Prayer -- split from Catholic rant

[Blade96]

Speaking on a molecular basis, the bread remains bread. The communion does not change it even for 1 atom. So with that said, how exactly is that bread now the body of Jesus Christ?

'Just because I believe' is not the answer I am looking for. If transsubstantiation is true as you believe it to be in the literal sense, something has to change. But since those atoms are still the same atoms, what changed?

I was thinking that too But im not religious. I think scienfically like you do. However I know what they mean now

 

[chrispillertkd]

It's not a matter of whether one think "scientifically" or if you're "religious." It's a question of whether you can understand the difference between a substance and an accidens.

Pax,

Chris

 

[yorkshirelad]

It is germane to the topic in that it is yet another issue which is entirely internal to the Church - yet others feel compelled to attack the Church for it. If one is not a Catholic, one is not compelled to take Communion, obviously (in fact, they're not permitted to do so by our rules). So what we believe about the literal 'body of Christ' present in the consecrated Host is of no concern to anyone who is not Catholic. But it is one more weapon in the arsenal of those who hate.

This is the thing Bill, the Church has injected itself into society for years, and continues to this day. In the past it has injected itself into the lives of Jews, Muslims, atheists, alchemists, artists and politicians. For generations it has tortured people for not towing the line of Catholic dogma. it has gone into the homes of decent people and taken their children. It has dictated public policy in many lands and it has had carte blanche on the torture of children. After all this, catholics have the raw nerve to berate people about commenting on the church's internal policy!

 

[yorkshirelad]

There's still alot of closed ranks behaviour still going today, did you follow what happened with the recent Listowel rape case?

No, I'm not familiar with it. To tell you the truth, the more I know about such things, the more it weighs on me. I lived in ireland from the early 90s to 2001 and by then the grip of Catholicism was no where near as severe as it had been. i agree that the culture did have a hand in what happened, but the culture revolved around the church and the church had a huge strangle hold on the Irish polpulace. Politics was deeply entreched in Catholicism, and the powers that be turned a blind eye to the suffering of innocents because of this. My father was severley beaten by the Christian brothers, he was also mentally tortured and this effected him in so many ways, as it did with countless others. If there is accountablility at the the end of this life, I dearly hope that Ratzinger and his hateful crew are turned away at the door. If there is justice, they will be.

 

[Empty Hands]

It's not a matter of whether one think "scientifically" or if you're "religious." It's a question of whether you can understand the difference between a substance and an accidens.

The distinction is not a scientific one. In a materialist view of the world, the "accidents" define the substance.

 

[yorkshirelad]

A Catholic priest, acting in persona Christi, consecrates the bread and wine and Jesus becomes present body, blood, soul and divinity.


Chris

Was the bread still valid as consecrated when the priest performing the ritual was raping little children? Was he still acting in persona christi? Did all that bread go to waste? These are not sarcastic questions by the way. I really want to know. Were the sacraments performed by evil bastards, who practiced their deviant ways to the detriment of children, still valid in the eyes of the church? Actually they must have been. After all Ratzinger was responsible for relocating priests to other parishes, when he knew these priests had been raping children.

 

[chrispillertkd]

This is the thing Bill, the Church has injected itself into society for years, and continues to this day. In the past it has injected itself into the lives of Jews, Muslims, atheists, alchemists, artists and politicians. For generations it has tortured people for not towing the line of Catholic dogma.

Oh, thank God you're not going to exaggerate.

Since you've conveniently forgotten to give an actual historical example of what you're referring to, let's take the Spanish Inquisition as an example (one of the "go-to" things for people with an axe to grind with the Church).

That Inquisition (yes, there was more than one) was actually wholly controlled by the Spanish crown. The popes had no say in it except for naming the Inquisitor General (and actually viewed the institution as an infringement on their authority in matters of faith). Under the civil rulers of Spain the Inquisition soon expanded beyond its legitimate role of investigating whether or not converted Jews and Muslims held to their new faith in sincerity (not exactly a small matter since the Muslims had just been kicked out of Spain after several centuries and there is much testimony of Jewish assistance to the Muslim invaders) and began investigating people like Teresa of Avilla and Ignatius of Loyola for heresy, which was beyond the Inquisition's area of authority. Those two were, of course, later named saints demonstrating how ridiculous the Spanish were in their investigations.

Apparently, those Jews who openly professed their religion were, largely, ignored by the Inquisition (according to Baron's "A Social and Religious History of the Jews"). According to Baron, there was only one example of a persecution of a Jewish community between 1478 when the Inquisition was set up and 1492 when the Jews were expelled from Spain.

