Truly and laughably idiotic delusion!A little play-by-play.
OP and Catholic @chrysostom says " this could be the most interesting collection of posters I have ever had in one of my threads" at post 283, which is long after the outcome of this impromptu 'battle royale' has already been determined.
Catholic @Cruciform shows up at post 57, and Protestant @csuguy shows up post 98. And then the eventual victor Orthodox @brewmama 'enters the ring' at post 108 and is immediately engaged by Protestant @SaulToPaul.
csuguy is in the final battle with brewmama, which begins post 136, when brewmama takes on csuguy directly.
At post 115 brewmama sets out the eventual winning claim in the debate, which is the common belief of both Orthodoxy and Catholicism regarding the Eucharist: the 'Real Presence' of the Lord Jesus Christ in the altar bread and wine of Holy Communion (Holy Orthodoxy & Holy Catholicism both "subscribe to the Real Presence" cite).
Posts 216 and 217 end the debate, with brewmama the winner, polishing off csuguy with two posts not replying directly to csuguy but instead to Jehovahs Witness @KingdomRose as a proxy.
csuguy presented the most powerful (Protestant) argument I've ever seen against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist being a true Christian doctrine, like the Trinity and Christ's Resurrection, that the Church should believe and confess. brewmama handled csuguy's argument, and that is consistent with the Real Presence being the truth, which means Protestantism is false.
Sayonara Protestantism. RIP. Q E D
PS I have to admit, there is a lot of Protestant @God's Truth skubalon to sift through, even in the span from posts 136-217 which is where the entire final battle occurs. Word of warning! lol
I wasted several minutes wading through that asinine thread to find basically one post that even pretended to be an actual argument. It was the most self-contradictory nonsense I've read from any Catholic on any topic since I've been posting on TOL (that's a long time!)
csuguy (an unbeliever - not a Protestant) posted two quotes from ancient Catholics that prove the modern Catholic belief in substantiation to be false....
"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."--(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6)
"In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, 'Take, drink: this is my blood'--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word 'shed for many, for the remission of sins'--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, 'I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.'" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2:2)
And this is the response that Idolater is so over the moon about....
You misunderstand what "symbolic" means...
The eucharist is always given to all members of the Church, including infants who are baptized and confirmed. It is always given in both forms—bread and wine. It is strictly understood as being the real presence of Christ, his true Body and Blood mystically present in the bread and wine which are offered to the Father in his name and consecrated by the divine Spirit of God.
In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.
One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.
The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him “in their hearts.” In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord’s last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.
On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term “symbols” for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a “mystery” and the sacrifice of the liturgy a “spiritual and bloodless sacrifice.” These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.
The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality—the world and man himself—is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God’s true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself “the bread of life” (Jn 6:34, 41).
I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51).
Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ’s flesh, and Christ’s flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word “symbolical” in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: “to bring together into one.”
Thus we read the words of the Apostle Paul:
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death, until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:23-26).
The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist—and Christ himself—is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is “not of this world.” The eucharist—because it belongs to God’s Kingdom—is truly free from the earth-born “logic” of fallen humanity.
The truest statement in the whole post is the last sentence where be boldly admits that his belief is "truly free from the earth-born “logic” of fallen humanity."
Why these morons, who don't believe that logic, which they just got through trying to use, even works, ever show up on a debate forum boggles my mind. But to declare that post or anything associated with it as a logical proof of anything but stupidity is laughably ridiculous!