Did you know that only 63% of American Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and a full 17% of those have no idea that this is what the Church actually teaches?
Roughly half of Catholics surveyed don’t know — with anything approaching doctrinal certitude — this essential truth of our Faith. And I’d be willing to bet that if a larger sample were taken, we’d find even fewer Catholics who actually believe that the Eucharist is truly Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity. According to a 1994 New York Times/CBS News poll (cited here) in the 18-44 year-old demographic, 70% of self-professed Catholics believed that the Eucharist is “just a symbol.”
In a 2014 reflection on one of the now-infamous Satanic “masses” in Okalahoma City, Msgr. Charles Pope recalled an experience he had 15 years ago while celebrating the traditional Latin Mass at St. Mary, Mother of God, in Washington DC:
As you may know, the ancient Latin Mass is celebrated “ad orientem” (toward the Liturgical East). Priest and people all face in one direction. What this means practically for the celebrant is that the people are behind him. It was time for the consecration. At this time, the priest is directed to bow low with his forearms on the altar table and the host between his fingers.
As directed, the venerable words of Consecration were said in a low but distinct voice, Hoc est enim Corpus meum (For this is my Body). The bells rang as I genuflected.
But behind me there was a disturbance of some sort; a shaking or rustling sound came from the front pews behind me to my right. And then a moaning or grumbling. “What was that?” I wondered. It did not really sound human, more like the grumbling of a large animal such as a boar or a bear, along with a plaintive moan that also did not seem human. I elevated the host and again wondered, “What was that?” Then silence. As the celebrant in the ancient Latin Mass I could not easily turn to look. But still I thought, “What was that?”
It was time for the consecration of the chalice. Again I bowed low, pronouncing clearly and distinctly but in a low voice, Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et æterni testamenti; mysterium fidei; qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem pecatorum. Haec quotiescumque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis (for this is the cup of my Blood, of the new and eternal covenant; the mystery of faith; which will for the many be shed unto the remission of sins. Whensoever you do this, you do it in my memory.)
Then, I heard another sound, this time an undeniable moan and then a shriek as someone cried out, “Leave me alone, Jesus! Why do you torture me?” Suddenly there was a scuffling noise and someone ran out with the groaning sound of having been injured. The back doors swung open and then closed. Then silence.
Realization – I could not turn to look for I was raising the Chalice high over my head. But I knew in an instant that some poor demon-tormented soul had encountered Christ in the Eucharist and could not endure His real presence displayed for all to see. And the words of Scripture occurred to me: Even Demons believe and tremble (James 2:19).
Repentance – But just as James used those words to rebuke the weak faith of his flock, I too had to repent. Why was a demon-troubled man more aware of the true presence and more astonished by it than I was? He was moved in a negative sense and ran. Why was I not more moved in a positive but comparable way? What of the other believers in the pews? I don’t doubt that all of us believed intellectually in the true presence. But there is something very different and far more wonderful in being moved to the depth of your soul! It is so easy for us to be sleepy in the presence of the Divine, to be forgetful of the miraculous and awesome Presence available to us.
This is startling at first glance, but upon further reflection, makes perfect sense. The fallen angels absolutely know the true nature of the Eucharist. They have a metaphysical understanding that surpasses merely human knowledge.
Acting like the Eucharist is what we profess it to be — through reverent liturgy, exposition and benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, adoration, Corpus Christi processions, and the like — makes a huge difference in our own belief and understanding of this sacred mystery.
Originally published on September 2nd, 2014.
Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have eight children. You can find more of his writing at his Substack, The Skojec File.
Prayers for reparation are nearly lost. Pray that the veil will be taken from the eyes of the poor Catholics who are blind. Our Lord is right there and they are clueless.
Just as we would not go a day without speaking to our children, parents, spouses, we should not go a day without speaking to Our Lord. Even as we tell them and show them how much we love them and believe in them, as well as BELIEVE them each day, we should not neglect telling our Holy Triune God the same each day. Believing Jesus, and believing IN Jesus are not the same thing. By believing Jesus, we accept the Mystery of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are all Incarnate in the Holy Eucharist.
Steve, Please consider a longer piece on Eucharistic Miracles. Thanks!
You might check this out. God bless
The Eucharist is what brought me to the Church and I felt so sad and, I have to admit, jealous, when I couldn’t receive it until I entered the Church. People seemed so blase about receiving it – but now I sadly find myself often less reverent and filled with awe myself. I have to ignore the distraction of kids, bad music, etc and remind myself – He is here with us. How incredible.
Demons and the Devil KNOW our Lord and Savior is present, how can we NOT KNOW?
Did anyone else notice this Demon running out of Church?
You mean besides Jesus?
MAybe Jesus should file a report.
As a former counselor, and when I was Methodist, I used to encounter people who had left satanic cults. There is a strong understanding of what they are doing and who God is in the world and the Eucharist. The black mass is to defile this. The worship of satan is to defile women, children and animals to this end and in the process, defile the men who are doing this. When I realized that satan wouldn’t take such pains to defile the Eucharist unless is were real, I returned to the Church – after 22 years.
Erid Hoffer “The True Believers.” Good read.
Re the Catholic faith’s Founder who said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life…”
He sets a high bar for Himself, and for those who follow Him. And truth-seekers who are honest in their intellectual and spiritual quest will/do admit the unconquerable truths of Christianity. Quite different than non-believers who have made of themselves little deities. Perhaps one could say atheism is a mass movement. Eric Hoffer would no doubt agree. 🙂
“And truth-seekers who are honest in their intellectual and spiritual
quest will/do admit the unconquerable truths of Christianity.”
How would you define a truth seeker?
Don’t tell me. You’re going to ask me, “What is truth?” 😉
Not at all.
Well then, it seems self-evident.
So, then, how would you define truth seekers?
Look up the word “seek” and the word “truth” in the Merriam Webster Online dictionary. That’s a good start. Perhaps you might want to share your definition…
“In philosophy, the property of statements, thoughts, or propositions that are said, in ordinary discourse, to agree with the facts or to state what is the case. At least four major types of truth theory have been proposed: correspondence theories (see realism), coherence theories (see coherentism, idealism), pragmatic theories (see pragmatism), and deflationary theories. The latter group encompasses a wide variety of views, including the redundancy theory, the disquotation theory, and the prosentential theory.
: to resort to : go to
a : to go in search of : look for
b : to try to discover
: to ask for : request
: to try to acquire or gain : aim at
: to make an attempt : try —used with to and an infinitive “
Yeah, I knew you were going there. Truth is theory of various sorts and blah, blah, blah. Makes it easy for you to avoid grappling with statements like, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life…”
Going where? How else do you propose we grapple with it?
