Is the "Real Presence" real?

[Jimmy_B]

Is the “Real Presence” real?

I believe that it is real, that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist (Holy Communion) and not merely present “symbolically”.

A belief in the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is supported Biblically.

Many “Protestants” and non-Catholic Christians who reject the Eucharist as the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ, don’t have a problem with the Christian concept that God is both omnipresent and omnipotent, except that is, when it comes to the Eucharist.

Many will accept for example, the belief that God created the Universe, or that God can manifest himself as a “burning bush”, or that the Resurrection occurred, but they do not believe that Jesus can be present in the Holy Eucharist. Where in the Bible, does it say He can’t?

This seems to be a contradiction in beliefs.

Is the “Real Presence” real?

Your Thoughts?

 

[mathematician]

Is the “Real Presence” real?

I believe that it is real, that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist (Holy Communion) and not merely present “symbolically”.

A belief in the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is supported Biblically.

Many “Protestants” and non-Catholic Christians who reject the Eucharist as the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ, don’t have a problem with the Christian concept that God is both omnipresent and omnipotent, except that is, when it comes to the Eucharist.

Many will accept for example, the belief that God created the Universe, or that God can manifest himself as a “burning bush”, or that the Resurrection occurred, but they do not believe that Jesus can be present in the Holy Eucharist. Where in the Bible, does it say He can’t?

This seems to be a contradiction in beliefs.

Is the “Real Presence” real?

Your Thoughts?

There are at least four takes on the Eucharist:

Transubstantiation
Consubstansiation
Sacramental Union
Memorialism

Only the last denies the real presence.

 

[Jimmy_B]

There are at least four takes on the Eucharist:

Transubstantiation
Consubstansiation
Sacramental Union
Memorialism

Only the last denies the real presence.

You mean the last three, right?

 

[Mickey]

Is the “Real Presence” real?

Yes.
“This is my Body…this **is **my Blood”.

 

[reteeks21]

You mean the last three, right?

No, just the very last one. The others just do not think metaphysics is involved in it.

 

[patg]

It is real in the domain of faith and belief.

 

[NDfan]

Is the “Real Presence” real?

I believe that it is real, that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist (Holy Communion) and not merely present “symbolically”.

A belief in the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is supported Biblically.

Many “Protestants” and non-Catholic Christians who reject the Eucharist as the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ, don’t have a problem with the Christian concept that God is both omnipresent and omnipotent, except that is, when it comes to the Eucharist.

Many will accept for example, the belief that God created the Universe, or that God can manifest himself as a “burning bush”, or that the Resurrection occurred, but they do not believe that Jesus can be present in the Holy Eucharist. Where in the Bible, does it say He can’t?

This seems to be a contradiction in beliefs.

Is the “Real Presence” real?

Your Thoughts?

I believe in a spiritual presence. I don’t believe we are eating bones and nerves etc. and drinking actual blood because it’s forbidden in Leviticus. Jesus is a spiritual being now just like when we will receive our spiritual bodies. I certainly would never deny that GOD can do anything. I just don’t believe that’s how Jesus meant it. The Didache supports this calling it spiritual nutrition.

If Jesus is present in the Eucharist, it’s not because of something the Priest does. That’s not supported scripturally. I believe Jesus makes HIMSELF present to those who have true Faith. I don’t receive communion in a Roman Catholic church and all I can say is the spiritual strength I receive by observing this most blessed sacrament is incredible. You’ll never convince me I’m receiving an invalid host.

PEACE

 

[justinthemartyr]

I believe in a spiritual presence. I don’t believe we are eating bones and nerves etc. and drinking actual blood because it’s forbidden in Leviticus. Jesus is a spiritual being now just like when we will receive our spiritual bodies. I certainly would never deny that GOD can do anything. I just don’t believe that’s how Jesus meant it. The Didache supports this calling it spiritual nutrition.

If Jesus is present in the Eucharist, it’s not because of something the Priest does. That’s not supported scripturally. I believe Jesus makes HIMSELF present to those who have true Faith. I don’t receive communion in a Roman Catholic church and all I can say is the spiritual strength I receive by observing this most blessed sacrament is incredible. You’ll never convince me I’m receiving an invalid host.

PEACE

the Didache is correct in saying that we receive 'spiritual nutrition", yet this in no way lessens the validity of Christ being truly present(body, blood, soul and divinity) in the Eucharist. No where does scripture support a merely “spiritual symbolic presence”, for that would be symbolic of the Body of Christ. Christ has a glorified body, with flesh and blood, as He proved to Thomas.

Christ said specifically that you must eat His flesh and drink His blood for eternal life, and that His flesh is true food and His blood true drink. when challenged he restated his position more clearly and even more literally several times, and his disciples walked away because they could not hear this teaching.
“how can a man give us his flesh to eat”, they said.

