Transubstantiation is a Device of Man

[Carol_Coombe]

Carol,
I feel that I have become lost amid the all of the clutter.

We are wandering about a bit: perhaps it would help to make a list of central questions.

Transubstantiation has to do with a change in the substance of material, but not the appearance. I do not believe that the immutable laws of nature, established by God but not binding on Him, allow for the change of the substance of bread or wine into the flesh/blood and divinity of Christ. I do not believe in miracles as they are generally defined: they do not happen. I do believe that the world happens as it happens, and that God does not intervene, for a variety of reasons, in its material workings. He clearly does intervene in its social relationships.

There is room in the Church for people who are seeking the truth. …I think some people may be mis-reading your posts and assuming that you are rejecting Church teaching as opposed to questioning it.

Thank you for this reassurance. I am *a seeker. **The tough questions however, are not answered, and there is a defensiveness about replies. **I am trying to understand Church teaching as opposed to rejecting, questioning or accepting it. It would be dishonest of me to be a Catholic if I cannot accept the principal beliefs of the Catholic form of Christian faith. *

I haven’t seen anyone correctly explain … that Jesus Christ is fully present in the Eucharist in the SPECIES *substance] *of bread and wine. The bread and wine do not become flesh and blood [in appearance], [there could be] symbolism there…

*I thank you for your clarification on the difference between change in substance (ie from bread to flesh) as opposed to appearance (it still looks like bread). *

*Difficulties over the concept of transubstantiation cloud what for me is the central fact of the Eucharist: it is then Christ is present among us; it is manifest and it is tangible, an awesome blessing for all those who are aware of it. The Eucharist brings Christ to us, we are in His Presence, we are humbled and exalted. *

Presence does not depend on the substantial nature of what is offered to us. It is the Presence of Christ among us that is the most significant feature of communion. And perhaps controversy about transubstantiation clouds that feature for many Catholics and would-be Catholics.

[We need to] think and investigate things for ourselves rather than just “take it on the authority of the Church”.

I have been troubled by the number of posters telling me this is so because it is so, the Church says. I have asked repeatedly (1) why Catholics respond in this way; and (2) why they are so certain they can rely 100*% on the Church’s interpretation, without processing it through their own minds and experience. *

‘Well that is what we have been told; that is the way it is; that is the truth; do NOT propose an alternative’ seems not only arrogant, but at denigrates the beliefs of other Christian denominations and other faiths entirely.

If we do not know the foundation and reasons for our belief it can be very easily uprooted. Those who have questioned and learned their faith on a deeper level are stronger for it.

*My Catholic mentors have emphasised this point. Perhaps it is because converts have to ‘win’ their belief by questioning, searching, contemplating and accepting or rejecting they sometimes tend ultimately to be more committed in belief and practice… *

What the Church will tell you, if you disagree with any of her teachings is that your conscience is not fully formed. [If you are still not] convinced of the truth of a teaching the Church asks you to accept it on faith. We might disagree in our mind but should not try and publicly lead others away from their faith. …If you have sought, learned and prayed for guidance then follow the directions that God is speaking to your conscience.

*Wonderful! Two points here for consideration. The degree of flexibility and sensitivity from one priest to another, one bishop to another will vary dramatically. Second, we indeed should not, by questioning, be seen to be ‘publicly lead others away from their faith’. That is why I am troubled when people say ‘this is the truth and no other’ implying my belief, my own truth, has no merit and should be abandoned. This could be a hidden form of proselytising. *God brings us into the Kingdom if we have tried hard to understand His commandments and follow them. The rest is of far less consequence, if any.

Blessings

 

[VociMike]

We are wandering about a bit: perhaps it would help to make a list of central questions.

Transubstantiation has to do with a change in the substance of material, but not the appearance. I do not believe that the immutable laws of nature, established by God but not binding on Him, allow for the change of the substance of bread or wine into the flesh/blood and divinity of Christ. I do not believe in miracles as they are generally defined: they do not happen.
Do you not believe in the Resurrection? Do you not believe that Christ died and resurrected? There is no more fundamental belief in all of Christianity.

I do believe that the world happens as it happens, and that God does not intervene, for a variety of reasons, in its material workings. He clearly does intervene in its social relationships.