Exactly. Am I correct that you are a modernist and do not believe in an objective definition of truth?
Wouldn’t whether or not something is objectively true depend on what you are referring to and what you are trying to prove? You could say that Gravity, for instance is objectively true.
Ah, yes gravity, an acceptable exception to empiricism.
Well, why don’t we speak in generalities for the sake of the dialogue. Two plus two equals four, would you agree to that? Jesus the Christ is/was a historical figure who lived in the first century and was crucified by the Romans, right?
I’m interested in why you won’t admit to being a modernist and/or atheist. I gladly admit to being a Catholic.
Why should truth rest on a particular theological world view?
I simply asked you if Jesus Christ is an historical figure who lived in the first century and was crucified by the Romans. True or false.
Was Moses a historical figure who rescued the Israelites from mass slavery in Egypt?
Yes. Is Jesus Christ an historical figure who lived in the first century and was crucified by the Romans?
That’s interesting. The historica xonsensus at this time, is that Moses is most likely a mythical carrier, and that the exodus never happened, at least anywhere close to the way it is described. Me personally? I think that the chance of a Historical Jesus is proabably 50/50, maybe less. But that’s rather secondary to the discussion.
Well, certain scholars have been trying to discredit the history in the Bible for a long time now. I’m glad you concede a 50/50 chance of a historical Jesus. Like I said, there’s hope for you. 🙂 And it is not secondary to the discussion. It would be convenient for you to have it so, but you know you can’t go there and maintain a shred of integrity. To have a historical Jesus gets us in the realm of empiricism, right? Then what? Then you have to grapple with who he said he was and why he said he came here and what he asked of us.
Just read your to 90Lew90 on another website. You are being intellectually dishonest, and like most atheists, very angry. I most certainly did define truth…as a Person (in His own words). Here is what you said: Interesting perspective, Lew. I am currently interacting a little bit with a Catholic on an non Patheos blog on a story that was about a Demon running out of a Church during the Eucharist. Anyway. So far, He won’t even put forth a definition for “truth.” I proffered a definition, the philosophical definition of truth, but he apparently doesn’t want to accept it. If you can’t even agree on the definition of “truth” then how in the world can you have a meaningful conversation? And, not only will he not proffer a definition, but he wants’ to continue the conversation before he does. Why would anyone I do that? It seems to me, that the tactic is to keep the conversation nebulous enough that he can’t be pinned down, because once he commits to a definition, and an argument, then he must also commit to the criticism, and I don’t think he want’s that on a blog dedicated to brain dead Catholics.”
Why in the world would you want to interact with “brain dead Catholics,” or even people who are diametrically opposed to your current core beliefs? Are you trying to evangelize us to atheism?
I have to tell you, po farmer, you are now in my daily prayers. I have a lot of hope for you. 🙂
I’m just re-reading your comment to Lew in which you put the word truth in parentheses, which implies that to you there is no truth, except one which is: There is no God; the one thing you hold to objectively. Isn’t this an untenable situation? Holding there is no objective truth, you have no foundation, no basis for asserting anything whatsoever.
Nice, Poisoning the well. You have proffered no definition of “truth”. You have proffered a theological view. I’ve in no way been disshonest with you.. I always hope I’ll be surprised on a site like this. Maybe you still could. So, do you have a workable definition for truth?
My definition of truth is more than workable. It is indeed the Person of Jesus Christ who has inspired the greatest books, art, architecture, law, and lives in history. He is the incarnation of truth. His words and actions, his life, death, and resurrection brought salvation to the world. Unfortunately, you presented to me a bundle of theories regarding philosophical definitions designed to stop any dialog and show your supposed intellectual superiority.
At the same time you refused point blank to admit your position as an atheist, nay as a fallen away Catholic. This, apparently, so you may hopefully “be surprised on a site like this.” A forlorn hope since you are most certainly not at Patheos!
It is quite appropriate that you chose to comment on an article regarding demons, the LORD sometimes having a sense of humor in these matters. It is clear you are in spiritual crisis. Having rejected God and all matters not empirically apparent, you have become the victim of forces you refuse to acknowledge. This is a position of great weakness as it makes you subject to “…imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God,” (II Cor. 10:5).
Since getting free of the truth, how has your life been? Is it calmer, happier, more peaceful? Are your relationships better? Are you a better employer/employee? Husband? Father?
In the absence of truth, what is there but a bunch of lies?
Was that word salad suppossed to mean something? Look, I gave a definition of truth that I thought we could possibly agree on and make progress. You said look in Marriam Websters. I gave you the definition from Merriam Websters sight. And yet, you don’t wish to use that definition? Who is being dishonest here. You commented on “objective truth” which means this truth should be apparent to all, right? And yet, you give a definition, if that is even what it could be called, that even Christians won’t agree on, certainly not Buddhists, or Hindus, or Muslims, or scientologists, or any of any number of other religions in existance at this point in time. So, you didn’t give a definition, or an example of “truth” you gave theology, which considers itself a branch of philosophy, with an answer that most theologians couldn’t even agree on. Why muddy the waters? Why not have a conversation? Or do you wish to not have it? Yes, I’m an atheist. But, why should that matter? If this truth is objective and demonstrable, no problem, right? And yet I get an argument from consequences, which is a fallacious argument, and thn a weak attempt at prosyletization. You talk aboit the absence of truh, and yet you won’t even discuss or define it, except in the most abstract, meaningless, fallacious way possible. What does that say about your position?
Why would you assume objective truth is apparent to all? We are all looking through a glass, darkly.
Which Christians wouldn’t agree that Jesus Christ is the truth?
Why would it matter what Buddhists, or Hindus, or Muslims, or Scientologists think about it right now? It’s you (atheist) talking to me (Catholic). That’s what matters, right?
You are making an assumption that theology (the study of the nature of God) cannot be true. Philosophy is limited in its scope to reason and experience. Theology goes further, hence my desire to use it and your desire to squelch it. Yes, it matters that I know where you are coming from.
Please explain how my definition of truth, as the Person of Jesus Christ is abstract, meaningless, and fallacious.
Objective truth implies that something is true whether we wish it to be true or not. I think there are certain things that ARE objectively true, but I don’t think you’ve hot on one of them.
“Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject’s individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are “bias-free”; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without bias or external influence (see journalistic objectivity); this second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.”
