Transubstantiation!!

Correction...everyone "got tripped up" because everyone (other than docetists/gnostics) believed in the real presence from the beginning.

 

By what authority--your interpretation of Scripture? What makes you think that your interpretation is better (or more authoritative) than theirs, considering there was consensus (among orthodox Christians) in believing in the real presence from the beginning?

 

Isaiah 40:6-7
All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: 7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.

Does this mean that all of our flesh is grass ?

There is no word "like"

 

Communion is holding a wake for Jesus with nothing special happening?

 

It isn't even a valid verse for comparison. If you are going to use another verse to try and understand a verse you are having trouble understanding at least use one that is written in a similar literary style. The prophecies in Isaiah are largely written in a poetic picturest style where as the gospel accounts and Paul are written on a more literal style. If you are going to try and compare the accounts of the Institution with anything you are going to have to compare it with the related passages in the Synoptic Gospels. Comparing a literal historical account with a prophecy written in poetic language is only going to create more confusion.

When you compare the words of the institution with the other words of Christ in the Synoptics there is a marked difference between the times He speaks literally and when He speaks figuratively. When Christ speaks figuratively He generally predicates it with " _______ is like"

 

Let the residue of the blood in the cup be tested ! and the residue of the bread be tested to prove whether they are blood and flesh !

Pardon my intrusion, but I watch EWTN regularly, because I do admire the faith of some of the priests on that channel, even if I do not agree with much of their doctrine. I believe it was Father Pacwa (not sure if I spelled his name right) who claimed that a test would reveal nothing, because it was a matter of faith; the outward appearance would always be bread and wine, but the real essence would be the body and blood of Christ. A nice way of precluding further argument on that basis.

 

The Church Fathers were not free from sin. On the contrary Peter denied our Lord a few hours after Jesus told him he would. Origen a church father said this of the Trinity

I'm not suggesting Origen was a wicked godless sinner. He did some great work and was a defender of the faith. But he had his problems. Just because a church father believes something does not mean I'm going to.

 

The way the RCC describes transubstantiation is that the elements retain the "accidents" (structure, taste, texture, molecular build up) of bread and wine while changing into the "substance" or essence of Christ.

So testing the elements would result in testing the "accidents" of their elements.

 

The Church Fathers were not free from sin. </font>[/QUOTE]And you are? Why else should we trust your interpretation over theirs?

 

Can we not say that we eat the body of Christ and drink the blood of Christ, without saying that Bread turned into flesh and Wine turned into Blood?

Which denomination else than Holy Roman Catholic say that the Bread and Wine are converted by the prayer of the priests?

The main issue and difference is the change of the substance by the Prayer of the Priests, which is a kind of Magic Performance !

 

Yes we can and we should say that we eat the body of Christ and drink His Blood when we take communion. Whether that's physically as well as spiritually is pretty much a non-issue for me.

Perhaps you believe all of Jesus' miracles to be a "kind of Magic Performance".

 

I'm not suggesting Origen was a wicked godless sinner. He did some great work and was a defender of the faith. But he had his problems. Just because a church father believes something does not mean I'm going to. </font>[/QUOTE]Origen indeed expressed some things that were deemed heretical. However, if you notice, I said that it was the consensus of patristic belief (not merely an isolated speculation of an individual churchman) that the Eucharist was truly the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ (ie "Real Presence"). Such was the consensus for the first 1500 years of the church.

 

...and indeed for most of the church beyond that time

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Where did I deny that all the miracles of Jesus were magic performance?

It is absolutely false accusation and groundless Slander which was often tactics of the Inquisitors !

The reason why I call the Transubstantiation as the Magic Performance by Priests is because none of the priests proved that Bread and Wine have transubstiantiated by their prayer.

You may say that the miracles of Jesus cannot be proven. But Bible proves it and the Bible doesn't classify between Laymen and Priests at all while it says everyone is Priest in 1 Pet 2:5-9.
The miracles by Jesus were recognized by so many people at that time. These days, if Catholic want it, they can prove it by allowing the substance to be tested at the laboratories, which they never did so far. Therefore I say that they are claiming that they do miracles, which actually do not exist.

This is why I say to you again, You are making false accusation and slandering against me, which proves you are not the true believer at all !

 

Since when was 'perhaps' an 'accusation'? You were saying that what Catholics regard as a miracle you regard as a 'magic performance'; I was quite understandably asking whether you view all miracles in this way.

However, you accusing me of not being a true 'believer' is defamatory, and I would ask you to retract it forthwith.

[BTW it's not slander if it is written even if it was an accusation; slander can only be spoken. Do try to keep up.]

 

That is my discernment and I would maintain it.

Inquisitors often slandered that way.

Even though I didn't deny the miracles of Jesus, you say that perhaps I am denying the miracles.

Inquisitors often accused the true believers when they denied calling Mary Mother of God as denying Deity of Jesus

 

True, that.