The Eucharist

[D.R.R.]

Why do Protestants disbelieve in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist when in John 6 Christ so clearly states that his flesh is true food and His blood is true drink?

[Ric]

Why do Protestants disbelieve in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist when in John 6 Christ so clearly states that his flesh is true food and His blood is true drink?

First, We do believe Jesus is present at His Supper with us and not as the Supper.

Second, John chapter 6 has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper, and always remember John 6:63 - that places everything in John 6:43-69 in it's proper context. And John 6:68 confirms that context!

[romepunk]

First, We do believe Jesus is present at His Supper with us and not as the Supper.

Second, John chapter 6 has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper, and always remember John 6:63 - that places everything in John 6:43-69 in it's proper context. And John 6:68 confirms that context!
John 6 has everything to do with the Lord's Supper. Look at it this way. He says two extremely confusing and troubling things. First, eat my flesh and drink my blood. Second, one of the 12 is a traitor. From the disciples perspective, they must be in not a little confusion over what to make of this. How can they eat him? Who is the traitor? Both questions are answered at the last supper. We eat him through the Eucharist. And Judas is the traitor. All 6:68 confirms is that Peter and the 10 were faithful, it didn't mean they understood what he was saying. I think it's quite clear from the context that they didn't.

[Jude3b]

Why do Protestants disbelieve in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist when in John 6 Christ so clearly states that his flesh is true food and His blood is true drink?

Most likely Protestants disbelieve in the "Real Presence of Christ in the Roman Catholic Eucharist because: Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body. The Lord clearly states this fact: "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life..." (John 6:40)

The verse you mention D.R.R. does appear to teach cannibalism as your belief implies, but if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making that statement, Jesus said:
"....For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:33-35)

When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating His literal body. To even suggest such is ridiculous. He was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross. Notice D.R.R. how the verse ends: "..... this do in remembrance of me." Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's work at Calvary, not a reenactment. The same is true of Christ's blood:
"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (I Corinthians 11:25)

Now that you know the truth D.R.R. can you knowingly partake in the Roman Catholic practice? "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (James 4:17)

[romepunk]

The verse you mention D.R.R. does appear to teach cannibalism as your belief implies, but if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making that statement, Jesus said:
"....For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:33-35)Actually, he makes the command to eat his flesh and drink his blood before and after the verse you quoted. If this was a sufficient explanation of the odd command, why then, did his followers still complain about it's literal implications. 6:41-42. And why did Jesus go right back to an even stronger literal command. 54-56

When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating His literal body. To even suggest such is ridiculous.No one said he did. He gave him his body to eat in the sacrament. That's a strawman, Jude.

He was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross. Notice D.R.R. how the verse ends: "..... this do in remembrance of me." Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's work at Calvary, not a reenactment. The same is true of Christ's blood:
"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (I Corinthians 11:25)That's a non-argument, because in Catholic theology, His work on the cross and the eucharist are inseperably linked. Furthermore, could you please explain how "rememberance" preclude "representation." (which is more accurate than "reenactment.") Everytime you kiss your wife, your are both remembering the commitement you made to her and actually kissing her, making that rememberance a physical reality, just like kiss you shared at the altar.

[Columba3]

In the Lord's Supper or Eucharist we offer ourselves and the world to God. We do it in Jesus Christ because He has already offered all that is to be offered to God. He has performed once and for all this Eucharist and nothing has been left unoffered.

In him was Life, and this Life of all of us, he gave to God our Father. We do the Eucharist in remembrance of him, because, as we offer again and again our life and our world to God, we discover each time there is nothing else to be offered but Christ Himself - the Life of the world, the fullness of all that is.

I love those wonderful words in St Paul's Letter to the Colossians.

"For in Him all things were created both in the heavens and on earth,visible and invisible , whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things have been created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16&17)

When we offer ourselves and our world to God in the Eucharist through the offering made by our Lord Jesus, he comes among us and renews us with His Life and love.

[Jude3b]

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Genesis 9:4)
"... No soul of you shall eat blood, (Leviticus 17:12)
God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden.

"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:35)

Murmuring Jews (like Modern Roman Catholics, since 1215 A.D. when pope Innocent III invented Transubstantiaion) didn't understand what Jesus was sayiing (see John 6:41&42). So, Jesus expalined it more fully in John 6:43-51. The Jews (like Modern Roman Catholics, since 1215 A.D., when pope Innocent III proclaimed Transubstantiation) became even more puzzled (see John 6:52). So, since they were so confused, Jesus explains further the bread of life (see John 6:53-58)

You could literally eat the flesh of Jesus and drink His blood and it would not save your souls. Jesus was speaking about spiritual and eternal life, not fleshly life. "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63). Perhaps it is only ignorance that causes Roman Catholics to believe pope Innocent III - but it won't do them any good. It is the very words of God that they need eat and drink and in modern language believe!
I suppose it can be said of those who teaching transubstantion: "But there are some of you that believe not." (John 6:64a)

It should be obvious to anyone that Christ is speaking of the symbolic food and drink represented by His flesh and blood (6:55 my blood is drink); it would be cannibalistic, even if it were physically possible, to actually eat and drink His physical flesh and blood. He made that clear in John 6:63.