Abuses in the Spanish Inquisition were commited by the civil authorities, with some few exceptions. What is more, they were condemned by four separate popes! (Leo X, Paul III, Paul IV, and Sixtus IV) How much more can you get in the "not-condoned-by-the-Church" department?

Were there abuses in the Spanish Inquisition? Yes. Were they horrible? Yes. Was the Church responsible for them? No than Judaism is responsible for the choice of forcible conversion or death than John Hyrcanus gave the Edomites.

it has gone into the homes of decent people and taken their children. It has dictated public policy in many lands and it has had carte blanche on the torture of children. After all this, catholics have the raw nerve to berate people about commenting on the church's internal policy!

So, you're not interested in an actual conversation then? If you are please simply produce the official Church documents whereby these events are commanded, or even sanctioned. Thanks in advance!

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

Was the bread still valid as consecrated when the priest performing the ritual was raping little children? Was he still acting in persona christi?

Please explain to me how a man engaged in homosexual rape can also simultaneously engage in any sacramental celebration since you said "when the priest [was] performing the ritual." Thanks.

Did all that bread go to waste?

You must have a specific instance in mind. Please, by all means, tell me when and where you saw a priest homosexually rape someone while he was celebrating Mass.

These are not sarcastic questions by the way. I really want to know. Were the sacraments performed by evil bastards, who practiced their deviant ways to the detriment of children, still valid in the eyes of the church? Actually they must have been. After all Ratzinger was responsible for relocating priests to other parishes, when he knew these priests had been raping children.

The validity of a sacrament doesn't depend on the personal holiness of the priest performing it (or, in the instance of Baptism performed in extremis of the personal holines of anyone). The idea that a priest has to be holy for the sacraments he perorms to be valid was a heresy that condemned the first time it surfaced back in the 4th century. Since you were raised Catholic I'm sure you know all about the Donatist heresy, how it and why it was condemned, right? I won't even bother to being up the repugnance of the traditores. Let's just remember that if one's sinfulness is an issue with the celebration of sacraments then no one would be worthy to perform a valid sacrament because we're all sinners.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

The distinction is not a scientific one. In a materialist view of the world, the "accidents" define the substance.

Nor is it, strictly speaking, a religious distinction.

Pax,

Chris

 

[yorkshirelad]

That Inquisition (yes, there was more than one) was actually wholly controlled by the Spanish crown. The popes had no say in it except for naming the Inquisitor General (and

Oh, I thought Pope Sixtus IV issued a papal bull allowing for the creation of the spanish inquisition. Practiced by the crown with the seal of approval of the pope himself.....nice!!

 

[chrispillertkd]

Way to ignore everything else in my post!

Of course, if you hadn't done that you'd have to address the fact that the abuses of the Inquisition were at the hands of someone other than the Church.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Bruno@MT]

It's not a matter of whether one think "scientifically" or if you're "religious." It's a question of whether you can understand the difference between a substance and an accidens.

Pax,

Chris

I just googled it. Imo, and with al respect: it seems a cop out.
Substance is that which makes up a thing. The accidens is what is the thing by virtue of something else.

In this case, the substance is the scientific definition of what it is, whereas the accidens is what also makes it the body of Christ. Only, by definition it is invisible, unobservable, and only believed because someone says it is true without having any verifiability at all.

A priest could 'rhubarb' his way through the communion and you'd be none the wiser.
You're allright talking about substance and accidens as it that would somehow be a real explanation, but all it does is highlight the fact that there is none. Or at least, none which makes any sense in a scientific and therefore humanly observable way.

 

[jks9199]

Speaking on a molecular basis, the bread remains bread. The communion does not change it even for 1 atom. So with that said, how exactly is that bread now the body of Jesus Christ?

'Just because I believe' is not the answer I am looking for. If transsubstantiation is true as you believe it to be in the literal sense, something has to change. But since those atoms are still the same atoms, what changed?

The answer is faith and belief.

Sorry, there's not a "scientific proof", just like every proof of the existence of God eventually comes to a point where the logic becomes "because I believe."

We believe that, at the moment of consecration, the host becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, who became truly man while still being truly God, who died for our sins, and rose from the dead after three days. This is the cornerstone of Catholic Christianity. It's a matter of faith; you either believe it or you don't.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"212

Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art. Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.213

However, if you want some interesting reading about some of the sociology behind religious belief, you may want to check out some of Fr. Andrew Greeley's writings, especially The Catholic Myth.

 

[chrispillertkd]

I just googled it. Imo, and with al respect: it seems a cop out.
Substance is that which makes up a thing. The accidens is what is the thing by virtue of something else.

