Defending the Real Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tommy999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tommy999

Guest
Background:
My wife and I (both Protestants, I am a Catholic inquirer) were recently discussing the Lord’s Supper. I mentioned that Catholics believe (and so do I) that Jesus meant a literal translation of verses like Matthew 26:26 and John 6:53 that we were to eat His body and drink His blood in order to have life in us. She believes in the symbolic interpretation that is maintained by most Protestant denominations (She was raised in Christian Church – Disciples of Christ).

She countered with, “If that is the case, why didn’t Jesus literally break off pieces of His flesh at the Last Supper and give them to his disciples instead of giving them bread, and why didn’t he tap into a vein and pour it into a cup to give them His blood to drink instead of giving them wine?. After all, He was still with them and was in a position to do that if He wanted to, right?”.

This was her attempt to make my position look ludicrous. How would you answer this argument? I told her that I thought it was because He was still with them at the time and had not yet finished His redemptive work on the cross yet, but I don’t know if that is the best answer.

I would like to be more prepared for our next discussion on this topic, so if you have any advice, I would appreciate it.
 
Tommy999 said:
Background:
My wife and I (both Protestants, I am a Catholic inquirer) were recently discussing the Lord’s Supper. I mentioned that Catholics believe (and so do I) that Jesus meant a literal translation of verses like Matthew 26:26 and John 6:53 that we were to eat His body and drink His blood in order to have life in us. She believes in the symbolic interpretation that is maintained by most Protestant denominations (She was raised in Christian Church – Disciples of Christ).

She countered with, “If that is the case, why didn’t Jesus literally break off pieces of His flesh at the Last Supper and give them to his disciples instead of giving them bread, and why didn’t he tap into a vein and pour it into a cup to give them His blood to drink instead of giving them wine?. After all, He was still with them and was in a position to do that if He wanted to, right?”.

This was her attempt to make my position look ludicrous. How would you answer this argument? I told her that I thought it was because He was still with them at the time and had not yet finished His redemptive work on the cross yet, but I don’t know if that is the best answer.

I would like to be more prepared for our next discussion on this topic, so if you have any advice, I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...
You are correct, at least in part. 👍

Also the sacrifice is once for all Heb 10:10. This sacrifice and Eucharist is for us 2000 years later to experience just as it was for those on that Good Friday. And since the human body has only so much blood in it I suppose there wouldn’t have been enough for ALL.

The bottom line to the question of “why didn’t he…” - I suppose he could have but he chose to do it the way he did and it is up to us to submit and believe.

Peace!!!
 
There is another thread going called A Protestant Interpretation of John 6 where it is being discussed. You might find it helpful.
 
Tommy999 said:
Background:

She countered with, “If that is the case, why didn’t Jesus literally break off pieces of His flesh at the Last Supper and give them to his disciples instead of giving them bread, and why didn’t he tap into a vein and pour it into a cup to give them His blood to drink instead of giving them wine?. After all, He was still with them and was in a position to do that if He wanted to, right?”.

.
Click to expand...
If you were Jesus and you need to continue to have your believers eat his body and drink his blood after his ascension his heaven, cutting pieces of his flesh and squirting his blood into cups will certainly be not feasible and unnecessary. After all he specifically instruct his followers to continue to commemorate this practice. In John 6, he alluded that he will be feeding them the special bread from heaven aka his flesh/blood.

Some of us are stuck with the image that His flesh/blood must be what we imagine, muscle tissue. However, in John 6:32, Jesus said that the manna was bread from heaven. Unlike this heavenly manna, (those who ate of it still died), eating HIS bread one will live forever.

