Besides, ealgeone didn't ask or make inquiry, which renders the remainder of the statement after the portion which admits that you "found" what follows;
to be superfluous, for again -- that person asked nothing, made no inquiry.
I think most of us here have seen ALL the Roman Catholic arguments.
It's time that some Catholics around here began to LISTEN, instead of knee-jerk reflexively LECTURE.
More boilerplate explanations, at this point, serve no one well.
If one is aiming at merely others, the so-called "lurkers" alone, hoping to provide LECTURE to those persons, doing so at expense of actual discussion & conversation, then how could that not be seen as just so much lop-sided lecturing & hectoring conducted at the expense of the one to whom the note is addressed?
This sort of thing is poor argumentation;
Jesus turned one substance into another -- water into being actual wine. And the people remarked that it was better than what they had been drinking, but which had "failed".
Does the wine one drinks at "Eucharist" ceremony taste like blood?
Yes, or no. Answer the question, in your own mind.
The answer is no, isn't it?
Were they all literally drinking blood at the Last Supper?
If not -- then where, oh where is the transformation of "substance" comparable to the transformation of water into wine?
It's simply not there...for the wine they were drinking remained wine.
Anachronistic application of Aristotelian substance and accident arguments cannot apply there (those were not a part of Hebrew religious consciousness, for one thing) if those include some conceptualization of "real and actual" (but invisible!) transformation of "substance" leaving "accident" to remain.
That cannot apply at the same time one drags in comparison of water being truly (and simply!) transformed into wine, for it is not as if those of that wedding party remarked that "hey, it looks like water, still smells like water...but what a fine wine it is!".
Where is the transforming of "substance" in accounts of the Last Supper, save for in the minds of Roman Catholics who project that specialized interpretations onto the texts? It's not there in Luke, the scripture itself argues against anachronistic, backwards imposition/application of theological developments (slight and subtle, but significant changes) which arose over centuries among the RCC, in this regard...
Perhaps you'd care to try your hand at defining the word substance?
I suggest that you do so, although I already know of the various usages, and how the Grecian philosophical applications became intertwined & part of Roman Catholic descriptions of communion remembrances & RC church theological descriptions & ceremony...with it beginning perhaps with borrowing from Alexandrian church usages of the philosophical conceptualizations of substance and essence used by Athanasius in his own efforts of description of the relationship each of the three 'persons' of the Trinity shared with one another.
He didn't HAVE TO say "this is a symbol" for it would be well enough understood that at least in one sense, Jesus was speaking symbolically, while He was speaking also in context of Hebrew religious sensibilities/understanding in regards to the Passover, which they had been observing/celebrating, for only a couple of thousand years, by that time...
The root of the term "Eucharist" can be understood in today's English as "thanksgiving".
Thanksgiving...flesh.
And just what is this "flesh" composed of for us, in our own observance of this Passover sacrifice which was made for us, even bodily so by this one we know of as --- Jesus?
OR---
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?
I will note here again that the term "Real Presence" capitalized as such is thought to have arisen among so-called 'Protestants', when those persons were struggling to best define and speak of just how the Lord is (and can be found) truly present in what many 'Protestants' term the Lord's Supper, or else Holy Communion --- with Him understood to be present by spirit rather than by way of corporeal, human "flesh".
Do you understand what I'm saying here?
You absolutely must address the substance of the above questions -- or else this conversation will go nowhere, & fast. (think I'm tough customer now? just try to ignore the substance of my arguments here regarding "substance", and the questions regarding the same, and this note would look like a love letter in comparison to how I will likely reply to yet more parroting of cut & past RC apologetic.)
Jesus gave His own "real blood" on the Cross.
This do in remembrance of me, He said.
Examine again if you will Luke 22, bearing in mind to fullest extent possible the Hebrew context in which Christ being the bread and blood of the New Covenant was spoken of.
Let us first examine Luke 22:17-18.
Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you,[b] I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
Notice that He said "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine...". He did not say "I will no longer drink of MY OWN BLOOD".
So much for "transubstantiation".
It was not happening THERE. The wine remained wine (NOT TRANSUBSTANTIATED!) while in comparison, the water referenced previously did not remain as it was...yet was transformed into being actual wine...
