John 6 and Eucharist?

[bene7]

mikeledes:

To say that Jesus cannot make himself physically present in all the altars of Catholic Churches throughout the world is putting limitations on God. With God, anything is possible. He is not necessarily bound by human logic.

God bless

He is bound to the limitations of his HUMAN body, which is a material body. A material body cannot, by the nature of it, be omnipresent, which is what you’re postulating. You’re arguing for the idea that Jesus was/is not truly human.

However, it is true that “human logic” is not bound by human imagination. We see this constantly demonstrated by the “logic” of Philthy’s posts. But the true faith is not based on “human logic” or human imagination, but Divine revelation.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

mercygate:

You persist in your obdurate refusal to understand that the Real Presence involves the Risen and Ascended Lord.

LUK 22:19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

This is in direct reference to His crucifixion, not His resurrection. And Catholic theology insists that its “Mass” is a true “sacrifice.” Even a propitiatory sacrifice. This has nothing to do with the resurrection.

JOH 6:51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; *and the bread also which I shall give * for the life of the world is My flesh.”

It is through the crucifixion of Christ’s body that His life comes to the world. It is the* giving* of His body over to be crucified that He is talking about here, not His subsequent resurrection.

If the Mass is His sacrifice, then you are dealing with a sacrificed body, and spilt blood, not a glorified, resurrected body.

It’s all moot, anyway, since (1) His crucifixion is a time/space historical event and (2) matter cannot be omnipresent. Nor can His resurrected, glorified body be, for tha matter (pun intended).

You simply can’t get around these fasic facts, my friend. The true Christian faith is not based on science fiction.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[AquinasXVI]

Bene:

Your opinions regarding the Most Holy Eucharist is just that, opinions. Please take up reading. See what history has to tell about this most respected mystery. By doubting the possibility of the Holy Eucharist, you resound the disciples that left…Who can accept this teaching?

Should you realize one day what you’re denying; unexplainable, immense joy will fill your heart. The likes of which you’ve never felt or even imagined possible. In a way, I enjoy the presence of those who don’t believe in the Holy Eucharist, for the joy that will explode when God grants illumination far outweigh the scepticism and doubt that we suffer.

in XT.

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

Philthy, on the basis of scripture, alone, I can offer conclusive proof that no one ate Christ’s flesh and blood.

No you can’t, you can simply conclude from the absence of it having been recorded that it didn’t happen.

sandusky:

I find it extremely significant, that the consumption of bread and wine, and Christ’s words, this is My body, etc., are seemingly of no concern to John, or of so little concern, that he doesn’t even record them in his Gospel.

Extremely significant? On what basis? More significant than the testimony of the ECFs and Johns direct disciple? Does Scripture say that repeated accounts increase the Truth of the message? Don’t forget, Scripture is God-breathed big boy. I can easily dismiss this concern by pointing to the fact that the events did not need to be recorded, again, by John - they are covered already in Scripture. The importance of the events are cast in stone, so to speak, on that basis alone. God knew that beforehand, and he didn’t need to repeat them to satisfy you or anyone else.

sandusky:

With respect to the former claim above, that “absolute proof is impossible,” I can show you absolutely, from scripture, that no one literally ate Christ’s flesh, nor drank His blood;

A bold claim for sure, and I accept your offer.

sandusky:

which takes me to the latter claim, that scripture alone leaves us with ambiguities; not with respect to this.

Oh sure Sandusky. There are no ambiguities on this topic - just you and Luther and Calvin and Zwingli all arriving at different interpretations based on the same Scriptures. And all different from the ECFs who Luther and Calvin revered as well. If what you claim is true, then why did such learned and pious men differ with respect to this doctrine? Did this topic require time to clarify? If so, on what basis do we know that your version is the endpoint of the clarification process?
Furthermore, you used the fact that we “couldn’t possibly know” how the Apostles interpreted Christs message in the BOL discourse. How is that not also an example of the ambiguity of Scripture?

