Communion: Does the bread & wine change?

[@stevebanks1971]

I think It starts in John 6:53 where Jesus says "unless you eat this flesh and drink His blood" and many walked away from his teachings. convert catholic here.

[@Michaelincontext]

While Catholics understand this passage as sacramental, Jesus is speaking metaphorically not about the "elements." The NT teaching is on remembering / commemoration of His life, death, burial, and substitutionary atonement for our sins. Context is key. Carefully read Jn. 6:v. 35, 40, 50, & 51. Jesus is clearly declaring one must believe in Him. (That is the key theology in the Gospel of John.) Jesus taught of manna (Jn. 6:41ff) and He declares "I am the bread of life" and be sure to compare Jn. 6:35. He explains the miracle of God giving manna yet they died. Christ is the living bread, i.e., we "eat" or identify with Him understanding we will live. His point is clear in vv. 53-58, "...this is the bread which came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever." He is speaking of believing in, trusting in Him who gives eternal life not like manna. If you want, I recommend reading George Beasley-Murray's excellent exposition in "Word Biblical Commentary: John."

[@kevinyono5210]

The Entire Church and Every Bishop and the all the Apostolic Church's Believe in the Literal interpretation of John 6. This why Jesus established and Church and those with authority without that you lose the most important gift which is Jesus Literal Body Blood Soul and Divinity. Only a person who recieved Apostolic Succession by the laying on of hands can consecrate Bread and Wine hence all of these people have lost all the graces that God intended them to have how sad is that. God have mercy on us.

[@johnKey-MaieLoboroCorpala]

🤔itulahhhjh ATHEISH AETENH YUEALL ITS 👌EASY BUT YUEALLL EATH WOOHSSSS. 🤔👏👏AYO AYOOOOOOOO

[@johnKey-MaieLoboroCorpala]

TIDAK MUNGKIN YUEALL SHOUEWH tohallh LIKEH then befouh On PRAYH ohehwn yuh SELFH AHND eatehn. AYOOO ayoooooooooo

[@Michaelincontext]

This is the heart of Roman Catholic teaching. Apostolic succession is a key departure between Catholics and Protestants. Protestants do not hold to apostolic succession. 1 Timothy 2:5-6a (NASB95) "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all..." We have no need for an OT priesthood nor apostolic succession. Heb. 10:19-22 for e.g. we have a "new and living way, we have a "great high priest," Jesus Christ.

[@edwardmarculewicz5140]

The Catholic Church is the magisterium the teacher. The church is teacher and the Catholic Church is the universal teaching. Why would anyone deny this truth. We enter in the crucifixion.

[@Michaelincontext]

This is one of the central distinctions between Catholics and Protestants. The Catholics maintain only they have authority to interpret Scripture where Protestants maintain Scripture itself is God's word, authoritatively. In other words, do you trust what Catholics "say" about the Scripture or do you trust the Word of God as it is written.

[@jamespowell_km_kchs]

He’s “the man” to explain this? Get a Catholic who knows the Church’s teachings on this. It’s not a reenactment, it’s a representation. Christ does not get crucified again in the Mass. Read St Ignatius of Antioch on the Eucharist. John, Chapter 6. This guy is a former Catholic. He wouldn’t have left the Church if he understood it.

[@onthego41]

​@Straight-Outta-Scripture Christ is the Door meaning you need to go through Him but Jesus is not a physical door with frame, hinges, knob or any feature of a door. Jesus is the Bread of Life meaning if you have Him, not by gnawing and swallowing but by faith receiving Him as Lord and Savior, then He is with you and the Holy Spirit dwells in you.

[@1962mrpaul]

Apples and oranges, friend. In John 10, Jesus starts out by teaching a parable: "Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever does not enter a sheepfold through the gate but climbs over elsewhere is a thief and a robber. But whoever enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep (John 10:1-2)." Then on John 10:7, Jesus explains what the parabolic sheepgate (or door in your translation) means: "So Jesus said again, “Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the gate for the sheep." So, Jesus IS the door in the sense that the door in the parable represents Him. Let's apply that to John 6 and the Bread of Life discourse. In John 6:36 Jesus says "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." Here He uses the word "bread" metaphorically: no one thinks Jesus us claiming to be a matzo of a slice of Wonder bread. Then in John 6:55 He explains what this metaphorical "bread" represents: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The metaphorical bread represents His flesh. When the Jews begin to grumble "How can this man give us his flesh too eat?" Jesus doubles down by saying: "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me (John 6:53-57)." Like you many of Jesus's disciples found the idea of eating His flesh and drinking His blood hard and unacceptable and began to follow Him no more. So, ask yourself: are you following the Jesus of the Bible or are you following a "Jesus" of your own invention?

