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

"If the bread and wine had become Christ’s physical flesh and blood, then they would be naturally disgusting and repulsive to people to consume. "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? ". .. but God can do all things. "I agree with this, and I do agree that God could, potentially, do as you suggest He does by changing the substance of the bread and wine into His body and blood while leaving the appearance, texture, and taste of bread and wine. However, judging from the Scriptures this does not appear to be what He does. Besides, what good is it to say the elements have changed into flesh and blood, but still taste and feel like bread and wine? 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. "The verse saying ‘do this in remembrance of me’ does not prove either of our points since it helps us not to forget Christ whether the bread and wine are Christ or not. "Yes, we can both agree to that. Contention 1: The Last Supper"To realize that you have the creator of the universe within yourself gives room for profound mediation on God’s love and leaves a profound impact on devoted Catholics afterwards. "But see, I get this from taking Communion, too. I don't know if you believe the elements change when non-Catholics take Communion since we don't ascribe to this philosophy, but I certainly don't take Communion lightly. Before taking it, I always search my heart to make sure I have no unconfessed sin, and just meditating on Jesus' sacrifice on the cross leaves a profound impact on me. The bread and wine do not have to change for this to happen. "Thank you for catching my mistake, I apologize for the confusion. "No worries. I'm not petty; I don't call people out on spelling or grammatical errors. I just wanted to make sure I was properly understanding what you were saying. Contention 2: John 6The verses you gave do not have to be literal food and drink. Consider John 4:13-14. Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman and tells her that He can give her living water, in which she will never thirst again. No bread or wine, but now He offers living water which will spring up into everlasting life. Jesus' words were rife with metaphor, and I don't see that the bread and wine need to be taken literally. 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. "As our Head, Christ has the authority to hand the life (which you said blood symbolizes) which he received from His Father over to us in the Eucharist. Thus, in the Eucharist we receive not merely the crucified Christ, but also the risen Christ. While Christ does not abolish the Old Testament, He builds on it and fulfills it. .. "See, I don't see that in the Scriptures. The Old Testament Law forbade the consumption of blood because it was the life given as a sacrifice. Yes, Christ rose from the dead but that's because He conquered death. 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. Also, the fact that Christ came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it seems to indicate that Christ would not have used the blood in a way contrary to the law He came to fulfill. "This means that there is something significant in the fact that they left, namely that they refused to accept what Christ wanted them to believe. "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. When Christ said they now had to consume His body and blood, that could have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back and they decided to leave. If Christ didn't explain His other parables to them, it seems reasonable that He wouldn't explain the teaching on His body and blood to them at that moment, either. It is true that Christ didn't explain the teaching to His disciples (at least recorded in Scripture), but perhaps He was testing their faith at that moment. After all, all of the other disciples had left so Jesus was asking if they intended to follow suit. Perhaps explaining what He meant by the body and blood wasn't so important as whether or not His disciples intended to continue with Him. Contention 3: Corinthians 11"And then he says that for this, they will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord" (emphasis his). 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. -Closing thoughts-I would, again, like to thank Christisking for taking me up on this debate, and for the time he took to put into this debate. I don't see that there is any reason to take the Lord's words literally, especially since a good portion (if not most) of His teachings were in parable and metaphor. For the reasons given, I just don't see any reason His words must necessarily be taken literally when He talks about the bread and wine becoming His body and blood during Communion. I look forward to reading Christisking's final response.