There is nothing whatsoever symbolic about it. And when did something “spiritual” cease to be “physical”. It did not.
Being of the spirit and being of the flesh is an entirely different matter. This is speaking of the difference between being fleshly minded and spiritually minded, of God or not of God.
It has nothing to do with whether or not the Eucharist is truly the glorified flesh and blood of Christ.

The church never stated we are eating the literal flesh of christ with nerves and such, for God knows that would not be palitable for a human being. Although the Eucharist has visibly changed to the actual flesh and actual blood with a blood type of AB on several occasions throughout history.

All sign s and wonders of the OT have more perfect Nt types which fulfill them. The manna in the desert is the Ot type of the Nt Eucharist. In what way would a symbolic presence in the Eucharist more perfectly fulfil the miracle of the manna, which fed thousands for 40 years in the desert, right on time, 6 days a week? Only the True Presence of Christ would.

Besides, scripture crushes the idea of a symbolic presence, for anywhere the merely symbolic “eating flesh” is used in scripture, it means to persecuite or destroy the person. how can we have eternal life by persecuting and destroying christ? that would be rediculous.

 

[mathematician]

No where does scripture support a merely “spiritual symbolic presence”, for that would be symbolic of the Body of Christ.

Notice the way in which spiritual is equated with symbolic. We live in a truly materialistic age, don’t we?

 

[NDfan]

the Didache is correct in saying that we receive 'spiritual nutrition", yet this in no way lessens the validity of Christ being truly present(body, blood, soul and divinity) in the Eucharist. No where does scripture support a merely “spiritual symbolic presence”, for that would be symbolic of the Body of Christ. Christ has a glorified body, with flesh and blood, as He proved to Thomas.

This was to prove to Thomas that HE was the same person that was on the cross. Remember Thomas said I will not believe unless I can put my fingers in HIS wounds. So Jesus obliged him. HIS glorified body is a spiritual body now, not a physical earthly body. 1 Corinthians 15 makes that very clear.

Scripture does not support a true presence of flesh bones, nerves, and blood. We can debate this all day but I can assure you it will go nowhere. If Jesus is present in anyway it’s not because of a Priest. This was not how the early churches celebrated the Eucharist.

Christ said specifically that you must eat His flesh and drink His blood for eternal life, and that His flesh is true food and His blood true drink. when challenged he restated his position more clearly and even more literally several times, and his disciples walked away because they could not hear this teaching.
“how can a man give us his flesh to eat”, they said.

You’re confusing John 6 with the Lord’s supper and there is no connection there at all. Jesus was using the analogy of eating flesh and blood to believing in HIM. Jesus also later clarifies that it is the SPIRIT that gives life, the flesh means nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. In response to Jesus question, Peter said where we shall we go, you have the words of eternal life and we BELIEVE. If you feed on GOD’s word do you eat the Bible or do you read it?? Jesus also tells us to chop our hands off and gouge our eyes out so only those parts go to hell sparing the rest of the body. Somehow we know the message here is figurative like so many teachings of this nature, yet you want to make this giant leap that Jesus was speaking literally when it comes to this teaching. Again we’ll waste our time disagreeing.

There is nothing whatsoever symbolic about it. And when did something “spiritual” cease to be “physical”. It did not.

So you agree with me then that it is spiritual??

Being of the spirit and being of the flesh is an entirely different matter. This is speaking of the difference between being fleshly minded and spiritually minded, of God or not of God.
It has nothing to do with whether or not the Eucharist is truly the glorified flesh and blood of Christ.

It has everything to do with it. Jesus body is not an earthly fleshy body as stated in 1 Corinthians 15. It’s a spiritual body. So the physical presence is spiritual. Maybe we’re saying the same thing a different way.

The church never stated we are eating the literal flesh of christ with nerves and such, for God knows that would not be palitable for a human being. Although the Eucharist has visibly changed to the actual flesh and actual blood with a blood type of AB on several occasions throughout history.

No that’s not true. This is exactly what the Roman Catholic church states we are doing. The terms bones and nerves are used. If I’m wrong then please show me the wording of the catechism. Again maybe we’re arguing over nothing and saying the same thing.

All sign s and wonders of the OT have more perfect Nt types which fulfill them. The manna in the desert is the Ot type of the Nt Eucharist. In what way would a symbolic presence in the Eucharist more perfectly fulfil the miracle of the manna, which fed thousands for 40 years in the desert, right on time, 6 days a week? Only the True Presence of Christ would.

But as Christ stated he is not the same bread as the manna they ate in the desert. They still died by eating the manna in the desert. Jesus says he is the bread of eternal life. He’s trying to get them out of this focus they have on a physical nature and into spiritual thinking. How do we get eternal life? Do we eat Jesus or do we believe in HIM? We believe in HIM. Partaking in the Lord’s supper is our obedience to our Faith. It’s that spiritual nutrition we need.