So that’s my point. Your position is dependent upon the observer, which renders your definition false before we even start. I’m not making an assumption about theology at all. If you think something is true, then it’s up to you to demonstrate that point. Now we are into the world of Empericism, which you probably reject. Why is empericism important? Because it is the only way to sort out things that we can philosophically conjecture, from things that are real and possible. To have knowledge, we must have a way to sort out the true from the false. An objective method. A method that you do not possess, or at least will not use. I don’t wish to squelch anything. I simply wish to have beliefs that are grounded in what we know of reality.
Now, in another comment down below, which I can’t reply to directly, you asked a question about epistemology, how we can know things. Well? We know things by observation and experience. When we developed Language we could experience things other people experienced too. When we developed written languages, we could now save those thoughts and experiences for long periods of time, and ideas could travel great distances. Now, with electronic media, information can be stored in great quantity and travel great distances and be distributed in great quantity almost instantly. I don’thave the exact numbers in front of me, but, in the middle ages, knowledge doubled something like every 400 years. By the beginning of the 20th century it was something like every 40-60 years. Today it is something like every 2-4 years, by 2020 it is estimated to he every 7 months. So, indeed, we can know a lot of things.
I’m glad you concede there is objective truth. However, someone confronted with objective truth may not recognize it as such. For instance, you believe that it is objectively true there is no God, right? If so, if that is objectively true, I do not recognize that. I need to be convinced of that. That’s why the disciplines of philosophy and theology have arisen. Reason and revelation can go hand in hand to arrive at truth.
You said, “We know things by observation and experience.” Is that the extent of all knowledge and truth, only what we observe and experience? So how do you explain the origin of the universe? Who or what caused it to come into being and how would you use empirical knowledge to prove it?
So far, all you have done is tell me that what I claim as truth is not true. As an atheist what do you hold as the truth besides the empirical? Surely there must be more to truth than what we can know with the senses or prove with the current scientific method. Theology is informed by reason, and the greatest thinkers in the history of the world have made reasoned arguments for a First Cause (God). Solidly reasoned, even more so than those who confine themselves to the box of empiricism.
The incarnation of Jesus Christ is where divinity conjoins with the physical (empirical). God knows we struggle with unbelief, so He gave His only begotten Son to us. He prepared mankind for the coming of Jesus through the Jewish religion. Moses, for instance, was an archetype of Christ.
“However, someone confronted with objective truth may not recognize it as such.”
This is true, which is why we developed a method to handle such problems.
“For instance, you believe that it is objectively true there is no God, right?”
Actually no, and very, very few atheists operate on that premise.
“That’s why the disciplines of philosophy and theology have arisen. Reason and revelation can go hand in hand to arrive at truth.”
No such thing is true. Revelation has never been shown to be an accurate way of arriving at truth. Revelation is also personal and essentially non transferable, as it cannot be verified by anyone but the person receiving the revelation. Might I suggest some Thomas Paine, “The age of Reason”. Now, reason and revelation alone, are at least as likely, possibly more likely than not, to arrive at incorrect conclusions. This is why most of Aristotelian physics was wrong, and has been replaced. He didn’t have the empirical methods and tools to verify either his physics or his metaphysics. Without empiricism, there is no way that you can verify your results.
“Theology is informed by reason, and the greatest thinkers in the history
of the world have made reasoned arguments for a First Cause (God).
Solidly reasoned, even more so than those who confine themselves to the
box of empiricism.”
But this is refuted on two fronts. The first front is the problem of infinite regress, of which I’m sure you’re familiar. Theologians attempt to dispute this by simply defining God as without Cause, but, as you know, this is unverifiable and untestable, so subject to dispute. The other problem is that now, we do know of things that happen without cause. Radioactive decay is one thing that is uncaused in science. Quantum events also appear random and uncaused. The Universe, as expressed in models and experiments that actually jibe with observations, show that the Universe is probabilistic, not deterministic, but this is probably getting beyond the scope of a com box discussion. And, I would submit, that the confining box is yours. Theology didn’t put men on the moon, send rovers to Mars, or a space probe to Pluto. Theology didn’t discover Germ Theory, or radioactivity, or the laws of motion and Gravity. Theology didn’t discover the internet, or that the Universe is wider than our own milky way. Theology didn’t discover the Heliocentric theory, or the theories of Quantum mechanics. Indeed, the only thing that theology can claim to have discovered, at this stage, are things that cannot be verified, and indeed, are claimed to be contradicted by other branches of theology. The Revelations of the Christians and the Muslims and the Mormons and Heavens Gate cannot all be correct, and are, in fact, mutually exclusive in some or most areas.
Can truth go beyond empiricism?
Do you find thinking and thoughts valuable? They have no empirical measurement. I have no way to measure that what you are saying is what is going on in your head. Have you ever had a thought or profound feeling that had value, that you couldn’t express? “A thing is not necessarily false because badly uttered, nor true because spoken magnificently.” Saint Augustine
So, through logic and formal disciplines we apply measures of truth outside of the empirical. I agree wholeheartedly that the children of God have discovered many wonderful things about creation such as those things you list. But it seems you are saying the discovery of things is replacement for the creation of things. Believe me there are many more questions now than before, and the more we learn the more we realize we don’t know. As man becomes more aware of how things work, he capitalizes on the existing laws and ways of the empirical world. But that does not disprove the metaphysical world.
Just so in theology. As we learn more about God, we are able to more fully utilize His truths in ways that bless the world and ourselves, that explain the hard concepts like the existence of evil and so on. Correct theology answers those questions that science doesn’t have the tools to deal with.
How was it revealed to you that revelation together with reason cannot arrive at truth? Through empirical means? Are you saying that you can prove through empirical means that revelation together with reason cannot reveal truth? I’m afraid you can’t. The most you can do is say you cannot prove, empirically, that reason and revelation can arrive at truth.
What are we doing here? We are talking of non-empirical concepts (there is a God, there is no God) and trying to measure them with empirical tools only. I propose that we are capable of much more discovery by stepping outside of the box of empiricism and synthesizing beyond what we can see to what might actually be a grander reality.
Atheists are trying to prove a double negative. It is a very difficult position. You just conceded that most atheists do not believe their non-belief in God is an objective truth. Therefore, you have nothing to argue.
If you cannot prove through the empirical means you so cling to that God does not exist, then you have no basis upon which to argue from. The best you can say is that you can’t empirically prove He exists. A position of non-belief is a non-position. You have come to a conclusion about a metaphysical truth and offer nothing but empirical methods to back up your assertions. It’s like using a screwdriver to drive a nail.