The spiritual concept is more clearly understood in I Corinthians 11:23-26)

[romepunk]

Jude,

I've answered many of these charges on the Eucharist and Cannabalism thread. I won't re-elaborate here. As for our difference in interpreation over John 6, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it's obvious from context that he's speaking literally, you think the opposite. I hope it won't stop us from being friends in Christ. :wink: Peace.

your brother in Christ,
romepunk

[Jude3b]

Jude,

I've answered many of these charges on the Eucharist and Cannabalism thread. I won't re-elaborate here. As for our difference in interpreation over John 6, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it's obvious from context that he's speaking literally, you think the opposite. I hope it won't stop us from being friends in Christ. :wink: Peace.

your brother in Christ,
romepunk

Dear Romepunk:
Please do not be offended, but if you are willing may I ask you a couple of questions? If you are saying yes, please tell me, if you died today are you sure you would go to heaven? If yes, why?
Thank you, Jude 3b

[romepunk]

Dear Romepunk:
Please do not be offended, but if you are willing may I ask you a couple of questions? If you are saying yes, please tell me, if you died today are you sure you would go to heaven? If yes, why?
Thank you, Jude 3bI'm not at all offended. Am I sure? As in the protestant (or if you prefer the non-Catholic Christian) doctrine of absolute assurance of salvation? I would have to say no. I have faith, and I have hope. I have a qualified certainty of my salvation, should I continue to keep the faith, follow Christ and be penitent for my sins. But as St. Paul said, in the readings from today's Mass:

Brothers and sisters:
I consider everything as a loss
because of the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.
For his sake I have accepted the loss of all things
and I consider them so much rubbish,
that I may gain Christ and be found in him,
not having any righteousness of my own based on the law
but that which comes through faith in Christ,
the righteousness from God,
depending on faith to know him and the power of his resurrection
and the sharing of his sufferings by being conformed to his death,
if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

It is not that I have already taken hold of it
or have already attained perfect maturity,
but I continue my pursuit in hope that I may possess it,
since I have indeed been taken possession of by Christ Jesus.
Brothers and sisters, I for my part
do not consider myself to have taken possession.
Just one thing: forgetting what lies behind
but straining forward to what lies ahead,
I continue my pursuit toward the goal,
the prize of God's upward calling, in Christ Jesus.

Phillipians 3:8-14

Faith and Hope, Jude.

your brother in Christ,
romepunk

[Ric]

John 6 has everything to do with the Lord's Supper. Look at it this way. He says two extremely confusing and troubling things. First, eat my flesh and drink my blood. Second, one of the 12 is a traitor. From the disciples perspective, they must be in not a little confusion over what to make of this. How can they eat him? Who is the traitor? Both questions are answered at the last supper. We eat him through the Eucharist. And Judas is the traitor. All 6:68 confirms is that Peter and the 10 were faithful, it didn't mean they understood what he was saying. I think it's quite clear from the context that they didn't.

Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

Yes John 6:68 does show that Peter and the 10 were faithful, but it also says that Jesus has the words of eternal life. No where does Peter say that Jesus' flesh has eternal life! Come on man, context, context, context! Still noting about the Lord's Supper!

[D.R.R.]

Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

Yes John 6:68 does show that Peter and the 10 were faithful, but it also says that Jesus has the words of eternal life. No where does Peter say that Jesus' flesh has eternal life! Come on man, context, context, context! Still noting about the Lord's Supper!

Yes, Jesus has the words of eternal life. And some of his words are that you have to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. This isn't cannibalism; it's not as though we're gnawing his bones, intestines, and stomache. Rather, Christ's body and blood are literally present in the Eucharist a different way.

Also, if you interpret John 6, 63 to contradict the Eucharist, then it's as though Jesus says over and over again, "Eat my flesh and drink my blood," "My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink," and suddenly says, "Hey guys! Everything I've said so far is a big joke." No, the flesh in John 6: 63 refers to the fallen nature of humanity, not to the Eucharistic Body of Christ.

[Ric]

Yes, Jesus has the words of eternal life. And some of his words are that you have to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. This isn't cannibalism; it's not as though we're gnawing his bones, intestines, and stomache. Rather, Christ's body and blood are literally present in the Eucharist a different way.

Also, if you interpret John 6, 63 to contradict the Eucharist, then it's as though Jesus says over and over again, "Eat my flesh and drink my blood," "My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink," and suddenly says, "Hey guys! Everything I've said so far is a big joke." No, the flesh in John 6: 63 refers to the fallen nature of humanity, not to the Eucharistic Body of Christ.

Yet you still overlook and/or deny Jesus' own words here:

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

I just don't understand why Roman Catholics won't reconise God's own Word over the false teachings of mere men???

[romepunk]

Ric,

If the flesh of Christ does not truly give us a new life, then his sacrifice on the cross is meaningless. Your interp of 6:63 nullifies the efficacy of the crucifixion.

[rocketman]

A quick point to be made...

Protestants often accuse Catholics of "putting Jesus back on the Cross" in its belief in the Real Presence. They say that since Jesus has already risen, then the sacrifice is alrewady complete.

The problem with this thinking is...God is eternal. Eternal does not mean lasting for all time...it means lasting without time. While we have time split into past, present and future, for God in Heaven, it is an eternal NOW, because God is totally actual...if God had potential that needed to be realized, then that would require time, but God lives outside of time. God, quite simply, is.

So if God is in eternal now, then all things (to our deficient senses anyways) would be occurring simultaneously. Thus, not only is Jesus eternally risen, he is also eternally crucified for out sins. The man Jesus came down form that cross in time, and he arose in time. The God Jesus, was eternally crucified and eternally arises. Thus, He gives His body to us eternally, and we partake of his glorified body and essence through the Eucharist.

This also explains why Catholics use the term transubstantiation, and not consubstantiation. To put it simply, bread is not living, and God is. A material cannot be both living and non-living at the same time. It's an either/or. Thus, if the form "bread" mixed with the divine form of God, the Eucharist would both be and not be. This is an impossible contradiction. Thus, if God is present in the Eucharist, he must be wholly present and wholly replace the bread. This is why Catholics reject the Lutheran proposition of Jesus being present "in, under and through the bread".

