I believe in the Real Presence in Holy Communion myself, and even after all these years of study of Scripture I STILL do NOT understand what Catholic theology on Communion is.
And that’s after reading Catholic theology too.
What I get from them is that a miracle happens on the altar and the bread and wine is transformed into Jesus’ flesh and blood, but it’s flesh that tastes like bread and blood that tastes like wine?
And at the same time, Jesus in heaven is re-crucified. Again and again and again every time they say these words.
And for some reason, only the priest is allowed to drink the blood/wine/whatever.
I mean, even if you take ‘this is my body’ 100% literally, doesn’t this Catholic thing go a little bit beyond what the Bible says?
The priest is stating the sacrifice of his life for the parishioners. Or that’s the way it should be. They get free bread and wine (which is allowed, it’s just not practical) and the free word of God preached to them. He gets to give up many of the usual human comforts of life. Whether he is actually doing so probably doesn’t even matter in one sense, but of course it matters in his personal relationship with God.
My dear Luircin,
Since the Communion chalice has been received by laypeople since the late 1960’s, your remark that in the Catholic Church “only the priest” receives the Blood of the Lord, seems to show that your reading is a little outdated.
Your statement that, according to Catholics, Jesus is in heaven getting re-crucified over and over again, is not only incorrect, but quite *specifically* and *strongly* rejected by Catholic theology.
I must say such misconceptions abound in the blogosphere. Is that where you get this stuff?
Not that I blame you specifically. Far from it.
Religious “dialogue” online requires weary Catholics to be continually hauling this rubbish to the landfill.
Over and over again!
Yes, its a miracle like no other, since there unlike healings or changing water into wine, there is no manifest change, as unlike the Biblical incarnated Christ, "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) who was manifestly incarnated, and behaved, looked, felt, and would taste and scientifically test as real flesh and blood;
the Eucharistic christ is manifest as inanimate objects, which behave, look, feel, and taste and would scientifically test as mere bread and wine, but which are said to no longer exist, but Christ does instead (in either and both species, while His body in its spatial existence in Heaven remains), even to subatomic particles (some of which would become airborne...).
Until as said, the non-existent bread and wine begin to show decay (as in mold), at which point Christ is no longer present, even though the manifest decay is not real.
See here for substantiation, by God's grace
And at the same time, Jesus in heaven is re-crucified. Again and again and again every time they say these words.
No, that is not what is theologically said to occur, even though the Eucharist is "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,"(CCC 1365) with His human body and human soul, with His bodily organs and limbs and with His human mind, will and feelings (John A. Hardon, S.J., Part I: Eucharistic Doctrine on the Real Presence);
As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.”(CCC 1414; 1364) “...that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross;...For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different.” (Council of Trent, The Twenty-Second Session)
For it is imagined that the priest “offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary.” (John A. O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., The Faith of Millions, p. 256; Nihtt obstat, Imprimatur)
However, "crucified anew" does not mean again "in the historical sense:" "Christ was offered once, and is offered daily, but in one manner then, in another now." (Peter Lombard, Sentences, Lib. IV, Dist. 12)
And for some reason, only the priest is allowed to drink the blood/wine/whatever.
No, that is no longer true. In Vatican Two Catholicism the laity can consume both species, even though the smallest particle would give them the whole body and blood of Christ. Yes, that is what imagines occurred at the Last Supper.
I mean, even if you take ‘this is my body’ 100% literally, doesn’t this Catholic thing go a little bit beyond what the Bible says?
Actually as explained if you take ‘this is my body which is broken for you’ 100% literally, then it would be taking is less that 100% literal, since the only body of Christ that would be broken and His life-blood poured out (cf. Is. 53:10,12) was the manifestly incarnated body, not some `versus a Gnostic or Docetist Christ which was not what he appeared to be. to be.
But only the metaphorical understanding conforms to Scripture.
Agreed. Take a look at Lutheran theology on communion, I think you’ll find you sound like you’re a closet Lutheran. 8-)
Over what the church based in Rome tries to put forward; I tend to believe what Jesus said here:
For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them."No 'wafer' or 'wine' needed.
Matthew 18:20