Transubstantiation

[Koopa]

Let’s all remember our charity please.

Onetimeposter is honestly trying to understand something that the Church teaches, and I think that to be commendable. We all have questions about our faith, so we ask them so that we may learn. This is what he is doing here and there is no reason to become frustrated when he asks for further clarification.

As for scriptural evidence, I would point to the Old Testament priests and their authority and suggest a logical fulfillment and continuation of that authority in the New Testament.

I also think that it is good to remember that the Church did not come from the Bible; the Bible came from the Church.

None of the questions onetimeposter has posted have been absurd and I am glad that he asked them.

Peace to all! (Wish I knew it in Latin. )
Yummy.

 

[onetimeposter]

If Jesus was going to say anything, I’m sure he would have mentioned, ’ and by the way guys, your going to have the power to turn bread into my flesh, blood, soul and divinity…That’s central to the faith and their is no mention it…seems odd, when Christ says so many other things that are not near as important as a man being able to turn a piece of bread into Jesus.

I just can’t believe that the miracle of a hunk of bread turning into the Son of God can be performed by any Catholic Priest tens of thousands of times a day whenever they feel like it.

The formula for consecration, the formula for absolution, all made up by men…if this stuff is real…who knows if they got it right? A massive debate within the church on what needs to be said by the Priest in order to receive absolution…but that’s another story.

The RCC seems to be so needlessly complicated, just spend some time at Newadvent.com.

Was the Gospel of Christ and His Church supposed to be this complicated, political and bureaucratic?

I guess the bottom line is:

I just can’t believe that the miracle of a hunk of bread turning into the Son of God can be performed by Catholic Priest’s tens of thousands of times a day whenever they feel like it.

The most important sacrament…and yet, no mention of priests having the power to do this in the Bible…seems a bit odd.

Also, this verse seems so straight forward and sensible, especially when Christ saw his disciples leaving…

‘It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.’

…but his is what happens when you challenge your beliefs…you may find an answer you did not expect or want. I am not afraid of the questions or the answers.

 

[VociMike]

If Jesus was going to say anything, I’m sure he would have mentioned, ’ and by the way guys, your going to have the power to turn bread into my flesh, blood, soul and divinity…That’s central to the faith and their is no mention it…seems odd, when Christ says so many other things that are not near as important as a man being able to turn a piece of bread into Jesus.

It’s really quite impossible to have a discussion with you, because you keep saying the same things without responding in any way to what we say. You continue to post as if nobody has made any replies to you.

But I’ll try once again. How do you know Jesus didn’t say that? Did you follow him around for his entire ministry? If not, how do you claim to know what Jesus said and didn’t say? The answer to this question is the key to your entire confusion.

 

[CentralFLJames]

The most important sacrament…and yet, no mention of priests having the power to do this in the Bible…seems a bit odd.

Actually, I don’t think its appropriate to say its the most important sacrament since one can not receive Christ sacramentally at all until one is Baptised, Confirmed by a Bishop who is ordained through the apostolic succession (endless chain of laying on of hands all the way back to St. Peter), and then repents, confesses their sins and has them forgiven through the sacrament of reconciliation. The Eucharist is certainly the premier sacrament and center of the Mass and our Catholic faith once one has become fully received into the Church though. But since we are all sinners the sacrament of repentance is absolutely essential for our salvation as well. And without Holy Orders none of us would have a valid priestly order to continue the Church from generation to generation. Marriage rites and Last Rights are also essential to the majority of us.

I think the biggest problem you have here is elevating The Bible above Church and making it almost as God itself - it is NOT. The Bible was assembled by The Church. The Church was not authorized by the bible - it is not a chicken and egg scenario either. Clearly, the Word of God existed before the NT was penned through oral teaching and tradition. The Word is Jesus literally - He is living and breathing scripture. Ergo, one must eat every word that comes from the mouth of God - one therefor must eat living scripture, Eucharist, or they have no life within them.

