Another provocative Cath promotion begging for reproof. Bread and wine actually becoming real flesh and blood, being literally transformed into human flesh and blood, is not even what Eucharistic theology teaches (regardless of what some Caths describe), while the devil duplicated the first 3 miracles of Moses, and God says more are to come. Which are a test of True faith, with all Truth claims being subject to Scripture. Which as abundantly shown by God's grace, does not teach Cath Eucharistic theology.
Neither John 6 or the gospel accounts teach the Cath Eucharist, and which the rest of the NT is interpretive of. Wherein the transubstantiated priestly sacrificial expiatory Cath Eucharist is not substantiated, as it must be, and is contrary to what is taught, as shown here before today, by God's grace, with not even any NT pastors being called priests or shown engaging in the distinctive sacerdotal function that Catholicism assigns to them.
Rather than the Cath Eucharist being that which the Holy Spirit reveals in the Scriptural testimony of of the NT church, instead it is part of the progressive deformation of the NT church, thus requiring the specious art of "development of doctrine."
Robert J. Daly, S.J., argues that Jesus did indeed institute the Eucharist, though it took generations and centuries of guidance from the Holy Spirit for the Eucharist to reach its current form. "What Jesus did at the Last Supper is obviously at least the generative moment of the institution of the Eucharist." But it was not the Eucharist as we know it. "The Eucharist that Christians now celebrate is what the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of the risen Jesus, and over the course of generations and centuries, learned to do as it celebrated table fellowship with its risen Lord." (Daly, Robert J., S. J. [Emeritus Professor of Theology at Boston College], 'Eucharistic origins: from the new testament to the liturgies of the golden age." Theological Studies March, 2005) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Eucharist#Contemporary_scholars_and_evolution_of_the_Eucharist
Translated it means, "The Holy Spirit guided the church to develop what the Spirit never described [as anything more than a simple joyful communal meal in Acts, and feast of charity, (Jude 1:12) and in its only other occurrence with it being described as being done in remembrance of the Lord's death, showing/declaring it by sharing food (as one bread and cup) with each other in recognition of the unity (with Christ and each other) of the one body which the Lord bought with His blood, so that failure to treat each other as such was to be not actually eating the Lord's Supper. And with no pastor/priests even being mentioned.] into a liturgical ritual "source and summit" centerpiece of the Christian life, with "priests" changing bread and wine into the "real" but unbloody, non-evidential body and blood of Christ, offered as a sacrifice for sins, being declared as the "same sacrifice with that of the cross," placing the Lord upon the "altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man," that "no less than on Calvary, Jesus really offers his life to his heavenly Father," "a most acceptable Victim to the eternal Father, as he did upon the Cross," for "the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice" "the manner alone of offering being different," "by which God is appeased and rendered propitious." Sources.
I’ve wondered if the idea of Satan performing miracles to confuse the elect had entered anyone else’s mind.
“Wherein the transubstantiated priestly sacrificial expiatory Cath Eucharist is not substantiated, as it must be....”
This is gibberish. If you’re going to be an effective witness against the Catholic Church, you have to study and understand what the Church actually teaches. All you have is a Protestant version of what Protestants *think* the Church teaches. Go to Thomas Aquinas and study what he wrote about transubstantiation. Substance and accidents and all that. Anything less is the easy way out and bad scholarship.
Robert J. Daly, S.J. = bad Jesuit. Hardon = good Jesuit.
I read that whole 20 page paper you cited, and that’s a man I’d never trust as a source for The Truth. I don’t know where you got that “translation” from, but Daly’s focus in this paper isn’t exactly what you said. Next time, pick a better source to back up your point.
“Bread and wine actually becoming real flesh and blood, being literally transformed into human flesh and blood, is not even what Eucharistic theology teaches (regardless of what some Caths describe)....”
*Catholic* Eucharistic theology *does* teach this (actually Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity), and so do the Orthodox Churches. How far back do you want to go to find a common Christian “ancestor?” What did Augustine, Ambrose, or one of the other church fathers think?
“...with “priests” changing bread and wine into the “real” but unbloody, non-evidential body and blood of Christ, offered as a sacrifice for sins....”
The irony here is that the above article is about one of many Eucharistic miracles in which Jesus Christ, Himself, gives evidence of His actual and True Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Don’t even try claiming that this is a work of the devil, because while spending time in front of the tabernacle in a Catholic church is when one begins to understand the peace that surpasses all understanding.
“53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.” - KJV John 6:53-57
Above all, I take Jesus’ word for it.