[Ric]

Ric,

If the flesh of Christ does not truly give us a new life, then his sacrifice on the cross is meaningless. Your interp of 6:63 nullifies the efficacy of the crucifixion.

Lord's Supper is for us to remember what Jesus did for us on the cross and not the result of the cross!

I'm just amazed how this false teaching has corrupted so many people through out the world. Come on man, either believe God's true Word alone, or keep with mere men's false teachings - but never combine the two of them! :rant:

[romepunk]

Lord's Supper is for us to remember what Jesus did for us on the cross and not the result of the cross!

I'm just amazed how this false teaching has corrupted so many people through out the world. Come on man, either believe God's true Word alone, or keep with mere men's false teachings - but never combine the two of them! :rant:
Thank cranky emoticon doesn't answer my question Ric. Let's put aside the question of the real presence. Does the flesh of Christ give us eternal life or not? That is to say, his sacrifice on the cross. If so, your interp of 6:63 is not an effective argument against the real presence. I'm not saying it proves the real presence, I'm just saying you haven't disproved it.

[Jude3b]

I'm not at all offended. Am I sure? As in the protestant (or if you prefer the non-Catholic Christian) doctrine of absolute assurance of salvation? I would have to say no. I have faith, and I have hope. I have a qualified certainty of my salvation, should I continue to keep the faith, follow Christ and be penitent for my sins. But as St. Paul said, in the readings from today's Mass:

Brothers and sisters:
I consider everything as a loss
because of the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.
For his sake I have accepted the loss of all things
and I consider them so much rubbish,
that I may gain Christ and be found in him,
not having any righteousness of my own based on the law
but that which comes through faith in Christ,
the righteousness from God,
depending on faith to know him and the power of his resurrection
and the sharing of his sufferings by being conformed to his death,
if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

It is not that I have already taken hold of it
or have already attained perfect maturity,
but I continue my pursuit in hope that I may possess it,
since I have indeed been taken possession of by Christ Jesus.
Brothers and sisters, I for my part
do not consider myself to have taken possession.
Just one thing: forgetting what lies behind
but straining forward to what lies ahead,
I continue my pursuit toward the goal,
the prize of God's upward calling, in Christ Jesus.

Phillipians 3:8-14

Faith and Hope, Jude.

your brother in Christ,
romepunk

Jesus said that He is "the Way, the Truth and the life and that no one cometh unto the Father," except by Him. There is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved. The Christ, that we read about in the Bible, saves by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8 & 9), which means He is an all sufficient savior - and not just a partial savior - that you must add things to; such keeping the rules and regulations of the Roman Catholic religion (the faith as you called it), or being a penitent for your sins. You are to "Repent" -not be a penitent. A good place to start "repenting" - is to stop placing "religion - Romanism" before Christ and His Word.

To be saved - our faith must be placed in Christ and Christ alone. If you notice, the Bible states, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." It does not say to have faith in a religion or Roman Catholicism. It does not say to earn or hope to hold on to a degree of salvation by doing religious works and penance. (I John 5:13)

I hope and pray that you will choose the real Christ of the Bible. He loves you and died for you.

[D.R.R.]

Yet you still overlook and/or deny Jesus' own words here:

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

I just don't understand why Roman Catholics won't reconise God's own Word over the false teachings of mere men???

How do I overlook and/or deny Jesus' own words? I addressed them in my last post: flesh in this passage refers to the fallen nature of humanity, not to the Body of Christ.

But Romepunk has a good question, which you might want to answer before you address my point.

[Maxentius]

Jude,

I've answered many of these charges on the Eucharist and Cannabalism thread. I won't re-elaborate here. As for our difference in interpreation over John 6, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it's obvious from context that he's speaking literally, you think the opposite. I hope it won't stop us from being friends in Christ. :wink: Peace.

your brother in Christ,
romepunk

In a slightly less polemic vein. :smile:

Romepunk, you state that John 6 is about the Eucharist. If that is so, doesn't John 6:53 mean that if I do not receive communion, I would necessarily be damned because I have no life in me? Doesn't that condemn all Protestants to hell, which is contrary to Church teaching?

This is one reason I do not believe this passage is about Holy Communion.

[Jude3b]

I'm not at all offended. Am I sure? As in the protestant (or if you prefer the non-Catholic Christian) doctrine of absolute assurance of salvation? I would have to say no. I have faith, and I have hope. I have a qualified certainty of my salvation, should I continue to keep the faith, follow Christ and be penitent for my sins. But as St. Paul said, in the readings from today's Mass:

Brothers and sisters:
I consider everything as a loss
because of the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.
For his sake I have accepted the loss of all things
and I consider them so much rubbish,
that I may gain Christ and be found in him,
not having any righteousness of my own based on the law
but that which comes through faith in Christ,
the righteousness from God,
depending on faith to know him and the power of his resurrection
and the sharing of his sufferings by being conformed to his death,
if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

It is not that I have already taken hold of it
or have already attained perfect maturity,
but I continue my pursuit in hope that I may possess it,
since I have indeed been taken possession of by Christ Jesus.
Brothers and sisters, I for my part
do not consider myself to have taken possession.
Just one thing: forgetting what lies behind
but straining forward to what lies ahead,
I continue my pursuit toward the goal,
the prize of God's upward calling, in Christ Jesus.

