The Case Against Transubstantiation

[zerinus]

Originally Posted by zerinus’ blog
Firstly, Real Presence is understood differently in different churches; but as defined in Catholicism, Real Presence is no more biblical than is Transubstantiation. The way in which Real Presence is understood in the Catholic Church is far from being scripturally provable.

Originally Posted by zerinus
making categorical assertions doesn’t really mean anything unless you can back it up with sound arguments.

You are implying that I am making categorical assertions without sound arguments to back it up! Not true. In my Blog post I had made this “sound argument” to back up what I had said:

The passage raises other puzzling questions. I understand what “Body and Blood” means (i.e. Transubstantiation). But what is “His whole Divinity” and “the whole Christ”? How are “His whole Divinity” and the “whole of Christ” present in the bread and wine? And how does one actually eat the “whole of Christ” together with the “whole of His Divinity” all in one go? How do Catholics go about exactly doing that? And how is that doctrine in any way biblical?

A sound argument

Will be replied to in a separate post.

That makes sense the same way this makes sense:

An oak tree and photosynthesis are so intricately intertwined that it is not possible to separate them. The oak tree happens by means of photosynthesis, so that to all intents and purposes one could say they are the same.

Not true. That is not a good analogy. Real Presence says:

. . . And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable * Body of our Lord, and His veritable* * Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine;* . . .

Transubstantiation says:

. . . by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

I agree that these are not identical expressions, and do not convey identical meanings—neither did I say that they did. But conceptually they are close enough to be virtually saying the same things. They are so interconnected and interdependent that one cannot exist without the other. You cannot say, for example, that Real Presence could be true (according to the Catholic definition), but Transubstantiation false—or the other way round for that matter. Catholic theology (which is what we are discussing here) requires that both be true as a consequence of the other.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

This is for extra clarification for Scott. But this post is mainly for zerinus who thinks this is a hyperbole;
The real presence is indeed REAL as Jesus said that He is real food and real drink.

I don’t dispute that Real Presence can be “real;” but only as the scriptures have defined it—meaning Present by His Spirit, as I have explained in my blog—not as golden fried nuggets with mustard and tomato sauce.

Jesus meant that HIS flesh & blood were REAL food & drink, food that you masticate or munch (from the Aramaic). How is that figurative?

In the same way that “swallowing camels” was figurative. If you can accept that they swallowed camels whole, I will accept that they eat Jesus whole. I think that it is pathetic that Catholics cannot conceive of Real Presence in any other form than as golden fried nuggets with mustard and tomato sauce.

The disciples of Jesus would never walk away over a “symbol” or a “hyperbole” or something that is only meant to be figurative now would they? Think about it. Why would the disciples walk away from Jesus if they thought He was speaking metaphorically?

All explained before; you just like to turn a blind eye to it.

zerinus

 

[J_C]

You are implying that I am making categorical assertions without sound arguments to back it up! Not true. In my Blog post I had made this “sound argument” to back up what I had said:

The passage raises other puzzling questions. I understand what “Body and Blood” means (i.e. Transubstantiation). But what is “His whole Divinity” and “the whole Christ”? How are “His whole Divinity” and the “whole of Christ” present in the bread and wine? And how does one actually eat the “whole of Christ” together with the “whole of His Divinity” all in one go? How do Catholics go about exactly doing that? And how is that doctrine in any way biblical?

zerinus

This is an argument??

 

[zerinus]

This is an argument??

Yes. Can you show me one scriptural passage that defines, or provides a justification to define Real Presence in those terms?

zerinus

 

[banjo]

In Jn 15:4 Jesus said, “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.”
How are we to “abide” in Jesus?
The answer is in Jn 6:56. Jesus said, “He who eats my flesh and drinks by blood abides in me, and I in him.”

A responder to the Zerinus blog posted:

Anonymous said…

What you are blogging here comes down to interpretation. A Catholic will disagree with your interpretation. You must also concede that many things Jesus said were indeed meant to be taken literally, just like some were meant to be metaphorical. One of the good ways we can tell which it is is by finding out how the early Christians practiced this teaching.

