survey to Christians: the presence of Christ in bread and wine

[Jonathan Bailey]

At your respective church's mass or communion, do you believe that there is a genuine presence of Christ in the bread wine and/or grape juice that are a part of that ceremony (sacrament) performed by the minister or priest?

What is your denomination?

The Catholics, according to Catholic radio, say that a project is supposed to believe and profess that the bread of the communion is the genuine body of Christ and that the blood of the communion is the genuine blood of Christ and the elements of the Mass are not mere symbols or the priest is otherwise guilty of heresy.

 

[David1967]

I would say they were guilty of cannibalism if they thought they were literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus.

 

[Scott C.]

I believe Jesus intended for us to see the bread and wine as representations of his flesh and blood, and not to see them as literally becoming those things. Catholics believe otherwise. No offense intended for their doctrine.

 

[Ellen Brown]

At your respective church's mass or communion, do you believe that there is a genuine presence of Christ in the bread wine and/or grape juice that are a part of that ceremony (sacrament) performed by the minister or priest?

What is your denomination?

The Catholics, according to Catholic radio, say that a project is supposed to believe and profess that the bread of the communion is the genuine body of Christ and that the blood of the communion is the genuine blood of Christ and the elements of the Mass are not mere symbols or the priest is otherwise guilty of heresy.

Isn't that Transubstantiation? I thought they stopped that?

 

[dianaiad]

Many of the Orthodox (that's a capital "O") believe in transubstantiation. Most of the Reformationists (Protestants) do not. The Restorationists, of which I am one, generally don't. Mind you, I don't know the basic doctrine regarding this from all the Restorationists, Reformationists or Orthodox, but that's fairly accurate regarding the general beliefs, I think.

As for me, I believe that the bread and wine (we use water) symbolizes His flesh and blood, and does not literally become His flesh and blood. This belief in transubstantiation, however, does explain why protecting the 'host' (the wafers, which once blessed, does this holy transformation) is so very important to those who hold to this belief.

I don't share it, but then there are quite a few metaphysical beliefs I don't share with other Christians...or other theists who are not Christians. There are some that I do.

Is there some specific reason for your question, or are you simply attempting to brand all Christians with a belief that you don't like and don't understand? You'll catch cold trying to do that, y'know. Too many of us and we believe all sorts of different things.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I would say they were guilty of cannibalism if they thought they were literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus.

How is that? It's actual bread and actual wine. The consecration unites the church in christ in his blood and body.

Ha. I did ask the priest if they are eating jesus' flesh and he almost fell out of his chair: of course not.

So, how is it cannibalism?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

At your respective church's mass or communion, do you believe that there is a genuine presence of Christ in the bread wine and/or grape juice that are a part of that ceremony (sacrament) performed by the minister or priest?

What is your denomination?

The Catholics, according to Catholic radio, say that a project is supposed to believe and profess that the bread of the communion is the genuine body of Christ and that the blood of the communion is the genuine blood of Christ and the elements of the Mass are not mere symbols or the priest is otherwise guilty of heresy.

If you look at it from the church perspective rather than caught up with words, consecrating just means bringing christ into communion to unite all people in the church in his sacrifice and resurrection. Think of it like the OT where the sacrifice was animals and given to god to forgive the jews of their sins. Same thing but it's with a human. The priest "brings in the presence" christ in the lord's supper [Mass] so that when more than one comes together, people are there in his presence.

It is actual bread and wine consecrated. I don't believe catholics are delusional; so...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Wow, lots of ignorance in this thread. Very sad that many Christians don't even know much about their own religion. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the traditional belief of pretty much all Christianity except evangelicals and other newer sects like Mormons and JWs. Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans and traditional mainline Protestants would all believe in the real presence. Transubstantiation is just the label for a theological concept in Catholicism that tries to explain how the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, it's not what the real presence itself is called.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't have a denomination, and it's questionable whether I would even be considered a Christian, however, I believe the mystic aspect of that, or the spiritual aspect of that, can actually be more than 'just symbolic'. Where it gets tricky is that it is symbolic, and it is bread and wine. So, to me, the actual meaning isn't "literalistic", without spiritual context, either way.

Again, just take that as a personal belief.

 

[stvdv]

At your respective church's mass or communion, do you believe that there is a genuine presence of Christ in the bread wine and/or grape juice that are a part of that ceremony (sacrament) performed by the minister or priest?

What is your denomination?

