The Real Presence

[Gabriel_of_12]

david ruiz;8304541]This is out of my field , but a “mixing” can be had without being a heretic. Mars Hill (Paul) and ,"being all things to all men that some might be saved "is an example of proper “mixing” . That is using any thing ,person ,idea ,philosophy ,practice ,tradition,to show Christian , even biblical truth .After all, the sun shines on the wicked as well as the righteous (so does knowledge , even though worldly, because they honor not the creator , not because it is false knowledge) .Even Augustine admired and acknowledged the wisdom of this world ,as far as science, that they could be better experts in their field of study ,and that we should look at their "knowledge " and weigh it against Scripture .He also believed science would not contradict Scripture…Another kind of mixing can be found in the practices of Easter and Christmas . Even the system of honoring saints may have Roman roots . Some have said Egyptians also had a wafer with RP of their deity…So I wonder if indeed the either or approach ,which many have denounced when protestants apply it to something, is wrong with Augustine and philosophy of his day.

lyrikal’s Encyclopedia post sums up alot here of St. Augustines theology.

David what you post here attests to the Catholic Church’s position which does not hinder any one saint, pope, bishop from their freedoms to discuss science, apply philisophical idelogies and reason to the discussion of Christianity.

But what these mixtures that you claim to from that of St.Augustine and even our past Pope John Paul II give their opinions from cannot and do not change what was handed down to the Catholic Church revealed by Jesus Christ from the apostles themselves unchanged.

What you reveal here and Radical’s postings is a change (symbolic) of doctrine from the RP Eucharist to which St.Augustine held too. ST.Augustine writes deep insights from his past philosophical mindset, but he never changes the True presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist or argues against this apostolic teaching which was handed down to him.

When St. Augustine addresses his catechumens he hits the nail on the head every time that Jesus body and blood are present in the Eucharist. When St.Augustine argues against heretics, he elevates his arguments to the carnal mind so as to begin faith.

It would appear david and radical are grasping at straws to change the teaching of True presence of Jesus Body and blood in the Eucharist from reading a protestant symbolic view of the RP which never existed in the time of ST.Augustine.

In summary, ST.Augustine did not and does not teach a different doctrine of the Eucharist, which you are forcing a late symbolic view into his writings. St. Augustines opinons are not doctrine, nor can his opinions change an apostolic doctrine.

 

[CopticChristian]

lyrikal’s Encyclopedia post sums up alot here of St. Augustines theology.

David what you post here attests to the Catholic Church’s position which does not hinder any one saint, pope, bishop from their freedoms to discuss science, apply philisophical idelogies and reason to the discussion of Christianity.

But what these mixtures that you claim to from that of St.Augustine and even our past Pope John Paul II give their opinions from cannot and do not change what was handed down to the Catholic Church revealed by Jesus Christ from the apostles themselves unchanged.

What you reveal here and Radical’s postings is a change (symbolic) of doctrine from the RP Eucharist to which St.Augustine held too. ST.Augustine writes deep insights from his past philosophical mindset, but he never changes the True presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist or argues against this apostolic teaching which was handed down to him.

When St. Augustine addresses his catechumens he hits the nail on the head every time that Jesus body and blood are present in the Eucharist. When St.Augustine argues against heretics, he elevates his arguments to the carnal mind so as to begin faith.

It would appear david and radical are grasping at straws to change the teaching of True presence of Jesus Body and blood in the Eucharist from reading a protestant symbolic view of the RP which never existed in the time of ST.Augustine.

In summary, ST.Augustine did not and does not teach a different doctrine of the Eucharist, which you are forcing a late symbolic view into his writings. St. Augustines opinons are not doctrine, nor can his opinions change an apostolic doctrine.

This is remeniscent of the problem that so called reformers had in trying to reformulate apostolic teaching based on Augustine. He is just one person who believed and practiced the deposit of Faith and wrote and thought his mind.