If you want to talk about God or His non-existence you must use the tools of theology and philosophy that allow you to deal with concepts that are not simply empirical. But that would put you in a position of having to admit that God might exist, and force you to use the methods and tools developed to rationally and reasonably discuss these concepts.
“Can truth go beyond empiricism?” The only reliable way that we have found to discern truth is by applying the scientific method to claims. So, technically, not really.
“Do you find thinking and thoughts valuable? They have no empirical measurement.” Thoughts may not, but brain activity certainly does. Science is even coming up with new methods to measure thought more directly. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-method-to-measure-consciousness-discovered/
“So, through logic and formal disciplines we apply measures of truth outside of the empirical.” Good luck with that. You might notice that sciences consolidates around a cohesive answer as hypothesis get refined and results get looked at and better models get made. This works for the weather and planetary motions and even psychology and medicine. Such a thing does not happen in theology. Religions tend to splinter unless they are rigidly enforced.
“I propose that we are capable of much more discovery by stepping outside
of the box of empiricism and synthesizing beyond what we can see to
what might actually be a grander reality.” I propose there are invisible pink Unicorns. I know they are invisible because I’ve never seen one, I know they are pink because of faith. Prove me wrong.
“Atheists are trying to prove a double negative. It is a very difficult position. You just conceded that most atheists do not believe their non-belief in God is an objective truth. Therefore, you have nothing to argue.” Not really, most atheists would argue that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant a belief in Gods. Some don’t go that far, and say only that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant belief in specific religions. It’s generally termed agnosticism, and fits a great deal of atheists, because, to be intellectually honest, you should be open to new evidence.
“If you cannot prove through the empirical means you so cling to that God does not exist, then you have no basis upon which to argue from.” Absolutely not. What we can say is that there is no direct evidence that a God exists. We can then go on to argue (successfully) that a large number of things once attributed to God or celestial agents, have now been related to the Natural order. A Catholic Theologian even recognized the problem of over reliance on claims of divinity and there has been a term coined for it. Maybe you’ve heard of it. We can then go on to argue, as Sean Carroll has, that we know the basic particles of the Universe, we know the basic energies of the Universe, we know the basic properties of the Universe, to the point where there isn’t really anywhere left for gods to hide. You might disagree with this, but then it is up to you to enter the empirical arena and take up quantum physics and Cosmology. He is accessible at his blot “Preposterous Universe” and has written extensively. Perhaps you would like to watch his debate with William Lane Craig. So, it turns out, that the one who has no space to argue, who must continually argue that God is outside of what we can know, is the one who MUST make empirically unverifiable statements to keep his belief alive. You are the one relying on a constancy of negatives to keep your point alive.
Then you blather on and on about how theology and revelation and philosophy can tell us so much more than science can know. Tell ya what. I can name dozens of Theological and Philosophical propositions falsified by the scientific method and empiricism. Give me one scientific truth falsified by theology. If you can’t demonstrate that theology is reliable on the things that we can know by other methods, how in the world can we know that it is reliable on things that can’t? And, in fact, the mere fact that there are so many theologies, and variations of theologies, pretty much shows that it can’t be. But, heh, surprise me.
“We do not know — neither the sophists, nor the orators, nor the artists, nor I— what the True, the Good, and the Beautiful are. But there is this difference between us: although these people know nothing, they all believe they know something; whereas, I, if I know nothing, at least have no doubts about it. As a result, all this superiority in wisdom which the oracle has attributed to me reduces itself to the single point that I am strongly convinced that I am ignorant of what I do not know.” ― Socrates
Thank you for conceding that atheism’s claim of no God is insupportable as an objective truth: “…most atheists would argue that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant a belief in Gods. Some don’t go that far, and say only that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant belief in specific religions. It’s generally termed agnosticism, and fits a great deal of atheists, because, to be intellectually honest, you should be open to new evidence.”
You believe in Science (capital S). I would venture to say that your daily life is full of things you hold to be true that cannot be proved by empirical science. Should you be honest with yourself you would come to the conclusion that truth is often more than can be measured by the senses. I suggest that few scientists, even atheist scientists, would make the claim you are: There is no truth beyond empirical knowledge.
But doesn’t empiricism imply non-empiricism? When someone posits there is a God doesn’t that suggest the opposite or even that there are many gods? Now, the question for open-minded individuals is to then grapple with that with in ways conducive to arriving at truth. Yet you refuse.
To be clear, the branch of philosophy called theology is thoroughly discredited in your eyes? And those scholars and great philosophers who developed and reasoned with theology in order to arrive at truth are all ignorant and deluded? You and I are not fit to loose the laces of the
shoes of most of them, yet you feel confident in staying within the realm of empiricism only, something they understood as limited even many
Knowing that there is order to the physical universe and its myriad objects is a far cry from knowing the Cause of those things. To say, as you have, that God must be found (“hiding”) within His physical creation in order for you to believe in Him is a pantheistic assertion. It shows either that you misunderstand the nature of God or are taking a cheap shot.
As a father you are surely familiar with the phenomenon that occurs when a very small child is shown an object that is then hidden from their sight. To him it ceases to exist. The child has not yet developed the understanding that an object can exist outside of his senses. I suggest that in your distaste for God, you would rather argue for His non-existence that have to wrestle with Him. There will be no out-of-joint thigh for you!
I never said God is outside of what we can know! I assert that empirical scientific methods alone are inadequate to know God. For the sake of our dialog please be correct in what you assert for me, and know that if I am incorrect in restating your position I apologize and will gladly correct it.
Your assertion that numerous theologies is a justification for not believing in God is incorrect reasoning. Of course there are a myriad theologies out there. Man is seeking and groping his way toward truth in both the physical and spiritual realms. Just as in empirical science there are many theories about one thing or another, so in the search for the Good, the True, and the Beautiful there are many false and untrue theologies. Would you discredit any scientist (past or present) for previously holding to a theory proved incorrect by further illumination?
When you had the revelation that God does not exist, did it change your life? Did your behavior and outlook change as a consequence? For instance, you mentioned on another site that you began to laugh inwardly during Mass, and now you do not regularly attend, correct? So, would you say it is true that a non-empirical assertion (“There is no God”) made an empirical change in your outward behavior as well as an inward change?
Your choice of Socrates quote is-interesting. I see you are hung up on the idea of objective truth. That’s fine, I’m not. I think only a few things can be stated to be objectively true at this point in time, and those things supersede and cut across theological, cultural, and religious lines. And even those are subject to revision.