The Catholics, according to Catholic radio, say that a project is supposed to believe and profess that the bread of the communion is the genuine body of Christ and that the blood of the communion is the genuine blood of Christ and the elements of the Mass are not mere symbols or the priest is otherwise guilty of heresy.

How I see this:
Jesus said "I and my Father are one". God created everything. So everything contains "Divinity"; also the food you eat. The Message is to "see God in the food you eat and be grateful for it"

 

[Glaurung]

Isn't that Transubstantiation? I thought they stopped that?

I don't know where anyone could get that idea. The real presence is an non-negotiable dogma of the faith. To deny it is heresy.

I would say they were guilty of cannibalism if they thought they were literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus.

The accidents of bread and wine remain. That is to say that the physical Eucharist discernible to our senses remains indistinguishable from normal bread and wine. But it is an article of faith that once consecrated the bread and wine become in substance truly the body and blood of Christ. When Christ instituted the Eucharist He did not tell the Apostles to take bread and wine as symbols of His body and blood. He says outright. This is my body; this is my blood.

Many of the Orthodox (that's a capital "O") believe in transubstantiation.

In Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) as in Catholicism, the real presence is dogma. Deny it and you're not Orthodox. They do not necessarily accept transubstantiation as an explanation on the how. But that at consecration bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ is as non-negotiable for the Orthodox as it is for the Catholics.

Anyway.

Some seem to be under the impression that the doctrine of the real presence is some weird cultic aberration of the Catholic Church. But it is the opposite. The aberration lies in the Reformed and Evangelical denial of it. The only groups that deny the real presence are low church Protestants, a minority in Christianity taken as a whole.

 

[Jonathan Bailey]

Many of the Orthodox (that's a capital "O") believe in transubstantiation. Most of the Reformationists (Protestants) do not. The Restorationists, of which I am one, generally don't. Mind you, I don't know the basic doctrine regarding this from all the Restorationists, Reformationists or Orthodox, but that's fairly accurate regarding the general beliefs, I think.

As for me, I believe that the bread and wine (we use water) symbolizes His flesh and blood, and does not literally become His flesh and blood. This belief in transubstantiation, however, does explain why protecting the 'host' (the wafers, which once blessed, does this holy transformation) is so very important to those who hold to this belief.

I don't share it, but then there are quite a few metaphysical beliefs I don't share with other Christians...or other theists who are not Christians. There are some that I do.

Is there some specific reason for your question, or are you simply attempting to brand all Christians with a belief that you don't like and don't understand? You'll catch cold trying to do that, y'know. Too many of us and we believe all sorts of different things.

It's not a belief I don't like. To each faith, his own. I would like to know how this belief of the Catholics relates to the bible. Where in the bible does it say that communion bread, wine and grape juice actually become the body and blood of Christ? I've been in a baptist church and a methodist church where communion was served. The minster would say "the body of Christ" when the bread was given. The Protestants usually use grape juice for their communions and not wine as the Cats do. Children also take communion and I guess the mainstream Protestants don't want to develop habits of alcoholism in children. The disciples at the Lord's last supper had bread and wine according to the bible. I believe the bible states that the communion feast was to remember Jesus as he was to soon die for our sins. The south is largely Baptist and once once prohibitionist when the KKK reigned down their.

 

[pearl]

Like almost everything in Christian Scripture it can not be understood without Hebrew Scripture on which much if founded. The concept of 'flesh and blood' which designates wholeness is no different.
Jesus presence in the Eucharist, flesh blood soul and divinity. What Jesus was he continues to be.

To each faith, his own. I would like to know how this belief of the Catholics relates to the bible.

Provides good background

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/flesh/

 

[pearl]

How I see this:
Jesus said "I and my Father are one". God created everything. So everything contains "Divinity"; also the food you eat. The Message is to "see God in the food you eat and be grateful for it"

And that's what Eucharist means, to give thanks. And the Eucharistic Prayer gives thanks to the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit.

 

[David1967]

The accidents of bread and wine remain. That is to say that the physical Eucharist discernible to our senses remains indistinguishable from normal bread and wine. But it is an article of faith that once consecrated the bread and wine become in substance truly the body and blood of Christ. When Christ instituted the Eucharist He did not tell the Apostles to take bread and wine as symbols of His body and blood. He says outright. This is my body; this is my blood.

Has to be symbolic. Don't you think that as a Jew Jesus would have been appalled by the idea of someone literally eating him? Not to mention the Jewish prohibition against consuming any blood much less human blood. Transubstantiation is a truly bizarre concept.