You will never find in the bible any reference that says “everything you need to know is in the bible”. Nor does the bible even give itself the authority to assemble itself. Where did the Catholic Church even get the authority to assemble the Bible? Answer - from Jesus orally conveying this authority and through the Holy Spirit that took an indwelling within His Church.

The Bible is silent in granting itself the authority to exist. By what authority does the bible exist and by what authority do you place all your faith in what you read and self interpret there?

James

 

[Spirithound]

I guess the bottom line is:

I just can’t believe that the miracle of a hunk of bread turning into the Son of God can be performed by Catholic Priest’s tens of thousands of times a day whenever they feel like it.

How many times per day would you be comfortable with?
Do you believe that Jesus did it?

 

[packermann]

I am thinking of joining Catholicism but can’t fully accept the doctrine of transubstantiation/real presence. I know Catholics use John 6 as evidence, but I see it as evidence against it! Read John 6:63-64, " The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." Catholics say if Jesus were speaking figuratively previously in the chapter he would’ve stopped those that walked away to explain. Well, that’s what he does in verse 63. Can someone explain to me how Catholics interpret that?

You seem to be equating spirit with something that is merely symbolic, not to be taken literally. But then, to be consistent, then you have to be consistent an equate eveything else in the Bible that refers to as being spririt to be non-literal. So when Paul in 1Cor 15 about receiving a spritual body, that should not be taken literally. Being filled with the Spirit should not taken literally. And even the Holy Spirit should not taken literally. And since the Bible says that God is Spirit, does that mean that God is not an actual being, but is only a symbol?

Also, you seem to be taking a Gnostic view of this text. Gnosticism was a heresy that taught that all mattered was the spiritual and not the physical. Since the physical did not matter they denied that God became physically a man, and that He physically suffered and died on the cross, and physically rose fron the dead. (Interestingly, many literal Protestant scholars seem to be taking this symbolism in the direction. Rudolf Bultman denies the physical resurrection of Christ, seeing as a mere symbol of the triumph of Christianity). Since the “flesh counted for nothing”.

Most Protestant evangelical and Catholic scholars do not view the Biblical term “flesh” as to be the physical body, but to be identified as the self apart fron the Spirit of God. With that in mind, when Jesus said that it is the Spirit that counts, not the flesh, Jesus is saying what matters is not what man can do apart from God but God can do. Only God can turn mere bread into Christ’s body.

The literal interpretation of this text is reinforced by John’s own personal disciple, Ignatius of Antioch. In his letter to the Ephesians, written in app. 110 AD, he referred to the the Eucharist as “the medicine of immortality” (20:2). Since Ignatius was personally taught by the writer of John 6, it seems clear the the one who wrote of Jesus saying “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you” also conveyed to Ignatius that the Eucharist brings us immortality.

 

[Koopa]

…one can not receive Christ sacramentally at all until one is Baptised, Confirmed by a Bishop who is ordained through the apostolic succession (endless chain of laying on of hands all the way back to St. Peter), and then repents, confesses their sins and has them forgiven through the sacrament of reconciliation.

Confirmation not required.

 

[Koopa]

If Jesus was going to say anything, I’m sure he would have mentioned, ’ and by the way guys, your going to have the power to turn bread into my flesh, blood, soul and divinity…That’s central to the faith and their is no mention it…seems odd, when Christ says so many other things that are not near as important as a man being able to turn a piece of bread into Jesus.

I just can’t believe that the miracle of a hunk of bread turning into the Son of God can be performed by any Catholic Priest tens of thousands of times a day whenever they feel like it.

The formula for consecration, the formula for absolution, all made up by men…if this stuff is real…who knows if they got it right? A massive debate within the church on what needs to be said by the Priest in order to receive absolution…but that’s another story.

The RCC seems to be so needlessly complicated, just spend some time at Newadvent.com.

Was the Gospel of Christ and His Church supposed to be this complicated, political and bureaucratic?

