[C. Edmund Wright]

another simple point to ponder....God routinely communicates with figures of speech - I’ve heard it said that there are over 200 specific types of figures of speech used by God in the scripture - thus the idea of accepting the Bible literally versus seriously runs into problems when you don’t allow for figures of speech. I take the Bible very seriously. I seriously think that God uses figures of speech, types and shadows, analogy, double entendres, symbols, metaphors, simlies, etc for a reason. I think He expects us to do the same. I would suggest that if one’s heart is in the right place on this issue, its’ not as dogmatic as some suggest.

“They shall mount up with wings like eagles....” - does not mean those who trust in the Lord have feathers and can fly.......

[johniegrad]

In the second Mass reading for tomorrow, from 1st Corinthians, Paul goes to great lengths to repeat what had been given to him in oral tradition. This is the oldest known written description of the Last Supper possibly written as early as 56 AD. He reports it’s authority has nothing to do with him but with that of the Risen Lord who guarantees it’s authenticity. This is about as close to dogmatic as one can get. In fact, Paul’s language is reminiscent of the type used in statements of infallibility.

The Church in Corinth was doing something wrong in their Eucharistic observance and Paul corrected it knowing the central importance of this rite to the early Church.

Concerning your other comments on Scripture, I agree completely.

[Mercat]

I think that the point of the article and of the thread is not to debate transubstantiation but to simply say that the Catholic Church doesn’t give us a choice. Protestants who do not believe in transubstantiation should consider us to be idolators. It’s that simple. It really is the true body and blood of Christ or all of us Catholics are evil, corrupted, demonic, idolators. It’s sort of like the analysis of Jesus. He’s either crazy, evil, or He really is the Son of God. Not a lot of wiggle room. Anyone interested in further study, I highly recommend that they read Rome Sweet H by Kimberley and Scott Hahn. Scott was well known Presbyterian minister and teacher who converted (swam the Tiber). His analysis is amazing. His wife fought it all along but eventually also converted.

[what's up]

Jesus says His food was to do the will of God.

Funny how no one thinks that scripture should be taken literally but others should.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The text strongly indicates that He was not speaking figuratively when he spoke of eating His flesh. He says it about a half a dozen times in John 6, using an even stronger verb after people object. When they begin to walk away, surely offended or disgusted at this (and who, naturally, wouldn't be?) He doesn't chase after them saying, "It's just a metaphor!"

He turns to His disciples and says, "Do you want to go, too?"

There's a good explanation of that LINK_John_6

If Jesus' words strike you a being really, really outrageous --- I think you're beginning to get it. Most of us take it way too casually. We've forgotten just how radical it is.