 

[Glaurung]

Has to be symbolic. Don't you think that as a Jew Jesus would have been appalled by the idea of someone literally eating him? Not to mention the Jewish prohibition against consuming any blood much less human blood. Transubstantiation is a truly bizarre concept.

It's not. We believe that Jesus meant what He said. We take His own words literally.

And as far as Mosaic Law is concerned it is irrelevant. If Jesus is the God He claimed to be then it is within His authority to abolish that law. It served its purpose in prefiguring Christ. The New Testament is very clear about this especially when it comes to issue of unclean foods.

 

[pearl]

If you look at it from the church perspective rather than caught up with words, consecrating just means bringing christ into communion to unite all people in the church in his sacrifice and resurrection. Think of it like the OT where the sacrifice was animals and given to god to forgive the jews of their sins. Same thing but it's with a human. The priest "brings in the presence" christ in the lord's supper [Mass] so that when more than one comes together, people are there in his presence.

Following right after the consecration is the epiclesis, prayer to the Holy Spirit who changes the bread and wine to the body and blood. Its important to note Christ's presence in the reading of Scripture and in the community gathered, real in its own sense.

 

[pearl]

It's not. We believe that Jesus meant what He said. We take His own words literally.

Its rather ironic, Catholics are always accused of not following Scripture, even when taking Scripture at its word.

 

[David1967]

It's not. We believe that Jesus meant what He said. We take His own words literally.

And as far as Mosaic Law is concerned it is irrelevant. If Jesus is the God He claimed to be then it is within His authority to abolish that law. It served its purpose in prefiguring Christ. The New Testament is very clear about this especially when it comes to issue of unclean foods.

OK, I don't want to be disrespectful, that's not my intention with this next question. Do you believe that when you take communion that you literally have a belly full of human flesh and blood? And I have to (also respectfully) disagree with your statement that Mosaic law is irrelevant. Jesus himself said that he didn't come to change the law but to fulfill it. As far as Jesus being G-d? I know that He prayed to G-d and acknowledged that the Father was greater than himself and that he did nothing of himself and that when he left this earth that he said he was going to sit at the right hand of his Father. Did Jesus talk to himself and sit beside himself and get power from himself? That doesn't fit what he said, IMHO. Again, not trying to be offensive.

 

[Glaurung]

Do you believe that when you take communion that you literally have a belly full of human flesh and blood?

The doctrine of transubstantiation states that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. It isn't a mere symbol. In substance the bread and wine cease to exist and become God incarnate. The accidents (the perceptible physical attributes) of the bread and wine remain as bread and wine. When you take Catholic communion you are consuming bread and wine as perceived in the physical attributes. But in the substance or essence, Christ is truly present just as much as He was during His time on Earth.

And I have to (also respectfully) disagree with your statement that Mosaic law is irrelevant. Jesus himself said that he didn't come to change the law but to fulfill it.

The ceremonial laid out in Mosaic Law existed only to prefigure Christ. Since Christ has now come, all prefigurement of Him is redundant. All sacrifice is redundant because the ultimate, infinitely meritorious sacrifice has been rendered and paid. It is actually a grave sin to observe the ceremonial of the Mosaic Law because such observance is tantamount to a ritual denial of Christ as messiah. Either Christ was who He claimed to be or He was not. You can't have it both ways.

The moral of the Mosaic Law as summed up in the Decalogue still applies. The moral law is eternal and universal. Adultery will forever be forbidden. But the ceremonial religion in which Christ's coming was prefigured was not. Circumcision, unclean foods, animal sacrifice at the temple, laws dictating clothing etc. That's all gone. The New Testament is clear about this.

As far as Jesus being G-d? I know that He prayed to G-d and acknowledged that the Father was greater than himself and that he did nothing of himself and that when he left this earth that he said he was going to sit at the right hand of his Father. Did Jesus talk to himself and sit beside himself and get power from himself? That doesn't fit what he said, IMHO. Again, not trying to be offensive.

The Gospel says that Jesus is the eternal divine Word, one with the Father. And the Word was God and was made flesh. Jesus is fully God identical with the Father in essence, but not in person.

Look, not to be disrespectful myself, but if the divinity of Christ is a controversial question for you then you're not a Christian in my books. If you don't think Christ is God and freed us from the observances of Mosaic law then convert to Judaism.