Do I understand what the "Real Presence" is

  • Thread starter Thread starter AmateurPianist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AmateurPianist

Guest
Want to make sure I understand it ok. I am not looking for one organization’s understanding of it…instead an understanding that encompasses all who say they believe in it.

Here is the wikipedia definition
Real Presence is a term used in various Christian traditions to express belief that in the Eucharist, Jesus Christ is really present in what was previously just bread and wine, and not merely present in symbol, a figure of speech (metaphorically), or by his power (dynamically).
Click to expand...
To me that is not a good definition because it defines the term by the term.

This would be my understanding of it:
In some sense when Jesus said “This is my body … this is my blood” He meant exactly what He said and it goes beyond “This represents my body … this represents my blood”.
Click to expand...
Am I understating this, or is this a good understanding that is broad enough to include everybody’s understanding of it.

I am not sure this is a good understanding but it is the best I can come up with,

Here is the wiki for reference I use
 
AmateurPianist said:
Want to make sure I understand it ok. I am not looking for one organization’s understanding of it…instead an understanding that encompasses all who say they believe in it.

Here is the wikipedia definition

To me that is not a good definition because it defines the term by the term.

This would be my understanding of it:

Am I misunderstating it, or is this a good understanding that is broad enough to include everybody.

I am not sure this is a good understanding but it is the best I can come up with,

Here is the wiki for reference I use
Click to expand...
Don’t over think it. He holds bread and says this is my body and he raises the cup of wine and says this is my blood of the new covenant. It is what he says it is. Nothing more and nothing less.
 
kylemccloughan said:
Don’t over think it. He holds bread and says this is my body and he raises the cup of wine and says this is my blood of the new covenant. It is what he says it is. Nothing more and nothing less.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

So is this what you are saying is "If you are willing to take Jesus at His word that He meant the word “is” (which is not the word “represents”) then you believe in the Real Presence.

Is this correct?
 
AmateurPianist,

I think you are going about this backwards. I would try to find out what the various individual beliefs of different Churches, etc. that claim belief in the Real Presence are, which will then lead to an accurate understanding of what the term means.

The term itself is vague and covers a wide variety of beliefs and attitudes towards the Eucharist. Only by understanding the diverse actual beliefs of the people who use the term can one have a solid grasp of the subject.

In the Catholic Church, we believe that upon the priest’s words “this is my body” and “this is the cup of my blood,” God transubstantiates (changes the fundamental, substantial identity) of the bread and wine into the risen Christ in all His physical and spiritual reality, while retaining the accidental attributes of the bread and wine.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
AmateurPianist,

I think you are going about this backwards. I would try to find out what the various individual beliefs of different Churches, etc. that claim belief in the Real Presence are, which will then lead to an accurate understanding of what the term means.

The term itself is vague and covers a wide variety of beliefs and attitudes towards the Eucharist. Only by understanding the diverse actual beliefs of the people who use the term can one have a solid grasp of the subject.

In the Catholic Church, we believe that upon the priest’s words “this is my body” and “this is the cup of my blood,” God transubstantiates (changes the fundamental, substantial identity) of the bread and wine into the risen Christ in all His physical and spiritual reality, while retaining the accidental attributes of the bread and wine.
Click to expand...
So if I do this…

This wiki lists 5 different definitions of Real Presence of those who believe in it and one definition of those who do not believe in it. Any definition must be broad enough to include all five (at least).

It is almost easier for me to understand it in terms of what it is not. If one believes the Zwingli view…that it is just “represents” and anything more than this is false, then one does not believe in the Real Presence.
 
Lemme phrase the question this way…

When I was a young 'un in college.

There was an elderly couple that I loved to pieces in my Pentecostal/Charismatic church.

One day they took a bunch of us young 'uns aside and did some ad-hoc Bible teaching from the pew. They turned to the passage where Jesus observed the first communion with His disciples. Their commentary as I remember it…
  • Jesus said this is my body/blood not this represents my body/blood.
  • Jesus meant what He said.
This elderly couple were of Baptist background btw.

That has stuck with me all these years. I remember two reactions I had to it
  • This is odd…it seems almost … … … Catholic …
  • It makes a whole lot of sense
So was this elderly couple teaching a form of the Real Presence. It seems to me they were.🙂
 
kylemccloughan said:
Don’t over think it. He holds bread and says this is my body and he raises the cup of wine and says this is my blood of the new covenant. It is what he says it is. Nothing more and nothing less.
Click to expand...
Not only is the bread and wine the true body and blood, but the whole communion experience is a chance to increase one’s faith, which I think is an overlooked opportunity.

In a secular, worldly, scientific sense, it makes no sense and seems impossible, looks and tastes like bread and wine should taste. There is nothing in this fallen world that suggests the elements are really the flesh and blood of Christ, which makes us need to ignore worldly (name removed by moderator)ut.

Instead we end up using faith in the power of God and the words of Christ. We believe against what the senses tell us which is what God wants us to do and which serves as a faith-strengthening experience…in my case at least.

My question would be am I alone in this opinion?

And was Communion intended by God to serve not only as genuine partaking of Christs presence, but also as an experience which will strengthen our faith against what our carnal senses would tell us?

After all, if we can get past our carnal senses, doesn’t that leave more of our attention for our spiritual God, and isn’t that very similar to partaking of His presence like we do in communion anyway?
 
Real Presence is a vague umbrella term used to allow people with different detailed understandings to have at least a more broad term which neither objects to.

Catholics believe that at the consecration, the bread is transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. I have a little story that helps to understand this.

