To those who deny the true presence

[KathleenGee]

To understand the Eucharist, you have to understand Jewish worship, and also realize their worship was not a man-made creation, but that dictated by God Himself…He wanted to be worshipped in the way pleasing to Him.

Worship is divinely inspired. It is not a service. People outside the apostolic tradition worship God through the Word.

We worship God through the Word Made Flesh.

You have to study Jewish religious culture and the times approaching Christ. The early Christians believed Jesus’ Last Supper, and subsequently the Mass, was the culmination and fulfillment of all ancient Jewish worship.

It was custom in those days to meet for a weekly fellowship meal…,The ‘todah’ was an offering of praise of thanksgiving. The Talmud records that when the Messiah would come, all sacrifices would cease except the ‘todah’ sacrifice…this will never cease for all eternity’ (Hahn 1999:33). The bread and wine offered for some Israelites in Christ’s day the wine and bread did present the image of awaited kindgom of God on earth.

Also, Christ’s death and resurrection did not mean to end the priesthood. As was written in the pious Qumran sect, a community of Israelite monks that flourished in Christ’s time, left a record of that hope in the Dead Sea Scrolls: "And when they shall gather for the common table, to eat and to drink new wine…let no man extend his hand over the first-fruits of bread and wine before the priest; for it is he who shall bless the first-fruits of bread and wine, and shall be the first to extend his hand over the bread. Thereafter, the Messiah of Israel shall extend his hand over the bread, and all the congregations of the community shall utter a blessing, each man in the order of his dignity.’ (Vermes 1975:121)

And Jesus said explicity in His command to the Apostles, “Do this”…Jesus was following the memorial of the Seder, which celebrated the freedom from slavery…But Jesus fulfilled the Passover meal when He said ‘This is My body…this is My Blood…’

Among Church Fathers, I find St. Irenaeus of Lyons a good witness on the truth of the Eucharist…He was a disciple of St. Polycarp who died in 156 A.D., St. Polycarp had received the Gospel directly from St. John of the Gospel. He immigrated from Turkey into Gaul, and wrote a massive work, ‘Against the Heresies’ profoundly refuting Gnosticism as well as Christ restoring humanity to God, and discussing in detail the Eucharist.

Another source to ponder is the Liturgy of St. James the Lesser, of the original 12 apostles…at the Communion rite…

I will try to get back later today to type out this passage. My source, ‘The Mass of the Early Christians’, by Mike Aquila…many are coming into the faith when they see fulfilled worship of the early Church, and find that the catechism and teachings then are the same beliefs in our modern Universal Catholic Catechism.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;

I have never heard the argument of “Transignification” in a very long time, I cannot believe this is still being taught and believed out there? Transignification does adequately apply to ones Flag by; symbolism of colors on a cloth = Transignification to represent something other than the colors on a cloth, such as country or representation of a people.

This transignification never applies to the divine’s presence, either God is present or God is not. To hold to a symbol of God’s presence such as the heresy of Transignification does not and never will have God’s presence. This type of man made theology makes man god to call whatever man wants to be his god by transignification. This never applies to the divine True Presence.

Transubstantiation is the correct description that applies in our day and time, when God is present body, blood soul and divinity in the transubstantiated species of bread and wine.

A person does not believe his flag “is” ones literal country, transignification applies here. But as you said, when Jesus stated to his eyewitnesses “This is my body, This is my blood”, meaning his whole person is present to them. Anyway, the silent transignification argument caught my attention, which I have not seen in a very long time. Food for thought.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Jesus said that where ever two or more are gathered together in my name, there I will be in the midst of them.

Missing from the John Ch 6 selection are such things as “the mass”, “supper/last”, feast, giving thanks, priest, sacrifices, alter, communion wafer. On and on.

Earlier in the passage John 6:26-29

26 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

Notice that Jesus is going to give this bread. It is a gift. If you have to work for it it is no longer a gift. Notice that the only work we can do that is acceptable is to believe in Jesus. Notice the negative on miraculous signs in this teaching.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

.

