Roman Catholic Mass at Calvin's Church in Geneva!

[Campion]

Himself, John 6:47-48, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life."

Exactly! And if you continue past verse 48, Jesus explicitly states He is the bread which cometh down from heave and this bread he gives is his very flesh!

John 6:51: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Hence at the Last Supper, when He institutes the Eucharist foreshadowed in John 6, we hear Him say, "This IS my body."

 

[Campion]

Thankfully the real presence does not happen in Protestant services, nor is it their intention. The bread and wine remain what they are.
Otherwise they would be receiving without recognising the Body and Blood of Christ.

But in Catholic and Orthodox churches the Apostolic Authority is handed down by Apostolic succession and at consecration the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Indeed.

I've always wondered what exactly are they memorializing in their mock eucharist service? By their own admission, nothing was even offered so as to be commemorated until the next day.

 

[Campion]

John 6:53 "...except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man AND drink his blood, ye have no life in you."
John 6:54 " Whosoever eateth my flesh AND drinketh my blood hath eternal life."
John 6:56 " He that eateth my flesh AND drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him."

This is not an either/or command give by Christ to his people. It is NOT a eat flesh OR drink blood. One action is not exclusive of the other.

In most catholic assemblies, ONLY the priest drinks the figurative blood/wine. How then can the laity have the eternal life if they only partake in the body and NOT the blood? How can they abide in Him if they NOT drunk His blood? It would seem that they have not received nor believed the word.

Some teach it is sufficient for the priest to receive the wine and bread but for the laity to receive only the bread. Scripture and verse please. This is clearly NOT the example that Christ gave to the apostles when he instituted the supper.

Since catholicism makes such an issue of transubstantiation, why does it deny part of the ordinance to those whom they say must have it in order to have life?

When Christ instituted the Eucharist in the Upper Room, He gave the Apostles communion under both species (bread and wine). Every bishop and priest, when offering the Eucharist, is required to communicate under both species. So the men to whom Christ instituted the Eucharist, and their successors, do receive under both forms. His instruction for the institution of the Eucharist was to these men exclusively, as is evident from His further words to those present, “Do this in commemoration of me.”

So what about the laity as you rightly point out? Well, because of the hypostatic union, the Church teaches that Christ is contained whole and entire under each species. This means that whoever communicates under the species of bread or of wine receives not a divided Christ, but receives Christ whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity. Therefore the lay person who receives only the consecrated bread partakes as equally of the body and blood of Christ as the officiating bishop or deacon who receives both consecrated species.

When Christ first instructs his followers on the Eucharist in His bread of life discourse in John 6, He actually makes no reference to the chalice (or cup), but rather only to the Eucharistic bread, to which He ascribes all the efficacy which communion leads to. The reason, we can say, is because we receive the Glorified Christ, whose flesh and blood cannot be divided.

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 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." The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live for ever."


St. Paul, clarifying the Church's teaching from antiquity, confirms that if a man communicates unworthily, under either species, he is guilty of the body and blood of Christ. "Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord." (1 Cor 11:27)

 

[Cathode]

Judas' betrayal was bought before and done after then. Matthew 26:14-16. Matthew 26:46-49.

No.

“And when Judas had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Then Jesus said to Judas, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” John 13:27

This Covenant of Christ’s Body and Blood, is not symbolic, it is very real and deadly serious. It is not play acting.

Eating bread and drinking wine does not have these consequences, eating and drinking Christ’s Body and Blood unworthily does.

 

[Cathode]

Indeed.

I've always wondered what exactly are they memorializing in their mock eucharist service? By their own admission, nothing was even offered so as to be commemorated until the next day.

I don’t think Protestants or Baptist’s intentions are bad in anyway, they are following scripture the way they understand the ordinances be followed. Through circumstance and history this is where they are.

Their intentions being pure, and with the love of the Lord and faith in their hearts, I like to think that Jesus blesses them in some way at their services.

 

[Campion]

I don’t think Protestants or Baptist’s intentions are bad in anyway, they are following scripture the way they understand the ordinances be followed. Through circumstance and history this is where they are.

Their intentions being pure, and with the love of the Lord and faith in their hearts, I like to think that Jesus blesses them in some way at their services.

I do agree that they worship God to the extent they understand him, despite how little or how erroneous that understanding is.

 

[37818]

And if you continue past verse 48, Jesus explicitly states He is the bread which cometh down from heave and this bread he gives is his very flesh!

John 6:51: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Hence at the Last Supper, when He institutes the Eucharist foreshadowed in John 6, we hear Him say, "This IS my body."

You need to start at verse 35, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. . . ." That "never" means "not in any way." And verse 47 says regarding for "eternal life." The meaning is this only needs to be done once to have eternal life. Not over and over again.

