Eucharistic defacement


#1

Hi all,

I am new to this board. I have a hypothetical question that has me really questioning the truth of transubstantiation. The implications run deep. As I ponder it, it all tends to lead me to the evangelical position against idolatry, making graven images, etc…

I posted to the Ask forum and received a Private answer defending Transubstantiation, but not really addressing the big problem that I am trying to point out.

I’m sure you have pondered what would happen if an evil man slipped the host in his pocket at communion with bad intentions. I even found a thread here on this topic. Ultimately, the result was, the evil man will have to answer for his actions at the judgment.

But my question is a little bit different.

It is for the time being, a hypothetical question. Keep in mind that I am not a troll, looking for a fight with Catholics. I am a Catholic, born and raised, and I am currently raising my children to be Catholic, along with my Catholic wife. Although I will admit that life experiences coupled with deep prayer and reflection has caused me to question many of the issues that Catholics are always getting into debates over with evangelical protestants. But this is a real and honest question. So here goes:

If the host is manufactured by reputable company, with a bad employee, and that bad employee defaces the bread with satanic symbolism before it is shipped, yet nobody notices it due to the skilled camouflage techniques used, then when the Priest attempts to consecrate it at the mass, does transubstantiation take place?

My initial, Catholic reaction is yes, but when you really start to look into the ramifications, I have to switch to NO. Here’s why:

Thousands of Catholic parishes practice “perpetual adoration”. During this practice, the consecrated host is displayed as the real body of Christ in a monstrance.(spelling?) I have a very hard time believing that God would take part in a process where the congregation ultimately worships and adores the bread with satanic symbols physically written on it, albeit subtly and unnoticeably.

Likewise, when the lay minister holds the bread up and says “the Body of Christ” and I say “Amen”. I have a hard time believing that God would allow His precious body within such a physical vessel.

This leads me to the real reason why God forbids idolatry. Human error, or even malice, can lead to the adoration of a tainted substance.

One possible way to say that it IS truly consecrated and therefore the real Presence, is to say that the consecration “cleanses” the bread of its tainted state. After all, even if it ISN’T purposely defaced, it is still just bread prior to consecration, and thus consecration cleanses it the same in both cases. One problem I have with such an answer is, the bread didn’t NEED cleansing, because its substance is specified for that very reason. No levening. Another problem I have with such an answer is, consecration has no effect on the visible physical properties of the bread, and it is the physical properties that have been purposely defaced.

This, to me, is very troubling, as I know for a fact that there are such factions in this world that would seek to do such things.

BUT WAIT. Before you answer this, please keep in mind that you are not allowed to say “this would never happen.” The facts of the question require that the pre-consecrated bread is defaced with satanic symbolism in such a way that the people do not notice it.


#2

Hi, mojo! Welcome to CAF!

BUT WAIT. Before you answer this, please keep in mind that you are not allowed to say “this would never happen.” The facts of the question require that the pre-consecrated bread is defaced with satanic symbolism in such a way that the people do not notice it.

OK – but it’s just a hypothetical question, right? So, one possible answer is: what do you know about the process of making altar breads? That is, you realize that they’re stamped, then packaged, right? That the stamping doesn’t happen by hand (per se). In other words, there really isn’t the opportunity for someone to do what you fear a person might do!

So, with that out of the way, let’s address the meat of your question:

If the host is manufactured by reputable company, with a bad employee, and that bad employee defaces the bread with satanic symbolism before it is shipped, yet nobody notices it due to the skilled camouflage techniques used, then when the Priest attempts to consecrate it at the mass, does transubstantiation take place?

What kind of ‘satanic symbolism’ are you talking about? Etching something into the host, I assume? Yet, in your thought experiment, you’re talking about something that’s hidden so well, that it’s undetectable by the human eye, right? In that case, I think we’re talking about a non-starter, here. The definition of “a host with a defect so small that it’s undetectable” is just “a host”.

But, let’s keep playing the game:

Thousands of Catholic parishes practice “perpetual adoration”. During this practice, the consecrated host is displayed as the real body of Christ in a monstrance.(spelling?) I have a very hard time believing that God would take part in a process where the congregation ultimately worships and adores the bread with satanic symbols physically written on it, albeit subtly and unnoticeably.

