ROTFLOL!
Gosh, I PRAY you read some Calvin and learn about what he said concerning the Lord's Supper and how Rome destroys its meaning and turns the grace of God into a vile ceremony of pure pagan mysticism.
In this way are refuted not only the fiction of the Papists concerning transubstantiation, but all the gross figments and futile quibbles which either derogate from his celestial glory or are in some degree repugnant to the reality of his human nature. For we deem it no less absurd to place Christ under the bread or couple him with the bread, than to transubstantiate the bread into his body. 25. The Body of Christ Locally in Heaven And that no ambiguity may remain when we say that Christ is to be sought in heaven, the expression implies and is understood by us to intimate distance of place. For though philosophically speaking there is no place above the skies, yet as the body of Christ, bearing the nature and mode of a human body, is finite and is contained in heaven as its place, it is necessarily as distant from us in point of space as heaven is from earth. 26. Christ Not to be Adored in the Bread If it is not lawful to affix Christ in our imagination to the bread and the wine, much less is it lawful to worship him in the bread. For although the bread is held forth to us as a symbol and pledge of the communion which we have with Christ, yet as it is a sign and not the thing itself, and has not the thing either included in it or fixed to it, those who turn their minds towards it, with the view of worshipping Christ, make an idol of it.24. Transubstantiation and other Follies
Rome's tendancy is to "make an idol" out of everything.
There's LOTS more by Calvin on the Lord's Supper and the pagan error of Rome. If you'd like me to post it, just hollar. In part, the greatness of Calvin was due to the fact he wasn't some cloistered monk chained to the decaying foibles of Rome; he was a lawyer and he knew how to put forth a logical argument from the evidence found in Scripture.
And as for your earlier question, when Jesus said "eat of this, my body," was He still standing in front of the apostles? Yes, he was. Therefore the bread and wine He consecrated were not His ACTUAL blood and body, but a spiritual representation of the actual sacrifice He was about to make on our behalf on the cross.
Christ said He was the Good Shepherd and we are His sheep. Are you covered in wool and do you walk on four legs? Are you an actual lamb, or a spiritual lamb?
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." -- John 6:63
Rome has always had a difficult time differentiating between the temporal and the spiritual. Rome most often errs on the side of the temporal. Resist that failing, and know your salvation has been accomplished by Christ alone and is spiritually-discerned by the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
If God so wills.
Why would someone make our Lord Jesus Christ a liar, and mock His request, His invitation, His gift to us?
One would think poor Jean Cauvin was playing for the opposing team.
Traditions of Men
“Gosh, I PRAY you read some Calvin and learn about what he said concerning the Lord’s Supper and how Rome destroys its meaning and turns the grace of God into a vile ceremony of pure pagan mysticism.”
Calvin did indeed believe in the Eucharist at one point. When he was pulled away from Christ’s Church, he then developed HIS OWN rules, throwing Christ’s aside.
If you wish to read and take Calvin’s word over the Word of Christ, that is on you Doc.
Indeed. Truth is, the word “Eucharist” did not take on the Gnostic meanings held by the RCC until some time after the 4th century. For many years, “communion” = “Eucharist”; until the RCC redefined “Eucharist” into a fable.