Communion In a Protestant Church...

[FuzzyBunny116]

Singinbeauty:

So this must be where the MYTH of cannabalism in the catholic faith comes into play. So you actually believe that the wine and bread is actually CHRIST that you are eating? Kinda gross and now I can see what this guy meant when he said that the disciples ate Jesus after He died. Can you show me scriptual reference to the fact that this is ACTUALLY Christ you are eating? I have read the references of where Jesus was instructing us on this and He states to do so in REMEMBERANCE of Him. Not that it was actually Him.

I don’t really know much of an answer to cannibalism, but remember he IS God as well, and that He asked us to do it.

I also heard there was a missionary (St. Francis Xavier?) who converted a bunch of cannibals, and they completely understood the differences in their cannibalism and partaking of Christ’s Body and Blood.

I guess to fully understand I’ll have to become a-never mind.

 

[Philthy]

Singinbeauty:

I have read many times here that a person of the catholic faith cannot receive communion (as if it’s a sin to do so) in a protestant church… Why is this?

I presume the intent of your original question was, “Why does the Church consider it a sin?”

You’ve gotten many good answers from Scripture by others. History(Catholic AND Protestant) and Tradition also testify to the Catholic position. Here’s also some theology to chew on:

Holy communion has rightly been called the “marriage supper of the lamb”. When you truly enter into the Church, you have entered into the body of Christ. The church is the “bride of Christ” and in a real sense when you chose to enter the Church you “marry” yourself to Christ. Holy communion represents the most intimate encounter with Christ we can have on earth. Such a sacred relationship, like marriage, requires a public confession of intent and a vow of fidelity. Just like a man and a woman forsake complete intimacy with one another until after they have entered into the vows of marriage, so also should this be true for our union with Christ. This is why non-Catholics are not permitted to receive holy communion - they have not made this commitment through the Church. In addition, a Catholic can not “substitute” the sacred, intimate relationship of holy communion with another that fails to recognize the full significance of the gift of the Eucharist: the very body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. All protestant churches deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and it is therefore inappropriate for a Catholic to share in their communion.
By the way, all protestant churches used to restrict communion with other protestant churches(and Catholics) until the 1900’s - just like the Catholic Church - then they all gradually changed their minds and now they practice the opposite of what they used to preach and wonder why Catholics haven’t done the same. Most members of those churches haven’t a clue of the history of their own church. I find this interesting because it makes me wonder, “What new revelation from Scripture did all the original Reformers and all Protestant theologians miss until the 1900’s that caused them to change their minds?”

Phil

 

[Philthy]

Singinbeauty:

I guess that this begs the question of what catholics perceive communion to be in the protestant faith?

It is a Spiritual communion, but not a Sacramental Communion.

Phil

 

[ElizabethJoy]

Singinbeauty:

So this must be where the MYTH of cannabalism in the catholic faith comes into play.

Yes, along with the myth that Catholics crucify Jesus at every mass and a few others.

So you actually believe that the wine and bread is actually CHRIST that you are eating?

Yes, just as Christ told us it would be.

Kinda gross and now I can see what this guy meant when he said that the disciples ate Jesus after He died.

I am at least a couple of years away from being in full communion with the church (if, indeed my marriage situation is ever regularized and I’m even allowed to enter the church at all) and I think it’s one of the most beautiful things possible on this earth. I go to Eucharistic Adoration because I can be with Christ, physically present as much as He was when he walked the earth. He’s really there! I wish with all my heart that I could receive Him in communion, but I am also mindful of the necessity of obedience and patience.

It’s not as if the appearances change - you sense only a wafer or wine in your mouth. It’s your spiritual senses and your faith that let you know that Christ is present and that you are partaking of Him in the flesh. It’s a miracle that’s repeated every day in masses all over the world, just as it has since the days of the disciples.

Can you show me scriptual reference to the fact that this is ACTUALLY Christ you are eating? I have read the references of where Jesus was instructing us on this and He states to do so in REMEMBERANCE of Him. Not that it was actually Him.

Yes, he does say to do this in remembrance.

But, He also tells his disciples and friends that it IS His body. “Take this, all of you and eat - for this is my body, which shall be given up for you.” And, “take this, all of you and drink, for this is my blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for many, so that sins may be forgiven.”

