Is Christ really present body, blood, soul and divinity in Communion?

Question

And do you believe this or is it a metaphor?

Answer 1

I believe it. It is not a metaphor.

If it were a metaphor, then why were His listeners stupefied?because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).

Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out?

But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood."



This is no metaphor.

Answer 2

Another word for communion is the Eucharist—that part of the Catholic Mass when the priest says a blessing over the bread and wine and the congregation is invited to receive Christ in Holy Communion. Pope Benedict XVI said that for Catholics, this ceremony is “the sum and summary of our faith.” Not long ago, the church observed the “Year of the Eucharist” as part of an effort to “reawaken and increase eucharistic faith.” People all over the world take communion regularly—whether several times a year, weekly, or even daily. Yet, it is called a mystery of faith, and many of those who practice it do not claim to understand it. It is viewed as sacred and is even supposed to be miraculous. The Catholic Church teaches that the bread and the wine are miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ—a doctrine called transubstantiation. This teaching arose gradually, with the word first being defined and used officially in the 13th century. In the days of the Protestant Reformation, certain aspects of the Catholic Eucharist were called into question. Luther rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation in favour of consubstantiation. The distinction is subtle. Luther taught that the bread and the wine coexist with, rather than transform into, the flesh and blood of Jesus. Jesus himself instituted “the Lord’s evening meal,” or Memorial of his death. (1 Corinthians 11:20, 24) However, would he have set up a mysterious rite in which his followers would actually eat his body and drink his blood? Jesus could not have meant that his followers were literally to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why not? After the Flood of Noah’s day, when God gave man permission to eat the flesh of animals, he directly forbade man to consume blood. Since the Mass is a principal rite of the Catholic Church, one might expect the Scriptures to support it. They do not. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913 edition) explained why: “The chief source of our doctrine . . . is tradition, which from the earliest times declares the impetratory [entreating] value of the Sacrifice of the Mass.” Yes, the Roman Catholic Mass is based on tradition, not the Bible.

Answer 3

In reality, no.

In theology, it depends.

Catholics believe in transubstantiation where the bread and wine actually become the body and blood. "Actually", in this case, meaning they look and taste the same but they aren't.

Episcopalians believe in consubstantiation where the "real presence" of Jesus is there in or with the bread and wine but the don't actually become the body and blood. What this actually means is one of the mysteries of the Episcopal religion.

Most other protestants believe that communion is "in remembrance" and that since that was what Jesus said then that is all that is necessary to believe. I suppose this could be termed nonsubstantiation but I don't know if that is an actual theologically term.

Non-believers who read the bible believe that all three of these beliefs can be termed nonsense. If you read the words of Jesus, he seems to be talking about somthing much more resembling saying grace before meals rather than some special ritual ("as oft as ye shall eat or drink . . .").

Answer 4

In the same way, we - as Christian people are the "body of Christ" We don t look like him. We are not "transubstantiated" to him. But yet, If I were to ask you are we the Body of Christ or do we just represent it. You would say "Yes!" we are the body of Christ. So why then is Communion so hard. It is the body of Christ because teh living God says it is - Repeatedly. Not because it s transubstantiated. The jews understood that a Sacrifice had to be made for the forgiveness of sins. The sinner took part in that sacrifice. So, if we are to take part in His sacrifice, we must actually "take part in it".

Answer 5

Yes He is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in a consecrated host.

I believe this is - no metaphor.

Answer 6

Yes, I believe it. If it was just a metaphor, why would many of His disciples fall away over it (John 6:66)?

Answer 7

No. Even if your personal Bible has the expression “This is my body,” you need not be confused. Jesus often used similar language. When he said, “I am the door” and, “I am the true vine,” no one understood that he was a literal door or a literal vine. (John 10:7; 15:1) And when, according to The New Jerusalem Bible, he went on to pass a cup of wine to his disciples and said: “This cup is the new covenant,” no one thought the cup literally was the new covenant. (Luke 22:20) Likewise, when he said the bread ‘was’ his body, we have to understand that the bread ‘meant,’ or symbolized, his body.

The transubstantiation is just another item that the Catholic Church used to pollute Christianity. It introduced other apostate teachings such as:

the unscriptural trinity

the infalibility of the pope

the Imaculate Conception

pagan holidays like Christmas, Easter, and Halloween

hellfire

the clergy

pagan symbols like the cross

the teaching of the immortality of the human soul

Answer 8

Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread, gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples and said:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT IT: THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL MEN SO THAT SINS ARE FORGIVEN. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

Yes, He is really presetn body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Catholic Sacrament of Eucharist.

In non-Catholic churches, this is only symbolic..

Answer 9

Ironically, those who claim to take the Bible literally think it is metaphore, and Catholics -- who tend to take the Genesis as allegory -- take the words of Jesus literally.

Go figure.

Answer 10

Yes He is present, and it is not a metaphor