I guess the bottom line is:

I just can’t believe that the miracle of a hunk of bread turning into the Son of God can be performed by Catholic Priest’s tens of thousands of times a day whenever they feel like it.

The most important sacrament…and yet, no mention of priests having the power to do this in the Bible…seems a bit odd.

Also, this verse seems so straight forward and sensible, especially when Christ saw his disciples leaving…

‘It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.’

…but his is what happens when you challenge your beliefs…you may find an answer you did not expect or want. I am not afraid of the questions or the answers.

Of course, Jesus wouldn’t say, “and by the way guys, you’re going to have the power to turn bread into my body, blood, soul, and divinity,” but he might say “DO THIS in memory of me.” If you ask me, I’d say that he was telling his apostles to DO what he was DOING. What was he DOING? Turning a piece of bread into his flesh. This was the first mass, with the high priest as its celebrant. He is really the only priest there is–all other priests SHARE in his ministry, and so SHARE in his ability to effect (or in their case, confect) the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Christ was a pretty smart guy–he often communicated entire ideas in just a few words.

The formula for consecration, the formula for absolution, all made up by men…if this stuff is real…who knows if they got it right? A massive debate within the church on what needs to be said by the Priest in order to receive absolution…but that’s another story.

The Bible–also written by men… under the protection of infallibility from the Holy Spirit. Why is it that the Holy Spirit can guard people from error when writing a book but not when they are holding a council or presenting official teaching? Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit cannot (or will not) guard people from error when holding a council or presenting official teaching, how did the Bible come about, assuming that these books were compiled correctly?

Was the Gospel of Christ and His Church supposed to be this complicated, political and bureaucratic?

If you were trying to bring people to salvation, wouldn’t you make it quite sure that the means of receiving that salvation were clearly defined? What would be a better way than to make it “political” (although I disagree with this choice of word simply because of its connotation)? When people want to make a successful nation, do they set up an organized political system or do they give everybody a book and tell them to do what they think is right? Christ fully intended his Church to be an organized establishment and he chose the men for the job–our salvation was too precious to place into the hands of separate individuals.

And peace be with you!

 

[VociMike]

The formula for consecration, the formula for absolution, all made up by men…if this stuff is real…who knows if they got it right? A massive debate within the church on what needs to be said by the Priest in order to receive absolution…but that’s another story.

The Bible–also written by men… under the protection of infallibility from the Holy Spirit. Why is it that the Holy Spirit can guard people from error when writing a book but not when they are holding a council or presenting official teaching? Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit cannot (or will not) guard people from error when holding a council or presenting official teaching, how did the Bible come about, assuming that these books were compiled correctly?

Koopa gets it!

 

[TheGreenO]

See if this helps any onetime…

“This is my body which will be given up for you. This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in Memory of me.”

The disciples at the Last Supper would have recognized each phrase and action of Jesus was charged with language and symbolism of ritual sacrifice. This is why the Mass is called a sacrifice.

1.   The Passover was a sacrifice Ex 12:27, and the Last Supper was the Passover Meal.

2.   “body” and “blood” were the two necessary elements for Hebrew/Jewish sacrifice.  The blood was separated from the body.  Jesus applies the language of sacrifice to himself.  The disciple would have easily seen the body and blood of the sacrificial Passover lamb.

3.   “offered up” and “poured out” is from Jewish sacrificial rites.  The animal was the offering and its blood poured out on the altar.

4.   “the blood of the new and everlasting covenant”, probably the most important part.  This reflected the covenant on Mt. Sinai Ex 24:1-17, which constituted Israel as God’s chosen people, they would have remembered the great sacrifice there and seen that Jesus’ words were forming a new covenant with some type of sacrifice.

5.   All this sacrificial language and actions clearly points to sacrifice.

6.   Jesus offered himself as the sacrifice in the upper room, so the sacrifice began there and ended on Calvary.

7.   “Do this in remembrance of me” memorials were bringing the past to the present, making present the past event.  When Passover was celebrated, they believed that they were taking part in the first Passover and salvation from Egypt.  Memorial means making present.