Some of the listeners didn’t believe what they heard - Christ was advocating eating His flesh - drinking his blood?! Some turned away from Him and followed Him no more because of this. Blood foods of any kind were forbidden under Mosaic law, but human flesh and blood? Unthinkable!

But, he didn’t call them back and say, “You misunderstand me AGAIN!” (as he had done on other occasions) He reiterated the teaching, “For my flesh is real food, indeed and my blood is real drink.” And “Unlesss you eat the flesh and drink the blood, there will be no life in you.”

He humbles himself to come to us in the lowly appearances of bread and wine. It is a miracle that you can go into almost any Catholic Church and find Christ in the flesh, just as physically present as he was twenty centuries ago. This is why there are so many admonitions about partaking unworthily. He really IS with us, still - and He will be “til the end of the age.” God is a Father who keeps His promises.

 

[Philthy]

Singinbeauty:

So this must be where the MYTH of cannabalism in the catholic faith comes into play. So you actually believe that the wine and bread is actually CHRIST that you are eating? Kinda gross and now I can see what this guy meant when he said that the disciples ate Jesus after He died. Can you show me scriptual reference to the fact that this is ACTUALLY Christ you are eating? I have read the references of where Jesus was instructing us on this and He states to do so in REMEMBERANCE of Him. Not that it was actually Him.

You need to study the origins of the Greek term(and the culture that would have been recieving this message) for “REMEMBRANCE” - it does not mean to simply do it to “remember and think about” like you are suggesting. And I don’t fault you for not knowing - I used to wonder the same thing. It means more like to “enter into the actual event as it originally occured”. The english translations are terrible. And our culture has no equivalent - we would never even consider such a meaning nowadays…
Let me give you another little tidbit I just learned: do you know what “Bethlehem” means? House of Bread. Hmmmm, Jesus was born in Bethlehem… house of bread…the Eucharist…there’s more than meets the eye,heart and feelings.

Phil

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

Singinbeauty:

Do they really call them ‘Steakhouses’?..

Stakehouse.

A Mormon steakhouse would be a Sizzler in SLC.

 

[ElizabethJoy]

Philthy:

Holy communion has rightly been called the “marriage supper of the lamb”.

That was a beautiful dimension to the answer.

All protestant churches deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and it is therefore inappropriate for a Catholic to share in their communion.

Please excuse the quick hijack of this thread, but I was under the impression that there were still a couple of protestant churches who believe in the Real Presence, but that their lack of authority made their communion invalid for Catholics?

Am I erring on this point? If so, I surely don’t want to repeat it. Thanks!

Back to the thread…

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

ElizabethJoy:

…Please excuse the quick hijack of this thread, but I was under the impression that there were still a couple of protestant churches who believe in the Real Presence, but that their lack of authority made their communion invalid for Catholics?..

That’s essentially correct. All the Eastern Orthodox Churches, some newer churches such as the Old Catholic Church and the Polish National Catholic Church, and some communities which may or may not be de facto separate churches such as the Society of St Pius X all have valid Sacraments, including Holy Communion, but Catholics under normal circumstances should not receive the Sacraments in these churches.

Additionally, some individual priests and bishops in some Anglican or Lutheran churches may have valid Holy Orders by being ordained by Eastern Orthodox or Old Catholic bishops (or by other bishops whose pedigrees derived from Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic, or some other validly ordained bishops.) It is possible that these individual clergymen, though not necessarily their entire respective churches, could validly confect the Blessed Sacrament if they have the right intent and matter and use a valid form.

 

[carol_marie]

ElizabethJoy:
That was a beautiful dimension to the answer.

Please excuse the quick hijack of this thread, but I was under the impression that there were still a couple of protestant churches who believe in the Real Presence, but that their lack of authority made their communion invalid for Catholics?

Am I erring on this point? If so, I surely don’t want to repeat it. Thanks!

Back to the thread…

The Misouri Synod Lutheran Church believe that Christ is fully present in the bread & the wine.

… back to the thread.

 

[Zooey]

ElizabethJoy:
That was a beautiful dimension to the answer.

