The Communion bread and wine becomes Christ's literal body and blood

Is not the very thought of consuming flesh and blood repulsive? Why would dressing flesh and blood up as bread and wine be any less repulsive a concept? No it is not since Catholics believe that we are receiving the full living Christ when we consume the Eucharist. It bears no resemblance to cannibalism to the Catholic believer especially since it such a profound and spiritual event. You wouldn't know you were consuming flesh and blood unless someone told you, so it really doesn't seem necessary to me. You could use it as a memorial just fine, remembering the Lord's sacrifice until He comes, without the bread and wine having to change into His flesh and blood. That is why we have the Church to tell us that we are actually receiving Christ. Once we know that we are actually receiving God in the Eucharist, we not only have room to reflect of what Christ did for us on the cross, but you can have a very personal conversation with him through prayer about anything. I believe that Christ instituted the Eucharist because he knew that when people were told that he has remained on earth to be with us until the end of time, this would make a much more profound impact on them than a mere memorial. Contention 1: The Last Supper I don't know if you believe the elements change when non-Catholics take Communion… They don’t. Unless you have a legitimately ordained priest saying the words of consecration, it isn’t the real Eucharist. The bread and wine do not have to change for this to happen. I understand that your communion does make a very positive impact on you and I expect that it would. I believe, however, that the Catholic Eucharist has the potential to change the lives of Christians even more. There are countless stories of Catholic saints spending hours in front of the Eucharist because it helps them to feel close to Christ and more able to feel his presence in their lives. This in turn helped them to become the holiest men and women that this earth has ever seen. As I think my opponent has understood, this contention merely presents the words of Christ at the Last Supper which may have instituted the Eucharist. Since Christ speaks figuratively in other parts of the Bible, it will mainly be up to the next two contentions to determine whether it was more likely that Christ was speaking figuratively or literally when he said “this is my body”. Contention 2: John 6 The verses you gave do not have to be literal food and drink. Consider John 4:13-14. My opponent believes that John 6 is just another example of Christ telling people about the coming kingdom. However, John 6 is noticeably different from any example of Christ speaking figuratively. Throughout all of John 4, Christ only has three sentences where he makes claims about this living water and each of them seems quite necessary to make the imagery complete. In John 6, Christ goes far overboard as I said last round, giving at least seven statements one after another commanding or suggesting the consumption of his flesh and blood. This is more than an attempt to create a symbolic picture, it is an attempt to persuade his audience that this is a big deal. Also, I don't believe Communion is necessary for salvation (which is a topic for another debate), though it is an ordinance and not doing so would be disobedient to our Lord, and when Jesus said whoever eats the bread and drinks the wine has eternal life, He could also have meant that those who are truly and genuinely saved will take the Communion. If receiving Communion was merely a side effect of being a good Christian, it would not need to be emphasized by Christ. However, we see in the quotes I presented that four of them make this statement. Why is Christ emphasizing this relationship between Communion and salvation unless Communion plays a vital role in the Christian’s road to salvation? That doesn't necessitate that He can now use the blood that was forbidden to consume in a way that goes contrary to Jewish law, especially when He had to be perfect for the sacrifice to truly save us. As I showed earlier through the example of graven images, it the intention of the law which counts. God wanted the Israelites not to consume the blood of animals because it represented the life of the animal which they were handing over to God. The animal’s life was recognized as a loss to the Israelite offering the sacrifice, and so they would have to go without that which they had valued before (the animal’s life). On the other hand, we never offered Christ’s life to God as something valuable. The Jews, as a matter of fact, scorned him and thought he was worthless. Christ offered himself up, and lost his own life for us all. However, note that it was Christ who did the offering, not mankind as a whole. Thus, we are not consuming blood which we have offered, but which Christ offered for us. This does not contradict the intention of this particular Jewish law. This could have simply been the last straw for them. Christ gave many hard teachings, many of which they were not given to understand. Christ didn't explain the parables to them like He did to the disciples. If this were just a final piece of the puzzle which made Christ’s followers abandon him, why did John not record this? No, we see that he is directly linking their departure with this particular teaching. It would be very deceptive of John to show Christ teaching that he would give people his real flesh to eat, showing that people believed that this was what he meant, and then giving an instance where Christ seems to actually give his apostles his flesh to eat, while all the while he knew that Christ was speaking figuratively. If this were so, then John would have given an explanation of the events as we see him do elsewhere, or give an additional instance where Christ himself revealed to his apostles that he had been speaking figuratively. I believe that John 6 proves that Christ spoke literally at the Last Supper. I have shown that Christ’s teaching did not contradict Jewish law and my opponent has not given another explanation was to why the words “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink” should be taken figuratively. I have also shown Christ intended these words to be understood literally since that is the way his followers took them. Contention 3: 1 Corinthians 11 The words don't indicate that it's a literal body and blood. If the bread and wine are symbols of Christ's body and blood, then desecrating them would be just as heinous as if they were His literal body and blood. Paul follows up this statement with the verses saying, “29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. ” What is it about this Communion which makes receiving it with sins on one’s soul such a sacrilege that one can be condemned or that God would punish them with sicknesses? In context, Paul seems convinced that he is speaking about Christ’s genuine body and blood. This has been a very enlightening and interesting debate, and I thank Keytarhero once again and wish him good luck. I hope I have shown that verses like “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink,” (John 6:55) were intended to reveal to us that Christ really did change bread and wine into His body and blood so that He could be with his Church until the end of time.