Transubstantiation is a Device of Man

[Truthstalker]

So the Catholic Church, despite its belief in the possibility of infallibility (a concept of man) may sometimes be in error, or force compromises in belief. We must accept this unless we want to be unthinking sheep. (I have always wondered whether I want to be designated one of Christ’s sheep, one of His lambs: although the image is comforting, sheep are not among the smartest creatures on God’s earth, and they always seem to be being driven to slaughter. If I am a pig, at least I get pearls.)

Since I’m thinking about this, I’ll give it a shot. It may drive some crazy to inform them that 2+2=4, despite their insistence that the sum is 3, or 5, or 7, or that the answer doesn’t matter, as long as we agree to disagree, but the fact still remains that 2+2=4. God being God, he told the Church SOMETHING, and the Catholic Church, for better or worse, regards itself as being in the position of being authoritatively informed that 2+2=4.

And once you agree with that, these Catholics tell me, there is a liberation of the mind. One is no longer stuck asking what 2+2 equals, but you can go on to multiplication, division, exponents, complex algebras and geometries, calculus and so forth. In short, a whole new world, vast horizons of thought, are opened up to you. Someone told me once that he only felt really free intellectually AFTER he conceded that the Catholic Church has the goods. He could only really begin to think after he submitted himself to Catholic authority. That, frankly, drives me bonkers.

Under the Catholic tree are many pieces of fruit knocked off the branches by those climbing higher and higher. I’ve picked up a few, bitten into them, tasted wondrous things beyond my imagination, wondered if they taste better in the tree rather than rotting in the mud, trampled by swine and subject to flies and worms. Surely they taste better higher up, in their native home. And so I look up the tree, and there, climbers ascend out of sight, and I can only exhort them not to fall. But their eyes and ears are trained upward.

I am a Protestant, and the world is wide. But as far as I can see, and I’ve traveled far, there is only one tree. And that fact, one the Catholic Church is stuck with, drives me bonkers.

There I go thinking like a Catholic again.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Reply to VociMike

To put the question another way, would you ever serve crackers and juice at the memorial of one you deeply loved?

In all my life I have never been served crackers and juice during Communion – and I have been around for a very long while, and in many countries. Perhaps my experience differs from yours.

Are you asking where in pagan religions? I don’t see those as being a sure guide to the Christian truth. Remember that even God’s chosen people, the Jews, didn’t expect God Himself to be the Messiah, much less the pagans. Does that invalidate Christianity?

How exactly do you define pagan religions? But OK, can you suggest anywhere else in your culture this has happened? Or in Arab/Jewish contexts? And why do you think that asking this question is somehow akin to invalidating Christianity?

I do think it interesting to ask why we take this command of Christ’s literally when so much else He said is allegorical or metaphorical.

God, who counts the hairs on each of our heads, doesn’t have a problem with 10 million.

Perhaps I should envy your certainty, but somehow I do not.

Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

What are you claiming, without much tact, is garbage? That many Protestants (as well as the ancient Romans) charge that the Eucharist is cannibalism? Well, the making of that charge is a simple fact. So explain what it is that you consider garbage.

And as for the Bhagavad Gita or Vinoba Bhave, how did they get into the discussion of transubstantiation?

Exactly my point.

And as for the garbage, I thought I was supremely tactful. Regret any offense.

Blessings

 

[VociMike]

In all my life I have never been served crackers and juice during Communion – and I have been around for a very long while, and in many countries. Perhaps my experience differs from yours.

I’m starting to think we’re talking past each other. Crackers (or squares of bread) and juice are common in Protestant celebrations of the Lord’s Supper. Did you think I was talking about the Catholic Eucharist?

How exactly do you define pagan religions? But OK, can you suggest anywhere else in your culture this has happened? Or in Arab/Jewish contexts? And why do you think that asking this question is somehow akin to invalidating Christianity?

Again, I get the feeling we’re talking past each other. To object that God did not reveal the truth before He revealed the truth is quizzical. In fact, the fact that it was not a common belief in the worlds religions at the time makes it even more likely to have been not a human invention but a divine revelation.

And my point about invalidating Christianity is simply that the fact that God becoming human and dying for us was also not a common belief in the pagan (or Jewish) world, but we as Christians don’t take that an invalidation of Christianity.

I do think it interesting to ask why we take this command of Christ’s literally when so much else He said is allegorical or metaphorical.

