No, it's not. Unlike most Catholics I've run into, we can see outside the box and have the ability to look at something from a perspective other than our own. Not to mention that many of us were raised and taught Catholic and remember what we were taught and what we believed.
Catholics as a group seem to be singularly incapable of getting outside the doctrines that have been hammered into their heads from birth and looking at it from another point of view.
I know what Catholics believe about communion and I disagree with it anyway, which I realize is beyond the comprehension of most Catholics.
There is this fallacy floating around which I've encountered quite often that goes along the lines of, *Well, you obviously don't understand ________, because if you did you would most certainly agree with us.* as if the evidence or reasoning is so compelling that if one only *KNEW* what the other person knew, that they would OF COURSE believe like them.
Some people just don't get that I can understand what they're saying and choose not to believe it.
That said, I find plenty of Scriptural support for the conclusion that the elements in communion are and remain simply bread and wine and are representative of Christ, just as they were in the Passover meal. Having them become the LITERAL flesh and blood of Christ violates too many other passages of Scripture and since Scripture doesn't contradict itself, that means that the literal flesh and blood interpretation is wrong.
Now, if some Catholic could actually wrap their minds around that, ......
.
INDEED TO THE MAX.
I think you will find that most Catholics of the Orthodox persuasion understand where you are coming from fully. We're odd that way. We are not, as you have seen here, very "evangelical". You believe what you believe. We believe what we believe. "We have seen the true light; we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, for the Trinity has saved us." as we chant in the Liturgy. If anyone wants what we have they can have it. If not, that's OK...have another cup of cafe and perhaps a piece of baklava!
"Some people just don't get that I can understand what they're saying and choose not to believe it."
Kosta and I do. "That said, I find plenty of Scriptural support for the conclusion that the elements in communion are and remain simply bread and wine and are representative of Christ, just as they were in the Passover meal. Having them become the LITERAL flesh and blood of Christ violates too many other passages of Scripture and since Scripture doesn't contradict itself, that means that the literal flesh and blood interpretation is wrong." The belief that the bread and wine on the altar table, through the power of the Holy Spirit, become in some way we do not understand the true Body and Blood of Christ is among the most verifiably ancient beliefs of The Church. Mere antiquity, of course, guarantees nothing. It does mean, however, that the bishops who determined the canon of the NT in the 4th century actually believed it. Why do you suppose they would have canonized scripture which, it appears to you and millions of others, clearly contradicts that fundamental belief? BTW, I can understand questioning the Latin explanations of what happens at the consecration. You know, mysteries are just that, mysteries. And perhaps the less speculation the better about the nature of Divine Mysteries lest in doing so we misunderstand and fall into error.
There is nothing specifically "Catholic" about that argument. Everybody uses it. I have been told many times by Protestants: "if you only had the eyes and the ears you'd understand." Talk about not seeing the longs in your own eyes but noticing specks in your neighbor's!
Some people just don't get that I can understand what they're saying and choose not to believe it.
At least we agree, then, that people believe whatever they want to believe. I have bene saying that all along.
Having them become the LITERAL flesh and blood of Christ violates too many other passages of Scripture and since Scripture doesn't contradict itself, that means that the literal flesh and blood interpretation is wrong.
What do you mean by "violate" other scriptural passages? In what sense are they "violated?" If he can rise from the dead and float up in into the clouds, then surely he can make bread and wine attain the properties of his body and blood.
What do you think John 6:55 means when he says "For my flesh is real *(or true) food and my blood is real* (or true) drink"? And when says n Matthew 26:26 "Jesus took the bread...saying this is my body..."?
*ἀληθῶς = truly, really