The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

I can sort of understand where he’s coming from though. I don’t want to attribute this to one ethnicity, but to generalize as to make a point, there was/is an Irish-American Catholicism that tried to adapt itself to the U.S. by upholding the Protestant/secular culture here, and de-emphasizing the “bumpkin” Catholicism of procession of saints’ statues, Eucharistic processions, saying the Rosary, etc. This “Irish-American Catholicism” looked down upon the Slavic-Italian traditional Catholicism that had gobs of such devotions, and even tried to undermine them. The descendants of the more Protestant-secular Catholicism are the present-day CINOs.

Excellent point.

I do want to reiterate that the Catholic Church does not have an official position on the number of days in Creation, or whether the snake talked, etc. The Church has not resolved the mysteries at the heart of the Creation story, and I acknowledge these Scriptures as mysterious.

At the same time, as is stressed repeatedly by the Church, and is a major reason why I returned to the Church, is that is holds, rightly, that Scriptural truth and reason are completely compatible. That does not exclude the supernatural, however, and so I am open to the idea that Genesis tells the story the way it happened. At the same time, my own scholarship and prayer life, has personally led me to tentatively conclude that the Creation story in Genesis should not be read as a science book.

Physics is a wonderful validation of the Lord's creation of the universe, and is proving to cause serious problems for atheists who cannot explain the origins of the universe in a way that does not degenerate into absurdity. I would not want a literal interpretation of scripture to distract Christians from engaging in that debate, from scientific evidence, on the implications for theism. It is a powerful and persuasive argument that will convert a lot of skeptics to the faith.

And, incidently, the "origin" is not "natural." In fact, it can't be natural, because the natural world is the universe, and we now know the universe had a beginning. Using simple logic, the universe had to have a beginning and the beginning had to be supernatural.

Of Hugh Owen, the author writes:

Through intense study, Gerry came to realize that while faith in atheistic evolution had been used to destroy the faith of millions, attempts to combine the Catholic Faith with evolution were also having a devastating effect on Christianity all over the world. He saw that a god who would deliberately create a world full of death, disease, deformities, and harmful mutations—and who would use mutations over millions of years to evolve a subhuman primate body into a receptacle for a human soul—was not the all-knowing, all-loving God revealed in Jesus Christ and proclaimed by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. He observed that a widespread loss of faith and lukewarmness attended the rejection of the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation, which was rooted in reverence for the inerrant Word of God, and for the constant teaching of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Councils.

The problem with this statement is that it has a short-sighted concept of evolution. Evolution is a broader category than Darwinian evolution. Natural selection is only one mechanism potentially driving evolution -- and it is an indisputable fact, I think, that natural selection -- a blind process -- cannot explain all of evolution.

Theology has nothing to fear from science. The more science investigates, the more the universe will be found to be compatible with the Truth revealed in Scripture. I have no doubt about that.

Transubstantiation is ultimately a miracle, however, and miracles, by definition, like outside the natural order of things -- and therefore can not be affirmed by science. They can, however, be ruled out, if a reasonable, natural explanation can be made for the supposed "miracle." This kind of scientific scrutinity is routine in the Catholic Church and no miracle is accepted by the Church without this scrutiny. That's something I take pride in as a Catholic.

I really don't want to get into this again if you don't mind.

The point is that the creation of the world is, by definition, as Theological topic. It is outside science altogether. Science has nothing, and can have nothing to say about origins. Science studies the way the world operates now. It cannot by definition study the way the world was put together before those laws existed or even the way the world operated naturally in epochs prior to our own (for example, when the human gestation period was a matter of moments before the first sin, or even of how the world operated before the Mabbul (Flood) or the Haflagah (Dispersion). And Tradition--Sacred Tradition--tells us at nature underwent changes at these points.

If you must believe in uniformitarian natural laws then I cannot change your mind. However, to flaunt the absolutely fantasmagorical concept of transubstantiation while insisting that the world be assembled according to the same laws that operate now in a fully created world is the height of inconsistency.

