Christ being present in the Flesh

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tyler_Smedley

Guest
I was having a debate with one of my protestant friends about the true presence in the Eucharist and he totally disreguards the bibical verses that I brings up such as John 6 and the last supper accounts, but he also maintains that it is not possible for Christ’s body to be present in more than one spot because it was a human body and in the Eucharist it is fully Him and not just a part and we can’t be present in more that one spot. What do I say to that? Thanks.
 
Christ’s human body is joined to the Divine and can be anywhere God wants it to be.

We are talking about God who created the universe 😃
 
Anything is possible with God. God made everything out of nothing so I would think that he could make Christ present in every single piece of bread every single hour throughout the day of every single day during the last almost 2000 years. I would just present him with the miracles Jesus preformed and the universe God created as proof that anything is possible.

Good luck,
Denise
 
Tell your friend that the multiplication of the loaves set the prededent for the multiplication of Christ in the Eucharist.

In other words, Christ is God and can do whateverthe**** he wants!
 
That would go against the basic biblical doctrine of the Trinity. While Christ on earth is uniquely human, He is also divine. You cannot separate these two natures.

I would suggest “The Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn for your friend.
 
I would suggest “The Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn for your friend.
I wouldn’t. Hahn’s book is written for Catholics, to give them a deep appreciation of the Mass, by reading the Book of Revelation in light of it. It’s not an apologetic on the Eucharist.

Just my opinion.
 
I recommend this article: Transubstantiation and Reason

It answers some philosophical questions about the Real Presence including the one you just asked.

Here’s the answer from the article:
What of the objection, also given by Berkhof, that a material body cannot be present in several places at the same time? Well, a substance becomes present in a place because of its quantity; substance of itself is indifferent to place. So when this unique conversion occurs, caused supernaturally by God—a conversion of substance into substance—Christ’s body can be present in any number of places, being related to the place by reason of the accidents of bread which are situated there.
Try giving your Protestant friend that answer or the whole article above. And if he knows a little philosophy or understands “accidents” and “substances” he might get it.

Miguel.
 
40.png
DenRat:
Anything is possible with God. God made everything out of nothing so I would think that he could make Christ present in every single piece of bread every single hour throughout the day of every single day during the last almost 2000 years. I would just present him with the miracles Jesus preformed and the universe God created as proof that anything is possible.

Good luck,
Denise
Everything is possible, but everything is not in the nature of God.

If your protestant friend is an apologist I would bring up the following Greek words in your discussion:

**John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” The disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So what does Jesus do?

John 6:54-58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat.

Matt. 24:38; John 13:18 - for example, the word “phago” is used here too, and it means to literally gnaw or chew meat. “Phago” is never used metaphorically in Greek. There is not one verse in Scripture where “phago” is used symbolically, and yet this must be your argument if you are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words.

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body).

John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; Luke 3:6; 24:39 - these are other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink**

flyfreeministries.org/Discussion-amazing.htm#Mass
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
I wouldn’t. Hahn’s book is writeen for Catholics, to give them a deep appreciation of the Mass, by reading the Book of Revelation in light of it. It’s not an apologetic on the Eucharist.

Just my opinion.
I read this book before making a decision to become Catholic. It gave me a deeper appreciation for the Eucharist and how it is tied in with scripture.
 
I read this book before making a decision to become Catholic. It gave me a deeper appreciation for the Eucharist and how it is tied in with scripture.
That’s cool.

Personally, I think an even better intro would be Hahn’s A Father Who Keep His Promises.

Miguel, I had a hard time understanding the portion of the tract that you quoted. Can you translate it into laymen’s terms?

😃
 
I have a general understanding of it; but I never said I could fully comprehend how Christ is present in multiple places. Perhaps the more philosophically savvy here, can put it into layman’s terms?

I would explain to Tyler’s Protestant opponent the philosophical definitions of substance and accidents…And how a substance is indifferent to place; so Christ in the Eucharist can be actually in more then one place at the same time.

If you want to get away from all those abstract philosophical terms; you could always answer back and say that God is omnipotent and therefore can do anything. 😃

Miguel.
 
