The Real Presence-the Eucharist

[PeaceByJesus]

If that was the sole source for the legitimacy of the papacy, your point would be more persuasive.

Since it merely refuted what you provided, as did my other responses, then your retort here is simply not persuasive.

I'm not sure where that's coming from. The Thessalonian jews studied the scriptures and rejected St. Paul's message. The Berean jews did likewise and accepted him. So apparently scripture cannot be the sole rule of faith or else surely the Thessalonian jews and the Berean jews would've reached the same conclusions, eh?

That is absurd, as it (as is the typical case with Caths) relies upon a misconstrued, strawman of SS, as if it were a crystal ball. The fact that people can different on what a defining document teaches, whether it be the Constitution or a dictionary, or papal statements, simply does not negate their authority as providing a standard.

RCs can disagree with that their church teaches, but which does not negate the position that for Rome what the church says is the supreme law, based upon the premise of her ensured veracity. (Providentissimus Deus)

And since there can be disagreements over Scripture, under SS the magisterial office is affirmed (Westminster Confession), but as with the beginning of the NT church, it is the weight of Scriptural substantiation that establishes veracity.

Not really sure why you're bringing this up since it doesn't relate to much of anything we've discussed in this thread.

Of course it relates to this thread. Either uyou ascertain the validity of a teaching based upon the evident warrant for it, or you trust the source due to its presumed veracity. Thus while something as the Assumption was so lacking in historical warrant that RC scholars were opposed to it (as saith Ratzinger) being made an article of faith, yet the RC has assurance of it since Rome infallibly defined it.

Yes, that's the passage Protestants are so fond of quoting. But, in context, it works against Sola Scriptura.

No it does not, except your strawman of SS. What source did Paul rely on to establish his truth claims? Did the noble Bereans accept what the apostles said because they said it, as a RC is to do with RC teaching, or did they subject it to a supreme standard in order to ascertain its validity, for they "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so"? Yes or no?

This is why St. Paul's episode in Thessalonia discussed earlier in Acts 17 typically gets ignored. The Thessalonian jews are called by St. Luke less noble than the Berean jews. The Berean jews were jews. The ancient jews had no concept of Sola Scriptura. It wouldn't have computed for them. Meanwhile, the Thessalonian jews listened to Paul for three weeks and compared his teachings to Sacred Scripture. Then they rejected him.

And which again in no way contradicts SS, except your strawman of it, as if a standard for faith and morals is negated as being so since some disagree on what it says. Which can be the case with any substantial standard or rule, as any lawyer can tell you.

If anybody in Acts 17 can be even vaguely called adherents of Sola Scriptura, it's the Thessalonian jews; not the Berean jews.

Wrong again, for nothing is said about the Thessalonian Jews searching the Scriptures and thus rejecting the message of Paul who "reasoned with them out of the scriptures," but is says they were "moved with envy" and persecuted Paul because "some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few." (Acts 17:2,4)
Likewise i can show Mormons that they are wrong from Scripture, but which is no way impugns the authority of Scripture.

??? If Catholic Answers agrees with me, I'm flattered (and encouraged!). But I typically link to their pages rather than knowingly attempt to regurgitate whatever they say.

Why be flattered by parroting such refuted polemics as this one, which comes from such sites?

By whose standard? Someone must interpret the scriptures.

And under SS we have pastors and teachers and "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith," (Westminster, XXXI) but the difference is btwn the veracity of what is taught being based upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, versus the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. By which the church began and grew, "not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2).

Where Protestants and traditional Christians disagree is who should do the interpreting. I'm content to let my Church interpret the texts. They've had 2,000 years to do so and won't necessarily be swayed by events of the day to force the scriptures to say something they don't.

And which basis for assurance of truth is simply cultic. So you are saying that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?

 

[Original Happy Camper]

thecolorsblend said

"Where Protestants and traditional Christians disagree is who should do the interpreting. I'm content to let my Church interpret the texts. They've had 2,000 years to do so and won't necessarily be swayed by events of the day to force the scriptures to say something they don't."