Con’d

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

After the John 6 passages in question, John’s narrative continues. Jesus leaves with the disciples, gives other teachings, performs other signs and miracles, shares the Last Passover meal with the disciples, is betrayed by Judas, arrested by the Jews, taken various places, and ultimately is brought before Pilate, who scourges and beats Him, and has Him nailed to a cross. Upon that cross, He dies, is taken down and placed in a tomb, rises from the dead and that tomb, is seen by many until Pentecost, when He goes bodily to the Father, where He sits today. Notice Philthy, He does all of those things bodily
That is conclusive proof from scripture. No one ever literally ate His flesh and drank His blood.

Three Things:

1. As I have already stated, my concept of literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus does not mean eating the molecules which composed his earthly body prior to the Resurrection - that is your own invention.
2. You have assumed within your argument, that eating the flesh and blood of Jesus implies/requires consuming his ENTIRE body. It is an incorrect assumption which I have never endorsed.
3. Your argument is based not on what Scripture says, but on your interpretation of the implications of what it says. I can, “on the basis of the text of Scripture” simply point out that Christ says: This IS my body…this IS my blood and then point out that they ate and drank the thing he defined as his body and blood. That is an argument directly from Scripture. I believe that is an example of “literally” eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ. You disagree - I respect that, but not more than I respect the opinions of many other witnesses throughout the history of Christianity.
   And finally - and this is off-topic mostly - you seem intent on vehemently opposing my beliefs which I have justified(imperfectly) from Scripture and from history and from logic. You probably feel I am doing likewise to your position. I have not pretended that my interpretation is any better than yours yet you cannot seem to extend the same courtesy. I wonder, “Why?” Now call me naive, but I think you are a good-hearted, genuine person and wish me no ill will. But I have to wonder whether my ability to argue - although not definitively but simply within the normal limits of reason - strikes at the very heart of your theology of Sola Scriptura. And that is why, consciously or not, you can’t acknowledge one iota of what I say. If I can make a reasonable claim from Scripture - even if you have a contradictory reasonable claim - then what does that say about our ability to rely on Scripture alone? Is that why you cannot give an inch - it would betray Sola Scriptura? Even assuming that one of the two of us is correct - and for the sake of argument let’s assume it’s you - then my only means of coming to that Truth that you possess lies outside of myself and my reading of Scripture and, instead, resides in your ability to correctly interpret it for me. That is not Sola Scriptura, that is giving another the authority to interpret Scripture for me. The only question which remains, then,is, “To whom should I give that responsibility?”

Peace,

Phil

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

Philthy, when I brought in the Eucharist in my post # 400, at the bottom of page 4 of this thread, you chastised me, and said you were speaking solely of the John 6 passage. Are you changing your mind?

No Sandusky, Im not. Im simply not equating your erroneous contention that I discussed the Last Supper as part of my John 6 defence with your claim that John 6 has “nothing” to do with the Last Supper. They are not the same thing. I never discussed the Last Supper, that doesn’t mean I believe it to be unrelated to John 6. Faulty logic on your part.

sandusky:

Philthy, your point has been that very thing. Remember your chastising me for bringing that up in my post #400.

Did you feel chastised? I’m sorry - I didn’t know you were so sensitive . Here is what you said in that post:

sandusky:
However, with that in mind, Christ, in John 6, does withhold vital information from those disciples who left, as well as from those who stayed, in that, He did not tell them that what He meant was that He was going to change bread and wine into His body and blood, and that they would not really be eating His flesh and drinking His blood, but would instead be doing so under the elements of the bread and the wine.

Here’s the problem we keep having. I disagree with your characterization of the Last Supper as “not really … eating His flesh…” If Christ’s body is essentially present in the “breaking of the bread” by the power of his Word then I would say that they “really”* would *be eating his body. I never said that meant that they had to eat the molecules which composed his body on earth 2000 years ago.

sandusky:
John 6:53-56
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

54 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

55 “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

56 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

AMEN!

sandusky:

Those are the passages in question. If He meant something other than the flesh and blood He stood in before them, then He mislead them, as I pointed out in the post that I referenced.