Ignatius said, “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again.”

Justin said, “but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus”
April 11, 2008 7:34 PM

That pretty much sums it up. This literal vs. figurative debate has been going on for centuries. Literally! Where the Bible reads “This is my body” the Greek verb estin is used (Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament) and it is translated “is”. There were other ways Jesus could have worded this, in Greek, Aramaic, or any number of languages, so as to remove all doubt that He was speaking figuratively but He didn’t. He said “is”.

The following link is to other threads regarding this same debate.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=1527531

 

[Stephen168]

Not true. That is not a good analogy.

Trees were growing before we could explain how it happened (photosynthesis), just as we knew the Real Presence as Jesus taught before we understood how to explain it (transubstantiation). Photosynthesis is how a seedling becomes a tree. Transubstantiation is how the bread becomes the body of Christ. Trees are true. Photosynthesis is not biblical but true. Real Presence is true. Transubstantiation is true. Transubstantiation is not the Real Presence just as photosynthesis is not a tree. It is a very good analogy. The fact that you are too thick to understand it, or your anti-catholic bias will not allow you to accept it, does not affect its quality.

making categorical assertions doesn’t really mean anything unless you can back it up with sound arguments.

 

[Stephen168]

You are implying that I am making categorical assertions without sound arguments to back it up! Not true. In my Blog post I had made this “sound argument” to back up what I had said:

The passage raises other puzzling questions. I understand what “Body and Blood” means (i.e. Transubstantiation). But what is “His whole Divinity” and “the whole Christ”? How are “His whole Divinity” and the “whole of Christ” present in the bread and wine? And how does one actually eat the “whole of Christ” together with the “whole of His Divinity” all in one go? How do Catholics go about exactly doing that? And how is that doctrine in any way biblical?

I just reviewed my introduction to logic book; can’t find anything about rhetorical questions making a ‘sound argument.’ Try again

 

[zerinus]

Trees were growing before we could explain how it happened (photosynthesis), just as we knew the Real Presence as Jesus taught before we understood how to explain it (transubstantiation). Photosynthesis is how a seedling becomes a tree. Transubstantiation is how the bread becomes the body of Christ. Trees are true. Photosynthesis is not biblical but true. Real Presence is true. Transubstantiation is true. Transubstantiation is not the Real Presence just as photosynthesis is not a tree. It is a very good analogy. The fact that you are too thick to understand it, or your anti-catholic bias will not allow you to accept it, does not affect its quality.

Some people when they run out of valid arguments resort to abuse. That is best ignored.

zerinus;3609005:

You are implying that I am making categorical assertions without sound arguments to back it up! Not true. In my Blog post I had made this “sound argument” to back up what I had said:

The passage raises other puzzling questions. I understand what “Body and Blood” means (i.e. Transubstantiation). But what is “His whole Divinity” and “the whole Christ”? How are “His whole Divinity” and the “whole of Christ” present in the bread and wine? And how does one actually eat the “whole of Christ” together with the “whole of His Divinity” all in one go? How do Catholics go about exactly doing that? And how is that doctrine in any way biblical?
I just reviewed my introduction to logic book; can’t find anything about rhetorical questions making a ‘sound argument.’ Try again

That is not a rhetorical question. The Catholic doctrine of Real Presence states:

. . . And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; . . .