Besides, scripture crushes the idea of a symbolic presence, for anywhere the merely symbolic “eating flesh” is used in scripture, it means to persecuite or destroy the person. how can we have eternal life by persecuting and destroying christ? that would be rediculous.

Show me an example where scripture “crushes” as you say this notion. You’re mixing apples and oranges. The bread and wine are the elements Jesus is using to represent HIS body and blood. So when we see the bread and wine we see Jesus body and blood. Again it’s spiritual nutrition that comes from obeying our Faith.

 

[Mickey]

If you feed on GOD’s word do you eat the Bible or do you read it??

Jesus Christ is the **Word **made flesh.

It has everything to do with it. Jesus body is not an earthly fleshy body as stated in 1 Corinthians 15. It’s a spiritual body.

Are you saying that Jesus Christ was not human?

Partaking in the Lord’s supper is our obedience to our Faith. It’s that spiritual nutrition we need.

Your symbloic interpretation was not known to the whole of Chritianity for more than 1500 years. I believe it was Zwingli who made it popular.

 

[NDfan]

Jesus Christ is the **Word **made flesh.

Using the term logos for Jesus is a strict philosophical description. Or are you saying that Jesus was a word and then became flesh.

Are you saying that Jesus Christ was not human?

If you read my post you’ll notice what I was referring to. Jesus resurrected body is not an earthly physical body. Read 1 Corinthians 15 and try not to twist my words

Your symbloic interpretation was not known to the whole of Chritianity for more than 1500 years. I believe it was Zwingli who made it popular.

I never said it was purely symbolic. I said the presence was a spiritual presence. The elements Jesus chose to use to represent HIS body and blood were bread and wine. The presence he partakes in that bread and wine are purely spiritual and not one of real bones and nerves and real blood. HIS fleshly existence is no more just as our fleshly existence will be no more once we die and are recurrected.

Do you believe you are eating a piece of physical flesh, bone, nerve, etc. etc. when you eat the host? Are you drinking pure physical blood when you drink from the cup? If you drink from the cup since many Roman Catholic churches don’t offer the cup.

If you say yes then you are contradicting what other Roman Catholics are saying. If you say no then we are saying the same thing and arguing for nothing:shrug:

 

[JimG]

Yes, I believe that in the Eucharist we receive the actual entire Jesus–body and soul, human and divine. He did not transform into a purely spiritual body upon his resurrection, even though he had bodily powers that transcend the normal–the ability to move instantaneously from place to place, to more through walls, etc.

Keep in mind that we do not believe that we can subject Jesus to cannibilism by consuming the Eucharist. When we chew up the host or drink from the chalice, we affect only the outward appearances of bread or wine, under which is the totality of Jesus. Jesus always remains whole and entire in the Eucharistic species, no matter what is done to it.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I believe in a spiritual presence. I don’t believe we are eating bones and nerves etc. and drinking actual blood because it’s forbidden in Leviticus. Jesus is a spiritual being now just like when we will receive our spiritual bodies. I certainly would never deny that GOD can do anything. I just don’t believe that’s how Jesus meant it. The Didache supports this calling it spiritual nutrition.

If Jesus is present in the Eucharist, it’s not because of something the Priest does. That’s not supported scripturally. I believe Jesus makes HIMSELF present to those who have true Faith. I don’t receive communion in a Roman Catholic church and all I can say is the spiritual strength I receive by observing this most blessed sacrament is incredible. You’ll never convince me I’m receiving an invalid host.

PEACE

Well, at least we have one thing in common, you’re a Norte Dame fan!

I will try to address your post in more detail, at a later time…can’t do it now.

Take Care

 

[Mickey]

Or are you saying that Jesus was a word and then became flesh

The Word made flesh. See the Gospel of St John.

Jesus resurrected body is not an earthly physical body.

Are you saying He was some type of ghost!

Do you believe you are eating a piece of physical flesh, bone, nerve, etc. etc. when you eat the host? Are you drinking pure physical blood when you drink from the cup?

Jesus Christ tells me “this is my Body…this is my blood” and I believe Him.

If you drink from the cup since many Roman Catholic churches don’t offer the cup.

I am Eastern Orthodox. We always partake of the Precious Body **and **Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

[NDfan]

Yes, I believe that in the Eucharist we receive the actual entire Jesus–body and soul, human and divine. He did not transform into a purely spiritual body upon his resurrection, even though he had bodily powers that transcend the normal–the ability to move instantaneously from place to place, to more through walls, etc.