Phillipians 3:8-14

Faith and Hope, Jude.

your brother in Christ,
romepunk

If you will fully place your trust in Christ and his all sufficient finished work on the cross - you could than believe the Bible as final authority and accept I John 5:13 as true.

[romepunk]

In a slightly less polemic vein. :smile:

Romepunk, you state that John 6 is about the Eucharist. If that is so, doesn't John 6:53 mean that if I do not receive communion, I would necessarily be damned because I have no life in me? Doesn't that condemn all Protestants to hell, which is contrary to Church teaching?

This is one reason I do not believe this passage is about Holy Communion.
An excellent question. The Catholic Church recognizes that there are ordinary means of grace and extraordinary means of grace. For instance, throughout the NT, Christ and the Apostles command Baptism for the remission of sins. Baptism is thr ordinary means of grace for washing away the stain of original sin. However, God is not bound by the sacrament. He can shed his grace on whomever he pleases. Thus the thief on the cross went to heaven, despite never having been baptized. The thief was made part of the body of Christ through an extraordinary means of grace.

The Church believes that Christ instituted certain sacraments, and that these sacraments are the ordinary means of grace for salvation. However, non-Catholics and even non-Christians may still recieve the graces of these sacraments in some mysterious way beyond our understanding. The thief on the cross experienced a "baptism of desire" though not an actual water baptism. Similarly, the grace conferred in the Eucharist can be made available to whomever God pleases. Although the ordinary means of this grace, the way in which God has ordered the sacramnets for us to recieve it, is in the Eucharist.

[Maxentius]

Thanks! I thought my question would diffuse the cannibal thread. :smile:

The Church believes that Christ instituted certain sacraments, and that these sacraments are the ordinary means of grace for salvation. However, non-Catholics and even non-Christians may still recieve the graces of these sacraments in some mysterious way beyond our understanding. The thief on the cross experienced a "baptism of desire" though not an actual water baptism. Similarly, the grace conferred in the Eucharist can be made available to whomever God pleases. Although the ordinary means of this grace, the way in which God has ordered the sacramnets for us to recieve it, is in the Eucharist.

OK, I can accept that the church is bound to God's commandments and the sacraments Christ instiuted, but God is not so bound.

In this passage however, we are commanded to eat his flesh and drink his blood, otherwise we have no life in us. Given that, maybe we could make an exxception for people who have never heard. But what about the "separated bretheren?" As a Lutheran I believe in the real presence, that when I receive communion I receive the true body and blood of my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. But according to my understanding of Catholic teaching, the sacrament I receive is not really the true sacrament and I do not receive the true body and blood of Jesus Christ. Since I have heard the Catholic "truth" from you and from others am I not in open rebellion?

That is why I have my doubts about this passage. For that Reason Luther thought it did not teach about Holy Communion, it would have forced him to deny that some of his opponents were Christian, and he had real incentive to use any evidence he could to refute the Reformed idea that the RP is "spiritual."

[Jude3b]

The communion service has an object; it is intended to teach something; for Christ would not establish an ordinance in his church without a distinct purpose in view. Much of the original design, however, has evidently been lost or covered up by the accumulation of human rubbish in the form of theological opinions and false notions.
The Roman Catholic doctrine - that the bread and wine are, at the time of consecration, converted into the actual body and blood of Christ and that communicants receive directly some special "grace" thereby is not what the Bible teaches. "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov. 30:6).
The special design of this ordinance is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance: "This do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19). If the ordinance is "in remembrance" of Christ, as stated, then it is not actually Christ himself (though it symbolically represents him in his atonement), but is a commemorative institution by which the sufferings of Christ for our sins are brought vividly before the mind, thus bringing us into closer fellowship with his sufferings and death. "For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (I Cor. 11:26). In observing it, we do not obtain spiritual life, but we "show the Lord's death."

[romepunk]

OK, I can accept that the church is bound to God's commandments and the sacraments Christ instiuted, but God is not so bound.

In this passage however, we are commanded to eat his flesh and drink his blood, otherwise we have no life in us. Given that, maybe we could make an exxception for people who have never heard. But what about the "separated bretheren?" As a Lutheran I believe in the real presence, that when I receive communion I receive the true body and blood of my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. But according to my understanding of Catholic teaching, the sacrament I receive is not really the true sacrament and I do not receive the true body and blood of Jesus Christ. Since I have heard the Catholic "truth" from you and from others am I not in open rebellion?

That is why I have my doubts about this passage. For that Reason Luther thought it did not teach about Holy Communion, it would have forced him to deny that some of his opponents were Christian, and he had real incentive to use any evidence he could to refute the Reformed idea that the RP is "spiritual."
The Church maintains that in order for the host to be consecrated, a validly ordained priest must perform the mass. The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the capital "O" Orthodox churches around the world, but not the Anglican and Lutheran, despite their (compared to other protestants) relatively high-church liturgy and similar theology concerning the Eucharist.

You are not in open rebellion against the Catholic view of things, because you don't believe them to be true. You are simply following your conscience. In Catholic terminology, this could be a case of "invincible ignorance" (which sounds meaner than it is.)

I don't think one has to interpret this passage like Luther in order to recognize those with dissenting opinions as real Christians. True, those who deny the real presence, do not have the fullness of Christain Truth. And those who have never received the Eucharist, have never experienced the fullness of the sacraments. But God is not bound by these things.