And yet you don’t believe him.

This IS my body. This IS my blood.

It takes work to believe.

 

[workingman]

Gabriel of 12;

I have never heard the argument of “Transignification” in a very long time, I cannot believe this is still being taught and believed out there? Transignification does adequately apply to ones Flag by; symbolism of colors on a cloth = Transignification to represent something other than the colors on a cloth, such as country or representation of a people.

This transignification never applies to the divine’s presence, either God is present or God is not. To hold to a symbol of God’s presence such as the heresy of Transignification does not and never will have God’s presence. This type of man made theology makes man god to call whatever man wants to be his god by transignification. This never applies to the divine True Presence.

Transubstantiation is the correct description that applies in our day and time, when God is present body, blood soul and divinity in the transubstantiated species of bread and wine.

A person does not believe his flag “is” ones literal country, transignification applies here. But as you said, when Jesus stated to his eyewitnesses “This is my body, This is my blood”, meaning his whole person is present to them. Anyway, the silent transignification argument caught my attention, which I have not seen in a very long time. Food for thought.

Thank you Gabriel of 12. The old argument kind of slipped by with out realizing what I was arguing over all. Thank you again.

 

[Radical]

This transignification never applies to the divine’s presence, either God is present or God is not.

Right…the end result of workingman’s argument is that an abuse of a symbol of God’s death would not be offensive enough to God so that he would cause sickness among the abusers.

To hold to a symbol of God’s presence such as the heresy of Transignification does not and never will have God’s presence.

I do not view the elements of the Lord’s supper as a symbol of God’s presence…never heard of the idea. It is a symbol of his death…the bread symbolizes his body that was given for us in his death and the blood symbolizes his blood that was poured out for us in his death.

A person does not believe his flag “is” ones literal country,…

exactly, and yet a person may die trying to prevent the flag from falling into enemy hands. Symbols are often treated very seriously by people, so why would we assume God wouldn’t be very offended by disrespect being accorded to the symbols of his Son’s death?

But as you said, when Jesus stated to his eyewitnesses “This is my body, This is my blood”, meaning his whole person is present to them. Anyway, the silent transignification argument caught my attention, which I have not seen in a very long time. Food for thought.

Well let us be clear on this. Jesus didn’t say “This is my body by way of transubstantiation, and this is my blood by way of transubstantiation and I am fully present in each even though I said that one was my blood (no mention of body) and one was my body (in contrast to blood).” Nor did Jesus say, “This is a symbol of my body, and this is a symbol my blood”. There wouldn’t have been any need to explain the symbolism b/c everyone can see that it is still bread and wine…I suspect you have injected something about transignification into this thread that no one was arguing.

 

[workingman]

Radical;5763874]Right…the end result of workingman’s argument is that an abuse of a symbol of God’s death would not be offensive enough to God so that he would cause sickness among the abusers.

Interesting conclusion you draw. I don’t think I said he would not be offended but I will say I don’t think it would of carried such as heavy of a penalty.

Well let us be clear on this. Jesus didn’t say “This is my body by way of transubstantiation, and this is my blood by way of transubstantiation and I am fully present in each even though I said that one was my blood (no mention of body) and one was my body (in contrast to blood).” Nor did Jesus say, “This is a symbol of my body, and this is a symbol my blood”. There wouldn’t have been any need to explain the symbolism b/c everyone can see that it is still bread and wine…I suspect you have injected something about transignification into this thread that no one was arguing.

And the Holy Trinity is never directly declaired also. Are we going to deny that to? doubtful. If he was talking symbolism the disciples would not of struggled with this teaching regardless of what it looks and feels like. The fact is not changed Jesus explicitly says “This IS my body. This IS my blood.” Their is no if and or but about what he meant it to be. If it was symbolism That would of been made clear. The Bible I think is quite clear on metaphorical or literal.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Jesus said that where ever two or more are gathered together in my name, there I will be in the midst of them.

