Replies

I'm not Roman Catholic- see my post below for my disagreements with transubstantiation- but to answer your question: no, there is nothing wrong with didatic purposes in any rite. The Anglican Carolina Divines made it a point that the Liturgy- including the Eucharist- should very much work towards the ediffication of faith. However, it is wrong to reduce the Eucharist to nothing more than an aid to faith in the sense that a picture is an aid to faith, or even a sermon. There is more to the Eucharist going on than a sermon in bread and wine. When Paul said that we partake of Christ's body and blood in the bread and cup, he did not mean that we are led to think about Him in it- though we are led to think about Him, and, hopefully, to exercise faith in Him (without which the sacrament will not aid you). Paul, I believe, meant this by what he said: that the bread and cup are truly our partaking of Christ's Body and Blood, through the Spirit (and hence spiritual in the true sense!).

Paul, I believe, meant this by what he said: that the bread and cup are truly our partaking of Christ's Body and Blood, through the Spirit (and hence spiritual in the true sense!).

Why are you more focused on Paul, rather than on the Gospel, which proclaims the Truth?

The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers, wrote his Gospel in the 90's. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper (Jn 6:30-68).

Jn 6:53-56: Jesus said to them, "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, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.

The uniformity of expression across the four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.

Jn 6:51: I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.
Jn 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.
Jn 6:54: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.
Jn 6:55: For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Jn 6:56: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.

Jn 6:60,66: Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" ... As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Jn 6:60,66: Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" ... As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.