Spiritual or Literal Holy Supper?

[jameen]

I found out that members of Bible based groups differ about their stance on this issue.

some say that the Lord's supper should be done literally (with physical bread and wine present)

while others say that the bread and wine which Jesus used are only symbolical and should not be done literally.

I don't know if some from the Bible based groups believe in Transubtantiation that the physical bread when blessed by a priest/pastor/minister becomes Jesus' real body to be eaten literally by the worshipers. (because Catholics like me believe in this)

 

[hornetguy]

I think it's fairly obvious that Jesus intended for us to remember him with the physical unleavened bread and wine. He gave us the physical example, and told us "as often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me"..

Of course it's literal.

I do NOT believe in transubstantiation, though.

 

[Ralph-]

I personally do not believe Jesus was eating his literal body and drinking his literal blood at the Last Supper.

 

[tanakh]

I personally do not believe Jesus was eating his literal body and drinking his literal blood at the Last Supper.

One of the charges the Romans had against Christians was that of cannibalism. They believed that Christians had secret orgies and the
children produced through them were eaten.

 

[tanakh]

I found out that members of Bible based groups differ about their stance on this issue.

some say that the Lord's supper should be done literally (with physical bread and wine present)

while others say that the bread and wine which Jesus used are only symbolical and should not be done literally.

I don't know if some from the Bible based groups believe in Transubtantiation that the physical bread when blessed by a priest/pastor/minister becomes Jesus' real body to be eaten literally by the worshipers. (because Catholics like me believe in this)

The lords Supper was part of the Passover meal so eating it literally would have been normal for Jewish believers. Jesus gave it a new
meaning.

I believe the only people outside the Catholic church who believe in Transubstantiation are the Orthodox and Lutheran Churches.
One thing that puzzles me is how in the Catholic Mass the congregation only get the Bread and no Wine. Why do they only receive half
of the Supper?

 

[Nehemiah6]

One thing that puzzles me is how in the Catholic Mass the congregation only get the Bread and no Wine. Why do they only receive half
of the Supper?

Here's the answer to your question from the Catechism #1390:
"Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite."

Because the Mass is NOT the Lord's Supper. The Mass attempts to follow the Levitical sacrifices.

1. There is a priest, and only a priest can conduct the Mass
2. There is an altar
3. There is is literal sacrifice
4. Christ's body is *literally* sacrificed (even though we know this is false)
5. Christ's blood is *literally* shed (even though we know this is false)
6. The sacrifice is repeated daily or as frequently as they choose
7. The participants "receive grace" from the elements

All of this is TOTALLY UNSCRIPTURAL.