If we can acquire Jesus blood thru the wine, since catholics say it literally turns into blood, y dont we..?

Question

do a dna test. this would prove He exists :)

ima christian btw, and yes, it is literally jesus blood to the catholics.

Answer 1

it litterally turns into blood in Cathololisism, but since proristants do not beleive that, it is just bread and wine at their churches. it is a mystery of the (Catholic) church and a dna test would not work. Just becausr something is immpossible to understand does not meen that it bannot be beleived.

Answer 2

It is not necessary to receive Holy Communion under both wine and bread because Jesus is wholly present under either form. You don't receive only part of Jesus if you receive only bread or only wine. It is not a matter of doctrine to receive communion under the form of bread only, so the practice has varied. We receive communion under the form of bread only as a matter of convenience and I suppose practicality. I have noticed that some of the "modernized" masses are offering both kinds (offering, not requiring, the wine), where the traditional Latin (or Roman) rite and those churches who tend more toward traditionalism are staying with communion under one kind (bread). According to the "Catholic Encyclopedia," "In the Byzantine rite, the consecrated bread is given by spoon after the bread has been dipped into the consecrated wine... Those of the Ethiopian rite receive under both species. These methods are now extended to the Roman Rite within the rules of the diocese." According to "A Catholic Dictionary," "The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and other desecrations and the inconvenience and delay entailed by other methods, together with activities of the Hussites (a heretical group of the late 14th-early 15th centuries) were the principal reasons for this legislation being made definitive for the Latin rite at the Council of Constance (1415). Christ is received entire under either kind alone because, being risen from the dead, he is in the living state and so body and blood, soul and divinity must be united; ... I hope this helped.

Answer 3

If the Catholics LITERALLY beleive it becomes blood, then they totally miss the symbolism. The wine is representative of His sacrificial purity since alcohol has no germs or bacteria and such things in it. It DOESN'T literally become blood! Not that God couldn't send a miracle to do that, but the Old Testament priests were instructed NOT to drink the blood of the sacrifice for it was impure blood from animals. We are instructed to drink the PURITY of His blood into ourselves so that we may have communion with Him so that we can be clean inside and out.

Answer 4

Besides the Real Presence which faith accepts and delights in, there is the doctrine of transubstantiation, from which we may at least get a glimpse of what happens when the priest consecrates bread and wine, so that they become Christ's body and Christ's blood.

At this stage, we must be content with only the simplest statement of the meaning of, and distinction between substance and accidents, without which we should make nothing at all of transubstantiation. We shall concentrate upon bread, reminding ourselves once again that what is said applies in principle to wine as well.

We look at the bread the priest uses in the Sacrament. It is white, round, soft. The whiteness is not the bread, it is simply a quality that the bread has; the same is true of the roundness and the softness. There is something there that has these and other properties, qualities, attributes- the philosophers call all of them accidents. Whiteness and roundness we see; softness brings in the sense of touch. We might smell bread, and the smell of new bread is wonderful, but once again the smell is not the bread, but simply a property. The something which has the whiteness, the softness, the roundness, has the smell; and if we try another sense, the sense of taste, the same something has that special effect upon our palate.

In other words, whatever the senses perceive-even with the aid of those instruments men are forever inventing to increase the reach of the senses- is always of this same sort, a quality, a property, an attribute; no sense perceives the something which has all these qualities, which is the thing itself. This something is what the philosophers call substance; the rest are accidents which it possesses. Our senses perceive accidents; only the mind knows the substance. This is true of bread, it is true of every created thing. Left to itself, the mind assumes that the substance is that which, in all its past experience, has been found to have that particular group of accidents. But in these two instances, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the mind is not left to itself. By the revelation of Christ it knows that the substance has been changed, in the one case into the substance of his body, in the other into the substance of his blood.

The senses can no more perceive the new substance resulting from the consecration than they could have perceived the substance there before. We cannot repeat too often that senses can perceive only accidents, and consecration changes only the substance. The accidents remain in their totality-for example, that which was wine and is now Christ's blood still has the smell of wine, the intoxicating power of wine. One is occasionally startled to find some scientist claiming to have put all the resources of his laboratory into testing the consecrated bread; he announces triumphantly that there is no change whatever, no difference between this and any other bread. We could have told him that, without the aid of any instrument. For all that instruments can do is to make contact with the accidents, and it is part of the doctrine of transubstantiation that the accidents undergo no change whatever. If our scientist had announced that he had found a change, that would be really startling and upsetting.

The accidents, then, remain; but not, of course, as accidents of Christ's body. It is not his body which has the whiteness and the roundness and the softness. The accidents once held in existence by the substance of bread, and those others once held in existence by the substance of wine, are now held in existence solely by God's will to maintain them.

What of Christ's body, now sacramentally present? We must leave the philosophy of this for a later stage in our study. All we shall say here is that his body is wholly present, though not (so St. Thomas among others tells us) extended in space. One further element in the doctrine of the Real Presence needs to be stated: Christ's body remains in the communicant as long as the accidents remain themselves. Where, in the normal action of our bodily processes, they are so changed as to be no longer accidents of bread or accidents of wine, the Real Presence in us of Christ's own individual body ceases. But we live on in his Mystical Body.

This very sketchy outline of the doctrine of transubstantiation is almost pathetic. But like so much in this book, what is here is only a beginning; you have the rest of life before you.

Answer 5

They would say once you take the wine out of the ceremeony ot reverts back.

A devout Catholic once explained it to me this way; Protestants take every word of the Bible literally, EXCEPT the part about fleshand bread/blood and wine, which they consider metaphorical. Catholics, on the other hand, consider the entire bible metaphorical, EXCEPT the blood wine/flesh bread part, which they consider literal. Go figure.

Answer 6

<> certain! <> once the Bread and Wine are consecrated by using the priest, they develop into the body and Blood of Christ. that is before the congregation receives the Eucharist. that is already the body and Blood of Christ even as the congregation receives the Eucharist. <> No. Jesus did not coach the Holy Spirit changed into interior the Bread and Wine. Jesus stated, "that is MY body. that is MY Blood". The Holy Eucharist is the body and Blood of JESUS. <> No. Catholics declare the genuine Presence of the Eucharist. Protestants declare symoblic meaning. you won't be able to have contradictory claims and both be accurate. One must be accurate and one must be incorrect.

Answer 7

Because the bread physically remains bread (if, in truth, it really is bread and not processed cardboard!) and the wine physically remains wine. Both, however, are transformed into the essence of Christ. Flesh and blood, being the essence of the body, are symbolic of the essence of Christ, which is spiritual. When he says, 'this is my body, this is my blood,' he means 'this is me; this is God.' He doesn't mean physically, but spiritually. So from the Eucharist, you can find the spiritual evidence of God, but not the physical. Sorry to spoil the clone army and the second coming for you. : )

Answer 8

I have heard that some Catholics have done this, but I'm certain it's only an urban legend.

The Bible says three times in three verses that what we partake of is still bread (1 Corinthians 11:26-28). It's symbolic; it hasn't actually changed substance.

Answer 9

Usually I don't feed trolls, but what the hey...

Catholics don't say it turns into blood, your knowledge, hence your logic, is a bit flawed. Try taking a class on world religions, you might understand a bit more about Catholicism and the sacraments.

Answer 10

Christians are the body of Christ. We are to worship God in Truth and Spirit. These are spiritual connections and not physiacl. PleaseSee John 6:53-63

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Jn 6:63