Please excuse the quick hijack of this thread, but I was under the impression that there were still a couple of protestant churches who believe in the Real Presence, but that their lack of authority made their communion invalid for Catholics?

Am I erring on this point? If so, I surely don’t want to repeat it. Thanks!

Back to the thread…

Methodists believe in the Real Presence. In fact, John Wesley was at times criticized by his fellow Anglicans for his firm stance on this point, which led–probably inevitably–to his exclusion of some persons from the communion table, because of his knowledge that they would be the cause of scandal if allowed to do so.
Indeed, J Wesley (not the other Wesleys, at least to my knowledge) was frequently called a crypto Catholic, because of his insistence on this point.

 

[NotWorthy]

Those Protestant Faiths that believe in the Real Presence do not believe in Transubstantiation. The way I understand it, an unused communion host after a Lutheran Mass, reverts back to a regular peace of unleavened bread. Catholics understand that, once a host is consecrated, it remains consecrated.

If you look at the Jewish beliefs, the Passover was celebrated as a memorial to the original Passover. The Jewish rites were meant to make present the Original Passover. Hence, many Jews, in the 1st century, felt that they were preparing for the Exodus out of Egypt with the original Jews. In the Last Supper, the Apostles, Jews all, would have perfectly understood what Jesus meant when he said “Do this in remembrance of me”.

If you look over the “Bread of Life” discourse. When Jesus says for the fifth and/or sixth time to “eat my body”, he changes the verb for “eat” to a word that literally translates to “gnaw on” or “grind”. This is one of the reasons they murmured “This is a hard saying”.

NotWorthy

 

[justathought]

As ridiculous as this may sound, I guess my question is: if Christ intended for the bread and wine to be His ACTUAL body and blood, why did He not just cut Himself and make them eat that? Wouldn’t that have served His point a little better? That is why Protestants do not accept the bread and wine as actually meant to be Him.

Peace be upon all who read this

 

[Zooey]

justathought:

As ridiculous as this may sound, I guess my question is: if Christ intended for the bread and wine to be His ACTUAL body and blood, why did He not just cut Himself and make them eat that? Wouldn’t that have served His point a little better? That is why Protestants do not accept the bread and wine as actually meant to be Him.
Peace be upon all who read this

1.Well, no, that would have done nothing at all. There would be no way for anyone to have Holy Communion. You don’t sound ridiculous as much as confused about what the Last Supper was all about.
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted Holy Communion. How on earth could we have communion otherwise? You are the one who sounds like you believe in cannibalism. Jesus is in Heaven. It is the elements of Holy Communion that are a participation in His death & resurrection.
2. You are just wrong to say that “Protestants do not accept the bread & wine as actualy meant to be Him”. Which protestants? Where & when? Methodists, Lutherans, & Anglicans all accept the Real Presence. (We may define it differently).You are making the unwarranted assumption that every protestant Christian believes what you believe personally; not true. Not true at all.
Read your Bible! Jesus does not say “This looks like My Body & Blood”, nor “This is a symbol of My Body & Blood”. He says “This is My Body; this is My Blood”.
Be very careful here. You are trading very close to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in your comments about the Lord Jesus Christ. Please do not let your desire to “score a point” lead you into this grievous sin!!
God bless.

 

[Zooey]

Singinbeauty:

What makes it different in the catholic church?
I would really appreciate it if you wouldn’t call my practices a ‘mockery’. I don’t do that to you. I do not see any thing that has brought shame to Jesus Christ in my church.

I think that there has been a real misunderstanding here. I don’t think that there was any intention to call your practice at your church a “mockery”.
From time to time, the subject comes up, of a Catholic asking why they can’t take communion “just once” in a protestant church. (And the protestant “just once” in the Catholic church). The answer to this question is “no” in both cases.
Why? Because it is saying that you believe something that you do not believe.It is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to lie to God, which is what this would be.
The person who said something would be a mockery, was pointing out that to take communion in a church that has such a diffferent view of the sacramentsis wrong for another Catholic.I suspect that he did not realize that you were asking a hypothetical question about the possibility, & thought that you were Catholic. He was warning you not to participate in that case.
I run into this myself. Some of my relatives are Baptist, some Calvary Chapel. They don’t see why I don’t take communion with them. (I am Methodist). I can’t, you see, because they think it is just a symbol. If I take communion in their churches when I visit them, I would be saying that I don’t really believe in the sacrament when I recieve it in my church. It would be trying to please men in place of God. I would be denying my Lord & Saviour. I have to pass, & leave them upset with me.
On the other hand, there is no Lutheran church near us. We have a Lutheran lady who attend because of lack of transportation, but who does not take communion with us, because she has a different belief, & to her, it would be insulting to the Lord Jesus.

