Replies

You've fallen into the hands (or pages) of people who don't know much about Catholicism. I do feel sorry that you've somehow gotten stuck where you are.

I have quoted extensively from Roman Catholic sources in this discussion.

In fact, the majority of my sources have either been Roman Catholic or Scripture. Granted, Scripture is the only inspired source.

Transubstantiation was dogmatized in 1215. No?

You have been shown Scripture, in context, on this issue which is in contradiction of "tradition".

I have even resorted to "tradition" and shown where some writers call the bread and wine symbols.

You have been unable to show a writer who says the bread and wine are in fact changed into His flesh and blood.

You have been shown not one, but two, RC priests who say Christ is brought back down from Heaven to be offered up again and again and again as the victim....one of which you flippantly dismissed.

I have offered scholarly works showing the early church denied the charge of cannibalism, that is eating flesh and drinking blood, against them. Why would they deny this? Because it was not true.

The clear teaching of Scripture, which is the only inspired set of writings we agree upon, at least in the NT, are the only writings of antiquity that can make that claim.

Every Christian teaching can be pointed to in Scripture. Roman Catholicism, by using RC documents, cannot make that statement. And please, don't make me post them again.

I leave the discussion with this.

He said "do this in remembrance of Me."

The Lord's Supper is not a means of salvation, but a result of salvation.

I bid you a good evening.