Author Topic: Debate with an atheist about the Mass (Read 1138 times)

Caminus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 21, 2010, 11:34:36 AM »

You can't debate with an atheist about the Mass until he accepts the premise that God exists. But even then, you can't debate him about the Mass until he accepts Christianity as the true religion of God. You and your opponent must agree on basic premises before you can debate about remote conclusions regarding other increasingly specific truths. The most you can do is address certain gratuitious claims or other particular erroneous philosophical assumptions.

Caminus · « **Reply #2 on:** March 21, 2010, 11:43:34 AM »

Quote

You say that it is rather Jesus' glorified body that is received in the communion of the bread and wine -- that the bread and wine have become his glorified body. But his glorified body cannot be sacrificed on the altar nor was it sacrificed on cavalry.

For instance, take this proposition. He needs to define his terms specifically what does he mean by "glorified body" and "sacrifice." The last proposition is an example of a gratutious assertion and incoherent in itself. He seems to think "glorified" adds some kind of substance to the substance of flesh when in actuality, to say "glorified body" simply means an accidental quality of an already existing substance.

Not only are these atheists so insane as to deny the existence of God, their arrogance also extends to a pretended mastery of complex theological concepts. It's like watching children play with fire.

Dylan · « **Reply #3 on:** March 21, 2010, 12:11:31 PM »

I agree. I was, as you said, trying to address certain gratuitous claims and other particular erroneous philosophical assumptions. But, this individual isn't worth talking to and I plan on ending the conversation. He sent me this:

"You failed to address my point and instead spammed a catechism. Its one body and two possible states, one "mortal" and the other "glorious". Only the mortal can be offered in sacrifice but Catholics believe that the sacrifice is made present in the mass under the appearance of bread and wine, which means that Jesus is present in his mortal state. But Jesus is no longer in his mortal state, he is "glorified". Incoherence. You deserve Roman Catholicism and it deserves you (Is this a curse?). I hope that you will do lots of penance like you know a good Catholic should. Make sure that it really hurts and makes you really unhappy, otherwise it has no propitiatory value. Do as much penance as you can in the coming days spend your whole life in miserable penance, as much as you can every day! Just make sure that it really hurts and makes you really miserable! Be a true Catholic!"

I'm confused as to his objection to Catholic theology regarding the Mass, Eucharist, etc.:

Quote

Catholics believe that the sacrifice of Jesus on calvary is made present on the altar at the mass when the bread and wine are consecrated and they become the body and blood of Jesus. But it was Jesus' mortal body that was sacrificed. You say that it is rather Jesus' glorified body that is received in the communion of the bread and wine - that the bread and wine have become his glorified body. But his glorified body cannot be sacrificed on the altar nor was it sacrificed on cavalry. It is incoherent.

...

Its one body and two possible states, one "mortal" and the other "glorious". Only the mortal can be offered in sacrifice but Catholics believe that the sacrifice is made present in the mass under the appearance of bread and wine, which means that Jesus is present in his mortal state. But Jesus is no longer in his mortal state, he is "glorified". Incoherence.

How can this be refuted?

Could you, or anyone else, recommend any resources that could help me get a better understanding of this issue?

Dulcamara · « **Reply #4 on:** March 21, 2010, 12:37:30 PM »

The Eucharist is a profound mystery, and like other mysteries, by very definition, we cannot fully understand every aspect of it. For instance, how is it that the one, body of Christ with all of it's blood, can be given truly and factually upon the alters without exhausting it? We know and must believe as Catholics, the words of Christ... "this IS my Body... this IS my blood." But then one might as well argue about or question the miracle of the loaves and fishes, of which there were only five and seven (or however many), and which fed thousands.

Does Christ have two bodies, one glorious and one mortal? No. His one and only body was glorified. There is (to my knowledge) no distinction that can be made. Christ has not two bodies to debate between. So where is the question? Christ did not have a mortal body that withered and died in the tomb, for instance. That body is His one and only body, which is now glorified. So where is the confusion, unless one denies the resurrection?

As for being miserable and hurting oneself, there is nothing so blackly miserable as the torments and anguish of a soul wallowing in, and slave to, it's sins and vices. Yet there is no tortures on this earth that can deprive the Catholic soul of the hope of heaven, or the joy of the friendship of Christ, or the peace that comes from that knowledge. This person has clearly never visited a traditional Catholic seminary or convent. I recall in particular one convent which I visited when there was a traditional Mass being hosted there. Meeting one of the sisters, the joy and peace in her heart just radiated from her. And meeting or seeing various (truly) holy priests and bishops, one can see the peace they carry with them through all of their many crosses.