[Jude3b]

The communion service has an object; it is intended to teach something; for Christ would not establish an ordinance in his church without a distinct purpose in view. Much of the original design, however, has evidently been lost or covered up by the accumulation of human rubbish in the form of theological opinions and false notions.
The Roman Catholic doctrine - that the bread and wine are, at the time of consecration, converted into the actual body and blood of Christ and that communicants receive directly some special "grace" thereby is not what the Bible teaches. "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov. 30:6).
The special design of this ordinance is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance: "This do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19). If the ordinance is "in remembrance" of Christ, as stated, then it is not actually Christ himself (though it symbolically represents him in his atonement), but is a commemorative institution by which the sufferings of Christ for our sins are brought vividly before the mind, thus bringing us into closer fellowship with his sufferings and death. "For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (I Cor. 11:26). In observing it, we do not obtain spiritual life, but we "show the Lord's death."

While the Lord's Supper is commemorative of the sufferings and death of our Lord, representing symbolically his crucified body, it also has another important signification: it represents the collective and unified body of believers in Christ. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we (true saved Christian believers) being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread" (I Cor. 10:16,17)

[Findo]

An interesting thought...

if transubstantiation is true.. then in light of John 6:35 you would only need to recieve the eucharist once....

If the bread and wine at the last supper was really transformed into His blood and flesh, why did he need to go to the cross?

Just once, why not try reading the bible without the 'tradition' of the RCC.. it may suprise you what you find...

[D.R.R.]

If the bread and wine at the last supper was really transformed into His blood and flesh, why did he need to go to the cross?

www.vatican.va

"When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, the memorial of her Lord's death and resurrection, this central event of salvation becomes really present and “the work of our redemption is carried out”.11 This sacrifice is so decisive for the salvation of the human race that Jesus Christ offered it and returned to the Father only after he had left us a means of sharing in it as if we had been present there. Each member of the faithful can thus take part in it and inexhaustibly gain its fruits. This is the faith from which generations of Christians down the ages have lived. The Church's Magisterium has constantly reaffirmed this faith with joyful gratitude for its inestimable gift.12 I wish once more to recall this truth and to join you, my dear brothers and sisters, in adoration before this mystery: a great mystery, a mystery of mercy. What more could Jesus have done for us? Truly, in the Eucharist, he shows us a love which goes “to the end” (cf. Jn 13:1), a love which knows no measure." (John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia)

[kofh2u]

An interesting thought...

if transubstantiation is true.. then in light of John 6:35 you would only need to recieve the eucharist once....

If the bread and wine at the last supper was really transformed into His blood and flesh, why did he need to go to the cross?

Just once, why not try reading the bible without the 'tradition' of the RCC.. it may suprise you what you find...

Yes, it is problematic when people read with the superimposition of concepts "coined" into the meaning of their words. The language is century's old tradition in guise of English, every word loaded by an implicit connotation.. The words become symbols for the very understanding we hope to reason about and understand.
This essentially is locking the people in a paradigm of ancient guesses making it difficult to be understood.
These concepts are merely "hypothesis" made by men in other ages who were both less qualified in their world view and suspect in their intentions, often.

We repeatedly participate in the Eucharist, not because we are so wonderful Christian, but because between the several occassions we have fallen prey to our sins again and sgain.
Let the blood be on our hands and on the hands of our children that we are reminded again and again of our complicity in his death.

Rev. 16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints (of Christ) and prophets (of Moses, all conscientious men and the ancient sociologists), and thou hast given them blood to drink (in The Eucharist); for they are (all sinners) worthy (of the guilt).

[Jude3b]

Why do Protestants disbelieve in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist when in John 6 Christ so clearly states that his flesh is true food and His blood is true drink?

Christians, including some Protestants disbelieve in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because the Bible condemns cannibalism and God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden.

Paul's instructions in I Cor. 11 shed light on this question:

"For I have received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you. That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." (I Cor. 11:23-24).

When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin acting like cannibals and eat His literal body. To even suggest that Christ would tell his followers to violate Genesis 9:4 and Lev. 17:12 is outright blasphemy against our Lord. Jesus was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross.

Notice how that verse ends: "this do in remembrance of me." Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's work at Calvary, not a cannibalistic reenactment.

[kofh2u]

SEVEN MEANINGS TO EUCHARIST:

Now, "...thou hast given them blood to drink"... is on the first of seven (7) different levels of understanding this Eucharist.

Rev16:6 is addressing the spirit of the human SELF, us, in our own individual Self. This represents a personal level of guilt. (1Cor 11:26).

A second level of understanding the Eucharist is on a very hungry, famished, Libidinal level.

Matthew 25:19-end was His explicit direction to give the bread of life, maybe whole loaves, not little ittsy-bittsy wafers to the hungry. Where ever the people who had to pay from tithes for this bread/wine could, they keep the money for other things, but it wasn't like that.in the days of Paul (1Cor 10:17). Paul espoused a comraderie and physical, libidinal togetherness in the act of, again, libidinal appetites in a common gathering for bread and wine.


So, Eucharist is far from cannibalism... it is a preventative of eating people.

[Maxentius]

The communion service has an object; ... The special design of this ordinance is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance: "This do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19). If the ordinance is "in remembrance" of Christ, as stated, then it is not actually Christ himself (though it symbolically represents him in his atonement), but is a commemorative institution by which the sufferings of Christ for our sins are brought vividly before the mind, thus bringing us into closer fellowship with his sufferings and death. "For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (I Cor. 11:26). In observing it, we do not obtain spiritual life, but we "show the Lord's death."

OK, I'll bite again. :smile:

Jude3b, if the Lord's Supper is done in "remembrance", why does that by necessity exclude that Jesus Christ gives his actual body and blood to us? Say that we eat turkey on Thanksgiving in remembrance of the event, does that mean the turkey is necessarily symbolic?

