Starting a thread on the Lord's Supper for Catholics to read...

[Bonnie]

I don't want to go too off topic on the CATH board, in explaining our beliefs about the Real Presence of the Lord's body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine, yet they also remain bread and wine, after consecration. We Lutherans don't attempt to explain it, as Catholics do, we just accept it as a joyful mystery.

I have explained the above I don't know how many times on the CATH board, when the Eucharist comes up. So far as I know, Lutherans are fairly unique in our understanding as to what happens to the Bread and Wine during Communion, though maybe Anglicans believe the same way.

Of course, Catholics believe in Transubstantiation--that after consecration, the bread and wine retain the appearance of those elements, but the substance changes completely to Jesus' body and blood. I asked one Catholic what would happen if a priest drank all of the wine after consecration and this Catholic admitted he would get drunk. I then wrote "But you said the substance was no longer wine. The SUBSTANCE in wine that causes intoxication is ethyl alcohol. IF the wine is no longer wine but entirely Jesus' blood, how could the wine then make the priest drunk?" Or words to that effect. So far I have not received an answer.

Question for Catholics about the 4 Marian dogmas

Our senses don't help much in matters of faith. In fact they can be a hindrance. Pilgrim; do you never open a Bible ???????????????? Song of Solomon The song of songs, which is Solomon's. 2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: (kisses = words of affection) for thy love is better...

forums.carm.org

I thought I had better bring this to the Lutheran board, since it is about our beliefs about the Lord's Supper. Anyway, does anyone on here have another way of explaining about the Real Presence in the Bread and Wine in Holy Communion?

(On a side note, one Catholic actually wrote that the Eucharist isn't the Lord's Supper! I pointed out the error by quoting Paul from 1 Corinthians, where he plainly calls it just that. )

 

[BJ Bear]

Scripturally, the body and blood, bread and wine, are present because the Lord says they are rather than because the Lord commanded an officiator or priest to confect them.

Historically, the individual prepositions in, with, and under with regard to the Supper were used throughout church history.

 

[Misfit]

I'm not really understanding the controversy here. You believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the bread in wine, and our friend BJ Bear says that scripturally the body and blood are present in the bread and wine, so BJ Bear believes that too. We believe in the Real Presence of Jesus, His body and blood in the bread and wine, so it seems to me there is not really any disagreement between us all. No one here is saying that it is just a symbol, but that Jesus is present in the bread and wine. So, am I missing something?

 

[Bonnie]

The problem with what Catholics believe is that your church teaches that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine after consecration ration, but ONLY Jesus' body and blood. In my church, we teach that after consecration, the Host is still bread and wine, while at the same time, Jesus' true body and blood are present in, with, and under the bread and wine. Our own God-given senses tell us that, plus, Jesus Himself refers to the contents of the cup as a "THIS fruit of the vine" AFTER He gave thanks for it and gave it to His disciples to drink.

So, what is the problem with believing that the bread and wine are still bread and wine, but at the same time, Jesus' body and blood, after consecration? We still believe in the Real Presence.

If Jesus can have two natures in One Person, why not the bread and wine after consecration? Is anything too hard for the Lord to do?

 

[Misfit]

The problem with what Catholics believe is that your church teaches that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine after consecration ration, but ONLY Jesus' body and blood.

The Church teaches that the elements remain the same, they look, feel, and taste like bread and wine, but they do indeed become the body and blood of Jesus, so what is the problem with that? We simply have a different take on the core issue, and this goes back to the earliest days of the Church, a concept that the ECF's agreed with.

Ignatius of Antioch​

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus​

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Cyril of Jerusalem​

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

There is no beating around the bush with those statements by those early Bishops of the Christian Church now is there? They are very clear as to what they believe the Holy Eucharist really is and what it becomes after the consecration, so I'm going with them as is the Catholic Church.

So, what is the problem with believing that the bread and wine are still bread and wine, but at the same time, Jesus' body and blood, after consecration? We still believe in the Real Presence.

There is really no problem as you can believe what you want to believe, and I can respect that. At least you are part way there with a belief in the "Real Presence" and do not see it as just a symbol as the evangelicals do.

 

[Bonnie]

The Church teaches that the elements remain the same, they look, feel, and taste like bread and wine, but they do indeed become the body and blood of Jesus, so what is the problem with that? We simply have a different take on the core issue, and this goes back to the earliest days of the Church, a concept that the ECF's agreed with.

Ignatius of Antioch​

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus​

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Cyril of Jerusalem​

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

There is no beating around the bush with those statements by those early Bishops of the Christian Church now is there? They are very clear as to what they believe the Holy Eucharist really is and what it becomes after the consecration, so I'm going with them as is the Catholic Church.