Missing from the John Ch 6 selection are such things as “the mass”, “supper/last”, feast, giving thanks, priest, sacrifices, alter, communion wafer. On and on.

Earlier in the passage John 6:26-29

26 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

Notice that Jesus is going to give this bread. It is a gift. If you have to work for it it is no longer a gift. Notice that the only work we can do that is acceptable is to believe in Jesus. Notice the negative on miraculous signs in this teaching.

Gabriel of 12;
You misunderstand the Mass and the Liturgy of the Eucharist if you think it is work, when Jesus himself commands his church to "do this in rememberance (zakar) of me. It is no longer the we that is participating here, it is Jesus himself in persona Christi (the IAM) makes himself present to his people. What Iam interested in, is your interpretation of Jesus following statements in the same context here;

John 6:40
For** this is the will of my Father**, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."

Tell me when have you ever seen the body, blood of Jesus? A Catholic in every age since the resurrection can answer this; can you?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I do not view the elements of the Lord’s supper as a symbol of God’s presence…never heard of the idea. It is a symbol of his death…the bread symbolizes his body that was given for us in his death and the blood symbolizes his blood that was poured out for us in his death.

Gabriel of 12;
So; what Jesus said at the last supper makes him a Liar? Two things here of which I conclude from your comment; Either Jesus lied at the last supper that the bread "this is my body and to the cup, "this is my blood? or you have introduced an oxymoron of your faith in a symbolic Jesus? I dont know if Iam beyond repair here? Can you from 2000 years out get into the mind of Christ and reveal exactly what he meant? or are you following a new gospel?

Radical;
Well let us be clear on this. Jesus didn’t say “This is my body by way of transubstantiation, and this is my blood by way of transubstantiation and I am fully present in each even though I said that one was my blood (no mention of body) and one was my body (in contrast to blood).” Nor did Jesus say, “This is a symbol of my body, and this is a symbol my blood”. There wouldn’t have been any need to explain the symbolism b/c everyone can see that it is still bread and wine…I suspect you have injected something about transignification into this thread that no one was arguing.

Gabriel of 12;
How much clearer do you want? Jesus said “This is my body” This is my blood". I dont see any symbolism here from his words. Trasubstantiation has to do with those unbelievers far off who argue against the true presence of Jesus from a scientific perspective. Notice out of the 70 + 12 disciples of Jesus after this teaching of the bread of life discourse, only 12 disciples remain and one is a devil.

Interesting 20th century concept you introduced here by " not needing to explain the symbolism b/c everyone can see that it is still bread and wine".

Well tell that to the disciples on the road to Emmaus?
Luke 24:29
But they urged him, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.
30
And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.
31
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. **
35
Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. **

There is no need to debate who brought up the transignification example of a flag during the posting of the true presence of Jesus Christ in his Eucharist.

 

[Jon_Hus]

And yet you don’t believe him.

…

Finally, It took the all seeing, all feeling, all knowing, able to leap a tall building in a single bound hunk of humanity (i.e. CHESTERTONRULES) to know what Jon Hus believes. Sir I’m humbled.

 

[Jon_Hus]

Gabriel of 12;

John 6:40
For** this is the will of my Father**, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."

Tell me when have you ever seen the body, blood of Jesus? A Catholic in every age since the resurrection can answer this; can you?

Is it the seeing or the believing that matters most? What catholic can say I know exactly what Jesus looks like physically? He has _____ color eyes, ________ color hair, stands ______feet tall and weighs approx. ______ Lbs.

John 20:29

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Yours truly,
Jon

 

[O.S.Luke]

I have never heard the argument of “Transignification” in a very long time, I cannot believe this is still being taught and believed out there? Transignification does adequately apply to ones Flag by; symbolism of colors on a cloth = Transignification to represent something other than the colors on a cloth, such as country or representation of a people.

