Baptism!

[Striped Leopard]

I thought you said that the bread was only God in its spiritual essence? How then have you had God "physically" inside of you? I have something much better. I have God's Spirit inside of me, and He gives me the grace that I need, without me having to injest "God" into my digestive system.

[ArnoldtheRubberDucky]

I believe in baptism. I definitely believe you can be a Christian without being baptized, but it's a nice symbolic thing.

[Pound Foolish]

Actually, the physical is part of the spiritual world anyway, since our souls are spiritual. But anyhow...
I was mostly saying its essence turns into God spiritually to illustrate how center spirituality is to the process. After all, God's changing himself into a physical presence. There's TONS of supernatural power involved. I'll admit I'm not really explaining fully, because it's a miracle, and I don't understand fully. That's why we Catholics refer to it as a "mystery." I will say this: the essence of the bread is 100% physical.
BTW, as far as getting all the grace you need without the Eucharist, yes, you can get grace without the Eucharist. But, ahem, isn't God going to come in more loudly when you literally EAT him as opposed to when you try to communicate him, or read mere mortal words? I'm not saying those aren't inexpressibly central and indispensable. I'm saying this way you get God directly, not indirectly through prayer or what have you. I realize this sounds to you like I'm stark raving mad. But read it again, and try to think about it calmly? See any logical flaws? You probably think you do. By all means, if come up with one, tell me, and, provided I get round to it, I'll address it.
But, anyhow, you didn't address my main point at all. Puh-leeze do not act like I wasn't clear. I made it kinda obvious what my main point was by stating it three times:
"But, really, if it goes back to about the time of Jesus, and Jesus seems to have instituted it, why shouldn't we interpret it literally?"
"What reason is there for this to be wrong?"
"But there's no reason for me NOT to believe this."
Was that clear enough for you? Good. Then, once again, what evidence is against it? Why not believe it? The only reason you gave was because you can get grace other ways.
So?

I can get cookies by buying them at the store, but I still enjoy making my own fresh cookies.

Besides, that doesn't logically attack that it's true. You're just trying to sound like you don't need it.
And, incidentally, what happened to Sola Scriptora here? Isn't this about supporting your arguments from scripture? Well then, let's have this argument on YOUR terms. I gave you a, shall we say, rather explicit scriptural reference OPENLY saying it's true. I could give you a bunch of more obscure hints at it, but I don't need to. I have Jesus literally coming out saying it.
So, name a scriptural line that openly contradicts the Eucharist, by all means.
NAME ONE.
I'm waiting....

[Tea Ess]

Well, here I am, posting when I should be using my break.

To use Scriptural context, Jesus used many, many analogies, parables, stories, metaphors, and other non-literal phrases. This isn't the first time ever that Jesus spoke metaphorically.

Second, the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is never directly contradicted, because the idea that it was spoken literally was not around during the time the New Testement was written. They didn't contradict it because it was obvious to them that He spoke figuratively.

Jesus said 'Do this in remembrance of me'. He didn't say 'Do this to fill yourself spiritually', or 'Do this because I am physically present in this meal, and you should eat me'. He directed us to remember Him in eating the bread and drink.

The idea of the transubstination takes the emphasis of off the rememberance, and replaces it with the thinking that Jesus is present in the food, and we are spiritually nourished through eating it.

Also, compare the two. With the remembering, we have the active practice of thinking out the torment and suffering that our Savior endured so that we may rejoin His Father. We are reminded of His incredible offer of Salvation and his gift of eternal forgiveness and love.

On the other side (forgive me for my undoubted misrepresentation, but I am unaquatinted with your beliefs, and not having current true Catholics in our lives hasn't helped). As I was saying, on the other side we have the more passive act of eating, and expecting to be spiritual nourishment because we have our Savior's body and blood literally inside us.

Overall, Christ wasn't asking usto eat Him, He was instructing us to actively remember the incredible sacrifice He enacted. He knew that we humans have a nasty way of letting habit get in the way and forgetting what He did for us.

This gives me fond memories of Valarie and Emily.

[Pound Foolish]

Finally! Merry Christmas, happy birthday, TS!

Okay. It's interesting that you know so much about exactly what Jesus meant. Do you know Hebrew? If not, who are we to say we know precisely the context and meaning of the words of the Bible. That's the flaw in these kinds of protestant-y arguments. The idea is "sola scriptora" yet, unless we understand the original languages of the Bible, we must read it in its altered form, with the words jumbled to accommodate English. However, on the premise we are all bi-lingual geniuses, I'll continue.
One of the most easily debunked ideas you put forth is that...

Second, the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is never directly contradicted, because the idea that it was spoken literally was not around during the time the New Testement was written. They didn't contradict it because it was obvious to them that He spoke figuratively.