“Now, the question for open-minded individuals is to then grapple with
that with in ways conducive to arriving at truth. Yet you refuse.”
Not at all. When we don’t know something, the proper course is to continue on with what we do know, not act for all the world like we do. I would suggest you read your own quote again.
“You and I are not fit to loose the laces of the shoes of most of them, yet you feel confident in staying within the realm of empiricism only, something they understood as limited even many centuries ago?”
Argument from Antiquity, yet another fallacious argument.
“Would you discredit any scientist (past or present) for previously holding to a theory proved incorrect by further illumination?” No, what would discredit a scientist is holding to a theory that has been diss proven. But, even this is common. Quite often scientific ideas don’t completely change until the old Guard is dead or moved on. Carl Sagan talks about this extensively in “Demon Haunted World.”
You seem enamored of Philosophy as an avenue to truth. Why are something in the high 80% range of professional philosophers atheists? It would seem that as they have grappled with these questions of “truths” and “spiritual realms” they have landed at an inconvenient position for you. And the question remains, with all the myriad theologies, how do you sort the “true” theology from the “false” theology, because their theology is revealed to them to. What is your methodology here?
And then you end with an Argument from Consequences, yet again, which is still fallacious. But, shit, I’ll work on it some anyway.
“When you had the revelation that God does not exist, did it change your life?” It wasn’t a revelation, it was the result of lots, and lots, and lots of studying. But, yes, things make a lot more sense, I am much more secure in who I am.
“So, would you say it is true that a non-empirical assertion (“There is
no God”) made an empirical change in your outward behavior as well as an
inward change?” Yes, I understand now how important that it is to spend time with my kids and not waste it. How important it is to teach them how to think and reason, not just what to think and to automatically accept authority.
And the challenge still stands. If Theology is a reliable path to knowledge, show me where theology has bested application of the scientific method, because the scientific method has bested theology many times. Until you can do this, I will just assume that you are making assertions on things that you can not possibly know.
Of course you’re not “hung up” on objective truth for it makes your position quite difficult.
So far you have conceded that:
a) Objective truth exists
b) Atheists are unable to prove that God does not exist using empirical methods
c) Jesus Christ may have been a historical figure who was crucified by the Romans in the first century
d) Non-empirical concepts can change both the non-empirical and the empirical
Your assertion that most philosophers are atheists is problematic. The fact that some philosophers, using the common philosophic methodology of doubt, argument and dialectic believe God does not exist should give you confidence in that method as a viable addition to empiricism. And of course you realize that these philosophers (both atheist and theist) are using many empirical scientific arguments to come to their conclusions. Apparently you embrace philosophic methods if the philosopher agrees with your beliefs, but dismiss it when the philosopher comes to a different conclusion?
Additionally, since the mid 20th century, theism in philosophy has had a resurgence and it is estimated that up to one third of all philosophers today are theists, even though the over-arching academic atmosphere continues to reject any notion of God. This of course has happened because of the weak position of atheism in proving its assertions.
Way back in 1980 Time Magazine said the following, “In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.” (“Modernizing the Case for God,” Time [7 April 1980].
The arguments of atheists, including atheist philosophers, has in turn been an aid to theistic philosophers who, through philosophic methodology, have been able to upset the atheist apple cart. Your hesitation to argue from such a standpoint is therefore understandable. There are several branches of philosophy in which the atheists hang out, such as cognitive science, probability, and decision theory. Philosophers of religion, however, are overwhelming in their belief in divinity.
Additionally, the specious suggestion that atheism is true because most philosophers are atheists, is akin to the claim that theism is true because the vast majority of humans believe in it.
You are misusing the appeal to antiquity argument. I never said the great minds of the past are great because of their place in time. They are great because of the depth of their knowledge and understanding, something demonstrable today.
About Socrates, he was nothing if not humble, appeal to antiquity notwithstanding. 🙂
You certainly are good at jumping to conclusions.
A) read the conditions to my statement.
B) I am not attempting that. However there are atheists like Sean Carroll and Victor Stenger who argue persuasively that they can prove the existence of God is impossible given what we know of the Universe.
C) I’ll give ya that,one, although there’s very little historical evidence to,support the claim, so, whatever.
D) I don’t know what you are talking about.
They The majority of Philosophers of Religion are religious. I think that,goes in the no shit Sherlock category “yhave been able to upset the atheist apple cart.” Do tell?
I apologize if I have jumped to conclusions. A) What are the conditions you put on objective truth? Regarding B), you say you are not attempting to disprove the existence of God through empirical means, but you insist I prove His existence through those means alone. Ergo, if I don’t prove to your satisfaction that God exists in an empirical sense then He does not exist. D) I asked you about the non-empirical affecting the empirical, and you even copied it into your reply, plainly saying “Yes…”
A) the conditions are not mine, I gave them in the,definition above. To be,considered objectively true, a conclusion must be independent of the beliefs of the observer. Your definition obviously fails that test. B) we haven’t even settled on a definition of “truth” so I think you are jumping ahead. D) I still don’t know what you are referring to.
A) You said, “To be,considered objectively true, a conclusion must be independent of the beliefs of the observer.” Absolute objective truth is true always and everywhere. It is difficult, if not impossible for anything empirical to meet that standard. Empirical phenomena are temporal. The definition of truth as Jesus the Christ, by definition, would hold up to that test. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
B) You may think I am jumping the gun, but then please provide evidence to the contrary. I am aware of your understanding of truth and you are aware of my definition of truth. We may not currently agree, but we are aware of the differences.
D) I said, “So, would you say it is true that a non-empirical assertion (“There is no God”) made an empirical change in your outward behavior as well as an inward change?” And, you said, “Yes…”
A). You are engaging in mental masturbation. Is that a sin? Look throughout history different historians and theologians have had differing opinions of who Jesus was and what he meant. That’s why we have different fricking denominations. Then take the fact that 3/4 of the rest of the world disagrees with you at some level or another. I’m sorry, your definition immediately fails the test of objectibility. If this is the best you can come up with, we are sumply done.
b) might I suggest Victor Stenger, Laurence Krauss, and Sean Carroll. They have book length works on the topic.
D). really? Yes, how we view abstract concepts affects our actions.
Doctrinal differences does not disprove the truth of God. That is a leap in logic. You are suggesting that because people disagree about the nature of God, therefore God does not exist. False reasoning.
