In the Eucharist, the bread and wine become Christ's literal body and blood.

I will say a few more words about my opening argument and then respond to Pro's argument.1. Christ often spoke figuratively of Himself and His ministry. Christ's ministry was filled with parable and metaphor. We notice that when Christ instituted Communion, He didn't literally pour His blood into a chalice and cut a piece of His flesh off for the Disciples to consume. He said "this is my body. .. this is my blood. " If I were to hold up a piece of bread and tell someone "this is my body," then hold up a cup of wine and tell that person "this is my blood, which I shed for you," no one's assumption will be that I am speaking literally. The assumption will be that I am using the bread and wine as a metaphor for my body and blood.2. When God institutes a change, it is always outward (as well as inward). To clarify what I meant, whenever God institutes a change the change always happens on the inside (e. g. when someone becomes saved, the Holy Spirit changes that person from the inside out). However, that change is always reflected on the outside, as well. It's meaningless to claim you've been changed by God unless you are a markedly different person than you were before. When Jesus changed water into wine, it was obviously wine. The master of the feast even praised the bridegroom for bringing out the good stuff. As such, if the bread and wine literally became Christ's body and blood, it would no longer be bread and wine but would be flesh and blood. This would also be reflected in how it tastes.3. Cannibalism and consumption of blood were condemned in the Law. Jesus did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. He would not have suddenly changed a key aspect of the Law just because it's Him. Jesus was a Jew; in fact, He was a perfect Jew. He led a sinless life so that He could be our substitute in dying for our sins. Christ would not have gone against the Law, otherwise He would have sinned and humanity would still be dying in our sins or making animal sacrifices for them. Jesus was our "passover lamb. " He was the sacrifice for our forgiveness of sins. If consumption of blood was forbidden because life is in the blood and the animal was sacrificed for sins, how much more should we not consume Christ's blood because He was sacrificed for our sins? Now on to Pro's contentions. C1: The early church fathers understood the Eucharist to be literal. First of all, not all early church fathers understood the Eucharist to be literal. [1] Secondly, this is simply an appeal to popular opinion, which is usually a fallacy. People who agree with popular opinion can still be wrong, and I believe I have offered significant evidence to show that a belief that the bread and wine become Christ's literal body and blood is fallacious. C2: The original listeners understood Jesus to be literal. First of all, John 6:53-65 is not even in reference to Communion. Communion isn't even in mind here. In fact, Jesus is making a parallel to the Israelites walking in the desert, consuming manna (the bread from Heaven). Jesus, Himself, has come from Heaven to be our spiritual manna. He comes to offer everyone, everywhere eternal life. For additional understanding of Jesus' words here, let's also consider John 4:13-14. Jesus met a Samaritan woman by a well and asked her to give Him something to drink. After an exchange, He tells her that if she knew who He was, she would be the one asking a drink of Him. Let's see what Jesus says here: "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that i shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. "Here Jesus is talking about water that He can give that springs up into eternal life. Like the body and blood, there is not "literal water" in view here. It is a metaphor for the Spirit. Jesus did not give her literal water to drink so that she would have eternal life. So let's look at Pro's four points:1. People were indeed offended.2. Jesus did say the words in question.3. Jesus did not correct many peoples' understanding. In fact, He was fulfilling prophecy by speaking in parable so that "Seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand, lest they should turn and their sins be forgiven them. " The twelve disciples were chosen by Christ for His ministry, the others were not. Whenever Jesus correcting incorrect understanding, it was always to the 12 and not the larger group that Jesus often taught.4. Many people did, indeed, leave the disciplehood of Jesus. But again, it was only given to a few to know the mystery of the kingdom of God that Jesus was directly teaching. I look forward to Pro's response. [1] . http://www.justforcatholics.org...;