The Foolish One wrote: Christ may be in the form of bread and wine, but it is Christ.
Aaaand you're eating him. o_O "For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off," (Lev. 17:14).
In regards to the concept of the communion...
There's no indication that the whole "This is my body...", "This is my blood..." thing was to be taken literally. We DO see verses referring to the bread and wine as the body and the blood, but we also see Jesus stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words when talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life," (John 6:63). He didn't say they were literal words; that is, He didn't say that they were His actual body and blood.
You've stated before that the "This is my body...", "This is my blood..." thing(Maybe I need a new term for it...XD) should be taken literally. Jesus DID say "This is my body" and "This is my blood", and at first glance it would seem like he meant it literally, but you have to realize that Jesus spoke in spiritual terms quite a bit. Here's some examples: "I am the bread of life," (John 6:48); "I am the door," (John 10:7,9); "I am the resurrection and the life," (John 11:25); "I am the true vine," (John 15:1), etc. Does Jesus become a literal door at random intervals? ... Probably not. Jesus also described himself as a lamb. Does Jesus become a sheep once in a while? ... I doubt it. How about a vine? ... See what I'm saying?
In the context of John 6, Jesus is telling his disciples that they must eat his body and blood (John 6:53). But later on he claims he was speaking in spiritual terms, "...the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life," (John 6:63).
Also, the wine and the bread were still called their respected names after the supper. After Jesus said "This is my blood..." (Matthew 26:28), he said, "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom," (Matt. 26:29). So... Why would Jesus speak figuratively of his blood as "The fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood? He called it wine.
Here's an excerpt from Corinthians: "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread
; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it
, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread
and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread
or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread
and drink of the cup," (1 Cor. 11:23-28). If the bread and wine were changed and were really bread and wine, then why does Paul refer to the bread as bread and not the literal body of Christ? ... Good question. One I think I know the answer to.
There was no indication that the disciples thought that the bread and the wine were his literal body and blood. No where in that bible.
Question: Is it a tradition of the Catholic church to...worship the bread and wine? I mean if it IS Christ, then why not worship it? If that's what catholics do, then that's not supported by scripture either.
Now, the Catholic "Mass" is supposed to be a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ, right? If so, then therefore, according to Catholic theology, the bread and wine become the broken body and shed blood of Christ and are, somehow, the crucified body and blood of Christ... But how does this work since Jesus instituted the Supper before He was crucified? Are we supposed to conclude that at the Last Supper, when they were all at the table, that when Jesus broke the bread it actually became His sacrificial body -- even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? Also are we supposed to conclude that when Jesus gave the wine that it became His actual sacrificial blood -- even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? That makes no sense. o_o
Ok. I'm just gonna say this outright. It seems to me that this "transubstantiation" thing is a violation of the incarnation. o_O The biblical doctrine of the incarnation states that the Word which was God and was with God (John 1:1), became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). This "became flesh" involves what is known as the hypostatic Union. You probably know what that is, but just in case the phrase seems unfamiliar to you, this is the teaching that in the one person of Christ are two natures: divine and human. That is, Jesus is both God and man at the same time. By definition, for Jesus to be human He must be located in one place. This is the way humans work. A human male does not have the ability to be omnipresent. He can only be in one place at one time. To say that Jesus in His physical form is in more than one place at a time, is (In the long run) to deny the incarnation. That is, it denies that Jesus is completely and totally a man -- since a man can only be it one place at one time. Therefore, to say that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is to violate the doctrine of the incarnation by stating that Christ is physically present all over the planet as the mass is celebrated. This is a problem and appears to be a serious denial of the true and absolute incarnation of the Word of God as a man.
It doesn't add up. None of it does.
but you won't receive the special grace having God physically within you
Special grace?? O_o What special grace?
so does miraculously healing someone with parts of a dead fish from an angel.
Wuuuut??? When did that happen?