Is the "Real Presence" real?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
let me start by saying i am a protestant who believes in the real presence (torn between trans and con, but lean more towards trans).

we need to remember though, that just two chapters earlier, Jesus was also talking about food. He said that His “food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work.”

i understand the fact that Jesus says in Jn 6 His flesh is real food and His blood is real drink, but just before this, He tells His disciples that His food is to do the work of His Father and to accomplish it.

my point is that we have to take it as a whole and not just pick out one chapter in Jn to support the argument when some one can pick out another passage and “prove” the opposite.
This is a great insight, for Jesus states to his disciples “I have food to eat of which you do not know”. ( Jesus had not instituted the Eucharist at this time or revealed the last supper. And the food to eat is to do the will of the Father. What does food do?, keeps us living, Jesus does the will of the Father to have life and to give life. ( the Eucharist does this, it is God’s promise)

Remember when Jesus was tempted in the desert? what did Jesus respond to satan, Matthew 4:4 "Man does not live on bread alone but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God."

**It is not the bread alone that Catholics live on in the Eucharist,(transubstantiation) It is by every WORD from the mouth of God., that God promises eternal life in him. **“Who ever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life… for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink… Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains IN ME, AND I IN HIM…whoever eats this bread will live forever”.

The Catholic eats of the food of which you do not know, this is to do the will of God, and his will commands us to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Can you accept the challenge of the faith of our father Abraham, who took his only son to sacrifice to God. Can you offer your Lamb to sacrifice to God and then commune with the Heavenly father at his Lambs wedding feast?
 
let me start by saying i am a protestant who believes in the real presence (torn between trans and con, but lean more towards trans).

we need to remember though, that just two chapters earlier, Jesus was also talking about food. He said that His “food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work.”

i understand the fact that Jesus says in Jn 6 His flesh is real food and His blood is real drink, but just before this, He tells His disciples that His food is to do the work of His Father and to accomplish it.

my point is that we have to take it as a whole and not just pick out one chapter in Jn to support the argument when some one can pick out another passage and “prove” the opposite.
I also believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. However, I am afraid that terms or concepts like transubstantiation or consubtantiation are an effort to know or over explain in more detail something that should be left as mystery. Those in the early church used this description for sacraments and I am content to agree with them and leave the how as a mystery. There is no need for us to pretend to know exactly what God does.
 
I believe in a spiritual presence. I don’t believe we are eating bones and nerves etc. and drinking actual blood because it’s forbidden in Leviticus. Jesus is a spiritual being now just like when we will receive our spiritual bodies. I certainly would never deny that GOD can do anything. I just don’t believe that’s how Jesus meant it. The Didache supports this calling it spiritual nutrition.

If Jesus is present in the Eucharist, it’s not because of something the Priest does. That’s not supported scripturally. I believe Jesus makes HIMSELF present to those who have true Faith. I don’t receive communion in a Roman Catholic church and all I can say is the spiritual strength I receive by observing this most blessed sacrament is incredible. You’ll never convince me I’m receiving an invalid host.

Wow…you deny the Resurrection.:confused:
PEACE
 
I also believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. However, I am afraid that terms or concepts like transubstantiation or consubtantiation are an effort to know or over explain in more detail something that should be left as mystery. Those in the early church used this description for sacraments and I am content to agree with them and leave the how as a mystery. There is no need for us to pretend to know exactly what God does.
Amen SyCarl, The Catholic church teaches that the Eucharist is a mystery and like the Trinity its meaning cannot be exhausted. Transubstantiation is not even close to consubstantiation. Trans = means that the bread and wine become the body,blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Con= means that the body and blood of Jesus share in the species of the bread and wine symbolically., although some take this con. to be true presence but so is the species of bread and wine, so no total agreement, as do those who believe in Transubstantiation which all Roman Catholics Do.