Your exegesis of 1 Cor 11 leaves some text out too. There are quite a few places where one can see that it is Jesus' very body and blood we receive in the supper.

[Jude3b]

Christians, including some Protestants disbelieve in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because the Bible condemns cannibalism and God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden.

Paul's instructions in I Cor. 11 shed light on this question:

"For I have received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you. That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." (I Cor. 11:23-24).

When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin acting like cannibals and eat His literal body. To even suggest that Christ would tell his followers to violate Genesis 9:4 and Lev. 17:12 is outright blasphemy against our Lord. Jesus was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross.

Notice how that verse ends: "this do in remembrance of me." Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's work at Calvary, not a cannibalistic reenactment.

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden. "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Genesis 9:4)

[Maxentius]

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden. "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Genesis 9:4)

Do you eat rare steak Jude3b? If you eat meat, do you make sure it is completely dry?

I mean that question seriously BTW.

Jesus commanded us to eat his flesh and drink his blood, that command does not contradict the passage you quote above, which you took out of context.

It also does not answer the question, if something is done in remembrance, why is it by necessity symbolic?

[Jude3b]

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden. "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Genesis 9:4)

""... No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." (Leviticus 17:12).
God would never command His children to eat blood, because He has forbidden that!

When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating Him. To even suggest such is ridiculous. He was speaking spirtually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT JESUS ACCOMPLISHED ON THE CROSS?

[Maxentius]

When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating Him. To even suggest such is ridiculous. He was speaking spirtually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross.

Jesus said "this is my body." You say he really meant "this represents my body" in part, because he said "do this in remembrance of me." You did not answer the question, so I will repeat it:

"If something is done in remembrance, is it by necessity purely symbolic?"

The Genesis quote is beside the point.

[Findo]

[QUOTE=kofh2u

We repeatedly participate in the Eucharist, not because we are so wonderful Christian, but because between the several occassions we have fallen prey to our sins again and sgain.
Let the blood be on our hands and on the hands of our children that we are reminded again and again of our complicity in his death.

[/QUOTE]

This seems to raise another thing about justification.. does God's saving grace extend only untill we sin again? Or did Christ die that we might be justified for past present and future? Does God rate sins? I doubt it. My sinful pride is as abhorent in God's eyes as the gyu who slays 20 people... and they are both deaserving of death.. but guess what, Christ has taken the penalty for my sin... once and for all. We don't need to keep gaining God's salvation or re-enacting the crucifixion. sure, we need to keep confessing and re-establiishinng the right relationship with Him, but when we were saved we were given the Hoy Spirit who seals us in Christ...

[romepunk]

This seems to raise another thing about justification.. does God's saving grace extend only untill we sin again? Or did Christ die that we might be justified for past present and future? Does God rate sins? I doubt it. My sinful pride is as abhorent in God's eyes as the gyu who slays 20 people... and they are both deaserving of death.. but guess what, Christ has taken the penalty for my sin... once and for all. We don't need to keep gaining God's salvation or re-enacting the crucifixion. sure, we need to keep confessing and re-establiishinng the right relationship with Him, but when we were saved we were given the Hoy Spirit who seals us in Christ...
The crucifixion is not reenacted. The fruits of the crucifixion are continually represented. When we sin, we reject the grace of God. Therefore we must repent to open ourselves up to that grace again. If you turn you back on God for good, your conversion yesterday will not help your soul tomorrow. If you die in a state of mortal sin, you're in trouble.

Does God rate sins? Yes. Your sinful pride is abhorrent. As are you other sins. As are all of my sins. But there are levels of sin. There is a slight difference between cheating on a math test and, say, raping a child. Just because all sins deserve punishment, and Christ died for all sins, doesn't mean that all sins are equal.

[Jude3b]

Jesus said "this is my body." You say he really meant "this represents my body" in part, because he said "do this in remembrance of me." You did not answer the question, so I will repeat it:

"If something is done in remembrance, is it by necessity purely symbolic?"

The Genesis quote is beside the point.

You did not answer my question, do you know what Jesus accomplished on the cross?

[Jude3b]

Jesus said "this is my body." You say he really meant "this represents my body" in part, because he said "do this in remembrance of me." You did not answer the question, so I will repeat it:

"If something is done in remembrance, is it by necessity purely symbolic?"

The Genesis quote is beside the point.

It is absolutely the point. God forbids eating blood and cannibalism. Therefore it is impossible for the Roman Catholic false teaching on transubstantiation to be correct. To state otherwise, demonstrates that to you and Romanism, the Word of God is not final authority. Unless the Word of God is final authority, your argument is nonsense!

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Thank cranky emoticon doesn't answer my question Ric. Let's put aside the question of the real presence. Does the flesh of Christ give us eternal life or not? That is to say, his sacrifice on the cross. If so, your interp of 6:63 is not an effective argument against the real presence. I'm not saying it proves the real presence, I'm just saying you haven't disproved it.

For me, the flesh of Christ gives us forgiveness, and His resurrection gives us eternal life.

[Findo]

The crucifixion is not reenacted. The fruits of the crucifixion are continually represented. When we sin, we reject the grace of God. Therefore we must repent to open ourselves up to that grace again. If you turn you back on God for good, your conversion yesterday will not help your soul tomorrow. If you die in a state of mortal sin, you're in trouble.

Does God rate sins? Yes. Your sinful pride is abhorrent. As are you other sins. As are all of my sins. But there are levels of sin. There is a slight difference between cheating on a math test and, say, raping a child. Just because all sins deserve punishment, and Christ died for all sins, doesn't mean that all sins are equal.


