Real Presence Apologetics

[Gabriel_of_12]

Bernard Lyons;11760373]Dear Gabriel of 12,
In your valiant attempts to understand the basis of my faith ,I believe you misunderstand where I see its foundation .

I hope you do not take what follows as criticism? Im not misunderstanding you, I’m the one who has been asking you to clarify and define your symbolic faith, you are unable to define or translate to me your faith in a symbolic way that is clear and understandable. You quote scripture, but the scriptures never relate or support your symbolic faith.

There is no sola faith recorded in scripture that saves. There is no bible only that saves nor is the bible ever referenced as the Pillar and bulwark of Truth. The visible and invisible body of Christ is, which is the Church.

With your fervent Zeal for what you call the " Eucharist “and perhaps since this is your own focus( which is not surprising: since your salvation depends on it) ,
you can only see my focus or understanding if it also is viewed as being fervently upon " the Lord’s supper” .

I’m sorry Bernard but you got it all wrong about this Catholic. Maybe a few quotes from real true official Catholic teaching can reveal my position to you so that you don’t get it wrong again;

CCC1360 The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Father, a blessing by which the Church expresses her gratitude to God for all his benefits, for all that he has accomplished through creation, redemption, and sanctification. Eucharist means first of all “thanksgiving”.

CCC1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men (Exodus 13:3). In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become…present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt; every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present…

CCC1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning…She commemorats Christ’s Passover, and it is made present; the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present (Hebrews 7:25-27)…As often as the sacrifice o the Cross by which Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed is celebrated on the altar, the work of redemption is carried out (1Cor.5:7)

CCC 1324 The Eucharist is the source adn summit of the Christian life…the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, or Pasch.

CCC1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all and in all

CCC1327…Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking.

In these few paragraphs of the CCC, summs up all that I have tried to convey to you in my posts. Yet you question my view as being my own? Because you never new the Catholic Church’s view whenever you were a Catholic, yet you claim to have been Catholic, when you don’t even understand Catholic basic faith of the Eucharist.

cont’

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Bernard quote cont’

Because so much of your Horizon is upon this ordinance ( think not that I am criticising your Zeal as such,for it is the lukewarm is it not ,whom Christ threatens to “spew” out of his mouth?)

Luke warmness whom Christ spew’s out of his mouth, are those who hear His Word and commands but do not practice them and walk away from his revelations.

How can faith in the Eucharist be lukewarm, when it is the Church’s faith that hangs on every command, commission and Word of God who speaks and reveals to the Church not unbelievers of His True presence.

It does not mean mine is .
I am convinced that the NT focus was upon preaching( especially as seen in the book of Acts) Paul’s focus would you not agree,was preaching the gospel?does he not say Christ sent " me not to baptise"?Then what of the “Eucharist” ?

If that is what you believe then your view contradicts with St.James, John, Matthew Mark and Luke. The focus is not the preaching only, the focus is new life eternal. Which begins at baptism, when all other things follow that arrive to their summit of Mt.Zion in the real and substantial True presence of Jesus Christ’s body, blood soul and divinity.

Sorry, what follows the preaching is baptism, reconcilation, confirmation that all lead to communion in God, with God and through God’s presence in His Eucharist. It is here where the clarion call from heaven and earth together proclaim Him Christ crucified, which surpasses any preaching.

A symbolic presence can never reach heaven, let alone participate with heaven at the wedding feast of the Lamb, which occurs on every altar in every Mass.

This I believe, is how (Heb3:15) the Lord from Glory ,still communicates to us .

You keep quoting scripture, but you have not revealed your faith of how God communicates to you? So far you believe your faith communicates to God? really? Then how do you know this, if Jesus True resurrected body and blood presence is never present to you, by His Word, when you deny it to His Word (face).

The basis yes is in the past( at Golgotha) but his voice ( and presence) are continue sounding ,especially through the preach word.1Peter1:12
." Them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven"

All this supports and identifies with the True presence of the Eucharist. But you fail to inform here, how the Holy Spirit a Person of the Trinity has revealed this to your faith. You can’t have the Word without Jesus body, blood present. Unless you reject His true presence, and are having your ears tickled by every wind of doctrine invented by men?

The Holy Ghost ,we believe is ever connected to ,not an inanimate book( the Bible) but with the preaching ,of those who embody that “book” in their person,and by that gospel which they proclaim.