Yes Jesus did transform into a pure spiritual body. 1 Corinthians 15 states that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. That the resurrected body is a spiritual body. Paul says Jesus is the last Adam and became a life giving spirit. What other type of body are you trying to suggest HE has?

Keep in mind that we do not believe that we can subject Jesus to cannibilism by consuming the Eucharist. When we chew up the host or drink from the chalice, we affect only the outward appearances of bread or wine, under which is the totality of Jesus. Jesus always remains whole and entire in the Eucharistic species, no matter what is done to it.

If you are claiming that we cannot chew up Jesus in the Eucharist and that he remains whole; then I would submit that this again referes to a spiritual existence. What happens to the pieces as they are chewed? Does Jesus exist wholly in every single piece? If so again then that is spiritual. You can’t claim a pure physical presence that doesn’t get broken down or separated when you are chewing it and say it is not spiritual.

 

[NDfan]

The Word made flesh. See the Gospel of St John.

I have seen the Gospel of John. Have you?? Again the use of the term Logos is a pure philosophical way of describing Jesus. John doesn’t mean that Jesus is a physical word.

Are you saying He was some type of ghost!

No I’m saying that HIS body was a spiritual body. That’s why when someone went to touch HIM Jesus said don’t touch me as I have not yet been received by my Father.

Jesus Christ tells me “this is my Body…this is my blood” and I believe Him.
I am Eastern Orthodox. We always partake of the Precious Body **and **Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Yes I believe HIM as well. So when I look at the bread and wine I don’t see ordinary bread and wine. I see Jesus body and blood. But I don’t believe I am eating a physical piece of HIS earthly flesh and drinking some of HIS earthly blood. Again HIS resurrected body is a spiritual body. Not a ghost. The problem is your trying to describe Jesus as HE existed in this world. Remember he had a divine and a human nature merged into one. When HE was resurrected, HIS human nature ceased to exist. Just as our human nature will cease to exist. Please see 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[justinthemartyr]

This was to prove to Thomas that HE was the same person that was on the cross. Remember Thomas said I will not believe unless I can put my fingers in HIS wounds. So Jesus obliged him. HIS glorified body is a spiritual body now, not a physical earthly body. 1 Corinthians 15 makes that very clear.

RESPOBNSE:
Again, the spiritual is not seperate from the physical, therefore the glorified body and blood of Jesus is not some invisible thing that we cannot see or touch. You are somehow saying that it is. The early christians said that the eucharist is the same felsh and blood that died on the cross. I would say that is pretty literal and truly present, not just an invisible presence.

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

RESPONSE
sure!

ps 14:4
Is 9:18-20
Is 49:26
Mic 3:3
2 sam 23:15-17
Rev 17:6, 16

these are all examples of someone 'eating the flesh" in symbolic ways and not literallly. it means to persecute or assault the person. that would mean that jesus would be telling us to persecute and assault him for eternal life in john 6:54

that would be rediculous.

i hope you read this carefully, as i am not going to explain these things again. you can grab a catechiosm and rea dthe aearly fathers for confirmation on what the church has always taught, until the invention of sola scriptura by Luther.

peace, justin
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[JimG]

Does Jesus exist wholly in every single piece?

Yes.

In the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, the bread is gone, the wine is gone, only the appearances remain. And under the appearances of each single piece of the Eucharist, Jesus remains whole and entire.

What do you mean by a “spiritual body?” The terms are contradictory. Spirit is not matter and does not occupy time or space. Bodies are material, and are extended in time and space.

Jesus has a glorified body. He has a spirit and a body combined. But a glorified body is not immaterial; it is still a material body.

We do not chew on the body of Jesus, we chew on the appearances of bread and wine, which are appearances only, not inhering in any substantial object. Beneath those appearances, Jesus remains whole and entire, body and blood, soul and divinity.

 

[Mickey]

I have seen the Gospel of John. Have you?? Again the use of the term Logos is a pure philosophical way of describing Jesus. John doesn’t mean that Jesus is a physical word.

The Word of God is the Word of God. The Logos. God the Son. The Word made flesh. It is theology. It is truth. Read St John AGAIN.

That’s why when someone went to touch HIM Jesus said don’t touch me as I have not yet been received by my Father.

Yet Christ has St Thomas touch His wounds so that he knows it is a real physical body–Jesus Christ the God-man risen from the dead.

IYes I believe HIM as well. So when I look at the bread and wine I don’t see ordinary bread and wine. I see Jesus body and blood. But I don’t believe I am eating a physical piece of HIS earthly flesh and drinking some of HIS earthly blood.

So you believe that it is His Body and Blood—but you do not believe it. :whacky:

Again HIS resurrected body is a spiritual body.

Paul indicates that the resurrection body will be new and “spiritual” (but still a physical body).

Please see 1 Corinthians 15.

I think you need to read 1 Cor 15 again.