Here’s the deal: bread is physical, which means it isn’t perfect. Part of the miracle of the Incarnation is that the Second Person of God – the Logos – was willing to empty himself and take the form of an (imperfect) human. There is something fundamentally, profoundly stunning in the use of bread in the Eucharist: in that act of consecrating the Eucharist, Jesus is taking something imperfect (bread) and sanctifying it with His own True Presence. At that moment, Jesus’ own perfection outstrips any imperfections in the species of the Eucharist. The host wasn’t baked perfectly? Doesn’t matter. The little stamp that was applied to the host wasn’t stamped well or on-center? Doesn’t matter. The wine isn’t a particularly good vintage. Doesn’t matter. The True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist outstrips it all.

I think that this gets to the heart of your question: someone places a small, unnoticeable symbol on the host? Doesn’t matter: the True Presence is infinitely greater than any imperfection, whether the imperfection is intentional or not.

Likewise, when the lay minister holds the bread up and says “the Body of Christ” and I say “Amen”. I have a hard time believing that God would allow His precious body within such a physical vessel.

No less difficult to believe than to believe that God would allow His precious body within the form of bread and of wine, isn’t it? :wink:

This leads me to the real reason why God forbids idolatry. Human error, or even malice, can lead to the adoration of a tainted substance.

If you’re talking about transubstantiation, you’re in the territory of philosophy; it’s important to use precise terminology. It might be “tainted accidents” (i.e., tainted material), but we do not adore material – we adore Christ. It’s not like we look at the monstrance and say “Bread! Yay!”; rather, we see the material and spiritually recognize the substantial presence of the Lord. No matter what happens to the bread before it is consecrated, it is not “tainted” following consecration. By your logic, then, God is sitting up there in heaven saying, “nah… I don’t like merlot – it’s unworthy of my presence. No eucharist for you! Meh… I really hate wheat-bread hosts … no eucharist for you!” :wink: Instead, the miracle is that, when we have the proper matter and form, we have Eucharist. Period.

One possible way to say that it IS truly consecrated and therefore the real Presence, is to say that the consecration “cleanses” the bread of its tainted state.

It’s not ‘cleansed’, it’s transformed (properly speaking, it’s not the form that changes, it’s the substance, so it’s ‘transubstantiated’). You’ve got it!

One problem I have with such an answer is, the bread didn’t NEED cleansing, because its substance is specified for that very reason. No levening.

Yet, that’s exactly the problem! No one piece of bread is going to be perfectly cooked, perfectly constructed: they’re all imperfect, and yet, they’re suitable matter for the Eucharist!

Another problem I have with such an answer is, consecration has no effect on the visible physical properties of the bread, and it is the physical properties that have been purposely defaced.

Yes, the bread was defaced, according to your thought experiment (although I have problems with this construction, as I’ve mentioned: if it’s defaced in such a way that no one can detect it, then it’s (by definition) not defaced).

This, to me, is very troubling, as I know for a fact that there are such factions in this world that would seek to do such things.

“Would seek” doesn’t imply “has successfully accomplished”, right? :wink:


#3

Completely off topic I know. But are you a graduate OF Permian High school motto “Mojo”?

I think your post may be a bit too complicated for most to understand, at least me who had a stroke.

Maybe if you simplify you will get more responses.


#4

Our God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) created the universe and everything that is and ever will be! God is bigger than this problem you posed in your question. God is the creator of everything. Evil cannot triumph against God. So be assured that a host that is consecrated at Mass will truly be; the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ!


#5

You are deliberately allowing a hypothetical question (and an exceedingly improbable one, at that) to damage your faith? Why do you choose to do this?


#6

As long as the proper substance of the bread was present, symbolism on the bread is meaningless.

The bread becomes mere species after the consecration. Only the “image” of the bread remains to our senses. But it is Christ who is present.

We can consider the marks of the scourge that torn the Lord’s skin, the cuts of the crown of thorns, and all other signs of the Passion as defacement of the Body of Christ. But Christ was still fully present.

I hope you realize that the power bestowed by Jesus Christ on the apostles and their successors to consecrate the Bread of Life is infinitely greater than the power that a random idiot could have in marking a set of hosts with stupid hidden symbols that in his mind mean something bad. That man’s gesture cannot be more powerful than the laying of hands of a priest of Christ over the host and the effusion of the Holy Spirit. Christ would not say “no” to the invocation of the priest solely because some random man carved some signs on the offering.

