The Universal Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter lanman87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You’re not even looking at the exact wording, @mcq72. You’re just arguing.

How much more clearer do you need it to be?

THIS ( The object) IS ( Stating what it is ) My Body/Blood.
 
Last edited:
That’s not the entire footnote of Matt. 26: 29. Here they are again (including v. 28 footnote):

[28] “Blood of the new testament”: As the old testament was dedicated with the blood of victims, by Moses, in these words: This is the blood of the testament, etc., Heb. 9. 20; so here is the dedication and institution of the new testament, in the blood of Christ, here mystically shed by these words: This is the blood of the new testament, etc.

[29] “Fruit of the vine”: These words, by the account of St. Luke 26: 22. 18, were not spoken of the sacramental cup, but of the wine that was drunk with the paschal lamb. Though the sacramental cup might also be called the fruit of the vine, because it was consecrated from wine, and retains the likeness, and all the accidents or qualities of wine.
 
Michael16 said:
How much more clearer do you need it to be
Click to expand...
The clearest meaning would be figurative, especially during an already symbolic passover meal. In the figurative you are cohesive with not eating human flesh and drinking blood going against Jewish sensitivities. Secondly, you are not going against natural sensitivities, of having to figure out how the senses tell you it is bread and Jesus still fully intact and whole. Enough the apostles have on their plate to " digest", no pun intended, with one of the saddest and most pivotal nights of this journey with Jesus.
 
The clear meaning, @mcq72 is that Our Lord spoke literally.

The proper understanding of transubstantiation is that the essential nature of the bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ UNDER the appearances of bread and wine.
 
Margaret_Ann said:
That’s not the entire footnote of Matt. 26: 29. Here they are again (including v. 28 footnote):
Click to expand...
Lol, really? I read it all and hence gave my reply…i can not highlight on my phone like i can on computer, hence only posted what i would have highlighted…
I did allude to article saying it was not consecrated cup, by questioning why article then says, " in case it was…" ( paraphrased), or “might also be…”
 
Sigh, @mcq72.

You’re trying; I’ll give you that.

Still. Not figurative. Our Lord spoke literally and your attempts to say otherwise just fly in the face of the text.
 
Michael16 said:
The proper understanding of
Click to expand...
Well proper (correct) is one thing, clearer, more simple, less problematic is another.

I am addressing the point of what some say is " clearer".

And to that point transubstantiation is the least clearer, relative to more common figurative speech, under a figurative, symbolic passover eating already.
 
Last edited:
I’m thinking your basic problem, @mcq72 is that the text speaks clearly; but you’re trying to shoehorn in doubts like using a wedge to make room for your argument.

Almost like a door to door salesman putting his foot in the door before the lady of the house can close it on him.
 
Nope, @mcq72.

Not from where I and 2,000 years of Church understanding is standing.
 
Michael16 said:
I’m thinking your basic problem, @mcq72 is that the text speaks clearly; but you’re trying to shoehorn in doubts like using a wedge to make room for your argument.

Almost like a door to door salesman putting his foot in the door before the lady of the house can close it on him.
Click to expand...
Lol…no I am the lady trying to shut the door on the salesman.
 
I’m the one holding the door, @mcq72.

You’re the one trying to get in.
 
Look, @mcq72:

I’m still standing on my position and you’re trying hard to move me off of it. You’re failing.
 
Michael16 said:
I’m still standing on my position and you’re trying hard to move me off of it. You’re failing.
Click to expand...
I am not sure I am trying hard to move you off your point(s), as much as the lady telling the salesman why she isn’t buying it.
 
Last edited:
The basic point is, @mcq72:

I hold that Jesus spoke the Words of Institution literally and you’ve been trying to state otherwise. Yet, I haven’t budged an inch on it and you’re still trying every which way you can think of to get me to concede.

Every point you made I refuted.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top