Some are stuck with the “how”. How can he be the bread of heaven and yet be his flesh/blood? Jesus being God need only wills it for something to come into being. When God says “This is my body” it becomes it. Similarly I never see anyone questioned how Jesus did his fish and loaves trick feeding the masses. Or how God brings someone to life. We KNOW Jesus has the ability to do that. We know he can manifest in different forms. Why do we question his ability to transform his body to be heavenly food for us? Why are we stuck with earthly impressions of flesh/blood? Jesus didn’t say he will be cutting pieces of his flesh at all to feed us. So why imagine something that wasn’t mentioned at all. If God says this is my blood but it didn’t LOOK like it, does one doubt God’s proclamation that it is so? (There’s a verse that says blessed are those who didn’t see yet believe…)

ALL early Christians believe in the Real Presence. Those who don’t are relatively new-comers trying to second-guess Jesus.
 
The bread and wine don’t become parts of Jesus. One host isn’t a bit of flesh from his thigh, and another host from his forearm. Jesus as a person (body, blood, soul and divinity) is entirely present in each particle of the host and cup, symbolized in the appearance of bread and wine. Neither is what Jesus gives us his dead flesh and dead blood, but his entire living and glorified self, indivisible and whole. This is spiritual food (not to deny its physicality, anymore than I’d deny the physiciality of Christ’s glorified body, despite also calling that a spiritual body). In this way, we communicate with Christ by partaking of our paschal supper, consuming the Passover lamb and being consecrated by his blood (perhaps that will sound too icky to your wife).

Not to mention it’s more palatable under the appearance of bread and wine, no?

Edit: There’s a section of the Summa Theologica devoted to the Holy Eucharist. Some parts of this might be insightful. It might be a slog to read the whole of every section, but in each topic there’s a list of questions at the top which can hel direct you to useful topics: newadvent.org/summa/4.htm
 
St. Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315 - 368 A.D.)

When we speak of the reality of Christ’s nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously – had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says: “My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in Him.” As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God. (The Trinity 8:14)
 
A few scattered thoughts, if you’ll permit me to do so:

The manna (heavenly bread) that nourished the Israelites in the desert is a foreshadowing of the true manna and vread of life in the Eucharist.

The offering of bread and wine by Melchizedek, in whose order both David and Jesus are priests, foreshadows the Eucharist.

The shewbread (or bread of the presence) kept in the Temple also foreshadowed the Eucharist.

The consumption of the lamb and the wine of passover foreshadowed the Eucharist.

One of the Messianic expectations was that the manna would be brought back and that there would be a superabundance of wine
 
Wesrock said:
A few scattered thoughts, if you’ll permit me to do so:

The manna (heavenly bread) that nourished the Israelites in the desert is a foreshadowing of the true manna and vread of life in the Eucharist.

The offering of bread and wine by Melchizedek, in whose order both David and Jesus are priests, foreshadows the Eucharist.

The shewbread (or bread of the presence) kept in the Temple also foreshadowed the Eucharist.

The consumption of the lamb and the wine of passover foreshadowed the Eucharist.

One of the Messianic expectations was that the manna would be brought back and that there would be a superabundance of wine
Click to expand...
Great post! And I would like to add that when we receive Jesus in the Eucharist we are receiving the RISEN GLORIFIED CHRIST! It is necessary for the priest to use both the bread and the wine to symbolize that He shed all His blood for us. And, whether we receive just a drop of the precious blood, or just a crumb of the consecrated bread we are receiving the Risen Christ!

Also, in the scriptural references of feeding the multitudes - both on the mountain, and on the plain…
in one there was twelve baskets left over, and in the other there was seven baskets left over. Both are perfect numbers in sacred scripture.

What a truly awesome way He is with us always!

Peace,

Dorothy
 
Tommy999 said:
Background:
My wife and I (both Protestants, I am a Catholic inquirer) were recently discussing the Lord’s Supper. I mentioned that Catholics believe (and so do I) that Jesus meant a literal translation of verses like Matthew 26:26 and John 6:53 that we were to eat His body and drink His blood in order to have life in us. She believes in the symbolic interpretation that is maintained by most Protestant denominations (She was raised in Christian Church – Disciples of Christ).

