[quote="Garrett135, post:13, topic:306676"]
I don't believe that one could ultimately stay with a church that he or she believes is wrong so I'm not entirely sure that I believe example "B" is an option. At least for those who are serious about their faith.
I have already discussed with you the reasons why I left so I won't bore or anger you with repeating all of them.
However, one of the reasons why I left is due to a subject seems to be keeping you in. That is the subject of the Eucharist. In fact, the subjects of the Eucharist and Scriptural authority are probably the two subjects that keep most that question in the RCC and as it should. Those who believe in transubstantiation and or the fullness of Scripture that is based on multiple authorities have nowhere else to go. The RCC is alone in these very important theological points.
In regards to the Eucharist, when we read chapter 6 in the Gospel of John, we read the argumentation of transubstantiation. I have to admit it is very easy to come to the conclusion that Jesus is being literal in this chapter. However, I would ask you to first take a look at the many, many examples throughout the Old and New Testaments that compare the Word of God as being food for the Spirit. These verses are not separate.
Additionally, John also compares the flesh of Jesus as the Word in John Chapter 1. When you read John chapter 6, try reading it by thinking of Jesus as the Word that became flesh. I believe you will start seeing the true meaning behind this passage.
I can go on... Please also take a look at Jesus' statements, such as "For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55). This may sound confusing to some and many may want to take it literally, but again, look at this statement in the context of what John wrote in the beginning of his gospel. It may prove fruitful.
Also, Jesus tells the people that the physical manna that came from heaven was, surprisingly, not of God but from Moses and those that had eaten of the manna are dead. Jesus is speaking of the importance of spiritual as opposed to physical food. The Israelites complained and sought for physical food and they got it, however they didn't care about spiritual food. Because of this, their lack of faith caused them to die without going into the promised land. This is one of many Old Testament pictures that can help us look at the Eucharist.
I could go on but I will finish by saying that the end of Jesus' controversial conversation is probably the most important in that Jesus clears up in John 6:63 any doubt to what He is talking about. Disciples were leaving after Jesus had told them these things. He described Himself as the bread which came down from heaven and if you eat of Me you will have eternal life. However, many people were thinking that he was talking about the literal consummation of His actual flesh. Many could not handle this. On the other hand, the RCC church today embraces this thinking and believes that the Eucharist is transubstantiated into the actual body (flesh) of Christ. However, Jesus clears up these things by finally stating that "It is the Spirit who gives life: the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63 NKJV). It's the Word, it's the Word, it's the Word, it's the Word, it's the Word.
This is just some of the examples about how we should view communion. I would like to go on but this comment is way too long and dangerously off topic so I must digress. God Bless!
There is no contradiction between Jn 6:55 and Jn 6:63. In fact it points to the Eucharist for it is the Spirit that changes the bread and the wine, during the consecration of the mass, to body and blood of Jesus to give life. And it is certainly not only that the RCC today embraced this. I has been embraced since the apostles.
As for those who left because they felt it was hard teaching, the Bible tells us that it were those who were left behind with Jesus that became the true believers. Jesus never did rescind the teaching that his body is real food indeed. The word says so. It is the word, the word, the word, the word.