You wrote:
“He didn’t say it “was” wine. He said “this fruit of the vine,” in the present tense, which, according to the Roman view, had already been transformed into blood. There was no “Fruit of the vine” anymore since all of it had already been transubstantiated into blood (according to you), which, by the way, He was drinking. (He drinks His own blood??) He did not say “this blood which USED to be wine.” Or “This wine which isn’t REALLY wine, it just looks like wine.” He said, “this fruit of the vine,” which He previously said “is my blood,” which He will drink again in the Kingdom of His Father when reunited with the Apostles.”
Well, you take a lot of space to say not much of anything. Even in the Mass we say “When we eat this bread and drink this cup...” AFTER THE CONSECRATION.
As one Catholic apologist explained it:
Didn’t Jesus say “fruit of the vine” when referring to the wine (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18)?
We got an email that said:
... if it is really the blood of Christ than [sic] why does Jesus say “For I say to you, I will no drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes”(Mt. 26:29; Mk 14:25; Lk 22:18) ... why would Jesus call it the fruit of the vine if it is his blood? He is referring to it as wine.
Rather than invalidating his explanation of the wine becoming his Blood, Catholics believe that he is reinforcing the depth of the Eucharist here by linking his Body and Blood to this passage:
“... remain in me and I will remain in you... I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. (Jn 15:4-5)
This passage takes on an incredibly dense meaning when Jesus links it to the Eucharist at the Last Supper. The phrase “remain in me and I’ll remain in you” is a perfect description of Communion. The Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” When we take Communion we physically become the branches of the vine, who is Jesus, and we become part of his body. We must remain in Eucharistic Communion with him in order to bear “much” fruit.
There are examples were the Greek word “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.” (Matt. 3:7, 12:34, 23:33) In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. Jesus often speaks on many levels at the same time. He is God.
http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/eucharist.php
you wrote:
“Apparently you agree with it. You believe that Christ was eating and drinking His own flesh and blood.”
If He received the Eucharist, then He was eating His own flesh and drinking His own blood. As the old rhyme goes:
“The King at supper sits,
The twelve as guests He greets,
Clasping Himself in His hands,
The food Himself now eats.”
“Well, you take a lot of space to say not much of anything. Even in the Mass we say “When we eat this bread and drink this cup...” AFTER THE CONSECRATION.”
Jesus “consecrated” the wine and transformed it into blood in verse 28, our verses in question come right after. Therefore, AFTER the concescration, Christ referred to the fruit of the vine as... fruit of the vine, and not blood.
Rather than invalidating his explanation of the wine becoming his Blood, Catholics believe that he is reinforcing the depth of the Eucharist here by linking his Body and Blood to this passage:
That's why Catholics need to wake up...It doesn't matter what Catholics believe or teach...What matters is 'what did God actually say'??? And Gods says it is fruit of the vine...NOT blood...Sorry, your teaching is false...