 

[DallasCatholic]

I have been troubled by the number of posters telling me this is so because it is so, the Church says. I have asked repeatedly (1) why Catholics respond in this way; and (2) why they are so certain they can rely 100% on the Church’s interpretation, without processing it through their own minds and experience.

I can only speak for myself. In the past I responded that way to questions that I hadn’t thought about or to questions to which I had no response. As a cradle Catholic certain truths are inculcated and never questioned. So for some of us no other explanation is needed…it was good enough for my parents. What I have found in my journey is that the Catholic Church has very specific and documented reasons for everything it teaches. Most of these can be found in the Catechism, which does a wonderful job of explaining many things. However, I have found it necessary sometimes to go beyond the Catechism to try and understand the Catechism. I have seen in other forums where people ask “What does the Church teach about…”. Typically people respond by quoting from the Catechism. I have found that many people who post these types of questions have read the Catechism and just don’t understand it. Sometimes we have to make the teaching real or relevant to our lives.

Wonderful! Two points here for consideration. The degree of flexibility and sensitivity from one priest to another, one bishop to another will vary dramatically. Second, we indeed should not, by questioning, be seen to be ‘publicly lead others away from their faith’. That is why I am troubled when people say ‘this is the truth and no other’ implying my belief, my own truth, has no merit and should be abandoned. This could be a hidden form of proselytising. God brings us into the Kingdom if we have tried hard to understand His commandments and follow them. The rest is of far less consequence, if any.

You have hit the nail on the head. There is flexibility and sensitivity from one Priest or Bishop to the next. One of the sad facts of the Catholic Church is that there have been many Priests, some Bishops (and even at least one Pope) who have not defended the faith properly either through teaching heterodoxy or by not stamping out heresy. I have a friend who posits that Islam was created because a Pope failed to stamp out a heresy. Even if a particular Priest or Bishop is 100% Orthodox they may have varying opinions on certain matters. Too often Catholics take what they hear from a Priest without question because…well, he is a Priest. A Priest is supposed to know about stuff like that. When in fact, said Priest may be totally incorrect. One of the great misconceptions of most Protestants is that the Church is one great dictatorship where the Pope makes the rules and everyone must follow them. In reality there are very few hard and fast doctrines that a Catholic must believe (I will have to refer to the Catechism but I believe there are 6). Other than that there is much that is left open to interpretation, so there can be legitimate differences between the clergy.

Regarding your second point, I do not believe that honest questioning (even in a public forum) can be construed as publicly leading people away from their faith. While there may be some cases where someone might question their own beliefs after seeing someone else question them, I believe that most people are strengthened in their faith by reading posts like this. I believe that most of the hostility or defensiveness is just a gut reaction when people perceive they are being attacked. Especially when what is being questioned is an “unquestionable truth”. Personally, I feel that if more Catholics truly believed in the Real Presence then we would have Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in every Church in the world. I include myself in that group because I struggle with the Real Presence. Personally I understand the teaching and I believe the teaching on an intellectual level. I also believe and understand the teaching on a visceral level most of the time. What I struggle with is trying to live that belief ALL of the time.

 

[jimmy]

‘Well that is what we have been told; that is the way it is; that is the truth; do NOT propose an alternative’ seems not only arrogant, but at denigrates the beliefs of other Christian denominations and other faiths entirely.

Other Christian denominations are irrelevant to what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church can’t change its teachings because some reject the teachings. The teachings predate protestantism and all other churches. There can be no alternative. The teaching is what it is. It is what Christ told us therefore it is what we hold to. Christ did not say that it was symbolic. He said, 'this is body, ‘this is my blood’. Just like Christ was God-man, the Eucharist is the God-man. Christ did not appear to men to be God, yet He was. The same with the Eucharist. You don’t see it to be the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ but it is. It is a matter of faith. It is the faith. It is the foundation of the Church. Without the Eucharist there would be no Church. As Paul says, ‘the kingdom of heaven is within you.’ In the Eucharist we recieve communion with God. We recieve the kingdom of heaven, Jesus, into our body and soul. It is not the substantial presence ‘among us’ of Christ that makes the Eucharist significant, it is the substantial presence of Christ within us after we have recieved that makes it significant. Through our reception of the Eucharist we become a sacrament to the world. In each of us the rest of the world encounters Christ. *

 

[JimG]

Carol Coombe:

Which belief: in eating the actual blood and body of Christ, or in remembering him by joining in a communion/Eucharist similar to the Last Supper?