There is really no problem as you can believe what you want to believe, and I can respect that. At least you are part way there with a belief in the "Real Presence" and do not see it as just a symbol as the evangelicals do.

Quoting the ECFs is useless--they are not the bible,, nor are they inerrant.

But do note what organgrinder quoted on the RCC board:

It is the "highest prayer that exists. It is the real, though unbloody, re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross." (St. Joseph Continuous Sunday Missal 1963).

And the CCC 1367:

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

But explain to me why the Host cannot be BOTH Jesus' body and blood AND bread and wine at the same time, since our God-given senses tell us they are still bread and wine, and Jesus Himself called the cup the "fruit of the vine" AFTER He gave thanks for it and distributed it to His disciples:

Matthew 26:28-29​

​

New International Version​

​

28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink FROM THIS fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Right here Jesus calls the contents of the cup HIS blood AND THIS "fruit of the vine" which would be the wine in the cup. RIGHT HERE He calls it BOTH. And by extension, the bread would also be BOTH Jesus' body as well as bread, after consecration.

Yes, we believe it is far more than mere symbolism. Paul warns us in 1 Corinthians 11 that if any takes of the bread and cup in an unworthy manner is guilty of the "body and blood" of our Lord. How would one be guilty of a mere symbol?

We Lutherans are NOT "partway there" in believing in the Real Presence--we already DO.

So, please tell me why the Host cannot be BOTH Jesus' true body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine, and at the same time, still be bread and wine....Jesus has two distinct natures in One Person--why cannot the bread and wine have the same? Is anything too hard for the Lord to do?

 

[Misfit]

Quoting the ECFs is useless--they are not the bible,, nor are they inerrant.

I disagree. Their teachings help to clarify things, they were indeed the leaders of the Christian Church in the early days and their interpretation of the scriptures should be heeded.

But explain to me why the Host cannot be BOTH Jesus' body and blood AND bread and wine at the same time,

It could if that is the road you want to take. I prefer to believe the Catholic Church's teaching on this issue, it makes perfect sense to me. They just didn't come up with it last week, but have preached this for a long, long time, relying on what the theologians had come up with. You know, the theologians such as the Early Church Fathers.

We Lutherans are NOT "partway there" in believing in the Real Presence--we already DO.

But not that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of our Lord just as He said in the Holy Scriptures. "This is my body" and "This is my blood" - there is no ambiguity in those words.

So, please tell me why the Host cannot be BOTH Jesus' true body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine, and at the same time, still be bread and wine....Jesus has two distinct natures in One Person--why cannot the bread and wine have the same?

It could be if that is where you have arrived at on the issue, and I wholeheartedly respect your belief concerning this matter. I am not trying to change what you have come to believe on this, i am just giving you my viewpoint.

 

[Bonnie]

I disagree. Their teachings help to clarify things, they were indeed the leaders of the Christian Church in the early days and their interpretation of the scriptures should be heeded.


It could if that is the road you want to take. I prefer to believe the Catholic Church's teaching on this issue, it makes perfect sense to me. They just didn't come up with it last week, but have preached this for a long, long time, relying on what the theologians had come up with. You know, the theologians such as the Early Church Fathers.


But not that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of our Lord just as He said in the Holy Scriptures. "This is my body" and "This is my blood" - there is no ambiguity in those words.


It could be if that is where you have arrived at on the issue, and I wholeheartedly respect your belief concerning this matter. I am not trying to change what you have come to believe on this, i am just giving you my viewpoint.

Yes we do believe in the Real Presence of the Lord's body and blood in, with, and under tbe bread and wine. I agree, there is no ambiguity in those words--but neither is there any ambiguity in:

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from THIS fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Right here, Jesus calls the wine BOTH His blood AND "THIS fruit of the vine." No ambiguity there. Both natures are right there, from our Lord's own lips.

And don't forget--a Catholic on that board admitted that if a priest drank all of the wine after consecrating it, he would get drunk--what is the SUBSTANCE in wine that would cause it? How can the substance of wine be changed into Jesus' body and blood, so it is no longer wine, if it could still make someone drunk?

Preaching something for a long time is no guarantee that it is correct. What counts is God's actual words on the subject.

Thank you for your respect, and taking the time to come to this board.

 

[BJ Bear]

I'm not really understanding the controversy here. You believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the bread in wine, and our friend BJ Bear says that scripturally the body and blood are present in the bread and wine, so BJ Bear believes that too. We believe in the Real Presence of Jesus, His body and blood in the bread and wine, so it seems to me there is not really any disagreement between us all. No one here is saying that it is just a symbol, but that Jesus is present in the bread and wine. So, am I missing something?

