Replies

In the gospels, Jesus said He is the Bread of Life, the gate to the sheepfold, and the true vine.

I have seen various forms of this on the Religion Forum quite a bit recently, but it is something of a non sequitur.

Our Lord DID NOT say that He is the gate and the true vine and then proceed to break apart a gate and a vine and distribute them to His Disciples. He said He is the gate and the vine and then He EXPLAINED what He meant.

But this is not what happened with the Eucharist. He gave His discourse on the Bread of Life, explained it, clarified it and even watched some leave AFTER the clarification. And then later, He broke the Bread and said, "This is My Body," and took the Cup and said, "This is My Blood." His explanation was followed by a definitive action and the action was so definitive that the Apostles started doing it after His Ascension.

If the Eucharist was purely symbolic, the words of Saint Paul would make NO SENSE:

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
-- 1 Corinthians 11:26-29

How can a person be "unworthy" of something that means nothing? This passage only makes sense if our Lord is really and truly present in the Eucharist.

Does that mean he is green and leafy? Or made of wood? Or soft and crusty and puffy?

I think there is some misunderstanding of what the Real Presence actually means. Catholics DO NOT believe that Jesus Christ becomes bread and wine, we believe on faith that the Bread and Wine becomes the Body and Blood of our Lord -- there is a huge difference between the two.

I know you say you were raised Catholic, but what are you NOW? Far too many people on here seem to have adopted anti-Catholicism as their religion and they are unwilling to say what they really believe. This is important because many Protestant denominations still believe in the Real Presence to varying degrees, they know it is more than just simple bread and wine. So, what are you? Are you a Baptist, a Methodist, a Presbyterian? Some on here seem totally incapable of confessing what they DO believe, they can only deny what they don't believe.

In three of the gospels, Jesus refers to drinking again of the cup and the fruit of the vine again in heaven.

Did Jesus drink His own blood?

Just when does the host and cup become the literal body and blood of Christ? All I ever saw anyone receive was a wafer. Never any raw flesh. Never the cup at all, so communion was never fully served to Catholics at all, unless that has changed in the last few years.

Drinking blood has historically been connected with Satan worship. It is expressly forbidden to Jews and Christians throughout Scripture. It is expressly forbidden in the OT and reiterated in the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts. They had ample opportunity to elaborate on it then, and didn’t make any exceptions.

All the verses about the Last Supper can be easily interpreted to mean that communion is a symbolic representation, and in light of the prohibition on drinking blood that is so pervasive throughout Scripture, it is a far better, more consistent interpretation. If I have to err, I’ll err on the side of caution.

Besides, if God has determined what the bread and cup really are, it doesn’t really matter what someone believes about it. If it does at some point, turn into the actual, literal flesh and blood of Christ, it’s going to happen whether someone believes it or not. If it’s not going to turn into the actual, literal flesh and blood of Christ, then it’s not going to whether someone believes it or not. It’s not the belief that makes it happen or not, it’s God’s work. The only difference is whether our belief lines up with it or not.

One can eat it unworthily by claiming to recognize the death of Christ as applying to himself and yet continuing to live a life of habitual, unrepentant sin. Tell me, is the priest who is habitually abusing children who performs a mass, really considered worthy of the body and blood just because he believes that in transubstantiation and eats what he considers the literal body and blood of Christ? I’d be terrified to do that with that kind of sin in my life. I’d be too afraid of a reaction like in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the guy drank from the chalice.

I don’t identify myself as a Baptist, a Methodist, or a Presbyterian because that’s not what saves me and that’s not who I am in Christ. It’s not the church that saves. The church is the body of believes for fellowship, teaching, encouragement, etc., not as the vehicle of salvation.