Both. Christ instituted the Eucharist during a memorial meal which he commanded his followers to continue, with the understanding that when they did, he would become really present.

I wasn’t there at the Last Supper; only the Apostles were. So it is to them that we look for an understanding of what we do when we celebrate this Eucharist. The meaning has been handed down from then until the present day, through the apostles and their successors. I really don’t think that Jesus intended to leave the “interpretation” of this up in the air. He said “this is my body,” and meant it. That’s how the apostles and their successors understood it. How can I, who was not there, try to second guess what has been handed down?

I think that there are any number of varying interpretations of a number of very very difficult issues in our universe, transubstantiation being only one of them. The lack of fit between Newtonian physics and Einstein’s theory of relativity which scientists have recognised now actually exists, requires interpretation of which there are a number.

Yes, but keep in mind that scientific interpretations are simply a way to try to get at the truth of a particular underlying reality which is at present unknown. Scientists don’t generally assume that all interpretations are equally valid. When they come across one that seems true, they stick with it unless it is proven false. And science has no negative charism to protect it from error.

When it comes to the handing down of the Faith, the Church has a negative charism, not a positive one. It’s mission is to faithfully hand down what was received. It can’t make positive statements about things which are not in the deposit of faith. When presented with a philosophical description of the real presence or of the Trinity, or of the hypostatic union, it can’t say, yes, this particular formulation exhausts every iota of meaning in the concept. Nothing further can ever be said or understood.” But what it can say, because of it’s negative charism of protection by the Holy Spirit, is: “that particular formulation is not what we have always believed. It’s not what we received from Christ and the apostles, and therefore cannot be accepted.

It is rather as if you had an extensive oral history of family events (as in fact my own family does.) If someone were to say to me, “that is not what your grandmother really meant” or “that particular event never happened that way, because I researched all the family letters,” I would say, no you are wrong, because those are the things that have been handed down to me from the beginning, and my family doesn’t lie.

As to whether or not the teachings of the Church are binding on all believers in Christ, I would say this: All Christian churches ultimately derive from and depend in some way on the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church had not been founded by Christ, there would be no others. There would, in fact, be no bible. If I were to think about leaving the Church, I would have to ask, like Peter, “Lord, to whom should we go?”

 

[DallasCatholic]

Carol,
Are you familiar with the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy? I found it to be very powerful. A brief outline is available here:
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

[jimmy]

*Transubstantiation has to do with a change in the substance of material, but not the appearance. I do not believe that the immutable laws of nature, established by God but not binding on Him, allow for the change of the substance of bread or wine into the flesh/blood and divinity of Christ. I do not believe in miracles as they are generally defined: they do not happen.
*

Are you a unitarian universalist? The only place I have encounted a view like this is in discussions with unitarian universalists.

Do you believe in the virgin birth or the ressurrection of Jesus or the raising of Lazarus or that of Jairus’ daughter? Do you believe that Jesus healed leppers and many other people with diseases?

If you believe in those there is no reason you couldn’t believe in transubstantiation or any other miracle. With God anything is possible. As Jesus tells the apostles if you had faith of a mustard seed a mountain would pick itself up and throw itself into the sea. Jesus, our God, gave the authority to the Church through the apostles to confect the Eucharist and to perform the other sacraments.

 

[KennC]

Say Jim … did you know Superman has Chuck Norris pajamas?

 

[guanophore]

One is terribly caught between the Evangelicals who believe that if one even questions the full truth of any word of the Bible, it is Satan speaking, and an RCC statement like this one which is actually the same thing.

May be you think that because I live in Africa I practice voodoo stuff? No, I don’t actually, but attend service at our local Catholic Church 7 times a week, and have a spiritual director there.

Do you really believe that Satan has put me up to these apparently awful questions about belief in transubstantiation? An answer would be really appreciated, to see how deep-rooted *absolute *belief is for some people.

