Replies

I can think of no greater victory for Satan than when he got the NCs to believe that Jesus did not mean this clear and simple truth, even though it is probably the most often repeated, painstakingly explained and plain spoken thing He is recorded as saying.

When you say "most often repeated . . . " don't you think should qualify with the acknowledgment that you are excluding most of the world's inhabitants?

"Most often repeated by Catholic Apologists". OK.
"Most often repeated". Absoloutely not!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How vague is this? "THIS IS MY BODY"

Not vague at all when taken without qualification. Of course you must utilize specialized mental gymnastics to ignore the context of every reference to "This is my body" in Scripture in order to justify the RCC practice of the Eucharist..

Assuming for the moment that you are correct in your literal interpretation of the "real presence", It would stand to reason you would find it necessary to faithfully follow the literal practice of communion as taught by Jesus. Wouldn't it? Does the RCC faithfully follow this practice?

Let's consider every instance in Scripture where Jesus participates in, and teaches the practice to be followed:

Matthew 26:
[26] Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
[27] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
[28] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 22:
[22] And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body."
[23] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.
[24] And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Luke 22:
[19] And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
[20] And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

1Corinthians 11:
[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

You will note there is never a reference to bread alone. It is always accompanied with the cup. No exception!

For whatever reason, assembly line communion, sanitation, whatever, the RCC has chosen to modify this practice and offer communion in one kind. Do you know better than Jesus? Do you think you are expected to take part of what He says and ignore the rest?

In the event the words of Jesus aren't sufficient why don't we look at the practice as taught by Augustine some 400 years later.

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

Please note there is an absoloute distinction between the bread and the wine. Do you have any idea when the RCC modified the practice and why? Also, what justification is given to modify the teaching of Jesus.

Try this on or size. Can you do it? Say: "If you say so Jesus."

Words which you should take to heart!