 

[lyrikal]

I would advise not to try to escape our conundrum, by placing it in someone elses hands. Perhaps it is fitting that much energy is on Augustine , for he believed in His Catholic Church and in the Authority of Scriptures ,and the role of teahcers .But his greatest security out there on the battlefield of thought ,was that he had the Teacher himself, sticking closer than a brother , and that indeed he is rewarder of those that diligently seek him. In the end , the conundrum MUST be given to Him , for “He teaches us”-as in your prayer closet . The apostles were in a conundrum - they had teachers , rabbis , tradition , the Talmud, the Torah (bible), the Sanhedrin ,and experiences with Jesus himself .What led them out of the conundrum ? of taking all the "data’ from those God given resources just listed ? It was divine revelation, “The father in heaven has revealed this to you ,Peter, that I am the Christ”. We are alike in that we have a final authority .You rest on your magisterium and I rest on Holy Scripture .We both have churches and fellow believers who have made decisions on the matter .But you and I can not escape bringing it before Him .I must ask Him what is the right interpretation , and you must ask Him does my Church have it right ? Hence, we cherish His blessing on the matter.

Hi brother David,

I am not trying to escape anything. In fact, I am still planning on replying to all of Radical’s replies to my replies to show where he has double standards in his argument and also to show why I believe he is wrong. So don’t mistake my post for an “escape”. I still stand on what I have shown Radical and no reply from Radical has convinced me otherwise. If his replies are to convince me that a figurative understanding is not compatible with a literal understanding then I would have a lot of issues with Christianity already. Is Jesus Man OR God? Is the Bible written/inspired by man or God? How can the Trinity be 3 and 1 at the same time? Are we saved by faith OR works? Is the Church visible OR invisible? Bible or Tradition? Bodily Presence or symbolic or spiritual?

If you are going to interpret Augustine’s words “believe and you have eaten” as the final say in his many, many, many, writings on the Eucharist, then you are being biased and picking a passage that you want to cling to. Radical keeps doing the same thing with the passage on OCD III. He keeps on saying that when Augustine’s audience heard his sermons on the Eucharist, or read his Expositions on the Psalms in regards to Eating Flesh and Drinking Blood and worshipping the Flesh that we eat, the listeners would have remembered his passage on OCD III and understood what he meant. He keeps going back to the passage on OCD III. He keeps treating this whole thing as if we are in court and we are to prove everything using the evidence we have. He keeps going back to the listener’s as if they are sitting there with all of Augustine’s writings on their laptop and doing word searches on Augustine’s teachings to figure out what he means when he says “such and such.” We can do this today because we have the technology and ability (obviously). But, we can’t expect that they had all of Augustine’s writings memorized and we also can’t expect them to have read all of his writings and specifically the OCD III one. I have researched Augustine’s views on the Eucharist and have no problem with the ones that sound symbolic. If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there are paragraphs in there that make the Eucharist sound as if it is a symbolic belief in the Catholic Church. This is obviously not the case. The Eucharist is both symbolic AND literal. The bread and wine are symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ because that is what they represent. At the same time, they ARE the Body and Blood of Christ. There is no contradiction here and I don’t think you can say Augustine believed in a symbolic Eucharist because he sounded symbolic at times. There are times where he sounded symbolic and times where he sounded literal. There is no contradiction here just like there is no contradiction when we read the Scriptures saying “the MAN Jesus Christ…” and “The WORD became Flesh…” One would see there to be a contradiction. Is the Bible saying Jesus is Man or is it saying He is God? Both! Why is that so easy to accept as far as the Nature of Christ and so hard to accept as far as the writings of Augustine? Why do we pick and choose what we want certain things to mean just because they don’t fit our beliefs? If people are going to interpret the literal sounding writings of Augustine on the Eucharist as being “figurative and symbolic” then why not do that with every other Church Father? We can say that none of them really believed in the RBP of Christ because we can say “well they may have sounded literal but they really meant it in a figurative way!” Why stop there? Why not continue…“The Bible and the Fathers SOUND like it/they are saying that Jesus is God but that’s not really what it means!” Why? “Because in other passages it says He is a MAN!” So? “So, all the passages that say He is God MUST answer to the passages that say He is Man. We therefore must interpret the ones that say ‘He is God’ as figurative and not literal. So Jesus is not REALLY God…He is only God in a CERTAIN WAY…” I would bet my all my belongings that neither you, nor Radical, nor any true Christian would see it that way.