No, I do not htink your questioning is demonic. In fact, I sometimes think that, if you could be relieved of it, things would be a lot easier for you. However, it is your cross to bear in life!

You are right about the rabid nature of inerrancy beliefs, whether it be scripture, or the Teachings. But, consider looking at it another way.

I have worked with some Satanists, and it is true that they do believe in transubstantiation, or at least will act like they do. they try to descrate the Holy Eucharist. In much the same way, they have said “my life mission is to make Christians miserable”. Asked how they choose who to harass, they look for “obvious signs”. This would be what I consider the fruit of the Spirit. It reminds me of that bumper sticker that says “if you were arrested for being Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” these Satanists are looking for evidence. their conviction about the Host is a source of evidence, too. It is another testimony to the truth. Yes, one must consider the source, but as the Apostle writes; "even the demons believe - and shudder "James 2:19

Why is it easier for demons to believe in the truths of Christain faith than people of reason? They are not hindered by reason. They can also “see” on the other side, and we see through a glass darkly. One testimony to the divinity of Jesus is that from the demons, who recognized him;

Matt 8:28-29

28 And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demoniacs met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way. 29 And behold, they cried out, "What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?

(They had immediate clarity about His identity and mission.)

Mark 1:33-34
34 And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.

Luke 4:40-41
41 And demons also came out of many, crying, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.

Luke 4:32-35
33 And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon; and he cried out with a loud voice, 34 “Ah! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.” 35 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!”

Acts 16:16-18
16 As we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by soothsaying. 17 She followed Paul and us, crying, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation.” 18 And this she did for many days."

My point being that people who want to dispute the identity of Christ, or His mission and authority have not only to contend with the testimony of eyewitnesses, but also to the testimony of demons. Granted, it is not admissable in a court of law, but it is still a source of testimony.

It would also help to know the difference in response between born Catholics, and those Catholic converts, or would-be converts who have to question, think, contemplate, make choices, read and pray very hard before they decide to join - or not to join - this Catholic Church.

I am not sure …response to what?

We need to know, we need to question, we need to accept, we need to believe, we need peace in our choice.

Blessings.

I don’t know that I have ever witnessed anyone struggle so hard as you. Is it possible for you to have peace in the process? I would hope so, but I note you don’ t find much peace in your dialogues here. I gather that you find more peace with your spiritual directors and mentors, which is good. I am certain that you will end up where you need to be, in fact, it seems to me that you are ALREADY right where you need to be. Your friend,
Guan

 

[guanophore]

Which belief: in eating the actual blood and body of Christ, or in remembering him by joining in a communion/Eucharist similar to the Last Supper?

The belief in the actual body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist was handed down by the Apostles. Along with it, the words “do this in remembrance of me”. They have never been separated from the time of the Last Supper.

  I think that there are any number of varying interpretations of a number of very very difficult issues in our universe, transubstantiation being only one of them.

This is certainly true. Surely you don’t feel that you have to resolve all of them before joining the church!

While I think it fine for you to believe wholeheartedly that *it is the precise function of the (Roman) Church and the magisterium to say what we believe, *do you think that it is correct to say that its dictats actually cover all those who believe in the divinity of Christ, those who worship and serve under alternative and fully meritorious churches, like the Canadian Baptists, the United Church of Canada, the Presbyterians, the Methodists and others?

If I may take the liberty to respond to a question that was not directed to me, I will say “yes”. The Magesterium of the Catholic church believes that it has been given the duty, by Jesus, to profess, promulgate, guard and interpret the teachings of Jesus Christ. They believe that they were given this charge by Jesus who promised to be with them, and promised that His spirit would protect them from error. I also think they would say “yes” that duty extends not just to Catholics, but to all believers, and all the world (including different believers). this is the case because they believe they represent the TEachings of Christ most faithfully to all the world.

If you do believe this - and this is what I am trying to understand - WHY do you believe it? Why is there no room for other interpretations by other Christian people who are also divinely inspired, and are all equally divine, chosen and loved beyond measure by Our God?

