Unless you eat my FLESH and drink my BLOOD you have no life in you.

[Mannyfit75]

Understood. Just because the Reformers rejected the idea of transubstantiation didn’t mean that they didn’t believe in the real presence. This is a famous tactic by many Catholics to try and say that if the bread and wine isn’t somehow metaphysically changed (which is un-Biblical) it cannot be the body and blood of Christ. i am certainly not putting myself into a position to tell Jesus where he can and cannot be especailly when he said in Scripture that where two or more are gathered in my name, there I will be

Jesus said his flesh is real food, and that his blood is real drink indeed. Just as the doctrine transubstantiation states, the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of the Lord Himself.

The accidents remain but Jesus is hidden under the appearance of bread and wine. I don’t believe Protestants have real presence even if they believe in the Real Presence since they lack valid ordinated ministers to consecrate bread and wine. Ony priests and Church who have valid Apostolic succession have real presence. Protestants lack it.

Only the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches have valid Real Presence.

 

[Nella]

Jesus said his flesh is real food, and that his blood is real drink indeed. Just as the doctrine transubstantiation states, the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of the Lord Himself.

The accidents remain but Jesus is hidden under the appearance of bread and wine. I don’t believe Protestants have real presence even if they believe in the Real Presence since they lack valid ordinated ministers to consecrate bread and wine. Ony priests and Church who have valid Apostolic succession have real presence. Protestants lack it.

Only the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches have valid Real Presence.

This is just your opinion and that of the RCC. I believe you are both wrong and Pope Leo was proven wrong in declaring Anglicans to be of invalid order. They are valid in apostolic succession just as Catholics and Orthodoxs’ are and Lutherans as well. Jesus never spoke once of changing bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. This has been merely fabricated by Catholicism. he said that the bread which comes down from Heaven is his flesh. This is what we believe. If your priests can really change bread into human flesh, then why does it not contain human dna??

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is just your opinion and that of the RCC. I believe you are both wrong and Pope Leo was proven wrong in declaring Anglicans to be of invalid order. They are valid in apostolic succession just as Catholics and Orthodoxs’ are and Lutherans as well. Jesus never spoke once of changing bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. This has been merely fabricated by Catholicism. he said that the bread which comes down from Heaven is his flesh. This is what we believe. If your priests can really change bread into human flesh, then why does it not contain human dna??

Well, you mis-interpret my post. Perhaps I need to explain you further what transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation states that during the consecration of the Bread and Wine, the Bread and Wine is no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Jesus.

The accident (appearance) remains as bread and wine but every part down to the last molecule is becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ remains hidden. It contains no HUMAN DNA because the accidents remains.

I can also point to you that there has been miracles surrounded the Eucharist itself.

A priest had a doubt about Jesus to be truly present in the Eucharist. However, God through his power turn the Bread into Real Flesh and His Blood Real Blood.

For further information I suggest you take a look at this website.

What I wrote is not mere opinions. It is fact and only the CC and EO have valid sacraments. Anglicans do not.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

[Nella]

Well, you mis-interpret my post. Perhaps I need to explain you further what transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation states that during the consecration of the Bread and Wine, the Bread and Wine is no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Jesus.

The accident (appearance) remains as bread and wine but every part down to the last molecule is becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ remains hidden. It contains no HUMAN DNA because the accidents remains.

I can also point to you that there has been miracles surrounded the Eucharist itself.

A priest had a doubt about Jesus to be truly present in the Eucharist. However, God through his power turn the Bread into Real Flesh and His Blood Real Blood.

For further information I suggest you take a look at this website.

What I wrote is not mere opinions. It is fact and only the CC and EO have valid sacraments. Anglicans do not.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

Again, this is the Catholic opinion and doesn’t make it fact. I know what transubstantiation is, you need not explain it to me. My question remains, if your priest metaphysically changed the bread and wine into the bona fide body, blood soul and divinity of Christ, then where’s the dna?? You are ducking the question. I understood your post perfectly.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Again, this is the Catholic opinion and doesn’t make it fact. I know what transubstantiation is, you need not explain it to me. My question remains, if your priest metaphysically changed the bread and wine into the bona fide body, blood soul and divinity of Christ, then where’s the dna?? You are ducking the question. I understood your post perfectly.

