I always thought that believers were the Body of Christ, which the bread represents.
That's all well and good... but can you show that from the Bible? Where does it say that the "bread" represents the Christian community and not Christ Himself?
There’s no need for me to consume the literal Body of Christ, since I am that already.
You make an assertion here that even St Paul wouldn't dare make (see 1 Cor 12:12-26). The Church is the Bride of Christ (Eph, Rev) and we are members of that Body. Just as we were created from the beginning to be joined in one flesh in matrimony, so have we been joined to Christ in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb which is His Passion.
You can find seven times when Christ told His Disciples "I AM"... the door; the light of the world, et al. You can only find one instance (repeated in the Gospels) when Jesus said something else was Him and that is at the Last Supper with the bread and wine. "This is My Body..."
For the God Who spoke and light was separated from dark and all else was made... why do so many doubt that He can transubstantiate bread and wine into His own Body and Blood?
Here's a question I ask all Protestants on this subject. Did the Apostles eat the Body and Blood of Jesus? Jesus said "This is My Body..."... was it?
Here's a question I ask all Protestants on this subject. Did the Apostles eat the Body and Blood of Jesus? Jesus said "This is My Body..."... was it?
Christ often spoke in metaphors and/or parables and it seems clear he was doing so at the Last Supper. He was telling them of the sacrifice to come as he was the only one who fully knew and understood what was coming and used this as an opportunity to help them see one more bit of his omniscience and Godhood.
Of course He could cause the transubstantiation the bread and wine into His body and blood, but it also seems odd that they would continue to be bread and wine. I also have problems with the thought that, because one becomes a Catholic Priest, one is automatically endowed with the ability to perform (or perhaps facilitate is a better word) miracles that have not been readily accomplished since the apostles were dispatched.
I have trouble understanding why so many of the religions of the world absolutely require to have their priests available to "save" the souls of the congregation, when it clear that the Word of the bible only requires one to believe and ask Christ into his heart. We went from the Old Covenant, which proved that men could not become worthy on their own efforts, and into a New Covenant where it seems that other men (if you call them "priest") can help make you worthy.
I'll trust The Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit to be sufficient in and of themselves and consider the Lord's Supper as a symbol that we understand and appreciate that He was willing to be tortured and killed by sinners that sinners might have an Eternal relationship with Him.
God Bless
In what SENSE!?!
Plausible meanings abound in a number of Scriptures.
We find no conclusive justification for the seemingly arbitrary interpretations the RC edifice makes of a number of Scriptures, including that one.
“Upon this pebble/rock,” is another.
Insisting that God meant one of several plausible meanings about which reasonable people can differ—and insisting that such an interpretation is = to Salvation vs damnation
makes God out to be a terrible writer or a terrible editor.
imho, Salvation issues are not that ambiguous in Scripture.