The word Transubstantiation describes what happens to the bread and wine at the Words of God. Just like creation, when ever God spoke, he spoke what did not exist into existance, this is transubstantiation. It can only be accomplished at the Words of Jesus Christ himself, in persona Christi his successors of his apostles.
 
It is evident from the behavior of the hearers. What did they hear? Why did they leave when they heard it? Whey did He not call them back, and correct their wrong impression? He did not because what they heard was exactly what He meant. The Apostles did not understand it either, until the Last Supper, but they had faith that He had the Words of Eternal Life.

You are making a rule of Biblical interpretation here; that cannot be supported by scholars on either side of the fence. There is no rule saying Jesus ALWAYS operated this way; and even if He did; it does not follow that His hearers actually did or did not understand whatever Jesus was trying to say. Because of the fact that the Bible explains in other texts that the bread, wine, or “flesh” and “blood” was indeed symbolic, we can say that it is possible for the use thereof in Jo.6 to be the same. The context is determined by the use that other Bible texts make of the same words, not by what you think Jesus is supposed to do.

Do you believe He gave HIs “symbolic flesh and blood” on the cross?
Of course; we both agree that Jesus did not symbolically give His flesh and blood on the cross; but neither does He try to repeat His Sacrifice via human beings. “Once for all” is what the Bible tells us.
 
Protestant 101 cannot refute my factual examples from scripture concerning this topic, therefore his silence is vindication.

If you decide to take the facts on, please reply specifically to the verses I gave and pattern Jesus used when speaking literally and figuratively. Thank you.
 
Protestant 101 cannot refute my factual examples from scripture concerning this topic, therefore his silence is vindication.

If you decide to take the facts on, please reply specifically to the verses I gave and pattern Jesus used when speaking literally and figuratively. Thank you.
Well; I did just reply to one of your texts, Jo.6; but I guess you didn’t like that answer?
 
Well; I did just reply to one of your texts, Jo.6; but I guess you didn’t like that answer?
Hello Protestant101,

No… You really didn’t.

John 6…what? What verse? I went back and read your posts where you referred to “Jo 6” (John 6); posts #336, #340, #353 and this post, (#364) and in all four posts; you never actually stated which verse it is that you are referring to.

Why are you so vague and ambiguous with your Bible references here? If you have a “Protestant” Bible verse, let’s see it.

Do you believe that one verse in the Bible conflicts with another verse? It sure looks that way. :rolleyes:

Thank you 👍
 
protestant 101 you have not answered this entire post, any of it nor have you discussed it.

so let’s discuss it.

Listen, every time in scripture that Jesus’ disciples think he is being literal, but he is only being figurative, he explains himself
and makes it clear that he is being figurative.

Every time that Jesus is being literal and they thik he is being figurative, he repeats himself and usually even more literally.

I gave you scriptural examples in previous posts of most of the places Jesus is questioned on his teachings. We can discuss those examples.

here is the answer to your question concerning John 6

In John 6, Jesus finally tells them that it is his flesh that they must eat, and then they question him in disbelief as to how this man can give them his flesh to eat, here it is…

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

so we see that when they take Jesus figuratively and question how he could do that, Jesus emphatically repeats himself far more literally, just as I stated. It always occurs this way. Show me somewhere where Jesus is taken figuratively or literally, that the response from Jesus is NOT the way i have stated.
 
protestant 101 you have not answered this entire post, any of it nor have you discussed it.

so let’s discuss it.

Listen, every time in scripture that Jesus’ disciples think he is being literal, but he is only being figurative, he explains himself
and makes it clear that he is being figurative.

Every time that Jesus is being literal and they thik he is being figurative, he repeats himself and usually even more literally.