First and foremost, because the He made the apostles to understand it literally. Each generation does not approach the scriptures as newly-discovered and try to figure them out. The faith has been delivered, and it is not our job to re-invent it but rather to live it and to pass it on intact.

But beyond that, the entire thing makes no sense if John 6 and the Last Supper narratives are taken as metaphor. The metaphors in this case are hopelessy crossed.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I’m starting to think we’re talking past each other. Crackers (or squares of bread) and juice are common in Protestant celebrations of the Lord’s Supper. Did you think I was talking about the Catholic Eucharist?

I think the use of crackers and grape juice is predominant mainly in American Protestantism. Particularly the grape juice which, if I remember correctly, came about through the temperance movement and the availability of non fermented grape juice.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I’m starting to think we’re talking past each other. Crackers (or squares of bread) and juice are common in Protestant celebrations of the Lord’s Supper. Did you think I was talking about the Catholic Eucharist?

No, I knew you were talking about Protestant communion. Juice as JMJ_coder points out, is served out of respect for those who do not drink alcohol. Our CC does not serve wine, only the wafer. Practice differs around the globe. What does it matter? I think politeness as a host is not a major point, when what we are talking about is symbolism.

Again, I get the feeling we’re talking past each other. To object that God did not reveal the truth before He revealed the truth is quizzical. In fact, the fact that it was not a common belief in the worlds religions at the time makes it even more likely to have been not a human invention but a divine revelation.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. You could make that assumption, but it is not necessarily correct, nor would I agree with you.

And my point about invalidating Christianity is simply that the fact that God becoming human and dying for us was also not a common belief in the pagan (or Jewish) world, but we as Christians don’t take that an invalidation of Christianity.

In fact the Jews were looking for a Messiah, thought they had one in Jesus of Nazareth, but when he refused to take on the mantle of a King/Messiah, they rejected Him. So the idea was a common belief at the time of Christ, but the Jews rejected the solution that God presented them. I do agree that just because they rejected Him as the Messiah they had waited for, for so long, does not invalidate our belief that He was the annointed.

First and foremost, because the He made the apostles to understand it literally. Each generation does not approach the scriptures as newly-discovered and try to figure them out. The faith has been delivered, and it is not our job to re-invent it but rather to live it and to pass it on intact.

I am saying the opposite, and will hold to it because our faith will die unless we adapt and change: it is essential that our understandings grow, adjust, adapt and change. For example, when I was a child, God was there, a man with a long beard, on a golden throne, surrounded by angels and cherubim, just like Michelangelo painted them on the vault of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican. Heaven was up and hell was down, and I am not sure where purgatory was. I have said this before and will say it again: now I have now seen the Hubble photographs of our astounding universe, and therefore I cannot believe any longer that the Lord God Almighty is a tiny God confined to a little planet of no significance in the outer reaches of one very small galaxy. My paradigm, my understanding must change inevitably. So must the Church’s interpretation of our faith grow and adapt as our understanding of God’s universe changes. This is true of all great religions: Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism inter alia (which I fear very much you were referring to as pagan religions earlier).

But beyond that, the entire thing makes no sense if John 6 and the Last Supper narratives are taken as metaphor. The metaphors in this case are hopelessy crossed.

Tell me what you mean by *the entire thing? *I am not sure what you mean here. I think I have not suggested that the Last Supper story is a metaphor. All I was suggesting was that there is so much metaphor elsewhere in the Bible, and in our interpretation of its meaning, I could not understand why Christ’s commandment to eat his flesh and drink his blood was not also meant metaphorically.

In the end, we know that he said: *Do this in remembrance of me. *Perhaps, for me, it does not matter with what I remember him - transubstantiated wine and wafer, or bread and grapejuice, or (if I were stuck out in the desert) water stored by a Koi San (Bushman) friend in a buried ostrich egg, and a bit of root vegetable dug up from the hot sand. What matters is that we remember our Saviour, and that is what we are doing.

The world is a world of wonders, variations, exotica, awes and delights which create a very shifting foundation for the kind of utterly self-confident beliefs that we try hard to adhere to.

