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

But why would you not be able to receive them in the way that you receive Christ in Holy Communion if they actually change into flesh 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. Thus, by allowing the Eucharist to maintain its appearances of bread and wine, Christ allows his followers to have him within their very selves and know it. It just seems a little convenient to me to claim that they change into real body and blood when they still feel and taste like bread and wine. I agree that it seems strange that bread and wine can change into God without us seeing it, but God can do all things. It was also strange that God should require his own son to become man and then die to save mankind. Just like the Eucharist, however, it makes sense after some thought and reflection. We believe this because of the strong biblical support for this belief and because the teaching has been passed down by Christians since the time of Christ. We take Communion to constantly remember Christ's sacrifice on the cross. The bread and wine do not need to change for this to happen. Ok, I agree then. 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. Contention 1: The Last Supper How is it any more powerful than simply consuming literal bread and wine? It is easy to follow a formula of prayer and symbolism reminding us of Christ our savior. It is a completely different experience to realize that God has so humbled himself that he will allow you to consume him under the appearances of bread and wine. 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. You seem to be contradicting yourself here, but I'm assuming when you say "did" you mean "didn't"? The thing is, though, that Christ did explain what He meant by "I am the vine" (that we, as the branches, must remain connected to the vine in order to prosper and flourish). Thank you for catching my mistake, I apologize for the confusion. Of course Christ would have expounded on why he said “I am the vine” since such a statement on its own is merely confusing. However, you will notice that everything he says helps to illustrate the symbolism of the metaphor, not persuade people that he is a genuine vine. When I get to John 6, I hope to show that Christ’s words sound more persuasive of a point as opposed to being an explanation of a metaphor. Contention 2: John 6 I did address them. In the way that we shouldn't take Christ literally with His other metaphorical statements (e. g. "I am the vine," "I am the door"), there is no reason to take Him literally here. I have no problem with Jesus foreshadowing the Last Supper here, but just because He's foreshadowing it doesn't mean the bread and wine literally become His body and blood. My point was that you addressed the passage in general as if it were Christ just saying “this is my body… this is my blood” again. However, if we look at the verses, they sound nothing like Christ’s other ‘metaphorical’ statements: John 6:51-59 “This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. ” “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ” “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. ” “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink” “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. ” “Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. ” “Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever. ” Here we have nothing less than seven verses from John 6 which Christ gives us in rapid fire, all of which bluntly saying in one way or another that Christ’s flesh is genuine food. Let us look at the last verse and see what it would imply if my opponent is correct in his understanding of the Last Supper. It would mean ‘whoever eats bread and wine which symbolizes Me will be given eternal life’. This statement makes no sense. Why would Christ make such a dramatic promise for doing something so simple as eating bread and wine? In the Catholic understanding however, this verse takes on new significance. Catholics believe that the Eucharist is accompanied by graces which help one to live a truly Christian life. It is a belief of the Church that if one cannot be a good Catholic without frequent reception of and spiritual nourishment from the Eucharist. It is our spiritual food if will. We are not allowed to consume blood because it is the life of flesh, and it has been given on the altar to make atonement for your souls. Blood was the life of Jesus while He was here on Earth, and He gave it on the cross for the atonement of our sins. By consuming His blood in the Communion, this would have violated the law's original purpose. That is where Christ’s sacrifice differs from all of the Old Testament Sacrifices before Him. For a sacrifice to be worthwhile, something must be lost by the man and given to God. Christ is the high priest who offered his own sacrifice, and lost his own life. However, whereas every Old Testament Sacrifice remained dead after its sacrifice, God graciously returned Christ’s life to Him who is the representative of the human race before God. 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, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ” (Matthew 5:17) Just because they misunderstood Christ doesn't mean that they understood what He was really saying. And just because Jesus didn't bother to correct them doesn't mean anything either, because Jesus never explained His parables to the people, saying instead that they have not been given to understand the mysteries of the kingdom of God (Mark 4:11). There was no misunderstanding; there was merely a lack of faith on the part of Christ’s followers who did not trust that He could give them his body and blood to eat and drink in a way that would be feasible. Where else in the Bible is it recorded that ‘many of Christ’s followers left him’? Every verse written by John had a purpose and was inspired by God. 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. Also, we see that when Christ gave a confusing teaching which he refused to explain to the people, he would then explain it to his apostles. However in John 6:67 we do not see Christ explaining the symbolism of his words to his apostles, but asking them if they intend to leave him too. All of the Biblical evidence suggests that Christ wanted us to take his words literally. Contention 3: Corinthians 11 we read the passage in context, we see that taking the Communion in an unworthy manner means taking it with unconfessed sin in their life, and for not taking it seriously. Exactly! And then he says that for this, they will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. He is telling Christians that it is not merely a symbol that they are decicrating, but Christ's genuine body and blood. I look forward to my last round with KeytarHero.