 

[Marooncat79]

Bigger than yours

 

[37818]

This Covenant of Christ’s Body and Blood, is not symbolic, it is very real and deadly serious. It is not play acting.
.
Eating bread and drinking wine does not have these consequences, eating and drinking Christ’s Body and Blood unworthily does.

This is totally an eisegetical fantasy.
The unworthily was using the remembrance as a meal. 1 Corinthians 11:21-22, ". . . For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. . . ." Verse,34, ". . . And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. . . ."

 

[unprofitable]

When Christ instituted the Eucharist in the Upper Room, He gave the Apostles communion under both species (bread and wine). Every bishop and priest, when offering the Eucharist, is required to communicate under both species. So the men to whom Christ instituted the Eucharist, and their successors, do receive under both forms. His instruction for the institution of the Eucharist was to these men exclusively, as is evident from His further words to those present, “Do this in commemoration of me.”

So what about the laity as you rightly point out? Well, because of the hypostatic union, the Church teaches that Christ is contained whole and entire under each species. This means that whoever communicates under the species of bread or of wine receives not a divided Christ, but receives Christ whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity. Therefore the lay person who receives only the consecrated bread partakes as equally of the body and blood of Christ as the officiating bishop or deacon who receives both consecrated species.

When Christ first instructs his followers on the Eucharist in His bread of life discourse in John 6, He actually makes no reference to the chalice (or cup), but rather only to the Eucharistic bread, to which He ascribes all the efficacy which communion leads to. The reason, we can say, is because we receive the Glorified Christ, whose flesh and blood cannot be divided.

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 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." The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live for ever."


St. Paul, clarifying the Church's teaching from antiquity, confirms that if a man communicates unworthily, under either species, he is guilty of the body and blood of Christ. "Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord." (1 Cor 11:27)

When Christ instituted the Eucharist in the Upper Room, He gave the Apostles communion under both species (bread and wine). Every bishop and priest, when offering the Eucharist, is required to communicate under both species. So the men to whom Christ instituted the Eucharist, and their successors, do receive under both forms. His instruction for the institution of the Eucharist was to these men exclusively, as is evident from His further words to those present, “Do this in commemoration of me.”

So what about the laity as you rightly point out? Well, because of the hypostatic union, the Church teaches that Christ is contained whole and entire under each species. This means that whoever communicates under the species of bread or of wine receives not a divided Christ, but receives Christ whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity. Therefore the lay person who receives only the consecrated bread partakes as equally of the body and blood of Christ as the officiating bishop or deacon who receives both consecrated species.

When Christ first instructs his followers on the Eucharist in His bread of life discourse in John 6, He actually makes no reference to the chalice (or cup), but rather only to the Eucharistic bread, to which He ascribes all the efficacy which communion leads to. The reason, we can say, is because we receive the Glorified Christ, whose flesh and blood cannot be divided.

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 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." The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live for ever."


St. Paul, clarifying the Church's teaching from antiquity, confirms that if a man communicates unworthily, under either species, he is guilty of the body and blood of Christ. "Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord." (1 Cor 11:27)

To say that Christ's command to "do this in memory of me" was only given to those present at the supper denies scriptural intent and context. It in no way shows that it was given exclusively to those at the supper.

Christ was instructing the members of the beginnings of the body of Christ as a local church. This can be paralleled with Gen 18:19 where it is said, "For I know him and he will command his children and his household after him (perpetuity}, and THEY shall keep the way of the lord, to do justice and judgment, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him,"

It would seem according to your reasoning that since both "species" are contained in each "specie" then it should be possible for the priest to only use one or the other for the observance. If this is the case, can the priest use just wine instead of bread?

Where, in scripture, other than your theory of hypostatic union, can you find only the priest needing to take both elements but not the laity?

The bread represents the body of Christ and the blood the new covenant. Neither can be taught separately without touching on the other especially because the scriptures say that the life of the body is in the blood. This shows the need of both the bread and the wine in the observance as Christ commanded.

Paul is not eliminating nor separating the elements in his use of the word OR but showing that it can be in either or BOTH.

In fact, 1 Cor 11:27 shows that the members of the church at Corinth were partaking of BOTH elements and not just one.

The Passover meal contained both the ram, the bread, and the wine. It was never observed with one element only.

 

[Cathode]

This is totally an eisegetical fantasy.
The unworthily was using the remembrance as a meal. 1 Corinthians 11:21-22, ". . . For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. . . ." Verse,34, ". . . And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. . . ."

It is far more than just a remembrance, it is a Covenant, the New and Everlasting Covenant.
Many are called but few are chosen.

