Transubstantiation—Hard to Believe? Transubstantiation—Hard to Believe? [Open]

Catholic Exchange ^ | May 26, 2008 | Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D.

[Mad Dawg]

Cultural differences, cultural differences. We're about nuance, despite our reputation.

Are these men's words infallible?

One of these men is a chick. Therese of Lisieux is so recent that there are photos of her. She was canonized -- and there's some question about whether canonization is an infallible act. She has also been declared a doctor of the Church. So yeah, I'd venture to say that the Church is inclined to believe what she said.

Dominic de Guzman is 'the' Saint Dominic. So, yeah again, generally I think we'd go with "He knew what he was talking about."

But, no not "infallible" in the sense that there is no "I declare and Define that Therese and Dominic we're right," type statement exists as far as I know.

My "reasoning", if you'll pardon the self-deceit, is that the question is
Am I correct to state that Catholicism teaches that one can not really know until death?

And the answer is, these two seemed to be confident ("know" is such a tricky word) where they'd end up and they're not in trouble for saying what they said, so the Church cannot believe that NO ONE of the saved knows that they are saved. Maybe some of the saved know it and some don't. So I think I answered the original question.

Now you're asking different questions, right? I think I've addressed your second paragraph the best I can.

And if someone only had the Scriptures -— could they have, in this life, absolute assurance of having been forever reconciled to God by Christ, and eternal life in Heaven?

Here's an example of what I mean by "nuance". In general, despite the reputation for doctrinal fascism, the Vatican and various councils do not churn out statements and declarations and whatnot in an effort to proved a corpus of infallible texts which perfectly adequately present the whole of (our view of) the Christian Religion.

I'd venture to say that that is because, au fond, "the Christian Religion" is not some big bulky cumbersome thing but an individual's heart and God's heart and the relationship between the two. And all the huge apparatus exists to serve and foster that relationship. For have not the scribes said, "It takes a lot of manure to grow roses."

So from the Council in Jerusalem to Vatican II the Church is reactive and settling problems and disputes that arise rather than proactive. We leave the pro-active to God.

People focus on the externals ("costumed clergy", who are basically tricked out in what was in vogue 1,500 years ago, and this get yelled at for not being fashion-forward -- an interesting complaint) and miss the motivating core.So with that preamble, the answer is, "Sure, could be ...," but outside of a few hints in the Catechism, I am not aware of any official statement.

I have seen statements to the contrary posted by Catholics on these pages.

Well, people speak loosely and ask poorly worded questions. I think the notion of "blessed assurance" as kind of a necessary diagnostic marker is one we'd avoid, on the grounds that it ain't over until it's over. I think we'd imagine that some are plunged into the suffering of Christ so deeply that they cannot see the hand in front of their face, much less their future blessedness, while others radiate assurance.

Also, some say that "all" we do is hope". To me this suggests a carnal understanding of "hope". When we talk about hope in this context, we are not talking about the almost "magical thinking" notion of "maybe if I want it enough it'll just happen" kind of thing, or a kind of flaccid sense of, "well thee are two outcomes and I'd prefer one over the other, but who knows?"

Hope to us is a virtue given by God, not a feeling. I'm not going to haul out the Aquinas at this point but I'd say it is a confident (faith is also an infused virtue) orientation toward the coming kingdom which informs and shapes our dealings with the present, so that even the grieving parents of a dying child can believe in their tears that God can and will make their calamity the best thing that ever happened.

It's not just that we, Protestants and Catholics, have different answers. We have different questions and different approaches to the same questions. It seems, at least in theory, that some Protestants if asked what they believe would give the questioner a bible and, say the Westminister Confession. We on the other hand might say, "Jesus loves you and died and rose again to make His Love save and rule your life," or we might say, "Here's the Vatican Library; have a ball."

[Mad Dawg]

LOL

We just got through reading (excerpts from) Eccl in The Daily Office and that was a line that made me want to punch the air and say, YEAH!"

[daniel1212]

Solomon tried the folly of pursuing the materialist’s dream, of satisfying the senses rather than the soul. I sought, I made, I got,...I withheld not my heart from any joy;
(Eccl 2:3-10)

[Mad Dawg]

I’ve always thought that THAT was the book to give to a disaffected late adolescent who fancied himself an intellectual.

That’s becuase when I was a ditto (and yes they DID have paper in those days) Eccl REALLY resonated with me.

[daniel1212]

Solomon summed up the goal of the unregenerate man, as is much evident here today : (Eccl 2:24-25) “There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God. {25} For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto, more than I?”

And which teaches us that though such words were penned by the inspiration of God, they are not advocating His moral virtue (cf. Rm. 14:17), but are contextually revealing the folly of the natural man, who minds earthly things (Rm. 8:5). And which i must do better in crucifying.

But Solomon evidently came to his senses, (Eccl 12:13) “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”

[Mad Dawg]

And which teaches us that though such words were penned by the inspiration of God, they are not advocating His moral virtue (cf. Rm. 14:17), but are contextually revealing the folly of the natural man, who minds earthly things (Rm. 8:5).

THAT's a big 10-4.

And which i must do better in crucifying.

Well, I've found that God has me on a choke collar, praise Jesus. (They don't call me Dwg fer nuthin'!) And when I go a-haring off after some earthly concern, he lets me run out the chain and it brings me up short — and in a hurry. Gimme another 4 or 5 decades and I may learn this whole "heeling" ting.

[daniel1212]

“Gimme another 4 or 5 decades and I may learn this whole “heeling” ting.”

I hear you, and we have no excuses. And as “in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing” ((Rm. 7:18), that is one reason that Jesus Himself is our only direct object of prayer, whom the Holy Spirit directs us to come to, and the only one the Bible declares “is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” (Heb 7:25)

(Heb 4:14-16) “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. {15} For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. {16} Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.”

(Heb 2:17-18) “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. {18} For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.”