And they Killed millions in the inquisitions. Are willing to let that happen Again?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Question, if one is to be anathema for this reason, must you be pronounced that way by a Priest? Is it simply by internally doubting one is automatically anathema? I think it's more the concept of PI than what it actually is.

Some RCs say the penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new code of canon law that went into effect on January 1, 1983, and thus it also is considered abrogated. Yet some RCs also hold that Trent anathematizes most every Prot, while others hold that the anathemas are never applied to non-Catholics.

Anathema was a canon law penalty referring to a special form of excommunication done with a particular ceremony...Vatican II did not issue new canon law; therefore it did not revoke these anathemas.

That being said, the release of the 1983 Code of Canon Law did remove all penalties not repeated in it, and the anathema was not repeated. Therefore, the 1983 Code of Canon Law removed this penalty from the books.

Though today they are not subject to the penalty of anathema since this penalty no longer exists, they are still subject to other canon law penalties, such a excommunication. In fact, the canonical crime of heresy carries with it an automatic imposition of the penalty of excommunication. (Jimmy Akin, ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=379439&language=en)

Excommunication is an institutional act of religious censure used to deprive, suspend, or limit membership in a religious community or to restrict certain rights within it, in particular receiving of the sacraments. Some Protestants practice an alternate form of excusing congregants from the church. Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as the churches of Christ, use the term disfellowship instead.

Excommunication can be either latae sententiae (automatic, incurred at the moment of committing the offense for which canon law imposes that penalty) or ferendae sententiae (incurred only when imposed by a legitimate superior or declared as the sentence of an ecclesiastical court).[5]
Martin Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X in 1521.

According to Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki, "excommunication does not expel the person from the Catholic Church, but simply forbids the excommunicated person from engaging in certain activities..."

Under current Catholic canon law, excommunicates remain bound by ecclesiastical obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.)... a priest may not refuse Communion publicly to those who are under an automatic excommunication, as long as it has not been officially declared to have been incurred by them, even if the priest knows that they have incurred it. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication#Latin_Church

Which is likely more than you want to know. Thus Rome can count and treat proabortion, prosodomite public figures as members in life and in death, while RCs can argue these are excommunicated, if not formally, and both are true. But Biblical excommunication means being shunned, put out, "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat...put away from among yourselves that wicked person." (1 Corinthians 5:12-13)

I am happily excommunicated from Rome (where i was a weekly attendee and served as a lector and CCD teacher) if not ferendae sententiae, because after i became born again and wanted to follow the Lord Jesus better according to Scripture.

Right and here is where the RC also parts with the EO in philosophy. It is believed that when Jesus went up to heaven, he sent the Holy Spirit to guide the disciples (Apostles). It was believed the Holy Spirit was to guide them in their teaching and writing through divine revelation. It is then believed that the Apostles, through the Apostolic succession then passed on the Holy Spirit and the gift of Divine Revelation to their followers. This is why the church believes more can still be revealed. I believe the EO teaches all has already been revealed. I believe this is how things like slavery and the death penalty have been found to be wrong when they were acceptable at a different time during the life of the church.

No, God did not reveal that slavery and the death penalty were later found to be wrong whereas they were acceptable at a different time during the life of the church, but instead the death penalty is still valid when Scripturally used (and Rome does not necessarily reject it), while slavery is only conditionally allowed in Scripture, and could be today under the same cultural conditions and regulations.

 

[Goatee]

So i see you cannot provide what is needed, and instead you are simply providing an argument against being an RC by continually making unsubstantiated baseless charges and cult-like assertions.

Give it up.

Lol, this is how it looks to you who refuse to see the truth!!

God bless you buddy

 

[Goatee]

Oooooh my, it is so sad to see what is going here in this thread.

But some people are relentless and stubborn to the max.

But that is the way they see it, not the light. Blinded by the lies of the enemy of Yahweh.

So why waste more time trying to show them what they refuse to see.