The drama of salvation plays out even today, people do not believe Jesus flesh is real food and blood real drink.
They refuse to eat his body and drink his blood as he instructed.

If people do believe in him they would believe His words, and partake of the Covenant feast.

That’s how belief saves people, by doing what Jesus says.

Why call me Lord and do not the things I say? Basically.

 

[37818]

It is far more than just a remembrance, it is a Covenant, the New and Everlasting Covenant.
Many are called but few are chosen

You are making the claim the act of remembrance of the New Covenant is the Covenant. It is not. Eternal life is not anything we can obtain by doing. Either God has given eternal life to a person or the person does not have it. I have eternal life [not yet the immortality] because God has given it to me because I actually know Him by knowing the Lord Jesus Christ [1 Timothy 2:5, John 17:3]. 1 John 5:9-13.

 

[atpollard]

The Roman Catholic and Calvinist pastors applied ashes to each other's foreheads:

all of life illustrates Bible doctrine. - Donald Barnhouse
"Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead." - Jesus [Matthew 8:22]

 

[Eliyahu]

When Christ instituted the Eucharist in the Upper Room, He gave the Apostles communion under both species (bread and wine). Every bishop and priest, when offering the Eucharist, is required to communicate under both species. So the men to whom Christ instituted the Eucharist, and their successors, do receive under both forms. His instruction for the institution of the Eucharist was to these men exclusively, as is evident from His further words to those present, “Do this in commemoration of me.”

So what about the laity as you rightly point out? Well, because of the hypostatic union, the Church teaches that Christ is contained whole and entire under each species. This means that whoever communicates under the species of bread or of wine receives not a divided Christ, but receives Christ whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity. Therefore the lay person who receives only the consecrated bread partakes as equally of the body and blood of Christ as the officiating bishop or deacon who receives both consecrated species.

When Christ first instructs his followers on the Eucharist in His bread of life discourse in John 6, He actually makes no reference to the chalice (or cup), but rather only to the Eucharistic bread, to which He ascribes all the efficacy which communion leads to. The reason, we can say, is because we receive the Glorified Christ, whose flesh and blood cannot be divided.

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 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." The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live for ever."


St. Paul, clarifying the Church's teaching from antiquity, confirms that if a man communicates unworthily, under either species, he is guilty of the body and blood of Christ. "Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord." (1 Cor 11:27)

If you eat His Flesh and His Blood, your religion is cannibalism.
If you drink His Blood physically, you are cursed.
Jesus said He was talking about the Spirit and therefore His Words meant the acceptance of Jesus Christ by being born again.
Read what I said already before:

If you drink the Blood of Jesus, you are CURSED!

Why?

Leviticus 17:
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.


Lord Supper was given to the Believers as a Reminder of His Sacrifice at the Cross for remembering Him.
Jesus never told anyone to suck His Blood dripping down from the Cross.

Gospel John 6 tells us that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood

John 6: 53
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

This is talking about Being Born Again, by having the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

John 6:63
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


RCC people misunderstand this teaching and try to immitate the Flesh and Blood of Jesus by the Transubstantiation Theory.

They lift up the Cookies and Chalice asking their god to forgive their sins, BECAUSE RCC don't believe all the sins of the world were already forgiven by the precious Blood of Jesus at the Cross. Therefore they ask their god to forgive their sins every week at the Mass.
Mass came from Missa in Latin which originated from Mactatus which means the slaughter or sacrifice. Massacre came from Mactatus or Macto.
Because RCC don't believe all the sins were forgiven already at the Cross, they don't like to believe Hebrews 10:18

Hebrews 10:17-18
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

There is NO NEED for Sacrifice for the sins, because Jesus offered the complete, perfect
sacrifice for the sins of the world at the Cross, Once For ALL

RCC rely on their own sacirifice every week by the Mass, but the Truly Born Again Christians remember and rely on the Great Sacrifice by Lord Jesus Christ with His Own Blood, and give thanks to the great Redeemer Jesus Christ.
No more Mass, No more Transubstantiation, No more Real Presence, No More Priest because all the Born Again Believers are the Priests offering the great sacrifice to God by remembering and believing what the Great Priest Jesus has done at the Cross by His Own Blood and His Body.( Read 1 Peter 2:5-9)

We give thanks to Lord Jesus, the Great Savior, everyday, every moment!

Eliyahu

 

[Campion]

If you eat His Flesh and His Blood, your religion is cannibalism.
If you drink His Blood physically, you are cursed.
Jesus said He was talking about the Spirit and therefore His Words meant the acceptance of Jesus Christ by being born again.

If you eat his SYMBOLIC FLESH and drink his SYMBOLIC BLOOD your religion is SYMBOLIC cannibalism.

Read what I said already before:

If you drink the Blood of Jesus, you are CURSED!

