What a load of empty, theologically illiterate bilge.
So a handful of Fathers of the Church used LESS PRECISE language than Trent? I’m shocked. SHOCKED!
They lived more than a thousand years before Trent.
Jesus called his blood “wine” because it HAD BEEN wine, and because it still looked like wine, and was drunk like wine, and was being drunk in the Seder, in which there are four cups of blessing drunk. The liturgical prayers still in use today also call the Eucharist “this bread” and “this cup”—immediately after the consecration. Why? Because the bread and wine that are offered DO symbolize flesh and blood. They symbolize flesh and blood BEFORE the consecration, and they continue to symbolize flesh and blood AFTER the consecration—because they still look and taste like bread and wine.
The Eucharistic species ARE the flesh and blood of Jesus, and SIMULTANEOUSLY function as symbols of flesh and blood.
This whole article is based on abject ignorance of Catholic theological terminology, liturgical language, the difference between second-century language and Scholastic language, etc., etc. It ignorantly asserts that because sometimes the Church uses less precise, more Scriptural terminology (as in the liturgy), it must be DENYING all its statements made in the tighter, more precise language of Scholasticism, which was the language of Trent and other councils.
There is nothing in any of the ancient Fathers’ quotations that contradicts the dogma taught by Trent.
Interestingly, this is what I think when I read anything that supports the Roman Catholic Cult. Empty, theologically illiterate bilge describes Rome to a T.
Hoss
Seems like you're hedging a bit there Art.
Catholics on this board have repeatedly denied they are symbolic and are indeed flesh and blood.
So which is it?
And you still have a Jesus that sinned by eating blood.