In perpetual adoration, we adore Christ, who is God, and His Real Presence. We do not care about the species of bread, or any symbol it may have on it. We see bread and symbols (usually a cross, but in your case some other random stuff) but our heart is elevated in adoration of the living God, hidden behind a veil of faith.


#7

AMEN!!!


#8

Hypothetical question?

Well lets look at the churches in the world where we live. I know of churches which have symbols that are more commonly associated with what the public associates with “Satanic” desecration: like a West Window in the form of a Pentagram - and while in the middle ages this was a christian symbol representing the 5 woulds of Christ, in the 1800’s when this chapel was built the symbol had been “adopted” by the wiccans and satanists.

Many other churches have symbols of Freemasonry not very subtly placed in the church by builders with mischievous intent.

So I would agree with you that there are some who would seek to perform such mischief.

That does not interfere with the validity of the Eucharist.

The whole point of the Incarnation, is that God chose to come down to Man in his sinfull, imperfect state, and to make himself vulnerable - even to being put to death on a cross, to make expiation for every sin of every man. He is, in that act Our Reedeemer. He then descended to the Dead, and Rose again. He makes himself our Saviour. Our Messiah our Christ. Our Lord and King. The Redemption is a once and for all act, but we must accept that act and accept his Salvation to be Saved.

Now in his offering of himself as our Pascal Sacrifice, it is an essential part of that that to be saved we must eat of His Flesh.
In John 6 he tells us that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood we will have no life within us. When challenged and asked to clarify that he was speaking in metaphor he did the opposite: “My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”
While many of your evangelical and protestant friends claim a belief in “Sola Scriptura” there is only one way that John 6 can be honestly interpreted. There is plenty of evidence in the rest of the bible to support that interpretation. There is plenty of evidence in the christian writings in the first 4 centuries to support that the Christians of that time understood the Real Presence.
Even the early Reformers: Luther, Calvin and their contemporaries did not dispute the Real Presence. It’s denial came later as their damage to doctrines in other areas resulted in more and more holes in the theological tapestry that is the Fullness of the Truth.

There are far worse things a michief maker or uninformed priest or assistant might do.
Using bread or wine which are not pure is sacreligious. it is a grave sin. To use something that is not Bread and Wine makes the Eucharist Invalid. I have seen this done. A young priest said mass. He distributed Holy Communion under both species. I recieved the Wine, and instantly knew that it was not actual wine.
After the mass I asked the priest and was told it was “Alcohol Free Altar Wine” he had obtained from a national church supplier. He was obviously unaware of the requirement in Catholic Theology and Cannon Law that Altar Wine must be Fermented wine made from pure Grape Juice with nothing added but yeast (the addition is not strictly necessary as yeast grows on Grape Skins - that’s what the white powdery substance on their skins is)
The wine must be unadulterated and have no additives and nothing removed.

“Alcohol Free Wine” does not meet the definition of “Wine” in Cannon Law, (or in European trade descriptions law).
Technically on that occasion while the congregation were blissfully unaware, the priest had committed a grave sacrilege which did invalidate the whole of the Mass. As his mistake was through ignorance, no individual present actually committed a sin as a result… Based on my promptings the priest has never again repeated that mistake, and in fact normally does not distribute Holy Communion under both species.

I tell this story to illustrate a couple of points:

  1. I take your question seriously, and So does God.
  2. Such defect of form can and does occur to the eucharist, either as a result of deliberate malicious acts or as a result of ignorance.
  3. The fact that such defects are possible are a part of Human Nature and Free Will. God has made himself Vulnerable to such desicration. just as he has by giving you Free Will when he breathed his own Holy Spirit into you to give you the Gift of Life, and made you a Temple of His Holy Spirit.

This not only presents no problem with a proper understanding of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but is fully in keeping with the whole Christian understanding of the History and Economy of Salvation.

May God Bless you.
I hope this helps.


#9

Very well put…I esp. liked your sentence that I’ve highlighted. I plan to use this description to better explain True Presence to a discerning friend that came to me for help understanding. Thank You :slight_smile:


#10

I have a very hard time believing that God would take part in a process where the congregation ultimately worships and adores the bread with satanic symbols physically written on it, albeit subtly and unnoticeably.

[quote]

I have a hard time believing that God wouldn’t jump at the chance to be adored and worshipped at any time, especially when fighting the battle against all evil.