George Coyne says all light must come from the sun or stars and therefore the Hexameron must be primitive and typological. Why in the world people such as he and yourself cannot see that this is an unwarranted assumption is beyond me. But if you can't, you can't. Only please the medieval piety to more consistent people, please.

You are misreading the Scriptures.

If you say that you are saved by faith alone, this ignores the grace that makes faith possible. Informed Protestants do not teach that we are saved by faith, and, in what may be a surprise to you, Catholics do not teach that we are saved by works.

Evangelical and Catholic theologies both accept as the starting tenet of soteriology that we are saved by grace. God gives us his life as an act of generosity on his part. This is a not a point of disagreement between Catholics and Evangelicals. It is one of our glorious agreements! I'm sorry you do not appreciate that. Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification.

There are some differences in the ways Protestants, and in particular Evangelicals, define grace by referring primarily to its origin in God. Grace is typically defined as the free generosity of God through the self-giving of Christ. Catholics agree with this prat of the definition but go on to define how the grace of God affects us when we are touched by it: grace is "any divine assistance given to persons in order to advance them toward their supernatural destiny of fellowship with God...Grace transforms a person's nature" (Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia). Catholics will go even farther, distinguishing between santifying grace (supernatural life) and actual grace (supernatural aid).

The problem that Catholics have with Protestant soteriology is not the claim that we are justified by faith but the claim that we are justified by faith alone. Works continue the justification after faith has begun it. In other words, justification is not complete without complete sanctification.

All the Catholic position needs is, first, any scripture that indicates works are essential for justification. And secondly, the absence of any statement in the Bible that we are justified by faith ALONE.

First, Scripture does clearly and emphatically teach that works are involved in the "by" of justification. The most obvious passage is in James, which I quoted already: James 2:14-26 -- which I DID NOT reference out of context. The meaning in context is the same as provided here. Faith without action/works is dead. He says a man is "JUSTIFIED by what he does." The Catholic interpretation is validated by the fact that reformers attempted to put James into an appendix in the Bible rather than in its historically accepted place. But it cannot be ignored.

Nevertheless James is not the only place to find verses to support the necessity of works (AND faith) for justification. The Catholic view of justification by faith AND works (faith comes first) is consistent with the gospel of Jesus!

Our Lord, Jesus Christ's ideal was that of a life of good works flowing outward from a vibrant inner faith. The parables of the wide and foolish builders (Mt 7:24-27), the two sons (Mt 21:28-32), the good Samaritan (Lk 10:25-37), the talents (Mt 25:14-30), the sheep and the goats (Mt 25:31-46), and others all teach a unity of faith and works for salvation. The entire Sermon on the Mount is a discourse on Jesus' view of justification (justification and righteousness have the same root in Greek): "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER who is in heaven" (Mt 7:21). How much more explicit could Jesus have been?!?!?

In the Lord's Prayer (Our Father), Jesus teaches us to ask God to forgive us in the same measure that we have forgiven others. "Forgive us our debts [trespasses], as we also have forgiven our debtors [those who trespass against us]" (Mt 6:12). Catholics pray this prayer in every Mass. As a former Evangelical, I NEVER ONCE heard this prayer in an Evangelical Church! The theology of the Lord's Prayer just does not fit Protestant notions concerning salvation. For this reason, they feel it is better left unsaid. What a shame.

It is quite clear in Jesus' teaching that justification, and thus salvation, is accomplished in a unity of these two: faith and works. The whole process is made possible solely by grace. This is just what Catholic theology asserts.

Does Scripture anywhere state that "by faith alone" we are justified? The long and the short of it is--no. Those words are never, ever used in relation to justification anymore, by any of the NT authors. And no, not by Paul, who critized Jewish obligational works of law, e.g. circumcision, but not justification by good works. In fact, there are many passages in Paul's letters that support the necessity of good action for justification, including Philippians 2:12, Romans 2:6-8, etc.. And, by the way, the reformers tampered with the translation of Ephesians 2:8-10 -- it never said "faith ALONE," but rather that "BY GRACE" we "have been saved, through faith...for we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do GOOD WORKS."! In short, Paul agrees: grace makes possible justification through faith AND good works.

God bless.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.