I have stated that Jesus the Christ is truth and that he does not change. We could begin to reason those propositions out…
I pose that you are suffering from a limited definition of truth — only what you can empirically prove; it discounts the spiritual, the intellect, emotions, nearly everything that cannot be observed. Do you love your wife? Prove it. Show me an experiment that proves that. Heightened adrenaline levels? It could be that you are afraid of your wife. Giving her a hug and kiss? Many men have done that right before they killed their wives.
Might I suggest you give me a synopsis of those authors’ works. 🙂
What doctrinal differences and outright different interpretations show, is that your methodology is flawed.
And I pose that you are suffering from a bad case of Aristotle an metaphysics, “anything we can imagine must be real, because we couldn’t imagine something that isn’t real”. Like I said, we developed the scientific method for just this sort of problem, and yet, you refuse to use it. Weird.
The scientific method was developed to put some discipline and rules around conducting experiments to test hypotheses. The scientific method is not applicable to everything, for goodness’ sake.
Science is not a religion or a belief system. Here is a definition of science: “The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” (Google) So you are making an idol, a god, of a method of observing creation, and then you demand that I bow down to that idol and dismiss and discount God because He can’t be measured empirically.
You refuse to use the methodologies and tools that were specifically developed to study and gain knowledge of God and metaphysical truths. If you are so sure that God does not exist, then you should be fine with using philosophy to disprove Him; after all, most philosophers are atheists, right?
I hope you are seeing the very black little box you have put yourself and your intellect in. By refusing to acknowledge the methodologies of philosophy as a viable avenue for seeking truth, you have cut yourself off from a vast storehouse of tools that would aid you in reaching correct conclusions. What are you afraid of?
Now you’re into definitions? Lol.
What am I afraid of? Much less than I used to be, thanks.
If “the methodologies used to gain knowledge of God and Metaphysical truths” are so useful, why were they such an almost complete failure at describing and predicting our material world? And, let’s not be coy, you know as well as I do that theology used to make all kinds of claims about the physical world that it had to give up claim to. Who’s afraid?
You say God is not a subject for emperical study. Why not?
Anyone who is willing to manipulate other people’s statements in such an open manner just cannot be open to seeking truth. I have maintained that the study and knowledge of God cannot be limited to empirical means, although empirical data is certainly used to argue for the existence of God. This is an eminently reasonable position, and I am sorry you refuse to engage it.
You accuse me of the very things you indulge in. This is the tactic of the enemies of truth, and as I mentioned earlier, God has a sense of humor in these matters.
I wish you and your family peace and tenderness of hearts, especially during this holy season.
Look, either you can argue em percale or you can’t. Your em percale arguments will be entirely indirect, seen to many of them. You’ve already alluded to the first cause argument, which fails on at least 2 or 3 fronts. So, let’s be honest, you are left with non em percale ways to “know God” for which you’ve proffered no methodology to know the true God from the untrue God, and, indeed, the great variations in theology based on the Abrahamic religions today suggests that there most probably isn’t one. You can do logical proofs till you’re blue in the face, but you must admit that the reason that,most of Aristotles, and therefor Aquinas, physics was wrong, is because the methodology didn’t have a proof check. Practically all of the since by this method has been overturned, and yet you insist that the same methods that were clearly wrong about the physical can give us information about theetaphysical? Really? So, yes, if you wish to continue on this path, we are probably done here, unless you are willing to admit the limitations of your method?.
All human methods are limited in some way, but that was not the question (no surprises there, wink wink).
I’m content to let my comments, as imperfect and limited as they are, to stand.
Again, thanks for the back and forth chat.
Oh, one other thing. I noticed you haven’t seen med to have detailed how you win now the true revealed beliefs from the false revealed beliefs.
Can you please restate this, I’m not sure what your meaning is here.
Relying on philosophy alone, how do you sort correct conclusions from incorrect ones? What is your methodology for knowing if your beliefs are true?
You assume that philosophy does not also make use of the conclusions reached in the scientific method. I mentioned that previously. For example, a philosopher will take an argument, let’s say the cosmological argument. A 1-2-3 premiss is proposed with 3 being the conclusion of points 1 and 2. Each point is logically argued and reasoned out using current scientific theory, knowledge and understanding, along with the metaphysical aspects. Philosophers are not afraid to argue from both the empirical and the metaphysical because, again, truth is not limited to only what we can observe. To demand one or the other exclusively is to cut off a vital avenue for reaching truth. I don’t believe I have rejected empiricism, I have rejected the exclusive use of it as it pertains to our discussion of the existence of God.
So, then, philosophers use empiricism to prove there conclusions, which is true. This is how modern Cosmology works. So, how do you sort correct theology from incorrect theology?
Philosophers do not use empiricism exclusively, of course. Do not assume philosophy is without a proven method. A set of circumstances and facts are used to come to a conclusion. Tools include logic, a subset of philosophy, aka truth tables, inductive/deductive reasoning, etc. These are not empirical methodologies but highly respected in the academic community, and when properly applied, exclude false conclusions. You cannot disassociate theology from philosophy, since it is a subset.
Sorting correct and incorrect theologies, one would use the same methods.
Inductive reasoning is very much an empirical methodolgy. The use of induction is what seperates science from philosophy. Deduction arrives at conclusions based on a series of set premises the argument derives from. If the premises are wrong, the conclusion will be wrong. Induction looks at the evidence to derive conclusions. The scientific method then uses empiricism to further seperate the results. So, the only method that can be used to prove philosophy aligns with reality is induction. So, which methodologies do you ise to seperate true from false theology?
Inductive and deductive reasoning are not empirical tools, they use empirical facts as part of the reasoning process. Inductive reasoning is used to identify correlation (such as the idea that the vast majority of philosophers are atheists, therefore if you are a philosopher you are an atheist). That is a false conclusion based on using that tool incorrectly.
On the other hand deductive reasoning can use non-empirical, over-arching truths and apply them to a subset inside of that scope of truth. For instance, since God is a Spirit and empirical science has no ability to measure spirituality, therefore God cannot be proven with empirical methods.
You have just been given a true statement that does not involve empirical methods at all. To say that because you cannot hear, see, smell, touch, or taste God is proof that He doesn’t exist is incorrect reasoning. Dogs don’t know about mathematics, but mathematics still exists.
And in reasoning it is not always a requirement that the facts only be empirical facts. It is not simply enough that we know about these tools and methodologies, we have to know how to apply them correctly.