In this case, the substance is the scientific definition of what it is, whereas the accidens is what also makes it the body of Christ. Only, by definition it is invisible, unobservable, and only believed because someone says it is true without having any verifiability at all.

If I am following your post (and it seems a bit convoluted to me), then no you don't get it. That's not meant to be an insult, I just don't have the time to discuss Aristotelian philosophy right now. It deserves more than googling or checking out wikipedia. You would need to put actual time in studying since it's a topic most people can't even get their heads around given the state of philosophical education these days.

A priest could 'rhubarb' his way through the communion and you'd be none the wiser.

Not really. It's actually pretty hard to mess up celebrating a sacrament given that the Church's understanding of "intentionality" is somewhat on the implicit side. Is it possible for a priest to purposefully make a farce of his celebration of Mass? Sure. Is it easy to do? Not really. It would need to be something like him stating "This is [sotto voce: not] my body," during the consecration. Sure someone could do that, but why would they? And how common an occurance would it be? And how wide spread? I mean after a while it's irrelevant on a day-to-day basis. Simply having a doubt about the truth of the Real Presence of Christ isn't enough to effect the validity of the sacrament.

As for being "none the wiser," well that depends on what you mean by that. Are you able to tell the difference between being a validly consecrated host and one that hasn't been consecrated? I can't unless I were to receive a special grace from God.

You're allright talking about substance and accidens as it that would somehow be a real explanation, but all it does is highlight the fact that there is none. Or at least, none which makes any sense in a scientific and therefore humanly observable way.

It's certainly a real explanation. That it isn't a scientific one is irrelevant. There are more thing in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your test tube.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Empty Hands]

Multiple claimants to the See of Peter don't mean they all are bishop of Rome.

You keep saying "claimants", but all 3 were elected by a conclave of Cardinals. The Pope in Rome was forced to step down like the other 2 prior to the election of Martin V. Furthermore, if "Rome" is the important part, then there was no Pope, only "claimants", from 1305-1378 when the unbroken line of Papal succession led to 7 Popes who reigned from Avignon, France, and never ruled from Rome.

If someone was the "real" Pope by spirit if not by law, then who? Does that also mean that Urban VI somehow turned from "Pope" to "claimant" in the middle of his reign with the election of Clement VII by the French Cardinals? Was the Holy See actually empty for 73 years and not 2?

Actually, it runs quite a bit shallower...

I don't have the knowledge to fully debate early Church history, so I will concede the point for now.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's certainly a real explanation. That it isn't a scientific one is irrelevant. There are more thing in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your test tube.

I have found it somewhat difficult to test for the presence of love in a laboratory. I called a chemical supply house, they said they don't have it. I think everyone would admit it exists, but apparently you can't pour out a cup of it.

Strange. Things which exist and are self-evident to the person who has it, yet which cannot be measured by science. Must not exist then.

Likewise, I am chemically and atomically identical to my constituent components; the atoms and molecules of which I am made can be piled up and tested as discrete items, and the machines which test them cannot discern which of them is 'me'. Yet I exist, or at least I think I do.

If I understand the science correctly, eventually all of the components (cells, molecules, even atoms) of which I am made will be removed from me by one means or another and replaced by other things, which were not me until they became part of my body, and which are now apparently imbued with the attribute of 'me', which cannot be tested for either.

Although I admit I would be interested in seeing the element 'Bill Mattocks' which a scientist could write a paper about and sell photos of. Probably made of donutium.

And someday, "I" will no longer be present in the physical word, and the things which made up my body will have no attribute in them that is 'me'. That won't be detectable either.

Perhaps I do not exist. Nor you. Nor anyone. Which explains a lot, actually.

 

[Empty Hands]

Since you've conveniently forgotten to give an actual historical example of what you're referring to, let's take the Spanish Inquisition as an example (one of the "go-to" things for people with an axe to grind with the Church).

It's undeniable that the Church was responsible for a multitude of crimes and irreligious behavior over much of its history. For much of the Middle Ages and Renaissance period, the Church was just another route to power, wealth and influence for ambitious younger sons who wouldn't inherit. From the Magdalene Laundries and the abuses there, to men who had taken the vows living with mistresses in castles, to Julius II waging war for his entire reign, to burning men like William Tyndale for translating the Bible.

Now, I don't think the Catholic Church was any worse than any other human institution of its size, power and longevity. It may very well have even been better. However, the history of the institution shows clearly that it is a human institution prone to the same sins and problems as any other.

That's what bothers people though. Because while the Church is visibly responsible for these sins, the Church also claims to be the representative of Christ on Earth, the path to salvation, able to absolve sins and so forth. While as you say the message and the sacraments do not depend on the personal holiness of the men involved, it's inevitable that people will look at the Church through this lens. What bothers most people most of all is hypocrisy. They see an institution that proclaims what is moral and in tune with God's will, and at the same time acts immorally. Logically, the two are not connected, but like a politician who proclaims family values and simultaneously cheats on their spouse, the Church will always be looked at through this lens.