Our Catholic bishops have an unbroken line of consecration by Jesus Christ himself into his priesthood to forgive and retain sins that is a biblical and historical Truth.

When did your “preacher” in “their person” ever recieve the consecration from Jesus Christ revealed in John 17, Pentecost and the apostolic laying of hands from the apostles themselves.

You don’t claim that your “preacher” has is “their person” to forgive and retain sin does he/she? But if these unconsecrated preacher with a secular business license to preach when they embody the book in their person and preach, then it is from these is where you hear and hear your truth and view of a symbolic Jesus and never the Word Himself is never present to you body and blood. Wow that to me, what you stated here is unbelievable. It is easier for me to believe Jesus is present in His Word in body and blood, then it is to believe you Trust men’s word’s over God’s Word, who tells you "This is my body and This is my blood.

If I were in your shoes, and someone Catholic was showing me what True Catholics believe. I would pause and re-think my position and re-learn about what the Catholic Church teaches and never believe anyone who tells you what Catholics believe who were never Catholic, and who make the claim that they were Catholic. Please.

As to faith being only in a past event what about Christ who is its “author and finisher” of it:if he indeed has started the work will he not surely complete it?

He already did, and makes it known to man in every age in His Eucharist until he returns for His Church obeying His commandments to eat His flesh and drink His blood in the new Covenant of God. In fact the CCC official teachings above already revealed this.

Peace be with you

 

[EvangelCatholic]

(1) Of his truth Michael ,I am also convinced .
I do not say that they are separate .
As It was Christ speaking both in John 6 and him speaking (by Paul )in reference to the (right) practice of the supper 1Cor10:16 then we should expect the language he uses in both places ,to be complimentary one to the other.

In both places, the symbolic lessons ( we both would accept) of the Passover ( lamb) are set as a background to that which in both examples ,is still an event to be fulfilled in the future.
This being so ,and that the actual "lamb of God " was still to be sacrificed and the bread was still to be broken or cup still to drunk and be emptied of its bitter contents ( at the cross) I still maintain that in both John 6 and the accounts of the supper there is no conflict of interest and my spiritual interpretation in both ,is compatible the one with the other.

At the supper ,the words spoken about the bread,were uttered in the unbroken wholeness of his actual body.They were these: “This is my body”.Then and there present tense.This is my body.But it was not his body.Yet he said that it was.How could it be his body at the time ?It was his body doing those things to the loaf.They could see plainly that it was a loaf of bread.It is therefore my opinion that it was impossible for that to be his body in fact.then ,to me then,it must have been his body in a figure.

Bernard Lyons

Appreciate your thoughtful replies; it is not easy being a non-Catholic on this forum. Hopefully I have not already stated this on this thread and forgive me if this comes off condensing.

I firmly believe Christ is literally Presence among us and offers us His holy Body & Blood whether we understand it or not. So Communion in churches that don’t actually believe this mystery involves the Real Presence of our Savior, nonetheless.

Some Lutherans [and I believe Orthodox] commune infant/ very young children who likely have limited if any understanding what is happening. The parent brings the baby forward to Christ; the Gift is wondrous.

Christ is Presence among all Christians!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

(1) Of his truth Michael ,I am also convinced .
I do not say that they are separate .
As It was Christ speaking both in John 6 and him speaking (by Paul )in reference to the (right) practice of the supper 1Cor10:16 then we should expect the language he uses in both places ,to be complimentary one to the other.

In both places, the symbolic lessons ( we both would accept) of the Passover ( lamb) are set as a background to that which in both examples ,is still an event to be fulfilled in the future.
This being so ,and that the actual "lamb of God " was still to be sacrificed and the bread was still to be broken or cup still to drunk and be emptied of its bitter contents ( at the cross) I still maintain that in both John 6 and the accounts of the supper there is no conflict of interest and my spiritual interpretation in both ,is compatible the one with the other.

At the supper ,the words spoken about the bread,were uttered in the unbroken wholeness of his actual body.They were these: “This is my body”.Then and there present tense.This is my body.But it was not his body.Yet he said that it was.How could it be his body at the time ?It was his body doing those things to the loaf.They could see plainly that it was a loaf of bread.It is therefore my opinion that it was impossible for that to be his body in fact.then ,to me then,it must have been his body in a figure.