Transsignifcation was coined by Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx. But the operational word was SIGN, not symbol, seeing the Eucharist (and other sacraments) as sign/actions.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Is it the seeing or the believing that matters most? What catholic can say I know exactly what Jesus looks like physically? He has _____ color eyes, ________ color hair, stands ______feet tall and weighs approx. ______ Lbs.

John 20:29

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Yours truly,
Jon

Gabriel of 12;

It is apparent you have found a contradiction in the Gospels of Jesus Christ from your interpretation, this says alot about your biblical interpretation that finds contradictions in the Gospels. Jesus says what the Fathers will is to see him and believe, yet you find a contradiction by referencing those who have not seen him yet believed.

From a Catholic perspective the two examples from John 6:40 and John 20:29 do not ever contradict themselves, when read in their context. Jn.6:40 is addressing the Jewish community while he walked the earth in his humanity, John 20:29 is addressing Jesus disciples specifically in his resurrection state, who saw Jesus walked the earth in his resurrected state before he ascended to heaven. The Catholic perspective never finds a contradiction in sacred scripture.

Catholics after the ascension of Jesus did not see Jesus as he was before he ascended into heaven after his resurrection. Catholics see Jesus in his body, blood soul and divinity = his whole person from his true presence. What you describe comes from the flesh and not of the Spirit, if you look for colored eyes, height, weight and depth.

You see our humanity is 3 dimensional so we cannot see beyond the grave from our humanity. In the Spirit realm from eternity can only come from the Spirit were the flesh is of no avail. I let scripture sum up my commentary here; Peace be with you

Hebrew 11:1
1 **Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence 2 of things not seen. 2
Because of it the ancients were well attested.
3
By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, 3 so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.
6
5 But without faith it is impossible to please him, for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. **

2Cor.5:4
For while we are in this tent we groan and are weighed down, because we do not wish to be unclothed 4 but to be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.
5
Now the one who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a first installment. 5

Romans 1:20
Ever since the creation of the world, **his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; **
21
**for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. (Eucharistia = thanksgiving)**Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.
22
While claiming to be wise, they became fools (parenthesis mine)

Romans 8:5
For those who live according to the flesh are concerned with the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit with the things of the spirit.
6
The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace.
7
For the concern of the flesh is hostility toward God; it does not submit to the law of God, nor can it;
8
and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Transsignifcation was coined by Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx. But the operational word was SIGN, not symbol, seeing the Eucharist (and other sacraments) as sign/actions.

Gabriel of 12;
Martin Luther himself was a Roman Catholic, and invented his own man made theologies apart from the Apostolic teachings. Transignification was “nipped in the bud”(Joseph Ratzinger). This got cut off quick so as not to influence the unbeliever of the True presence with another argument. That is why I was very shocked to see the flag example surface here, because it was used in the debates.

Was there a question here?

 

[Radical]

Gabriel of 12;
How much clearer do you want? Jesus said “This is my body” This is my blood". I dont see any symbolism here from his words.

It is patently clear. No change occurs and therefore it is a symbol. It is so obvious that the CC has a hard time getting 50% of its adherents to believe that it is more than a symbol.

Trasubstantiation has to do with those unbelievers far off who argue against the true presence of Jesus from a scientific perspective.

hmmmm…seems that transubstantiation (a 16th century concept) was defined before modern scientific methodology was developed

Notice out of the 70 + 12 disciples of Jesus after this teaching of the bread of life discourse, only 12 disciples remain and one is a devil.

nope, I didn’t note where those numbers were specified…you’re not reading into the text yet again, are you?

Interesting 20th century concept you introduced here by " not needing to explain the symbolism b/c everyone can see that it is still bread and wine".

so in your view the first century Christians would have not been able to see that it was still bread and wine?..sensory perception first appeared in the 20th century?

There is no need to debate who brought up the transignification example of a flag during the posting of the true presence of Jesus Christ in his Eucharist.

