Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: agere_contra

I personally think the Church went off-track when it tried to say more than that the bread and wine were “blessed” or “consecrated” or even “divinized,” and that the literal “body and blood” language creates more problems than it solves. “This is my body” and “this is my blood” seem to have related but differing symbolic meanings, “body” perhaps representing his divine life and “blood” his sacrificial act. After all, blood is a constituent of the body, not something separate from it.


15 posted on 08/05/2013 11:14:42 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: Steve_Seattle

I won’t be able to come back to this thread (I’m running a meeting in a minute).

The Church insists that the bread and wine of the mass are literally the Body and Blood of Christ.

Christ’s words at the Last Supper “This is My Body ...” and earlier in His ministry “He who eats My Flesh and Drinks My Blood ...” make it abundantly clear what is meant.

You may remember that passage about “This is a hard saying, and who can bear it?”. Many of Christ’s disciples balked at Christ speaking of his disciples eating and drinking His Body and Blood. But Christ did not change nor modify His speech.

The Eucharist is not symbolic. It absolutely IS the real Body and Blood of Christ, under the forms of Bread and Wine.

When I finally understood this tremendous fact as an adult: I returned to the Church.

Hope this is helpful.


20 posted on 08/05/2013 11:25:23 AM PDT by agere_contra (I once saw a movie where only the police and military had guns. It was called 'Schindler's List'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson