What a fine example of needing a posse to help bury the Truth that someone doesn't want to accept.
Yes, they ate the real, actual, physical, body of Christ because Jesus Christ Himself, God incarnate, The Word made flesh, said, This IS my body.
Looks like when it comes to believing what Jesus Christ Himself said, "Faith Alone" boils down to "Faith that ain't Faith at all" which is in reality, as always,
Faith in Self and Self Alone
the real cornerstone of all Protestant and Protestant derived doctrine.
"Christians" who refuse to accept the words of Christ Himself are interesting, to say the least.
Well, then, have you torn out that offending eye and cut off that offending hand? Or would you claim that you are so pure that you have never "offended"?
What part did they eat...Jesus was using it at the time..
Dorothy believed if she clicked her heels together she would get home
Faith in faith saves no one, nor does it transport Dorothy home,having faith in something that was physically IMPOSSIBLE because someone said so,is not faith it is foolishness.
Jesus stood LIVING ...His blood coursing through His veins ... His flesh intact ...Jesus was Human , needing all those body parts..he was fully human and could not be in 2 places at once
His words should have caused rebellion, for the sinless Savior was inviting them to sin WITH HIM by breaking Levitical law ... that would mean He could not have saved us on the cross, because He would have been a sinner ...no more "spotless lamb "
It is so strange that Romanists mock the idea of salvation by faith alone and yet trust their eternity to men ..“Sola Eccliesia”.
This superficial construance is consistent with your usual strawmen, but if a Prot said that then they would be, and have been, corrected as misrepresenting RC Eucharistic theology, and thus a RC should be the one to correct you here.
For rather than consuming the bloody flesh of Christ the way "eat my flesh" would convey in Scripture and in life if literal, and as per other miracles of physical change, so that water made wine was chemically wine and in appearance and taste (which literalism i believe RnMomof7 refers to), the RCs understanding of how the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is rather Aristotelian. As a RC explains,
Yes, Catholics do believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood. Sort of. The "sort of" is because the technicalities of it go back to Aristotelian philosophy, which greatly influenced Thomas Aquinas, who is still in many ways the preeminent theologian of the Catholic Church...
I [Aquinas in Summa Theologica] answer that, The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority...
It is more characteristic of Christ's love for us that he would find a way to actually be with us, not just to be represented among us.
So, yes; Catholics believe that the bread and wine are substantially (in a couple of different senses) transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This belief is part of a longstanding interpretation of Scripture, and writings of the early Church fathers. Catholics do not, however, consider themselves to be cannibals, because the "accidents" of the bread and wine (the ingredients, the flavor, the shape, and so on) are not those of Christ Himself. (http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30323/do-catholics-believe-that-they-are-actually-eating-the-body-of-christ-does-this)
And from a RC monk and defender:
Neoplatonic thought or at least conceptual terms are clearly interwoven with Christian theology long before the 13th century...
The doctrine of transubstantiation completely reverses the usual distinction between being and appearance, where being is held to be unchanging and appearance is constantly changing. Transubstantiation maintains instead that being or substance changes while appearance remains unchanged. Such reversals in the order of things are affronts to reason and require much, not little, to affirm philosophically. Moreover, transubstantiation seem to go far beyond the simple distinction between appearance and reality. It would be one thing if the body and blood of Christ simply appeared to be bread and wine. But I don’t think that is what is claimed with “transubstantiation.”
Aristotle picked up just such common-sense concepts as “what-it-is-to-be-X” and tried to explain rather complex philosophical problems with them. Thus, to take a “common-sense” concept like substance–even if one could maintain that it were somehow purified of Aristotelian provenance—and have it do paradoxical conceptual gymnastics in order to explain transubstantiation seems not to be not so anti-Aristotelian in spirit after all...
That the bread and wine are somehow really the body and blood of Christ is an ancient Christian belief—but using the concept of “substance” to talk about this necessarily involves Greek philosophy (Br. Dennis Beach, OSB, monk of St. John’s Abbey; doctorate in philosophy from Penn State; http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/05/30/transubstantiation-and-aristotle-warning-heavy-philosophy)
Edwin Hatch:
...it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ. The fact that they were so regarded is found in Justin Martyr. But at the same time, that the change was not vividly realized, is proved by the fact that, instead of being regarded as too awful for men to touch, the elements were taken by the communicants to their homes and carried about with them on their travels. (Hatch, Edwin, 1835-1889, "The influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian church;" pp. 308-09 https://archive.org/stream/influenceofgreek00hatc/influenceofgreek00hatc_djvu.txt)
In Sacred Games: A History of Christian Worship, Bernhard Lang argues that, “When in late antiquity the religious elite of the Roman Empire rethought religion and ritual, the choice was not one between Mithraism and Christianity (as Ernest Renan suggested in the 19th century) but between pagan Neoplatonism and Neoplatonic Christianity.”
“In the third century CE, under the leadership of Plotinus, Plato’s philosophy enjoyed a renaissance that was to continue throughout late antiquity. This school of thought had much in common with Christianity: it believed in one God (the “One”), in the necessity of ritual, and in the saving contact with deities that were distinct from the ineffable One and stood closer to humanity. Like Judaism and Christianity, it also had its sacred books–the writings of Plato, and, in its later phase, also the Chaldean Oracles. In fact, major early Christian theologians–Origen, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysus–can at the same time be considered major representatives of the Neoplatonic school of thought.” - (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/cosmostheinlost/2014/04/08/early-churchs-choice-between-neoplatonism)
Unlike all other miracles of physical change, the transubstantiation bread and wine consumed at the Last Supper would not have looked, tasted or tested as being the actual body and blood of Christ.
Note the the so-called "Eucharistic miracles" do not teach what Eucharistic theology teaches, while i think they have as much or less credibility then even the Raelian scientists who claim to have tested they tested some consecrated hosts. (http://atheistcreationist.org/news/dna-analysis-of-consecrated-sacramental-bread-refutes-catholic-transubstantiation-claim.html)