The Lamb is not only symbolic but very much present and about to be sacrificed. The mystery is spiritual and physical. Not one or the other.

 

[rcwitness]

(1) Of his truth Michael ,I am also convinced .
I do not say that they are separate .
As It was Christ speaking both in John 6 and him speaking (by Paul )in reference to the (right) practice of the supper 1Cor10:16 then we should expect the language he uses in both places ,to be complimentary one to the other.

In both places, the symbolic lessons ( we both would accept) of the Passover ( lamb) are set as a background to that which in both examples ,is still an event to be fulfilled in the future.
This being so ,and that the actual "lamb of God " was still to be sacrificed and the bread was still to be broken or cup still to drunk and be emptied of its bitter contents ( at the cross) I still maintain that in both John 6 and the accounts of the supper there is no conflict of interest and my spiritual interpretation in both ,is compatible the one with the other.

At the supper ,the words spoken about the bread,were uttered in the unbroken wholeness of his actual body.They were these: “This is my body”.Then and there present tense.This is my body.But it was not his body.Yet he said that it was.How could it be his body at the time ?It was his body doing those things to the loaf.They could see plainly that it was a loaf of bread.It is therefore my opinion that it was impossible for that to be his body in fact.then ,to me then,it must have been his body in a figure.

Its not as though a part of Jesus had to be cut off of Him in order to become our Eucharist.

He is divinely present body, soul, and power. We then, no longer regard the bread and wine as mere bread and wine, but accidents. We regard the bread and wine, in Truth, as the sacrificial Lamb of God, the Hidden Manna, real food that is also Spiritual Food. This is because we know in our hearts, through faith, that God the Father, does this very same thing!

Peace
Michael

 

[rcwitness]

That is certainly one way of viewing it, but given the context and the content of John, I just don’t agree at this point.

Well, you are entitled to your private interpretation. If you were to do as Paul would do, you would go to the apostles to settle the matter. But you dont believe in any sort of apostolic succession either, because you privately interpret that away also.

So, really, this is a dead end unless God is willing to give you private revelation. I do hope for your conversion in His Eucharist, yet I regard many who embrace the symbolic view to be brothers and sisters. I have no desire to insult the faith you do have in Jesus. But I will not accept a mere symbolic interpretation of the Lord’s Supper as faith from God.

Peace
Michael

 

[Kliska]

Well, you are entitled to your private interpretation. If you were to do as Paul would do, you would go to the apostles to settle the matter. But you dont believe in any sort of apostolic succession either, because you privately interpret that away also.

I do go to the Apostles to settle the matter, and the earliest disciples. We have their teachings in scripture. But I know that isn’t what you meant.

So, really, this is a dead end unless God is willing to give you private revelation. I do hope for your conversion in His Eucharist, yet I regard many who embrace the symbolic view to be brothers and sisters. I have no desire to insult the faith you do have in Jesus. But I will not accept a mere symbolic interpretation of the Lord’s Supper as faith from God.

Peace
Michael

I don’t believe there is need for private revelation, I believe there is a need to properly understand scripture which is not up for private interpretation. I don’t believe in a “mere” symbolic interpretation, as there is no precedent for that in either Jewish thought, or Platonic thought. Symbols in both culture perspectives were never “mere” but a real participation in the thing symbolized. The question is, does that mean that I’m physically and literally eating Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity, at communion? I don’t see evidence of that in scripture.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Well, you are entitled to your private interpretation. If you were to do as Paul would do, you would go to the apostles to settle the matter. But you dont believe in any sort of apostolic succession either, because you privately interpret that away also. :shrug:l

Michael ,if Saul were to become Paul ,what course of action would he (or did he) then follow?
" immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood" Gal 1:15&16
"Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia,and returned again unto Damascus "

Not that Paul had no love for his brethren and fellow apostles ; but it appears to be yet a further three years before he is seen briefly visiting Peter ;(verse 19) “But other of the apostles saw I none,save James the Lord’s brother.”
It is true that he communed with the other apostles at Jerusalem in regards the question of circumcision, but this was for the benefit and advantage it would give : a vindication of his true and pure Gospel message against those Jewish " believers " ,who came out from Jerusalem ; and opposed it.