You have not commented on the assurance of the correctness of RCC interpretations, which has a bearing here, given what I have suggested in the preceding paragraph. (My spelling has gone all to …)

Blessings

 

[Shoshana]

I may not be as bright as some of you here…but I do know that the Satanists are wanting our consecrated Hosts exactly because it is Jesus Christ Himself! We have had an attack on our church with blood from some victim in an occult symbol and we have been warned more than once by the pastor of the keeping the Host and consuming It right away. So, we, as ENE, must keep our eyes attentive to the possibility that the Host not be consumed but stolen for sacrilegious purposes. We are very wary in our community to the possibility of sacrilege. And it is because Jesus is truly within the Host, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity! Amen…:extrahappy:

 

[water]

I just wanted to say the thought of not believing in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is seeded by Satan.

While some people do not believe in His presence, those who practice voodoo stuff … frankly…do believe.

 

[Shoshana]

I do have another story to tell…the Pope was going to visit Canada. Fr Bob Bedard (from Ottawa, he is the founder of Companions of the Cross) had to ready any church that the Pope would visit. Of course they brought in a sqad with their trusty dog, who was trained to sniff out any bombs or persons within the church, prior to the Pope’s visit. The sqad followed the dog and the dog stopped in front of the Blessed Sacrament and started to bark, and bark, and bark. The sqad took a very good look to see if anything was amiss. There was nothing. But the dog remained sitting in front of the Blessed Sacrament. He stopped barking as he was told to stop but would not move! Fr Bob just grinned :newidea: and realized that the dog had ‘sniffed’ Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and the dog figured He did not belong there! This is a true story!

And the dog does not even even get catheghized!

 

[JimG]

Jimg added
Quote:
The main reason for doctrinal formulations such as this is probably for defense against error. That is, at some point, someone says, well, what it means is this, (followed by an incorrect understanding.) The Church, reacting, says, “wait a minute; the way you put it–that’s not what we believe.” So it then has to formulate a statement which clarifies what it does believe, and how that differs from the erroneous interpretation.

Carol_Coombe:

So it is possible that belief in transubstantiation is a device of man. What I cannot fathom is why I must believe that other interpretation is always erroneous, and the RCC always correct. Why do you believe there is only one correct truth, that alternatives offered are those of red-neck Christians of the happy-clappy variety, and that no truth is possible from other respected denominations? Is this bigotry under other circumstances?

It is a “device of man” in the sense that the exact words of the doctrinal formulation was not handed down from the Apostles. Rather, the belief itself was handed down from Christ to the Apostles and from the Apostles to the Church.

As to why there cannot be varying interpretations: it is because only one of them can be correct. And it is the precise function of the Church and the magisterium to say what we believe. The Church may not be required to flesh out the exact parameters of a belief until the belief is challenged in some way that does not conform to what was handed down to it.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I just wanted to say the thought of not believing in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is seeded by Satan.

While some people do not believe in His presence, those who practice voodoo stuff … frankly…do believe.

One is terribly caught between the Evangelicals who believe that if one even questions the full truth of any word of the Bible, it is Satan speaking, and an RCC statement like this one which is actually the same thing.

May be you think that because I live in Africa I practice voodoo stuff? No, I don’t actually, but attend service at our local Catholic Church 7 times a week, and have a spiritual director there.

Do you really believe that Satan has put me up to these apparently awful questions about belief in transubstantiation? An answer would be really appreciated, to see how deep-rooted *absolute *belief is for some people.

It would also help to know the difference in response between born Catholics, and those Catholic converts, or would-be converts who have to question, think, contemplate, make choices, read and pray very hard before they decide to join - or not to join - this Catholic Church.

We need to know, we need to question, we need to accept, we need to believe, we need peace in our choice.

Blessings.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

It is a “device of man” in the sense that the exact words of the doctrinal formulation was not handed down from the Apostles. Rather, the belief itself was handed down from Christ to the Apostles and from the Apostles to the Church.

As to why there cannot be varying interpretations: it is because only one of them can be correct. And it is the precise function of the Church and the magisterium to say what we believe. The Church may not be required to flesh out the exact parameters of a belief until the belief is challenged in some way that does not conform to what was handed down to it.

Which belief: in eating the actual blood and body of Christ, or in remembering him by joining in a communion/Eucharist similar to the Last Supper?