I could be wrong, but maybe proper understanding of the resurrection of the body could help here. Christ was not a resucitated corpse, like Lazarus was. He returned to physical life of course, but the glorified body he had after rising is a little bit beyond (I’m making a huge understatement here) the ordinary human body. So perhaps the tremendous difference between Christ’s risen body the ordinary body Christ had before his death could have something to do with this. At the very least his risen body shows how remarkably limited our understanding of the body really is. Christ being present in thousands of tabernacles is beyond our ability to understand, but so is a glorified, resurrected body that can pass through walls.
 
Another thing to remember is that the Sacrifice of Jesus is eternal, not just a one time thing. I believe this is outside the understanding of most protestants. I am reciting this from memory, so be kind but correct me if I’m missing something… The Mass, I believe, though weekly, is just taking us earth bound humans to the eternal sacrifice (which is outside of time anyway). So, the many Masses/tabernacles, etc. are all present at the one true eternal sacrifice, as is presented in Revalations.

So, it’s not like God is dolling out his body to different places, he is bringing us to him. Although, typing this leaves me with a question, as the Precious Body is not wholly consumed during a Mass, and is placed back into the tabernacle afterwords, how does that work? Hmmm, like was said before, God can do what He wants, although I believe His eternal plan is to continuously show us the way toward Him, and He does everything for a reason…
 
Yochumjy makes a very good point. I don’t think of Jesus as being multiplied in the Eucharist. The Jesus you receive, after all, is the very same Jesus that I receive. Think of all those hosts as being drawn together into one, since we all receive the same Jesus, and in fact that’s what happens. In receiving the one Lord, we become united with one another. That’s why we call it communion.

Or if you are of a philosophical frame of mind, or maybe if you’re into theoritcal physics or cosmology, you can think of the one sacrifice of Jesus as a singularity, piercing through space-time to make itself present at every Eucharist in every place and time, kind of a wormhole to the events of our salvation.
 
I would ask him what his definition of faith is.

Then I would talk to him about the people walking away from Christ because they did not have the faith to accept what was being said.

I would also ask him is there anything God can not do?

I would then again take him to the point where Peter says where are we to go. They could not understand but by faith they held on, and stuck with him.
 
What of the argument that of all the miracles Jesus performed in His time, like really changing physical water to physical wine, he chose not to make bread and wine his physical body and physical blood?

Why is the Eucharist a “hidden” miracle as some say?

As I am reading the Bible, where can I find a COMMAND of God that is passed down to an Apostle or thru Jesus that gives them the power to perform this miracle?
 
Tyler Smedley:
I was having a debate with one of my protestant friends about the true presence in the Eucharist and he totally disreguards the bibical verses that I brings up such as John 6 and the last supper accounts, but he also maintains that it is not possible for Christ’s body to be present in more than one spot.
Then he must not believe it is posible for

A virgin to conceive and bear a son -
The blind be made made to see -
The deaf be made to hear -
The dead to be raised -
God to become man -

Of course he is right. These things are impossible!

With God, all things are possible!

God bless.
 
Greetings. I’m new to the forum. I’m a protestant, too. I’ve been wondering about this question on my own and wanted to throw in my two cents. I understand the transubstantiation: but, and I may be way off base here, it is the form the priest takes that bothers me. A friend (a pastor) told me that not only is the bread made flesh, and wine to blood, but that the priest is Christ at that moment. I’ve read some of the catechism on this and is sounds like the priest is then in the role of Christ. Quite a difference. But he said that Vatican II states otherwise. I would just like a true understanding, and any teaching on this question would be appreciated.
 
40.png
Ingram:
Greetings. I’m new to the forum. I’m a protestant, too. I’ve been wondering about this question on my own and wanted to throw in my two cents. I understand the transubstantiation: but, and I may be way off base here, it is the form the priest takes that bothers me. A friend (a pastor) told me that not only is the bread made flesh, and wine to blood, but that the priest is Christ at that moment. I’ve read some of the catechism on this and is sounds like the priest is then in the role of Christ. Quite a difference. But he said that Vatican II states otherwise. I would just like a true understanding, and any teaching on this question would be appreciated.
First off, welcome!!! No, the priest is not Christ. You were right. He stands in persona Christi, meaning he is in the role of Christ at the Last Supper. He says “this is My Body” etc just like Christ did, but he is not Christ. Hmm, I’ve never heard your friend’s misconception before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top