You may interpret this as a private interpretation but if it were a matter of apostolic succession,would not the example of Paul ,as you rightly give: that is to follow his example;would I say ,Paul and not Peter be seen at the forefront?
Because in regards this same question( circumcision)
Gal2:11
“But when Peter was come to Antioch,I withstood him to the face,because he was to be blamed”( KJV)

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

The gifts made by human hands are bread and wine are symbols before the consecration. After the Consecration, these are no longer symbols (speaking of the true presence) they become the body, blood of Jesus Christ, made by the hand of God, “a body you prepared for me”.

Hebrews10:5 “wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith ,Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not ,but a body hast thou prepared me”

You say in your statement above ,that the " bread and wine are symbols before the consecration."
With your quote :" a body you prepared for me" ,instead of showing evidence of that consecration( or if you like:transubstantiation) by the NT accounts of the " supper";you not only remain this side of the bread and your confessed "symbols " ;but you retreat back in time( or timelessness)and that into the Devine counsels of the Father and Son ,that is in your seeking for proof?

Which text is referring not to the supper but the incarnation through that human nature prepared afore of the seed of the virgin.This is the body in which " the Word was made flesh,and dwelt among us"( John 1:14).

 

[rcwitness]

I do go to the Apostles to settle the matter, and the earliest disciples. We have their teachings in scripture. But I know that isn’t what you meant

Right, it is not what I meant. Acts 15 records a despute regarding Teaching about the Kingdom. Paul, Barnabas and some others were “appointed” to go up to the Apostles and elders about the question. You can use Scripture to support, Teach, and refute, but when two people or groups of people in the faith have a dissagreement about interpretation, they have the leaders of the Church to settle the dispute. The Catholic Church has spoken from the beginning… the Lord’s Supper provides us the Eucharist offering, whom God has declared the flesh and blood of His Son. End of dispute for us. We are united to one another and have our graces through this faith and participation. .

Peace
Michael

 

[rcwitness]

Michael ,if Saul were to become Paul ,what course of action would he (or did he) then follow?
" immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood" Gal 1:15&16
"Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia,and returned again unto Damascus "

Not that Paul had no love for his brethren and fellow apostles ; but it appears to be yet a further three years before he is seen briefly visiting Peter ;(verse 19) “But other of the apostles saw I none,save James the Lord’s brother.”
It is true that he communed with the other apostles at Jerusalem in regards the question of circumcision, but this was for the benefit and advantage it would give : a vindication of his true and pure Gospel message against those Jewish " believers " ,who came out from Jerusalem ; and opposed it.

You may interpret this as a private interpretation but if it were a matter of apostolic succession,would not the example of Paul ,as you rightly give: that is to follow his example;would I say ,Paul and not Peter be seen at the forefront?
Because in regards this same question( circumcision)
Gal2:11
“But when Peter was come to Antioch,I withstood him to the face,because he was to be blamed”( KJV)

You are getting into much complication now.

The story of Paul’s conversion is NOT outside the Church, as many misunderstand. You can look for yourself where Jesus tells him to go after He caused him to be blind. Was it Jesus alone who returned his sight? How does Paul receive the Sacraments? Is it by Jesus alone? Does Jesus alone give Paul the Holy Spirit? When Paul needed Confirmation did He go to Jesus alone?

Peter’s wrong behavior did not take away His position to Confirm Paul. This was Paul’s distinct usage of ‘Peter’ and ‘Cephas’. He went to them for their apostolic authority, not for their personal approval. He did not seek their flesh and blood opinion, but rather God’s Confirmation through them. Just as He was baptized by God through men and received the Holy Spirit through the hands of men. Paul did not seek to please flesh and blood of men any longer.

Peace
Michael

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Melchizedek was a Priest/King who offered sacrifices to God with bread and wine, His office and His sacrificial offering, that proved to be a foreshadowing of Jesus who is our High Priest and King who offers His sacrifice = body and blood = the bread from heaven to God for the remission of sins.

Gabriel of 12 ,you are starting to sound like a Protestant or in my case ( I would claim) a “Christian”.
There is no doubting ( by any of us) that the figure of Melchizadec was prophetic in regards both the priesthood and that sacrifice (seen in the bread and wine) .
But this to me ,only adds substance to the elements remaining what they plainly appear to be : bread and wine.

As I have said already,there is no mention in either Genesis ,the book of Psalms or the book of Hebrews ,of this type and shadow ( of Christ) bringing forth the bread and wine to be consecrated ;or them becoming and being declared to be ,the very embodiment of the actual presence of that which(I believe) is that sacrifice :to which they merely point.