Please show me in scripture where the different levels of sin are shown?
Did you know that 'sin' is a term used in archery. It is used when the arrow misses he target completely. 'For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'. Rom 3:23. (BTW -we aren't sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners..)
It doesn't matter that the arrow only just missed or if it missed by 20metres, it still missed. In the same way, it doesn't matter if the only sin we ever committ is cheating on a maths test or if we rape a child, to God, we have missed His standard. we have missed the target.

God's love is unconditional, and his only stipulation for recieving His saving grace is faith in the death and resurection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We are not on parole. we have been justified. we have been redeemed. When God looks at us and our account He sees Christ and His death and is satisfied.
This does not mean we can just go on sinning, indeed Paul rallies against this, unconfessed sin in our lives creates a barrier between us and God, and renders us innefective as Christians, but we do not and indeed cannot lose our salvation by sinning. IF someone does reject God and His forgiveness willfully and consiusly in full knowledge, I beleive they were never saved in the first place.
Those who are in Christ's hand, He will not cast out. Those who are not fully grafted to the vine will be cast out.

God's salvation of mankind is by Him, it's not a 'God and Me' show where we both have to play our part. Tell me, If God saves us irregardless of our own merits, who gets the glory? He does. If our salvation is based upon God's grace and our partaking in the sacrements, woh gets the glory? We both do.

Salvation is by garce thru faith. God isn't and indian giver.

[romepunk]

Please show me in scripture where the different levels of sin are shown?
Where they are explicitly innumerated and given different levels? No such verse exists. But there are verses that suggest that some sins are worse than others. (John 19:11, 1 John 5:16-17) How do we know when one sin is worse than another: human reason and natural law.

Did you know that 'sin' is a term used in archery. It is used when the arrow misses he target completely. 'For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'. Rom 3:23. (BTW -we aren't sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners..) It doesn't matter that the arrow only just missed or if it missed by 20metres, it still missed. In the same way, it doesn't matter if the only sin we ever committ is cheating on a maths test or if we rape a child, to God, we have missed His standard. we have missed the target.
True, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But I don't see how this suggests all sins are equal. Someone will got to hell if they don't repent of the sin of adultery. They'll also go to hell if they don't repent of the sin of murder. That doesn't mean that murder isn't worse than adultery. (BTW, if we sin because we are sinners, why did Adam and Eve, created in a perfect state of Grace, sin?)

God's love is unconditional, and his only stipulation for recieving His saving grace is faith in the death and resurection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We are not on parole. we have been justified. we have been redeemed. When God looks at us and our account He sees Christ and His death and is satisfied.
This does not mean we can just go on sinning, indeed Paul rallies against this, unconfessed sin in our lives creates a barrier between us and God, and renders us innefective as Christians,
Amen! Although I would clarify it must be a living faith (ie. faith which manifests in works.)

but we do not and indeed cannot lose our salvation by sinning. IF someone does reject God and His forgiveness willfully and consiusly in full knowledge, I beleive they were never saved in the first place.
Then how do you know you are saved right now? How could anybody?

God's salvation of mankind is by Him, it's not a 'God and Me' show where we both have to play our part. Tell me, If God saves us irregardless of our own merits, who gets the glory? He does. If our salvation is based upon God's grace and our partaking in the sacrements, who gets the glory? We both do.

Salvation is by garce thru faith. God isn't and indian giver.[/QUOTE]
By grace through faith and works. Our works, just like our faith, are the product of grace, as is our reception of the sacraments. All glory goes to God.

[Findo]

Where they are explicitly innumerated and given different levels? No such verse exists. But there are verses that suggest that some sins are worse than others. (John 19:11, 1 John 5:16-17) How do we know when one sin is worse than another: human reason and natural law.



True, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But I don't see how this suggests all sins are equal. Someone will got to hell if they don't repent of the sin of adultery. They'll also go to hell if they don't repent of the sin of murder. That doesn't mean that murder isn't worse than adultery. (BTW, if we sin because we are sinners, why did Adam and Eve, created in a perfect state of Grace, sin?)



yes, we as humans rate sin.. but that doesn't mean God does. God's standards are absolute.. our logic and reasoning tells us that lying is different from murder. But in God's eyes, they both fall short of His glory and are deserving of death. 'for the penalty of sin is death' Rom 6:23a.. note that word is sin not sins, or some sins.. sin is sin.

.. Adam was created without sin, we were born into sin, thus we are already sinners because of thesin nature passed on from adam. He had the oppurtunity to chose, we don't. So thus we cannot compare ourselves to him.


Amen! Although I would clarify it must be a living faith (ie. faith which manifests in works.)

Yes,true faith bears fruit.. one whois truly grafted to the true vine cannot help but bear fruit, and indeed we are called to do those good works that God prepared beforehand for us to do, but it is in no way a basis for our slavation. God doesn't judge our faith on the works it produces. It's not how much faith we have, but where it is directed. One person may have an unwaivering faith in the safety of an aircrat, while one may have a great amount of doubt but just enought to actually get on the plane, gripping their chair in fear the whole trip... but does the safety of the plane rely on the amount of faith the passengers have? They both arrive safely.. but the person who didn't trust the plane enough to get on, does not arrive...
It is a cause and effect... faith leads to good works. we are saved to do good works, not by them.



Then how do you know you are saved right now? How could anybody?

Paul knew he was saved. And on many occasions John exhorts us to know that we are saved. The whole gospel of john is written for this reason!


By grace through faith and works. Our works, just like our faith, are the product of grace, as is our reception of the sacraments. All glory goes to God.

