Replies

You mean Catholics should have a problem with Christ not having literal blood in His resurrected body when Catholic Eucharistic theology teaches that while the Lord is then “physically present,” this presence is not as that of the Biblical Christ in His incarnation, whose manifest physically is so much stressed in Scripture (see below), but the Catholic Eucharistic Christ is akin to a docetist or gnostic-type Christ in that he appears to be something he is not, that of bread and wine.

It would be nice if you could write one post without a run-on sentence.

There is nothing "docetist" or "gnostic" about Catholic Eucharistic theology. The Docetists thought Christ didn't really die on the Cross. The gnostics thought all kinds of crazy things having to do with salvation by the eating of cucumbers and other such nonsense. Neither group would recognize transubstantiation as their own.

It would be nice if you could write one post without a run-on sentence.

So you find fault with a easily comprehensible 23 word sentence? Perhaps you find fault in encyclicals? Why one encyclical (QUADRAGESIMO ANNO, POPE PIUS Xl ,MAY 15, 1931) of over 20,000 words, has more than one paragraph of over 400 words, and at least one sentence of over 90 words, and which also abounds in punctuation.

And there are differences btwn a earthly king and the King of the kingdom of God, yet the Lord said "the kingdom of heaven likened unto a king, which would take account of his servants," (Matthew 18:23) for the use of analogy does not require comprehensive correspondence.

And my analogy of the Catholic Eucharistic Christ to a docetist or gnostic-type Christ had nothing to do "with salvation by the eating of cucumbers and other such nonsense," but was that in both cases he appears to be something he is not.

Hold that the manifestly physical body of Christ was an illusion a mere semblance without any true reality as in , docetism , that it was not what it appeared to be, is indeed "akin" (as said) to holding that the manifestly material bread and wine do not exist, and that what Christ appears to be is not the reality.

That is simply not how Scripture describes the body of Christ, and a truly literal reading of the words "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you" (1 Corinthians 11:24) would mean the disciples were consuming the only manifestly physical body of Christ body of Christ they knew, that would be manifestly crucified, versus a metaphysical wafer-god.

Might as well imagine David transubstantiated water into the blood of men, since he call it and treated it as so:

And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Beth–lehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)