And as for penance, what poor soul who has had the misfortune of committing a misdeed, does not almost rejoice to pay for his crime, if he is sincerely sorry? The only way to misunderstand the concept of penance, is to misunderstand the concept of justice and personal honor (in worldly terms), by which a good man desires to see wrongs made right, and crimes paid for. But if atheism were so wonderful, why does the world, which is ever more atheistic, have ever more and more people killing themselves, now at record rates? So much for the joys of doing exactly what one wants, without conscience.

Of course, in a world where man has come to adore and honor only himself (and even then not truly, for if he did, he would live more virtuously so as to give himself more abundant honor), the concept of true honor (virtue) and penance (related to perfect justice) have become hazy at best, and in many minds and hearts utterly lost.

As for the Mass, however, it seems that this person thinks Christ had two bodies, and THAT... is what makes no sense at all. (Someone correct me or slap me or something if I'm just going crazy here in saying so.) The Eucharist is really, truly, physically the body and blood of the one and only Lord Jesus Christ. Under the LOOKS of bread and wine, yes. But factually, literally and physically they are not. They are really, truly and physically the body and blood of Our Lord, though all of our senses are fooled, so to speak. This is dogma (unless I have lost all right memory of it), and yes... a mystery... which is by definition something that the limited human intellect with it's limited human understanding is not capable of grasping. A mystery may be a stumbling block for a human being looking to put human limitations upon God's power... but according to the reality of God and His power, God can do anything, whether we can understand it or not.

But by all means, confirm what I have said, before using anything I've said.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** March 21, 2010, 12:53:13 PM »

Quote from: Dylan

I'm still learning and, admittedly, not very familiar with this area of theology.

It is his body at Calvary and it is his glorified body at the same time, which is in heaven. There is nothing "incoherent" in that.

He's trying to put limitations on the manner of Christ's presence when Christ can make himself present in any way he wishes.

Caminus · « **Reply #6 on:** March 21, 2010, 12:56:57 PM »

Quote

"You failed to address my point and instead spammed a catechism. Its one body and two possible states, one "mortal" and the other "glorious". Only the mortal can be offered in sacrifice but Catholics believe that the sacrifice is made present in the mass under the appearance of bread and wine, which means that Jesus is present in his mortal state. But Jesus is no longer in his mortal state, he is "glorified". Incoherence. You deserve Roman Catholicism and it deserves you (Is this a curse?). I hope that you will do lots of penance like you know a good Catholic should. Make sure that it really hurts and makes you really unhappy, otherwise it has no propitiatory value. Do as much penance as you can in the coming days spend your whole life in miserable penance, as much as you can every day! Just make sure that it really hurts and makes you really miserable! Be a true Catholic!"

They're all the same. They think they understand these concepts. "Only the mortal can be offered in sacrifice." What is he talking about? Even if this were coherent, where is he getting his "rules"? Only such and such can do this. Only this or that can't do that. This is a classic example of arrogance mixed with ignorance. If he concedes it's "one body" then he has to either concede the point or make another gratuitous denial, that Jesus' humanity could not be offered in sacrifice. What does he base this denial upon?

"Catholics believe that the sacrifice is made present in the mass under the appearance of bread and wine, which means that Jesus is present in his mortal state." Again, first of all, what does he mean and second of all, where is he getting his "rules for sacrifice"? From a "dummies" series somewhere? Each proposition he enunciates carries with it several suppressed premises that he is failing to either admit or address.

"I hope that you will do lots of penance like you know a good Catholic should." And this is always what it comes down to. Their denials are not based upon sound philosophical reasoning, rather they deny our religion because they love their sin, it's as simple as that.

"Do as much penance as you can in the coming days spend your whole life in miserable penance, as much as you can every day! Just make sure that it really hurts and makes you really miserable! Be a true Catholic!"

Spoken like a true worldling who satiates his every desire on transient goods for that is all he has, the nothingness of creatures which he pretends satisfies all his desires.

Vandaler · « **Reply #7 on:** March 21, 2010, 01:37:19 PM »

Quote from: Dylan

The problem is, I'm not really sure how to respond. Could anyone here help me out?

Your opponent misunderstands transubstantiation and what it entails.

You need to get familiar with both the concepts of "substance" and "accidents"

Anything else then that path will lead you to go round in circles. The problem you really have is to write out those two concepts in simplified ways as to make them well understood without loosing their meaning.

In summary, the accidents of the bread and wine do not change, but their essences do. Cannibalism is much more literal in it's significance and does not come close to encompass the nuances introduced by substances and accidents.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 21, 2010, 02:11:20 PM »

Someone who approaches the Catholic religion this way is already on the wrong track. It's like someone who goes to watch movies just to catch what he thinks are continuity errors. Until the atheist takes that first step to DESIRE to believe, he will continue to be blind.

