Is the Eucharist only symbolic.

[polonius]

" Paschasius Radbertus was the first to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation in the ninth century. He was opposed by Ratranmus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie. Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi). This controversy between two Catholic monks shows that both views were present in the Catholic church at least up to the eleventh century. The debate continued until the thirteenth century when the final decision was taken by the Lateran Council in 1215.

The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century"

[polonius]

"How "well-versed" does someone have to be to make the perfectly reasonable speculation that heart tissue and blood might be procured to maintain the appearance that a miracle took place in the eighth century? And if Dr. Linoli didn't submit his findings for peer review, what does that suggest? "

RESPONSE:

1. Did Dr. Linoli collect his own sample or was it given to him by a religious?

2. Why was his paper not examined by other scientists?

3. How many other qualified scientists claim the same results?

4. Will the Catholic Church allow the same analysis to be performed today by a panel of scientists and their results published ?

Former worker in medical research.

[MarysSon]

[Replying to post 12 by MarysSon]

That's what I said "his own fleshy body" ... glorified or not.

However, you need to understand that the body you were born in and the glorified body you will have in Heaven are NOT the same.
One is corruptible flesh - and the other is incorruptible.

[Eloi]

[Replying to post 21 by MarysSon]

You need to understand that nobody can bite Jesus's body literally.

[MarysSon]

My point was that there's nothing to corroborate that the occurrence at Lanciano was a miracle.

How "well-versed" does someone have to be to make the perfectly reasonable speculation that heart tissue and blood might be procured to maintain the appearance that a miracle took place in the eighth century? And if Dr. Linoli didn't submit his findings for peer review, what does that suggest?

After calling my source "biased", you rather spoil your own effect by responding with a link to an article in the National Review.....

In the other article a "red flag", as you would put it, is that the article quotes no one, whereas the article I cited includes quotes from numerous individuals involved in research on the shroud.

And still, we're not addressing the issue of why gluten isn't transubstantiated.

Let's start with your last claim first:

I have already stated that Transubstantiation doesn't change the molecular structure of the bread. That's what "accidents"means. This means that gluten, in its current state, still exists in the accidents of bread.

As for my NOT providing names or quotes of experts on the Shroud – here is evidence from FOUR scientists who have spent a great deal of their careers studying the Shroud who claim it is NOT a fake. And the following article ISN’T a biased source, as it presents BOTH sides:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/99 ... on-muslims

Finally - as to the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano - I explained to you that the dried blood pellets have liquefied many times over the centuries and the pericardium sample in the monstrance has re-hydrated as well. Yet, I see no explanation for that . . .

[MarysSon]

Let's place a monstrance in front of what God has sanctified said no believer ever. Symbols of Sol Invitus and Baal should be a no go for believers.

Looks like YOU'VE been reading Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons" - which has been debunked MANY times over by both Catholic AND Protestant scholars alike.

Too bad anti-Catholic cartoonist Jack Chick didn't get the memo before he based all of HIS tracts on Hislop's schlock "research" . . .

[Athetotheist]

I have already stated that Transubstantiation doesn't change the molecular structure of the bread. That's what "accidents"means. This means that gluten, in its current state, still exists in the accidents of bread.

The central question it comes down to is this:

When communion bread containing gluten is consecrated, does the gluten become the body of Jesus along with the rest of the bread?

Finally - as to the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano - I explained to you that the dried blood pellets have liquefied many times over the centuries and the pericardium sample in the monstrance has re-hydrated as well. Yet, I see no explanation for that . . .

I've seen no concrete documentation of it. Has anyone seen these alleged transformations as they happen and not just after the "fact"? When such a remarkable claim is made, hearsay evidence should never be considered sufficient.

[MarysSon]

The central question it comes down to is this:

When communion bread containing gluten is consecrated, does the gluten become the body of Jesus along with the rest of the bread?

That's like asking of there are elements of flour in the consecrated host or if the Precious Blood has alcohol in it.
Of course they do. These accidents still exist.

I've seen no concrete documentation of it. Has anyone seen these alleged transformations as they happen and not just after the "fact"? When such a remarkable claim is made, hearsay evidence should never be considered sufficient.

And you'll never accept ANY documentation of it as "concrete" because it is your right to doubt whatever you wish.
I can't "make" you believe something if you don't want to - even if I hit you across the face with it.

[Athetotheist]

The central question it comes down to is this:

When communion bread containing gluten is consecrated, does the gluten become the body of Jesus along with the rest of the bread?

That's like asking of there are elements of flour in the consecrated host or if the Precious Blood has alcohol in it.
Of course they do. These accidents still exist.

If a gluten-sensitive individual consumes a communion wafer and is sickened, is the body of Jesus making the person sick?

[MarysSon]

The central question it comes down to is this:

When communion bread containing gluten is consecrated, does the gluten become the body of Jesus along with the rest of the bread?

That's like asking of there are elements of flour in the consecrated host or if the Precious Blood has alcohol in it.
Of course they do. These accidents still exist.

If a gluten-sensitive individual consumes a communion wafer and is sickened, is the body of Jesus making the person sick?

Nope.
The accidents of gluten are making them sick.

The same is true for those who consume the Precious Blood and are allergic to alcohol.

[onewithhim]

The majority of the Christendom believes Jesus is with the same fleshy body he was when he was a human. That means nobody can eat his flesh or drink his blood in any similar to real sense, because he would be feeling in heaven how people bite his flesh and drain his blood, so it is obvious to me that those words were metaphorical.

Of course they were metaphorical!! Any way you look at it, Jesus' literal body could not be in any bread or wine.

.