8.   The Mass bridges the two time periods as did the Passover meal.  We take part in the Last Supper every Mass through Christ victory over death on the Cross through this new Passover.

9.   The Eucharist in the Mass is not a new sacrifice nor is it re-sacrificing Christ.  The Eucharist makes really present for believers throughout history Christ’s one, eternal sacrifice on Calvary.

10. Through this Eucharistic Passover, Christians have the opportunity to participate in Christ’s sacrifice by offering their lives in union with Him at every Mass.

-summed up from “Catholic for a Reason: Scripture and the Mystery of the Family of God”

The flesh and blood must be present to constitute a sacrifice and to do this in memory of Him. Without it, there is no perfect sacrificial lamb, no taking part in the actual events of the Last Supper. The only ones who are allowed to offer sacrifice in the OT are priests. The NT doesn’t repeat what the OT had already established because the Apostles, as Jews, would be very aware of what was being referred to and understood. They would understand that to “do this in memory of me” in the context of sacrifice, one would have to be a priest. They would also have to consume the flesh. And as said before, the power to change them is Jesus, not the priest. The priest is the only person who has the ability to offer the sacrifice of the Mass.

If I have stated something incorrectly, OPers please make the corrections. I am pretty new at this.

 

[onetimeposter]

How many times per day would you be comfortable with?

**Looks like bread, tastes like bread, molecularly still bread, yet it’s really the flesh and blood of the Son of God…every day, all over the world at every mass?

I wonder how many Catholics don’t believe this ( it’s around 40%, and that’s from Catholic.com) and pay no attention to their unbelief, going about their happy way.

You insist it is a physical reality…The Real Presence. But a physical reality that cannot be proven and a Real Presence that is only real through Faith? **

Jesus did not turn the bread and wine into his flesh and blood. He later tells his disciples that ''It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

Do you believe that Jesus did it?

Where is it written that Jesus turned the bread into his flesh and turned the wine into his blood? No where is written that Jesus turned the bread into himself.

 

[onetimeposter]

The Bible–also written by men… under the protection of infallibility from the Holy Spirit. Why is it that the Holy Spirit can guard people from error when writing a book but not when they are holding a council or presenting official teaching? Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit cannot (or will not) guard people from error when holding a council or presenting official teaching, how did the Bible come about, assuming that these books were compiled correctly?

:

It seems whenever the Church makes a decision on morals or faith, everyone immediately claims the leaders of the Church made those decisions via inspiration from the Holy Spirit. Instead of admitting, that a bunch of powerful men got together and made the rules as they saw fit.

It is very convenient for a Catholic to say, it’s not just the decisions of men like protestants, rather it is the decisions of men inspired by the Holy Spirit!

 

[emeraldisle]

Emeraldisle,
We have both presented our arguments to mesl4,

We?? please don’t try and speak for me; I didn’t post in this thread for a specific person.

and she agrees that we have demonstrated that the Catholic position is the most logical.

You are getting really desperate by using mesl4’s opinion to support the idea of transubstantiation.

It saddens me that you do not see the logic of our position.

I do see your position on the idea of transubstantiation, your position is;
It looks like bread, it tastes like bread, it is bread but it’s not bread it’s the Lord Jesus’ flesh.

Ultimately, the flaw in your analysis was that you were asking us to believe your own personal interpretation of scripture (which is ironic, since you warn us about personal interpretations of scripture).

I would very much appreciate if you would stop trying to put words in my mouth. Where in this thread did I warn people about personal interpretations of Scripture. Also please do the honorable thing and retract this false statement about me. Remember actions speak louder than words.

Why should I believe your interpretation over any other person’s interpretation? You failed to back your assertions with a clear argument, simply saying that the Bible was clear and that it was obvious,

I have explained to you in a number of previous posts that the statement from Lord Jesus in John 6:63 explains His own words in John 6. The Lord Jesus clearly interprets His own words to have a spiritual meaning. You either accept the Lord Jesus’ interpretation or you accept the wrong interpretations from other people.

although you used only a few contested scriptures without much explanation.