This one I can’t venture to respond on behalf of another. For myself, I have learned that, although I don’t understand or agree with it all, my life is more peaceful and productive when I am obedient. I also note that, the more I am obedient and submissive, the more the Teachings make sense, or are easier to accept when they don’t make sense. I know that may not work for someone like yourself who has the need to reason it all out. Perhaps you will get a better response from a deeper thinker?

It is not enough to say that this is the way it is - the RCC rules absolutely on issues like transubstantiation, the completion of Christ's suffering, the definitions of faith and grace, and even the form of The Lord's Prayer - for there are others of differing and in my humble opinion equally plausible or estimable or commendable understandings and practices of the Christian faith.

What will be “enough”? Do you remember when I first met you in these fora, I read something like this, and said “well, if it is not enough, go on you way and be content” or something like “ignorance is bliss, enjoy your bliss” ? If there are other alternatives that are equally plausible or commendable, why make changes? I have learned that you have this bull by the horns because you are called to it. No one works that hard banging their head against the small minded and puffed up without a good reason! why are you called to it? What must you do to answer the call? Is it only your reason that must be satisfied?

Yes, there are lots of odd-balls out there, and I would never deny that. But there are many serving Christians, perhaps as many as a billion or more, who are NOT oddballs, and serve in every way as faithfully - according to their understanding of the Scriptures - as they can. Their churches were established centuries ago, some of them, and for some reason they continue to draw people to them. Would that happen if they were Satan-drive and apostate?

Please help me here.

Blessings

 

[jimmy]

Say Jim … did you know Superman has Chuck Norris pajamas?

Haha, I haven’t heard that one before.

 

[guanophore]

Carol,
I have been attempting to follow this thread and all of it’s wanderings and I feel that I have become lost amid the all of the clutter. So I ask for some clarification, can you succinctly define your objection to the Catholic belief in transubstantiation?

However, if after your seeking you are not convinced of the truth of a teaching the Church asks you to accept it on faith, even though you might not wholly agree. We might disagree in our mind but should not try and publicly lead others away from their faith. The Church believes that in the end when you are standing before Christ he will say “You know, that whole transubstantiation thing (or birth control, abortion…whatever the issue)? Well you were wrong and the Catholic Church was right but come on in anyway.” So, if you have sought, learned and prayed for guidance then follow the directions that God is speaking to your conscience. I have more, but I’ll stop now.

It seems to me that Carol is a person of impeccable integrity. If she knows she has to stand up in front of the congregation, and answer the question “Do you believe in ALL that the Catholic Church holds and teaches” and she cannot from the heart say she believes it, she will not feel comfortable going through with it. But, I agree with you, she is more Catholic than most Catholics.

 

[guanophore]

Can those who don’t believe in the Real Presence really be called Catholics? Since the Real Presence is so important to Catholic faith and one of the few things seperating them from Protestants, how can those who don’t believe in it possibly still consider themselves as Catholic?

And, if these “Catholics” receive the Eucharist at Mass, aren’t they committing a grave sin and being incredibly insulting to God?

I don’t mean to be offending, but as a new convert I just don’t understand how so many can possibly not feel the truth of this Presence if they go to Mass. I can’t even receive the Eucharist yet, and the power of God’s presence there is overpowering for me.

I really hope the Church and those in it start teaching and learning their faith more. I thank God I was brought into the faith by Catholics who knew their faith and what God teaches.

Yes, they have fallen away, if indeed they ever were faithful to their baptism.Yes, when they go to communion, they are in a state of grave sin “making their last state worse than their first”. But, have you seen the Church during confessions lately? there is a small handful of people, then at Mass it is packed! I can’t BELIEVE all these people have no mortal sin! So, it follows that most of the people going to confession go in a state of mortal sin.

I hope YOU start teaching it.!

 

[guanophore]

‘Well that is what we have been told; that is the way it is; that is the truth; do NOT propose an alternative’ seems not only arrogant, but at denigrates the beliefs of other Christian denominations and other faiths entirely.

