Replies

- You can’t say the Eucharist is wrong because it’s blood drinking. Because you don’t even believe it’s blood. If it is indeed blood, we comply with John 54.

She can indeed say is it wrong for you, who erroneously believes it is blood. Except that, contrary to what a straightforward literal reading of the words at issue ("this is my body which is broken..," "my blood...which is shed..") require, you do not believe that the elements you consume fully correspond to the manifest flesh and blood of the Lord on the cross.

For in contrast to a Gnostic-type Christ, which only appeared to be human, the real Christ of Scripture was one who looked, felt, behaved, bled, etc. and would scientifically test as real flesh.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (1 John 1:1)

But akin to Gnostic delusion, Catholics believe in a Christ who looks, feels, behaves, and would scientifically test as real bread ans wine. But which is said to no longer exist once the mighty unScriptural NT priest utters his words of consecration, and instead it is deceptively claimed that what the Catholics are looking at and consume is "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, and the very blood which he poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,"(CCC 1365) in His entirety, in each particle and in each drop (even subatomic), and in multilocation.

That is, until what no longer exist (the bread and wine which is said to be Christ) decays or is physically destroyed by some natural process. However, since the bread and wine ceased to exist then that which decays does not exist as either bread or wine nor Christ.

And yet God/Christ nowhere existed as an inanimate object, and when He chose to become "really" present in a physical form then it was one that was clearly manifest as just that, not a piece of bread!

Moreover, if we take John 6:53,54 as literally as other "verily verily" imperatives, then the NT church would have been preaching the Lord's supper as the means of regeneration and spiritual nourishment, instead of the word of God.

And in contrast to the Catholic Eucharist being manifestly described as the preeminent practice of the NT church (Acts onward, which writings are interpretive of the gospels), "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei) 'the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) and a daily sacrifice for sins at the hands of men called "priests" (distinctive from laity), with the offering of it being a primary function, even the Biblical Lord's supper in only manifestly described in one epistle (see below), and perhaps as breaking of bread in Acts and the simple reference to the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12.

And it is only described as a communal commemorative and declarative meal with no priests ever mentioned, nor pastors exhorted to be faithful in this feeding, but instead they are exhorted to feed the flock (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) by preaching the word of God. (2Tim. 4:2; Rm. 10:15; Col. 1:25,28)

And with the believing of which (as the gospel message) is how souls obtain spiritual life, and which word is taught as being spiritual nourishment , being uniquely called "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)

Moreover, the only censure for not recognizing the body of Christ is that of not recognizing the church as such, due to hypocritically ignoring and shaming members of it by selfishly and independently eating, while supposedly showing/declaring the Lord's unselfish death which purchased the very body, the church, (Acts 20:28) and the souls they were ignoring (1Co. 11 ) .

The reality is that only the metaphorical understanding of the words at issue easily conflates with John and the rest of Scripture.

As substantially shown here , by God's grace.