This is my body - no metaphysical change required

Our Lord's God said:
Except you have no such evidence.
Click to expand...
No evidence?

Three of the Synoptic Gospels have the Last Supper accounts where Jesus says clearly "Take and eat...take and drink...this IS my body, this IS my blood." Even Luther knew what "is" meant. Granted--he rejected Transubstantiation, but---at the same time he is hardly Protestant on the issue either. Protestants turn in to Bill Clinton when it comes to the meaning of is: "Well how are you defining is? What does is really mean anyway?"

Then there is John 6 which is perhaps the clearest reference to the fact that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

So--yeah----if none of that constitutes evidence from your view, then nothing will. In this case, you Protestants are like atheists who balk when presented with evidence of God's existence. They just redefine what constitutes evidence so as to rule out evidence you present as evidence.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
No evidence?
Click to expand...

That's right.

Since there is more than one way the bread can become the true body of Christ, you have no evidence.

romishpopishorganist said:
Three of the Synoptic Gospels have the Last Supper accounts where Jesus says clearly "Take and eat...take and drink...this IS my body, this IS my blood."
Click to expand...

Is this going right over your head again? What did you not understand in my post? Let me say this AGAIN:

It is not necessary for a metaphysical change to occur for the bread to become the true body of Christ.

romishpopishorganist said:
Even Luther knew what "is" meant.
Click to expand...

And your point is?

romishpopishorganist said:
Granted--he rejected Transubstantiation, but---at the same time he is hardly Protestant on the issue either. Protestants turn in to Bill Clinton when it comes to the meaning of is: "Well how are you defining is? What does is really mean anyway?"
Click to expand...

Are you off in Never, Never land again?

romishpopishorganist said:
Then there is John 6 which is perhaps the clearest reference to the fact that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
Click to expand...

Except he isn't talking about the Eucharist.

He says the bread had already descended out of heaven and he says that his flesh is the bread that descended out of heaven. That means you have a very big problem on your hands.

romishpopishorganist said:
So--yeah----if none of that constitutes evidence from your view, then nothing will. In this case, you Protestants are like atheists who balk when presented with evidence of God's existence. They just redefine what constitutes evidence so as to rule out evidence you present as evidence.
Click to expand...

This is obviously too much for you.

It is not necessary for a metaphysical change to occur for the bread to become the TRUE body of Christ nor is it necessary for there to be a "Real Presence" for it to be the TRUE body of Christ. This is a mistaken assumption of nearly every Catholic. And it is a wrong assumption.

But as I said in my OP, Catholics always assume that if there is no transubstantiation there can be no true body of Christ. This is demonstrably wrong.

But you aren't even listening yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top