If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

I am asking you to show me how this is biblical. Quote me one verse out of the Bible that proves that this doctrine is biblical. I am throwing the ball in your court. It is up to you to throw it back. It is not up to me to prove a negative. It is not up to me to prove to you that such a thing does not exist in the Bible because—errrr—it is not there for me to prove to you that it is not there—if you see what I mean. It is up to you to prove that it is there—if you believe it is. I know it requires a bit of intelligence, and it can be hard to wrap your head round that idea. But if you try just a little bit harder, you just might be able to understand.

zerinus

 

[J_C]

z with all respect, ample Scriptural support has been given in this thread. and as has been said mor than once, this is a matter of interpretations.

once you establish your qualificaitons as an inffallible interpreter of the Holy Bible, then we should be able to deal with what you are saying, however I, personally, have not yet found your name anywhere in the Bible, thoughI have been through it several times. also, your interpretations seem fishily like those of the many of the protestants who followed Luthor. I recall your saying that you are not protestant. How do we understand this adoption of certain protestant mistheologies by at least one Momron?

 

[joe370]

The case for the Transubstantiation…
When Jesus said, “I am the bread of life he who comes to me will never hunger” could simply mean, he who believes that I am his or her savior will never hunger, spiritually speaking (the after life). When He said, “…the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world,” could simply be alluding to Jesus’ fleshly death on the cross. BUT!!! when Jesus said: “…whoever eats this bread will live forever!” AND Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 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…” —is overwhelming proof that Jesus wants us to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, with a spiritual understanding. Paul even admonishes the members in the church of Corinth regarding the bread and the cup,of the Lord, “…What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. 1 Corinthians 11:22-27 Think about it for a minute; if Jesus was speaking symbolically, how is possible to eat this bread or drink this cup of the Lord unworthily? The only way to eat or drink it unworthily is to deny the literal interpretation! Jesus said, the bread was his body and the wine was his blood, not a symbol of his body and a symbol of His blood, and the cup that he held raised in his hands is the new testament in his blood and the Apostolic Church is to do this to remember him and to commemorate his sacrifice on the cross at Calvary for the entire world. Show me where He says a symbol of… and I will convert to you denomination; however you wont! Even if you want to deny Jesus’ true presence, as a Christian you are still obligated to do as Jesus commanded however in my opinion if you do as Jesus said with the belief that the wafer is a mere symbol outside of Jesus Apostolic Church you are still eating this bread, and drinking this cup of the Lord, unworthily, and are “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” —according to Saint Paul not me. Jesus had plenty of opportunities to correct his newly converted disciples according to Saint John, when they were returning to their former way of life and no longer accompanying him, due to this new teaching ++“The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”++ but instead Jesus reiterates, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. (Those are powerful words) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. How can something be true food if it is a symbol; if it was a symbol he would have to say, my flesh is a symbol of food and my blood is a symbol of drink; Jesus’ flesh and blood was/is the only flesh and blood that was Divine in the entire history of the human race. Also you would think if Jesus was speaking symbolically regarding the Eucharist, like for example when he said “I am the vine,” He would stop them considering the fact that it was their eternal soul on the line, but he doesn’t!! Why doesn’t he? --is the question I simply couldn’t answer!!! and Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” (He would have let them all leave if they chose to) Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. So, I can either follow in the footsteps of the Protestant Churches, however, I wouldn’t know which one to choose; they all teach something different on certain matters of faith and morals —who, after 1500 years of Catholic devotion to the True presence, decided to follow in the footsteps of the 1st century Jewish non-believers or I can follow in the footsteps of Saint Peter !!!

 

[Stephen168]

1 Corinthians 11:22-27 Think about it for a minute; if Jesus was speaking symbolically, how is possible to eat this bread or drink this cup of the Lord unworthily? The only way to eat or drink it unworthily is to deny the literal interpretation!

I agree.
Also Pauls teaching in 1 Cor 11:29 was repeated by Justin Martyr about 100 years later: “And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. **For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. **For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.”

And repeated at the Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

 

[Stephen168]

That is not a rhetorical question. The Catholic doctrine of Real Presence states:

. . . And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; . . .