'For by Grace you have been saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.' Ephesians 2:8-9. I do believe you have added the word works there. I think the bible talks about adding to it....
I agree, our good works are only by the grace of God, but they in no way affect our salvation. Bpatism and eucharist are both outward symbols of inward change... they too cannot affect our salvation.

[romepunk]

afinden,

yes, we as humans rate sin.. but that doesn't mean God does. God's standards are absolute.. our logic and reasoning tells us that lying is different from murder. But in God's eyes, they both fall short of His glory and are deserving of death. 'for the penalty of sin is death' Rom 6:23a.. note that word is sin not sins, or some sins.. sin is sin.I never said sin isn't sin. You've presented no verse that says all sin is equal in the eyes of God, only that we are all sinnners, and that sin leads to death. You'll get no argument from me there. I've presented verses which suggest that there are levels of sin, and you didn't respond to them.

.. Adam was created without sin, we were born into sin, thus we are already sinners because of thesin nature passed on from adam. He had the oppurtunity to chose, we don't. So thus we cannot compare ourselves to him.True, we inherit a sin nature from Adam. I didn't dispute that. But you seem to be suggesting that the only reason we sin is our sin nature. Yet Adam and Eve were created without a sin nature. There choice to sin was free act. Our fallen nature predisposes us to sin, but our sins are free actions. We are sinners because we sin.

faith leads to good works. we are saved to do good works, not by them.I think are dispute might be rooted in a semantic difference over the word faith.

Paul knew he was saved. And on many occasions John exhorts us to know that we are saved. The whole gospel of john is written for this reason!I think you've missed the context of my question. You said we can't lose our salvation, and anyone who rejects God was never saved in the first place. I don't believe that. I think we can have a qualified (not absolute) certainty of our salvation. We can lose our salvation if we reject God. It doesn't mean we weren't saved yesterday if we reject God tomorrow. People change.

I do believe you have added the word works there. I think the bible talks about adding to it....I wasn't quoting a specific verse. By Grace through faith and works is the dogma you arrive at when you take all the Bible says about salvation in context.

I agree, our good works are only by the grace of God, but they in no way affect our salvation. Bpatism and eucharist are both outward symbols of inward change... they too cannot affect our salvation.Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in Heaven."

Revelation 20:12-13 "I saw the dead, the great and the lowly, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. Then another scroll was opened, the book of life. The dead were judged according to their deeds, by what was written in the scrolls. The sea gave up its dead; then Death and Hades gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their deeds.

John 3:5 “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.”

Acts 22:16 “Be baptized and wash your sins away.”

BTW, most of this discussion is off topic. This thread is for the Eucharist, for a general faith/works discussion we should really be posting a new or existing thread devoted to that topic.

[Jude3b]

It is absolutely the point. God forbids eating blood and cannibalism. Therefore it is impossible for the Roman Catholic false teaching on transubstantiation to be correct. To state otherwise, demonstrates that to you and Romanism, the Word of God is not final authority. Unless the Word of God is final authority, your argument is nonsense!

Why does the Roman Catholic religion deliberately take one verse of Scripture out of context and build a doctrine that obviously violates scripture?

Can you knowingly partake in this practice now that you know the truth?

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (James 4:17)

[Maxentius]

It is absolutely the point. God forbids eating blood and cannibalism. Therefore it is impossible for the Roman Catholic false teaching on transubstantiation to be correct. To state otherwise, demonstrates that to you and Romanism, the Word of God is not final authority. Unless the Word of God is final authority, your argument is nonsense!


Well Jude3b [smile]

I could lay the same charge at your door. You take your human understanding of the universe, and make it superior to the wonderful, clear words of our Savior--"This is my body... This is my blood."

Also, a fair case can be made that Jesus' discourse in John that his followers should gnaw his flesh. Once again, you refuse to even deal with the issues and insist on a humanistic understanding of the Eucharist.

Since that is not clear enough to you, maybe we can add St. Paul to the mix:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.

Now, if we do not receive the true body and blood in Holy Communion, how can we profaine the body and blood of the Lord?

There are more passages. It is the unanimous position of the Church until the radical Reformation that Jesus' presence is real. (The RCC attamps to explain Christ's presence, while lutherans and Orthodox just believe in his real presence and do not attempt to explain it.)

Now, if you want to say that "body" refers to the Church, why is it coupled with blood?

You accuse the RCC (and by extension, the Lutherans, Orthodox and some Anglicans) of cannibalism.

I would also warn you that saying that other Christians are participating in cannibalism when they receive the Sacrament of the Altar comes very close to calling God's works evil, which is a sin against the Holy Spirit.

We all know where that leads.

[elysian]

We are told "do this in rememberance of Me." The Real Presence is a mystery- I don't know how the bread and wine becomes Jesus' body and blood, only that it does. I do know why we are called to come to the Sacrament: it was instituted by Jesus Himself.

Luther called the Sacrament a "comforting remedy," an antidote to the poison of sin that regularly afflicts us. He says also that though we must come to the altar with the proper regard, that we can never be "perfect" enough to be worthy- it is a gift of God's grace, a means of healing and comfort and strength fo the penitent sinner.

More on this in my thread on open Communion and the Lutheran Confessions (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23770).

[Jude3b]

The Bible declares that all sins are washed away through the blood of Jesus Christ: "...the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (I John 1:7).

Romanism strips away from Christ the credit He alone deserves for cleansing people from their sins, and credits instead a wafer with accomplishing that task. "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." (I Cor. 6:11)

It is imperative that you understand that Romanism's Cannabalistic doctrine of the Eucharist directly contradict's God's Word. To obey this Roman Catholic doctrine, you must reject Holy Scriptures. Do you really want to do that?