Replies

And your point is? Don't just leave it hanging by way of vague innuendo, which innuendo needs be sorted from some other unexpressed meaning (or multiple meanings) which must be guessed at.

Are we back to the "bodily present" wording? The word is "body" isn't it?

How about "materially present" (in the Mass). Yes or no? There is one of your number here who says the RCC never taught that, but that some believed that.

How about "pneumatically present"? Can you see how that can closely enough parallel the description of Christ said to being present "under the forms" of the bread and wine?

It's like saying much the same things (or ended at the same or similar understanding) using different words and terminology to get there...

What I have been concerned with, is due to the language commonly used to describe transubstantiation, many Roman Catholics appear to me to believe in transmaterialization. And no thank you --- I don't need any more "instruction" or lectures or links to "what the church teaches". I've had about a gutfull of that sort of thing, long before you (Heart-Rest) ever joined FR, so spare me. I may know RC apologetic nearly as well as you do...

As far as the term "transmaterialization" is concerned, Mad Dawg knows what I'm talking about. Perhaps you could send him too some "instruction" and thus dodge facing the the admittedly difficult question, followed up with a freepmail, privately chewing him out over the issue, as you did me? Or maybe just maybe, carefully consider what it is he was talking about, here?