As I have said, I don’t think that is an unreasonable conclusion, it is just that I believe other conclusions are reasonable as well. One of those other conclusions makes his statements accurate and not misleading. Difficult to believe perhaps, even impossible to understand, but not misleading. This, after all, was the One who raised a man from the dead, turned water into wine(notice that water lacks matter to become wine), fed the 5000, and walked on water.

Peace,

Phil

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

John 6 requires blood and guts, because He stands before them in His flesh and blood.

I disagree.

Ever illusive,

Philthy

 

[bene7]

AquinasXVI:

Bene:

Your opinions regarding the Most Holy Eucharist is just that, opinions. Please take up reading. See what history has to tell about this most respected mystery.

I have taken up both reading and studying the Scriptures. I think my posts demonstrate this. I believe that the inerrant Scriptures (divine Revelation) always supersede the, error prone, historic writings of mere men.

By doubting the possibility of the Holy Eucharist, you resound the disciples that left…Who can accept this teaching?

ONLY if what you believe regarding the “Holy Eucharist” is what Christ was actually teaching. On the other hand, if it isn’t, and I believe it’s not, based on the whole context of John 6, then it’s you who, like the unbelieving disciples, are stumbling over His words by still taking them literally (see John 6:64-65.) Therefore, it is actually you, in like manner, who have left, not me.

Should you realize one day what you’re denying; unexplainable, immense joy will fill your heart. The likes of which you’ve never felt or even imagined possible.

But divine truth is not based on how powerful an emotion one might experience, but divine revelation. One can experience immense emotions even over a false doctrine, wouldn’t you agree?

In a way, I enjoy the presence of those who don’t believe in the Holy Eucharist,

I asked this question before and didn’t receive an answer: where are we ever told to believe “in the Holy Eucharist?” Jesus constantly states, “believe in Me.” Of course I have been called an “atheist” on this thread because I refuse to worship the “Holy Eucharist” as God - which Catholics call “Eucharistic Adoration”. Is this what you mean by “believe in the Eucharist?”

Blessings,
Bene

 

[ncgolf]

bene7:

I have taken up both reading and studying the Scriptures. I think my posts demonstrate this. I believe that the inerrant Scriptures (divine Revelation) always supersede the, error prone, historic writings of mere men.

It’s not the inerrant Scripture that is the question, it is the inerrant interpretation of the inerrant Scripture I worry about. There is no reason on earth that anyone should believe you. It is not the weight of our witing here you must push against it is against the consistent and developed weight of Catholic theology over the past 2000 years. We have asked and never received what the basis of your conclusions are. Surely they did not just come from yourself and if it was divinely revealed … prove it to us. It is not the believer you must have these answers for it is the unbeliever. The mishmash accusations of where and why the Catholic belief in the Eucahrist came into existance are pure drivel. Bring consistent and verifiable historical writings that demonstrate your point of view. Mickey has provided a mere sampling of Catholic theology of the Eucharist over time. Do the same from your point of view.

bene7:

I asked this question before and didn’t receive an answer: where are we ever told to believe “in the Holy Eucharist?” Jesus constantly states, “believe in Me.”

. “Eat my body and drink my blood.” It’s been said before so I am just repeating.

bene7:

Of course I have been called an “atheist” on this thread because I refuse to worship the “Holy Eucharist” as God - which Catholics call “Eucharistic Adoration”.

Bene you are no atheist and no one in this thread has even come close to saying it. No one has even remotely questioned your faith in Jesus Christ, just the presence of Him in our Eucharist.

 

[Church_Militant]

The simple fact is that there is nothing at all in the context of John 6 that suggests that it is metaphorical in nature. The fact that Jesus reiterates many times that He is the bread of life and that we should eat His flesh and drink His blood removed the doubt. No one repeats a fact that they don’t intend to have people take literally, and that was especially so when Jesus walked on this world.

Moreover, when one takes the context of the entire New Testament where it touches on this topic it all comes together very clearly. Look at St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, 11:23-31. He plainly tells them that if they receive while in mortal sin that they will become “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” and that they can fall sick and even be struck dead from the sacrilege. I don’t care how anyone tries to spin that, there is just no way that a person can become “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” if that body and blood is not really there.

