Literal flesh and blood?

[crossnote]

[Staff edit]

Hopefully we don't ascribe to Communion more than Scripture does.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

If we're going to take that at exactly face value, why doesn't it apply only to THAT wine and bread there and then?

Because of John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11.

 

[pdudgeon]

This has been argued ad nauseum.

Really, what do you think. When the communion service is over, the servers have a bunch of pieces of Jesus' body left on a plate and a bunch of cups of His blood left over.....??? Or, the priest has bag or container of flat wafers of Jesus' flesh left over and a chalice of His blood??? Really?

When they were at the last supper,

Matthew 26:26-28King James Version (KJV)

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.


27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;


28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

He stated, at this time even, "which is shed for many" but it had not even happened yet.

While Jesus held up the bread and broke it and blessed the wine, it did not become His flesh. He did not indwell it. The wine did not turn into blood....

People, these are emblems, symbols, they represent the body and shed blood of Christ. It is a method of association of what Christ did for us.


Ever make a plan in a game of some sort? You all get down on the ground and someone will say "OK, here's the plan... Freddy, this pebble is you, you stay here till I give the signal.. Bobby, this bottle cap, that's you, you run toward this stick which is that ditch by the Henderson House.... Tom, you're this broken piece of glass, you go to the Johnson garage and cut them off there.....

Ever done that??? Is the pebble really Freddy, Bobby becomes part of the bottle cap and the broken glass is somehow, Tom?


Of course not.

prhaps you haven't been to a mass yet, but as for the "left over wafers and wine" there is a plan.
That plan is that all broken consecrated wafers are consumed; the crumbs from the plate are brushed into the cup of wine which is then consumed.
some of the consecrated water is then poured into the cup and into the plate, is swirled about to clean all inside surfaces of each, and is then drank by the celebrant.
the linnen cloth is then used to clean both the plate and the cup inside and out.
the reserved wafers (whole and unused) are then returned to the reserve on the altar, and the serving elements are returned to the sacrasty to be cleansed and returned to their place of rest.
All remaining consecrated water is consumed--NOT poured down the drain.
the linnens used are removed, folded, and placed in a separate basket to be collected, washed separately, pressed, and returned to the linnen closit.

this above is a very brief explaination of what actually takes place. there is more of course, but this will give you a general idea of how the body and blood of Christ are handled.

 

[pdudgeon]

I see what you are saying here, I think I'm getting thrown off a bit not by Christ's word, but by those who in debate with those who see it as a memorial emphasize the literalness of it all. I may be taking it too far in my understanding?

you're probably not taking it far enough.
do you remember the occasion when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples?
The usual take on this scripture is that of Jesus washing our sins away from us, but take another look at what He says. John 13:1-8
"But if I don't wash you, you won't belong to me."

Here Jesus was just cleansing the "outside of the Cup" so to speak. but with the Eucharist He shows that just washing the outside of the cup is not enough. The inside must be washed too.
and that is a part of what the Eucharest does; the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus goes to every part of us inside and outside so that we are scrubbed clean by Him, just like the cup at the Eucharist.

and thats why the Eucharist is so much more than just a memorial of His death and resurrection. A memorial doesn't change anything--it only recalls what went before.
The Eucharist on the other hand is cleansing, restorative, and refreshing
from the inside out. And it's Jesus who does it.
We recieve Him into our very being to literally become part of us in a way that no thing or no one else ever will be.

So yes, the Eucharist is very different than just remembering Him from a far off vantage point separated by time and space.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

prhaps you haven't been to a mass yet, but as for the "left over wafers and wine" there is a plan.
That plan is that all broken consecrated wafers are consumed; the crumbs from the plate are brushed into the cup of wine which is then consumed.
some of the consecrated water is then poured into the cup and into the plate, is swirled about to clean all inside surfaces of each, and is then drank by the celebrant.
the linnen cloth is then used to clean both the plate and the cup inside and out.
the reserved wafers (whole and unused) are then returned to the reserve on the altar, and the serving elements are returned to the sacrasty to be cleansed and returned to their place of rest.
All remaining consecrated water is consumed--NOT poured down the drain.
the linnens used are removed, folded, and placed in a separate basket to be collected, washed separately, pressed, and returned to the linnen closit.

this above is a very brief explaination of what actually takes place. there is more of course, but this will give you a general idea of how the body and blood of Christ are handled.

