Just more indoctrination ...
Rome has no "authority"
We have great commentary, traditions, the bible, and the catechism to answer questions in regards to matters of faith.
Could you link us the the infallible commentary written by the magisterium? (Pass I think not because your "teaching arm" has never written an INFALLIBLE commentary of the entire bible )..any commentatary you may have is simply the fallible work of men
Says WHO?
Surely not the Lord of the Universe!
That is not the issue.
Can you even UNDERSTAND what the central-most issue WAS???
Can you understand what the differences in conceptual approach to the Lord's Supper are?
THAT was the issue.
This is not about ---- What YOU believe.
This is not about whether you think I "have authority" or not, either.
Your own personal opinion as for those, is truly neither here nor there.
What I was trying to get to -- was simple acknowledgement of what it is that others believe--- how that differs from what it appears to myself that many Roman Catholics believe, yet how scripture can be claimed to support either & both, even within Roman Catholicism, itself. This dual nature of understandings is itself part of the larger overall problem.
What I mean by that is;
The descriptions leave things to be able to be understood (from Roman Catholic perspective) resulting in either; corporeal "flesh & blood" type of thinking, even though that flesh be at all times entirely invisible, not subject to being tasted, touched, smelled, or otherwise AT ALL discerned ----
OR
--- a view which may be more as Orthodox view, the Liturgy itself including the invitation to the Spirit of the Lord to inhabit/become, or else simply BE the sacramental bread -- and that change be Great Mystery, one to be spiritually discerned.
At this point perhaps a Catholic could ask themself --- how on earth could that which is physical, corporeal existence & "presence" if you will, be subject to needing be spiritually discerned --- if the bread is as human flesh & blood, as you seem to be arguing for?
How also could one eat of truly present, physical human flesh (as we more typically understand human "flesh" to be) and NOT gain nutritional sustenance from doing so (beyond what nutritional value may be available by the physical substance of the wafer itself, the remaining 'accident' as it were), thus the human being eating of it, nutritionally speaking, by natural digestive processes --- profit from it?
Is He passed into the draught (after exiting digestive tract/lower intestine) entirely undigested?
If any other form of actual flesh (meat) is bodily consumed...then the flesh (our own flesh) profits from it.
Hence the reason behind why John 6:63 (among many other aspects of Scripture) points directly away from anything of a corporeal flesh, carnal [see definition 3] interpretation of John 6.
This also is why I also provided for discussion, in extra large font (in hopes you would not miss it!) verses 61 & 62, from John 6. What will they say after he "goes back to where He was once before!", he asked them. And where was He before, but with the Father in heaven? There is no need for Jesus to again become flesh & blood literally to simply be, sacramentally & truly present as, and/or within the thanksgiving bread of remembrance.
There are more than few Roman Catholics who know exactly what I'm talking about here ---- and agree with me in this, regardless if back in the 16th century, spiritual/pneumatic sort of view when expressed by Protestant Reformers was all but condemned by the a few RCC popes...
Popes are not infallible. They never have been. Even the Apostle Peter was not beyond some amount of correction.
I got about as far as this in further skimming of your seemingly non-answer reply;
I have perfect authority to bear witness for those things the Lord has done for ---- myself, directly.
Anyone else claiming equal or greater 'authority' for those particular, and highly limited *things* would need to be speaking prophetically, to have greater insight...
But there it in your [above] quoted statement --- the open confession that as a "Catholic", you are incapable or else unwilling to LISTEN to others.
It's just like I said, originally. It looks like I'm batting near a 1.000 here...
One can listen well enough to understand what an argument being made actually is, without necessarily agreeing with it. Yet you had accused me of not listening to 'Catholics" for my own not agreeing...when it is yourself who won't listen closely enough to even seemingly understand what it is which is being casually dismissed.
Yet a bit further on I see that you eventually addressed the central question---almost
For that was supplied as reply, directly below your having accurately enough quoted the central point of the question, which was;
Is the "Eucharistic flesh" (to use the term which you supplied) composed of human flesh (and blood)
Do you realize that there are [Roman] Catholics who do not hold identical view, that upon consecration the wafer is turned into something of (for lack of more precise term) corporeal flesh, rather than this be by spirit (even though truly and actually present as being the 'transformed' bread)?
One freeper here who confesses to this not-"corporeal flesh", but spiritual presence view --- is a Roman Catholic priest, and another that I know of has been an RCIA instructor for decades. The latter is also one of the foremost RC apologists on the pages of the FR religion forum...
What's up with this [below] false set-up?
What gives YOU authority to tell me to, first;
as for a limited portion of John 6, to then lay one me this false dilemma;
Those of the early Church were not restricted in that manner, for that way leads to utter silence. Sorry Charlie, that's not the way it works...and being as those of the Church spoke as the spirit gave them utterance, then as a Christian who has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (as I previously included some brief note of explanation for in comment #93) I myself have direct access to that same authority, and am also otherwise perfectly free to speak, without my own speech by default run contrariwise to the principle of sola scriptura -- as that one 'sola' fits among four others, as something of a tool of measurement & guidance. This is one of the oldest principles in the book. Try Deuteronomy 6:8 on for size, for starters...
