Replies

There’s an awful lot of -isms and -ists in that post, isn’t there?

What I see with the transubstantiation debate is a lot of hair splitting.

Catholics claim that in order to be saved, we have to eat the eucharist, the literal body and blood of Christ. And yet eating of blood is forbidden clearly through out Scripture. Eating of human flesh, strangely, is not forbidden anywhere directly that I can ever recall seeing, but it really goes without saying that it’s wrong.

And then there is the issue of the fact that the bread and wine LOOKS like bread and wine, TASTES like bread and wine, TESTS as bread and wine, and for all practical purposes IS bread and wine.

SO now there’s a quandary that Catholics and Catholicism has to explain away. Well, it’s only it’s APPEARANCE, we are then told. Well, then that fits PERFECTLY with communion being a ceremony/celebration of REMEMBRANCE with the bread and wine symbolizing the body and blood of Christ.

Demanding a literal interpretation of eating literal flesh and drinking literal blood demands contradicting and violating passages of other Scripture.

Adhering to a symbolic interpretation does not do that, it does not contradict the body of previous Scripture.

Salvation is b y faith, not by the works of the Law because by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified. And Sacraments do not confer grace because if one has to do something, then grace is not grace but wages due for action performed. It is earned, not lavished.

"...And then there is the issue of the fact that the bread and wine LOOKS like bread and wine, TASTES like bread and wine, TESTS as bread and wine, and for all practical purposes IS bread and wine....Salvation is by faith, not by the works of the Law because by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified..."

Just reading through your post here, metmom, I wanted to ask you a couple things about it.

First you imply that if you can't detect something with your five senses, it can't be there. Then further on in your post you mentioned "faith". Do you believe in the literal presence of "faith" within some people? If you see a person of faith, can you see their faith by just looking at them, or do you just see a person,, and not their faith? If you placed a stethoscope anywhere on them, could you hear their faith? Can you smell their faith? Can you taste their faith? Can you detect their faith by touching them?

If the answer to all of these questions are "no" (as they certainly should be), and you cannot detect the presence of "faith" whatsoever by your five senses or any other physical means, but you are still convinced that faith can and does really, truly, literally exist within some people, why do you have trouble considering the possibility that Jesus really told the truth when He said that His Glorified Presence will be in His Holy Eucharist (in spite of the fact that we cannot detect that Holy Presence with any of our very limited human physical means)?