I can make a symbol of any one of you and then abuse it to my heart’s content and still never become guilty of your body and blood. Yet St. Paul says that this is the spiritual and miraculous reality of the Eucharist. So this IS taught in the New Testament and it very certainly WAS taught by the apostles themselves to the disciples that they made before they died. St John was the last to die and he discipled his friends Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch, both of who became bishops and later martyrs for the faith. So what then does St. Ignatius write to the church at Smyrna before being taken to Rome to be thrown to wild animals? Let’s have a look!

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.
**
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.** Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. (Emphasis mine)

So someone out there is gonna try to tell me that St. John taught this dude wrong doctrine? I just don’t buy that at all. The man died for his faith and this is part of what he died for. It is consistent with the New Testament and it is clear that he received the teaching from St. John the apostle.

I think anyone who rejects that teaching has a very serious problem.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[sandusky]

Church Militant:

The simple fact is that there is nothing at all in the context of John 6 that suggests that it is metaphorical in nature.

Is that so? Tell us what the context is then.
Church Militant:

The fact that Jesus reiterates many times that He is the bread of life and that we should eat His flesh and drink His blood removed the doubt.

That, and the fact that He couples coming, eating, and drinking with believing removes all doubt that He meant it figuratively.
Church Militant:

No one repeats a fact that they don’t intend to have people take literally, and that was especially so when Jesus walked on this world.

Boy that’s a convincing argument if I ever heard one!
Church Militant:

Moreover, when one takes the context of the entire New Testament where it touches on this topic it all comes together very clearly. Look at St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, 11:23-31.

You mean all 10 verses? You are overwhelming me with your arguments.

The total amount of verses speaking directly about the Last Supper, is only 10 verses. The amount of verses in all 4 Gospels, and all of Paul’s epistles is roughly 5, 812 verses, and only 10 verses speak to this. That’s amazing!

It is the cross that is important—the cross.
Church Militant:

He plainly tells them that if they receive while in mortal sin that they will become “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”

He nowhere says anything about mortal sin. Are we reading the same book? From what translation are you reading?

…and that they can fall sick and even be struck dead from the sacrilege.

Yes, and if you read the text carefully, you’ll see they go to heaven, and don’t lose their salvation; so, just as an aside, someone in mortal sin can go to heaven, according to the way you read those verses.
Church Militant:

I don’t care how anyone tries to spin that, there is just no way that a person can become “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” if that body and blood is not really there.

Unbelievable. How can I counter such a forceful argument?

How about this: I don’t care how you spin it.
Church Militant:

I can make a symbol of any one of you and then abuse it to my heart’s content and still never become guilty of your body and blood.

Are you for real? Christ says if you call your brother a fool, you are guilty enough to go to hell, and you are talking about beating something that represents someone? What are you thinking?
Church Militant:

Yet St. Paul says that this is the spiritual and miraculous reality of the Eucharist.

You are neither reading, nor thinking straight. Where does Paul say anything about a miracle, and be careful, you are saying that Eucharist is spiritual. Is that what you think? The Eucharist is not physical presence, but spiritual?
Church Militant:

So this IS taught in the New Testament

Yes, .002% of the teaching in the Gospels and Paul’s epistle speak to this subject. The rest of the N.T. says nothing. The inspired writers, guided by the H.S. don’t seem very concerned about it.
Church Militant:

and it very certainly WAS taught by the apostles themselves to the disciples that they made before they died. St John was the last to die and he discipled his friends Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch, both of who became bishops and later martyrs for the faith. So what then does St. Ignatius write to the church at Smyrna before being taken to Rome to be thrown to wild animals? Let’s have a look!

I must believe what Polycarp and Ignatius says is true because they were martyred? What kind of an argument is that?
Church Militant:

So someone out there is gonna try to tell me that St. John taught this dude wrong doctrine?