She countered with, “If that is the case, why didn’t Jesus literally break off pieces of His flesh at the Last Supper and give them to his disciples instead of giving them bread, and why didn’t he tap into a vein and pour it into a cup to give them His blood to drink instead of giving them wine?. After all, He was still with them and was in a position to do that if He wanted to, right?”.

This was her attempt to make my position look ludicrous. How would you answer this argument? I told her that I thought it was because He was still with them at the time and had not yet finished His redemptive work on the cross yet, but I don’t know if that is the best answer.

I would like to be more prepared for our next discussion on this topic, so if you have any advice, I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...
The truth is that God can do things however He wants; Jesus simply didn’t dance to whatever tune someone happened to be playing:
"‘We played the pipe for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’ Matt 11:17

And as far as the bible is concerned, it can often be argued plausibly from opposing viewpoints, which means that only the ancient churches, east and west, are in a position to know. Andt they just happen to hold the same position regarding Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.
 
Tommy999 said:
Background:
My wife and I (both Protestants, I am a Catholic inquirer) were recently discussing the Lord’s Supper. I mentioned that Catholics believe (and so do I) that Jesus meant a literal translation of verses like Matthew 26:26 and John 6:53 that we were to eat His body and drink His blood in order to have life in us. She believes in the symbolic interpretation that is maintained by most Protestant denominations (She was raised in Christian Church – Disciples of Christ).

I would like to be more prepared for our next discussion on this topic, so if you have any advice, I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...
(1) Refer back to what Jesus said in John 6. Jesus says among other things “Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you” and “My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” A symbolic interpretation of what Jesus says in John 6 and the bread of life discourse is a ‘stretch’ or ‘reach’ on what Jesus says I think because he literally does say to eat his flesh and drink his blood. What Jesus says here in John 6 is consistent with what he says at the Last Supper too. At the Last Supper, Jesus does not say ‘this is symbolic of my body’ or ‘this is symbolic of my blood’, but he says ‘This is my body…This is my blood.’

(2) The early church and the church fathers believed the eucharist to be literally the body and blood of Christ. This is the faith they believed to have been handed down from the apostles. Consequently, if the bread and wine of the eucharistic celebration that has been celebrated in the Church since apostolic times is only symbolic of the body and blood of the Lord, then the apostles, the first christians, the early church fathers, the whole early church has handed on down a false faith. This is not reasonable. I think Jesus would have corrected the apostles if they had understood his words about the eucharist incorrectly, but he didn’t. When Jesus said at the Last Supper ‘This is my body…This is my blood’, this is what the apostles handed down to us without qualification because what Jesus said is what he actually meant. And we can include here those words of Jesus which the apostles also heard from him in John 6 and the bread of life discourse.

(3) The Passover celebration of the Jewish people was a figure of the eucharist. How the Jewish people understood the Passover celebration can help us understand the eucharistic celebration which Jesus instituted at the Last Supper to replace the Jewish Passover of the sacrifice of the lamb. In the eucharistic celebration, Jesus is the Lamb of God as St John the Baptist says. An excellent book on the link between the Passover and the eucharist is ‘Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper’ by Brant Pitre.

(4) Besides the Jewish Passover, there are other figures of the eucharist in the Old Testament such as the manna God gave the Israelites to eat in the wilderness; the bread and wine of Melchisedek; the mysterious showbread or presence bread in the temple sanctuary. The book I just mentioned above talks about all this and how it is related or is a figure of the eucharist.

(5) At the Last Supper, Jesus commanded the apostles ‘Do this in memory of me.’ Since Jesus’ ascension into heaven, he would not be around to do what your wife says about Jesus giving a piece of his flesh or some blood from a vein of his when the apostles and later generations celebrated the Last Supper as Jesus commanded the apostles to do. Jesus would also have to be in many places at the same time as the eucharist is celebrated all over the world. Jesus by his infinite power devised another means of being present in the bread and wine of the eucharist until the end of the world without having to be bodily present at the eucharistic celebration as he was at the Last Supper.