In addition to the ablutions, which pdudgeon describes, it is also common for unused gifts to be set aside in a tabernacle for distribution to the sick, or in Orthodox praxis, for use in the Presanctified Liturgy (there is also in the Roman church a Presanctified Mass on Good Friday).

 

[pdudgeon]

In addition to the ablutions, which pdudgeon describes, it is also common for unused gifts to be set aside in a tabernacle for distribution to the sick, or in Orthodox praxis, for use in the Presanctified Liturgy (there is also in the Roman church a Presanctified Mass on Good Friday).

thanks for the help.

 

[JacksBratt]

you're probably not taking it far enough.
do you remember the occasion when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples?
The usual take on this scripture is that of Jesus washing our sins away from us, but take another look at what He says. John 13:1-8
"But if I don't wash you, you won't belong to me."

Here Jesus was just cleansing the "outside of the Cup" so to speak. but with the Eucharist He shows that just washing the outside of the cup is not enough. The inside must be washed too.
and that is a part of what the Eucharest does; the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus goes to every part of us inside and outside so that we are scrubbed clean by Him, just like the cup at the Eucharist.

and thats why the Eucharist is so much more than just a memorial of His death and resurrection. A memorial doesn't change anything--it only recalls what went before.
The Eucharist on the other hand is cleansing, restorative, and refreshing
from the inside out. And it's Jesus who does it.
We recieve Him into our very being to literally become part of us in a way that no thing or no one else ever will be.

So yes, the Eucharist is very different than just remembering Him from a far off vantage point separated by time and space.

Thanks for both your posts which explained a lot of what happens to the remaining wafers and wine.

I think this is good to know, however, to me, imo, is not necessary... The symbols are just symbols. Items for us to accept as emblems in order to remember what Christ has done. Just as the bread that Christ broke, was still bread and the wine in the cup that they drank from was just wine.

Anyway, you're not going to change your mind nor I. In the end, communion has been taking place for centuries and fulfilling it's purpose. Nobody has had any negative event happen to them for believing one way or the other.

 

[mea kulpa]

I dont want to sound crass or icky but if you think about what i am going to say on a human level its going to sound exactly like that. Please be aware this has not come from catholic teaching but my own spiritual meditations and that is how it should be recieved spiritually that said it is my own mediations and probably subject to many errors.

That said i am coming from two clear authoritative church positions

1. The eucharist is the body blood soul and divinity of our lord.

2. The church that is the mystical body of believers is the bride of christ.

Just as sin and death came into the world by way of human flesh that has been passed on to us by the act of love with in marriage

The eucharist or holy communion is an act of sacred and spiritual love a communion between the lord and his bride the church

To recieve te eucharist in a state of grave sin is like beating your spouse and raping them.

Now as sin and death came into the world by human flesh forgivness redemption and life came into the world by the divine lord of the universe who took upon himself human flesh so that he may impart his own divine life to humanity

When we recieve the eucharist we recieve the body blood soul and divinity of our lord jesus christ.

His flesh his DNA mingles with our own flesh our own DNA the divine life force connects to our spirutually dead flesh and rekindles the devine life within us. His blood mixes with our blood his whole being in an act of love communes with our very soul our very being and we are raised and share in the ressurected life of christ. We are united connected one with another both physically and spiritually and we are born again into the divine life of God... we become one flesh one body in christ we adpot into us through the eucharist his own divine blood and we become adopted sons and daughters of God in a very real way we become the children of God. We become flesh of his flesh bone of his bone blood of his blood united for all eternity as one family one spirit in christ

When i recieve the eucharist i can physcially feel this all taking place after years of not going to mass when i recieved the eucharist i physically felt my soul come back to life and experienced what felt like an explosion of light in my inner most being.

I have made this post as short as possible and there is so much more if you reflect on this.

In short there is no other reason to be catholic than the eucharist... it is the source and the sumit of all christian life because it is Jesus Christ himself... not dead but living resurected glorified... we would do well to show the deepest respect possible for the eucharist this truely is the king of kings the creator who studded the sky with stars brough into existance the sun and moon the solar system the entire universe we should be as humbled before the eucharist as we would our divine judge as they are one and the same and as a warning to us our lord says

"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you"

These words are the absolute truth

 

[hedrick]

I'm going to admit that I don't fully get the argument that goes "He said 'This is my body and blood', so therefore in the Eucharist it's really his body and blood." If we're going to take that at exactly face value, why doesn't it apply only to THAT wine and bread there and then?

Not saying that anything is or isn't so. Just that I can't follow thst thought.

