Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Helping @Emma Pope on communion in Theology Concepts forum. For your information: purpose of communion.
I was catholic about six years ago. I was confused if catholics actually eat and drink the B/B of christ, they dont. They are not cannibalis. Heres my story why:
I asked my priest this he almost fell out the chair. I was telling a story to another cradle catholic. I told her I used to go to church daily. I had seizures because the blood is actually wine. I can see how Catholics are indoctrinated to "say" they are taking the blood and body of Christ. The lady gave me this look like "it's not like That." I stopped drinking "the blood." Another priest said it's alright to just take the bread.
Why would they say that if they believed the bread and body Is jesus himself?
Here is a good link
Transubstantiation and the Real Presence | CARM.org
They believe the accidents are actual bread and wine not body and blood. Transub. makes "the presence" of jesus thus his presence becomes the eucharist. Jesus becomes the church when they all commune in the presence of jesus.
They say bread and wine is jesus blood and body because of concecration Not because it is in itself.
Ask a catholic if the bread and wine Before cons. is jesus actual blood and body they'd probably look at you nuts.
Cannibalism is Actually eating flesh and blood of a person not of accidents turned into the blood and body of christ via concecration.
-
I post this as a post in another thread. I'm all for clarification since I used to be a teacher. So that's my intent. Enjoy your convo.
Legend
Trying to find scriptures not commonly used for the Eucharist
Accidents: Bread and wine before consecration
Substance: Presence of jesus as bread and wine
Church: 1 Corinthians 10:17
Real Presence: John 6:48-50; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17
Eucharist: John 6: 48-51
Among other verses about communion in the bible regardless the type.
I was catholic about six years ago. I was confused if catholics actually eat and drink the B/B of christ, they dont. They are not cannibalis. Heres my story why:
I asked my priest this he almost fell out the chair. I was telling a story to another cradle catholic. I told her I used to go to church daily. I had seizures because the blood is actually wine. I can see how Catholics are indoctrinated to "say" they are taking the blood and body of Christ. The lady gave me this look like "it's not like That." I stopped drinking "the blood." Another priest said it's alright to just take the bread.
Why would they say that if they believed the bread and body Is jesus himself?
Here is a good link
Transubstantiation and the Real Presence | CARM.org
They believe the accidents are actual bread and wine not body and blood. Transub. makes "the presence" of jesus thus his presence becomes the eucharist. Jesus becomes the church when they all commune in the presence of jesus.
They say bread and wine is jesus blood and body because of concecration Not because it is in itself.
Ask a catholic if the bread and wine Before cons. is jesus actual blood and body they'd probably look at you nuts.
Cannibalism is Actually eating flesh and blood of a person not of accidents turned into the blood and body of christ via concecration.
-
I post this as a post in another thread. I'm all for clarification since I used to be a teacher. So that's my intent. Enjoy your convo.
Legend
Trying to find scriptures not commonly used for the Eucharist
Accidents: Bread and wine before consecration
Substance: Presence of jesus as bread and wine
Church: 1 Corinthians 10:17
Real Presence: John 6:48-50; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17
Eucharist: John 6: 48-51
Among other verses about communion in the bible regardless the type.
Last edited:
