[Beggars All] "The doctrine which maintains the change...transubstantiation.. is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason...overthroweth..cause manifold superstitions..gross idolatries."
[Bellisario] "What is repugnant is that you reject Our Lord's words which tell us otherwise. Not you or your false confession [i.e. WCF] will ever change His words. Common sense does not give us the Gospel. Our lord did. You and your 'confession' reject Our lord and His words. Common sense tells me to listen to his words."
[TF] "Our Lord isn't the one who invented this concept of transubstantiation. He used a metaphor, but that's too common sense for some folks."
[Bellisario] "Prove He used a metaphor. That is a lie from the devil. Our Lord never said it was a metaphor."
Traditionally, Catholics invoke Mt 16:18 as their major prooftext for the papacy. According to the Catholic interpretation, when Jesus says he will build his church “on this rock,” the rock is a figurative allusion to the person of Peter (and, by extension, his successors).
Now, however, Matthew Bellisario has opened my eyes to the utterly repugnant nature of that inference.
It’s incumbent on the papist to prove that Jesus used a metaphor. To say “this rock” is a metaphor for St. Peter is a lie from the devil. Our Lord never said it was a metaphor.
To the contrary, when Jesus says he will build his church “on this rock,” he means a real rock. An actual, literal rock.
The only remaining question is which rock represents the true rock? Which rock is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic rock? Is it igneous, sedimentary, or metamorphic rock?