I think part of the difference is in the basic concept of Christianity. Is it just the words of Jesus? How much does the experience of the early Church matter, including Paul? How much does the later experience of the Church matter?

From Jesus’ words only, I don’t think we can go beyond a memorial. It’s still important, because it commemorates the central act of Jesus’ life.

But the early church, as far back as Paul and some things that he quotes, claimed to experience the resurrected Jesus. That experience seems to have been central to the existence of the early Church. I think Rom 6 is a key passage for understanding Paul’s own concept of Christianity.

In 1 Cor 12 we have Paul’s description. This is virtually the only thing Jesus said that he quotes, and it’s just about word for word the same as the Synoptics. While he doesn’t give us a full eucharistic theology, he certainly implies that it was treated as Christ’s body. Those who eat or drink unworthily are answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 12:29 talks about “discerning the body.” Alternative suggestions have been made about what that might mean, but read in the context of 27 and 28 I think it’s pretty clear that he’s talking about recognizing the presence of Christ’s body. In 12:33 he speaks of coming together to eat. That implies a regular gathering for which communion is a key purpose.

I’m a liberal Christian. So I treat the NT critically. I think there was development in the early Church beyond what Jesus himself said and probably even what he meant. But it’s already there by Paul’s time, and his language about tradition passed on and received by him implies that it wasn’t recent. The Church is based, not so much on Jesus’ actual teachings — though those have certainly been important to Christians — as on the experience of Christ. if you accept that as legitimate, then communion seems to have been central from as far back as we can see.

I think the NT leaves open the question of just how Jesus is present. Paul treats communion as the presence of Christ’s body and blood, but that has been understood in a range of ways, from the Reformed view — that the Holy Spirit unites us in the sacrament with Christ’s body, which remains “in heaven” — to the Catholic view that the bread and wine actually disappear, being replaced by the physical presence of Christ’s body and blood. The Lutherans and EO are kind of in the middle, saying that Christ’s body and blood are really there, but without the literal Catholic concept of physically replacing the bread and wine. But all of these say that we truly have contact with Christ’s body and blood.

 

[Thursday]

[Staff edit]

Consider this:

1 Cor 11
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves


And this, from Ignatius( A disciple of John) writing in about 105 AD:

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hopefully we don't ascribe to Communion more than what Scripture does.

Scripture ascribes to Communion that it is the very and actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, a participation in His body and blood, and that those who eat the sacrifice of the altar partake of the sacrifice.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Anguspure]

Speaking of Communion (Lord's Supper, Eucharist); the idea that liturgical faiths have that the bread and wine are literally Jesus's flesh and blood and that partakers are eating his literal flesh and literal blood. I can see it being a memorial that has value as a sacrament simply because Jesus says so, but to insist that it's literal flesh and blood seems like a kind of cannibalism. I don't know how else to put this, but I admit to finding it a bit disturbing.

I have argued against physical transubstantiation in the past, however this is interesting:
http://www.catholicjournal.us/2013/06/05/truly-the-body-and-blood-of-christ/

 

[Endtime Survivors]

[Staff edit]

Summary of John 6:
He starts off pretty plain, telling the people to their face that they only followed him because they wanted more miracle food. He plainly tells them not to work for perishable food, but rather God should be their motivation.

Then, the people talk about the past when the Israels were given bread from heaven, so Jesus builds on this by using a parable to describe himself as the true bread from heaven, and they must "eat" him if they want eternal life, which the manna from heaven did not give. They missed it. They thought he was talking about magical miracle eternity bread.

So, then he went into full mystery mode (i.e. seeing they see not, hearing they hear not) and suggested that if it was food they really wanted, then they should just eat his flesh and drink his blood. His words practically dripped exasperation. After all the muttering and disgruntled questions from the crowd about how he could possibly offer his flesh to eat, he followed it up with a comment for those really hearing him; "The flesh counts for nothing. Listen to the spirit of truth in my words to get life".

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Ever make a plan in a game of some sort? You all get down on the ground and someone will say "OK, here's the plan... Freddy, this pebble is you, you stay here till I give the signal.. Bobby, this bottle cap, that's you, you run toward this stick which is that ditch by the Henderson House.... Tom, you're this broken piece of glass, you go to the Johnson garage and cut them off there.....

Ever done that??? Is the pebble really Freddy, Bobby becomes part of the bottle cap and the broken glass is somehow, Tom?


Of course not.