Similar to the faraoh in Egypt, his heart got harder and harder.

So friends, those that know the truth, I'm out of here.

Awesome! God has made you see the light! You cannot beat God. You cannot beat the TRUTH!

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Awesome! God has made you see the light! You cannot beat God. You cannot beat the TRUTH!

so glad to see that you are awake.

Please address this post

to Root of Jesse and thecolorsblend

I asked you both a question on post #76 in this thread with no reply

Antletems would you like to answer it for me. Post #76

 

[rturner76]

Some RCs say the penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new code of canon law that went into effect on January 1, 1983, and thus it also is considered abrogated. Yet some RCs also hold that Trent anathematizes most every Prot, while others hold that the anathemas are never applied to non-Catholics.

Anathema was a canon law penalty referring to a special form of excommunication done with a particular ceremony...Vatican II did not issue new canon law; therefore it did not revoke these anathemas.

That being said, the release of the 1983 Code of Canon Law did remove all penalties not repeated in it, and the anathema was not repeated. Therefore, the 1983 Code of Canon Law removed this penalty from the books.

Though today they are not subject to the penalty of anathema since this penalty no longer exists, they are still subject to other canon law penalties, such a excommunication. In fact, the canonical crime of heresy carries with it an automatic imposition of the penalty of excommunication. (Jimmy Akin, ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=379439&language=en)

Excommunication is an institutional act of religious censure used to deprive, suspend, or limit membership in a religious community or to restrict certain rights within it, in particular receiving of the sacraments. Some Protestants practice an alternate form of excusing congregants from the church. Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as the churches of Christ, use the term disfellowship instead.

Excommunication can be either latae sententiae (automatic, incurred at the moment of committing the offense for which canon law imposes that penalty) or ferendae sententiae (incurred only when imposed by a legitimate superior or declared as the sentence of an ecclesiastical court).[5]
Martin Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X in 1521.

According to Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki, "excommunication does not expel the person from the Catholic Church, but simply forbids the excommunicated person from engaging in certain activities..."

Under current Catholic canon law, excommunicates remain bound by ecclesiastical obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.)... a priest may not refuse Communion publicly to those who are under an automatic excommunication, as long as it has not been officially declared to have been incurred by them, even if the priest knows that they have incurred it. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication#Latin_Church

Which is likely more than you want to know. Thus Rome can count and treat proabortion, prosodomite public figures as members in life and in death, while RCs can argue these are excommunicated, if not formally, and both are true. But Biblical excommunication means being shunned, put out, "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat...put away from among yourselves that wicked person." (1 Corinthians 5:12-13)

I am happily excommunicated from Rome (where i was a weekly attendee and served as a lector and CCD teacher) if not ferendae sententiae, because after i became born again and wanted to follow the Lord Jesus better according to Scripture.

I am a little bit confused.....So if a parishioner says they don't believe in Papal Infallibility, they are denied the Sacraments but if they keep it to themselves, they can keep receiving Eucharist etc? Also people who are known to support pro choice and are homosexual will be able to receive Sacraments until they are Excommunicated officially by the church? I'm still a little fuzzy on the difference between anathema and excommunication. Nice how people can be non Catholic but teaching Catholics. Praise God! I appreciate the lessons and the ecumenical spirit.

No, God did not reveal that slavery and the death penalty were later found to be wrong when they were acceptable at a different time during the life of the church, but instead the death penalty is still valid when Scripturally used (and Rome does not necessarily reject it), while slavery is only conditionally allowed in Scripture, and could be today under the same cultural conditions and regulations.

I don't mean to be contradictory but I have been told I must admit not by a Priest but by a teacher the the Church is totally Pro Life in all ways respecting the right to life always from conception to natural death. As for slavery, yes I have not heard it is a doctrine of the church that it is banned but right now the church does condemn the practice everywhere, even in societies where it may be practiced today.

 

[Goatee]

so glad to see that you are awake.

