[paladinan]

That's about as specious as saying to an Evangelical: "You say that you're covered by the blood of the Lamb, but I don't see any blood on you! And if I did, I doubt the DNA tests would reveal it to be lamb's blood! Or are you suggesting that this blood is somehow "real, but impervious to all the senses", and I just have to pretend that you're covered in Lamb's gore"?

Before you assume a "conspiracy of sophistries designed solely to dodge you", you might want to check out the actual teachings of the Catholic Church on the matter. They're not secret, I assure you.

[ctdonath2]

Evangelicals don’t passionately insist they are literally covered, right now, with real actual blood (lamb or not). Ever.

Catholics, time & again, insist that what they’re consuming transubstantiates into REAL ACTUAL BLOOD OF CHRIST HIMSELF. They’ll go so far as insist that the Eucharist is, in literal absolute factual physical truth, a time-and-space transcending extension of the actual crucifixion and death of Christ, that they are in every sense participating in sacrificing Him (not “receiving the sacrifice”, but no less than those actually killing Him). I’ve checked out the actual teachings, which say exactly that...at least until one points out the total preposterousness of the notion, at which point it’s totally spiritual/symbolic (and therefore I’m being specious)...and the two completely incompatible notions are held simultaneously as though there is absolutely no conflict and not even the appearance thereof. Surely looks like a conspiracy of sophistries to me.

[Elsie]

you might want to check out the actual teachings of the Catholic Church on the matter. They're not secret, I assure you.

I'm lazy.

Could YOU post what you want me to see?