Peace.

 

[lyrikal]

Regarding this:

We are alike in that we have a final authority .You rest on your magisterium and I rest on Holy Scripture

Let me help you out with this, if I may. You don’t REST on Holy Scripture. You REST on YOUR interpretation on Holy Scripture and therefore you are your own magisterium. No one rests on the authority of Holy Scriptures. We ALL rest on the interpretation of it. The question isn’t about where Authority is. We BOTH agree that Scripture is Authoritative. The question really is: Who has the Authority to interpret it correctly? Perhaps we can start another thread and discuss that more. You are more than welcome to do that and I would very much like to hear your reply on that on a new thread (let me know and I can start it).

Peace be with you.

 

[Radical]

(from an article Lyrikal quoted)

… for even Augustine was deprived of a clear conception of Transubstantiation, so long as he was held in the bonds of Platonism.

The position held by St. Augustine is at present the subject of a spirited controversy, … On the other hand, it is beyond question that, owing to the determining influence of Origen and the Platonic philosophy, which, as is well known, attached but slight value to visible matter and the sensible phenomena of the world, Augustine did not refer what was properly real (res) in the Blessed Sacrament to the Flesh of Christ (caro), but transferred it to the quickening principle (spiritus), i.e. to the effects produced by a worthy Communion. A logical consequence of this was that he allowed to caro, as the vehicle and antitype of res, not indeed a mere symbolical worth, but at best a transitory, intermediary, and subordinate worth (signum), and placed the Flesh and Blood of Christ, present under the appearances (figuræ) of bread and wine, in too decided an opposition to His natural, historical Body. …Nevertheless a turning-point occurred in his life. The conflict with Pelagianism and the diligent perusal of Chrysostom freed him from the bondage of Platonism, and he thenceforth attached to caro a separate, individual value independent of that of spiritus, going so far, in fact, as to maintain too strongly that the Communion of children was absolutely necessary to salvation.

I, of course, wouldn’t agree that Augustine ever adopted a RBP view, but note what the article suggests: Augustine becomes a bishop, becomes a force in speaking for/writing for the Church in the west and then decades later, after the start of his conflict with Pelagianism, his view regarding the Eucharist “developed” and he gradually abandoned his earlier view which “did not refer what was properly real (res) in the Blessed Sacrament to the Flesh of Christ (caro)”. That would mean that there wasn’t a required RBP doctrine/dogma (in Augustine’s day) that was required of appointees to the office of bishop. It suggests that one could become a leading bishop in that day while believing in something other than a RBP…that various views were acceptable w/i orthodoxy. To use a ploy from Nicea325, where are all the objections to Augustine’s appointment as bishop b/c he hadn’t, as yet, signed on to a full blown RBP? Where are all the demands for his removal from office until he fully abandoned his neoplatonistic inclinations and adopted a full blown real somatic presence?