I’m not ducking the question. If you understood my post clearly, you understand why there is no DNA in the Eucharist.

The dogma of transubstantiation teaches that the whole substance of bread is changed into that of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of wine into that of his blood, leaving the accidents of bread and wine unaffected. Reason, of course, can’t prove that this happens. But it is not evidently against reason either; it is above reason. Our senses, being confined to phenomena, cannot detect the change; we know it only by faith in God’s word.

After the priest consecrates the bread and wine, their accidents alone remain, without inhering in any substance. They can’t inhere in the bread and wine, for these no longer exist; nor do they inhere in Christ’s body and blood, for they are not his accidents. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says: “. . . the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject.”5 St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that God directly sustains the quantity of bread (or wine) in being, and that the other accidents inhere in the quantity.6 For quantity is the fundamental accident: the others, such as color, exist as quantified—as having extension. There is no such thing as a non-extended color.

There is No DNA because the accident remains. It appears as bread and wine. If there was DNA, the Bread and Wine would become real flesh and read blood just as the link I provided you.

If you missed it here it is again.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

[Nella]

I’m not ducking the question. If you understood my post clearly, you understand why there is no DNA in the Eucharist.

The dogma of transubstantiation teaches that the whole substance of bread is changed into that of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of wine into that of his blood, leaving the accidents of bread and wine unaffected. Reason, of course, can’t prove that this happens. But it is not evidently against reason either; it is above reason. Our senses, being confined to phenomena, cannot detect the change; we know it only by faith in God’s word.

After the priest consecrates the bread and wine, their accidents alone remain, without inhering in any substance. They can’t inhere in the bread and wine, for these no longer exist; nor do they inhere in Christ’s body and blood, for they are not his accidents. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says: “. . . the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject.”5 St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that God directly sustains the quantity of bread (or wine) in being, and that the other accidents inhere in the quantity.6 For quantity is the fundamental accident: the others, such as color, exist as quantified—as having extension. There is no such thing as a non-extended color.

There is No DNA because the accident remains. It appears as bread and wine. If there was DNA, the Bread and Wine would become real flesh and read blood just as the link I provided you.

If you missed it here it is again.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

Mental gymnastics… Just read what Jesus said in Scripture concerning it. There is no transubstantiation or anything like this needed. All of this really rejects faith in Jesus and what he said and commanded us to do. It becomes what the CC says instead of what Christ said.

 

[Tonks40]

Mental gymnastics… Just read what Jesus said in Scripture concerning it. There is no transubstantiation or anything like this needed. All of this really rejects faith in Jesus and what he said and commanded us to do. It becomes what the CC says instead of what Christ said.

No mental gymnastics here. Even the simplest of Faith believe in transubstantiation. Did you look at the link that Mannyfit75 provided you?

What I see (and this is my own opinion, so please don’t bark at me) is that many non-Catholic Christians do their own mental gymnastics when they try and interpret John 6 with the “spiritual” partaking of Christ instead of doing what he insists by eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood. Not saying that there is anything against Catholic teaching to see it that way, but gosh, the way the Apostles handed it down through the centuries suggests otherwise.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Mental gymnastics… Just read what Jesus said in Scripture concerning it. There is no transubstantiation or anything like this needed. All of this really rejects faith in Jesus and what he said and commanded us to do. It becomes what the CC says instead of what Christ said.

Perhaps, I can let Jesus explain himself.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. - John 6:56-57.

26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. - **Matthew 26:26-28.
**

Let me quote St. Paul as well.

23* * For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for * you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25* In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26* For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. - **1 Cor 11:27-29
**

If you deny these words, then you are going against Jesus Christ and His Apostle Paul. I take Jesus own words than yours.

 

[Nella]

Perhaps, I can let Jesus explain himself.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. - John 6:56-57.

26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. - **Matthew 26:26-28.
**

Let me quote St. Paul as well.

23* * For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for * you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25* In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26* For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. - **1 Cor 11:27-29
**

If you deny these words, then you are going against Jesus Christ and His Apostle Paul. I take Jesus own words than yours.

You are wasting your time and mine by quoting scriptures to me that I am already very familiar with. Why can’t you understand that i believe in the real presence the same as you do? You have the hang up thinking that somehow we cannot posess the real eucharist, that’s your problem, not mine.