We are indeed all Christians, but we have a responsibility to follow where God leads us, rather than a kind of bland generic people pleasing way that offends no human, but insults Almighty God.
I hope this helps a little bit! God bless.

 

[justathought]

1.Well, no, that would have done nothing at all. There would be no way for anyone to have Holy Communion. You don’t sound ridiculous as much as confused about what the Last Supper was all about.
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted Holy Communion. How on earth could we have communion otherwise? You are the one who sounds like you believe in cannibalism. Jesus is in Heaven. It is the elements of Holy Communion that are a participation in His death & resurrection.

I in no way endorse cannibalism (unless required for survival such as the movie Alive), that was not the point of my statement in any way. To “participate in His death” as you say is to sacrifice Him all over again. Why do I want to “participate in His death”? Was the first time not good enough?

1. You are just wrong to say that “Protestants do not accept the bread & wine as actualy meant to be Him”. Which protestants? Where & when? Methodists, Lutherans, & Anglicans all accept the Real Presence. (We may define it differently).You are making the unwarranted assumption that every protestant Christian believes what you believe personally; not true. Not true at all.
   Read your Bible! Jesus does not say “This looks like My Body & Blood”, nor “This is a symbol of My Body & Blood”. He says “This is My Body; this is My Blood”.
   Be very careful here. You are trading very close to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in your comments about the Lord Jesus Christ. Please do not let your desire to “score a point” lead you into this grievous sin!!
   God bless.

Wow, I am glad I am a Christian. If I was not, I would have choice words for you. But I love you and will pray that God does not curse you for cursing me as He promised He does. Oh yeah, I know this because I DO read my Bible. Now, God is a good Friend of mine, and just as Abraham was I will also be called a friend of God’s.

I was in no way trying to “score a point”. I personally believe the sacrifice of my Lord and Saviour was enough the first time. I already took part in His death, by my sin. It was my hand hammering the nail. It was only in His resurrection that I am saved.

He may not have said it was a symbol of His blood and body, but did He ever say the parables were symbols? Jesus does not have to say, “Oh yeah, and by the way guys, this whole body, blood thing is just a symbol!” for it to really be one. To say He did not say it is not even a valid arguement. He did, however, say “do this in REMEMBERANCE of Me”.

I forgive you for your calling me blasphemous as does Christ.

Peace be upon all who read this

 

[justathought]

Zooey:

It is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to lie to God, which is what this would be.

You really shouldn’t throw your thoughts about blasphemy around so freely. It is not something to call everyone who sins. Lying to God is NOT blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. We all TRY to lie to God when we try to justify our sins. Look up Mark 3:20-30. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is giving Beelzebub or Satan or man or anyone other than Christ credit for Christ’s work. It is NOT lying. You told me to read my Bible earlier, but get the plank out of your eye before you talk about the speck in mine.

Peace be upon all who read this

 

[Zooey]

justathought:

I in no way endorse cannibalism (unless required for survival such as the movie Alive), that was not the point of my statement in any way. To “participate in His death” as you say is to sacrifice Him all over again. Why do I want to “participate in His death”? Was the first time not good enough?

You are intentionaly misunderstanding me. Why are you subdividing the salvific acts of Christ? It is His words that you are denying. It is Him that you are calling a liar. He said “This IS”. I am not given the option of explaining it away to make my life more convenient. He says that I am to eat His Body & to drink His blood. When He speaks, I do as I am told. I do not sneer, & say, oh, it would be easier to say this part is just a figure of speech. As I said: Read your Bible. Read His words, & then do them.

Wow, I am glad I am a Christian. If I was not, I would have choice words for you. But I love you and will pray that God does not curse you for cursing me as He promised He does. Oh yeah, I know this because I DO read my Bible. Now, God is a good Friend of mine, and just as Abraham was I will also be called a friend of God’s.