 

[Nicea325]

I, of course, wouldn’t agree that Augustine ever adopted a RBP view, but note what the article suggests: Augustine becomes a bishop, becomes a force in speaking for/writing for the Church in the west and then decades later, after the start of his conflict with Pelagianism, his view regarding the Eucharist “developed” and he gradually abandoned his earlier view which “did not refer what was properly real (res) in the Blessed Sacrament to the Flesh of Christ (caro)”. That would mean that there wasn’t a required RBP doctrine/dogma (in Augustine’s day) that was required of appointees to the office of bishop. It suggests that one could become a leading bishop in that day while believing in something other than a RBP…that various views were acceptable w/i orthodoxy. To use a ploy from Nicea325, where are all the objections to Augustine’s appointment as bishop b/c he hadn’t, as yet, signed on to a full blown RBP? Where are all the demands for his removal from office until he fully abandoned his neoplatonistic inclinations and adopted a full blown real somatic presence?

Ploy Radical? Really? Is that the best you can muster up? Cannot answer,thus let me turn the tables around? Augustine’s bishopric and objections? :ehh: Oh brother! Why the fixation and obession with Augustine? Basing an entire argument with merely one ECF is very weak at best!

The issue at hand is the Eucharist,not his office as bishop,so tell me how they are related?

BTW: The fact you have not presented ONE ECF rebuking Augustine for believing in the RP really gives you little to no credence at all,regardless of your distinguished scholars. Sorry,if it the truth crushes your pride.

 

[CopticChristian]

You forgot one very important doctrine =infalliblilty .That closes the circular argument .That shuts out the idea ,in fact the history , in the old testament with Israel, that one can receive “light ’ and righteousness” ,and lose it ,or water it down ,or add or detract from it ,or indeed , not be perfect. It is like applying “once saved ALWAYS saved” to only one patriarchal church,to the exclusion of all others. The whole idea of shutting out other interpretations or having them come from one source(earthly) ,is foreign in the old testament. Otherwise you would not have had the Talmud ,a book collecting all the different thoughts and possible interpretations. (There is a place, time and method, for exclusion,and rejection)…We hear it often ,but yes Catholics did much good , but many just don’t accept they are perfect ,and there has always been a segment that has believed that. So it is very logical to read “your” bible ,and not “carte blanche”, buy into things that happened a thousand years later. Ironic isn’t it ? “Your” bible tells me that is proper and righteous. As one pesky Jesuit said, “Dang, if it weren’t for that “book” we wouldn’t be in this mess”-(combatting protestants- my paraphrase).

The Old Covenant was good. Paul was a student of the Old Covenant and when he saw what he knew in a different way the Old became the enemy of the best. Romans 7. The spouse is now dead. The New Covenant is an accurate understanding and explanation of the Old. Many continued in the Old.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Have you not seen many including Lutheran, Anglican and Buddhists calling themselves Catholic?

I agree with your presentation. The tragedy is those that take the name for themselves can read this and say, well of course that is me.

Eusebius and other history translates that fantasy into reality.

That’s why I tried to highlight this passage:

“…so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.”

I know I’ll get a bunch of flack for this, but oh well…

I have seen some supposedly high-minded protestants try to apply the Early Church to themselves in order to justify their rebellion. It’s just intellectually dishonest. I studied ancient history and I still study ancient Church history, and it is insulting to me that any protestant would try to insinuate that their beliefs are anything close to the Early Church. They’re committing revisionism in history. They’re doing to history the same thing that they do with the Bible. They approach history with the already held belief that the Early Church was protestant, and they read that belief into the historical record. It’s just not true, and I can’t help but feel as if its done in bad faith.

It’s like hearing someone insist that the Holocaust didn’t happen, or that Jesus never existed. It makes me want to throw my head through a wall.

 

[Radical]

What you really mean and is accurate is that the Majority of Protestants that are called Christian that you believe you represent do not believe in the real bodily presence.

no, you are not following at all…let me do the math for you. Here are the numbers for the World’s Christians in millions (give or take):

Catholics 1143
Orthodox 273
Anglicans 85
Lutherans 80
Protestants (not above) 333
Independents 361

Total 2275

Now it would seem that about 57% of American Catholics believe in a RBP. Let’s be generous and round up to 66.67%. We’ll use the same generous figure for the Orthodox and use the generous figure of 50% for the Anglicans and the Lutherans. We’ll even allow 2% for Protestants and Independents. So with those generous numbers, here are the numbers for the World’s Christians in millions (give or take) who believe in a RBP:

Catholics 762
Orthodox 182
Anglicans 43
Lutherans 40
Protestants (not above) 7
Independents 7

Total 1041 out of 2275 or 46%

As said, even if we are generous with the numbers, the RBP is a minority…and to repeat, I don’t speak for anyone but myself.