Say I steal the Mona Lisa. I then use alien replicating technology (sci fi geek) to create a PERFECT and exact copy of it down to the molecular level. Are there now TWO Mona Lisa’s in the world? Of course not. Only one of them IS the Mona Lisa, regardless of how identical they may be. Now say I deface the actual Mona Lisa with Sharpie marker to give her a mustache and goatee. Does it stop being the Mona Lisa because it’s physical characteristics no longer match the historic descriptions? Again no, it still IS the Mona Lisa, just defaced.

Hopefully the above helps you understand a little bit of what “substance” is all about. When the host is consecrated, the SUBSTANCE changes. It no longer IS bread. At its most basic level, it has become the body and blood of Christ. What it looks like or tests out as under a microscope is irrelevant. What my alien replicator cannot do, Christ can and does do at communion. He changes the very basis of what the host IS from mere bread into his own flesh for us to eat, same way God’s people have always partaken of the flesh of the sacrificial lamb.
 
babylonsfalling said:
Not only is the bread and wine the true body and blood, but the whole communion experience is a chance to increase one’s faith, which I think is an overlooked opportunity.

In a secular, worldly, scientific sense, it makes no sense and seems impossible, looks and tastes like bread and wine should taste. There is nothing in this fallen world that suggests the elements are really the flesh and blood of Christ, which makes us need to ignore worldly (name removed by moderator)ut.

Instead we end up using faith in the power of God and the words of Christ. We believe against what the senses tell us which is what God wants us to do and which serves as a faith-strengthening experience…in my case at least.

My question would be am I alone in this opinion?

And was Communion intended by God to serve not only as genuine partaking of Christs presence, but also as an experience which will strengthen our faith against what our carnal senses would tell us?

After all, if we can get past our carnal senses, doesn’t that leave more of our attention for our spiritual God, and isn’t that very similar to partaking of His presence like we do in communion anyway?
Click to expand...
Well again, it is what Jesus says it is. And we are to do it for the rememberance of him.
 
manualman said:
Real Presence is a vague umbrella term used to allow people with different detailed understandings to have at least a more broad term which neither objects to.

Catholics believe that at the consecration, the bread is transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. I have a little story that helps to understand this.

Say I steal the Mona Lisa. I then use alien replicating technology (sci fi geek) to create a PERFECT and exact copy of it down to the molecular level. Are there now TWO Mona Lisa’s in the world? Of course not. Only one of them IS the Mona Lisa, regardless of how identical they may be. Now say I deface the actual Mona Lisa with Sharpie marker to give her a mustache and goatee. Does it stop being the Mona Lisa because it’s physical characteristics no longer match the historic descriptions? Again no, it still IS the Mona Lisa, just defaced.

Hopefully the above helps you understand a little bit of what “substance” is all about. When the host is consecrated, the SUBSTANCE changes. It no longer IS bread. At its most basic level, it has become the body and blood of Christ. What it looks like or tests out as under a microscope is irrelevant. What my alien replicator cannot do, Christ can and does do at communion. He changes the very basis of what the host IS from mere bread into his own flesh for us to eat, same way God’s people have always partaken of the flesh of the sacrificial lamb.
Click to expand...
Ah, I get it…a generic term. Of course.

Since I did not start this thread to debate different understandings of the Real Presence I will leave it at that.
 
Sorry if I derailed your intended discussion.

Back on track, the “Real Presence” terminology that encompases both consubstantiation (bread AND Jesus are there side by side) and transubstantiation (it isn’t bread anymore, it’s Jesus). Both views are forms of a “Real Presence” belief even though they are mutually contradictory.
 
kylemccloughan said:
Don’t over think it. He holds bread and says this is my body and he raises the cup of wine and says this is my blood of the new covenant. It is what he says it is. Nothing more and nothing less.
Click to expand...
Not to negate you, as I think you and I are of the same mind from what I gathered from other threads, but I wouldn’t put it past Jesus, who often spoke in parables, to throw out a metaphor on occasion.

Just playing devil’s advocate…

Yet, if there is no real presence, I can’t imagine why Christ would bother to tell people to do it, unless he was a proponent of carbo-loading and a heart-healthy glass of red wine. 😉
 
AmateurPianist said:
Ah, I get it…a generic term. Of course.

Since I did not start this thread to debate different understandings of the Real Presence I will leave it at that.
Click to expand...
There is only one “understanding” of the real presence and its catholic. Period
 
Conor7 said:
Not to negate you, as I think you and I are of the same mind from what I gathered from other threads, but I wouldn’t put it past Jesus, who often spoke in parables, to throw out a metaphor on occasion.

Just playing devil’s advocate…

Yet, if there is no real presence, I can’t imagine why Christ would bother to tell people to do it, unless he was a proponent of carbo-loading and a heart-healthy glass of red wine. 😉
Click to expand...
It is no metaphor
 
Conor7 said:
Not to negate you, as I think you and I are of the same mind from what I gathered from other threads, but I wouldn’t put it past Jesus, who often spoke in parables, to throw out a metaphor on occasion.

Just playing devil’s advocate…

Yet, if there is no real presence, I can’t imagine why Christ would bother to tell people to do it, unless he was a proponent of carbo-loading and a heart-healthy glass of red wine. 😉
Click to expand...
ha ha, I love it. :clapping:
 
ignatius777 said:
There is only one “understanding” of the real presence and its catholic. Period
Click to expand...
Then the Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and others who say they believe in the Real Presence really don’t I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top