How Often Need Catholics Take Communion?

[Webers_Home]

-
Transubstantiation is a process wherein the elements of communion (a.k.a.
species) are transformed into Christ's body and blood; which, if true, is a
tremendous advantage for Catholics. Here's why.

● John 6:53-54 . . Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever
eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

If transubstantiation is true, then Catholics need to ingest the elements but
once and they never need to ingest them again seeing as how eternal life is
impervious to death. Were that not so it would be possible to assassinate
God; viz: eternal life never wears out, nor wears off, nor spoils, not gets old
and dies.

Q: When would Catholics obtain eternal life from the elements?

A: Right away. The grammatical tense of "has" is present tense.

NOTE: Jesus compared himself to manna; which was a curious nourishment
that God provided His people during their forty years in the Sinai outback.
Manna didn't give them eternal life-- in point of fact manna didn't even give
them immortality; it just gave them daily sustenance.

Manna was dated; but not eternal life; no, eternal life is just as fresh now as
it was a billion years ago because eternal life isn't an organic commodity;
rather, it's power.

Well; if transubstantiation is true; then it isn't necessary to dine upon Christ
on a daily basis, nor a weekly basis, nor even an annual basis because
eternal life can't be used up; no, eternal life is endless.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Q: What's the correct way to partake of Christ's body and blood?

A: Well; one thing we can be very sure of is that Christ wasn't literal. The
reason being that right after the Flood, God forbad humanity to eat living
flesh and blood (Gen 9:3-4). So if people are determined to eat Christ's flesh
and blood, either literally or transubstantiated, they are going to have to
first make sure it's quite dead; which of course is impossible seeing as how
Christ rose from the dead with immortality. (Rom 6:9)

Also; the night of Christ's last supper, he and all the men present with him
were Jews. Well; seeing as how according to Heb 9:16-17, the new covenant
wasn't ratified until Christ died, then he and his men were still under the
jurisdiction of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God in the
Old Testament as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

The covenant forbids Jews to eat any manner of blood (Lev 7:26-27). So if
Christ had led those men into eating his blood that night, he would have led
them into a curse (Deut 27:26) and thus relegated himself to the position of
the least in the kingdom of God. (Matt 26:26-28)

Bottom line: We can, and we should, rule out transubstantiation as a valid
explanation of John 6:32-58.

Q: What then is the correct way to go about it?

A: Well; Jesus informed his remaining followers that the words he spoke
about eating his flesh and blood are spirit words (John 6:63). Not that
people can't read and/or hear spirit words written and/or spoken in their
native tongue; but in order to understand what spirit words are saying,
people need some way to decode them.

No doubt Rome claims it has the ability to decode spirit words; but if John Q
and Jane Doe pew warmer don't have the ability, then they're forced to take
Rome's word for it.

Speaking for myself: I don't have the ability to decode spirit words, nor do I
have access to an Enigma machine set up for decoding them. I think I know
what Jesus' spirit words are saying; but in reality, my thoughts are only a
theory; so in sharing my thoughts, I'd just be muddying the waters.

FYI: Christians are instructed to avoid eating blood. (Acts 15:20, Acts 15:29,
and Acts 21:25)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Webers_Home]

-
● John 6:53 . . Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

When I was growing up a young Catholic boy back in the decade of the
1950s, we were given the bread at communion, but never the wine. In other
words; in accordance with the principles of transubstantiation; we ate Jesus'
flesh without his blood.

Well; Jesus' recipe for "life within you" consists of both his flesh and his
blood. Therefore, none of my communions counted because they were
incomplete. I obtained no life from them: none of them; not a single one. I
might just as well have used the host to make a peanut butter and jelly hor
d'oeuvre for all the good it did me without the wine element.

It is not only necessary to include the wine element in order to obtain life,
but it is also necessary to include it in order to attain to Jesus' resurrection.

● John 6:53 . . Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,
and I will raise him on the last day.

So then, according to the principles of transubstantiation, I not only lacked
eternal life due to my total, 100% lack of Jesus' blood; but my afterlife
future was in grave peril too!

I was told that both species of the Eucharist-- the consecrated host and the
consecrated wine --contain Christ's body and blood (a.k.a. real presence) so
that either one alone will do the trick without the other.

Well; that might be what Rome says; but it's not what Christ preached.

1• Christ taught that his body is represented by the bread.

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and
giving it to his disciples said: Take and eat; this is my body." (Matt 26:26)

2• Christ taught that his blood is represented by the wine.

"Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: Drink from
it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on
behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matt 26:27-28)

According to the apostle Paul, when pew warmers leave one of the elements
out of their communion service, they convey an incomplete gospel.

"For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the
death of the Lord until he comes." (1Cor 11:26)

Paul didn't say "and/or" no, he said "and". Jesus also said "and" rather then
"and/or".

Rome was not only seriously negligent back in the day, but also grossly
incompetent. It couldn't even conduct something as simple and straight
forward as the Lord's Supper without screwing it up.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=