I think that explains a lot of the anger you see.

 

[chrispillertkd]

You keep saying "claimants", but all 3 were elected by a conclave of Cardinals.

Who cares? It depends on which conclave was valid. You just don't get a bunch of dudes in red hats together and go around electing popes. The idea itself is ridiculous!

The Pope in Rome was forced to step down like the other 2 prior to the election of Martin V. Furthermore, if "Rome" is the important part, then there was no Pope, only "claimants", from 1305-1378 when the unbroken line of Papal succession led to 7 Popes who reigned from Avignon, France, and never ruled from Rome.

Actually, IIRC, the pope during the period of Avignon "exile" (and let's be honest, Avignon was much nicer than Rome at the time) was still the bishop of Rome. That he didn't reside there was part of the scandal the St. Catehrine of Siena was reacting to. But the important thing is that the pope is the successor of St. Peter. The point St. Catherine was trying to make was that if Rome was good enough for St. Peter to get crucified upside down in then it's good enough for the pope to live in.

If someone was the "real" Pope by spirit if not by law, then who? Does that also mean that Urban VI somehow turned from "Pope" to "claimant" in the middle of his reign with the election of Clement VII by the French Cardinals? Was the Holy See actually empty for 73 years and not 2?

I used "claimant" because it's more accurate to say than to say "three popes" like you did (which is not just false but self-contradictorarily so). It would have been better to say one pope and two claimant, I admit.

I don't have the knowledge to fully debate early Church history, so I will concede the point for now.

Don't argue it with me, take it up with the Church Fathers.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Empty Hands]

I have found it somewhat difficult to test for the presence of love in a laboratory.

I've made this point to you before, but science has a pretty good handle on what love is. We know the neurochemical basis. We know the circuits responsible. We even have people suffering from a particular brain disorder who cannot love. Love is not a mysterious otherwordly phenomena, we have a pretty good handle on what it is and how it's produced. Do we understand the mechanism 100%? No, but we know part of it, enough to know that it is a physical phenomena. You can't say "we don't understand the mechanism of love 100%, therefore God/transubstantiation/whatever exists."

Things which exist and are self-evident to the person who has it, yet which cannot be measured by science. Must not exist then.

False, again. It goes beyond love too, many emotional states have been mapped. The limbic system, and particularly the amygdala, are critical structures.

We understand how our constituent components make up neurons, and how those neurons communicate with each other to produce emotional states, thoughts, personality, and all the rest. Again, not 100%, but enough to know that it comes from your physical brain and part of how it works.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That's what bothers people though. Because while the Church is visibly responsible for these sins, the Church also claims to be the representative of Christ on Earth, the path to salvation, able to absolve sins and so forth. While as you say the message and the sacraments do not depend on the personal holiness of the men involved, it's inevitable that people will look at the Church through this lens. What bothers most people most of all is hypocrisy. They see an institution that proclaims what is moral and in tune with God's will, and at the same time acts immorally. Logically, the two are not connected, but like a politician who proclaims family values and simultaneously cheats on their spouse, the Church will always be looked at through this lens.

I think that explains a lot of the anger you see.

Imagine a father who gives his son a position of authority in his company. The son is not very apt, and makes a lot of mistakes. Abuses and errors in judgment. The father can revoke that authority, but does not, for reasons he does not choose to give.

Can anyone say that the son does not have the authority that his father gave him? They might certainly argue that the son should not have it, but they are not the father, they cannot take the authority away from the son, only the father can do that.

Catholics believe that the RCC was given authority by Christ for certain things. Men, as you noted, are not perfect and screw up. In large ways and small. Intentionally, though evil and lust for power, and unintentionally, by failing to do God's Will or even to understand fully what God's Will is at times. And yet, the Church has the authority God gave it (we believe). Though it is reasonable for others to believe it was wrongly given (or not given at all, or that God could not have given it on account of not existing), it is not for man to take away what God gave.

I am, as I have stated before, as angry with the Catholic leadership as anyone. I would like to see an independent investigation of the current crop of abuses, by temporal authorities, and I'd like to see those responsible prosecuted and brought to justice, including being removed from their positions in the Church and even sent to prison where applicable. And I'd like to see the Church as a whole held accountable as any business would be that harbored criminal executives.

But the Church remains the Church, given it's authority over me by God, in my belief. Others may think that's a terrible thing; but I cannot order God to take back what I believe was His authority.