This simply is historically inaccurate. There's solid historical evidence the practice and philosophy was present in Biblical times. Also, even if your claim were true, it would make zero difference theologically. So, what if there wasn't anything to prove the idea of Eucharist goes back to the approximate time of Jesus? Are we to discount a Biblical idea on the grounds it is unsupported by history? Whit himself reminds us not to base our beliefs on "the latest archeological finds."
As for his directing us to remember him in bread and drink, does one rule out the other? It's unsound reasoning to say one reason Jesus put forth for eating the bread and wine means the implied other, greater reasons are false. Also, how do you know Jesus said it quite that way? How do you know the Hebrew "remembrance" didn't have another meaning as well, or that "remembrance" is just the nearest English word we have for an entirely different word, or that.... Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. We are bi-lingual geniuses. Right, sorry.
And to answer your question... do we believe we get grace by having Jesus inside our digestive system? Oh, how absurd!
Absolutely we do.
As I pointed out in my last post, the fact that something is weird or unusual, or even that it sounds downright gross, is no proof it's untrue. Particularly when it comes to the Bible.
How does this work? Long answer: the same way a tree gets nutrition from water. Except, in this case, the process is supernatural. Grace... Gods love... God himself.... becomes physically present in our bodies. It empowers us to be unlike the rest of the world.
Short answer: heck, I don't know.
I freely admit to be unaware of the intricacies and details of how God works.
Oh and, as for this debate being important... this subject is important. But I'm afraid this is one of those purple sky concepts Arkan (with an accent) pointed out with that clever simile.
In any case, I'm sure i could rattle off ideas and arguments for hours and neither of us would change our minds.
Oh well.
So here's what I put to you. A challenge.
Pray, starting this coming Sunday, for guidance on whether the Eucharist is for real or not. And try to keep your mind open. I'm not suggesting anything big will happen. But I will say there's the distinct possibility you'll be in for a surprise.

[Aaron Wiley]

*pops in for a moment*

Ehem,
This topic would be so much easier to resolve if we simply kidnapped a catholic right after communion and pumped his stomach.

*quickly runs away before PF decides to murder me*

[Pound Foolish]

Murder would be an excellent option, but I left my grenades at home.
Anyhow, if one were to pump someone stomach (ick ) or do a genetic test on the Eucharist or blood, it would be verified as bread and wine. I explained that. The entire premise is that the essence turns to bread and wine. That's part of what makes it miraculous. And it's practical. People would be rather squirmy about drinking something with the substance of warm human blood and drippy, chewy human flesh. I don't know if you were just being sarcastic, (and it was a quite good wise-crack) but in case your remark was supposed to present a real challenge, there's your answer.
on to you, TS....

[Aaron Wiley]

I was only half joking, but either way, this seems like a pretty useless topic as none of it really makes any difference theologically. Both of us believe in Communion and how we commemorate the death and life of Jesus through it, that's the real essence behind the practice. Anything else is just semantics.

[Pound Foolish]

If you find it dull, I'm not really sure why you've been reading these posts or why you are now reading this....
That's the trouble, actually. We don't agree that it's mainly to remember Christ.
In fact, Jesus was calling us to a huge part of our lives. Our meaning, destiny, our life, is given its chance to reach its full potential through God's Body and Blood. If you're living without it, you're missing one of the most miraculous and wonderful things in existence you desperately need to complete you. Period. I don't mean you necessarily feel this need, (obviously you don't) but the need exists.
One of the greatest needs.
So there you are. Now, TS, when you get here, kindly reply to my reply to you and, for the most part, ignore all this, so we can get on to lovely arguing, my dear enemy.

[Striped Leopard]

So... the only reason given in the Bible for taking communion is "Do this in remembrance of me" and you don't believe that that's the main motivation behind it?

[King Butter Turtle]

Forgive me if I bring up points that have already been discussed as I only skimmed the bulk of the thread.

In fact, Jesus was calling us to a huge part of our lives. Our meaning, destiny, our life, is given its chance to reach its full potential through God's Body and Blood. If you're living without it, you're missing one of the most miraculous and wonderful things in existence you desperately need to complete you. Period. I don't mean you necessarily feel this need, (obviously you don't) but the need exists.
One of the greatest needs.

The above statement would be completely true if you struck out 'Body and Blood' from the second sentence and replaced it with 'sacrifice on the cross'. The idea that we 'get' grace by means of the Eucharist has quite a few flaws. First of all, it makes the cross insufficient which... quickly hacks at the root of our faith. It also has some negative implications for people with wheat allergies or people in areas where grapes don't grow well and can't be inexpensively imported (my sister, who's a missionary in Uganda, once celebrated communion with coke) along with begging the question of 'why so infrequently?' and 'why such small portions?' Not to mention that there's absolutely nothing biblical about it. Jesus Christ alone gives grace - to confuse symbols with what they symbolize leads to churches of legalistic ritual.