W
worldmed
Guest
Greetings: I received this the other day and was taken aback. The Catholic Eucharist is at one side of the spectrum and the protestant communion is at the other. The truth, I believe, is somewhere in the middle but closer to the Catholic understanding. This scrutiny comes from the reality that Jesus the Christ did not slice off a piece of His muscle for the apostles to eat neither did He bleed into a chalice for them to drink. When He said, “This is my body… this is my blood”, we really do not know where He placed the emphasis. Catholic apologists typically place the emphasis on “IS” but we [really] do not know in what manner He made this statement (they say 70% of oral communication is non-verbal; so we are only getting perhaps 30-40% of the original intent). Since He did not offer actual muscle or blood, it was "symbolic,” in such a new and ineffable way that we should consider it spiritually special and unique but symbolic nonetheless. Everyone is disagreeing with me right now but I think we take some of these ineffable concepts to such an extreme that some God-fearing Christians are alienated. It was a deeply profound spiritual ritual but it was "symbolic”; His passion on the cross was the corporeal reality. I will continue to believe somewhere toward transubstantiation but when I hear good Christian folks argue and almost fight over transubstantiation vs consubstantiation, etc. I hear the Holy Spirit whisper in my ear, “You’re missing the whole point!” God Bless you all. XO
Your help in designing a rebuttal is appreciated. Thank you.
Your help in designing a rebuttal is appreciated. Thank you.