I've had thoughts about the logical consistency of what is said in the Gospels, but they have never shaken my faith. For instance, why was St. Peter not arrested after hacking off the soldier's ear? And why was Christ not released after He miraculously restored it? I know orders are orders, but sheesh. My explanation is that the Jєωs were calling Jesus a magician and sorcerer, and this false reputation had gotten around, so the soldier probably thought it was some kind of pre-arranged magic trick. But you'd think the very real pain of his ear being lopped off would make him reconsider.

Caminus said:

Quote

He seems to think 'glorified' adds some kind of substance to the substance of flesh when in actuality, to say 'glorified body' simply means an accidental quality of an already existing substance.

The atheist would shoot back at you that you are then eating the risen Christ, reigning in glory from heaven. Could it be possible that that is what we ARE doing? After all, the Mass is called the "unbloody sacrifice," while the Crucifixion was very bloody -- so it can't be said that the Mass is just a repeat of the Crucifixion. The atheist is hung up on the notion of the Mass as an exact repetition of Calvary.

The parallel is obvious, but there are differences. One involves the Son of God dying on the Cross for our sins and the other involves a priest, an alter Christus, bringing Christ down into bread and wine which he uses to wipe out venial sins. I wonder how you can explain to your faithless friend that mortal sins are erased in Confession, which in no way is a repetition of Calvary, where Christ shed His blood for our sins, and not by the Mass.

Unless there were some things that were hard to believe, or impossible to fully understand, like the Trinity, faith would be a matter of mere reason. The Gospels make this abundantly clear when Christ began to be deserted for ordering his followers to eat His Body and drink His blood. It probably did sound slightly deranged and cannibalistic even to St. Peter, and that is why he said it was a "hard saying." But as he then said, after being asked if he was going to leave, where else should I go?

The Holy Ghost after Pentecost later filled the faithful apostles with wisdom so that they finally understood the beauty of this "hard saying," and the Mass was born. But no one understood it at the time of the Last Supper. They just had faith, because they knew that no one could say or do what Christ was saying or doing without being the Son of God.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #9 on:** March 21, 2010, 02:26:15 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
"You failed to address my point and instead spammed a catechism. Its one body and two possible states, one "mortal" and the other "glorious". Only the mortal can be offered in sacrifice but Catholics believe that the sacrifice is made present in the mass under the appearance of bread and wine, which means that Jesus is present in his mortal state. But Jesus is no longer in his mortal state, he is "glorified". Incoherence. You deserve Roman Catholicism and it deserves you (Is this a curse?). I hope that you will do lots of penance like you know a good Catholic should. Make sure that it really hurts and makes you really unhappy, otherwise it has no propitiatory value. Do as much penance as you can in the coming days spend your whole life in miserable penance, as much as you can every day! Just make sure that it really hurts and makes you really miserable! Be a true Catholic!"

They're all the same. They think they understand these concepts. "Only the mortal can be offered in sacrifice." What is he talking about? Even if this were coherent, where is he getting his "rules"? Only such and such can do this. Only this or that can't do that. This is a classic example of arrogance mixed with ignorance. If he concedes it's "one body" then he has to either concede the point or make another gratuitous denial, that Jesus' humanity could not be offered in sacrifice. What does he base this denial upon?

"Catholics believe that the sacrifice is made present in the mass under the appearance of bread and wine, which means that Jesus is present in his mortal state." Again, first of all, what does he mean and second of all, where is he getting his "rules for sacrifice"? From a "dummies" series somewhere? Each proposition he enunciates carries with it several suppressed premises that he is failing to either admit or address.

"I hope that you will do lots of penance like you know a good Catholic should." And this is always what it comes down to. Their denials are not based upon sound philosophical reasoning, rather they deny our religion because they love their sin, it's as simple as that.

"Do as much penance as you can in the coming days spend your whole life in miserable penance, as much as you can every day! Just make sure that it really hurts and makes you really miserable! Be a true Catholic!"

Spoken like a true worldling who satiates his every desire on transient goods for that is all he has, the nothingness of creatures which he pretends satisfies all his desires.

Caminus, this is why I love reading your posts. You've managed to diagnose the problem with keen insight, destroy the arguments of the faith's enemies and do so with an entertaining style. Well done!

Raoul76 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 21, 2010, 02:28:57 PM »

Raoul76 said:

Quote

The atheist would shoot back at you that you are then eating the risen Christ, reigning in glory from heaven. Could it be possible that that is what we ARE doing?

I withdraw this, in favor of Telesphorus' explanation.