How do I answer the following question...?

[shark76z]

My long-time Baptist friend recently asked me if it’s true that Catholics drink wine during the Eucharist (he said the Lord’s Supper). How am I to respond? Catholics believe that the wine is no longer present right? So, do they actually receive Jesus blood and not any wine?

Thanks.

 

[choy]

My long-time Baptist friend recently asked me if it’s true that Catholics drink wine during the Eucharist (he said the Lord’s Supper). How am I to respond? Catholics believe that the wine is no longer present right? So, do they actually receive Jesus blood and not any wine?

Thanks.

yes, the accidental properties of the wine (color, texture, taste) is still there, while its substance is not of wine anymore but the Blood of Christ

Catholics do not receive bread and wine, but rather the Body and Blood of Christ

i know its a bit hard to discuss transubstantiation with non-believers, but thats exactly what happens

ask your Baptist friend. does he believe that what appears bread is actually the Body of Christ? and what appears as wine is actually the Blood of Christ? no doubt he will say no. so ask him again if he believes the following:

-did Jesus walk on water?
-did Jesus feed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish?
-did Jesus turn water into wine?
-did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead? and He Himself rise from the dead?
-did Jesus instantly cured people from lifelong diseases and conditions?

if he can believe those, why can’t he believe that through the power of God, bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ?

 

[Returning_Home]

i know its a bit hard to discuss transubstantiation with non-believers, but thats exactly what happens

That’s a hard one because many Catholics don’t even buy into this. The other things you mentioned were physical, observable acts and miracles, unlike transubstantiation. In fact, it seems that no one has ever seen this outside of the Middle Ages.

What’s lost on many is that it’s all symbolic, meant to remind us of the sacrifice and its driving force: the salvation of mankind and our return to God.

 

[St_Francis]

That’s a hard one because many Catholics don’t even buy into this. The other things you mentioned were physical, observable acts and miracles, unlike transubstantiation. In fact, it seems that no one has ever seen this outside of the Middle Ages.

Turns out that many more Catholics believe in the True Presence than that poll showed, because the wording of the poll was bad and people were thus confused about how to answer.

What’s lost on many is that it’s all symbolic, meant to remind us of the sacrifice and its driving force: the salvation of mankind and our return to God.

Are you sure you mean symbolic here? If it is real, then it is not symbolic.

 

[St_Francis]

My long-time Baptist friend recently asked me if it’s true that Catholics drink wine during the Eucharist (he said the Lord’s Supper). How am I to respond? Catholics believe that the wine is no longer present right? So, do they actually receive Jesus blood and not any wine?

Thanks.

the best way I heard it put was, If God can make everything out of nothing, then surely He can make something out of something.

 

[JRKH]

My long-time Baptist friend recently asked me if it’s true that Catholics drink wine during the Eucharist (he said the Lord’s Supper). How am I to respond? Catholics believe that the wine is no longer present right? So, do they actually receive Jesus blood and not any wine?

Thanks.

I suspect that this question is less about our belief in the real presence than about the use of alcohol. If I’m not mistaken Baptist frown on drinking alcohol and use grape juice rather than wine in their services. So his/her question may be less about transubstantiation and the real presence, than about the use of alcohol.

That being said, I suggest simply answering like this:
We drink the Lord’s blood in the Eucharist. Wine is brought to the Altar, it is changed in to His blod a consecration anc consumed at communion.

Peace
James

 

[puzzleannie]

That’s a hard one because many Catholics don’t even buy into this. The other things you mentioned were physical, observable acts and miracles, unlike transubstantiation. In fact, it seems that no one has ever seen this outside of the Middle Ages.

What’s lost on many is that it’s all symbolic, meant to remind us of the sacrifice and its driving force: the salvation of mankind and our return to God.

no the Eucharist is not symbolic, it is actual and sacramental, a word which means Christ is present and active. The sacramental signs and symbols–the matter and form of each sacrament–do and are what they proclaim. It has been seen by every priest for 2000 years in every Mass and by every Catholic who has participated at Mass for 2000 years. Is it perceptible to the senses? No but it is still seen because it really happens. Christ acts, as he promised, through the person of the priest to change the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his own body, blood, soul and divinity. The poster’s point was that if you grant Christ had the power to perform physical miracles, then he has also the power to perform this miracle. Nowhere does Christ say" this stuff I am doing is just a symbol, you know, not real."