The fact that Melchizedek blesses in the giving us ( in the loins of Abraham) the benefits of his offering ,I believe ,declares only the fruit of that sacrifice ,that is being in a state of rejoicing and wonder feasting on its effects.1Corinthians 10:16:

“The cup of blessing which we bless,is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?The bread which we break,is it not the communion of the body of Christ”

To me ,to be consistent , a literal presence would also be evident in the Old Testament types.
The saints of old were after all saved ,no doubt ,by the coming sacrifice.
And we are saved by that sacrifice which has come ( to pass) .
The sacrifice of both are identical: the elements that represent the sacrifice are one in the same : meat and drink.

 

[Kliska]

Right, it is not what I meant.

As I pointed out

Acts 15 records a despute regarding Teaching about the Kingdom. Paul, Barnabas and some others were “appointed” to go up to the Apostles and elders about the question. You can use Scripture to support, Teach, and refute, but when two people or groups of people in the faith have a dissagreement about interpretation, they have the leaders of the Church to settle the dispute. The Catholic Church has spoken from the beginning… the Lord’s Supper provides us the Eucharist offering, whom God has declared the flesh and blood of His Son. End of dispute for us. We are united to one another and have our graces through this faith and participation. .

Peace
Michael

The catholic church did speak, don’t know about the Roman Catholic Church. Again, the only group in Christendom that believe the RCC was the beginning church, the only church, is the RCC itself, even the Orthodox don’t see the RCC as what they (RCC) claims about itself, nor do the Protestants. In short, again, I don’t see what the RCC is claiming is there about communion; not in scripture, and not in monolith form of the ECF’s, and early Christian writers.

This thread was meant to point in the direction of Apologetics, formal and logical argumentation, for the support of a somatic real presence. I’ve read multiple sources, watched videos, etc… and as of yet, I still don’t see the conclusion. If anyone has any other suggestions than what has been presented in this thread, I’d be glad to look into it. As I’ve said earlier, I don’t see the connection with John 6, but wold love to read more apologetics on the actual records of the Last Supper itself.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The catholic church did speak, don’t know about the Roman Catholic Church. Again, the only group in Christendom that believe the RCC was the beginning church, the only church, is the RCC itself, even the Orthodox don’t see the RCC as what they (RCC) claims about itself, nor do the Protestants. In short, again, I don’t see what the RCC is claiming is there about communion; not in scripture, and not in monolith form of the ECF’s, and early Christian writers.

This is only possible by ignorance of history… The Bishop of Rome goes all the way back to St. Peter. Do you deny this fact?

The Orthodox think we left, while we think they left. You can’t leave something you are not a part of.

The Early Christian Writers!!! Like our 4th Pope? Clement I, who actually wrote to the Corinthian Church in the 1st century? And who is mentioned in Scriptures as well? How much early than that it can get?

You have to jump through major hurdles and hoops to work around that one and still not be able to avoid it…

 

[Kliska]

This is only possible by ignorance of history… The Bishop of Rome goes all the way back to St. Peter. Do you deny this fact?

There is no ignorance of history. There are several key questions in regard to your statement, but this isn’t what the thread is about.

The Orthodox think we left, while we think they left. You can’t leave something you are not a part of.

And then the answer is that there was indeed a church, but a church based on faith in Christ, love, etc… and in the beginning there were so few Christians they did indeed tend to gather in small groups based on community. For example, the first community was the church at Jerusalem, with James as its organizational head. The church indeed branched, RCC is a branch, Orthodox is a branch, etc… One body, One Head (Christ), many members.

The Early Christian Writers!!! Like our 4th Pope? Clement I, who actually wrote to the Corinthian Church in the 1st century? And who is mentioned in Scriptures as well? How much early than that it can get?

The scriptures are the earliest source, obviously. After that, there are ECF’s and there are early Christian writers. We have a small percentage of these early teachings and writings, and they don’t represent a monolith of belief. We also know that churches were going astray even when Paul was alive and still preaching. Again, this is all about a difference we see in scripture and what was promised. You and I simply do not agree on what God promised His followers at the beginning of the church age; in the scriptures I don’t see an infallible organizational church with one infallible leader (the pope), that was promised infallibility in what it teaches. But that isn’t what the thread is specifically about.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

There is no ignorance of history. There are several key questions in regard to your statement, but this isn’t what the thread is about.