I think that there are any number of varying interpretations of a number of very very difficult issues in our universe, transubstantiation being only one of them. The lack of fit between Newtonian physics and Einstein’s theory of relativity which scientists have recognised now actually exists, requires interpretation of which there are a number. It is not a matter of choosing bananas or apples at the supermarket. Interpretation is more like making decisions in a Federal Reserve Bank, or about elements in a national economy which would promote economic growth rather than decline, or with regard to preventing HIV infection among millions of young people world-wide, all of different cultures and belief systems. There are many interpretations and even now after 30 years of arguing etc., we are far from understanding, on the HIV side, what a correct interpretation would be with regard to cause and effect and which would allow us to improve practice so as to decrease infection and death rates.

While I think it fine for you to believe wholeheartedly that *it is the precise function of the (Roman) Church and the magisterium to say what we believe, *do you think that it is correct to say that its dictats actually cover all those who believe in the divinity of Christ, those who worship and serve under alternative and fully meritorious churches, like the Canadian Baptists, the United Church of Canada, the Presbyterians, the Methodists and others?

If you do believe this - and this is what I am trying to understand - WHY do you believe it? Why is there no room for other interpretations by other Christian people who are also divinely inspired, and are all equally divine, chosen and loved beyond measure by Our God?

It is not enough to say that this is the way it is - the RCC rules absolutely on issues like transubstantiation, the completion of Christ’s suffering, the definitions of faith and grace, and even the form of The Lord’s Prayer - for there are others of differing and in my humble opinion equally plausible or estimable or commendable understandings and practices of the Christian faith.

Yes, there are lots of odd-balls out there, and I would never deny that. But there are many serving Christians, perhaps as many as a billion or more, who are NOT oddballs, and serve in every way as faithfully - according to their understanding of the Scriptures - as they can. Their churches were established centuries ago, some of them, and for some reason they continue to draw people to them. Would that happen if they were Satan-drive and apostate?

Please help me here.

Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I may not be as bright as some of you here…but I do know that the Satanists are wanting our consecrated Hosts exactly because it is Jesus Christ Himself! We have had an attack on our church with blood from some victim in an occult symbol and we have been warned more than once by the pastor of the keeping the Host and consuming It right away. So, we, as ENE, must keep our eyes attentive to the possibility that the Host not be consumed but stolen for sacrilegious purposes. We are very wary in our community to the possibility of sacrilege. And it is because Jesus is truly within the Host, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity! Amen…:extrahappy:

The story of the dog made me weep. I had the same thing happen at Ottawa International (as it was) when a great golden retriever sniffed out the bundles of dried meat I was carrying from Africa to our sons, but passed on because that was not what he was looking for.

The possibility of sacrilege is of long-standing, possibly from the time of the Civil War in England, or even before. That is why each CC has a tabernacle in which the host can be locked safely away.

Churches are inevitably targets of drunken gangs who like barfing on their doorsteps, or throwing garbage or peeing along their walls, or hurling a pot of red paint or chicken blood at the door, or upsetting as many tombstones as they can conquer. Quite frankly, and especially in a country like Canada, I think it unlikely that Satanists are responsible for this kind of dereliction of sensibility.

Blessings

 

[st_lucy]

The story of the dog made me weep. I had the same thing happen at Ottawa International (as it was) when a great golden retriever sniffed out the bundles of dried meat I was carrying from Africa to our sons, but passed on because that was not what he was looking for.

The possibility of sacrilege is of long-standing, possibly from the time of the Civil War in England, or even before. **That is why each CC has a tabernacle in which the host can be locked safely away. **
Churches are inevitably targets of drunken gangs who like barfing on their doorsteps, or throwing garbage or peeing along their walls, or hurling a pot of red paint or chicken blood at the door, or upsetting as many tombstones as they can conquer. Quite frankly, and especially in a country like Canada, I think it unlikely that Satanists are responsible for this kind of dereliction of sensibility.

Blessings

I am pretty sure you are wrong on this. The Tabernacle is not a new invention that was started in the last couple of hundred years, but has been a a very strong presences since the OT. The Tabernacle was built as a place were the Most Holy of Holys can be. Which is our Lord and Savior.

I am really happy to hear that you go to mass 7 days a week but I am so heart broken that you do not believe in the real presence. I have recently read that 80% of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presences. I believe this is all of our own fault. I believe that if every Catholic who truly believed in the real Presences, with our whole heart could truly help soften the hearts of those who don’t.

The unbelief is not new, in bible we see that there were many who walked away from Christ Himself because they refused to believe, but like Him I am very sad to see anyone walk way from Him.