I gave you scriptural examples in previous posts of most of the places Jesus is questioned on his teachings. We can discuss those examples.

here is the answer to your question concerning John 6

In John 6, Jesus finally tells them that it is his flesh that they must eat, and then they question him in disbelief as to how this man can give them his flesh to eat, here it is…

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

so we see that when they take Jesus figuratively and question how he could do that, Jesus emphatically repeats himself far more literally, just as I stated. It always occurs this way. Show me somewhere where Jesus is taken figuratively or literally, that the response from Jesus is NOT the way i have stated.
It should be noted that Jesus did explain in verses 60-63. I quoted Augustine earlier and will do so again.
  1. “But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,”—for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,—answered and said, “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.
So Jesus did explain but they did not understand the explanation in the same way that Nicodemus did not it John 3 and the Samaratan women in John 4.
 
It should be noted that Jesus did explain in verses 60-63. I quoted Augustine earlier and will do so again.

So Jesus did explain but they did not understand the explanation in the same way that Nicodemus did not it John 3 and the Samaratan women in John 4.
You wanna discuss St. Augustine’s view on the Eucharist? Lets!

St. Augustine
**, Explanations on the Psalms, [98, 9] A.D. 392-418: **
For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that flesh unless he adores it ; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; and not only do we not sin by adoring, we do sin by not adoring.

St. Augustine, Explanations on the Psalms, A.D. 392-418, [98, 9]: **
Unless he shall have eaten My flesh he shall not have eternal life. [John 6:54-55]'**** [Some] understood this foolishly, and thought of it carnally, and supposed that the Lord was going to cut off some parts of His Body to give them ... But He instructed them, and said to them:***** It is the spirit that gives life; but the flesh profits nothing: the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life’
*[John 6:64]****. Understand spiritually what I said. You are not to eat this Body which you see, nor to drink that Blood which which will be poured out by those who will crucify Me. I have commended to you a certain Sacrament; spiritually understood, it will give you life. And even if it is necessary that this be celebrated visibly, it must still be understood invisibly. **

St. Augustine** is explaining that Jesus never intended us to take a bite out of Jesus’ arm or leg. We were to eat his body in the manner which he offered it at the Last Supper. St. Augustine understood that Jesus was describing Transubstantiation.**
Too bad most Protestants don’t.
 
You wanna discuss St. Augustine’s view on the Eucharist? Lets!

St. Augustine
**, Explanations on the Psalms, [98, 9] A.D. 392-418: **
**For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten **unto salvation. But no one eats that flesh unless he adores it ; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; and not only do we not sin by adoring, we do sin by not adoring.
Of course we adore Jesus always but that does not support transubstantiation. If you read the entire work on the Psalm you will see that Augustine is trying to justify falling down before God’s footstool ie the earth. He has trouble because he equates falling down with worshipping. So the adoration he is speaking about is of the earth, not the Eucharist.

Here is the whole thing’
And fall down before Adorate. His footstool: for He is holy.” What are we to fall down before? His footstool. What is under the feet is called a footstool, in Greek ὑποπόδιον, in Latin Scabellum or Suppedaneum. But consider, brethren, what he commandeth us to fall down before. In another passage of the Scriptures it is said, “The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool.” Isa. lxvi. 1. Doth he then bid us worship the earth, since in another passage it is said, that it is God’s footstool? How then shall we worship the earth, when the Scripture saith openly, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God”? Yet here it saith, “fall down before His footstool:” and, explaining to us what His footstool is, it saith, “The earth is My footstool.” I am in doubt; I fear to worship the earth, lest He who made the heaven and the earth condemn me; again, I fear not to worship the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm biddeth me, “fall down before His footstool.” I ask, what is His footstool? and the Scripture telleth me, “the earth is My footstool.” In hesitation I turn unto Christ, since I am herein seeking Himself: and I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, . how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But doth the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.”…But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, “Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him… Some disciples of His, about seventy,“This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.XCIX.html

Notice the last bold part where he say we are not to eat the body we see or drink the blood? He calls mystery.

Let’s look at what Augustine has to say elsewhere in John 6 about the way we eat.
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.xxvi.html
 
40.png
peary:
Wow…you deny the Resurrection.

What does the resurrection have to do with what I said? Don’t make foolish statements in an attempt to discredit someone.
 
