Replies

"Yes belonging to the deposit of Catholic faith which contains your tradition sounds reasonable. More reasonable than your original statement that transubstantiation is obvious in NT writings. "

Just to clarify, I.I., I'm talking about the Real Presence, that is, the doctrine that Jesus is phycially present in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is a much later term that describes "how" Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. Scripture literally says that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist, and it does so emphatically and repeatedly. The only question is whether the words of Christ are to be taken literally, or whether a metaphorical reading should be imposed in such a way as to exclude the the literal reading. There is no reasonable interpretation that would support a metaphor. The Scriptures just don't point to any sort of a metaphorical meaning. Christ says, "Take and eat, this is my Body." Then He counsels His Apostles about his coming betrayal and goes out to the Garden of Gethsemane. What message were the Gospel writers tryng to convey to their readers?

Given that you don't do Sola Scriptura, I'm not going to start quoting chapter and verse to you, but when you think about it, I.I., what kind of metaphor would that be? Usually we explain something we don't understand by making a metaphor that relates it to something we do understand. That idea is half-baked." This means it wasn't thoroughly prepared or thought through, and is lacking. "Invincibly Ignorant is a diamond in the rough." You get the picture on that one. But, what kind of metaphor would it be to tell someone they need to eat someone's flesh? "Running this computer program is as easy as chewing on some dude's flesh, I.I.

To be blunt, I.I. I don't know how the Scriptures could be any clearer. Assume for the sake of argument that the real presence is the message that the authors of the NT were trying to convey. How could they possibly have made it more clear than they did? What could they have said that would have made their point any more clear? "My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." "Take and eat. This is my Body," and "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." "The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat? " So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;" and "Then Jesus turned to His disciples and said, does this shock you?"

The doctrine of the real presence is rejected not because there is a Scriptural reason to do so, but rather because it is a very difficult teaching to accept. The Author of John's Gospel clearly demonstrated that he understood it to be a shocking doctrine.

"However, your analogy of virgin birth and resurrection to be "on par", as written in the NT, with transubstantiation doesn't seem realistic."

It is on a par with those doctrines, and it is a doctrine supported by the universal witness of the Apostolic Faith. There is a mountain of historical evidence ( a metaphor that you can understand,) that demonstrates that the early Christians believed in the real presence. In fact, I'm not even aware of anyone even questioning it until eight hundred years after the time of Christ, and I don't know of any Christians who rejected it until the time of the Reformation.

It is a core doctrine. If a person does not understand the doctrines of the Virgin Birth, the Real Presence, and the Physical Resurrection of Christ, then they do not have a solid grasp of historic Christianity. They may seem far-fetched to contemporary people, but they are absolutely foundational to understanding how historical Christians understood themselves and their religion.

"I'm still not deprogrammed as much as I should be. :-)'

And I hope you always stay that way, Invincibly Ignorant. I wish you the best in your chosen faith, but always remember that it was through Jesus Christ that you came to faith.

I've expended all the energy on this subject for the evening as I'm willing to give. If you only knew how many John 6 discussions I've had on this thread. One of the few chapters in the Bible catholics take literally. lol.

Yes I had a Teshuva about 30 years ago which involved Jesus Christ. I asked God to always lead me in truth. I've not been afraid to follow where God's truth has led me. All part the journey. I wish you the best on yours.

I'm talking about the Real Presence, that is, the doctrine that Jesus is phycially present in the Eucharist.

Where does he go when you eat him?