You are just one of the many fallible Protestants that speak fallibly about whatever it is you speak about.

correct…but I still get things right (like my belief in my fallibility)

 

[lyrikal]

no, you are not following at all…let me do the math for you. Here are the numbers for the World’s Christians in millions (give or take):

Catholics 1143
Orthodox 273
Anglicans 85
Lutherans 80
Protestants (not above) 333
Independents 361

Total 2275

Now it would seem that about 57% of American Catholics believe in a RBP. Let’s be generous and round up to 66.67%. We’ll use the same generous figure for the Orthodox and use the generous figure of 50% for the Anglicans and the Lutherans. We’ll even allow 2% for Protestants and Independents. So with those generous numbers, here are the numbers for the World’s Christians in millions (give or take) who believe in a RBP:

Catholics 762
Orthodox 182
Anglicans 43
Lutherans 40
Protestants (not above) 7
Independents 7

Total 1041 out of 2275 or 46%

As said, even if we are generous with the numbers, the RBP is a minority…and to repeat, I don’t speak for anyone but myself.

correct…but I still get things right (like my belief in my fallibility)

I don’t understand how this disproves RBP. What is the point of this? I respect your points and always consider your arguments but this one is just weak.

Two can play this game though. I’m willing to bet that the majority of Christians believe that Baptism washes away your sins and is necessary for salvation. This doesn’t prove anything. All it really proves is that most Christians believe in a necessity of Baptism.

Most Christians don’t believe in the Calvinistic views on salvation as far as double predestination goes. This doesn’t prove anything. Truth is not in the numbers. At one point, Christianity consisted of someone named Jesus and His 12 apostles. That must mean Christianity was false from the get-co. I am trying to understand what the point of this numbers game is. I hope you don’t think that the majority of the Christian world shares with your beliefs in EVERYTHING. It would be nice to know what truth is based on the numbers…unfortunately, things don’t work out that way in reality.

 

[Radical]

I don’t understand how this disproves RBP. What is the point of this? I respect your points and always consider your arguments but this one is just weak.

you are jumping to conclusions…there is no argument attached to these stats…I am just presenting the stats…I forget why and how the numbers first came up on this thread, but it seems that some Catholics just can’t fathom how the RBP camp would be in the minority. I find the numbers interesting, but I have never asserted that the numbers prove the correctness or incorrectness of any position.

Two can play this game though. I’m willing to bet that the majority of Christians believe that Baptism washes away your sins and is necessary for salvation.

I haven’t thought about it…but now that you have brought that up…I’d be interested in seeing those numbers too.

Truth is not in the numbers.

agreed…and you won’t find anything from me ever asserting otherwise.

 

[lyrikal]

you are jumping to conclusions…there is no argument attached to these stats…I am just presenting the stats…I forget why and how the numbers first came up on this thread, but it seems that some Catholics just can’t fathom how the RBP camp would be in the minority. I find the numbers interesting, but I have never asserted that the numbers prove the correctness or incorrectness of any position.

I haven’t thought about it…but now that you have brought that up…I’d be interested in seeing those numbers too.

agreed…and you won’t find anything from me ever asserting otherwise.

