Real Presence?

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Personally, I enjoy dialoging with informed and kind persons of any and all faiths as there always is more to learn from them. For some years (before retirement) I taught comparative religions in college, and what a wealth of insight one finds in them…

...Moreover, I find that most Catholics I know – those who think a lot, anyway - insist on thinking independently, usually without exiting the Church. They attend Mass while dissenting on various matters. I find no fault in that as faith, it may be argued, has more to do with a deep emotional commitment than to any doctrines set in stone. (emphasis added)

First of all, you speak about the desire to dialog with "kind persons" and then you throw out what appears to be a thinly veiled insult concerning me and many others in the this thread. Obviously, I am not one of the Catholics that you are describing here, so does this mean that I don’t think a lot? I have a B.A. in psychology, a Master’s of Divinity, and a Master of Arts in Systematic Theology (which included a prerequisite of two years’ of philosophy), all of which were gotten the old fashioned way (i.e., attending actual classroom lectures, taking exams and doing research papers, over the course of several years). So I think I have done a great deal of thinking, especially in the field of human behavior, philosophy and religion. So what exactly makes the opinion of dissident Catholics who “think a lot” more credible than mine?

Secondly, what you seem to be promoting here is indifferentism, which is the belief that all religions are equally valid (source). Whereas the Catholic Church recognizes that many religions have elements of the truth, it is in the Catholic Church where the fullness of truth subsists. Therefore, the Catholic Church teaches us to recognize and appreciate the truth found in other religions, but to avoid the mentality of indifferentism.

The problem with indifferentism is that different religions teach many things which contradict one another. With this in mind, consider the Second Law of Logic, which is also known as the Law of Non-Contradiction: contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true. For example, consider these two positions:

Position 1: A Creator God exists (which is a belief represented in Christianity, Judaism and Islam).
Position 2: A Creator God does not exist (which is a belief represented in Buddhism, Pantheism, and a number of branches of New Age spirituality).

Objectively speaking, one of these positions is true and the other is false; it is impossible for both to be true at the same time (and it is impossible for both to be false at the same time). A religion which represents the false position cannot, by definition, possess the fullness of truth.

Now consider that in light of another comment you made…

Merton strove to build bridges among kindres spirits who had different spiritual perspectives. That is difficult to do if one is convinced that 'my' religion in the one and only true one, that all the rest are wrong either substantially or in part, that somehow Catholicism gives one a leg up when it comes to God and the final judgment.

So according to your worldview, no one should say that another religion is “wrong either substantially or in part.” From this I have two observations…

1) Using my two above examples concerning beliefs about a Creator God, how can the two sides both be true at the same time? Objectively speaking, according to the Law of Non-Contradiction, either the Christian/Jewish/Muslim position is correct and the Buddhist/Pantheism/New Age position is false, or vice versa. Some of the religions mentioned here have to be in error regarding this matter, and that means they cannot possess the fullness of truth.

2) In this thread you have stated that the doctrine of the Real Presence is incorrect (Post #32), that certain pagan beliefs are incorrect because they are superstitious and primitive (in Post #32 & Post #75) and that animism is wrong (Post #75). So obviously you think that Churches (& denominations) which teach the Real Presence are wrong substantially, and that paganism and animism are also wrong substantially. But according to you no one should say that another religion is “wrong either substantially or in part.” So why is it ok for you to break your own rule?

(Continued in my next post)

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

As for Real Presence and Transubstantiation, I have always seen them as two sides to the same coin.

Well, they aren’t. Quite frankly, seeing as you profess to have once taught comparative religion in college, I am surprised to see you make such a comment. As I pointed out, there are many groups which believe in the Real Presence: Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists. Of these groups that I have mentioned, only Catholics believe in transubstantiation.

All Christians, as far as I know, believe in the real presence not so much as a dogma but as an obvious reality.

Well they don’t. You’re trying to redefine the term “Real Presence” in a manner contrary how the rest of Christianity uses the term. As I have repeatedly pointed out in this thread, the term Real Presence refers to the physical and spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

God is everywhere, here with me as I write this. Not pantheism, just omnipresent growing out of his omnipotence.

As I have repeatedly pointed out in this thread, the presence of God is everywhere, but not in the same way. Because of the Incarnation, God took on our flesh and dwelt among us as “true man.” This is a spiritual and physical presence, so this is not the same presence of Christ who was “there with you when you wrote that”, presuming that your computer is not next to a tabernacle. If you say that the presence of Christ that is in your house is identical to the presence of Christ in terms of the Incarnation then kindly tell me what his shoe size is.

Believing that the flesh and blood of Jesus, plus his spirit, are more concentrated somehow in a wafer and some wine is difficult for me to imagine, let alone believe. It harkens back to an earlier era when such beliefs were commonplace, to an era when it was not unusual to have valid visions, when demons and ghosts were everywhere, when God sent tornados and hurricanes. when crops failed or illness came because of the work of Satan or punishment from God.

