Defending the Real Presence

[po18guy]

I have experienced miracles in prayer before our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Small miracles, but miracles nevertheless. Reception of the Eucharist normally brings tears, which is as it should be in my case.

If I ever doubted, I doubt no more.

 

[Tommy999]

I was watching a clip on youtube by catholic answers (official one) about this and he answered it brilliantly.

Thanks to all for the helpful replies. Do you happen to have the YouTube URL handy?
I will try to look for it, otherwise.

I should be better prepared for our next discussion. Since she is my spouse and I love her dearly, I will do my best to present the case in as non-threatening way as possible . Sometimes I think the manner in which we present the message is just as important as what we are presenting, or else the person receiving it might focus on our tone more than the message itself, especially with a spouse or close friend or relative. Please pray for me.

Thanks again for the good suggestions and recommended readings.

 

[jcrichton]

Thanks to all for the helpful replies. Do you happen to have the YouTube URL handy?
I will try to look for it, otherwise.

I should be better prepared for our next discussion. Since she is my spouse and I love her dearly, I will do my best to present the case in as non-threatening way as possible . Sometimes I think the manner in which we present the message is just as important as what we are presenting, or else the person receiving it might focus on our tone more than the message itself, especially with a spouse or close friend or relative. Please pray for me.

Thanks again for the good suggestions and recommended readings.

Hi, Tommy!

You are so correct! Scriptures tells us to be ready to give response to all about our Hope (Jesus) but that we do so in love and patience (paraphrased).

If you simply pull ranks on someone or are overbearing you gain nothing but distrust and rejection of both the message and your character.

I will keep you both in my prayers.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Lenten_ashes]

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

Yes, and even Bethlehem means, “House of Bread”

There are so many signs pointing to Jesus in the Eucharist. It’s really remarkable.

 

[Techno2000]

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.

It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh(Human Reason) is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
John 6:63

The flesh (Human Reason) is of no avail in trying to understand the Supernatural spiritual things like the Eucharist.

Your wife is is trying to understand something Supernatural through the lens of her carnal flesh mind which is of no avail.

And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. **For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. **
1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[adf417]

Thanks to all for the helpful replies. Do you happen to have the YouTube URL handy?
I will try to look for it, otherwise.

I should be better prepared for our next discussion. Since she is my spouse and I love her dearly, I will do my best to present the case in as non-threatening way as possible . Sometimes I think the manner in which we present the message is just as important as what we are presenting, or else the person receiving it might focus on our tone more than the message itself, especially with a spouse or close friend or relative. Please pray for me.

Thanks again for the good suggestions and recommended readings.

Or more so and this is why it is very hard to effectively evangelize and/or defend the faith on the internet. I will pray for you my friend!

Peace!!!

 

[jcrichton]

Yes, and even Bethlehem means, “House of Bread”

There are so many signs pointing to Jesus in the Eucharist. It’s really remarkable.

Hi, Lenten Ashes!

…and in Arabic it means “house of flesh!”

There’s no escaping the God-incidences!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh(Human Reason) is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. John 6:63

The flesh (Human Reason) is of no avail in trying to understand the Supernatural spiritual things like the Eucharist.

Your wife is is trying to understand something Supernatural through the lens of her carnal flesh mind which is of no avail.

And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. **For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. **
1 Corinthians 2:14

Hi!

…have you noticed that Jesus is speaking of Himself not of the Written Word? The Gospels were not brought to text as Jesus spoke… so while many point to the Word (Scriptures) as being the source of Life; Jesus is actually stating that His Word (His Message) is the Source of Life (‘I Am the Resurrection and the Life, do you Believe this?’); so in deed ‘eat my Flesh/Body and drink my Blood; for my Body is Real Food and my Blood Real Drink,’ this is the Word of Life.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi, Lenten Ashes!

…and in Arabic it means “house of flesh!”

There’s no escaping the God-incidences!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Techno2000]

“It is the spirit that gives life, while the** flesh is of no avail**. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
John 6:63

The mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the** Spirit is life** and peace, because the mind of the flesh is hostile to God: It does not submit to God’s Law, nor can it do so.
Romans 8

Jesus is speaking about something that is spiritual and supernatural that the mind of the flesh can’t comprehend.

 

[Actaeon]

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

Mana, unleavened bread, and the lamb of the old testament are all old covenant prefigurements of the Flesh and Blood of the Lamb of God (Christ), our new covenant, enduring, passover offering to God. So Jesus chose the unleavened bread as the new covenant accident of the consumption of the Flesh of the Lamb for His passover offering… so what? These things are not disconnected items in the new covenant.

Additionally, a counter-point: your wife is Christian, no? She believes that Jesus was the Word of God, through whom the world was made. That God spoke existence into being. That Jesus said “blind man, be healed of your sins” and restored the man’s vision at a word? That Jesus, his cloak being touched by someone caused them to be healed? That Jesus turned water into wine?