My apologies. I was just trying to get an understanding of the reasons why these numbers are being presented. I guess the answer is “I’m not really sure anymore…”

 

[Jimmy_B]

You forgot one very important doctrine =infalliblilty .That closes the circular argument .That shuts out the idea ,in fact the history , in the old testament with Israel, that one can receive “light ’ and righteousness” ,and lose it ,or water it down ,or add or detract from it ,or indeed , not be perfect. It is like applying “once saved ALWAYS saved” to only one patriarchal church,to the exclusion of all others. The whole idea of shutting out other interpretations or having them come from one source(earthly) ,is foreign in the old testament. Otherwise you would not have had the Talmud ,a book collecting all the different thoughts and possible interpretations. (There is a place, time and method, for exclusion,and rejection)…We hear it often ,but yes Catholics did much good , but many just don’t accept they are perfect ,and there has always been a segment that has believed that. So it is very logical to read “your” bible ,and not “carte blanche”, buy into things that happened a thousand years later. Ironic isn’t it ? “Your” bible tells me that is proper and righteous. As one pesky Jesuit said, “Dang, if it weren’t for that “book” we wouldn’t be in this mess”-(combatting protestants- my paraphrase).

It’s not “my Bible”, it belongs to everyone. It’s just that as a Catholic, I know where it came from. All religions and denomination are “infallible” about their own beliefs, the only difference is that Catholics admit it and don’t have a problem with it, because we know we are right… and that’s goes back to the isuue of authority…

 

[benedictus2]

no, you are not following at all…let me do the math for you. Here are the numbers for the World’s Christians in millions (give or take):

Catholics 1143
Orthodox 273
Anglicans 85
Lutherans 80
Protestants (not above) 333
Independents 361

Total 2275

Now it would seem that about 57% of American Catholics believe in a RBP. Let’s be generous and round up to 66.67%. We’ll use the same generous figure for the Orthodox and use the generous figure of 50% for the Anglicans and the Lutherans. We’ll even allow 2% for Protestants and Independents. So with those generous numbers, here are the numbers for the World’s Christians in millions (give or take) who believe in a RBP:

Catholics 762
Orthodox 182
Anglicans 43
Lutherans 40
Protestants (not above) 7
Independents 7

And this late in the thread you still fail to see how completely irrational your proposition that concesus means truth.

If majority of Christians started believing that Christ is not God but only a wise prophet, that would not make them correct.

 

[lyrikal]

And this late in the thread you still fail to see how completely irrational your proposition that concesus means truth.

If majority of Christians started believing that Christ is not God but only a wise prophet, that would not make them correct.

See post Numbers 708-710.

 

[benedictus2]

you are jumping to conclusions…there is no argument attached to these stats…I am just presenting the stats…I forget why and how the numbers first came up on this thread,

No argument attached to these stats? Have you forgotten that you brought ti up by claiming that there are more Christians who do not believe in the RP than those who do?

If there is no argument attached, why bring it up? You were trying to support your belief and your point of view with consesus. That is what you were trying to to do. Now you are trying to weasel out of the quandary you’ve landed yourself in.

 

[Radical]

see what I mean Lyrikal?..it just can’t be accepted - it has to be contested

No argument attached to these stats? Have you forgotten that you brought ti up by claiming that there are more Christians who do not believe in the RP than those who do?

yes, that would be a claim and not an argument…if I say that the USA has a bigger population than Canada…it is a claim (that can be validated by stats)…it isn’t an argument…sheeesh!

If there is no argument attached, why bring it up?

to clarify for CopticChristian, b/c he just didn’t seem to be able to grasp how I could say that a majority didn’t accept a RBP.

You were trying to support your belief and your point of view with consesus. That is what you were trying to to do. Now you are trying to weasel out of the quandary you’ve landed yourself in.

Nope. I looked it up and originally I brought it up in response to this from Nicea325;

Why would Christ leave people second guessing as to what verbage he truly intended to use? If Christ meant it to be symbolic,he would have easily used the proper terminology describing a symbolic Eucharist.