Do you believe in a divided creation? That thoughts and ideas are separate from their empirical expression? For instance, I think of a tree and the tree is in my thought, but my thought is not a tree. My thought is a thought of a tree, but it is just as real as the thought of a tree in anyone else’s mind. There is a consensus of what a tree is. So, according to you, that thought would not be real because it can’t be proven and because it differs from someone else’s thought of a tree.
Let’s not discount intellect as unable to express truth unless empirical means are used. To reject philosophy or the possibility of things beyond empirical proof is selling man’s capabilities short.
I hope I have answered your question.
“You have just been given a true statement that does not involve empirical methods at all”. Actually, you just more or less proved my point, that with philosophy, whatis “true” is based on how you set your premises.
“For instance, since God is a Spirit and empirical science has no ability to measure spirituality, therefore God cannot be proven with empirical methods.” Now let’s use induction. No spirits have ever been observed, so God does not exist, is an equally true statement. It could be wrong, but we don’t know without using ………… Applying philosophical proofs correctly anly gets you so far, which is why science was developed, to sort out the true from the wishful thinking, and there is a lot if wishful thinking.
Your tree is something that can be observed. And we also know we can think of things that are not observed. Look at all the creatures that man has made up over the eons. Werewoves, Vampires. Hell, just watch any sci fi show. We are very good at seeing things in our minds that might not actually be there………….
But, anyway, you’ve already agreed with my very first objection way up above. You said that all truth seekers will surely find christianity, and asked what a truth seeker was. Well, it’s funny we’re talking about philosophers, because philosophers are generally seen as truth seekers, and even you have admitted that most professional philosophers are atheists. So, most of the ones who’s tools you are trying to use reject your premise. This is not an appeal to authority or ad populum, merely pointing out the consensus in the field you are trying to argue with here. You can become as verbose as you’d like, and you are still going to ne on the losing side of the argument. And, the sad thing is we could probably have had a meaningful conversation, maybe still can, but you’ve actually highlighted the problem with all of Catholic theology. And that is that they don’t look outward to prove their theories and statements, they continue to look inward to tradition and spirit, so when a doctrine disagrees with how the world works, they just layer in nonsense until it’s really hard to understand and people just shrug ahf accept it. Scientists use philosophy to enlighten and inform. Theologians use philosophy to onscure and set up smokescreens, which you even just did up above, sorry……..
You said, “Actually, you just more or less proved my point, that with philosophy, what is “true” is based on how you set your premises.”
No, you are misunderstanding my point, and you are setting your own premises to ‘prove’ your point. Philosophy does not do that, it only provides a platform for reasoning.
Well, I’ve never observed you but I’m pretty sure you exist. 🙂 You seem to be taking my statements out of context and extrapolating a way to discount them without really addressing the fact that your point is not proven by any measure of empirical science or any other discipline known to man.
I’m sure it is possible for someone to start with a false premise and come to whatever conclusion they prefer. However, that would be called false reasoning. A similar condition occurs when a scientific experiment is performed badly. Bad experiments, like faulty reasoning, prove nothing.
You said, “We are very good at seeing things in our minds that might not actually be there.” And your point is? Yes, thoughts of things known and unknown occur. This is an example of the non-empirical, as I stated.
You said, “You said that all truth seekers will surely find Christianity..” You have misquoted me. I did not say that. I said, “And truth-seekers who are honest in their intellectual and spiritual quest will/do admit the unconquerable truths of Christianity.” Perhaps I should qualify that to say those who investigate Christianity or are exposed to Christianity. Many non-Christians have admitted the transcendence of Christian beliefs.
Regarding philosophy and philosophers I think I will stand by my statements. If you look at the history of philosophy, from its beginnings to now, you will find that a belief in God or gods was the driving force in seeking answers to man’s most pressing questions. Your idea that simply because atheism has taken root in academia it is something true, lasting, etc., is unsupportable. For how many years did the leading scientists believe that the sun circled the earth? Again, you are using faulty reasoning!
Your last paragraph is full of opinion statements that are meant to dismiss the many points I have made and questions I have asked that you have not answered.
I’m happy to continue this conversation, but feel it might be more productive to go offline and not use up any more bandwidth on this great website. If you’re agreeable we can arrange that. I’m grateful for having had the chance to discuss the great question of “What is truth?” with you. I keep you and your family in my prayers now.
I’m interested in your position. Are you making light of what happened? Are you a skeptic or have unbelief regarding demons? If you are, that’s your prerogative, but it shows a terrible ignorance of the spiritual reality.
Did you know that only 63% of American Catholics believe
in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and a full 17% of
those have no idea that this is what the Church actually teaches?
And you wonder why, Steve? The burden of the posters to this combox should tell you.
>>Did you know that only 63% of American Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and a full 17% of those have no idea that this is what the Church actually teaches?<<
Are you saying that the 17% of those who believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist do so despite ignorance of the doctrine?
That seems odd.
Did you mean to write, "…and of those who don't believe a full 17%…" et cetera?
Probably. 17% is a percentage of the whole, not of the 63%. From the cited article:
After a 2010 Pew Forum study found that 45 percent of Catholics didn’t know the church’s teaching on the real presence, this new study finds the number to actually be 50 percent. And yet, 63 percent of Catholics personally believe that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ at the consecration–including 17 percent who had no idea that the church actually teaches that this is true. – See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/201305/knowing-believing-and-sometimes-not-knowing-believing-too-27323#sthash.oMDI5tvv.dpuf
How many Catholics are aware that Jesus is really present in each individual?
Demonising others is not the way to defeat demons. Satan can’t cast out Satan.
Not talking about the Eucharist here either.
I remember so well how the nuns in school prepared us for our first Communion back in the 1950’s. Such reverence is sadly lacking today. We stand to receive Our Lord instead of kneeling, we take Him in our hands instead of the priests consecrated hands placing Him on the tongue, we no longer fast 3 hours before receiving Him and probably worse of all, we neglect the Sacrament of Confession. It is just another example of the crisis the Church is going through which Our Lord said would happen in the last days. We all must remember to pray for our priests and fellow parishioners.
Speak up, Ann! We have fallen into an age were so many cannot rely on their priest to lead them, but instead must seek out those Faithful, filled with the Holy Spirit to be strong enough, to lead them. Like the Internet, there is no central authority anymore; only networks and pockets that are sustained by community efforts.
What I am saying is that WE must speak these things you mention to our young people and, yes, even to those who are charged with leading us: our priests!
Speak up! Speak for our Lord, “always and everywhere!”
PAX et BONUM!
Yes, you are so right, David. I always tried to instill, in my now grown children, the sacredness of the Eucharist and I hope I have done a good job. But what you say is true, I must take it further into the community. I will ask the Lord to make me bolder! God Bless.
