to the things that happen in the world, then it is voided of the definition of miracles. Miracles happened because it helps us touch with the supernatural realm that belongs to God. It is like a bite of a sweet cake.

That is a nice insight.

In getting at the point, the Eucharist itself is truly a miracle since God himself, being all merciful and loving, would come down into His universe and transfer a piece of bread and a cup of wine into the most awesomeness gift that He gives to us. The scope of the awesomeness of the Eucharist does not limit God, but perfect His being and His love for us. This mystery takes a step of faith, and once you accepted it wholeheartedly, the joy would overcome you that you realize that God can do all things possible.

I have no doubt God can do all this possible, if He chooses. And if He chooses the change wine and bread into flesh and blood, it will give great joy to many of His people who are already in His grace by faith.

There is great suffering in the world. God can do anything. Why has He chosen not to alleviate the suffering of 98 per cent of the world’s population, but instead to focus on transubstantiation as His most visible and powerful, constant and consistent miracle?

So yes, God can allow for the change of the substance of bread and wine into the flesh and blood of the Divinity of Christ.

Yes, I agree fully that He can allow for this - if He chooses.

Blessings Phat and thank you for your insights, which I shall think on.

 

[Eireann]

---

This is an interesting comment I think. Do you believe that partaking of the Eucharist will give you eternal life?

Yes.

Or is it all part, and perhaps the ultimate confirmation of, our lives as Christians, bringing us into full intimacy with Christ?

How ?

I am not sure that I would agree that it is the Eucharist which bestows a guarantee of life everlasting.

Peter could have had his doubts too, like I said, many walked away, but Peter stuck with it.

And another question, if the Eucharistic is symbolic as many say,** "how can we symbolically eat the flesh of the son of man and drink His blood " **?

Sorry that’s just a different twist on the same question.