[terycarl]

THAT is a mountain of TRUTH too high for the carnal mind inculcated in you. Catholics have literally been taught that the bloodless Body Jesus now has In Heaven is commanded to produce blood for Catholics to consume at Catholic Mass, by a priesthood that is not prescribed in The Word of God. So long as the carnal is the focus of Catholic ritual, the Spiritual will not be amongst you ...

You are SO ill informed, for over 1,600 years, ALL Christians taught and believed in transubstantiation, and MOST still do. Luckily the Prottys came along to save us from ourselves....If you do not have faith enough to realize that Christ did EXACTLY what He said He was doing, so be it, but kindly refrain from challenging BILLIONS of people who do believe Him.....remember the phrase....Oh ye of little faith???

[MHGinTN]

At your age, you cannot see but what you have been drilled to believe. Do you believe the body Jesus occupies NOW in HEAVEN has blood distributing The Life of Him? I doubt you can even answer that honestly, you are so unlearned.

[boatbums]

You are SO ill informed, for over 1,600 years, ALL Christians taught and believed in transubstantiation, and MOST still do.

No, TC, you are the "ill informed" one here. From the site http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm we learn:

Some church fathers believed in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist; others considered the elements as signs of the body and blood of Christ, and that His presence is spiritual. Paschasius Radbertus was the first to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation in the ninth century. He was opposed by Ratranmus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie. Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi). This controversy between two Catholic monks shows that both views were present in the Catholic church at least up to the eleventh century. The debate continued until the thirteenth century when the final decision was taken by the Lateran Council in 1215. Eventually Radbertus was canonized while Ratranmus' work was placed on the index of forbidden books. The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century.

It is misleading to speak about “real presence” as if the term is equivalent to “transubstantiation.” Christians, who consider the bread and wine as strictly symbolical, also believe in the real presence of the Lord among them. Jesus said: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). Surely Christ is present in the congregation of His people, as He promises, especially during the celebration of the Supper. His presence is real even though it is spiritual and not carnal.

It wasn't until the Council of Trent (when WAS that? Oh, yeah the SIXTEENTH CENTURY) that the doctrine was defined in the second canon of the thirteenth session of the Council of Trent. How many more times will this have to be explained before the untruths about its origin stop being propagated here???

[daniel1212]

You are SO ill informed, for over 1,600 years, ALL Christians taught and believed in transubstantiation,

Wrong again, for as shown again and again, the Catholic Eucharist is manifestly absent in the life of the NT in Scripture, which writings are interpretative of the Gospels. See post 55 and here by the grace of God before you try to respond.

Moreover, believing that bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ even though the elements, look, taste and would scientifically test to be ordinary bread and wine is hardly purely literal. Imagine if we held that the body and blood of Christ on the cross was real but imperceptible to the senses and scientific testing.