[@onthego41]

So when did the bread become a literal body of Jesus and when did the grape juice become a literal blood?

[@1962mrpaul]

@@onthego41 What was promised in John 6 was fulfilled at the Last Supper. First of all I would hesitate to use the word “literal” because it’s imprecise and can lead to erroneous conclusions. Christ’s “literal” body remained standing (or reclining) at the table. His body and blood began to be also present in a real, true and substantial way under the figures of bread and wine - fermented grape juice. This happened when Jesus took the bread and said “this is my body” and then the cup full of wine and said “this is my blood.” Because the words of the Word are “spirit and life” they create reality and so we can be confident that, though our senses may tell us otherwise, faith tells us the Incarnate Lord is truly, really and substantially present.

[@1962mrpaul]

If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, ask the Catholic Church. His slip-shod and confused explanation is cringe-worthy.

[@Michaelincontext]

I work overtime to be "slip-shod." 😉

[@timfisher8707]

It might be helpful to also explain 1 Cor. 10:14-17...that text has always been a conundrum for me :)

[@Michaelincontext]

Will do!

[@Straight-Outta-Scripture]

Also 1 COR 11 22:29

[@williamburych2136]

At the moment of TRANSSUBSTANTIATION, we are transported to the foot of the Cross. When Jesus looked at John, He was looking at US, and said "Behold your Mother". Mary is our Heavenly Mother.

[@Michaelincontext]

Mary is a wonderful disciple who believed in God and bore the Christ. She is not our "Heavenly Mother." Transubstantiation is simply not taught in Scripture. 1 Timothy 2:5-6a (NASB95) "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all..."

[@onthego41]

​@1962mrpaul in other words - symbolized the body and blood of Jesus although you imagine that its real.

[@williamburych2136]

"Unless you eat the Body of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you shall not have [Eternal] Life within you.". The Catholic Eucharist gives the most grace. There have been many "Eucharistic Miracles over the centuries, and even in current days, prove that the Catholic Eucharist is the True Body and Blood of Jesus. !!! Very recent Miracles have occurred where Blood has oozed out of a consecrated Host.

[@Michaelincontext]

Again, having been raised Catholic, I understand their teachings. Re. the so-called miracles of bread and wine being literally transformed as miracles are suspect. It is hard to find the Catholic bishops even acknowledging these so-called miracles however, they see no need to negate them. This is terribly misleading. Christ died - once for all - was buried, was resurrected, and ascended into glory. There is no need to re-sacrifice or turn wine or juice into blood and unleavened bread into flesh. His sacrifice was once for all and He accomplished His work. Christ no longer hangs on a cross. He ascended into glory.

[@onthego41]

No, you are the one that limit God and control Him by thinking you have the power over Jesus body and blood. You think that the priest has a magical, supernatural power to make the wafer to real body and juice to real blood. That's awful! That is idolatry at its best.

[@Michaelincontext]

It seems you may not have listened but rather responded to the title of the program?

[@onthego41]

In John 6, Jesus was not holding a bread and said this is my body nor carry a grape juice to say this is my blood. The eating and drinking is symbolical. The Jews thought that Jesus was talking of literal body and blood like the Catholics.

[@Straight-Outta-Scripture]

He was in Matt 26:26-27.

[@onthego41]

@Straight-Outta-Scripture That makes it more clear that it is symbolical rather than real. In John 6, Jesus said that he was the Bread of Life without carrying a bread. The Jews wanted Him to perform a miracle again and be fed with bread. In Matt. 26, he refers to the bread as His body. 1. If we believe that the bread is the literal body of Christ, then the Jews were right in thinking how they can eat Jesus. 2. Jesus said: Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. But Peter said in verse 68 that Jesus has the words of eternal life, not flesh or body of eternal life. That was after the big discussion about Jesus being the Bread of Life. Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. Clearly, Peter understood what Jesus meant about being the Bread of Life. Otherwise, he doesn't believe Jesus' words.

[@Straight-Outta-Scripture]

@@onthego41 Maybe in your bible it says something different but Matt, Luke, Paul, Mark all say the same thing. When combined with John 6, it's clear it isnt symbolic. Paul even attaches a punishment, to your condemnation. He obviously thought it way more than just symbolic.

[@Straight-Outta-Scripture]

@@onthego41 Peter believed that he must in some way actually consume Christs body. He didnt understand but knew Christ would show him and he did. At the last supper.

[@onthego41]

@Straight-Outta-Scripture definitely symbolic. When did the wafer/bread becomes the literal body and the juice the literal blood of Christ during communion? Who has the magical power to change it? Paul was chastising those partake communion unworthily. He said the body and blood of the Lord doesn't mean he was showing them literal raw flesh dripping with real blood.