Christ made the bread the sacrament of his body only: wherefore as the bread is no similitude of his blood, so am I not bound or ought to affirm, that his blood is there present.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
No more doth it hurt to say that the body and blood are not in the sacrament.
I think that at the supper I neither receive flesh nor blood, but bread and wine; which bread when it is broken, and the wine when it is drunken, put me in remembrance how that for my sins the body of Christ was broken, and his blood shed on the cross.
The bread while becoming by virtue of Christ's words the body of Christ does not cease to be bread.
And as the circumcised in the flesh, and not in the heart, have no part in God's good promises; even so they that be baptized in the flesh, and not in heart, have no part in Christ's blood.
Nevertheless the meaning is not that the blessed bread which is divided, which is offered, and which the apostles received from the hand of Christ was not the body of Christ but becomes the body of Christ when the eating of it is begun.
There is a communion of more than our bodies when bread is broken and wine drunk.
For faithful Catholics, communion is not just a nice ritual: It is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and the ultimate sign of our willingness to be incorporated into the church.
The question of bread for myself is a material question, but the question of bread for my neighbor is a spiritual question.
The blood of Jesus Christ can cover a multitude of sins, it seems to me.
We cannot have communion with Christ till we are in union with Him; and we cannot have communion with the Church till we are in vital union with it.
No opposing quotes found.