Are you kidding? What do you carry a gun when you go evangelizing?
Church Militant:

The man died for his faith and this is part of what he died for.

That’s a grade school argument.
Church Militant:

I think anyone who rejects that teaching has a very serious problem.

Get some sleep.

 

[sandusky]

Church Militant:

I can make a symbol of any one of you and then abuse it to my heart’s content and still never become guilty of your body and blood.

Sandusky:

Are you for real? Christ says if you call your brother a fool, you are guilty enough to go to hell, and you are talking about beating something that represents someone? What are you thinking?

I just figured it out—you’re not.

 

[MariaG]

I have been following this thread since the beginning posting rarely, but I have yet to read a convincing argument on why I should supplant the Catholic interpretation of Scripture for a Protestant one that did not appear in history, except as heresy for 1700 years.

In fact, I haven’t even seen any historical evidence of the non-Catholic interpretation put forward.

Since we both have a different interpretation of Scripture alone, how is it that your interpretation trumps the Catholic one? I don’t understand why I am supposed to replace the Catholic interpretation of Scripture that can be historically supported from 1st century writings with your interpretation of Scripture?

When in history did Christians finally get it right? Or maybe the question should be where were the Christians that had it right?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Church_Militant]

Sandusky since you have chosen to mock or dodge every statement that I offered which tells me that you are not serious in your discussion with us, I’m going to make this my last post to you on this topic. I think that the other Catholics here will see what you are really all about.

No one here has in any way denied the importance of the crucifixion, that is your implied argument and in this discussion irrelevent. Another dodge…

If one can become guilty of another’s body and blood by way of abusing a symbol then I suggest that you’d make a good voodoo practioner Matt 5:21-22 reads as follows
21 You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. 22 But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. The passage in no way implies blood guilt in the sense that we are talking about here. But then you knew that when you chose to use it as a dodge, didn’t you?

Mortal sin is a different issue, but 1st Cor. 11:27 says.Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. You can take that up somewhere else if you like.

You are neither reading, nor thinking straight. Where does Paul say anything about a miracle, and be careful, you are saying that Eucharist is spiritual. Is that what you think? The Eucharist is not physical presence, but spiritual?

Thank you doctor…
Paul doesn’t have to say that because Jesus does when He says “This is my body…this is my blood” at the last supper. Jesus doesn’t say “This is symbolic of my body and blood” and there is no such implication there.The early church knew it as does Paul in 1st Corinthians…In fact they seem to have taken it for granted to the point where Ignatius calls those who reject it heretics to stand aloof from. No one rejected that until the “reformers” came along.

Cute…disingenious, but cute…so the miracle cannot be a spiritual reality? Then all of Christianity must be a hoax since the miracle of salvation is unseen? And you say I’m not thinking straight?

In closing all I will say is that if this is your idea of a display of Christian charity in your discussion and you feel that mockery, sarcasm, and derission is a righteous and valid part of your faith sharing…don’t expect anyone I know to break a leg hurrying to join your church and definitely not me.
Pax tecum,

 

[bene7]

Church Militant:

Paul doesn’t have to say that because Jesus does when He says “This is my body…this is my blood” at the last supper. Jesus doesn’t say “This is symbolic of my body and blood” and there is no such implication there.The early church knew it as does Paul in 1st Corinthians…

Well, I think it was quite obvious to the Apostles that Jesus was speaking symbolically since He was right there, physically with them, in bodily form. He didn’t have to state the obvious. But for sure what He did not say was that the bread had become His body, and the content of the cup had become His blood. Nor does the text reveal that He ever gave them the power to command such a transformation.

As for Paul, he retains the elements in 1 Cor. 11:

1COR. 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you PROCLAIM the Lord’s death until He comes.

1COR. 11:27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

Notice, he doesn’t say “eats His body,” or “drinks His blood” is quilty of partaking of them unworthily. But they are guilty of what the bread and cup represent.

The idea of transubstantiation is a post Apostolic development.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[AquinasXVI]

bene7:

Well, I think it was quite obvious to the Apostles that Jesus was speaking symbolically .