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.XCIX.html

Notice the last bold part where he say we are not to eat the body we see or drink the blood? He calls mystery.

Let’s look at what Augustine has to say elsewhere in John 6 about the way we eat.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.xxvi.html
**What you are failing to understand is that Augustine is talking about EXACTLY what we believe as Catholics. **
We - at Jesus’ command - eat his flesh and drink his blood. We do NOT profess to eat - as Augustine points out - Jesus’ epidermis and muscle tissue or drink is blood platelets and plasma. It is actual food under the appearance of bread and wine and it is spiritual food under the reality of his flesh and blood.

When Jesus points out in
John 6:63, “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” - he is NOT saying that HIS flesh profits nothing.

**Do you actually believe that Jesus’ flesh profits nothing? Yours doesn’t. ****Mine ****doesn’t. But, Jesus’ flesh and blood profits EVERYTHING. It profits for us, ****salvation **via his death on the cross. That is Blasphemy 101.

As I stated before in another thread - Jesus didn’t say, "My flesh is true food and my blood is
*** true drink and, oh, by the way my flesh profits nothing!" Our flesh, the world, our own way profits us nothing. We, by ourselves cannot get to heaven. We can’t merit salvation by ourselves. Jesus, however, profits us EVERYTHING.*

THAT is what John 6:63** is all about - THAT is what Augustine is saying in his writings - THAT is what ALL of the Early Church Fathers taught - and THAT is what ALL Christians believed for some 1500 years PRIOR to the tragedy of the Protestant Revolution.**
 
**What you are failing to understand is that Augustine is talking about EXACTLY what we believe as Catholics. **
We - at Jesus’ command - eat his flesh and drink his blood. We do NOT profess to eat - as Augustine points out - Jesus’ epidermis and muscle tissue or drink is blood platelets and plasma. It is actual food under the appearance of bread and wine and it is spiritual food under the reality of his flesh and blood.

When Jesus points out in **John 6:63, **“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” - he is NOT saying that HIS flesh profits nothing.

Do you actually believe that Jesus’ flesh profits nothing? Yours** doesn’t. **Mine **doesn’t. But, Jesus’ flesh and blood profits EVERYTHING. It profits for us, ****salvation **via his death on the cross. That is Blasphemy 101.

As I stated before in another thread - Jesus didn’t say, "My flesh is true food and my blood is*** true drink and, oh, by the way my flesh profits nothing!" Our flesh, the world, our own way profits us nothing*. We, by ourselves cannot get to heaven. We can’t merit salvation by ourselves. Jesus,** however, profits us EVERYTHING.**

THAT is what John 6:63** is all about - THAT** is what Augustine is saying in his writings - THAT is what ALL of the Early Church Fathers taught - and THAT is what ALL Christians believed for some 1500 years PRIOR to the tragedy of the Protestant Revolution.
What I think He means when He says “the flesh profits nothing” is that it is impossible for us, with our feeble carnal minds, to wrap them around a mystery so deep. It will never make “sense” to the human mind. Our flesh profits nothing it accepting this doctrine. That is why they walked away. They said “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?”. They could not understand, and could not accept by faith.
 
**What you are failing to understand is that Augustine is talking about EXACTLY what we believe as Catholics. **
We - at Jesus’ command - eat his flesh and drink his blood. We do NOT profess to eat - as Augustine points out - Jesus’ epidermis and muscle tissue or drink is blood platelets and plasma. It is actual food under the appearance of bread and wine and it is spiritual food under the reality of his flesh and blood.

When Jesus points out in **John 6:63, **“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” - he is NOT saying that HIS flesh profits nothing.

Do you actually believe that Jesus’ flesh profits nothing? Yours** doesn’t. **Mine **doesn’t. But, Jesus’ flesh and blood profits EVERYTHING. It profits for us, ****salvation **via his death on the cross. That is Blasphemy 101.