It’s not about the physical bread or any symbols thereon. It’s about the body and blood of Jesus presented in the form of bread and wine. It wouldn’t matter what’s microscopically put on the bread, just as it wouldn’t matter if there was satanic writings hidden on the chalice.

Mike

[/quote]


#11

Likewise, when the lay minister holds the bread up and says “the Body of Christ” and I say “Amen”. I have a hard time believing that God would allow His precious body within such a physical vessel.

I theorize that the physical chalice is ‘cleaner’ than the men who receives the Body of Christ, yet He lets us receive Him. How else are we to receive Him physically?

Christina


#12

Thanks all for the responses. I truly appreciate it. I also REALLY appreciate that you haven’t dismissed me or belittled me!

Now, to take one more step in this hypothetical:

If I knew someone that is in the business of supplying the bread, and he bragged to his atheist friend about something that he has done, and that atheist friend told me about it, what are my responsibilities as a Catholic to put a stop to it?

All of the answers thus far have shown that nothing NEEDS to be done, because his little subtle inscriptions that he has carved into the press do not invalidate the mass.

But something SHOULD be done, don’t you think? Likewise, to call on Deacon2Be’s example, if you can show that Satanic writings are on the chalice, we should get a new chalice, even though it doesn’t invalidate the mass. It is a reverence thing I guess.

Anruari, thanks for such a detailed post. It was very beneficial to me.

Agnes Therese, I have presented this as a hypothetical in order to get some honest speculation going. If I had come out of the chute saying I know someone that has done this, I would have more likely gotten responses like “this isn’t possible” and “you are imagining things”. Neither of which help me come to grips with Transubstantiation.

Gorgias, I like your take on “If you can’t see it, it is a non-starter”. Yes, very true. But I can easily tweak the hypothetical to something like this:

it is clearly visible once you are shown the order of the markings. For instance, I doubt if a greek inscription would be noticed in the texture of the bread to someone that doesn’t read greek lettering. So visible, yes, but noticeable by the masses of people? Not until they are shown what to look for. At that point, yes, visible.

Gorgias, I also liked this:
Gorgias wrote: “Yet, that’s exactly the problem! No one piece of bread is going to be perfectly cooked, perfectly constructed: they’re all imperfect, and yet, they’re suitable matter for the Eucharist!”

So my last question remains: What do I do if I know of such mischief? :shrug:


#13

Remember that the priest wills to present to God “a pure offering”. In the hypothetical scenario in which we were to know that something like this is happening, we should definitely not keep quiet about it. God only knows why in His providence he would have let a Catholic find out about something like that rather than allowing it to remain hidden for years and perhaps never discovered.

I would notify the bishop of the diocese in which this is happening (where the hosts are being defaced). I would do so in person (ex. through a printed letter sent by “snail mail” rather than via email, or by a phone call). I would include as many details as possible for someone to be able to verify that it is actually happening - and possibly to replace the delivered hosts that are thus marked. Including whether we found out by a trustworthy witness or whether we even verified it ourselves in at least one occasion. I am not saying that actual names must be disclosed.

If the bishop sounds like too much, I would speak under the seal of confession to a priest and ask his advice on what would be proper to do next. Perhaps he himself would prefer to proceed.


#14

[quote=anruari]There are far worse things a michief maker or uninformed priest or assistant might do.
Using bread or wine which are not pure is sacreligious. it is a grave sin. To use something that is not Bread and Wine makes the Eucharist Invalid. I have seen this done. A young priest said mass. He distributed Holy Communion under both species. I recieved the Wine, and instantly knew that it was not actual wine.
After the mass I asked the priest and was told it was “Alcohol Free Altar Wine” he had obtained from a national church supplier. He was obviously unaware of the requirement in Catholic Theology and Cannon Law that Altar Wine must be Fermented wine made from pure Grape Juice with nothing added but yeast (the addition is not strictly necessary as yeast grows on Grape Skins - that’s what the white powdery substance on their skins is)
The wine must be unadulterated and have no additives and nothing removed.