 

[Nella]

No mental gymnastics here. Even the simplest of Faith believe in transubstantiation. Did you look at the link that Mannyfit75 provided you?

What I see (and this is my own opinion, so please don’t bark at me) is that many non-Catholic Christians do their own mental gymnastics when they try and interpret John 6 with the “spiritual” partaking of Christ instead of doing what he insists by eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood. Not saying that there is anything against Catholic teaching to see it that way, but gosh, the way the Apostles handed it down through the centuries suggests otherwise.

The concept of Jesus’ body and blood is simple. Your twisted idea of how you can transubstantiate and nobody else can is only there to attempt to show how no Protestants can have it. Only you and the Orthodox church. That is what is strategically complex. i don’t buy it for a second and neither does the one who gave his life for all, not just catholics. Sorry.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You are wasting your time and mine by quoting scriptures to me that I am already very familiar with. Why can’t you understand that i believe in the real presence the same as you do? You have the hang up thinking that somehow we cannot posess the real eucharist, that’s your problem, not mine.

You don’t have real presence. I would only acknowledge real presence in Your Church if they reunit themselves with Rome but I think that is unlikely since your Church allow gay priests and female priests.

That is another reason why I believe your church has invalid sacraments.

 

[Nella]

You don’t have real presence. I would only acknowledge real presence in Your Church if they reunit themselves with Rome but I think that is unlikely since your Church allow gay priests and female priests.

That is another reason why I believe your church has invalid sacraments.

You are just ranting now. I expected it. No surprise

 

[Nella]

You don’t have real presence. I would only acknowledge real presence in Your Church if they reunit themselves with Rome but I think that is unlikely since your Church allow gay priests and female priests.

That is another reason why I believe your church has invalid sacraments.

Oh yeah, when you get done ranting, can you explain to me where in Scripture Jesus told us not to have female clergy??

 

[Mannyfit75]

Oh yeah, when you get done ranting, can you explain to me where in Scripture Jesus told us not to have female clergy??

Open a new thread if you wish to discuss female priesthood.

 

[Tonks40]

When explaining the Real Presence in the Eucharist as it pertains to valid orders, many people outside the Church react exactly how Nella is reacting to it. Mannyfit75 is doing a good job explaining John 6 and the Eucharist, but it’s going to take much more pondering upon the presented evidence for people to not only understand in the context of what John 6 is trying to say, but how it pertains to the Real Presence only found in the Catholic Church. Reacting violently and hastily does not do anything to promote meaningful dialog between parties. It only shows how angry a person is.

 

[Nella]

When explaining the Real Presence in the Eucharist as it pertains to valid orders, many people outside the Church react exactly how Nella is reacting to it. Mannyfit75 is doing a good job explaining John 6 and the Eucharist, but it’s going to take much more pondering upon the presented evidence for people to not only understand in the context of what John 6 is trying to say, but how it pertains to the Real Presence only found in the Catholic Church. Reacting violently and hastily does not do anything to promote meaningful dialog between parties. It only shows how angry a person is.

Not angry, just holding fast to Scripture and nowhere does it say that only the RCC has the real presence. sorry. I’m reacting to Biblical facts not mental gymnastics.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You are just ranting now. I expected it. No surprise

I’m not the one ranting you are. I have tried to explain to you Catholic Church doctrine but you just ignore it completely by not believing or trying to understand it.

Instead you attack the Catholic Church by bringing up sex abuse scandals.

 

[Nella]

Open a new thread if you wish to discuss female priesthood.

maybe we should so you can try and explain yourself around Scripture again.

 

[Mannyfit75]

maybe we should so you can try and explain yourself around Scripture again.

I already have. I quoted John and Corinthians to show Real Presence. I know you believe it but your Church lack valid sacraments.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Not angry, just holding fast to Scripture and nowhere does it say that only the RCC has the real presence. sorry. I’m reacting to Biblical facts not mental gymnastics.

No where does it say in the Bible that Trinity is there. Again you are just a Sola Scripturist.

I believe in the Trinity because the Church decreed it through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Church has real presence because it has valid Apostolic Succession, and Holy Orders.