As I stated before in another thread - Jesus didn’t say, "My flesh is true food and my blood is*** true drink and, oh, by the way my flesh profits nothing!" Our flesh, the world, our own way profits us nothing*. We, by ourselves cannot get to heaven. We can’t merit salvation by ourselves. Jesus,** however, profits us EVERYTHING.**

THAT is what John 6:63** is all about - THAT** is what Augustine is saying in his writings - THAT is what ALL of the Early Church Fathers taught - and THAT is what ALL Christians believed for some 1500 years PRIOR to the tragedy of the Protestant Revolution.
I quite agree that Jesus’ becoming flesh and sacrificing Himself for us is everything. And as I said earlier I believe in the real presence of Jesus but define it as a mystery. When Augustine says why are you making teeth and stomach ready and they were not to eat the body they saw, I think it shows that his view of real presence does not conform with transubstantiation because does that not mean that those who receive Communion are actually eating the whole body they saw under the accidents of bread?
 
It should be noted that Jesus did explain in verses 60-63. I quoted Augustine earlier and will do so again.

So Jesus did explain but they did not understand the explanation in the same way that Nicodemus did not it John 3 and the Samaratan women in John 4.
false, the discourse ended before vs 60-63.

Jesus explained himself emphatically 6 times in a row when challenged. And we already discussed Augustine. It doesn’t matter what Augustine said, if it is not in union with what the Church teaches(magesterium) it makes no difference what he taught as an individual. Remember, Augustine also said that christ held Himself in his own hands which causes a big problem on your end of things.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, not Augusine alone. thank you.
 
It looks like we have another internet mind-reader here. :hypno:
LOL, you’re funny…🙂 Did I get it right? :rolleyes:

Protestant 101, your still haven’t answered this question (post #365) -

John 6…what? What verse? I went back and read your posts where you referred to “Jo 6” (John 6);

Peace.
 
You wanna discuss St. Augustine’s view on the Eucharist? Lets!

St. Augustine was a true believer and teacher of the True presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. As well as many many other Saints and early church fathers. These all adhered to the Pope of Rome the Chair of Peter, which all the Popes believed in the true presence since Peter and the apostles.

What I dont understand is why a non Catholic would want to discredit a Catholic saints belief in the True presence of Jesus in the Eucharist of the Catholic church?

For one thing St. Augustine never heard of the word Transubstantiaition in his time, because the true presence of Jesus body and blood in the consecrated bread and wine, was already accepted as a belief, and never doubted the true presence.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a good example, for when this belilef came under attack, the Catholic church council defined and made the Trinity a doctrine of belief inorder to be Catholic.

The Eucharist comes under attack, by the secular world and protestant movements. Thus the Catholic church defines the already belief of the true presence for the last 1900 years in the Eucharist, and answers the heretical opposition how this Mystery of God happens in the natural senses. Transubstantiation. The definition of Transubstantiation does not exhaust the Mystery of the Eucahrist let us be clear here. The Mystery of the Eucharist cannot be exhausted, it will always remain a mystery to the flesh.

Jesus words are of the Spirit, not of the flesh. The Spirit is the mystery that causes the Transubstantiation to occur in the bread becomes fully the body of Jesus Christ, the wine becomes fully the blood of Jesus, when we partake of the Spiritual action by Jesus commandments to “do this in remembrance of me” in the Eucharist we become partakers of his divinity. The flesh is of no avail here, because this mystery is of the eternal Spirit.

Thus the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

To argue against it using Catholic saints writings who believe as Roman Catholics today believe as the early saints did is not a matter that is in dispute. The nonbeliever cannot use Catholic saints to argue against the saints belilef in the Eucharist. They must use their own Tradition and church founders to debate, not Catholic Saints themselves.

The issue of a symbolic Jesus, or the issue of Transubstantiation is what is under attack today. St. Augustine and others before and after him bellieved, taught the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, and many died for the belief of the true presence of the Eucharist. These martyrs of the Catholic faith only support the true presence not doubt it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top