Please address this post

to Root of Jesse and thecolorsblend

I asked you both a question on post #76 in this thread with no reply

Antletems would you like to answer it for me. Post #76

Jesus is not brought down to suffer yet again!
We have the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Jesus himself said. " Do this in memory of me ". We are not trying to re-enact the suffering of Jesus yet again!

Non-Catholics, you need to study the Catholic mass properly.

 

[thecolorsblend]

And they Killed millions in the inquisitions. Are willing to let that happen Again?

Which Inquisition was that?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I am a little bit confused.....So if a parishioner says they don't believe in Papal Infallibility, they are denied the Sacraments but if they keep it to themselves, they can keep receiving Eucharist etc?

Yes and no, as in RC laws you are incurring latae sententiae excommunication by your unbelief, even if no one knows of it, and you have not been formally declared a heretic (ferendae sententiae). But you are still sppsd to go to Mass, but not receive the Eucharist.
"On the other hand, if the priest knows that excommunication has been imposed on someone or that an automatic excommunication has been declared (and is no longer merely an undeclared automatic excommunication), he is forbidden to administer Holy Communion to that person." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication#Latin_Church As per canon law 915:

As per Canon 915: “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

However, in Catholicism the people are to follow their pastors as docile sheep, and they are the ones who show how Catholic teaching is to be understood, and since they typically administer the Eucharist to even prosodomite, proabortion public figures, by so doing they teach that canon law does not forbid this, any more than it forbids church funerals to such.

Likewise canon law 1184 §2 states cclesiastical funerals are also to be forbidden to "notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics.." yet "If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed."

And as Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C. stated, “I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way,” and made no effort to keep Speaker Pelosi from receiving Communion. (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a...deny-communion-to-pro-abortion-speaker-pelosi)

Likewise Ted Kennedy and the like.

Also people who are known to support pro choice and are homosexual will be able to receive Sacraments until they are Excommunicated officially by the church?

In both cases they are not sppsd to, according to a plain reading of canon law (and Scripture above all, though the Cath Eucharist is not the Lord's supper of Scripture), but again, since "the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X) then it is the manifest (by words and deeds) judgment of the pastors that show RCs how such laws are to be understood.

But formal excommunication is exceedingly rare.

I'm still a little fuzzy on the difference between anathema and excommunication.

The difference between anathema and excommunication is one that seems to have been one that developed.
"...although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two. A Council of Tours desires that after three warnings there be recited in chorus Psalm cviii against the usurper of the goods of the Church, that he may fall into the curse of Judas, and "that he may be not only excommunicated, but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven".

At a late period, Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication. Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. (Catholic Encyclopedia>Anathema
Nice how people can be non Catholic but teaching Catholics. Praise God! I appreciate the lessons and the ecumenical spirit.
Well, one who is familiar with Islamic theology could do the like to one who is unlearned, but let it not infer sanction of approval. Here, RCs have the audacity to call conservative evangelicals to submit to Rome and become brethren with a near-liberal majority of Catholics, in addition to the her many clearly foreign (to Scripture) teachings.

I don't mean to be contradictory but I have been told I must admit not by a Priest but by a teacher the the Church is totally Pro Life in all ways respecting the right to life always from conception to natural death. As for slavery, yes I have not heard it is a doctrine of the church that it is banned but right now the church does condemn the practice everywhere, even in societies where it may be practiced today.

I think you mean to say,

"I must admit I have been told not by a Priest but by a teacher that the the Church is totally Pro Life in all ways respecting the right to life always from conception to natural death."
Well, he must be able to explain how that is consistent with CCC 2267 (being prolife actually is consistent with capital punishment):
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

 

[amadeois]

These Catholics don't understand that Revelation 18 is describing the Vatican City and their organization that will be destroyed by God in just one hour.

It is interesting that Jesus (Yeshua) gave this message to His beloved disciple John.

Yeshua gives a pre history of His church (congregation) from after the time He left this Earth through this presentation times.

He is not too happy with the Laodicean church that represent the present state. But in Revelation 18 he described what was going to happen to the church of His adversary none other than Satan.