During lent 2010 March 7. The week before, I was wondering not
asking does the Holy Spirit come into the bread and wine all the time or
just sometimes, while in church as the priest was blessing the
Thinking what I was thinking the week before I
looked at the alter and strands of white smoke not pure white was coming
down above the Eucharist which represents the body of Jesus, it was
about 6 inches high and just above the cup about 4 inches was normal at
first I though someone just blew out the candle but it didn’t go
away,then I heard a very deep voice say “Watch” and it appeared above
the wine,again about 4 inches was normal above the cup like a glass tube
was above it but it was getting higher and higher the more he prayed
and more stands were appearing and was 7 to 8 feet tall at the max
height , and it was always coming down straight down it wasn’t full of
defined strands of smoke at this time (which is the Holy Spirit). So
now I am wondering is anyone else seeing this, I look over at my wife
while we are all kneeling and she is looking at her nails my daughter 9
at the time is hanging her head between her arms.I am looking around at
other people it seems like everyone has there head bowed at that moment,
he said the Holy Spirit and in the corner of my eye It fills up with
smoke now my eyes are fixed on it again. How I regret taking my eyes
off of it for that brief time. Slowly it becomes less and less as time
passes. Now it is time to give peace to everyone,thinking when I look
back at it, it isn’t going to be there so I said to my wife did you see
that, she shakes her head no which she has no idea so I kiss her and my
daughter shake the person in front of me and the person behind me and
turn back around and face the alter and it was still there with less
strands of smoke but still about 7 to 8 feet in the air like a glass
tube is over the cup. Watching the priest eyes thinking just look up a
little and he is going to see it,he never did. Right before he picked up
the cup to drink it the last of it came down the same way it started
then he drank it. The Holy Spirit was still over the Eucharist until
they took it off of the alter.
The next week it appeared again
above the Eucharist the same way. I thought am I going to see this every
week,people are going to think I am crazy,maybe I’m going crazy then it
disappeared and I have not seen it since. A short time after I posted this on facebook DEC23 2011 the end of a rainbow followed me and a( Unbelieving friend) now a believer down Rt 80 In PA for over 10 miles in the on the side of a mountain then on oncoming lane https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1518032685131299&set=p.1518032685131299&type=2&theater. Many things happened after this was posted.
A question I’ve ask a few times, with a somewhat annoyed response. I think a lot of Catholics do not believe in the real presence…A bit of a provocative question, do you think every Priest believes in the real presence?
I might sound strange but I believe in the Eucharist so much that I don’t recieve communion when I do the slightest sin. I’ve done this since i was 8 right after recieving first communion. It’s because I was afraid the host might bleed in my mouth or it would be stuck in my mouth…
I hope & pray the comfort of the Holy Spirit cubes upon you, and frees you from your scruples, so that you may fully embrace the healing power of Jesus. Every communion washes away venial sin-the teaching of the church. Peace to you, Jei.
Bad music? Oh, no… you put-up with one of those, do you?
My condolences! Is there no Traditional (Real) Mass near you? You should start a petition, which is how my community finally got the Tridentine Mass. It may take some work, but remember that it’s for God and the Salvation of your soul and all those who give proper worship!
PAX et BONUM!
Both forms of the Mass are real.
Oh you’re one of those, are you? 🙁
wow – how did we get on a discussion of what is truth? It seems to me that truth is both objective and subjective: objectively that which is whole, entire, pure – without bias; and, subjective how each of us perceives and experiences that truth based on our own limitations.
Jesus said the Pharisees, (John.9.40-41.niv ) …“If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains”.
Majority of Catholics who understand the scripture know that Jesus gave us, believers, a symbol of our redemption in the eucharist, as well as a memorial for His suffering in the flesh for our sake.
Miracles happen in true worship everyday of our lives. Just as Satan display counterfeit signs to confuse true understanding of the word of God and engineer false beliefs.
The wafers and wine in eucharist are not and cannot be true body and blood of Jesus Christ. The gospel of the Kingdom of God is based on truth and not myth.
God bless us all.
“He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.” (Jn. 6:55-56)
“And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” (Mt. 26:26-28)
The majority of Catholics who understand the scripture know that Jesus gave us believers the MEANS of our redemption in the Eucharist, the re-presentation in an unbloody manner of the same sacrifice of Calvary; His suffering in the flesh for our sake.
The bread and wine in the Eucharist are truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ, “For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed…Take ye, and eat. This is my body.”
It takes work to misunderstand the literal words of the Son of God made incarnate of the Virgin Mary. It takes work to believe that a God who could become a man is incapable of being a God who could make his humanity and divinity miraculously present under the appearances of bread and wine.
If the Eucharist is a myth, then so too is the Incarnation. Just as Christ gave us no option of thinking of Him as merely a good man or a moral teacher, but only the Son of God, He gave us no choice but to understand the “hard saying” of His words about His Real Presence in the Eucharist – words which sent many away, because they would not understand it.
Put more succinctly, as Flannery O’Connor once responded to a woman who told her she thought of the Eucharist as only a symbol (if a good one): “If it’s a symbol, to hell with it.”
Catholicism makes demonic activity worse.
Being a recent convert and totally enthralled with the teaching and the faith of the Church, the Body of Christ, the Eucharist is the essence and focus of the MASS and when taken, is the most marvelous experience any Catholic can experience. The problem experienced is when so many seem to go through the motions and don’t truly know that the MASS is Heaven on Earth, with the presents of Christ, all the Angels and Saints and of course our Blessed Virgin, the Mother of God present and enjoying the love we, the faithful are showing to our Lord. If you have been Catholic for many years learn to get involved with your Parish, the people in you parish who are your Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus. Collectively we can do all thing to fulfill the teachings of Jesus on the earth created for us by our Heavenly Father. God Bless.
I believe and I love Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. But we need to read and hear this kind of scenario because it help us not to take Him for granted. Thanks for sharing this.
The first thing Communists and moslems do is to destroy our access to the Holy Eucharist – in Mexico (under commies) and the ME through laws against the manufacture and purchase of wine: through the murder of priests, the imprisonment of religious and chatechetics, etc. They are slightly more subtle and insidious now – through PR and entertainment, they ridicule and embarrass he lukewarm, the teenagers, etc. The enemy seems to have more ‘respect’ for the awesome power and authority of the Eucharist and the priests who curate the Body of Christ than we who receive Him care to manifest! Blessed be Jesus!