It amazes me that she could believe that Jesus truly worked all those miracles and yet she thinks that when He rose the bread and the chalice and spoke “you, bread, are now My Flesh, and you, cup, are now My Blood” that the bread and wine could somehow resist the will of God. No. Jesus raised the bread and wine and spoke, and the entire nature of their being was shifted to His Body and His Blood, respectively. The nature of their being couldn’t be more real Flesh and Blood even if He had torn flesh and blood from His literal body. God speaks, and the universe jumps to obey. That’s really all there is to it.

 

[adf417]

Mana, unleavened bread, and the lamb of the old testament are all old covenant prefigurements of the Flesh and Blood of the Lamb of God (Christ), our new covenant, enduring, passover offering to God. So Jesus chose the unleavened bread as the new covenant accident of the consumption of the Flesh of the Lamb for His passover offering… so what? These things are not disconnected items in the new covenant.

Additionally, a counter-point: your wife is Christian, no? She believes that Jesus was the Word of God, through whom the world was made. That God spoke existence into being. That Jesus said “blind man, be healed of your sins” and restored the man’s vision at a word? That Jesus, his cloak being touched by someone caused them to be healed? That Jesus turned water into wine?

It amazes me that she could believe that Jesus truly worked all those miracles and yet she thinks that when He rose the bread and the chalice and spoke “you, bread, are now My Flesh, and you, cup, are now My Blood” that the bread and wine could somehow resist the will of God. No. Jesus raised the bread and wine and spoke, and the entire nature of their being was shifted to His Body and His Blood, respectively. The nature of their being couldn’t be more real Flesh and Blood even if He had torn flesh and blood from His literal body. God speaks, and the universe jumps to obey. That’s really all there is to it.

I dont think anybody would ever believe the bolded statment above that somehow God’s power is not enough to turn the bread into his body or the wine into his blood. Its never been about what could have been from a non-Catholic pov its just that they dont believe that is what actually happened.

Peace!!!

 

[jcrichton]

I dont think anybody would ever believe the bolded statment above that somehow God’s power is not enough to turn the bread into his body or the wine into his blood. Its never been about what could have been from a non-Catholic pov its just that they dont believe that is what actually happened.

Peace!!!

Hi, A!

…what I find perplexing is that they (non-Catholic Christians) claim Scriptures to be the absolute Word of God and that they are Obedient to Scriptures… yet, they reject Christ’s Word when He States that the Bread is His Body and that the Wine is His Blood; not only that, but they reject the Apostolic Teaching on Christ’s Real Presence… St. Paul clearly states that it was through Christ’s Ordination that he Taught that the Bread and Wine are Jesus’ actual Body and Blood and that those who Receive them in an unworthy manner are sinning against the Body and Blood of Christ!

How can anyone sin against a symbol; how can sinning against a symbol be sinning against the Body of Christ?:

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, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 So then, 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 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink** without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves**. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world. 33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. 34 Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. (1 Corinthians 11:23-34)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[pablope]

Thanks to all for the helpful replies. Do you happen to have the YouTube URL handy?
I will try to look for it, otherwise.

I should be better prepared for our next discussion. Since she is my spouse and I love her dearly, I will do my best to present the case in as non-threatening way as possible . Sometimes I think the manner in which we present the message is just as important as what we are presenting, or else the person receiving it might focus on our tone more than the message itself, especially with a spouse or close friend or relative. Please pray for me.

Thanks again for the good suggestions and recommended readings.

Hi, Tommy…wow I am really surprised and you are defending the Eucharist…

Anyway…in discussions like this, I find it sometimes most effective to go to the roots of the belief.

Like in the communion of saints, I would cite what the Jews believed and how it was brought into the Church and practiced by the early Christians.

Anyway, for the Real Presence…here is a book recommendation…christianbook.com/jewish-roots-eucharist-unlocking-secrets-supper/brant-pitre/9780385531863/spd/531863?dv=%7Bdevice%7D&en=google&event=SHOP&kw=academic-0-20%7C531863&p=1179710&gclid=EAIaIQobChMItYSWiPeE1gIVCappCh2aVQTYEAQYASABEgK0yvD_BwE

And the youtube video of the author talking about this…youtube.com/watch?v=P45BHDRA7pU

Hope this helps…maybe you and your wife can watch it together.

 

[anon96423383]

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?

Jesus own disciples in Jn 6, said to Jesus face,

Jn 6:
61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?[a] 63 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. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

As Thomas Aquinas said

“to one who has faith no explanation is necessary, to one without faith no explanation is sufficient”

Not even God incarnate, could convince one who has no faith. He could force them to believe but He doesn’t do that to anyone. He gave us all free will. And we will be judged on how we used it.