If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

Maybe in the anti-Catholic mormon mind. Anyone who would like to truly understand will find the Doctrine of the Real Presence in the following:
New Testament, John 6:25-58
New Testament, 1 Corinthians 11:23-29
Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter Three
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1374

A Catholic with find Transubstantiation defined in:
Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter Four
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1376
with the words of consecration found in 1 Corinthians 11:24

Anti-Catholics with no desire to understand Catholic Doctrine are free to quote parts of anything they wish

 

[rich123456]

z…How would you interpret this parable? Does it have anything to do with the discussion here? Let me know how you would take this

“The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. Going out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and he said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.’ So they went off. And he went out again around noon, and around three o’clock, and did likewise. Going out about five o’clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ They answered, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard.’ When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.’ When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’ He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? Or am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’ Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

 

[Stephen168]

Trees were growing before we could explain how it happened (photosynthesis), just as we knew the Real Presence as Jesus taught before we understood how to explain it (transubstantiation). Photosynthesis is how a seedling becomes a tree. Transubstantiation is how the bread becomes the body of Christ. Trees are true. Photosynthesis is not biblical but true. Real Presence is true. Transubstantiation is true. Transubstantiation is not the Real Presence just as photosynthesis is not a tree. It is a very good analogy. The fact that you are too thick to understand it, or your anti-catholic bias will not allow you to accept it, does not affect its quality.
zerinus;3609927:

Some people when they run out of valid arguments resort to abuse. That is best ignored.

I’ll take that as:
b) your anti-catholic bias will not allow you to accept it

 

[zerinus]

Maybe in the anti-Catholic mormon mind. Anyone who would like to truly understand will find the Doctrine of the Real Presence in the following:
New Testament, John 6:25-58
New Testament, 1 Corinthians 11:23-29
Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter Three
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1374

A Catholic with find Transubstantiation defined in:
Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter Four
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1376
with the words of consecration found in 1 Corinthians 11:24

Anti-Catholics with no desire to understand Catholic Doctrine are free to quote parts of anything they wish

That still does not tell me where in the Bible to find scripture that says that we eat the whole soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole of Christ, under each species, and under every part of each species of the bread and wine when separated. Heck, I don’t even know what that means, never mind find it in the Bible.

I’ll take that as:
b) your anti-catholic bias will not allow you to accept it

No. You take that as exactly what it says: Some people, when they run out of valid arguments, resort to terms of abuse. That is best ignored.

1 Corinthians 11:22-27 Think about it for a minute; if Jesus was speaking symbolically, how is possible to eat this bread or drink this cup of the Lord unworthily? The only way to eat or drink it unworthily is to deny the literal interpretation!

We do that when we partake of them as an unrepentant sinner. That is what it means to eat and drink of them unworthily.

zerinus

 

[ufamtobie]

Hey there Zerinus,

Then the Jews started arguing with on another: 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat? they said. (John 6 verse 52)

Zerinus, now who do these Jews above resemble the Catholic Church or the Protestant church?

I tell you these particular Jews resemble the beliefs of the protestant church of today and yourself, I hate to be in your shoes, truly I say.

Jesus replied: 'I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you.

Anyone Who Does Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood Has Eternal Life, and I Shall Raise Him Up On the Last Day.
For My Flesh Is Real Food and My Blood Is Real Drink. He Who Eats My Flesh and Drinks My Blood Lives In Me and I Live In Him
(Jonh Ch. 6 VERSE 53-57)

Look up the word MOST SOLEMNLY

You Protestants must have Faith and believe in this doctrine or you will loose your souls. You make lite of Gods miricles and what he can do, Don’t be like Zechariah, who did not believe in Gods word that Elizabeth would bare a son, Zecharaiah laughed as you protestants are laughin now about the Trasnsubstantiation and look what happened to Zechariah God Punished him and now here is something greater and that is “Transubstantiation” it is TRUE don’t be like these Jews above.

Many of his diciples left him on this account to Eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood they said:

This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it. (John Ch. 6 verse 60)

These Jews above in scripture left because they truely knew what are Lord Meant and that is “to eat his flesh and drink his blood”, again, thats why they left, again they truely Knew what Jesus Meant, I can’t stress it enough!

