In reference to the Lord’s Supper, Paul uses the term, “the bread” (see 1 Cor. 11:26-28). Here’s an example of his usage:
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
Note that Paul says clearly that what you “eat” is not flesh, but “bread.”
The church in Rome discounts such a reference, instead saying that it’s literally the flesh of Christ, once again sacrificed, and that those who consider it (like Paul) to be “bread” are anathema.
I, for one, will believe the words of Paul in Scripture over the proclamations of the church in Rome. The church in Rome does not have “the fullness of Christian truth,” as shown.
Theo’s got it right, and I agree with everything you said except the transubstantiation stuff. I don’t know what parts of scripture Protestants ignore.
You wrote:
“In reference to the Lord’s Supper, Paul uses the term, “the bread” (see 1 Cor. 11:26-28). Here’s an example of his usage: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.””
Irrelevant. I have called it bread too.
“Note that Paul says clearly that what you “eat” is not flesh, but “bread.””
Again, irrelevant.
“The church in Rome discounts such a reference, instead saying that it’s literally the flesh of Christ, once again sacrificed, and that those who consider it (like Paul) to be “bread” are anathema.”
There is no reason to think Paul thought it was ONLY bread.
“I, for one, will believe the words of Paul in Scripture over the proclamations of the church in Rome.”
There is no difference between the two.
“The church in Rome does not have “the fullness of Christian truth,” as shown.”
Yes, actually she does have the fullness of faith and you can’t even bring yoursefl to call her by her proper name - the Catholic Church.