I am a Christian, and I know the Lord, that's why you should at least listen long enough to understand what I'm saying, instead of apparently dismissing it out of hand.
For myself, this is not just some academic exercise where I'm merely relying upon opinions of others, although I am well enough apprised of opinions of others in this matter to understand those opinions, including what seems to be presently circulating among the RCC in this regard, what used to be written of about this, and what the basic theological implications are, for what differences there are...
SAME TO YOU!
Did you not just claim in other comment on this thread, that the argument (the apologetic) which you presented was "all scriptural"???
And I touched upon biblical foundation reasons for viewing the thanksgiving meal in ways other than carnal, corporeal flesh sort of view. I even supplied links to dictionary definitions of the words I was using, as I used those. Was that not enough?
If myself having tried to get you to think about this issue, is "an attack against the Catholic faith" then it deserves to be attacked.
Or at least -- honestly questioned & then explored/examined, which I did take pains to do, narrowly, and to precise aspect of one issue (communion bread, transubstantiation, etc.) in particular, getting quite specific about differences.
If what I presented to you, from such a closely related Christian perspective as was my own basis, is "an attack on the Catholic faith" in your world -- then I must ask -- what type & color panties do the men wear there -- for they must all be sissified, prissy pansies if mere talking about it is "attack".
You argue like an emotional liberal...(go ahead, Salvation, sic the moderator on me --- or at least try, but first --- scroll up and see that I'm just returning the ill-favor right back to where it came from!).
Perhaps I moved too fast, covered too much theological ground? Am I speaking over your head? (Polly want a cracker?)
Now you are mind-reading, for I myself said no such thing, as far as this particular conversation goes -- while you are still not addressing the central issue.
Yet this is the way it is just_about_every_single_time I attempt to communicate with a FRoman. *They* can't step out of the cocoon, it seems. Except to stick the head out and try to bite whoever it is that knocks on the doors, unless one comes to them hat-in-hand, like some beggar...(even then the results are most often entirely underwhelming -- which is why I gave up on trying to "be nice" to those who don't stinking care --- to be honest!)
I DID "listen" to the so-called "reasoned points" and showed you how a few of those were not so well reasoned, after all. Can't YOU READ?
What followed from there on from you, was not anything like approaching honest debate in regards to the principle of "sola scriptura", but it WAS and is what is termed "moving the goal posts", or else a "dragging it off into the bushes", changing the focus away from the previously "reasoned points" which I did address -- but which you have not lifted one tiny pinky finger to touch upon, other than to have initially brought to these pages copy/paste parroting of argumentation assembled by others, from elsewhere...
I've seen the whole schmear (of the entire set of RC apologetic) thousands of times, right here on these pages. Day in, day out, it rarely changes...
Now--- address the issue -- answer/address the questions which I raised previously. No more little games.
Is the "Eucharistic flesh" (to use the term which you supplied) composed of human flesh (and blood) JUST AS WE OTHERWISE KNOW OF THAT ---
OR
Does some other meaning better fit the evidence?
Do you recall the context in which I referred to;
What does that mean, to you? ANYthing?
What could Jesus have been driving at in regards to John 6:61-62, also? Must I need publish it all again in hopes that it will eventually be considered in any way other than 'Polly want a cracker, squaawk' type of gathering of noises, as in a 'I'll just repeat what I think the RC church believes' sort of thing...
Be honest here with the actual & central-most issues raised...answer honestly. Corporeal flesh, Christ "present" in the bread in that way, yes, or no. That would be a good place to start.
No more boilerplate RC apologetic parroting. Try going back and answering what I originally put to you.
Or else be just yet another Roman Catholic failure (failure to communicate, failure to engage, failure to DO ANYTHING BUT LECTURE!). Well that, and putting the onus entirely upon others whenever the going gets anything like a little bit tough, coupled with response composed mainly of some sort of personal attack, attack, attack upon the person and/or else "faith" of the messenger, instead of open and honest discussion of whatever issue it is at hand. You know, the typical FRoman Catholic FReeRepublic religion forum type of response. After many years of it --- I stay angry at those sort of cheap & shallow forum debate tactics.
You are aware that there are more than a few so-called "early church fathers" who wrote of "the body & blood" as that pertained to the thanksgiving & memorial, breaking of the bread -- to signify spiritual truth, rather than have been from the earliest beginnings thare have been anything like the doctrine of transubstantiation which can result in an understanding that Christ's "presence" be literal flesh & blood corporeal presence, don't you?
In light of such, there is plenty of room to consider/contemplate that many early church writers --- when they wrote of "the body & blood" of Christ & Eucharist (though they did not always use that precise term "eucharist", particularly from earliest centuries) could be well enough thought to have been speaking of both figurative & spiritual reality, rather than have been speaking of a corporeal flesh "presence"?
Yet this latter, this corporeal, human flesh & blood type of thinking, when taken from the Cross itself (and His life here on earth, which He truly gave) and applied to bread of remembrance is strangely literal from the likes of those who refuse to take "call no man father" for it's most plain and direct literal meaning. I guess that's asking too much, for to see it plainly (and where most all of the Church went wrong, from fairly early on) is just too much for some to consider, being that their own faith is not in God EXCEPT for how their own church describes Him, and spiritual truths to be.
I don't have that particular problem, for I know Him much more directly, then merely and only second hand, as it were...
2000 years of *thinking* about it, huh?
Well, guess what?
The thinking has not always been the same for those 2000 years.
AND ---
You never addressed the issues...
GO BACK.
Read what I initially wrote to you, and LISTEN. At least TRY to understand what it is I am driving at.
Otherwise, it's fully as if the argument was judged, before hearing it. Proverbs 18:13