Why?

Leviticus 17:
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.


Lord Supper was given to the Believers as a Reminder of His Sacrifice at the Cross for remembering Him.
Jesus never told anyone to suck His Blood dripping down from the Cross.

Gospel John 6 tells us that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood

John 6: 53
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

This is talking about Being Born Again, by having the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

John 6:63
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


RCC people misunderstand this teaching and try to immitate the Flesh and Blood of Jesus by the Transubstantiation Theory.

They lift up the Cookies and Chalice asking their god to forgive their sins, BECAUSE RCC don't believe all the sins of the world were already forgiven by the precious Blood of Jesus at the Cross. Therefore they ask their god to forgive their sins every week at the Mass.
Mass came from Missa in Latin which originated from Mactatus which means the slaughter or sacrifice. Massacre came from Mactatus or Macto.
Because RCC don't believe all the sins were forgiven already at the Cross, they don't like to believe Hebrews 10:18

Hebrews 10:17-18
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

There is NO NEED for Sacrifice for the sins, because Jesus offered the complete, perfect
sacrifice for the sins of the world at the Cross, Once For ALL

RCC rely on their own sacirifice every week by the Mass, but the Truly Born Again Christians remember and rely on the Great Sacrifice by Lord Jesus Christ with His Own Blood, and give thanks to the great Redeemer Jesus Christ.
No more Mass, No more Transubstantiation, No more Real Presence, No More Priest because all the Born Again Believers are the Priests offering the great sacrifice to God by remembering and believing what the Great Priest Jesus has done at the Cross by His Own Blood and His Body.( Read 1 Peter 2:5-9)

We give thanks to Lord Jesus, the Great Savior, everyday, every moment!

Eliyahu

Tell me how SYMBOLIC CANNIBALISM is permissible given your interpretation above.

 

[Campion]

You need to start at verse 35, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. . . ." That "never" means "not in any way." And verse 47 says regarding for "eternal life." The meaning is this only needs to be done once to have eternal life. Not over and over again.

"Do this" is a command for what He instituted to be repeated. We know this because it is described being done in the New Testament AFTER the actual Last Supper.

Acts 2:46 "Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts..."

1 Corinthians 10:16 "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

1 Corinthians 11:29 "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself."

 

[Campion]

To say that Christ's command to "do this in memory of me" was only given to those present at the supper denies scriptural intent and context. It in no way shows that it was given exclusively to those at the supper.

Christ was instructing the members of the beginnings of the body of Christ as a local church. This can be paralleled with Gen 18:19 where it is said, "For I know him and he will command his children and his household after him (perpetuity}, and THEY shall keep the way of the lord, to do justice and judgment, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him,"

Do you think this command was given to everyone? If I walked into your church one Sunday, would they let me get up and offer the Eucharist?

It would seem according to your reasoning that since both "species" are contained in each "specie" then it should be possible for the priest to only use one or the other for the observance. If this is the case, can the priest use just wine instead of bread?

Where, in scripture, other than your theory of hypostatic union, can you find only the priest needing to take both elements but not the laity?

First, the hypostatic union is not a theory. It is the core dogma upon which the Christian religion is based.

Secondly, I gave it to you previously. In 1 Cor 11:27, St. Paul says, "Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body AND of the blood of the Lord."

Christ cannot be divided into separate parts, quantities and portions. (This is the hypostatic union.)

The bread represents the body of Christ and the blood the new covenant. Neither can be taught separately without touching on the other especially because the scriptures say that the life of the body is in the blood. This shows the need of both the bread and the wine in the observance as Christ commanded.

Paul is not eliminating nor separating the elements in his use of the word OR but showing that it can be in either or BOTH.

In fact, 1 Cor 11:27 shows that the members of the church at Corinth were partaking of BOTH elements and not just one.

The Passover meal contained both the ram, the bread, and the wine. It was never observed with one element only.

Can you demonstrate anywhere in the Scriptures where eating a body (not some other “object” / red herring) was a metaphor for something other than that.

 

[37818]

1 Corinthians 10:16 "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Bad translation.
". . . The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. . . ."
And the word interpreted "communion" meaning fellowship of the believers they being the body of Christ being His church.
So it is not as you believe.

 

[Campion]

Bad translation.
". . . The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. . . ."
And the word interpreted "communion" meaning fellowship of the believers they being the body of Christ being His church.
So it is not as you believe.

Sorry, but it's not as you believe.

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"

Communion = κοινωνία = fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse, intimacy

Source

Trying to have fellowship, association, community, communion, participation, intercourse and intimacy with a symbol is idolatry.

 

[JonC]

Roman Catholic Mass at Calvin's Church in Geneva?

Calvinism getting back to it's roots.