Can you see now why I said that one part in particular of RC apologetic which you copied from elsewhere was "poor argumentation"? The wine remained wine, with the comparison to the water being turned to wine not applying in that first and intial instance of Jesus Christ HIMSELF presiding over the Passover meal (!). Yet we're supposed to accept this sort of argument (such as you have brought to these pages) as having validity? Rome is full of ITSELF, instead of the the actual & objective truth, as it continually attempts to browbeat any and all within earshot that it does.
Thank GOD that nowadays, *they* can't sic the powers of State upon a person for daring to disagree with their own wild & exaggerated claims they make for themselves.
It is obvious enough that Jesus was speaking figuratively as for the physical, material 'substance' of both the bread and the wine intangibly being His own body.
Yet by spirit, He can be known to ourselves when partaking of communion, tangibly [see listed definition #1] discernible, but only by spirit John 6:63;
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
That is more powerful than the usual RCC apologetic quoted from your wall-of-text copy/past which attempts to assert that He was not speaking figuratively of the Hebrew Passover bread & wine.
Yet still, He can be discerned as present, as BEING as it were, the bread and the wine, in spirit & in truth, far beyond mere 'sacramental truth' of religious & theological conceptualizations.
I have encountered Him in that way while partaking of communion (among other "ways" I have encountered the Spirit of the Lord, including having Him be present within myself at all times, regardless of my own lack of fully measuring up to Him in comparison, and/or being fully aligned with Him), yet encounter Him there not at the hand of some so-called (and hireling) "priest", of the Church of Rome.
That I am able to meet with the Lord in that way, that He (at times, noticeably, discernibly) comes in and supps with me, and I with Him (as it is written, Revelation 3:20, as your copy/paste presentation included mention of) disproves the contention of a few of your co-religionists who maintain that this can occur only among "Catholics".
Yet if one were to listen to the words of the more bigoted of [Roman] Catholics --- they say that such cannot be, because it (the Lord's Supper) was not presided over by one of their own 'priests" -- as if the Spirit of the Lord would bypass a true believer for reason that He did not get the permission of Roman Catholic priesthood to visit and commune with the faithful, wherever those may be found.
What are he and yourself, in this context arguing for? Is it for corporeal, physical human flesh & blood presence?
If so, then that is blasphemous theological error which the Church of Rome owns, lock, stock & barrel.
Can you hear me now?
This same or similar conversation has been going on for centuries...(I could provide links to old books which delve into this subject from Anglican perspective, but never mind that, for the moment).
Do you have any idea of just how damaging to the wider, truly universal (catholic) church, the wording and hard-headed stubbornness of the Church of Rome's descriptions (since the Council of Trent) of what they refer to among themselves as 'Eucharist' has been?
It has set the stage for widespread disbelief, and needlessly so, with this coming about for reason of the RCC's own overweening need for control of all descriptive language and all 'thought', much more than for reason of preaching the Gospel of Christ.
One the one side there are [Roman] Catholic seemingly arguing for corporeal "presence", yet are so ignorant in their own extensive parroting of the theological terminology it makes one wonder if *they* (many? or seemingly *most* of them) have ever truly been born again/born from above -- AT ALL.
While presently, on the other hand, seeming to be receding into history (to an extent) are those Anglicans and others (including more than a few so-called "pentecostal" types) who bear personal witness of His presence & ministering to them individually & corporately, in the partaking of that thanksgiving, memorial meal, and that presence being what men such as Calvin termed "pneumatic" (spiritual) presence...and the Lutherans, leaning upon Luther, who himself leaned upon and borrowed language from millennia previous Church Council to then speak of Christ being present (by way of His spirit) as "con-substantial" with the bread of thanksgiving.
Yet Rome, in those days, condemned such descriptions, anathematizing those who would speak of that part of religious ceremony & observance -- BECAUSE --- they (Rome) were not in control of it, thus their own power over people & society was challenged.
For long (and dark) centuries Rome lorded it over anyone and everyone they could. Those days are gone, never again to return, my FRiend.
Face the facts.
The bishopric of Rome has been all but entirely passed on to others, for those others to carry.
Rome can have a small portion (and spread thin) but cannot rule and run roughshod over others, EVER AGAIN, no matter how strenuously they try to reach for that...
24 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. 25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ 26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. 27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.