Other Christian denominations are irrelevant to what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church can’t change its teachings because some reject the teachings. The teachings predate protestantism and all other churches. There can be no alternative. The teaching is what it is. It is what Christ told us therefore it is what we hold to.*

This is an example, Jimmy, of what Carol is trying to point out. She is saying, “why cant the Catholic Church be informed and enriched by the experience of other beliefs, especially other Christians?” (Correct me if I am misunderstanding, Carol) Throughout her postings she keeps reiterating that other faith traditions have merit, and things to offer from which the Catholic Church might benefit. she sees Christ told things to non-Catholics as well, and is questioning WHY Catholics are so closed to these truths, and why “there is no alternative”. The lack of opennes comes across as rigid, irrational, and arrogant.

* It is a matter of faith. It is the faith. It is the foundation of the Church. Without the Eucharist there would be no Church. As Paul says, ‘the kingdom of heaven is within you.’ In the Eucharist we recieve communion with God. We recieve the kingdom of heaven, Jesus, into our body and soul. It is not the substantial presence ‘among us’ of Christ that makes the Eucharist significant, it is the substantial presence of Christ within us after we have recieved that makes it significant. Through our reception of the Eucharist we become a sacrament to the world. In each of us the rest of the world encounters Christ. *

I think most protestants would say, along with our markedly Catholic Carol, that the Presence of God can be experienced without the ingestion of the elements, and that non-Catholics, overall, do a better job of being sacrament to the world, bringing Christ into society, than those who profess substantiation.

 

[jimmy]

This is an example, Jimmy, of what Carol is trying to point out. She is saying, “why cant the Catholic Church be informed and enriched by the experience of other beliefs, especially other Christians?” (Correct me if I am misunderstanding, Carol) Throughout her postings she keeps reiterating that other faith traditions have merit, and things to offer from which the Catholic Church might benefit. she sees Christ told things to non-Catholics as well, and is questioning WHY Catholics are so closed to these truths, and why “there is no alternative”. The lack of opennes comes across as rigid, irrational, and arrogant.

The point I am trying to make is that the Church did not simply decide it liked some belief therefore it made it dogma. The faith was given to the Church and the Church can not change it any more than it can change God. The Church has held to the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist since the time of Christ. All local churches professed it. It was universally held. Then comes some who rejected the faith and we are supposed to listen to their doctrine and say it is valid? That is an impossibility. That is the same thing as relativism. You might as well take the whole step and go straight to agnosticism because that is basically what it is.

To say that we should accept their teaching as valid is to say that we should abandon our teaching. It is to say that it doesn’t matter whether there was one church established by Christ, they are all equal even though they all(except for the one) rebelled or rejected the one.

I think most protestants would say, along with our markedly Catholic Carol, that the Presence of God can be experienced without the ingestion of the elements, and that non-Catholics, overall, do a better job of being sacrament to the world, bringing Christ into society, than those who profess substantiation.

In some sense it can be experienced but it is not the same thing. It is not a communion of natures. I will admit that they experience a relationship or presence of Christ. But it is not the same type of relationship. Most protestants don’t believe the idea of sacramentality(A sacrament is a visible sign of Gods invisible presence). They don’t understand God as using the world in this way. It is pretty much between me and God. The Catholic perspective is more inclusive of the world. God uses the world and the people in it to mediate His presence to His people. In a holy person like mother Theresa I would encounter God. Not only would I encounter someone who is a Godly person(that would mean that they are just living by the teachings of God), I would encounter God Himself within that person. When God made Jeremiah a fortified city, a bulwarck, and indestructable it was His substantial presence that made Jeremiah so. Almost all protestants would disagree with this. They don’t profess the deification view of Catholicism and the doctrine that Grace is a substantial thing. They generally believe that Grace is simply Gods favor.

 

[DallasCatholic]

The point I am trying to make is that the Church did not simply decide it liked some belief therefore it made it dogma. The faith was given to the Church and the Church can not change it any more than it can change God. The Church has held to the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist since the time of Christ. All local churches professed it. It was universally held. Then comes some who rejected the faith and we are supposed to listen to their doctrine and say it is valid? That is an impossibility. That is the same thing as relativism. You might as well take the whole step and go straight to agnosticism because that is basically what it is.

To say that we should accept their teaching as valid is to say that we should abandon our teaching. It is to say that it doesn’t matter whether there was one church established by Christ, they are all equal even though they all(except for the one) rebelled or rejected the one.

