Replies

Evangelicals don’t passionately insist they are literally covered, right now, with real actual blood (lamb or not). Ever.

Catholics, time & again, insist that what they’re consuming transubstantiates into REAL ACTUAL BLOOD OF CHRIST HIMSELF. They’ll go so far as insist that the Eucharist is, in literal absolute factual physical truth, a time-and-space transcending extension of the actual crucifixion and death of Christ, that they are in every sense participating in sacrificing Him (not “receiving the sacrifice”, but no less than those actually killing Him). I’ve checked out the actual teachings, which say exactly that...at least until one points out the total preposterousness of the notion, at which point it’s totally spiritual/symbolic (and therefore I’m being specious)...and the two completely incompatible notions are held simultaneously as though there is absolutely no conflict and not even the appearance thereof. Surely looks like a conspiracy of sophistries to me.

Evangelicals don’t passionately insist they are literally covered, right now, with real actual blood (lamb or not). Ever.

My point was this: merely taking technical terms, and running off with them in a half-understood way, doesn't lead to anything reasonable. More on that, below.

Catholics, time & again, insist that what they’re consuming transubstantiates into REAL ACTUAL BLOOD OF CHRIST HIMSELF.

Minor correction: the bread and wine have ALREADY BEEN transubstantiated (i.e. changed in substance) from "bread and wine" into the "Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ". The change happened before the consumption.

They’ll go so far as insist that the Eucharist is, in literal absolute factual physical truth, a time-and-space transcending extension of the actual crucifixion and death of Christ,

Depending on whether you mean those terms in the way that I do: yes, that's true. Every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (a.k.a. "Mass", for short) is a literal "re-presentation" (in an unbloody manner) of the death of Our Lord on Calvary. Our redemption was an eternal act, done by the Eternal God, Who is beyond time and space; it's no more strange to think of us "being literally present at Calvary" (albeit sacramentally) than it is to think of Jesus' death saving the lives of people who lived 2000+ years BEFORE and AFTER He died.

that they are in every sense participating in sacrificing Him (not “receiving the sacrifice”, but no less than those actually killing Him)

I'm not sure who told you that; at best, it's misleading and inaccurate, and it's very casual/sloppy with important technical terms. In one sense, we "killed" Jesus, because it was our sins for which He died (no Protestant would argue against that point, I think); but it would be incorrect (and bizarre) to say that the Mass is any sort of "new participation in killing Him".

I’ve checked out the actual teachings, which say exactly that...

I'm not sure what you're regarding as "actual teachings"; can you give me links to (or quotes from) the Catechism of the Catholic Church which say exactly what you said?

at least until one points out the total preposterousness of the notion, at which point it’s totally spiritual/symbolic (and therefore I’m being specious)...and the two completely incompatible notions are held simultaneously as though there is absolutely no conflict and not even the appearance thereof.

Well... one has the responsibility to double-check one's data, to be sure that one isn't accepting a straw-man as "true". I think the people who wrote your sources were a bit confused, at very least.

Surely looks like a conspiracy of sophistries to me.

I can't speak for what private individuals write, about the Church; I (personally) have read many bizarre, and even heretical, things which purported to explain "Catholic teaching"--but which a 2-minute search of the Catechism would prove wrong.