I got a genuine chuckle out of this. Thanks.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

[Staff edit]

I'm not against understanding, but it does seem like the specifics of the ritual change from person to person, or context to context. In a different discussion a person tried to get around this inconsistency (it seemed to me) by insisting that the ritual should neither be pondered nor questioned (on the implication that such pondering and questioning amounted to a lack of faith).

It has been my understanding that anyone who participates in the Eucharist (aside from children) does so on the basis that the bread and wine become (at some point) the literal flesh and blood of Jesus. Would you mind clarifying that from your own understanding? Does the bread and wine become literal flesh and blood at any point during the ritual?

If so, at what point? Or, is the point of transfiguration fluid depending on how the ritual is performed or who participates? For example, will the bread change quicker (or at all) for the Pope (or whatever the title may be for the religious leader of whatever denomination who performs the ritual) as opposed to some other person?

Does the bread transfigure into the literal DNA of Jesus' body?

Also, if you don't mind me asking for personal testimony, what do you get from performing the ritual? I understand phrases like "we become one with the lord" etc so I'm more so interested in what you get out of it. Is your reason for performing the ritual now the same as when you started? You have a reason for performing the ritual, which surely must go beyond, "I'm just doing what the church tells me to do"? I hope the question doesn't sound weird (I do have a reason for phrasing it that way).

 

[Paul Yohannan]

It has been my understanding that anyone who participates in the Eucharist (aside from children) does so on the basis that the bread and wine become (at some point) the literal flesh and blood of Jesus. Would you mind clarifying that from your own understanding? Does the bread and wine become literal flesh and blood at any point during the ritual?

Yes.

If so, at what point?

Catholics and Lutherans would say, in the Words of Institution ("hoc est corpus meum") whereas in Orthodoxy we say, in the epiclesis, a view also shared by many Anglicans. For a more thorough discussion, see The Eucharistic Epiclesis, ed. John C. Mckenna, CM.

Or, is the point of transfiguration fluid depending on how the ritual is performed or who participates?

No.

For example, will the bread change quicker (or at all) for the Pope

No.

By the way the most doctrinaire Orthodox answer would be that the bread does not change at all for the Roman Pontiff.

as opposed to some other person in a little church in a slum somewhere?

No.

Does the bread transfigure into the literal DNA of Jesus' body?

In the bread, we partake of the divine nature of our Lord.

Also, if you don't mind me asking for personal testimony, what do you personally get from performing the ritual?

Performing what ritual? Really, if you think attending a liturgy is some sort of performance, you might think again.

Even if I were an ordained presbyter, your remark would be off-base, since the liturgy consists of prayer as opposed to empty ritual.

I understand platitudes like "we become one with the lord" etc. I'm asking what you get out of it. Is your reason for performing the ritual now the same as when you started? You have a reason for performing the ritual, which surely must go beyond, "I'm just doing what the church tells me to do".

Partaking of Holy Communion has, on several occasions, delivered me from severe physical infirmity. For instance, on one occasion I was suffering from a horrible stomach flu, was nauseated and unable to eat, and when I received the body of our Lord, these manifold symptoms were entirely removed.

Our God is extremely loving, and if we approach with fear and faith He will deliver us from evil.

Holy Communion is best understood as the sublime summit of our prayer life.

But bear in mind, it is not a hollow ritual, or a performance on the part of the congregation or the clergy.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Yes.

Ok thanks for clarifying that you do think the bread and wine change into the literal flesh and blood. I hope you won't mind if I re-ask my previous questions about this change.

At what point does it change? If Jesus said "this is my flesh" and yet it was still bread in his hands, then that rationally proves he meant something other that what he literally said.

What he meant is still up to interpretation (including the possibility that he did mean it will eventually become flesh), but it's a significant distinction. That significance obligates us to consider that he's talking about something much more important than bread, just like he was talking about more than bread when he said to some disciples, "Beware the leaven of the pharisees".

Haha why didn't anyone make a ritual out of that? The leaven of the pharisees!!!!! If you eat this bread it will have the opposite effect and push you further away from God!

in the Words of Institution ("hoc est corpus meum") whereas in Orthodoxy we say, in the epiclesis

Huh. But neither way seems to answer the question of "at what point does the change happen"? "In the words of institution" sound more like an answer to, "where do I find some advice on being a good patriot!" (Or maybe the title of a Metallica album".