Excuse me??? When & where did I “curse” you?? Scripture calls upon us to speak the truth toan erring brother. I did not curse anyone. You were very very close to committing a terrible sin. I attempted to grab the back of your jacket, before you fell off a cliff. How does that become a curse??

I was in no way trying to “score a point”. I personally believe the sacrifice of my Lord and Saviour was enough the first time. I already took part in His death, by my sin. It was my hand hammering the nail. It was only in His resurrection that I am saved.

Why do you persist in this delusion that I am sacrificing Christ again? That is the last thing I am doing. I understand that it is a blow to one’s pride to be chided. But when you accuse my Lord, that is, again, I point out, blasphemous.
You insist upon saying that He did not say what He meant, & did not mean what He said.Please be very careful. Please.

He may not have said it was a symbol of His blood and body, but did He ever say the parables were symbols? Jesus does not have to say, “Oh yeah, and by the way guys, this whole body, blood thing is just a symbol!” for it to really be one. To say He did not say it is not even a valid arguement. He did, however, say “do this in REMEMBERANCE of Me”.

Yes, in remembrance. Of course, in remembrance. He is not physically present to us, except when we meet Him in the sacrament of Holy Communion. Certainly, then, we are reminded, indeed, we are made present, at the foot of the Cross.We do not flee, not physically as the disciples; neither do we deny Him by saying that this great gift He has left us is a sham, a pretence. If it were all a play, why didn’t He call back those who left, scandalized??

I forgive you for your calling me blasphemous as does Christ.
Peace be upon all who read this

I hope and pray that the Lord will forgive you. In your anger & petulance, it is you who crucify Him afresh, by denying His Body & His Blood. I am sorry you do not understand that.
I beg of you, stop this. I know that our beliefs are different. That is one thing. To profane the Lord Jesus Christ, to sneer at His holy words, is indeed to attribute His words & the work of His Spirit to some other source. I repeat: you are wounding my Lord. You are breaking His heart.
Nevertheless, God bless.

 

[Edwin1961]

Zooey:

You are intentionaly misunderstanding me. Why are you subdividing the salvific acts of Christ? It is His words that you are denying. It is Him that you are calling a liar. He said “This IS”. I am not given the option of explaining it away to make my life more convenient. He says that I am to eat His Body & to drink His blood. When He speaks, I do as I am told. I do not sneer, & say, oh, it would be easier to say this part is just a figure of speech. As I said: Read your Bible. Read His words, & then do them.
Excuse me??? When & where did I “curse” you?? Scripture calls upon us to speak the truth toan erring brother. I did not curse anyone. You were very very close to committing a terrible sin. I attempted to grab the back of your jacket, before you fell off a cliff. How does that become a curse?? Why do you persist in this delusion that I am sacrificing Christ again? That is the last thing I am doing. I understand that it is a blow to one’s pride to be chided. But when you accuse my Lord, that is, again, I point out, blasphemous.
You insist upon saying that He did not say what He meant, & did not mean what He said.Please be very careful. Please.

Yes, in remembrance. Of course, in remembrance. He is not physically present to us, except when we meet Him in the sacrament of Holy Communion. Certainly, then, we are reminded, indeed, we are made present, at the foot of the Cross.We do not flee, not physically as the disciples; neither do we deny Him by saying that this great gift He has left us is a sham, a pretence. If it were all a play, why didn’t He call back those who left, scandalized??

I hope and pray that the Lord will forgive you. In your anger & petulance, it is you who crucify Him afresh, by denying His Body & His Blood. I am sorry you do not understand that.
I beg of you, stop this. I know that our beliefs are different. That is one thing. To profane the Lord Jesus Christ, to sneer at His holy words, is indeed to attribute His words & the work of His Spirit to some other source. I repeat: you are wounding my Lord. You are breaking His heart.
Nevertheless, God bless.

In John 6:66, some of Jesus’ disciples walk away because they found THIS one particular saying ‘difficult’ to understand. They thought Jesus was ‘off his rocker’.
So with that, why would ANYONE walk away if the words Jesus used make ‘his body and blood’ as just a symbol?
ALSO explain 1 Cor. 11: 23 and the following. Paul says that there is a ‘penalty’ in partaking in the Holy Communion of our Lord Unworthly. Why would a ‘symbol’ need a warning?