At Trent all who didn't affirm transubstantiation were anathematized. There is also the RCC claim that we don't have a valid Supper because we don't have the valid orders they require to confect the body and blood in the Supper.

 

[Misfit]

At Trent all who didn't affirm transubstantiation were anathematized. There is also the RCC claim that we don't have a valid Supper because we don't have the valid orders they require to confect the body and blood in the Supper.

Yes, that is the Catholic Church's viewpoint. You do understand that in those days of Trent, Christians could be extremely violent towards one another, so I think how the Catholic Church viewed other Christians should be taken into account. As for the "valid orders" thing, that also is the Church's thinking of the matter, and I don't know what else to say except it is what it is. Some things proclaimed by people on this earth will ultimately be judged by God Himself at the appropriate time.

 

[BJ Bear]

The Church teaches that the elements remain the same, they look, feel, and taste like bread and wine, but they do indeed become the body and blood of Jesus, so what is the problem with that? We simply have a different take on the core issue, and this goes back to the earliest days of the Church, a concept that the ECF's agreed with.

Ignatius of Antioch​

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus​

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Cyril of Jerusalem​

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

There is no beating around the bush with those statements by those early Bishops of the Christian Church now is there? They are very clear as to what they believe the Holy Eucharist really is and what it becomes after the consecration, so I'm going with them as is the Catholic Church.


There is really no problem as you can believe what you want to believe, and I can respect that. At least you are part way there with a belief in the "Real Presence" and do not see it as just a symbol as the evangelicals do.

The logical problem you run up against in citing extra biblicall writings found in church history is that they were the ones who used the prepositions (in, or with, or under) individually with regard to the supper. They did not use the term transubstantiation.

The Roman Catholic Church can't logically or truthfully say that the church has taught transubstantiation while at the same time anathematizing the basis upon which it is purportedly based.

 

[Bonnie]

Hi Beej--do you have quotes from the ECFs where they use in, with, and under? I have not heard of that.

 

[BJ Bear]

Hi Beej--do you have quotes from the ECFs where they use in, with, and under? I have not heard of that.

I've posted some quotes before at the request of an RC, but I don't keep a list handy. (If someone wants to argue transubstantiation from church history then he should already know how they spoke.)

Off the top of my head, knowledge of the history of the prepositions with regard to the Supper is assumed in the Book of Concord, and Luther made some explicit references to it in some of his writings.

The toy I'm posting from doesn't have what was was used to assemble the previous list but I will post some examples later.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

The biggest question I have, as a born-again Christian and to satisfy my curiosity (and thanks Bonnie for starting this thread), is do Lutherans believe, as Rcs do, that the eucharist/communion is required for salvation? This, to me, is really the lynch pin for all the debate concerning communion and the conditions required for salvation.

 

[BJ Bear]

The biggest question I have, as a born-again Christian and to satisfy my curiosity (and thanks Bonnie for starting this thread), is do Lutherans believe, as Rcs do, that the eucharist/communion is required for salvation? This, to me, is really the lynch pin for all the debate concerning communion and the conditions required for salvation.

The Lord's Supper is a free gift in which we receive the Lord's body and blood for the forgiveness of sins, or so all the Scriptural accounts of the Supper tell us.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

The Lord's Supper is a free gift in which we receive the Lord's body and blood for the forgiveness of sins, or so all the Scriptural accounts of the Supper tell us.

That didn't really answer my question, maybe if I rephrase it; is "The Lord's Supper" required for salvation in the Lutheran belief system?

Perhaps you could include the Scriptures that teach that it's also where you receive forgiveness of sins?

 

[BJ Bear]

That didn't really answer my question, maybe if I rephrase it; is "The Lord's Supper" required for salvation in the Lutheran belief system?

Have you ever seen an old school photo negative? If you haven't then in one what is light in real life appears dark and what is dark in real life appears light.

I bring it up because it is analogous to our different understanding of Scripture, particularly with regard to the objective true good news of the person and work of Christ for all men. We proclaim that objective true good news to all men through the word alone and through the word with the elements of bread and wine, and the word with water, that is, baptism. In other words, the free gift of the person and work of Christ is applied to men through the word alone and the word with the elements.

So if someone asks what is required for salvation then we say the person and work of Christ for all men. Since Christ is the one acting man can only receive that free gift through faith, which is also a gift from God.

We do not think or speak along the lines of what must a man do on his own to be saved. Remember the guy who asked, "What must I do to be saved?" The Apostle's answer was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." What did he mean by that? What is required for your salvation has occurred and occurs through the person and work of Christ. And so the man and his household were baptized into Christ.

Perhaps you could include the Scriptures that teach that it's also where you receive forgiveness of sins?