By the way the most doctrinaire Orthodox answer would be that the bread does not change at all for the Roman Pontiff.

lol WHAT! Wheeee....It feels like a roller coaster! The Roman pontiff doesn't get the literal flesh and blood? That's the Pope, right? Why doesn't he get it? Is it meant to be a humility thing? And if so, doesn't that an answer to my other question implying that the Pope gets some kind of special treatment during the ritual? If his bread is the only bread which doesn't change, then it's still singling him out. Am I misunderstanding? Is there any other group or organization which is collectively referred to as "The Roman Pontiff"?

In the bread, we partake of the divine nature of our Lord.

This doesn't seem like a particularly satisfying answer to the question, "Does the bread transfigure into the literal DNA of Jesus' body?" I mean it just seems a little...evasive. A clear "yes" or "no" would be more helpful for me in understanding what the ritual actually means.

Performing what ritual? Really, if you think attending a liturgy is some sort of performance, you might think again.

I think any act can become a performance, whether it be prayer, praise, study, evangelism, attending church, helping the poor or whatever. Ultimately it's up to God to judge the motivations for why we performed this or that behavior, but still, I think the matter is one of learning rather than oppressing.

I think an emphasis on finding spirituality through rituals (like a series of "correct" observances) can distract away from new spiritual perspectives. The "bread from Heaven" is the spiritual principles that Jesus laid out for how to be a citizen of his kingdom. A ritual which seeks to encapsulate those principles into a series of behaviors which do not practically reflect those principles in day to day life misses the point of being set free.

One example is the most obvious; community, from where we get the concept of "communion". Jesus and his followers lived, worked, traveled, and shared together day to day. The book of Acts shows thousands of early Christians living together, the result of a fantastic manifestation of the Holy Spirit inspiring them. They shared all things in common as every person had need and the account says that these people "turned the world upside down". Communion, as a ritual, is pretty boring and I'd fairly suspect that most of the people who do it only do it because it's what's expected of them as part of their religion. Whether the bread is eaten joyously or grudgingly, that kind of thing has no hope whatsoever of turning the world upside down.

But thousands of Christians living, working, and sharing all things together for the benefit of the Kingdom of Heaven? That would be revolutionary. Now which one was Jesus talking about; Bread, or Revolution?

Partaking of Holy Communion has, on several occasions, delivered me from severe physical infirmity. For instance, on one occasion I was suffering from a horrible stomach flu, was nauseated and unable to eat, and when I received the body of our Lord, these manifold symptoms were entirely removed.

Our God is extremely loving, and if we approach with fear and faith He will deliver us from evil.

Thanks for sharing this information. I'd like to take some more time to think about it before I respond.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Ok thanks for clarifying that you do think the bread and wine change into the literal flesh and blood. I hope you won't mind if I re-ask my previous questions about this change.

At what point does it change? If Jesus said "this is my flesh" and yet it was still bread in his hands, then that rationally proves he meant something other that what he literally said.

I do mind, because I answered this question. I even referred you to a specific scholarly work on the subject. In the course of debates, I do not answer the same question twice.

What he meant is still up to interpretation (including the possibility that he did mean it will eventually become flesh), but it's a significant distinction. That significance obligates us to consider that he's talking about something much more important than bread, just like he was talking about more than bread when he said to some disciples, "Beware the leaven of the pharisees".

Haha why didn't anyone make a ritual out of that? The leaven of the pharisees!!!!! If you eat this bread it will have the opposite effect and push you further away from God!

You in fact unwittingly alluded to a major controversy between the Armenians, the Romans and the rest of the Orthodox over whether or not the Eucharistic bread should be leavened or unleavened.

Huh. But neither way seems to answer the question of "at what point does the change happen"? "In the words of institution" sound more like an answer to, "where do I find some advice on being a good patriot!" (Or maybe the title of a Metallica album".

The Romans and Lutherans believe that the bread and wine becomes the Body and blood of our Lord when the celebrant says "Take, eat, this is my body," etc. We Orthodox believe that the bread becomes the Body of our Lord when the celebrant says "Make this bread to be the precious body of Thy Christ...and make that which is in this cup to be the precious blood of Thy Christ, changing them both by Thy Holy Spirit, amen, amen, amen" after the Institution Narrative.

In a traditional Catholic mass using the Tridentine Rite, the Sacring Bells are rung at the moment they believe the consecration occurs.

lol WHAT! Wheeee....It feels like a roller coaster! The Roman pontiff doesn't get the literal flesh and blood? That's the Pope, right?

The Pope of Rome.