Zooey, you did good in your defense…yet I hope what I wrote down further helps your explaination.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Edwin1961:

In John 6:66, some of Jesus’ disciples walk away because they found THIS one particular saying ‘difficult’ to understand. They thought Jesus was ‘off his rocker’.
So with that, why would ANYONE walk away if the words Jesus used make ‘his body and blood’ as just a symbol?
**ALSO explain 1 Cor. 11: 23 ** and the following. Paul says that there is a ‘penalty’ in partaking in the Holy Communion of our Lord Unworthly. Why would a ‘symbol’ need a warning?

Zooey, you did good in your defense…yet I hope what I wrote down further helps your explaination.

**1 Corinthians 11:17-34 (New Living Translation) **

17But now when I mention this next issue, I cannot praise you. For it sounds as if more harm than good is done when you meet together. 18First of all, I hear that there are divisions among you when you meet as a church, and to some extent I believe it. 19But, of course, there must be divisions among you so that those of you who are right will be recognized!
20It’s not the Lord’s Supper you are concerned about when you come together. 21For I am told that some of you hurry to eat your own meal without sharing with others. As a result, some go hungry while others get drunk. 22What? Is this really true? Don’t you have your own homes for eating and drinking? Or do you really want to disgrace the church of God and shame the poor? What am I supposed to say about these things? Do you want me to praise you? Well, I certainly do not!

23For this is what the Lord himself said, and I pass it on to you just as I received it. On the night when he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took a loaf of bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is given[d] for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, he took the cup of wine after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant between God and you, sealed by the shedding of my blood. Do this in remembrance of me as often as you drink it." 26For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are announcing the Lord's death until he comes again.

27So if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, that person is guilty of sinning against the body and the blood of the Lord. 28That is why you should examine yourself before eating the bread and drinking from the cup. 29For if you eat the bread or drink the cup unworthily, not honoring the body of Christ,[e] you are eating and drinking God's judgment upon yourself. 30That is why many of you are weak and sick and some have even died.

31But if we examine ourselves, we will not be examined by God and judged in this way. 32But when we are judged and disciplined by the Lord, we will not be condemned with the world. 33So, dear brothers and sisters,[f] when you gather for the Lord's Supper, wait for each other. 34If you are really hungry, eat at home so you won't bring judgment upon yourselves when you meet together.

I’ll give you instructions about the other matters after I arrive.

But you have to look at the context of this letter that Paul was writing. He was chastizing this particular group about taking part of the Last Supper as if they are eating supper and not concentrating on the act itself. It’s about priorities. He is warning us about coming to the Holy Communion as pigs ready to devour whatever is in front of us rather than paying attention to what it actually is. That is why he is saying, in verse 34, “If you are really HUNGRY, eat at home so you won’t bring judgment upon yourselves when you meet together.” As for the unworthily and honoring part of this passage in verse 29, in context of this passage I think he is saying don’t come to the table if you don’t have your priorities right when it comes to this act.

Why would a ‘symbol’ need a warning?

Since the early church met in homes, they would come together and just worship God and learn more about Christ. They dropped everything to help eachother. Sold anything they had if a brother was in trouble and needed money and they fed each other. Since we all eat, Jesus knew that by using bread and wine they would be able to use these things to keep a fresh reminder of what He did for us in our minds. I mean come on… Bread and Wine? Two of the most common things eaten back then and today. Christ didn’t say “Hey, only at church are you to eat and drink in rememberance of me.” He said “When you eat this bread and drink this cup, do it in rememberance of me.” When you sit down to eat your sandwich, know that you are to remember Him. When you drink whatever is in your cup, remember the Sacrifice He made for you. This is what He intended. No where in the bible does it mention that, unless you get it from a priest the communion is no good. shrug

 

[sententia]

"“When you eat this bread and drink this cup, do it in rememberance of me.”

Then why did he say this bread and cup? Not just “When you eat.” Why does he say “do THIS-” to eat and drink his flesh and blood-“Do this in memory of me.”

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#eucharist-IId