Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist


8"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. (Isaiah 55)

Maran atha!



Maybe because it was so obvious.


You’ve already delved into it.

Jesus body went right through the closed door; He ate and drank and did everything that the human body could do; yet, He was more. He could traverse time, space, and the physical constructs of this temporal existence… yet, His body remained changed, visible, and operating within ‘normal capacity.’

It is the same for the Consecrated Bread and Wine. It remains the accidental construct of the temporal existence; yet, it is changed:

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11)

St. Paul attests that we partake not of human nutrients and drink but of Christ’s Body and Blood!

Maran atha!



I fully concur!

Maran atha!



Not sure about that…reminds me of a child, no a teenager, thinking parents just don’t understand them…

Not sure how a creator, an author, can not understand,comprehend ,that which He creates, even after His image.

I would rather say He incarnated not so He could learn anything, but that we could!

This would include feelings.


Experience is not the same as knowledge.

God cannot experience death.

Only the Incarnate Word could experience death.

God, till the Crucifixion, had not the experience knowledge of death.

I hope this helps.

Maran atha!



Yes, and only the right interpretation is not “private”…by the way, was referencing, recalling, what augustine wrote on the matter.

Have no idea what you mean about feel good theology…but if you want to go there we can, for many religious rituals feel good, done round the world, in all religions, including ours.


Does it make you crazy that we borrow words from Greeks for some explanations?Were they common language of the day?

It would be hubris if language remained static…it is a science in itself, language and its changes, not to mention one language to another.


What I was attempting to convey is that through interpretation we see/find things in Scriptures and we are compelled to believe/experience what we have interpreted as the Revelation God offers.

If this interpretation supports what has been Revealed by God and has been practiced by the Church then it holds value–otherwise, it may well be just personal (as in private) understanding of what God has Revealed.

The feel-good theology is one that ascribes generalizations such as everyone is ultimately saved or we are all God’s children or salvation is found outside of Christ (so all religions lead to Heaven).

When we quote from the Fathers we may be interpreting them or actually misunderstanding them or grabbing something that is suspect in their understanding and rejecting everything else… (interpretationalism and feel-good theology often go hand in hand); we can open up the quote you made in a new thread to analyze it further, if you like.

Maran atha!



Not at all. I am not talking about understanding the languages and cultures in which the events occurred. I am talking about projecting our 21st century expectations and attitudes into it.

You seem to be assuming that the 21st century “explanation” has to be in the form of “language”. But there are plenty of scientific “explanations” for Biblical miracles. And the concept of “transubstantiation” has as much to do with philosophy as it does language.


Not sure what you mean. Were those that thought differently than what was eventually ruled heretics, before the ruling ? Are you saying that Catholics in otherwise good standing sometimes thought differently amongst themselves, before final ruling? Why do many here fail or refuse to think some Catholics thought differently about real presence before 1215 ? Are you also suggesting all were conformed from the beginning except heretics ?


I think you are , though it is a judgement upon the question itself. It could be quite a benign question otherwise. I mean we have written understanding stemming over a thousand years (300 bc to 1215 AD), in several languages, not to mention translations into English. Then we have science and philosophy .Some laws remain the same, quite foundational. Some evolve and are built upon.

Any "updates’’ may be biased to the present, or it may be a genuine look to the past (where foundation was laid)

Please try to put forth philosophy without language, and even science, unless a formula can explain real presence…but of course it is just not language, as susanio’s post shows


yet Martyr says our bodies are nourished by the transmutation (digestion) of the bread and wine/water

does anyone suggest our bodies are nourished by eating flesh and drinking blood, even His blood ?


John Calvin did not redefine ‘real presence.’ I don’t even think that he used the term, but people have retroactively applied this term to his understanding. I think it is Roman Catholics that are trying to redefine ‘real presence.’