I only needed a few Scriptures to prove the Truth that the bread is not the Lord Jesus flesh and I quoted the Lord Jesus’ own infallible interpretation. A few Scriptures is more powerful than reams of mans opinions.

We utilized dozens of scripture passages,

Anyone can post Scriptures and add their own interpretation to them to support their own opinion. I posted the Lord Jesus’ interpretation of His own words. If you don’t accept the Lord Jesus’ interpretation of His own words then you are in fact saying that the Lord Jesus is telling lies and that you know more than Him.

professional historical analysis, and the Early Church Fathers to build a case that was strong. Yes, only the Bible is inerrant, but that doesn’t mean that historical sources should be rejected completely! They can be powerful secondary evidence

Are you saying you would rather believe men’s interpretations than the Lord Jesus’ infallible interpretation? Imo your selective presentation of historical quotes is flawed. Anyone can use selective historical quotes to support their point of view.

I personally didn’t use non-biblical info to address a biblical issue. The true way to explain Truths in Gods word is to present Gods word truthfully. All of Gods revealed Truth is in the Scriptures and so you need to use the Scriptures to present Gods Truth.

Not once did you show a single early Christian that believed your argument. You argued that Paul did, and we argued that he didn’t. That is not proof.

I clearly proved from the Scriptures that Paul believed the Lord Jesus’ teaching that the bread is bread and it is to be eaten in remembrance of His perfect sacrifice. Also I stated that Peter, James and John all believed this Truth too.

Thank you for an interesting debate, as always. You will be in my prayers.

Thanks to you too for sharing your thoughts with me.

.

 

[CentralFLJames]

We?? please don’t try and speak for me; I didn’t post in this thread for a specific person.

You are getting really desperate by using mesl4’s opinion to support the idea of transubstantiation.

I do see your position on the idea of transubstantiation, your position is;
It looks like bread, it tastes like bread, it is bread but it’s not bread it’s the Lord Jesus’ flesh.

I would very much appreciate if you would stop trying to put words in my mouth. Where in this thread did I warn people about personal interpretations of Scripture. Also please do the honorable thing and retract this false statement about me. Remember actions speak louder than words.

I have explained to you in a number of previous posts that the statement from Lord Jesus in John 6:63 explains His own words in John 6. The Lord Jesus clearly interprets His own words to have a spiritual meaning. You either accept the Lord Jesus’ interpretation or you accept the wrong interpretations from other people.

I only needed a few Scriptures to prove the Truth that the bread is not the Lord Jesus flesh and I quoted the Lord Jesus’ own infallible interpretation. A few Scriptures is more powerful than reams of mans opinions.

Anyone can post Scriptures and add their own interpretation to them to support their own opinion. I posted the Lord Jesus’ interpretation of His own words. If you don’t accept the Lord Jesus’ interpretation of His own words then you are in fact saying that the Lord Jesus is telling lies and that you know more than Him.

Are you saying you would rather believe men’s interpretations than the Lord Jesus’ infallible interpretation? Imo your selective presentation of historical quotes is flawed. Anyone can use selective historical quotes to support their point of view.

I personally didn’t use non-biblical info to address a biblical issue. The true way to explain Truths in Gods word is to present Gods word truthfully. All of Gods revealed Truth is in the Scriptures and so you need to use the Scriptures to present Gods Truth.

I clearly proved from the Scriptures that Paul believed the Lord Jesus’ teaching that the bread is bread and it is to be eaten in remembrance of His perfect sacrifice. Also I stated that Peter, James and John all believed this Truth too.

Thanks to you too for sharing your thoughts with me.

.

I don’t know about the rest of you guys but it sounds to me like the man has declared himself infallible and thinks he has more insight and authority than the Apostles, The Pope, the Catholic Church the Early Church Fathers, the earliest saints and has more revealed truth than 70% of Christendom.

I think at this point charity dictates only one last remaining response: :yawn:

James

 

[VociMike]

It seems whenever the Church makes a decision on morals or faith, everyone immediately claims the leaders of the Church made those decisions via inspiration from the Holy Spirit. Instead of admitting, that a bunch of powerful men got together and made the rules as they saw fit.

It is very convenient for a Catholic to say, it’s not just the decisions of men like protestants, rather it is the decisions of men inspired by the Holy Spirit!

At least be consistent and admit that the scriptures are also just a bunch of writings of men, without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Assuming there even is such a thing as the Holy Spirit - the Catholic Church probably got that wrong too, eh?

AT LEAST BE CONSISTENT IN YOUR SKEPTICISM

 

[onetimeposter]

At least be consistent and admit that the scriptures are also just a bunch of writings of men, without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Assuming there even is such a thing as the Holy Spirit - the Catholic Church probably got that wrong too, eh?

AT LEAST BE CONSISTENT IN YOUR SKEPTICISM

Questioning my 30 + year Roman Catholic Faith is very new to me, I apologize if my new found incredulity isn’t coming across as clearly in the written word, as it is in my mind.

 

[Rolltide]

We?? please don’t try and speak for me; I didn’t post in this thread for a specific person.

I apologize. The point of this thread was to help mesl4 understand transubstantiation. I assumed you were here to help convince her of the protestant viewpoint. I stand corrected.

You are getting really desperate by using mesl4’s opinion to support the idea of transubstantiation.

Personally, I think it’s a pretty interesting test. Take a protestant who is unconvinced whether the Real Presence is real, present both arguments fairly, and get their opinion. As it turns out, mesl4 thinks that the Catholic position is correct. That said, I would agree that it in no way proves either view. It simply demonstrates that our position is convincing enough to sway people.

I do see your position on the idea of transubstantiation, your position is;
It looks like bread, it tastes like bread, it is bread but it’s not bread it’s the Lord Jesus’ flesh.

Ok, please don’t take this the wrong way, because I’m not restating this to be a jerk, but the more accurate position would be:

It looks like bread, it tastes like bread, but it’s not bread it’s been transformed into the Lord Jesus’ flesh.

I’m being nitpicky because the Lutherans believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ AND bread and wine simultaneously. Catholics believe that it is ONLY the Body and Blood of Christ, which just happens to look like bread and wine. The distinction is serious enough to keep the Catholic and Lutherans apart, so I just wanted to be sure that our definitions were very specific.

I would very much appreciate if you would stop trying to put words in my mouth. Where in this thread did I warn people about personal interpretations of Scripture. Also please do the honorable thing and retract this false statement about me. Remember actions speak louder than words.

Post 102:
“Now are you going to believe mens interpretations or the Lord Jesus’ interpretation?”

Post 151:
“This is really the heart of your argument, would you rather believe what people say than what the Lord Jesus says.”

The very post I am quoting from:
“You either accept the Lord Jesus’ interpretation or you accept the wrong interpretations from other people.”

From later in this very post that I am quoting from:
"Anyone can post Scriptures and add their own interpretation to them to support their own opinion. "

If I misinterpreted these words, then I apologize. Your argument seems to be that scripture is clear. If it was, you wouldn’t have differing interpretations. How can a position that 70% of Christians reject be clear? (Now understand me, I’m not even arguing whether or not it’s true. I’m arguing that it’s not CLEAR, or nearly everyone would understand it.)

I have explained to you in a number of previous posts that the statement from Lord Jesus in John 6:63 explains His own words in John 6. The Lord Jesus clearly interprets His own words to have a spiritual meaning. You either accept the Lord Jesus’ interpretation or you accept the wrong interpretations from other people.

I disagree that this is the Lord Jesus’ interpretation, and would submit that you have the wrong interpretation.

I only needed a few Scriptures to prove the Truth that the bread is not the Lord Jesus flesh and I quoted the Lord Jesus’ own infallible interpretation. A few Scriptures is more powerful than reams of mans opinions.

Yes, but a smart debater provides evidence from all available sources so that they can strengthen their argument. Also, you didn’t prove it to me, although you did give me your personal interpretation of what the passages said.

Anyone can post Scriptures and add their own interpretation to them to support their own opinion. I posted the Lord Jesus’ interpretation of His own words. If you don’t accept the Lord Jesus’ interpretation of His own words then you are in fact saying that the Lord Jesus is telling lies and that you know more than Him.

No… you posted a few scriptures, and then you added your own interpretation.

Are you saying you would rather believe men’s interpretations than the Lord Jesus’ infallible interpretation? Imo your selective presentation of historical quotes is flawed. Anyone can use selective historical quotes to support their point of view.

And there’s the catch… right in your quote above. “IN MY OPINION your selective presentation of historical quotes is flawed.” All you have provided me with this entire time is opinion, but very little evidence. Now, you do realize that I’m a professional historian, don’t you? My whole career is based on writing history and authenticating it. It is true, that is possible to write biased history. That is why it is important to build a case, using primary sources and presenting alternative opinions, and let the reader determine for themselves whether their analysis is accurate. The only inerrant document on earth is the Bible, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that non-Biblical documents are wrong! They are useful for building a case for seeing what people thought in the past. However, you have to have lots of evidence to back it up, and show an overwhelming trend. With regard the the Real Presence, that evidence is indeed overwhelming.

Humor me, please. Just find me ANY document from 100 AD to, say, 600 AD that rejected the Real Presence. We’ll have a discussion. If your position is true, there should be massive historical evidence, right?

I personally didn’t use non-biblical info to address a biblical issue. The true way to explain Truths in Gods word is to present Gods word truthfully. All of Gods revealed Truth is in the Scriptures and so you need to use the Scriptures to present Gods Truth.

How do you ever preach to non-believers? It must be impossible for you to ever try to prosyletize to people that start from a premise that the Bible isn’t inerrant.

I clearly proved from the Scriptures that Paul believed the Lord Jesus’ teaching that the bread is bread and it is to be eaten in remembrance of His perfect sacrifice. Also I stated that Peter, James and John all believed this Truth too.

And you did it so clearly that a protestant rejected your interpretation and embraced the Catholic position, which I doubt was your intent.

 

[VociMike]

Questioning my 30 + year Roman Catholic Faith is very new to me, I apologize if my new found incredulity isn’t coming across as clearly in the written word, as it is in my mind.

So why aren’t you questioning the bible? Why does it get a “pass” from your incredulity? I’m not cracking wise here, I really want to know (and I want you to ponder the question, which I gather you have not done).

 

[pmoo]

Confirmation not required.

If confirmation is not required, then why do children only receive the holy eucharist after they are confirmed and are not allowed to do so before?

 

[VociMike]

Looks like this thread is winding down, and before it fades out I want to add one more point. This point seems to raise a lot of hackles, but only IMO because people don’t have a good answer for it.

We know that Communion / the Lord’s Supper is, among other things, a memorial meal in rememberance of Christ. So what is fitting and suitable food and drink to serve in a memorial meal for the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Savior of the World? There are two choices offered:

1. Crackers and juice
2. God Himself

Consider the first choice. Would crackers and juice even be a fitting memorial meal for the building janitor, much less our Savior? Let’s get right to the core of the matter: would you offer your guests crackers and juice to memorialize your own beloved father or mother or brother or sister or child? You know you wouldn’t. Then why is such a memorial fitting for Jesus Christ?

The second choice, OTOH, is an entirely suitable and fitting memorial. It is, really, the only entirely suitable and fitting memorial. God is, obviously, fitting and suitable to remember God.

So, by this analysis alone one can plainly see that the Catholic (and Orthodox) teaching regarding the Real Presence makes sense, and the Protestant teaching makes no sense whatsoever.