“¶And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
(Mat 26:26-28, KJVA)

“¶And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them,This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.”
(Mark 14:22-24, KJVA)

“¶And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” (Luk 22:19-20, KJVA)

“And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.” “After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1Cor 11:24-25, KJVA)

In all these passages the Lord is giving His body and blood which were given and shed for the forgiveness of sins and men receive it to their benefit through faith or to their damnation through unbelief. See 1 Corinthians 11 for further context.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

Have you ever seen an old school photo negative? If you haven't then in one what is light in real life appears dark and what is dark in real life appears light.

I bring it up because it is analogous to our different understanding of Scripture, particularly with regard to the objective true good news of the person and work of Christ for all men. We proclaim that objective true good news to all men through the word alone and through the word with the elements of bread and wine, and the word with water, that is, baptism. In other words, the free gift of the person and work of Christ is applied to men through the word alone and the word with the elements.

So if someone asks what is required for salvation then we say the person and work of Christ for all men. Since Christ is the one acting man can only receive that free gift through faith, which is also a gift from God.

We do not think or speak along the lines of what must a man do on his own to be saved. Remember the guy who asked, "What must I do to be saved?" The Apostle's answer was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." What did he mean by that? What is required for your salvation has occurred and occurs through the person and work of Christ. And so the man and his household were baptized into Christ.

I appreciate the lengthy response but my query is a yes or no answer question. Perhaps you could be so kind as to distill your answer to one or the other.

“¶And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
(Mat 26:26-28, KJVA)

“¶And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them,This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.”
(Mark 14:22-24, KJVA)

“¶And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” (Luk 22:19-20, KJVA)

“And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.” “After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1Cor 11:24-25, KJVA)

In all these passages the Lord is giving His body and blood which were given and shed for the forgiveness of sins and men receive it to their benefit through faith or to their damnation through unbelief. See 1 Corinthians 11 for further context.

The symbolism of what Jesus did with the disciples at the last supper was a portend of what HE would accomplish on the cross. His broken body and shed blood for our redemption. We are called to do communion in remembrance of His sacrifice, not to see Him recrucified every time some church, somewhere, has communion.

 

[BJ Bear]

I appreciate the lengthy response but my query is a yes or no answer question. Perhaps you could be so kind as to distill your answer to one or the other.

The ultra short answer is no, but that would also be a no to the way you currently view the matter.

The symbolism of what Jesus did with the disciples at the last supper was a portend of what HE would accomplish on the cross. His broken body and shed blood for our redemption. We are called to do communion in remembrance of His sacrifice, not to see Him recrucified every time some church, somewhere, has communion.

That interpretation doesn't accurately reflect the meaning indicated by the verb "is". Jesus, the sinless one who is God, was stating matters of fact, matters of what is true.

Since Jesus is God incarnate, what He says is true is necessarily true.The participles, translated as given and shed, only tell us of what is a matter of fact or true.

 

[Lastdaysbeliever]

The ultra short answer is no

Thank you. So the eucharist/communion is NOT necessary for salvation.

but that would also be a no to the way you currently view the matter.

What part do you disagree with? That Jesus was using symbolism when He took and broke the bread and said it is His body and gave the wine and said it was His blood or that when those who claim the bread and wine become His body and blood are resacrificing Him everytime they invoke this claim?

That interpretation doesn't accurately reflect the meaning indicated by the verb "is". Jesus, the sinless one who is God, was stating matters of fact, matters of what is true.

Jesus IS the Way, the Truth and the Life. He IS God. He is Savior. He IS the living water. His claiming the bread and wine ARE His blood and body, irrespective of certain denominations that claim otherwise, is nothing but symbolizing for His disciples and all His future children what is about to happen to Him. The disciples as that time had no idea what He was talking about but after His crucifixion they, and we knew/know. Consequently that is why we are called to do communion in remembrance of His sacrifice. Remembrance, as in bringing to mind His sacrifice when we take communion.

1 Corinthians 11: 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Each one must examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

We must never dishonor His sacrifice by taking communion in an unworthy manner. Be in sin but not that we are literally eating His flesh and blood. Else, why would He tell His disciples He would not drink of the fruit of the vine until we meet Him in heaven?

Matthew 26: 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, spoke a blessing and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is My body.” 27 Then He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in My Father’s kingdom.” 30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Since Jesus is God incarnate

He is!

what He says is true is necessarily true

He cannot lie. But that does not mean He also doesn't use symbolism when giving us truth.

The participles, translated as given and shed, only tell us of what is a matter of fact or true.

That does not negate symbolism. If that were true then no symbolism would be used by the Holy Spirit when He breathed the Scriptures (OT and NT) to the writers.