“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.
A quick Bible study if you're willing to do so. Context is the key to understanding this passage.
Would Jesus knowingly instruct people to disobey the Law?
Who was Jesus talking to in this passage in John 6?
What do the verses in John 6 prior to this exchange say?
When Jesus asked the disciples in John 6 if they wanted to leave what was their reply?
In Acts, what did the Jerusalem Council note in their letter that the Gentiles were not to do?
Who was in support of this letter?
No, it is not gibberish, and your recourse is simply bombast. My refutations typically are far more documented than RC arguments, and that bread and wine do not actually become literally transformed into human flesh and blood has been affirmed by RCs, and documented by me, including in the words of one of those whose writings RC love to post.
'In my experience they fall into two categories. The first do not believe the Eucharist is anything more than a symbol. The second believe the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ but they think the bread and wine are literally transformed into human flesh and blood."
"Neither position is the teaching of the Catholic Church. We believe in transubstantiation. The substance of the bread and wine really are transformed into the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. However, the transformation is not physical in a literal way. If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh."
"to understand what this means we must first understand what the medieval philosophers like St Thomas Aquinas meant by the word “substance”. They meant by this word almost exactly the opposite of what we mean by it."
"This does not mean that the bread and wine become human flesh and blood, and it is this misapprehension that we need to be careful to correct. The exception to this would be the unusual examples of Eucharistic miracles," - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2014/07/explaining-transubstantiation.html
This is what I meant to express, to which can added much more, and if you disagree with that then you must deal with them.
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.
You can do better than requiring reading all of the baptized neoPlatonic Aristotelian reasoning of Aquinas, for as with so-called church "fathers," it is not so much what they say but what Rome chooses from them and how she understands them.
I read that whole 20 page paper you cited, and that’s a man I’d never trust as a source for The Truth.
A trad RC would not as such may support modern Catholic teaching, or cannot be trusted to support RC propaganda, while your rejection means that without any evidential warrant, you are to be believed over a Emeritus Professor of Theology. I am not impressed.
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.
The only difference i see is in one sentence which is a difference without a real distinction:
"What Jesus did at the Last Supper is obviously at least the generative moment of the institution of the Eucharist. But Eucharist in the full sense we have just described? No, that was still to come." "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." http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/66/66.1/66.1.1.pdf
And his focus in the first part was on "the history and theology of eucharistic origins," and the quoted statement is a valid testimony to the development of Eucharist theology.
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
Rather, the irony here is that the article of the OP is about one of many claims of Eucharistic miracles proffered in support of the Cath Eucharist yet this manner of actual and True Presence is not that of transubstantiation, and if it was then it would have saved Aquinas and others from laboring to inventively to explain it.
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. Above all, I take Jesus’ word for it.
You do? Well then let us see you "explain" how this statement, which is a absolute imperative as much as other "verily verily" statements, can be literal when souls obtained spiritual life in them by believing the gospel, and before they even heard of the Lord's supper, and Rome herself broadly affirms that Prots have the Holy Spirit? Please be consistent - no equivocating!
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.
Been there, done that (former weekly RC, altar boy, CCD teacher, and lector), and instead, in the light of the multitudes who manifest no change by regularly receiving the "sacraments," or who manifest cultic devotion, if the Eucharist was regulated by the FDA Rome could be sued for false advertising or for peddling drugs.