Since the creation times there has been a struggle between good and evil and Revelation describes the final times.

Here on these discussions, we see this struggle between the light and the darkness. We know that the light will always win against the absence of light, the absence of correct knowledge, the absence of wisdom, the absence of truth, the absence of Yeshua Hamashiach.

Glory be to Yahweh!!!!

 

[Lulav]

"thecolorsblend, said: If that was the sole source for the legitimacy of the papacy, your point would be more persuasive.

I'm not sure where that's coming from. The Thessalonian jews studied the scriptures and rejected St. Paul's message. The Berean jews did likewise and accepted him. So apparently scripture cannot be the sole rule of faith or else surely the Thessalonian jews and the Berean jews would've reached the same conclusions, eh?

Not really sure why you're bringing this up since it doesn't relate to much of anything we've discussed in this thread.

Yes, that's the passage Protestants are so fond of quoting. But, in context, it works against Sola Scriptura. This is why St. Paul's episode in Thessalonia discussed earlier in Acts 17 typically gets ignored. The Thessalonian jews are called by St. Luke less noble than the Berean jews. The Berean jews were jews. The ancient jews had no concept of Sola Scriptura. It wouldn't have computed for them. Meanwhile, the Thessalonian jews listened to Paul for three weeks and compared his teachings to Sacred Scripture. Then they rejected him.

If anybody in Acts 17 can be even vaguely called adherents of Sola Scriptura, it's the Thessalonian jews; not the Berean jews.

??? If Catholic Answers agrees with me, I'm flattered (and encouraged!). But I typically link to their pages rather than knowingly attempt to regurgitate whatever they say.

By whose standard? Someone must interpret the scriptures. Where Protestants and traditional Christians disagree is who should do the interpreting. I'm content to let my Church interpret the texts. They've had 2,000 years to do so and won't necessarily be swayed by events of the day to force the scriptures to say something they don't. /QUOTE]


Hi,

I'm just wondering why someone who seems to have a great knowledge of English Grammar, shown by the capitalization of the words highlighted in Blue, which are proper names of peoples or religions but in every case (and they were numerous--12x in fact) has chosen to NOT to capitalize the Proper word, 'Jew'? (highlighted in red)

 

[Philip_B]

These Catholics don't understand that Revelation 18 is describing the Vatican City and their organization that will be destroyed by God in just one hour.

It is interesting that Jesus (Yeshua) gave this message to His beloved disciple John.

Yeshua gives a pre history of His church (congregation) from after the time He left this Earth through this presentation times.

He is not too happy with the Laodicean church that represent the present state. But in Revelation 18 he described what was going to happen to the church of His adversary none other than Satan.

Since the creation times there has been a struggle between good and evil and Revelation describes the final times.

Here on these discussions, we see this struggle between the light and the darkness. We know that the light will always win against the absence of light, the absence of correct knowledge, the absence of wisdom, the absence of truth, the absence of Yeshua Hamashiach.

Glory be to Yahweh!!!!

As exegesis of Revelation 18 this fails to pass muster for me. I don't believe it is helping the discussion, which seems to have moved from a discussion of the Real Presence in The Holy Eucharist (a Greek word meaning thanksgiving) and is beginning to sound like an anti Catholic rant.

There are a number of churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and others) for whom the Real Presence of Christ is meaningful expression of faith and experience in talking about the Eucharist, and whilst how we put it into words may vary, the core issue comes back to Jesus said do this as my anamnesis and the disciples or the road to Emmaus told us how they knew him in the breaking of the bread.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta (recently sainted) said If we do not see Jesus in the blessed sacrament of the altar we shall never recognise him in the appalling disguise of the poor.

Laudate Dominum, Sing praise and bless the Lord
Peoples, Nations, Alleluia!​

 

[PeaceByJesus]

"
I'm just wondering why someone who seems to have a great knowledge of English Grammar, shown by the capitalization of the words highlighted in Blue, which are proper names of peoples or religions but in every case (and they were numerous--12x in fact) has chosen to NOT to capitalize the Proper word, 'Jew'? (highlighted in red)

I wondered why myself. It is took much a reminder of the historical animosity towards Jews and the state of Israel, though we also have Luther in his latter day exasperation.

