Contra Catholic Eucharistic Arguments

[Hidden One]

JustforCatholcis is run by Dr. Joseph Mizzi (MD). He had a debate with (Catholic) John Martignoni awhile ago, and, frankly, got pwnd, in my opinion.

[url="http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/page/Debates"]http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/page/Debates[/url]

While it's not about the Eucharist, I think that a reading of this debate will give one valuable insights into Dr. Mizzi's approach to Catholicism. On that note, just in case dairygirl hasn't already read it, I present [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp[/url] which also quotes the Early Church Fathers.

[dairygirl4u2c]

'Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.'

maybe i should have bolded that sentence instead, from the first post of quotes. it seems like he'd be saying 'to interpret this as actual flesh, is wrong'. it could be that he's saying 'to interpret this as *actual* flesh, is wrong"-- but that wouldnt make much sense, cause who would think they were eating "actual" flesh when they were partaking in the catholic eucharist? it's not an argument worth dignifying, cause no one would do it, and so he'd be arguing even flesh as understood by catholics, is what's in error?

it seems i've heard people say augustine had, though, made attempts at rebutting people who thought they had to eat 'true' flesh, and theought they were getting the raw deal to be eating the catholic version. the way he's addressing it though, is obscure, if that's what he's doing. the last paragraph makes more sense. i do realize this is one paragraph, though etc.

Edited February 15, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c