I said: well, any way he (Jesus) meant it, the uncertainty has divided Christianity. The majority of us Christians don’t believe in a real bodily presence and even fewer believe in transubstantiation…so if Christ’s purpose was to have us all on the same page with this, then he dropped the ball. As such, I would think that he didn’t have that purpose.

…the fact was brought up in response to Nicea325’s implication that Christ’s wouldn’t have left us second guessing and the fact/stat shows that Christianity is so divided that a lot of second guessing must be going on…I presented the fact in that fashion b/c certain Catholics here seem to be under the misconception that their’s is the majority opinion and that only a small percentage of Christians reject it, such that there is little “second guessing” going on as to Christ’s meaning. Got it?

That reminds me…Lyrikal, thank you for taking the time to make thoughtful responses on this thread. Those posts forced me to think, learn and frame my argument more clearly…though apparently, I too have left many second guessing as to what I meant

 

[benedictus2]

see what I mean Lyrikal?..it just can’t be accepted - it has to be contested yes, that would be a claim and not an argument…if I say that the USA has a bigger population than Canada…it is a claim (that can be validated by stats)…it isn’t an argument…sheeesh!

Yeah right Why would you make a claim and give the stats? For what? To what end? For what reason? For no reason? Then you are in the habit of giving irrelevant statements? It would be like we’re discussing the merits of a healthy diet and you casually comment : the Redsox won again?

You gave that statement to support your view on the RP. Plain in simple

Otherwise there was absolutely no need for it.

It was totally irrelevant to the discussion.Go back to your post where you said it and trace the trend of the conversation.

Nope. You are wiggling out of a predicament you created for yourself by an irrational argument.

 

[benedictus2]

Nope. I looked it up and originally I brought it up in response to this from Nicea325;
Why would Christ leave people second guessing as to what verbage he truly intended to use? If Christ meant it to be symbolic,he would have easily used the proper terminology describing a symbolic Eucharist.
I said: well, any way he (Jesus) meant it, the uncertainty has divided Christianity. The majority of us Christians don’t believe in a real bodily presence and even fewer believe in transubstantiation…so if Christ’s purpose was to have us all on the same page with this, then he dropped the ball. As such, I would think that he didn’t have that purpose.

Even with this background you still end up claiming “consensus means truth” because you are saying that the fact that the majority of Christians do not believe in the Eucharist means that Christ did not want us to be all on the same page with regards the Eucharist.

The only difference is that the truth you are trying to shore up with this line of thinking is this: since we do not have concensus, Christ must not have meant what the Bible says He said, and so must have wanted us to make up our own minds as to what to make of His statement and therefore there is no true way of understanding what He said.

Which is about as irrational as saying that since there are so many denominations Christ must NOT have wanted unity because if He did, then He dropped the ball on that one as well .

 

[CopticChristian]

no, you are not following at all…let me do the math for you. Here are the numbers for the World’s Christians in millions (give or take):

Catholics 1143
Orthodox 273
Anglicans 85
Lutherans 80
Protestants (not above) 333
Independents 361

Total 2275

Now it would seem that about 57% of American Catholics believe in a RBP. Let’s be generous and round up to 66.67%. We’ll use the same generous figure for the Orthodox and use the generous figure of 50% for the Anglicans and the Lutherans. We’ll even allow 2% for Protestants and Independents. So with those generous numbers, here are the numbers for the World’s Christians in millions (give or take) who believe in a RBP:

Catholics 762
Orthodox 182
Anglicans 43
Lutherans 40
Protestants (not above) 7
Independents 7

Total 1041 out of 2275 or 46%

As said, even if we are generous with the numbers, the RBP is a minority…and to repeat, I don’t speak for anyone but myself.

correct…but I still get things right (like my belief in my fallibility)

So by your reasoning the number of people that believe that Jesus was God/man is relevant to something. The percentages mean nothing as you have provided evidence for. Does the fact that people deny the divinty of Christ changes the divinty of Christ?

Thank you for showing me your fallible teaching.