“Alcohol Free Wine” does not meet the definition of “Wine” in Cannon Law, (or in European trade descriptions law).
Technically on that occasion while the congregation were blissfully unaware, the priest had committed a grave sacrilege which did invalidate the whole of the Mass. As his mistake was through ignorance, no individual present actually committed a sin as a result… Based on my promptings the priest has never again repeated that mistake, and in fact normally does not distribute Holy Communion under both species.
[/quote]

Are you sure this was not Mustum? Not that I am doubting you, but I was wondering if you had considered that. How did the priest not now? This is amazing!


#15

Zooman
1st. the Christian Virtue of Charity demands that we should always give the benefit of the doubt to our interpretations of what other people do or say for as long as there is any reasonable doubt. Not to do this is to sin against the virtue of Charity, and to talk about the actions sayings or intentions of others in an uncharitable way is to further commit the sins of Calumny or Detraction. That incurs on the gossip, the gravity of the sin of which they accuse others… or depending on circumstances, a greater sin.

2nd. The priest was very young, and while ordained recently so, he was still in training, studying for a Doctorate. He is active and explicitly Missionary, supporting and promoting lay missionary organisations, and successfully encouraging large numbers of lapsed or Luke-warm Catholics to return to the sacraments, and bring their relationships into proper Sacramental Marriage.

3rd. The standard of Catechesis for Catholics is woefully poor. this includes many of our seminaries.

4th. When the appropriate Vatican Documents were shown to him about this matter he immediately changed his methods. I can attest to having witnessed this.

5th. I can attest to his devotion to the Eucharist in many other ways. and his rapid acceptance of Catechetical points when they are raised in that or other areas.

I do not deny that sins do occur against the Eucharist, including by a tiny number of ordained men… but I refer to my opening point… unless there is strong evidence of malicious intent, we should always look for possible motives based on accident or ignorance before ascribing malicious intent to another persons actions. In this case I have confidence that such charity was well founded and accurate… when it is not, there is plenty of time and opportunity to collect evidence to the contrary, and if appropriate inform a responsible priest or bishop who can investigate and take action.


#16

Well if you do know of such mischief your actions should be carefull and methodical:

  1. look for evidence. try to obtain or inspect an unconsecrated host from that supplier. You can probably buy a small pack direct from their sales team.
    Alternatively if you know of a parish which uses altar breads from this supplier you can approach the parish priest, express your concerns, and ask for permission to inspect the unconsecrated breads.

  2. If your suspicions can be substantiated, then the parish priest using breads from that source should be shown the evidence.

  3. as a matter of urgency, the bishop of the diocese concerned should be informed and shown the evidence. - this should include a transcription and translation of the symbols involved, with the translation backed up by reference to a reputable source.

  4. The manufacturer should be informed… you implied that is is one worker in the business who has done this, and not the intention of the owners of the business. - Again they should be approached with corroborating evidence, and if possible the name of the person who claimed responsibility… bear in mind that the name of the person involved is just hearsay - and not direct evidence. - The route of gathering that information should also be supplied so those responsible for decision making can apply the right level of weight to that “evidence” in their investigation.

The bishop is responsible… he should probably be consulted before the company is contacted… Depending on jurisdiction, the perpetrator of this act (assuming it was done deliberately and is as you describe) may have committed serious crimes under both Cannon Law, and under the Criminal or Civil law of your local country.


#17

[quote=anruari]Zooman
1st. the Christian Virtue of Charity demands that we should always give the benefit of the doubt to our interpretations of what other people do or say for as long as there is any reasonable doubt. Not to do this is to sin against the virtue of Charity, and to talk about the actions sayings or intentions of others in an uncharitable way is to further commit the sins of Calumny or Detraction. That incurs on the gossip, the gravity of the sin of which they accuse others… or depending on circumstances, a greater sin.
[/quote]

I still am giving him the benefit of the doubt, I am not saying he intentionally did anything.

[quote=anruari]2nd. The priest was very young, and while ordained recently so, he was still in training, studying for a Doctorate. He is active and explicitly Missionary, supporting and promoting lay missionary organisations, and successfully encouraging large numbers of lapsed or Luke-warm Catholics to return to the sacraments, and bring their relationships into proper Sacramental Marriage.

3rd. The standard of Catechesis for Catholics is woefully poor. this includes many of our seminaries.
[/quote]

This was what I was remarking at, not him. The fact that as a seminarian he never received Catechesis was surprising to me, yet as you say the standard is low which I understand.

[quote=anruari]4th. When the appropriate Vatican Documents were shown to him about this matter he immediately changed his methods. I can attest to having witnessed this.