And then the answer is that there was indeed a church, but a church based on faith in Christ, love, etc… and in the beginning there were so few Christians they did indeed tend to gather in small groups based on community. For example, the first community was the church at Jerusalem, with James as its organizational head. The church indeed branched, RCC is a branch, Orthodox is a branch, etc… One body, One Head (Christ), many members.

The scriptures are the earliest source, obviously. After that, there are ECF’s and there are early Christian writers. We have a small percentage of these early teachings and writings, and they don’t represent a monolith of belief. We also know that churches were going astray even when Paul was alive and still preaching. Again, this is all about a difference we see in scripture and what was promised. You and I simply do not agree on what God promised His followers at the beginning of the church age; in the scriptures I don’t see an infallible organizational church with one infallible leader (the pope), that was promised infallibility in what it teaches. But that isn’t what the thread is specifically about.

Protestants are a branch of the Western Church; our history is the same as the Roman Catholic Church

 

[Kliska]

Protestants are a branch of the Western Church; our history is the same as the Roman Catholic Church

As always, not all Protestants agree… not even those in the same denominations.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

As always, not all Protestants agree… not even those in the same denominations.

The origin of the Christian faith is well documented and I agree that there are branches [Orthodox, for example]. Lutherans view the historic development of Catholic belief as our own heritage and only take exception where there was abuse [indulgences]. But we can never disown or ignore the 1500 years before the Reformation.

In the area of Eucharistic doctrine, the Catholic faith is quite clear; those Protestants who deny the dogma of the Real Presence are merely disagreeing with Christianity, as I see it.

 

[Kliska]

The origin of the Christian faith is well documented and I agree that there are branches [Orthodox, for example]. Lutherans view the historic development of Catholic belief as our own heritage and only take exception where there was abuse [indulgences]. But we can never disown or ignore the 1500 years before the Reformation.

In the area of Eucharistic doctrine, the Catholic faith is quite clear; those Protestants who deny the dogma of the Real Presence are merely disagreeing with Christianity, as I see it.

The problem for several denominations is that they believe in an organizational structure, where, if one deviates from that organizational structure, then that organization claims “motherhood” to that organization. The link between Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism is clear, so in a sense, we can see a “pedigree” between certain churches, that is true. However, if we start from the beginning the picture is not so clear, esp. in regards to beliefs, what was preached, what was proclaimed, etc…

Many protestants believe the scriptures are the paper trail, so we must turn to them. Hence, there are churches that don’t fit into the pedigree of an organizational structure. For example, I call myself a protestant, not because I personally spring from the reformation, but rather for clarity’s sake. In short, the contention that there was “East” and “West” and that was the main branch, or split, is not something many protestants would agree with. Instead, there were different local community churches, some claiming, over time, more privileged, prestige, power, etc… but not the monolithic structure, with a pope at the top, claimed by the RCC.

If the somatic, literal presence occurring as the result of transubstantiation was what was taught by Christ, I would expect much more evidence in scripture than I see, OT and NT. If you think that belief in that somatic, literal presence is Christianity, then I guess you wouldn’t consider me Christian.

 

[rcwitness]

As I pointed out

The catholic church did speak, don’t know about the Roman Catholic Church. Again, the only group in Christendom that believe the RCC was the beginning church, the only church, is the RCC itself, even the Orthodox don’t see the RCC as what they (RCC) claims about itself, nor do the Protestants. In short, again, I don’t see what the RCC is claiming is there about communion; not in scripture, and not in monolith form of the ECF’s, and early Christian writers.

This thread was meant to point in the direction of Apologetics, formal and logical argumentation, for the support of a somatic real presence. I’ve read multiple sources, watched videos, etc… and as of yet, I still don’t see the conclusion. If anyone has any other suggestions than what has been presented in this thread, I’d be glad to look into it. As I’ve said earlier, I don’t see the connection with John 6, but wold love to read more apologetics on the actual records of the Last Supper itself.

I see. You are right, I have been trying to explain my beliefs and convictions. If I post anymore I will do so with ONLY early Church Teachings.

But, if I never visit here again, I would like to ask if you have read the story of the disciples on the walk to Emmaus in the last chapter of Luke’s gospel? This is one of my favorite stories! It says so much of what our faith is like!!!

God bless,
Michael