I understand that Catholics wish to replace that with sola ecclesia (whatever we say) instead -- but that false sola is even less well supported in Scripture and earliest Church traditions both than the worst case scenario which can be made out contrary to sola scriptura -- for the earliest (perceived to be) heresies were combated not by claims to 'authority', even Apostolic authority, as much as when both sides of an issue could equally invoke the same authority, then Scripture itself would need be the infallible guide.
But you wish to speak of 'authority' while including your own self among a royal "we"? Really.
Have you ever prophesied a single solitary thing? I have, and those things did come to pass. That is the larger portion of the test.
Has the Lord ever spoken to yourself -- directly? He has to my own self, in myriad ways...
Have you ever laid hand upon & prayed for another to be healed -- and they were? I have.
Have you ever cast a demonic spirit out from another? The Lord has used myself to do so, in the past...
All those confirming signs -- that I walk with *some* true authority --- and what do YOU yourself personally have to compare with all of that --- and I haven't even told you all that there is of my own testimony!
Yet here I speak my own mind, not claiming infallible authority, and/or a "thus sayeth the Lord" sort of thing, though if you ever catch sight of myself doing so --- I would advise to pay close attention --- and let the Spirit be your own guide (in comparison to ---"oh, this is coming from a "protestant" so must be dismissed out of hand").
If one prophesy, let another judge. Not--- if one prophesy, if they are not part of your own sola ecclesia then it must be dismissed out-of-hand. That's the way the Jewish religious authorities were at times, way back when.
You did in this very note to which I now reply, instruct me to "listen to the spirit", did you not?
What happens when the Spirit of the Lord leads, guides, directs, or else otherwise 'speaks' to me? Did you not just allude that such a thing was possible -- for myself?
If such is not possible for one such as myself, then would that not render what you just required of myself an impossible demand?
A bit more consistency & intellectual integrity on your own part, would be helpful...
The principle of 'sola scriptura' is not necessarily SOLO scriptura. It was most certainly was not that narrowly SOLO for Martin Luther, Calvin, and hosts of others since .
I'm sorry, but your own way of propping up (and attacking) sola scriptura, is false strawman sort of application of erroneous assumption, of what under best understanding, is the best definition of what that principle is (and what it is not).
It should be left to the adherents of this principle of sola scriptura to best define what it is (and what it is not).
Yourself, and every other single Roman Catholic alive today, and all who have ever been alive since perhaps the Great Schism are the ones who truly lack authority to define (or should we better, more accurately say, re-define) the principle of sola scriptura -- for that was brought about, renewed from original & early Church tradition --- not by RC theologians, but by yet other Christians.
If papist Catholics here continually reserve the right to define their own beliefs -- then in this particular side-issue, the best working definitions of the principles of sola scriptura should be left to those who do make effort to adhere to/observe that principle.
It is not myself who acted the parrot. That's all you.
I am a man.
The rest of your mish-mash of reply isn't worth the trouble to attempt to untangle, then re-straighten.
The mass of erroneous assumptions underlying the most primary foundations of your arguments here, are rotten, and crumbling, like decomposed granite (sand) on a beach.
Like this;
What's this "we" stuff? Does that include YOU?
It is yourself who has little to no true authority.
I have more authority than yourself.
As example --- I freepmailed Mark Bsnr (a Catholic freeper now passed away) and informed him that the Spirit of the Lord had revealed to me that his time (living) upon earth was at the time I contacted him, very short...like ... five, six, or seven months (tops) and then --- he would die.
He replied (graciously enough) that the doctors had given him about two to three months left to live.
I'm part of the real and actual Church, right now.
Are you?
So far, I can't tell that you truly are, other than for yourself sounding like/coming across to me, as a cracker eating PARROT of RCC apologetic.
I have no need for the assembly of such balderdash.
If the RCC has 'authority' comparable to the original Apostles -- then they must walk in it, and do the work (& perform the same miracles!) as those Apostles did.
Or trim back the overweening claims to their own alleged authority.
Claims like this, rather beg an entire host of questions;
Horsefeathers!
The catechism of the Roman Catholic Church was not written by Jesus Christ.
There are many items among and amid Roman Catholicism which defy Scripture and earliest Church traditions BOTH!
Trying to deny that fact runs contrary to even Rome's own biblical/historical scholars, although those persons have devised cunning methods of explanation to account for the differences.
Sorry pal, but on hosts of issues (pun intended) the Roman Catholic Church lies like a rug, all over the room.
Take your own Alinsky socialism Catholicism, and your liberation theology-tinged South American Jesuit pope, and go pound sand -- build the little castles (in imagination) of how utterly perfect & flawless Roman Catholicism is, and those fantasies will all eventually crumble, as assuredly as Mohammed was absolutely NOT a prophet of the Most High (God).