Why doesn't he get it?

Because in 1054 Cardinal Humbert placed a writ of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and fled the city, a schismatic act that represented the culimination of a series of previous schismatic acts, which separated the Roman pontiff from the Holy Orthodox Church and made Roman sacraments both invalid and entirely devoid of grace from that moment. This is the doctrinaire answer.

There are more ecumenical answers as well, which I adhere to, by the way, but the hardline position is that because of the schism, because we have not been in communion for nearly a thousand years, or nearly fifteen hundred in the case of my church (which broke with Rome in the wake of the Council of Chalcedon) the Pope is not a member of the Church and therefore has no ability to consecrate the Eucharist.

Is it meant to be a humility thing?

No.

And if so, doesn't that an answer to my other question implying that the Pope gets some kind of special treatment during the ritual?

No.

If his bread is the only bread which doesn't change, then it's still singling him out.

No, the doctrinaire answer (not my answer, but the doctrinaire answer) would be that no change happens unless the celebrant is a canonical Orthodox bishop or priest. In like manner, a doctrinaire Orthodox view denies the efficiacy of baptism or other sacraments performed outside the Orthodox Church.

There are more ecumenical views, and I adhere to such an ecumenical view (advised by, for instance, the fact that RC and traditional Protestant conwertsy tend to be received by chrismation).

Am I misunderstanding?

In so far as you seem to think the Bishop of Rome is part of the Orthodox Church, yes.

Is there any other group or organization which is collectively referred to as "The Roman Pontiff"?

No.

This doesn't seem like a particularly satisfying answer to the question, "Does the bread transfigure into the literal DNA of Jesus' body?" I mean it just seems a little...evasive. A clear "yes" or "no" would be more helpful for me in understanding what the ritual actually means.

I don't know if the risen body our Lord still has DNA, or if this aspect of humanity perishes with death.

I think any act can become a performance, whether it be prayer, praise, study, evangelism, attending church, helping the poor or whatever.

Very good. I disagree.

Ultimately it's up to God to judge the motivations for why we performed this or that behavior, but still, I think the matter is one of learning rather than oppressing.

Whatever floats your boat, eh.

One example is the most obvious; community, from where we get the concept of "communion". Jesus and his followers lived, worked, traveled, and shared together day to day. The book of Acts shows thousands of early Christians living together, the result of a fantastic manifestation of the Holy Spirit inspiring them. They shared all things in common as every person had need and the account says that these people "turned the world upside down". Communion, as a ritual, is pretty boring and I'd fairly suspect that most of the people who do it only do it because it's what's expected of them as part of their religion. Whether the bread is eaten joyously or grudgingly, that kind of thing has no hope whatsoever of turning the world upside down.

But thousands of Christians living, working, and sharing all things together for the benefit of the Kingdom of Heaven? That would be revolutionary. Now which one was Jesus talking about; Bread, or Revolution?

This shows a real lack of understanding as to how the Orthodox and indeed the Roman Catholics understand "communion."

 

[Hallstone]

Speaking of Communion (Lord's Supper, Eucharist); the idea that liturgical faiths have that the bread and wine are literally Jesus's flesh and blood and that partakers are eating his literal flesh and literal blood. I can see it being a memorial that has value as a sacrament simply because Jesus says so, but to insist that it's literal flesh and blood seems like a kind of cannibalism. I don't know how else to put this, but I admit to finding it a bit disturbing.

Romans had been practicing this sort of thing for centuries before Christ, in their worship of various gods they believed consuming certain things would benefit them spiritually, especially consuming blood in various rituals, it is not surprising that they continue to translate many of the pagan rituals into Christianity. There are several teachings in the NT that show that consuming certain things for spiritual benefit is vain. Even the Lord Jesus Himself taught that consuming materials has no spiritual value positive or negative:
Mat 15:17 "Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated?
He gave the bread and wine tradition to be a ritual of remembrance not a pagan rite of empowerment or cleansing. The Romans and Greeks started to paganize Christianity immediately after receiving it, that's what many of Paul's teachings were concerned with this, and many of his warnings had to do with the paganising of the faith. [Staff edit]

 

[Philip_B]

I believe Jesus said do this and the Church has ever done this in faithful obedience and trust.

Jesus said I will be there in the midst of them and he ever has been in integrity and truth.

Why do some who claim to be bible-based equivocate on this? when the ones they accuse so much of not taking the Bible seriously appear to accept the words of Jesus plain and simple?