Do you REALLY think those little wafers in church are the body of Jesus?

Question

I know some Catholic groups do. Where does the doctrine of transubstantiation come from?

Answer 1

You've got a lot of non-Catholic answers. Transubstantiation is totally Catholic.

I do believe Christ is truly present in the Eucharist after it's consecration. This is a truth that was put into my heart. And to me, it has been proven by sweeping changed made after hours of prayer before the Blessed Sacrament.

I took this snippet from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The Church's Magna Charta, however, are the words of Institution, "This is my body — this is my blood", whose literal meaning she has uninterruptedly adhered to from the earliest times. The Real Presence is evinced, positively, by showing the necessity of the literal sense of these words, and negatively, by refuting the figurative interpretations. As regards the first, the very existence of four distinct narratives of the Last Supper, divided usually into the Petrine (Matthew 26:26 sqq.; Mark 14:22 sqq.) and the double Pauline accounts (Luke 22:19 sq.; 1 Corinthians 11:24 sq.), favors the literal interpretation. In spite of their striking unanimity as regards essentials, the Petrine account is simpler and clearer, whereas Pauline is richer in additional details and more involved in its citation of the words that refer to the Chalice. It is but natural and justifiable to expect that, when four different narrators in different countries and at different times relate the words of Institution to different circles of readers, the occurrence of an unusual figure of speech, as, for instance, that bread is a sign of Christ's Body, would, somewhere or other, betray itself, either in the difference of word-setting, or in the unequivocal expression of the meaning really intended, or at least in the addition of some such mark as: "He spoke, however, of the sign of His Body." But nowhere do we discover the slightest ground for a figurative interpretation. If, then, natural, literal interpretation were false, the Scriptural record alone would have to be considered as the cause of a pernicious error in faith and of the grievous crime of rendering Divine homage to bread (artolatria) — a supposition little in harmony with the character of the four Sacred Writers or with the inspiration of the Sacred Text. Moreover, we must not omit the important circumstance, that one of the four narrators has interpreted his own account literally. This is St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:27 sq.), who, in the most vigorous language, brands the unworthy recipient as "guilty of body and of the blood of the Lord". There can be no question of a grievous offense against Christ Himself unless we suppose that the true Body and the true Blood of Christ are really present in the Eucharist. Further, if we attend only to the words themselves their natural sense is so forceful and clear that Luther wrote to the Christians of Strasburg in 1524: "I am caught, I cannot escape, the text is too forcible" (De Wette, II, 577).

Answer 2

Who would have thought that the bible endorsed cannibalism?

Anyway...

If that's the case ...man...Jesus tastes like @ss. I would have thought he'd taste more like chicken... I think giving people chicken would be a bigger draw to church. Who doesn't like chicken? Slap a little breading on that puppy with some of the Colonel's special spices, fry it up and with the wine you've got yourself a Sunday dinner. (At least they got the wine part right instead of actually giving you blood.) Then people wouldn't be in such a hurry to get out of church to get home for lunch when church runs long. Leave it to catholics to mess up a good thing. Wafers....who freakin' wants wafers when you could have some Kentucky Fried Christ?

Coleslaw, anyone?

Answer 3

I grew up attending a rural church in a dry county. Welch's Concord Grape Juice and saltines never convinced me.

Answer 4

1Co 11:24 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.
1Co 11:25 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.
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
mat. 26:26 it is called bread and in mat. 26:29 fruit of the vine not real blood and not real flesh.
and they did this every first day of the week acts 20:7

Answer 5

It is a metaphor in the last supper. The symbol originally was break being broke apart to symbolize his body being broken. I dont think there is a a symbol for crackers.

However you can now purchase your communion crackers in the new flavorful box of Ritz Jesus Crackers with chedder cheese and sour onion flavor.

Answer 6

yes, It is said in the Bible that Jesus told us to do the cermony to remember that Jesus has died for us and it is the body and as He shed blood for us we take wine (grapejuice , not alcohol) to remember that it is His Blood, And not only catholic are doing but every church whether it is protestant or catholic are doing it.

Answer 7

I believe they represent the body of Jesus Christ. It is not the literal eating of his body. It represents the fact that Jesus was beaten/broken in place of ourselves for the forgiveness of sins.

Answer 8

I went to Catholic school and they tried to convince us that it REALLY, REALLY WAS the ACTUAL body of Christ. It really kinda grossed me out.

Answer 9

It's Soylent Green.

Answer 10

No, eating other people is frowned upon in modern society. It's just symbolism...