Here is part of an article from a Catholic priest writing for Catholic Answers:

I found the first reference to the term “Real Presence” in the writings of fourteenth-century theologian John of Paris: “I intend to defend the real and actual presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, and that it is not there only as by way of a sign.” But John of Paris was deprived of his professorship because his views on the sacrament were considered unorthodox. It was in the same century that the precursor of Latimer and Ridley—John Wycliffe—used the term “Real Presence,” also as an alternative to transubstantiation. In other words, “Real Presence” was a compromise term used to suggest a high view of the sacrament while in fact denying the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation

…Stone’s second volume shows how the great Anglican, E. B. Pusey, recoined the phrase “Real Presence” in the mid-nineteenth century and promoted it most strongly. It is thanks to Pusey that the term entered common usage within the Oxford Movement and eventually made its way through the Anglican and other non-Catholic churches that today use it so widely.

But what did Pusey mean by “the Real Presence”? He was at pains to point out that he did not hold to any corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist: "In the communion there is a true, real, actual though spiritual communication of the body and blood of Christ to the believer through the holy elements." In another place, Pusey denies transubstantiation explicitly and argues for a “mystical, sacramental, and spiritual presence of the body of our Lord.”

I really wish that Catholics would use the term ‘transubstantiation’ instead of ‘real presence’ when they are talking specifically about a concept that excludes the Lutheran and Calvinist Eucharist beliefs. Only symbolic Communion is considered outside of the definition of ‘real presence.’ But even these Christians believe that Jesus is truly present with them as they participate in Communion.


I am not asking about how Jesus would perform a miracle. I am asking about what miracle occurs (only at Catholic and Orthodox Churches) that I am apparently unable to understand because I am a “protestant.”

I believe the miracle seen at Communion is the gift of salvation which we received through Christ’s sacrifice. When Christians gather to worship Him, His presence is evident. Christ changes hearts and changes lives. Christ is present with believers by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is a real and true miracle.

But Catholics say that this isn’t the miracle of Communion They say that the bread and wine change. But if we were to take a Communion wafer and run it through a GC-MS, it would reveal the same gluten proteins before and after consecration. But yet Catholics deny that the change to the wafer is just a change in its meaning and significance (symbol) or merely a spiritual presence uniting believers to Christ’s body and blood. So I think it is a very fair question: What do Catholics specifically believe changes in “valid” Communions? How can someone believe that something occurs, but yet not know what occurs?

Matthew 17:2 …His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.

First He looked like a typical man, and then He was illuminated. They were not hallucinating. This happened and was witnessed by all who were present to see. They were able to describe this miracle to be written about.


So it is ok to project backwards a thousand years but not forward ? The church went back a thousand years (to use greek philosophy/science).


I think the point of the transfiguration was to reveal who Jesus really was. He didnt “change” but always was like that, in the Spiritual world’s eys!

We dont need transfiguration of His Eucharist. We already believe it at His word.

Do you see that Jesus was already God, but that was unnoticed by carnal senses?


But at that time of Augustine both of their views were accepted as orthodox. Right now Catholics disagree on many issues. One example is Mary’s title as co-redemptrix. Many Catholics think this title is fitting and use it. Others disagree. Both of these groups are orthodox Catholics and are in the same Communion. I am sure many of them even like what the other ones teach on a myriad of issues. But if in 100 years the Pope or a council declares that the title is fitting, then those who oppose this title would now be considered a heretic. These 2 groups of Catholics could no longer fully accept one another and be in the same Communion.

This is what happened to Communion for Christianity in 1215. The fact that in Augustine’s time they readily accepted each other as Christians despite having different explanations on Communion, shows that both views were tolerated and accepted as orthodox.


He wrote that Christians “eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord.” Yet this bread and cup has a significance because of Christ’s sacrifice.


So I was at my mothers house Easter Sunday …she is 90…whole family was there…my moms priest (Catholic)came by to minister communion to my mother…priest is very friendly…we chat a bit…see him often…knows our names…as he took my mother aside (to a more private room) to give her communion, I longed to go with them (I was unable to attend my church service), even for all of us to participate, but alas the division, though my mom and i still fellowship with scripture reading and prayer on Sundays…tough spot for the priest to be in…I wonder if he longs for more unity also

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit