[OLD REGGIE]

Too much hinges there on one word “spirit,” and given that the Traditional doctrine of the Eucharist posits more than some metaphysical transformation. that context remains uncertain. Which is why Luther and Zwingli could not come to terms over the Eucharist. Even after rejecting the special priesthood, Luther thought the meaning of Scripture “clear” on this point: This “is” my body ; not “signifies “ my body. He was, after all, not a nominalist.

Agreed, though I care not a whit what Luther thought about it.

I could also say you have built an empire, now in decline, on the meaning of the words "this rock".

Furthermore, I was amazed when I first read what Calvin had to say about the matter. Not for him the “ dryness,” of the Swiss or Scots Church. Basically h saw that as a rejection of the Incarnation, for if the Spirit can “summon” the Word into a woman, the Spirit can summon “Him” into/as bread and wine. Calvin would have Jesus virtually present in the Eucharist and, according to my observation,so would a pious Baptist— despising though he might the “materialism” of the doctrine of transubstantiation. When he/she takes communion, he/she fells closer to Christ than at other times, including, of course, the way he communes with the Lord by reading the Bible.

You can feel closer to Christ while partaking in communion without eating Him.

BTW, Hi Robby.

[RobbyS]

If it has been an “empire,” it has been in decline many times but come back as many times. The history of the Roman Church if graphed looks like a sine curve, or the stock market during the past two years.

Is it better to “feel” close to a woman or be with her? ;-) Why be content with the virtual when you can have the real thing?