Re: Transubstantiation Error

brachypodium wrote:
> 
> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Robin at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 6/10/03 9:00 pm:
> 
> >
> > "brachypodium" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> From: "Christopher Robin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio
> >>> Newsgroups:
> >>>
> > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,alt.sci.phenomena.unusual,sci.psycholo
> > gy
> >>> .personality,sci.techniques.testing.misc
> >>> Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:25:51 GMT
> >>> Subject: Re: Transubstantiation Error
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "brachypodium" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cunneen)
> >>>>> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> >>>>> Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
> >>>>> Date: 05 Oct 2003 08:44:04 GMT
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Transubstantiation Error
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What evidence is there that bread and wine are God, here, today? It
> > is
> >>>>>> insufficient to take 'God's word' for it, unless His words can be
> > shown
> >>> to
> >>>>>> mean without doubt that bread and wine are God, or can be God. That
> > has
> >>>>>> never been done. So what practical tests can be applied to show that
> >>> bread
> >>>>>> and wine are, or can be, God? Suggestions are invited from any, but
> > in
> >>>>>> particular from accredited behavioural scientists, psychologists and
> >>> workers
> >>>>>> in related fields.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Peter
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jesus' own words,<
> >>>>
> >>>> Jesus did not make any statement that supports transubstantiation.
> >>> Luke 22:19, Matthew 26:26, John 6:32-66, 1 Cor 10:16, 1 Cor 11:23-27<
> >>
> >> You must be aware that I am aware of these verses; so I wonder why you
> >> merely referenced them.
> >>
> > I'm not sure you're aware of them at all, since you made that statement.
> > Perhaps you meant that your interpretation of what Jesus said doesn't
> > support Transubstantiation?  You claimed he made no statement that supports
> > Transubstantiation, I gave you 3 places in the Gospels, as well as 2 in
> > Paul's writings that appear to disagree with you.<
> 
> If you knew that they only appear to disagree, it was ingenuous of you to
> give the impression that they did disagree.  All educated people are aware
> that there is longstanding 'top level' disagreement about this, so if you
> wish to take up the challenge seriously, rather than keep up the Catholic
> 'quote and run' tradition, you will need a lot more than mere references.
> Are you merely hoping that there will be a reader who is unaware of this
> major difference in beliefs? Is it only the gullible and their deceivers who
> become Catholics?
> 
> Peter


it would be far more gullible to pretend there is a "longstanding 'top
level' disagreement" on the macro issue of Christ's presence in the
elements. Prior to the Reformation, there was no debate on the issue:
the presence of Christ in the elements is as old as recorded church
history, and affirmed by all streams of Christianity prior to murderers
like Calvin. 

All these churches, most all of whom trace themselves to founding by the
apostles, affirm the doctrine:

Armenian Orthodox church. Anti-Catholic. Rejects the primacy of the
Bishop of Rome. Founded 303 AD--before Constantine, before Nicea, and
broke from the Catholic church 600 years before the eastern orthodox.

Greek orthodox church. Anti-Catholic. Rejects the primacy of the Bishop
of Rome. Founded by Paul and the apostles in the 1st century.

The Syrian orthodox church. Anti-Catholic. Rejects the primacy of the
Bishop of Rome. Founded by Peter in the 1st century.

Malankara orthodox church. Anti-Catholic. Rejects the primacy of the
Bishop of Rome. Founded by Thomas in the 1st century.

Coptic church. Founded by Mark in the 1st century.


So, it is those who deny  the presence of Christ in the eucharist who
teach a revisionist doctrione at variance witb that of the historic
Christian faith