Once again, you have decided to side-step the specific points I raised and simply reiterate your earlier position. The above statement is just another way of you criticizing belief in the Real Presence because it sounds too much like (in your opinion) primitive superstition. I have addressed this point in the past, and requested that you respond to the specific points I raised, but so far you have not elected to do so.

But God bless those who can believe in the Real Presence or Transubstantiation and who find difference of opinion but insistence that only one opinion is absolutely, positively, thoroughly and completely right while all other views are not right.

Let’s look at some difference religious beliefs on the subject:

Catholic: The Real Presence of Christ is within the Eucharist. Therefore, Catholics kneel in adoration to the Eucharist. A valid Eucharist requires a validly ordained Catholic or Orthodox priest (but not Protestant clergy). The process by which the bread & wine become the Real Presence is transubstantiation.

Orthodox: The Real Presence of Christ is within the Eucharist. Therefore, Orthodox Christians kneel in adoration to the Eucharist. A valid Eucharist requires a validly ordained Catholic or Orthodox priest (but not Protestant clergy). Orthodox Christians do not believe that transubstantiation is a valid representation how the bread and wine become the Real Presence.

Episcopalians: The Real Presence of Christ is within the Eucharist. Therefore, Episcopalians kneel in adoration to the Eucharist. A valid Eucharist requires a validly ordained priest, including Protestant priests having proper Anglican orders. The Articles of Religion of the Episcopal denomination affirm the Real Presence within the Eucharist but expressly denounce transubstantiation as a superstition.

Many Protestant Denominations: The Eucharist is, at best, only a symbol of Christ. If Christ is present in the Eucharist, it is only a spiritual presence rather than the Real Presence. Christianity is not supposed to have priests, and the Eucharist is not a sacrament. Kneeling in adoration to the Eucharist is an act of idolatry.

According to the Law of Non-Contradiction, it is impossible for all these positions concerning the Eucharist to be true at the same time. Objectively speaking, in this particular case one of these positions is true and all the others are false, or all of them are false. It is impossible for them to all be true, or for even two of them to be simultaneously true.

(Continued in my next post)

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Millions of people, including many learned Biblical scholars with all those advanced degrees from Cambridge and Oxford, Harvard, Yale and Princeton. have studied the same texts and come to different conclusions.

Which is why the “litmus test” concerning the truth of Christian doctrine should not be based on the opinions of “learned Biblical scholars” who have “advanced degrees.” Two people with the same academic degrees can have completely contradicting interpretations of God’s revelation, so who is right and who is wrong? Instead, what has to be examined is 1) the manner by which God gives humanity his revelation, and 2) the manner by which God has his revelation officially interpreted. The Catholic response is, 1) Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and 2) the Magisterium.

On the other hand, you seem to be suggesting that all religious beliefs are part of God’s revelation (except for belief in the Real Presence, or the belief of pagans or animists that you have deemed to be “primitive” and “superstitious”) and that no one is empowered to officially interpret it. God is mysterious enough as it is for us humans; does he truly desire us to have to shift through such a chaotic and subjective system in order to glean what his revelation is? When we talk about God’s revelation, we are talking about what we need to know in order to attain heaven and avoid hell, so the stakes are incredibly high! A merciful God would give us some clarity on the matter by designating what is specifically his revelation, and providing us an official interpretation of it.

One note I want to add. You wrote of Protestant groups that believe in the Real Presence. Again, all Protestants believe in God's eternal and everlasting presence everywhere.

As I have stated before, the belief in God’s eternal and everlasting presence is not the same as belief in the Real Presence. Within Protestantism there are Episcopalians, Lutherans and Methodists who believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. On the other hand, Baptists, Pentecostals, Evangelicals, and many others do not believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

But bear in mind that mainline Protestantism by its very nature permits a wide variation in belief. Take Presbyterians or Congregationalists or Methodists. There are evangelical Methodists who stick with what they believe is inerrant scripture. There are liberal Methodists, often sitting alongside them in church who consider such Biblical stories as Adam and Eve. Noah and the Great Flood, the Tower of Babel, etc., as folklore, legends, and not history. Most Methodists would not have fervent positions. Their founder John Wesley said "think and let think' - and that spirit characterizes much of mainline Protestantism. I find that attractive. Religion should free our minds to soar into the mysterious world of theology, free to tred new and different paths, and not have to recite whatever has been handed down from ancient councils and pontiffs.