I think that we really need to start teaching our children about the real presences, and the love of Holy Communion. Some times I feel that our generation is lost but our children are new and maybe they can bring us back to where we once where.

Lets us all pray for belief, by saying, “Yes, Lord I do belief. Help my unbelief.” And remember it starts with me, and the faith the size of a muster seed.

 

[DallasCatholic]

Carol,
I have been attempting to follow this thread and all of it’s wanderings and I feel that I have become lost amid the all of the clutter. So I ask for some clarification, can you succinctly define your objection to the Catholic belief in transubstantiation?

As a cradle Catholic who was poorly catechized and who now is zealous about learning and defending my faith let me point out the following:

There is room in the Church for people who are seeking the truth. These same seekers may question some teachings of the Church in an effort to more fully comprehend those teachings…there is NOTHING wrong with this and anyone who claims otherwise is not correct. I think some of the problem that you have encountered is that people may be mis-reading your posts and assuming that you are rejecting Church teaching as opposed to questioning it.

Regarding transubstantiation, I may have missed it but I haven’t seen anyone correctly explain a key component of our belief. Jesus Christ is fully present in the Eucharist in the SPECIES of bread and wine. So the bread and wine do not become flesh and blood, so in that case one could say there is symbolism there. However, Christ IS present in the bread and wine and they become his flesh and blood although to our human senses we can only see, smell, taste and feel the bread and the wine. So, although it is a fine point I hope you can see why Catholics do not say the bread and wine are mere symbols.

I agree with you (as does the Church) that we should think and investigate things for ourselves rather than just “take it on the authority of the Church”. One of the biggest reasons that the reformation was so successful at gaining traction (IMO) was because many Catholics couldn’t explain why they believed what they believed and so were forced to revert to “because the Church says so”. If we do not know the foundation and reasons for our belief it can be very easily uprooted. Those who have questioned and learned their faith on a deeper level are stronger for it.

Finally one of the things I love most about the Church is that she expects us to use all the tools that have been given to us to fully form our conscience. Once that conscience is fully formed then we are expected to follow our conscience in all things with the help of Jesus Christ. What the Church will tell you, if you disagree with any of her teachings is that your conscience is not fully formed. However, if after your seeking you are not convinced of the truth of a teaching the Church asks you to accept it on faith, even though you might not wholly agree. We might disagree in our mind but should not try and publicly lead others away from their faith. The Church believes that in the end when you are standing before Christ he will say “You know, that whole transubstantiation thing (or birth control, abortion…whatever the issue)? Well you were wrong and the Catholic Church was right but come on in anyway.” So, if you have sought, learned and prayed for guidance then follow the directions that God is speaking to your conscience. I have more, but I’ll stop now.

 

[homewardbound]

I am so heart broken that you do not believe in the real presence. I have recently read that 80% of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presences. I believe this is all of our own fault. I believe that if every Catholic who truly believed in the real Presences, with our whole heart could truly help soften the hearts of those who don’t.
:

Can those who don’t believe in the Real Presence really be called Catholics? Since the Real Presence is so important to Catholic faith and one of the few things seperating them from Protestants, how can those who don’t believe in it possibly still consider themselves as Catholic?

And, if these “Catholics” receive the Eucharist at Mass, aren’t they committing a grave sin and being incredibly insulting to God?

I don’t mean to be offending, but as a new convert I just don’t understand how so many can possibly not feel the truth of this Presence if they go to Mass. I can’t even receive the Eucharist yet, and the power of God’s presence there is overpowering for me.

I really hope the Church and those in it start teaching and learning their faith more. I thank God I was brought into the faith by Catholics who knew their faith and what God teaches.

 

[KennC]

I don’t mean to be offending, but as a new convert I just don’t understand how so many can possibly not feel the truth of this Presence if they go to Mass.

12 years a convert and still feel this, Amen!!

… I was at a funeral Mass a couple years after I came into the Church and had to stand at the back from lack of seating, … during Communion (which began at the front of the Church), as folks began returning to their seats progressively closer to where I was standing, with each row this feeling grew in intensity … I stood there quite amased at all this.

 

[DallasCatholic]

Can those who don’t believe in the Real Presence really be called Catholics? Since the Real Presence is so important to Catholic faith and one of the few things seperating them from Protestants, how can those who don’t believe in it possibly still consider themselves as Catholic?