(6) St James says ‘without faith it is impossible to please God.’ Belief in the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist is an exercise of faith which is meritorious. In the gospels, Jesus talks a lot about faith and faith in him. A lot of the miracles of healing Jesus performed on people were because of their faith in him. Likewise, Jesus demands of us faith in the real presence of his body and blood in the eucharist. ‘Blessed are those who have not seen but believe.’

(7) To eat the flesh or drink the blood of human beings is naturally repulsive to human nature. So Jesus has us eat his flesh and drink his blood under the appearances of bread and wine.

(8) What your wife says about why didn’t Jesus just give them a piece of his flesh and some blood from some vein of his at the Last Supper to the apostles is to understand, I believe, Jesus’ bread of life discourse in John 6 in to carnal a fashion as Jesus himself seems to say when many of the disciples no longer followed Jesus after this discourse. Similarly, I think, commenting on the disciples who stopped following Jesus after the bread of life discourse and Jesus’ words ‘It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life,’ St Augustine says “Yea, but as they understood it, for they understood that the flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit . . . Let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh . . . then the flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us.”

We do indeed eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ’s body but not as if that body and blood of Christ is visible to us like we are eating a slab of steak from some cow. But, Christ’s body and blood are really present in a spiritual or mystical mode like manner, i.e., invisibly under the appearances of the bread and wine.
 
40.png
Tommy999:
Another book I recommend reading: The Hidden Manna - A Theology of the Eucharist, by Rev. James T. O’Connor. Fr. James goes into the whole history of the Catholic Church’s faith in the eucharist from apostolic times to the present.
 
Saint_Anthony8 said:
Think about it logically. Your closest friend, someone you respect dearly, asks you to eat what looks like bread but he says its his flesh. Regardless of whether you think it is, it still looks like bread. Now, let’s say he tears off a piece of his skin and tells you to eat it. Would you? I wouldn’t.
Click to expand...
By the time this event was taking place, miracles had been worked, the Transfiguration had occurred, the Apostles had seen Jesus walk on water, and He had already fed thousands with a few loaves and a few fish.
I think I would definitely believe Him. The Apostles knew and accepted who He was.
 
I was watching a clip on youtube by catholic answers (official one) about this and he answered it brilliantly.
 
Tommy999 said:
Background:
My wife and I (both Protestants, I am a Catholic inquirer) were recently discussing the Lord’s Supper. I mentioned that Catholics believe (and so do I) that Jesus meant a literal translation of verses like Matthew 26:26 and John 6:53 that we were to eat His body and drink His blood in order to have life in us. She believes in the symbolic interpretation that is maintained by most Protestant denominations (She was raised in Christian Church – Disciples of Christ).

She countered with, “If that is the case, why didn’t Jesus literally break off pieces of His flesh at the Last Supper and give them to his disciples instead of giving them bread, and why didn’t he tap into a vein and pour it into a cup to give them His blood to drink instead of giving them wine?. After all, He was still with them and was in a position to do that if He wanted to, right?”.

This was her attempt to make my position look ludicrous. How would you answer this argument? I told her that I thought it was because He was still with them at the time and had not yet finished His redemptive work on the cross yet, but I don’t know if that is the best answer.

I would like to be more prepared for our next discussion on this topic, so if you have any advice, I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...
Hi, Tommy!

Welcome Home!

…you know that your wife may be quite right or just simply not as “smart” as she thinks she is being?

She offer to you the key to defeating her argument:
**She countered with, “If that is the case, why didn’t Jesus literally break off pieces of His flesh at the Last Supper and give them to his disciples instead of giving them bread, and why didn’t he tap into a vein and pour it into a cup to give them His blood to drink instead of giving them wine?. After all, He was still with them and was in a position to do that if He wanted to, right?”. **
Click to expand...
Yet this is exactly what Jesus did!:
19 Then he took some bread, and when he had given thanks, broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘**This is my body **
Click to expand...
which will be given for you; do this as a memorial of me’. 20 He did the same with the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is **the new covenant in my blood **which will be poured out for you. (St. Luke 22:19-20)
Did you see it? Jesus is breaking His Body (not bread) and offering it to His Disciples to eat. Ditto with the Blood (not wine).