B/c I used the example of a flag doesn’t mean I endorse the explanation of transfiguration…it merely means that I think that a flag demonstrates how seriously symbols can be treated…I will admit that transfiguration (IMHO) makes a lot more sense than transubstantiation, but that isn’t really saying much.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I think it is one thing to deny transubstantiation and another to deny the Real Presence. I have no problem believing the bread and wine really become the body and blood of Christ. I do have a problem trying to use philosophy to define a mystery. Aristotelian philosophy and Thomistic logic is inadequate to use where the supernatural (i.e., defies logic) is concerned, in my opinion. That’s why the Eastern position is far more palatable.

As far as the words sign,symbol, and action, it is a misnomer to devalue the word “symbol.” Symbols point to the realities represented; in the case of the sacraments, the bread and the wine are Jesus, AND are symbols of Jesus. It is a both/and, not an either/or.

Next time you get stopped for running a stop sign, tell the cop that, “Eh, that stop sign is just SYMBOLIC of the law. It’s not really the law.”

I bet you still get a ticket.

 

[Radical]

Hello O S Luke

I think it is one thing to deny transubstantiation and another to deny the Real Presence.

agreed

I have no problem believing the bread and wine really become the body and blood of Christ.

I have a problem with your use of the word “really”…there needs to be some “reality” in the “really”. The scriptures describe man as possessing a mind, body and spirit. The body is the physical aspect and so for some physical thing to be really present, there should be a physical presence.

I do have a problem trying to use philosophy to define a mystery. Aristotelian philosophy and Thomistic logic is inadequate to use where the supernatural (i.e., defies logic) is concerned, in my opinion. That’s why the Eastern position is far more palatable.

agreed

As far as the words sign,symbol, and action, it is a misnomer to devalue the word “symbol.” Symbols point to the realities represented; in the case of the sacraments, the bread and the wine are Jesus, AND are symbols of Jesus. It is a both/and, not an either/or.

for me the both/and possibility becomes a real possibility only when can have a real bodily presence w/o a real body being present…and that seems to be a bit of a contradiction in terms

Next time you get stopped for running a stop sign, tell the cop that, “Eh, that stop sign is just SYMBOLIC of the law. It’s not really the law.”

I bet you still get a ticket.

I wouldn’t call a stop sign a symbol of the law…it is the means of communicating the command. Now, if you told the cop that you had it on good authority that what appeared to be a stop sign was in fact not a stop sign at all, but that a yield sign was now really present in the stop sign’s place…I bet you still get a ticket.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

;5767238]It is patently clear. No change occurs and therefore it is a symbol. It is so obvious that the CC has a hard time getting 50% of its adherents to believe that it is more than a symbol.

**Gabriel of 12;
**Oh, I get it now, you think because Jesus didnt vanish in a puff of smoke when he said “This is my body” at the last supper he did not mean what he said, but was speaking symbolically, yet he phrased it litterally? So tell me then; when Jesus spoke from the cross “It is finished” concluding the sedar meal in his Eucharistic institution from the last supper, Jesus was speaking of his death, as finished symbolically? Your interpretation does not add up here.

You are confusing the time frame between the Resurrection and Jesus ministry when he walked the earth in his 3 year ministry while fulfilling the Law and the prophets (Every letter was to be fulfilled). After the resurrection and the ascension is when the first Christian primitive Church began the Eucharistic liturgy on Sundays after the birthday of the Church at Pentecost.
Acts 2:41
Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.
42
8 **They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. **43
Awe came upon everyone, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.

Now when Jesus resurrected and he conducted the first Mass before his disciples on the road to Emmaus he “vanished” from their site as you wished for him to do;
Luke 24:30
And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.
31
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, **but he vanished from their sight. **32
35
Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Is this the puff of smoke you are looking for? b/c here it is in black and white.

