Quote:
Originally posted by irishpipes
At the last supper, however, Jesus clearly stated that, "this IS my body and this IS my blood, do this is memory of me." He couldn't have been more clear.
|
Right, but as you said, he often spoke in parables and used symbolism so why in other areas of the bible does the Catholic church say it's symbolism, but for this part it's literal? Also, as the link provided before pointed out, Christ also "identified the drink as “this fruit of the vine” (v. 29)." So he was saying it literally was wine. He couldn't have been more clear.
Also, if you're going to go off the "it's in there so it's true" then why did he not say "and in order for it to REALLY be my flesh, your priest hundreds of years from now will need to say these words for it to be so"? AND, if he didn't say "BTW, only Catholics (or the church Peter is gonna lead after I die) can do this" why does the church keep me from taking it? I'm actually trying to be funny, not snippy, but I just don't think it's a valid argument.
Also, we've all read The Davinci Code. The Catholic church today is a FAR cry from good old Peter's chruch. And while I realize that is a work of fiction, it brought out tons of historical discussion when it was first published and we do know that today's Catholic church is quite different than Peter's divinely inspired one.