James has the right answer to OP’s question.

 

[crazzeto]

My long-time Baptist friend recently asked me if it’s true that Catholics drink wine during the Eucharist (he said the Lord’s Supper). How am I to respond? Catholics believe that the wine is no longer present right? So, do they actually receive Jesus blood and not any wine?

Thanks.

No, we drink the blood of Christ durring communion. The matter which is consecrated into the blood of Christ is wine. Wine is used because it is the matter that Christ consecrated durring the last supper:

"(Mat 26:27) And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.

(Mat 26:28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins."

You should be asking your Baptist friend why they don’t use Wine… I would suggest you read a little bit of this

christreformedchurch.org/PDF/WineinCommunion.pdf

The sacramental view here is purely protestant, but the history regarding changing wine into grape juice in protestant churchs is very valuable. In fact here is one interesting little tid bit you can use as an argument against the bible alone:

It is appalling to
discover that, during Prohibition, temperance activists actually hired a scholar to
rewrite the Bible by removing all references to alcoholic beverage.9

Read history and you’ll see how frequent this type of thing is.

 

[Yab_Yum]

If you believe in real presence at all, transubstantiation is the best explanation of it out there IMHO. To eat and drink the essence of Christ as a sacrament via the appearances of the bread and wine is an incredible thing to ponder.

 

[losh14]

My long-time Baptist friend recently asked me if it’s true that Catholics drink wine during the Eucharist (he said the Lord’s Supper). How am I to respond? Catholics believe that the wine is no longer present right? So, do they actually receive Jesus blood and not any wine?

Thanks.

The wine remains wine, the bread remains bread, but they also become the Body and Blood, the transubstantiated Presence.

Consider if you drink an entire cup of the Blood you might get tipsy from the alcohol - this is something Paul alluded to (1 Cor 11:17-22) when he condemned the treating of the Eucharist as just a meal: “for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.” Participation does not require any more than partaking, so if your friend’s eyes get wide when you tell him that we drink real wine (something like a Zinfandel or Blush), it’s honestly just enough to taste. In some Rites, the Body is dipped in the Blood, so the amount of wine is very very small.

A trite analogy would be that of a cheescake that is used to prop open a door. The cheesecake is still a cheesecake but its function has changed to that of a doorstop. When the door is closed you can still eat the cheesecake, it’ll still taste like cheescake, smoosh like cheesecake and stuff you like cheesecake, but it held a door open.

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

What’s lost on many is that it’s all symbolic, meant to remind us of the sacrifice and its driving force: the salvation of mankind and our return to God.

This is pure protestantism!!!

I see that you are ‘returning home’ and are ‘semi-Catholic’…
This is something you owe it to yourself to investigate and study; one is not truly Catholic without the faith in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the most Holy Eucharist. **No symbol–**that is what those who have lost the faith say. Polls are nothing; we do not go by polls and do not vote on what is truth this year.

The unchanging dogma of the Holy Eucharist is what the martyrs died to give witness to.
I suggest you get a Catechism of the Catholic Church and begin to read it so you will know what true Catholic teaching is.

Here is a link to the section on the Holy Eucharist, the Blessed Sacrament:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm

And I do realize that since in many many places there has been non-catechesis for decades, it is not the fault of the people in the pew that they do not know, understand, and accept these doctrines of the fatih. But your eyes are being opened! Read, learn, pray…come to adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. What have we been doing all these millenia if that is only a wafer, that would indeed be idolatry. But the consecrated Host is Our Lord under the species of bread. They understood Him well, as related in the 6th chapter of St. John’s Gospel, when He said one must eat His Body and drink His Blood. Why do you think they walked away? They certainly would not be offended by a ‘symbol’.