 

[rturner76]

These Catholics don't understand that Revelation 18 is describing the Vatican City and their organization that will be destroyed by God in just one hour.

It is interesting that Jesus (Yeshua) gave this message to His beloved disciple John.

Yeshua gives a pre history of His church (congregation) from after the time He left this Earth through this presentation times.

He is not too happy with the Laodicean church that represent the present state. But in Revelation 18 he described what was going to happen to the church of His adversary none other than Satan.

Since the creation times there has been a struggle between good and evil and Revelation describes the final times.

Here on these discussions, we see this struggle between the light and the darkness. We know that the light will always win against the absence of light, the absence of correct knowledge, the absence of wisdom, the absence of truth, the absence of Yeshua Hamashiach.

Glory be to Yahweh!!!!

It's kind of hilarious that anybody would think the Catholic Church would or could be destroyed in an hour. At least not without destroying 1/5 of the world's population. The Catholic Church does not live in the Vatican, that's just where the Pope lives. The Catholic Church is a body of over a billion believers all over the world with schools, Universities, hospitals, monetarists and orphanages on every continent except I think Antarctica. I guess that doesn't seem like very many when you consider they had two thousand years to grow. Probably should be more than that. I guess it is if you count Orthodoxy. I do however think anybody with a denomination that couldn't even fill up a small stadium could get wiped off the map with one big tornado. Especially one that was just started in the past fifty to hundred years

 

[amadeois]

@rturner76

You are just sumarizing part of Revelation 18.

Still can't see what it says.

Yahweh is so powerful that He can destroy Earth in a second.

The message is there. God's message, not mine.

His Real Presence is spiritual.

God is a spirit.

 

[JoeP222w]

Please demonstrate where I said I knew every Christian 'heart'?

You wrote that "every" Christian believed in the real presence in the Eucharist. Christianity is a heart condition and only God knows the condition of the heart. So to claim that "every" Christian believed it, you are claiming you know people's heart.
I think it can be demonstrated that not everyone did in the real presence.

At the Last Supper Jesus held out a piece of bread and said "This is my body."

He also said, "do this in remembrance of me." The Apostles did not proceed to cannibalize Jesus. It is clearly symbolic.


And please lose the condescending tone, it is offensive

Um, they ate it. It's a passover meal. I'm quite sure they didn't understand it. But they were taught it.

Again, you are claiming to know men's hearts by saying they did not understand it.

We don't believe the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith.

No, if you follow Roman Catholic dogma, you believe in sola ecclesia.

But I believe there's a lot of Protestants who disagree with your definition of Sola Scriptura.

No doubt. But the truth is not based on popularity.

Basically, I'm saying exactly that. When we get our terms right, we really agree on most things.

This is demonstrably not true.

 

[JoeP222w]

John6 and 1 Corinthians.

Can you be more specific?

 

[Root of Jesse]

@Root of Jesse

The old known world but not to God.

To God the world is what He created, not what you think.

Like people believe that Columbus discovered America.

People were already here from the earlier times. People came and said: "Oh I discovered it."

What a bunch of fools they were.

ARE WE ALSO FOOLS?

Did humans know the world known by God? Nope. The known world, at the time, was the Roman Empire, to us in the West. I realize there were people in America, Asia, etc.
Columbus did discover America for Europe. The Vikings discovered America for their group.
The word "discover" means, at it's root, to uncover.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It's only the universal church because the people in it call it the universal church.
If a church were to declare themselves the "ultra-super-duper universal and infinite church", that wouldn't make it so, but by the Catholic standards, that other church would win.

Just because Catholics call themselves such doesn't mean they are what they claim to be.

It's the universal church because Jesus is Lord of the Universe and instituted one Church, which is universal. The Catholic Church didn't declare itself universal, ever.