It is the Eurcharist, ie. the holy communion which the priest , prayed over that ordinary looking wafer and by God's power turn them into holy communion. Its more than just a spiritual food to nourish baptised Catholics' soul in their journey towards God.
Its the most treasured in the Catholic Church as its the most visible form of supreme Gift from heaven and its the precious body and blood of our beloved Christ Himself.
And of all, its called holy communion, because when received in state of grace and without mortal sins, its a holy 'communion' with Christ Himself as we ate his body and blood.
I know its sound ridiculous but in the bible it stated that alot of his followers left after hearing that as they couldn't accept what Christ said : to eat his body and drink his blood. He could have stopped them but he let them go, as he can't give in as its a fact. And the Catholic Church still uphold it.
2007-08-05 18:22:15 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Do you see the police outside the Catholic Churches on Sunday arresting people for cannibalism? There's your answer.
By the way, I have been a vegetarian all my life and when I was a little girl taking communion, I had no problem realizing it was not really meat.
2007-08-05 18:26:53 · answer #1 · answered by Pangloss (Ancora Imparo) AFA 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Only the Catholic church, via the ministerial priesthood that Jesus personally established, was given the divine authority to transform ordinary bread and wine into the real and substantial body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.
All of the apostles did so, and the church has always done so as well, through the work of the priest and the Holy Spirit, at every Catholic Mass.
The same applies to the Orthodox churches, which were also established by genuine apostles of Christ, and so retain authentic holy orders and divine power.
When the protestants broke away from the Catholic church, they left behind any semblance of divine authority, hence, they have no power to consecrate the authentic holy eucharist ... and most protestant groups know it ... even if they won't always admit it.
What results is a two tiered system:
Catholic and Orthodox Communion is authentic ... and definitely NOT symbolic.
Protestant communion IS merely symbolic, just as they maintain.
Catholics enjoy the real and substantial body and blood of Jesus, who IS the one time, once for all sacrifice of Calvary, and hence, by their participation at Mass, Catholics are privileged to participate in Christ's real world, continuing work of redemption, and to personally experience the real presence of Jesus Christ ... in the flesh.
Protestants must settle for a form of purely spiritual communion ... a form that exists whenever two or more are gathered in Jesus' name.
Unfortunately, with spiritual communion ... the flesh profits nothing.
2007-08-05 19:32:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it's great that the Catholic Church upholds that belief that it is literally the body and blood of Christ, and that by receiving it in a state of grace makes it a holy communion with Christ. I think that communion is an important sacrament, one which should not be taken lightly.
That said, I believe in the more symbolic meaning behind communion. After all, Jesus did say "do this in remembrance of me". Communion is a holy sacrament that should be taken with reverence, but it is also in a way a memorial. When one takes communion, he is both taking in the precious body and blood of Christ AND remembering Him for the great sacrifice He made up on the cross.
2007-08-05 18:41:46 · answer #3 · answered by lemonlimeemt 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Catholic church does indeed embrace the doctrine of transubstantiation (the bread and grape juice becoming the actual body and blood of Christ). I can think of nothing that can be more ridiculous and hideous at the same time. No where in the Bible does God either sanction or condone the consumption of human flesh and blood; in fact, He blatantly forbids it. There is nothing special about the bread and grape juice; it is only used as a symbol or a picture of the body of Christ that was broken, and His blood that was shed to take the punishment for sin in our place. This is explained in 1 Corinthians 11:26, "For as oft as ye eat this BREAD (not body), and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come."
2007-08-05 18:43:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
When Jesus took the bread and said, "This is my body...", there are only a few possibilities.
1. He was speaking literally. The bread actually was his body.
2. He was speaking figuratively. The bread represented his body.
3. He was mistaken. The bread was not his body in any way, but he thought it was.
4. He was lying. The bread was not his body in any way and he knew it.
5. He had more than one body.
I can't think of any other possibilities.
Assuming that Jesus was telling the truth, then that eliminates options # 3 and 4.
Option 5 is eliminated because Ephesians 4 says "There is One Body" and because Jesus identifies the body he is speaking of as the one that was broken for us (and the blood as the blood that was shed for the remission of sins). (Matthew 26:28, 1 Cor 14:24) It was his physical body that was offered in this way, therefore he was not speaking of another type of body.
This leaves only option 1 and 2. He was either speaking literally or figuratively.
Jesus could not have been speaking literally because when he said, "This is my body" (and "This is my blood"), His body was literally there with them. The bread in His hands was not His literal body. They could see his literal body still there!
This phrase, therefore, had to be figurative. The bread was symbolic of his body. It was a representation.
2007-08-12 16:08:18 · answer #5 · answered by JoeBama 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No- you are deceived. The elements are figurative and NOT literal. Eating His flesh is consuming the Word and drinking His Blood is suffering for the Kingdom of Heavens sake. The suffering of Christ and persecuting for the faith is not yet complete. The reason the followers left is because they were taking Jesus Word literal. The Catholics belief of this is error. And by the way so is homosexuality, catholic confession, purgatory, the Apocrypha, the Pope as Vicar of Christ and much more.
2007-08-13 14:21:10 · answer #6 · answered by copperhead89 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is true about the Roman Catholic Church. The whole power of the priesthood rests upon the claim that the priest can say some magic words over bread and wine and change them into the actual flesh and blood of christ.
There is no room for doubt here, millions of people have been tortured and killed over the centuries for not believing this.
Cannibalism is a central part of the catholic Mass but they seem to get away with it.
2007-08-05 18:29:34 · answer #7 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think your attitude is very negative. Yes the catholics like to believe that the bread actually changes to meat. Ever hear of an autophsied catholic with human flesh in their system?
The bread signifies His life and body given freely to mankind. The wine His death and resurrection covering all sin for those that believe and do this in rememberance of Me.
2007-08-12 19:33:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The bread is symbolic for the body of Christ, the same as the wine is symbolic for the blood of Christ.
2007-08-13 11:48:24 · answer #9 · answered by Francine M 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is the symbolic body and blood. Jesus said to do this as often as we drink it in remembrance of Him. There are some that believe it is literally His body and His blood, but that is not supported in scripture, in fact it is the 4th cup of the Passover Seder that is used. Remember Jesus was Jewish, and all the things He used were known to the Jews He just more fully expounded on them.
2007-08-12 07:42:32 · answer #10 · answered by cowboy_christian_fellowship 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