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?
Perhaps you should try reading back over the preceding posts related to that post, so you'll understand the context of the post.
Thanks for the ping. So we’re doing this one again?
For better or for worse, we Papists have a kind of metaphysical quasi-canon in Aristotle through Aquinas. The good of that (again, if any) is that we have a baseline language for talking about questions like “What is knowledge?” and “What is a thing?”
What makes these contentions all the more futile is that there is neither common language nor a shared starting point for the comparatively simple questions. As I may say too much, I'm already stymied when we ask what bread and wine are. And IMHO without some way of talking about that sort of question, we're not going to get to talking about what the change (if any) is that takes place (or not) during the Mass.
As to the differing knowledge or ability of Catholics to discuss their faith, that accords with our idea (which we venture to propose is not only Scriptural but common sense)of what the Church is, and in particular the diversity of the gifts and vocations of her many members.
Without knowing or even wanting to know the context, I found your array of questions to be interesting. Thank you.
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.