I am a former Protestant and I think that your representation of Protestantism here is a bit off. You seem to think that because certain Protestants within the same denomination may have differing interpretations of certain Scripture verses, then there is an openness to doctrinal diversity as well. There most certainly is not. Each Protestant denomination allows for a degree of some diversity, but draws the line on many doctrinal matters. For example, if a member of the Church of Christ interprets the Bible to state that a sinner is justified by his profession of faith in Christ, and that water baptism is not required (i.e., he comes to believe in what Evangelicals teach on this subject), he is in direct contradiction with the official doctrines of the Church of Christ. He is not free to teach a Bible study on church property and denounce the importance of water baptism. Sure, he has the freewill to do it, but his pastor would correct him and if he continued in the same fashion he would be removed as a Bible study teacher in the Church of Christ.

Here’s another example. If an Episcopalian interprets the Bible to say that there is no Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and that the Eucharist is only a symbol of Christ and does not need to be reverenced, it is not considered ok in the Episcopal Church for him to open the tabernacle and use the Eucharist for snack crackers at a dinner party.

The fact that there are hundreds if not thousands of different Protestant denominations out there indicates that there is not an openness to doctrinal diversity within Protestantism. As soon as the Protestant Reformation began the Reformers themselves started debating doctrine.

(Continued in my next post)

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

On the other hand, for those who want uniformity, who are ready to accept the authority of what they believe is Christ through the tenets of 'his church', who look to the catechism for their articles of faith - pax vobiscum. Peace be with you.

I started off my latest string of responses by bringing up the problem with indifferentism (i.e., all religions are equally valid). According to you, the problem is with a demand for uniformity, and therefore we should not say that any religion is “wrong either substantially or in part” (Post #83).

I ask you to consider the following statements of Jesus, and ask yourself whether or not Jesus is expressing a desire for uniformity or indifferentism:

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life;
no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6, RSV, emphasis added)

Notice that Jesus does not say, “I am one way among many”, or, “I represent only one kind of truth”, or “I am but one of many sources of life,” or “there are other people besides me who can take you to the Father.”

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth;
I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I have come to set a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
and a man's foes will be those of his own household. (Matthew 12:34-36, RSV)

Here Jesus was predicting that those who believe in his gospel will find themselves at odds with non-believers, and that professing faith in him would be divisive even among close family members. Truth is divisive by its very nature. Once a person proclaims something to be true, then he must likewise proclaim that whatever is contrary to it is false, or else his belief is hypocrisy.

[EricFilmer]

To all who have been patiently participated in this thread and/or have read it:


For your consideration, note the following things that Roy5 has stated in this thread...

Originally Posted by Roy5

Thanks to all those involved in this civil discussion.

For the faithful who can believe in transubstantiation, fine. I wish I didn't have such serious doubts.

Ok, so Roy5 appreciates a "discussion" and wishes that he did not have doubts about the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
Obviously he is inviting feedback concerning his doubts.

Originally Posted by Roy5

Personally, I enjoy dialoging with informed and kind persons of any and all faiths as there always is more to learn from them.

Ok, so Roy5 enjoys "dialoging" with people of "all faiths."
We can naturally presume that this includes dialoging with Catholics (seeing as he is participating on a Catholic forum).
Based on what he said, we can expect that he is willing to learn from our religious perspective just as he was willing to learn from the religious perspective of others.

Originally Posted by Roy5

Anyway, I think it best that I leave tghis thread. I've made my point and hardly expect many traditional Catholics to agree with it. Just enjoy dialoguing.

Ok, so Roy5 signs off from this thread by saying that 1) he has made his point, and that 2) he enjoys dialoging.


So now that I have given an overview of what Roy5 has stated in this thread, let us see one of several examples of what actually happened in this thread...


1) In Rob5’s Seven Points back in Post #32, he initially presented his superstition/pagan argument against the doctrine of the Real Presence (note points number 1 & 5 therein).

2) I gave a rebuttal of his superstition/pagan argument in Post #36 & Post #37.

3) Rob5 ignored my rebuttal and instead simply presented his superstition/pagan argument all over again in Post #75 (calling belief in the Real Presence “too pagan and primitive”).

4) In Post #81 I reminded him that I had already addressed his superstition/pagan argument in Post #36 & 37, and even gave handy links to them. And then I asked him point-blank, “What is your response to the specific points I made?”

5) Rob5 once more chose to ignore my rebuttal of his superstition/pagan argument, and he ignored my request to specifically address it. Instead he chose to once again present his superstition/pagan argument (Post #83).


So can anyone tell me how on earth does this truly represent “dialoging” and how on earth does this indicate that Rob5 has “made his point”?

[po18guy]

I again challenge Roy5 to go and spend time in the true presence of Christ at adoration. Done with an open heart, one will, sooner or later, come to believe that Christ is there. Personally, I have experienced one too many miracles in prayer before our Lord to ever doubt His presence.

As to the True Presence, some are comfortable with the level of Christ that they currently experience, and are fearful of where the Truth might lead. The presence of the Holy Spirit will remove this fear, if they are true seekers.

[Michael Francis]