5th. I can attest to his devotion to the Eucharist in many other ways. and his rapid acceptance of Catechetical points when they are raised in that or other areas.
[/quote]

I have no doubt that he is a pious man and I had certainty that he was ignorant of using that non-alcoholic wine, not deliberately doing it. I apologize if it sounded like I was accusing him of something.


#18

don’t worry about it.
The story is in relation to a thread about an accusation of very deliberate attempts to desecrate the Eucharist… your questions were quite reasonable in the circumstances: hence my robust defense rather than leaving my defense at point 1.


#19

Originally posted by R_C
God only knows why in His providence he would have let a Catholic find out about something like that rather than allowing it to remain hidden for years and perhaps never discovered.

This statement is HUGE to me. It most accurately describes the pain I’ve been going through over this issue. I honestly do not know what God has in store for me. Ignorance is truly bliss. It is no wonder why Mary weeps. If we knew all that she knows we would be constantly mourning as well. So much evil in this world, it seems hopeless sometimes. Why has God revealed these things to me? If it is of no consequence to Transubstantiation, then why am I tortured with this knowledge?

Originally posted by anruari
If your suspicions can be substantiated, then the parish priest using breads from that source should be shown the evidence.

And therein lies the rub. The only evidence I have is in the subjective interpretation of photos of the unconsecrated host. It is quite easy to call me a nutcase. In the meantime, God has given me a crystal clear view of the atrocity. So my challenge is to convince someone, anyone, that it is real. That is not easy, especially when you all feel confident that it has no consequence on Transubstantiation.

People do not like hard work. And challenging this is hard work. So much so, that anyone I show this to, will 99% of the time refuse to believe it. It is easier to call me crazy and dismiss my claim, than to give it any credence. That is because it borders on

Gorgias, wrote “If you can’t see it, it is a non-starter”.

So, one thing I have learned is, to be able to see the markings, you have to change your perspective on what “random shapes” are. Remember when I was saying If you don’t read Greek, for example, you wouldn’t recognize greek letters to mean anything. You may even call then random scribbles.

So, here’s an experiment. Take out a piece of paper and draw 3 random shapes in a row. As though they are letters forming a word. Perhaps you drew “figure 8”, “tall rectangle”, “diamond”. Now, I think we can agree that they don’t mean anything. But, what if that exact orientation of three shapes was repeated over and over? Is it still random? I contend that it is not random. A collection of three seemingly random shapes ceases to be random when it is repeated the same, over and over and over again.

Now add to that fact that there is an actual meaning behind the three shapes, and we now have a meaningful symbol. Not merely a collection of random shapes in the clouds.

Here is another experiment. Imagine looking up at the clouds. You might say, “hey that one looks like the letter G” and everyone might agree. But if it LITERALLY took the form of an honest to goodness word, complete with minor details, you would have to say “something significant is happening here, either a man flying a plane wrote that, or it is supernatural”. Nobody in their right mind would say, “Hey, look, that one looks like the words ‘God is Love’. What a cool coincidental randomly shaped cloud!”.

So at SOME point, there is a level of consistency that “crosses the line”, rendering it no longer “random” but INTENTIONAL. Intentional by whom? And for what purpose? I don’t know. In the case of the clouds, it was a skywriter airplane, of course, for the purpose of spreading God’s love!

But one thing is for sure, this is where I am at. I just don’t know my next step. But I thank you all for talking through it with me. I will consider posting some photos here, but I am very hesitant. You have granted me an audience for my “hypothetical”, and I am truly grateful for that. But my experience is, as soon as I start making the specific claim, the crowd disperses, calling me crazy, and I once again find myself alone. Why would God reveal this to me only to leave me with nobody to help me get to the bottom of it?

Before I started this thread, I thought he was revealing it to me so that I would fight it. But as I have tried to find an audience in the past and failed, I then began to think He has revealed it to me as an example of why we shall not be making graven images. It seems to support the Protestant view of the dangers of false worship. But now you all have me thinking again that Transubstantiation is not hindered, and therefore God has revealed it to me to fight the fight.

I just don’t know what His plan for me is. I want to be obedient. Perhaps He is wanting me to strive to be obedient in other aspects of my life before I can expect Him to lead me to the next step on this issue. I certainly have failed at that! :idea:


closed #20

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