I see how it can be regarded as an aid to reason,
although (as with some other Catholic doctrines, such as the immaculate
conception) it really just pushes the exercise of faith "further back";
it is still only by faith that transubstantiation can be accepted. But I agree
that this literal sense is not necessary, and also that it is in itself no
guarantee of the "eating" referred to by Jesus. For me it functions as an
insistence that the Eucharist is more than a memorial, and an insistence
on the idea of Christ as nourishment, and a person can apprehend and
appreciate this without the doctrine of transubstantiation. I think the
Eucharist has been so stripped-down in much of the evangelical community, and
that this is related to a fearful repudiation (or dualistic recasting?) of
sacramentality in general.
I may be misunderstanding you, however. Or
misunderstanding the reality. There is always that possibility.
Debbie
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:36
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] All believers
are ONE IN CHRIST
transubstantiation involves mentally materialization as
an aid to reason--the nature of symbolism
Jn 6 involves
faith--no transubstantiation required--there, believing transcends
seeing even while present to behold
many who
actually saw what JC did there, that day, in person, did not believe
(in) him
I don't know. But if I ever convert to
Catholicism, I will so think.
Debbie
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 6:49
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] All
believers are ONE IN CHRIST
are there
Catholics who think this way--transubstantiation's not an
absolute?
..whether or not you believe in
transubstantiation as some conceive of it, the point this kind of
language tries to make is that Christ himself is indeed real
nourishment, as he said in John 6.
