Jesus told us it requires Faith to accept God’s revealed Truths even if we do not understand the supernatural mystery. Jesus declared to Peter that revelation came from “my Father who is in heaven”
Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him” (CCC 153), and not simply an opinion one has come to by some other means.
St. Thomas Aquinas helps us flesh out the implications of this Catholic view. He says that true faith is not simply assenting to what is known (Summa Theologiae II-II Q. 2 A.1); after all, demons do this, but they do not have faith.
Instead, faith requires an act of the will—not just the intellect. God does not reward or punish people for their knowledge, but for what they choose.
Christians can choose not to believe in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as taught by Jesus and the Catholic faith. Your comment: “No way, since as conclusively shown in the past, but ignored, this is simply not Scriptural”
I disagree with your opinion and I believe in the Words of Jesus.
And? I presume you think that you presenting an argument here but there simply is no argument here by pontificating on faith, as that is not contrary to what I said in post 55 which you are supposed to be responding, which is about the use of metaphors, nor against anything else I said.
For I made no arguments against what God can do, but as said, what God can do simply does not equate to proof of God doing what you can only imagine, and what I mainly reproved was the contortions that Catholicism must resort to in order to justify what they must resort to in their contrivances of the Lord's supper.
In miracles of God, while they can be contrary to the known laws of physics, yet when He healed someone then they were truly healed, and the wine that Christ made tasted (and I am sure would scientifically test to be just what is looked and tasted like. And Jesus body always looked and felt etc, human on earth to those who encountered Him, and never appeared as an inanimate object after His incarnation.
But rather than a strictly literal reading of the Lord's words of consecration at the last supper, which would mean the flesh and blood would look as human as it always did on earth, then since RC priests cannot confect this, then they must jump thru metaphysical hoops in order to justify how inanimate objects are the true body and blood of Christ, though unlike that of the incarnated Christ whose manifest physicality the Holy Spirit emphasizes (versus one whose appearance did not correspond to what He materially was), it is admitted that it would scientifically test to be just what is looks like, though Catholicism insist that what appears no longer exists.
Yet once this non-existent bread and or wine begins to visibly (for only the visible particles are said to be Christ) act (decaying) consistent with what the are, then the body of Christ which they are supposed to be no longer exists either under that form.
And if this was what the NT church believed then that would be manifest to be in Acts thru Revelation, which reveals how they understood the gospels, and the OT. with multiple mentions of the pastors conducting the Lord supper, and being charged and instructing in this "heart and summit of the Christian life..." the medicine of immortality... the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ, (CCC 1407, 1415) “a kind of consummation of the spiritual life," (Mysterium Fidei) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out.” (CCC 1364)
Yet there is not even one evident mention of the Lord's supper in Acts, and for which it can only be presumed that texts such as "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," (Acts 2:46) "When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed" (Acts 20:11) is a description of the Catholic Eucharist (but quite unlike any I experienced in over 1,000 Masses).
And aside from the mere mention of "feasts of charity" in Jude, then the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in one epistle, that of 1 Co. 10+11, in which (as described more fully in post #82 see, by the grace of God) the church is one bread. And not recognizing the body of Christ, the church, by acting contrary to what effectually remembering the Lord's death (which made them one with Him and each other) was contextually their sin which was reproved.
And rather than conducting the Eucharist being a unique active the ministry of Catholic priests, who offer it as a sacrifice for sins and provided to the flock as spiritual food, this is nowhere described in the inspired record of the NT church. Instead, as said, pastors (not Catholic priests) are commissioned to feed the flock by the same mean which Paul commend them to in Christ, to "the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)
For as said, the word of God is the only spiritual food described which gives life, being "milk" (1Pt. 2:2) and "meat" Heb. 5:12-14 by which one is nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up, (Acts 20:32) and who are to let the word of God dwell in them richly, and thereby teach others, (Col. 3:16) and with the preaching of it the evident means of feeding the flock. (Acts 20:28; cf. 2 Timothy 4:2)
Christians can choose not to believe in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as taught by Jesus and the Catholic faith. Your comment: “No way, since as conclusively shown in the past, but ignored, this is simply not Scriptural” I disagree with your opinion and I believe in the Words of Jesus.
And which once again means that your recourse to "begging the question" is an argument against being a Catholic, as are the rest of your attempted polemics. But this is what you chose to do by posting such provocative propaganda. It is up to you if you want to provoke more reproof.
May God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)