The institution of the Eucharist at the last supper does not end in the upper room as you interpret, the conclusion and the beginning meet at the cross in the “it is finished”, so no puff of smoke yet. Although to conclude here without going into an explanation of the “it is finished”. Jesus begins his passion of sacrafice before his disciples when he freely gives them his body, and blood in the species of bread and wine. The disciples were like you, in unbelief, but they consumed the species of bread and wine which is called “Faith” at the command of Jesus. The breaking of bread is when Jesus sacrifice begins the New Covenant in his blood for the many. What happens when you separate the blood from the body? a death begins, this is the beginning of Jesus passion at the last supper which gets consumated in the “it is finished”.

Radical;
hmmmm…seems that transubstantiation (a 16th century concept) was defined before modern scientific methodology was developed

Gabriel of 12;
Correction; technically Transubstantiation does not get **defined **until the fourth Latern Council in 1215 a.d. by pope Innocent III. You may be getting ahead of yourself here. Common sense and simple logic wins the day in Transubstantiation defined. Those who oppose it, do not oppose common sense or simple logic in the Church definition of trans., but oppose the Catholic Church herself making Transubstantiation their excuse, to kick at the goad as Saul of Tarsus did, pride of men is a tuff obstacle for men to overcome. Humility is great start or sometimes an act of God in Sauls case.

Peace be with you

 

[KathleenGee]

Transubstation is the correct term…the former is coined by a cleric, who I believe, had some of his ideas challenged…

People here have a hard time understanding the nature and mission of the Church. It is an institution, it grows, it expands, it works to connect the faith to all peoples and cultures…the various rites acknowledge the difference of cultures, but everything expressed must uphold the same creed…this is Tradition with a large T.

People think because the Catholic Church is the Church instituted by Jesus Christ that everyone in it is perfect as the Lord. Unfortunately, living the Gospel is a 24 hour job…then you have to start over the next day to begin again. If there are imperfect people or scandals as it is a human institution and everyone is gifted with free will, you won’t find perfection here.

The focus is keeping your faith on the apostolic tradition of faith, it is the Lord Who sustains and nurtures us, and we must continue to become spiritual adults not looking at other people so much.

The saints warned us about being scandalized by the sins of others…Who is perfect and without sin?

The only perfect profession of faith is when we profess as Catholics in the Apostles/Nicene Creed as a body of believers…it is here that our faith saves us…but it is a faith that follows the Gospel, the dying of self, of being nourished with the Word of God and His flesh…

 

[Radical]

Oh, I get it now,…

I doubt that

… you think because Jesus didnt vanish in a puff of smoke when he said “This is my body” at the last supper he did not mean what he said,

no, he meant what he said, just like he meant what he said when he said that anyone who does the will of his Father is his mother, brother and sister…when he said that he was the Lamb of God, does that mean that his flesh became mutton and his hair became wool?

… but was speaking symbolically, yet he phrased it litterally?

what is “phrased it literally”?

So tell me then; when Jesus spoke from the cross “It is finished” concluding the sedar meal in his Eucharistic institution from the last supper, Jesus was speaking of his death, as finished symbolically? Your interpretation does not add up here.

When he said “it is finished” something physical actually happened…he died physically. I don’t require a puff of smoke…but if Jesus meant that the bread was literally his flesh, then I would expect some physical change to occur given that we are talking about two physical things; bread and body. Transubstantiation provides a philosophical explanation to account for the lack of a physical change…but (IMHO) it is really bad philosophy

Now when Jesus resurrected and he conducted the first Mass before his disciples on the road to Emmaus he “vanished” from their site as you wished for him to do;…

there is no mention of a mass in Luke 24…you are reading into the text yet again…

Radical;
hmmmm…seems that transubstantiation (a 16th century concept) was defined before modern scientific methodology was developed

Gabriel of 12;
Correction; technically Transubstantiation does not get **defined **until the fourth Latern Council in 1215 a.d. by pope Innocent III.

thanks for the correction…you are right, transubstantiation developed well before science…which of course, is why transubstantiation makes no scientific sense.