…can you read St. Luke’s 22:14-18? Do yo see how there’s a “supper” going on… did Jesus call bread or anything else His Body and Blood? No, correct? This was a meal; nothing supernatural about eating food… but then came the Institution of the Eucharist… all of the sudden Jesus gets all praye and changes the meaning of things: bread becomes “My Body” and wine becomes “My Blood.”

Did the Apostles not understand this particular Institution?:
46 They went as a body to the Temple every day but met in their houses for the breaking of bread; they shared their food gladly and generously;
Click to expand...
20:7 On the first day of the week we met to break bread. Paul was due to leave the next day, and he preached a sermon that went on till the middle of the night.
Click to expand...
(Acts 2:46; 20:7)
Could there have been a misunderstanding about the Breaking of the Bread?:
23 For this is what I received from the Lord, and in turn passed on to you
Click to expand...
: that on the same night that he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, 24 and thanked God for it and broke it, and he said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this as a memorial of me’. 25 In the same way he took the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.’ 26 Until the Lord comes, therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death, 27 and so **anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord **unworthily will be behaving unworthily towards the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:23-27)
Do you see it?

How can a symbol be called the Body and Blood of the Lord?

How can a symbol equated to Christ’s Body and Blood?

…and did you note St. Paul’s argument about those who behave unworthily? …and his command that they eat their regular meals at their own home?:
28 Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup
Click to expand...
; 29 because a person who eats and drinks without recognising the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. 30 In fact that is why many of you are weak and ill and some of you have died. 31 If only we recollected ourselves, we should not be punished like that. 32 But when the Lord does punish us like that, it is to correct us and stop us from being condemned with the world. 33 So to sum up, my dear brothers, when you meet for the Meal, wait for one another. 34 Anyone who is hungry should eat at home, and then your meeting will not bring your condemnation. The other matters I shall adjust when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:28-34)
…St. Paul opens up with Christ’s Ordination that he passes on to the Body of the Believers!

Your wife, and the rest of non-Catholic Believers, have no escape; they accept the Word of Christ and the rest of Scriptures or they go on their own understanding–based on the understanding and arguments of men that came before them with such limited view of Revelation.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Wesrock said:
A few scattered thoughts, if you’ll permit me to do so:

The manna (heavenly bread) that nourished the Israelites in the desert is a foreshadowing of the true manna and vread of life in the Eucharist.

The offering of bread and wine by Melchizedek, in whose order both David and Jesus are priests, foreshadows the Eucharist.

The shewbread (or bread of the presence) kept in the Temple also foreshadowed the Eucharist.
The consumption of the lamb and the wine of passover foreshadowed the Eucharist.

One of the Messianic expectations was that the manna would be brought back and that there would be a superabundance of wine
Click to expand...
Hi, Wesrock!

I see this as the type for the Blessed Sacrament–specially when the Priest takes the monster and “shows” the Bread of Christ’s Presence!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
jcrichton said:
Hi, Wesrock!

I see this as the type for the Blessed Sacrament–specially when the Priest takes the monster and “shows” the Bread of Christ’s Presence!

Maran atha!

Angel
Click to expand...
There are no monsters in Catholicism.😃

Peace!!!
 
Saint_Anthony8 said:
That would be such a cool show. Showing the Eucharist to a monster. Have you heard the story about Saint Anthony and the donkey? Although one would have a hell of a time getting the monster in the confessional.
Click to expand...
Hi!

It might take someone like St. Francis of Assisi, St. Martin de Porres or St. Anthony of Padua–yet, I suspect that some monsters have seen the light and converted from their sinful lives.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top