Do Catholics really know what a metaphor is?
Does this really sound like a metaphor to you:
“Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.”
straight from John 6, Douay Rheims online (http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm)
Note verse 54, where He certainly could have said, I’m speaking metaphorically, if that was what He meant. Instead, what does He say? He underscores what He has just said, and repeats it. He meant exactly what He said, and we, respectfully, take it just like He said.
Absolutelly! We also use context to determine when it is metaphor and when it is literal. Failure to fully understand what is being said AND why we say it is the problem with most differences of doctrine.
They HAVE to because they really do must see that what they put into their mouths at Mass is not literal human flesh and blood. They use words like "accident" and "transubstantiation" to describe a substance that still never physically changes yet spiritually does to their minds.
Personally, it doesn't matter to me if Catholics or others want to think of the bread of communion in this way. What I stridently disagree with is the dogma that goes along with it that curses with eternal hell all who do NOT believe as they do and that insists that when we receive Christ by grace through faith it is not enough and anyone who claims to be a Christian MUST receive the "Eucharist" in order to obtain "grace". Eucharist meant thanksgiving in the early church and they came together to share in a love feast and when they took the bread and wine and passed it around they were doing it in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice for them. This is what Jesus actually said to do at that last supper with his disciples.
Jesus spoke in Parables....NOT metaphors......not EVER metaphors.
No metaphor in use here at all.
Trans=transfer
Substantiation=substance
The Bread is transferred into the Body of Christ, just as the Lord said at the Last Supper. “This is my Body.”
The Wine is transferred into the actual Blood of Christ, just as Christ said at the Last Supper, “Take and drink, this is my Blood, the Blood of the New Covenant.”
It is at your own peril that you do not take this Scripture literally.