This comment was deleted for copyright infringement. It is a violation of this blog to post copyrighted material to our comments sections without our permission and the permission of the material’s author.

Oh and by the way, if vs 63 is meant to be symbolic then Christ’s ascent into heaven is symbolic too (look it up if you dare). It might interest you to know the words ‘trogo’ and ’sarx’ and their meanings. You might also learn the OT lamb sacrifices were physically eaten after sacrificed. Christ is the physical Lamb of God. Christ says His flesh and blood are ‘true food and true drink’ (you really dont want me to state the Greek words for that, that’d kill your faulty idea).

Btw, the Catholic Church doesnt base its beliefs on the ECFs alone. We actually use Scripture too ;) which is more than I can say for you.

God bless you, Pax Christos

The unbelieving disciples left Jesus because they had a far different agenda than He. Here is what Jesus said to them when they caught up with Him and began the discourse: “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.” Jesus told them at least four times very plainly that their salvation was dependant on believing in Him. v.29, v.40, v.44, v.47. It was because of their unbelief and carnal understanding that Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” Compare this to verse 40: “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Another problem with the Catholic understanding is that in verse 51 where Jesus said, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” If one can partake of the eucharist and live forever, it has yet to be seen. Jesus is clearly referring to the cross here. His flesh that He gave for the life of the world is that flesh that received our sins, was wounded for our transgressions, and put to death for our salvation. Christ, as our High Priest, entered the true Holy Place once for all by His own blood for the sins of the world. Embracing this with all our heart soul and mind is consumption of Christ.

In the words of Clement of Alexandria, “Meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.” (Stramata 5:10)

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” (v. 63)

Paul said, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” (1Cor. 11:26) Because when He comes, His body will be manifested to us. But transubstantiation insists His body is already come each and every time a priest calls Him down. This compared to Paul’s words is a contradiction.

Jesus said, “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:40)

Shortly after He said this, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

So which is it? The prior He had been explicitly stating throughout the discourse, while the later was in response to the Jews who said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” A contradiction? Absolutely if transubstantiation were true. Jesus said this so that they who did not believe in Him would be offended and walk away. Those who did believe trusted Jesus, even though they might not have understood the spiritual aspect of what Jesus was saying. (For more on this read: Bread of Life Discourse)

Irenaeus said the eucharist is, “no longer common bread, but the eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly.” Transubstantiation denies that the bread is earthly in any way.

Transubstantiation is a lie and, therefore, from the father of lies. That is the spirit from which the doctrine of transubstantiation (Catholic Real Presence) sprung.

I am curious as to what authority do you have to determine that it was not the Holy Spirit - can you document this from the scriptures?

“I believe in original sin and that the sin nature is in the sperm and the egg. Yet Mary by grace had had this taken away.”

If Mary had no sin nature (which, if it were true, would make Isaiah a false prophet) why did she need grace to keep from sinning?

Not that I am trying to continue the debate, but I really am curious how you will answer this obvious contradiction.

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore HAS IT EVER BEEN A FIRM BELIEF IN THE CHURCH OF GOD, and this holy Synod doth now declare it ANEW [Again in a new way], that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation. (Trent, Thirteenth Session, Chapter IV)

You really aught to learn your own doctrine before criticizing others.