Read it again Bene. Your pastors whom trained you have bent your mind to think this symbolic. Read the early church fathers and you’d be surprised that all of the professed christians in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century do not share your interpretation. Which was provieded by Mickey further down this thread.

in XT.

 

[MariaG]

bene7:

.

The idea of transubstantiation is a post Apostolic development.

Blessings,
Bene

Please,
you have been shown writings from those who were taught by John, please show me a writing showing that the early Christians did not believe in the Real Presence of Christ.

Where were the Christians who did not believe in the Real Presence and where are their writings?

 

[Truthseeker4]

I haven’t read the whole thread so please bear with me if any of this is repeated.

As a Protestant (background Methodist and Baptist) the Eucharist/Communion wasn’t really mentioned but it was given at various times. I can only remember a few instances of when I did receive it and that was in my teen years.

I start researching Catholicism and suddenly it is a hot topic. Reading John and various scriptures on it I’ll be honest I recoiled at the thought of eating human flesh. I had to stop myself and say ok think about this for awhile since in John 6:66 people left Jesus.

Jesus is the lamb of God who takes our sins away. The lamb was slaughtered in preparation for passover. The lamb had to be without defect before it could be slaughtered. Jesus is 100% human and 100% God. Jesus did not commit any sins. He is perfect. We aren’t eating and drinking of imperfect flesh and blood. As cannabolism is doing that. There are several OT instances that can be correlated with this. They foreshadow the Eucharist as the NT expounds more on it.

When we receive we are partaking of perfect flesh and God. I think that is why we should not receive it unworthily because perfect flesh and God is Holy. If we are deep in sin and unrepentant that would mean we are unworthy and bring damnation on ourselves.

Personally I see that one has to do a lot of mental gymnastics to not take it literally. The above thinking is what cemented it for me.

Please correct me if I am wrong in any point. Yes I will go read the rest of the thread. I do have Scott Hahn’s book about the Eucharist as well.

Have a great day all and have a Merry Christmas.

Melissa

 

[wpr]

Hello Bene,

Wow! This one’s been going on for quite awhile. I don’t see to much love here.

In any case, it would help our Catholic view if you had underlined “of the Lord” as well. I don’t suppose that will put you over the top, but I thought I’d give it a try.

1COR. 11:27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

Also, the Fathers don’t seem to have much sway on you either when it comes to this topic. As for me, I view their writings as historical and worth viewing in that light. After reading all the writings the historic evidense showed the following to me…

1. The early Church was structured as the Catholic Church is today.
2. The same men defended the aspects of the faith we both cherish. One should not trivialize the martydom of Ignatius or Polycarp whether Catholic or Protestant.
3. The formation of the Canon of the New Testament Scripture is interwined with the same men. (somewhat ironic is it not?)

My Catholic brothers/sisters who have been so galantly defending our faith have referenced the writings of these men and you have discounted their efforts. I wonder why? These writings are held to be authentic by Catholic, Protestant and secular historians? (I’d expect you to check that for yourself. By all means do not take my word)

It follows that, in our view (Cathlics) their writings are significant, yet not taken as the inspired Word of God. This does not make them, therefore false.

I can certainly see why you may wish to trivialize them and bring it back to “Scripture alone” (I see that as ironic). There is no support for your position in them. Without trying to offend you, as for me, I could not check my brain at the door and ignore other evidense outside Scripture.

I hope you may undertake a more serious study of early Christianity and at least form some respect for what came before you.

 

[bene7]

AquinasXVI:

Read it again Bene. Your pastors whom trained you have bent your mind to think this symbolic. Read the early church fathers and you’d be surprised that all of the professed christians in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century do not share your interpretation. Which was provieded by Mickey further down this thread.

in XT.

As I said before, the term “real pesence” is an ambiguous term used by the early church writers. The actual doctrine of transubstantiation was a later development which you read into that earlier term. But why must you go extra-biblical and to non-inspired writings to prove your case? Most of the quotes Mickey provided say nothing about actual transubstantiation.

Blessings,
Bene