[Popman]

What you "think" you know about Catholicism wouldn't fill a teacup.

You don't know what I think or have knowledge of

Since you claim to have vastly more knowledge on the RCC,(you probably do, but that in itself does not make me ignorant) please point out where in Scripture or related writing, texts, or anywhere historically legitimate source that claims the "bread" of the communion phyiscally turned into the body of Christ outside the man made teaching of the RCC.

Christ himself, you know the Lord, that guy in the Last Supper picture, tells us in his own words, those red letters in the Bible, it was symbolic

The bread or wine itself is not holy, just a symbolic gesture to remind us of his supreme sacrifice and we should take it as an self examination of our relationship with him, Our Lord

[kellynla]

“please point out where in Scripture or related writing, texts, or anywhere historically legitimate source that claims the “bread” of the communion phyiscally turned into the body of Christ outside the man made teaching of the RCC.”

Already have, all you have to do is follow the links I posted, read & study them... “expert.” LOL

Ya, know you non-Catholics who “think” you know Catholicism should stick to your own beliefs instead of coming on Catholic threads and exposing to the world what little you understand & “think” you know.

Good day.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Christ himself, you know the Lord, that guy in the Last Supper picture, tells us in his own words, those red letters in the Bible, it was symbolic"

Thank you for making this point.

66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67Then running towards them, and sore distraught, said Jesus unto them, Walk ye not away, for that which I said, I meant not; yea verily it is a symbol, so walk not away; There is nothing here that your fleshly understanding explaineth not, therefore come back.
From John 6, TRSV(Totally Reversed Standard Version)

Unfortunately, for 1500 years nobody understood the plain words of Scripture.

[foreshadowed at waco]

The Eucharist is a sacrament in the Catholic Church...the wafer is not considered merely symbolic...the part of the Mass where the priest changes the bread and wine is called the Consecration...it is believed that transubstantiation occurs which means that the bread and wine transcend their earthly, concrete presence and become the body and blood of Christ...every Mass is, in effect, a mystical experience for those who have received the sacrament and are currently in a state of grace...whether you believe Catholic teachings or not, it is not respectful to call it a cracker...

Act Up, the gay AIDS activist group once stormed St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC and threw communion wafers on the floor--that was painful to me...it is like ripping a Torah or desecrating someone's grave... a grave is really just a hole in the ground with a corpse in it and a stone marker but desecrating a grave is not innocent vandalism like knocking over a mailbox...it means more to the perp and the target...I suppose you think Padre Pio's stigmata was merely a psychosomatic illness and there's no such thing as a miracle.

You don't know what I think or have knowledge of.

It does seem to me that you clearly believe that you have indisputable knowledge of what the communion wafer is and isn't. It must be so comforting to know the truth yet your truth is based on the Bible which was written decades and centuries after the death of Christ. The Bible is considered divinely inspired but who really knows? Doesn't faith play a part in belief? And what about hope?

[Mad Dawg]

please point out where in Scripture or related writing, texts, or anywhere historically legitimate source that claims the "bread" of the communion phyiscally turned into the body of Christ outside the man made teaching of the RCC.

Allow me to interject:

The notion of Transubstantiation does not teach that the bread physically changes into the body of Christ.

I really don't want to argue about whether it's right or not or Biblical or not. I don't think arguments like that are very productive for anyone.

But it does get my attention that many of the criticisms of the doctrine indicate or suggest a misunderstanding of what is meant by the word "substance" when it is used by theologians.

And it certainly does NOT mean a physical thing. That we claim some extraordinary Eucharistic miracles in which the "elements" do turn or have turned into actual physical flesh or blood does not touch on the doctrine.