In some sense it can be experienced but it is not the same thing. It is not a communion of natures. I will admit that they experience a relationship or presence of Christ. But it is not the same type of relationship. Most protestants don’t believe the idea of sacramentality(A sacrament is a visible sign of Gods invisible presence). They don’t understand God as using the world in this way. It is pretty much between me and God. The Catholic perspective is more inclusive of the world. God uses the world and the people in it to mediate His presence to His people. In a holy person like mother Theresa I would encounter God. Not only would I encounter someone who is a Godly person(that would mean that they are just living by the teachings of God), I would encounter God Himself within that person. When God made Jeremiah a fortified city, a bulwarck, and indestructable it was His substantial presence that made Jeremiah so. Almost all protestants would disagree with this. They don’t profess the deification view of Catholicism and the doctrine that Grace is a substantial thing. They generally believe that Grace is simply Gods favor.

Jimmy,
No one, AFAIK, is asking you to not believe in the Real Presence. Carol is attempting to discern whether to enter the Catholic Church and is asking questions about a teaching that she finds difficult. She has stated that she is looking for more than just “because the Church says so”. She has not asked anyone to believe otherwise she is merely trying to understand our faith.

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy,
No one, AFAIK, is asking you to not believe in the Real Presence. Carol is attempting to discern whether to enter the Catholic Church and is asking questions about a teaching that she finds difficult. She has stated that she is looking for more than just “because the Church says so”. She has not asked anyone to believe otherwise she is merely trying to understand our faith.

I guess I misunderstood. I don’t know what she wants then. I think she asked ‘why don’t you give other churches views a chance’ or something along those lines? I don’t know what type of answer is hoped for with this question.

 

[DallasCatholic]

I guess I misunderstood. I don’t know what she wants then. I think she asked ‘why don’t you give other churches views a chance’ or something along those lines? I don’t know what type of answer is hoped for with this question.

I understand, this thread has been a long and winding road. I’m hoping that Carol will give us a new question or questions based on the responses she has received so far so that we can continue the dialog.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Do you not believe in the Resurrection? Do you not believe that Christ died and resurrected? There is no more fundamental belief in all of Christianity.

Why would God be OK with interfering in His creation one way, but refuse to interfere another way? What makes material interference so unique that God refuses to do so?

I know that the resurrection is the core of Catholic Christian belief. But if you ask me the question right now, I cannot answer because I have not considered yet how I would understand it. I need to know the Church’s teaching, and I need to know how I comprehend that teaching. At the moment, instinctively, I believe in the resurrection of Christ; tomorrow my brain might get in the way!

I think I have written several times on other threads about why I think He does not intervene in the material world, but does so in the social world. Natural law He has made immutable - as far as we know. It is not to anyone’s advantage to have random occurrences happening - like Emperor Ming in the movie *Flash Gordon *zapping up a hurricane.

On the other hand, I do believe that God has endowed man with sufficient intelligence - and this is perhaps a miracle in itself, although our brains do not seem to have evolved enough to do all that needs to be done - to cope (1) with the results for people of natural disasters (tsunami eg) and (2) with the intricacies of human life - individually and collectively - and the ramifications of multitudinous disasters that emanate from them. That means we should be able to deal with HIV, war, famine, drought, corruption in governments, collapse of a nation state (Zimbabwe eg). We don’t do it well, but we usually try. It seems to me that God DOES intervene here, not regularly or necessarily on request or consistently, but that he does hear prayer, he does respond to suffering, he does alleviate distress, whether in direct answer to prayer or on His own initiative. Perhaps that belief requires that I also believe in miracles but I don’t think so.

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

I know that the resurrection is the core of Catholic Christian belief. But if you ask me the question right now, I cannot answer because I have not considered yet how I would understand it. I need to know the Church’s teaching, and I need to know how I comprehend that teaching. At the moment, instinctively, I believe in the resurrection of Christ; tomorrow my brain might get in the way!

You are not the first or the last to have the brain get in the way. It is a little early in Lent for this, but consider just reading the story of the resurrection, and sitting with it, it may be hard, but try not to analyze (you can always do that later!).

Pretend you are Mary and have come to the tomb to annoint His body.