Catholic Online Forum

In their attempts to discredit the teachings of the Catholic Church, the arguments that the Protestants have put forward are both intriguing and tantalizing. And yes! There are many styles of wrestling from which one can choose to wrestle with those arguments.

Yet, the one style that I have adopted is that of a vision of Creation.

Every religion appears to have a Creation story, or a vision of Creation, which has three central elements, viz. a Creator, the created universe, and mankind. The vision of creation will also include details of the relationships between those three elements; viz. between the Creator and the created universe, between the Creator and mankind, and between mankind and the created universe.

How God has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind is His decision and His prerogative. Now, according to the Catholic vision of Creation, God (The Son) has chosen to reveal Himself as a consecrated host of bread. And the primary witness of that Revelation is the New Testament Canon of Scripture.

Surprisingly enough, Protestants have attempted, untiringly, to prove that the consecrated host is merely a wafer of bread. And their arguments are based largely on the interpretation of Greek manuscripts. So, what they have effectively done is to take God's revelation of Himself to mankind, and have that revelation reduced to a human deduction.

But, by negating the Catholic belief that the consecrated host is the Body of Christ Jesus, Protestants have effectively negated the point that it is God's prerogative of how He has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind. Also, they have effectively altered the Catholic vision of Creation. So, the argument is not merely one of the technicalities of Greek grammar, but it is that of choosing either one vision of Creation, or another fundamentally different one.

I can't help thinking that Protestants have attempted to encapsulate the mystery of God's revelation (i.e. the Eucharist) within human reason. While the mystery of the Eucharist will always lie outside of the capsule of human reason.

Nevertheless, I shall continue to accept, on faith, that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ Jesus. And I shall also continue to accept that fact with incomprehension, and that that mystery will continue to lie outside of my own capsule of human reason.

Patrick Q Gonsalves

_________________
Patrick Q Gonsalves

In the Gospel of John, chapter 6, Jesus tells his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood at least eight times.

66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

67 Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"

68 Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

69 We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."

This is a matter of which comes first: belief in the Eucharist, or belief in Christ's words.
I would think belief in his words come first. It is that which kept Peter and the others loyal to him.

The Eucharist is a visable sign. Doubting it must make us consider whether we believe Christ's message in the first place.

The Protestants tend to concentrate on Jesus as the sacrificial lamb for our sins. The priests in our parish keep talking about what kind of people we should be, which I think is closer to how Jesus spoke most of the time. See the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew chap 5

_________________
Norman
...that is the regret of a lot of old people when they look back and realize too late what might have been.
This was what President Martin regretted. He thought he was doing something good. It was a disaster. How can anybody know what is the right thing to do?
-- Theresa

I am wary of those who would promote their faith at the expense of another's.

_________________
Andy H.
"Romanes eunt domus"

But, Andy, isn't that what Jesus did — and urged his followers to do — by declaring Christianity as the one True Religion and urging his followers to forsake all others in order to follow Him?:

Matthew 8:21, 22 Another of [his] disciples said to him, “Lord, let me go first and bury my father.”

But Jesus answered him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead.”

Matthew 16:24, 25 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.

For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Mark 1:17 Jesus said to them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

John 8:12 Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

John 8:26 I have much to say about you in condemnation. But the one who sent me is true, and what I heard from him I tell the world.”

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

Eh, no, no, that's not what I'm talking about.

The author of this thread is comparing Catholicism vs. Protestantism using the story of Creation as a reference. And he makes many valid points. But I'm not buying Brand A because it's not as bad as Brand B. The investment of my soul is too precious. You can't convince me to throw in with someone because of the way he steps on his challenger's throat. Ya gotta have something "redeeming". Ha! Get it? That's sort of a play on words there. Ha ha!

Oh, I just kill myself sometimes! Not really; that's a sin.

Time to take my meds.

_________________
Andy H.
"Romanes eunt domus"

Andy,

The Catholic Faith is not a brand of soap powder on a supermarket shelf, indistinguishable from other brands of soap powder. You are not simply free to pick the one whose packaging happens to appeal to you, as though that decision were without serious consequences.

The fist law of Logic is the law of non-contradiction: Contradictory propositions can't simultaneously be true. If one is true the other must be false. At least one must be false (and unless the two exhaust all possibilities, both can be false).

If Catholicism is the truth, then it can only be so at the expense of other faiths.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Unless, as you stated yourself, there are other possibilities, i.e., only if Catholicism is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

_________________
David L (CA)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx

David,

No.

1. It is logically possible that both Catholicism and Protestantism are false, since the two do not exhaust all possibilities (eg Islam, logically, might be true).

2. It is logically possible that Catholicism is true and Protestantism is false.

3. To ask that Catholicism be "the whole truth" is meaningless; the number of true propositions is infinite.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Yet, we say that Catholicism possesses "The fullness of truth" which sounds much the same to me.

Don't misunderstand. I don't question the Church's claim.

It's just that it's above my ken to apprehend!

I am certainly neither educated nor wise enough to understand "the whole truth" nor "the fullness of truth". (And I strongly suspect that I am not alone among mortals in this regard!)

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

Jim,



It doesn't to me. Remember that the phrase "the whole truth" was being used in its forensic sense, "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". I fully accept that the Church possesses the fullness of truth, in the sense you've used it. I don't accept it possesses "the whole truth" in the forensic sense. (If it did, why did it withhold from us for twenty centuries any knowledge of the existence of quarks?)

The point I was trying to make was that "the whole truth" in the forensic sense has nothing to do with the logical status of "If Catholicism is true, Protestantism must be false".

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

The pencil on my desk is at rest; it is not moving. However, the molecules which make up the pencil as a whole ARE in motion; hence the pencil is moving and also quite still.

Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted. "All of Martin Luther is dead, yet only some of the class of dead Protestants are Martin Luther." Obvious, one would think.

However, my fiancee does not understand this necessary limitation of a proposition, consequently, she does not understand me. For example, given the statement," All fish live underwater, and all carp are fish", she will conclude, not that "all carp live underwater", but that if she buys flounder it will not rain, or that trout live in trees, or even that I do not love her anymore. This she calls using her intuition. I call it crap, and it gets me very IRRITATED, because it is not logical.

I seem to have strayed somewhat from my original thought, but, in a nutshell, sex is more fun than logic. One cannot PROVE this, but it is, in the same sense that Mt. Everest is, or that Martin Luther isn't.

Adapted from "Views of a Professional Logician."

_________________
Andy H.
"Romanes eunt domus"

Andy,

None of the members of Monty Python, who wrote that scetch, would deny the law of non-contradiction.

Your pencil example uses "motion" in two different senses, so there is no contradiction.



Partially converted into what?



I don't understand what you're trying to demonstrate.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

I'm sorry; I have a cold.

_________________
Andy H.
"Romanes eunt domus"

Hot lemon juice with honey. (Not that it'll cure anything, it's just a nice drink.)

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)