No symbol ; Real Presence.

 

[choy]

no, there is nothing symbolic about the Eucharist. Christ did not say, “this is the symbol of my body… this is the symbol of my blood.” He clearly said, “THIS IS MY BODY”. no ifs, no buts, its pretty straight forward language. and it was very clear in John 6 that Christ really meant that people should literally eat His flesh and drink His blood to gain eternal life.

 

[Danny_Clover]

yes, the accidental properties of the wine (color, texture, taste) is still there, while its substance is not of wine anymore but the Blood of Christ

Catholics do not receive bread and wine, but rather the Body and Blood of Christ

i know its a bit hard to discuss transubstantiation with non-believers, but thats exactly what happens

ask your Baptist friend. does he believe that what appears bread is actually the Body of Christ? and what appears as wine is actually the Blood of Christ? no doubt he will say no. so ask him again if he believes the following:

-did Jesus walk on water?
-did Jesus feed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish?
-did Jesus turn water into wine?
-did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead? and He Himself rise from the dead?
-did Jesus instantly cured people from lifelong diseases and conditions?

if he can believe those, why can’t he believe that through the power of God, bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ?

And don’t forget to show him where in scripture it says that the bread and wine turn into Jesus’ blood and also show him Hebrews 1:3 and then explain how Matthew 24:23 relates to that.

Oh, and most importantly, since he’s Protestant, don’t forget to dismiss everything he says and then condescendingly tell him that he just doesn’t understand what the Bible says.

 

[Danny_Clover]

no, there is nothing symbolic about the Eucharist. Christ did not say, “this is the symbol of my body… this is the symbol of my blood.” He clearly said, “THIS IS MY BODY”. no ifs, no buts, its pretty straight forward language. and it was very clear in John 6 that Christ really meant that people should literally eat His flesh and drink His blood to gain eternal life.

He also said that He’s a door, a chicken, a fountain, and has a sword coming out of His mouth.

 

[crazzeto]

And don’t forget to show him where in scripture it says that the bread and wine turn into Jesus’ blood and also show him Hebrews 1:3 and then explain how Matthew 24:23 relates to that.

Oh, and most importantly, since he’s Protestant, don’t forget to dismiss everything he says and then condescendingly tell him that he just doesn’t understand what the Bible says.

Wow, that’s a nice try… Except Paul him self taught many (including Luke) how to celebrate the Eucharist, more over if you’ve read any of the Ante-nicean fathers you’d know that the celebration of the Eucharist goes back to the very begining.

It’s no conincidence that the Western and Eastern churchs though not fully in communion yet have the same understanding of the celebration of the Eucharist, and it’s importance in the faith. I’m saddened that the Protestants (some anyway) have decided to throw out the central aspect of worship.

 

[crazzeto]

And don’t forget to show him where in scripture it says that the bread and wine turn into Jesus’ blood and also show him Hebrews 1:3 and then explain how Matthew 24:23 relates to that.

Oh, and most importantly, since he’s Protestant, don’t forget to dismiss everything he says and then condescendingly tell him that he just doesn’t understand what the Bible says.

That’s great, you forgot this one:

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
1Co 11:30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep.

 

[Danny_Clover]

That’s great, you forgot this one:

No, I didn’t forget it. I just didn’t list it because it has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[Danny_Clover]

(name removed by moderator):

But not the night before he was crucified he didn’t

Since when is when someone says something more important than what they said?

 

[choy]

He also said that He’s a door, a chicken, a fountain, and has a sword coming out of His mouth.

He never asked the Apostles to literally walk through Him like a door, but He did ask them to eat His body

big difference

 

[crazzeto]

No, I didn’t forget it. I just didn’t list it because it has nothing to do with the OP.

It has everything to do with it, it discusses the Eucharist in very direct terms and indicates that one of the worst possible sins you can commit is to partake of the Eucharist unworthily.

That’s a rather steep for something symbolic dont’ you think? Unless it isn’t symbolic, just as every Apositolic Church has every taught since pentecost as previously noted.