And, if these “Catholics” receive the Eucharist at Mass, aren’t they committing a grave sin and being incredibly insulting to God?

I don’t mean to be offending, but as a new convert I just don’t understand how so many can possibly not feel the truth of this Presence if they go to Mass. I can’t even receive the Eucharist yet, and the power of God’s presence there is overpowering for me.

I really hope the Church and those in it start teaching and learning their faith more. I thank God I was brought into the faith by Catholics who knew their faith and what God teaches.

While I might agree with your sentiment, the Church teaches that we are Catholic until and unless we formally repudiate the Church and her teachings. So most Catholics even if they are now attending a Protestant church, are still Catholics. The big distinction is that there are Catholics and then there are practising Catholics. In the U.S. the teaching has been so watered down for so long that many Catholics do not see why they are in error in believing that Holy Communion is simply a symbol of God’s body and blood. It is sad that our Bishops have failed us so miserably.

 

[homewardbound]

While I might agree with your sentiment, the Church teaches that we are Catholic until and unless we formally repudiate the Church and her teachings. So most Catholics even if they are now attending a Protestant church, are still Catholics. The big distinction is that there are Catholics and then there are practising Catholics. In the U.S. the teaching has been so watered down for so long that many Catholics do not see why they are in error in believing that Holy Communion is simply a symbol of God’s body and blood. It is sad that our Bishops have failed us so miserably.

I agree, thank you for clearing that up for me.

My boyfriend is discerning a call to priesthood, and sometimes I almost want him to be called cause I know he’d do an amazing job. He knows his stuff, and is a great teacher of Catholic doctrine. We need great men who have a zeal and desire to teach and get the US Church back on track.

 

[jimmy]

I am so sorry to be obtuse. But in parts of Papua New Guinea, Andaman Islands and elsewhere, flesh and blood of the dead are literally eaten as part of the memorial meal for the dear departed. For them, eating flesh and blood *is *an appropriate feast of remembrance. The faithful of some religions call this cannibalism.

It is not the same thing as canniblism. The Catholic Church does not teach that it is the ‘literal’ body of Christ. If that were the case you would be chewing on an arm muscle or a leg muscle or something else. What it does teach is that it is the ‘real, true and substantial’ presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. It is a sacramental presence.

We understand, in our memorial feast, that it is not. Christ asked us to eat and drink in memory of Him. But I do not agree with you that it is the only or even the best and most fitting menu for a memorial meal. Where in previous or subsequent history of humanity have we held this belief? That is what puzzles me so much about taking Christ’s command literally, when so much else it taken metaphorically or alegorically

The problem is that Christ is so emphatic and Paul is very clear about what it is you are recieving. You eat and drink condemnation if you recieve it unworthily. Its just bread yet we condemn ourselves by eating it unworthily?

The Eucharist talks about the wine and bread *that human hands have made. *I think this a beautiful line: that we have made this, with the hands God gave us, present them to Him in grateful thanks, and eat them in memory of his awesome sacrifice.

This is perhaps off the topic. I still cannot believe that the immutable laws of nature will permit 10 milliion or so miraculous transubstantiations per week globally. But as a long-time Catholic convert told me the other day: when she was being readied for confirmation, the bishop asked NOT if she believed in transubstantiation, but rather if she did NOT believe in transubstantiation. She replied that she was still working on it, and so the confirmation went ahead.

The only thing that is immutable is God. The laws are only immutable to the power of man. God can change anything He likes. If He gives the power to create ten thousand miracles that is very well possible. But, really it is not breaking any laws of physics any way so this is irrelevant.

But I hate having to make compomises - which are required throughout the process of Scriptural understanding - of this kind. We need to explain this and that, and argue and differ, and dither and change, adjust and simplify or complexify.

This is noted by other faiths. *You have to try so hard to justify what you believe and the rituals that surround them! *And of course the transformation of wine and bread, and the eating of flesh are two of the most troubling for other faiths. And let no one say that it does not matter what *they *think. It does matter to them and therefore to us.

No, you should not comprimise your faith. Work out the problems first, then if you have come to a conclusion make a decision.

Many of the books of our Bible are the same as those of the Jews and Moslems. I wonder if they turn themselves inside out to the same extent as Christians to devise explanations for the inexplicable?

The teachings on the Eucharist are very clear in the bible. It doesn’t take any turning yourself inside out to determine what it says. Simply read what it says.