Protestants are following in the Jews foots steps. And the Lord did not say to those diciples who left him…Come back it was only a figure of speech I did not mean to realy eat me and drink my blood. Our Lord did not say that in fact he just watched them leave.

Then Jesus said to the twelve, 'what about you, do you want to leave me too? Simon Peter answered, 'Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, And We Believe; we know you are the Holy One of God. (John Ch. 6 verse 67-69)

To sum it all up, the Catholic Church truely believes in the transubstiation, the Real Presence Of Our Lord Jesus Christ, if you don’t you have no life in you don’t let the devil fool you for Jesus Christ Is Lord.

Even Martin Luther believed, in the Real Presence, don’t have to believe me, look it up. now there are over 30 thousand protestant churches alone in the USA all have different beliefs, Question is, is that of GOD? NO! Must open your eyes to the Truth and put your pride aside, BELIEVE and come back home (RCC)

Have faith and believe
Ufamtobie/ Martin

 

[Stephen168]

That still does not tell me where in the Bible to find scripture that says that we eat the whole soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole of Christ, under each species, and under every part of each species of the bread and wine when separated. Heck, I don’t even know what that means, never mind find it in the Bible.

Obviously!

 

[Stephen168]

Then the Jews started arguing with on another: 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat? they said. (John 6 verse 52)
….

Jesus replied: 'I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you.

Anyone Who Does Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood Has Eternal Life, and I Shall Raise Him Up On the Last Day.
For My Flesh Is Real Food and My Blood Is Real Drink. He Who Eats My Flesh and Drinks My Blood Lives In Me and I Live In Him
(John Ch. 6 VERSE 53-57)
….

Many of his disciples left him on this account to Eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood they said:

This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it. (John Ch. 6 verse 60)

These Jews above in scripture left because they truly knew what are Lord Meant and that is “to eat his flesh and drink his blood”, again, that’s why they left, again they truly Knew what Jesus Meant, I can’t stress it enough!

….
Then Jesus said to the twelve, 'what about you, do you want to leave me too? Simon Peter answered, 'Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, And We Believe; we know you are the Holy One of God. (John Ch. 6 verse 67-69)

To sum it all up, the Catholic Church truly believes in the transubstantiation, the Real Presence Of Our Lord Jesus Christ, if you don’t you have no life in you don’t let the devil fool you for Jesus Christ Is Lord.
….
Have faith and believe
Ufamtobie/ Martin

Another example of a sound argument!!

 

[onenow1]

HI,Zerinus
There is no case against transubstantiation, there are three persons in one God, Jesus came to us in the flesh, he ascended to heaven in the flesh and gave himsef to us, in the flesh, on the cross. At the last supper he did not say this is my spirit, do this in memory of me. The Divine Jesus, in His body has conquored
sin. So He gives us His flesh so he may live in us, and we may live in Him.

Peace. OneNow1

 

[wisdomseeker]

Some people when they run out of valid arguments resort to abuse. That is best ignored.

That is not a rhetorical question. The Catholic doctrine of Real Presence states:

. . . And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; . . .

If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

I am asking you to show me how this is biblical. Quote me one verse out of the Bible that proves that this doctrine is biblical. I am throwing the ball in your court. It is up to you to throw it back. It is not up to me to prove a negative. It is not up to me to prove to you that such a thing does not exist in the Bible because—errrr—it is not there for me to prove to you that it is not there—if you see what I mean. It is up to you to prove that it is there—if you believe it is. I know it requires a bit of intelligence, and it can be hard to wrap your head round that idea. But if you try just a little bit harder, you just might be able to understand.

zerinus

I believe Z is telling us he is in charge. it is his way. do it his way. he is trying to corner us all. what a deceitfull mind you have Z. what a waist of time Z, for we only listen to the Church and not to you since we realize the Church has the infallibility and not you. we dont see you as the infallible interpreter of the Scriptures. you cannot use SS against Christ or His Church.