Is the "Real Presence" real?

[distracted]

end in abortion.

guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

in that statistic is the fact that some women may have as many as 2 - 5 or so of those abortions…

 

[justasking4]

Maybe so. Indeed there was a plethora of such sense perceptable evidence recorded in the New Testament. However, many changes take place that do not yield sense perceptable evidence that are also miraculous.

When Jesus holds up the bread and the wine, and says “this is my Body”, and “this is my Blood” we choose to take His word for it, whether it appears that way to us, or not. To us, there is no difference between those statements and God saying “let there be light”, etc. Although I did not witness the creation, I accept on faith that it did happen, because God said it. I love that little bumper sticker that says “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”. Such would be the case with the Body and the Blood.

The problem though is not belief but what did He mean. We believe all kinds of things that may not be true. We must first have a proper understanding of something before we can say we are justified in believing it to be true. Just because Jesus certain things does not mean we “just believe it” but do we understand correctly what He means by what He says.

 

[NeedImprovement]

in that statistic is the fact that some women may have as many as 2 - 5 or so of those abortions…

Luke 23: 28-29 [NAB]

28
Jesus turned to them and said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for yourselves and for your children,
29
for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.’

 

[distracted]

Hey - You 4% who don’t believe the Real Presence is real!!

What gives??

Why is it not real???

Please be “splainin”…

 

[NeedImprovement]

I fear you’re about to meet justasking4 (who incidentally has continued to make a very generous contribution to this thread…kinda helped keep it going).

 

[distracted]

I fear you’re about to meet justasking4 (who incidentally has continued to make a very generous contribution to this thread…kinda helped keep it going).

now i feel the need to say to YOU:

Please be splainin’

contribution how?? $??

 

[NeedImprovement]

now i feel the need to say to YOU:

Please be splainin’

contribution how?? $??

“Generous contribution” in terms of the number of posts. If we don’t have anyone posting, the thread doesn’t move really…no exchanges are made.

Did I splain myself clearly, or just 'bscure it more?

 

[AlegreFe]

To those of you who posted that when you receive Holy Communion you offer it up for all the innocent babies who are aborted, I’m with you.

I’m also very saddened to know that a lot of Catholics will be voting for someone who is not only for abortion but he is also against medical attention for any baby who survives a botched abortion from receiving medical treatment. I beg all Catholics out there to PLEASE don’t vote for this person. You will be just as guilty of this horrific crime as the doctors who are committing this crime.

Did you see Father Mitch today on Threshold of Hope? He gave it to that politician about his (politician) stance on abortion. If you missed it, the show will air again on EWTN tomorrow morning (Wednesday) at 10:00 AM EST/9:00 AM CT. Watch the show, it’s good and it’s right at the beginning of the show.

 

[AlegreFe]

Change my vote to - not sure

It’s a Yes or No poll. “Not sure” is not an option. What was your answer before?

 

[guanophore]

The problem though is not belief but what did He mean. We believe all kinds of things that may not be true. We must first have a proper understanding of something before we can say we are justified in believing it to be true. Just because Jesus certain things does not mean we “just believe it” but do we understand correctly what He means by what He says.

It is not a “problem” for those who have received the Apostolic Faith. We are quite clear that what He said is what He meant. We have clarity about this because this is the way those who were present understood Him, and this is what they taught to their successors, and they to us. It is this paradosis, or the handing down of the message of Truth in which we trust. Sola Scripturists are separated from this paradosis to a large extent. Reading the passages in a vaccuum without Sacred Tradition, there are all kinds of “meanings” that spring out from the text, many of them not related to what the writers meant.

There are many divine mysteries that are simply beyond human comprehension. The expectatoin that we “understand correctly what he says” is a bit of hubris, I think. I do not believe that it is possible for the human mind to grasp the spiritual reality of the Eucharist.

 

[Mickey]

It is not a “problem” for those who have received the Apostolic Faith.

**The Faith which I was taught by the Holy Fathers, which I taught at all times without adjusting according to the times, this Faith I will never stop teaching; I was born with it and I live by it. **
St. Gregory the Theologian

 

[Mary61]

Sorry Jimmy, just one more comment on the abortion issue, just because this is such a very important issue this election season. There is a story in the news that a baby actually did, by some miracle survive an abortion attempt but the doctors refused to give it medical attention and instead threw the baby into a dirty linen closet where a nurse found it and held it in her arms for 45 MINUETS before it died. One of the nominees for president (not naming any names, but if you do just a little investigating, I’m sure you’ll know who I’m talking about) he refused to sign a bill that would allow doctors to give such babies medical attention. PLEASE if you are a true CHRISTIAN, you CANNOT VOTE THIS PERSON INTO OFFICE. This would truly be an ABOMINATION.

(Sorry, back to the thread) YES I do believe in the real presence because Jesus said, “This IS MY BODY, this IS MY BLOOD” so I BELIEVE.

 

[guanophore]

“Generous contribution” in terms of the number of posts. If we don’t have anyone posting, the thread doesn’t move really…no exchanges are made.

Unfortunately those kinds of postings, however large in number, can not be characterized as generous in any way. Furthermore, they don’t move anything forward, but lend themselves to cul de sacs.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Originally Posted by NeedImprovement
“Generous contribution” in terms of the number of posts. If we don’t have anyone posting, the thread doesn’t move really…no exchanges are made.

Unfortunately those kinds of postings, however large in number, can not be characterized as generous in any way. Furthermore, they don’t move anything forward, but lend themselves to cul de sacs.

                               :confused:

Even the American Heritage Dictionary (which is never my first choice of dictionary) would seem to indicate otherwise guanophore. Here are the five interpreted senses of the word generous they list :

1. Liberal in giving or sharing. See Synonyms at liberal.
2. Characterized by nobility and forbearance in thought or behavior; magnanimous.
3. Marked by abundance; ample: a generous slice of cake.
4. Having a rich bouquet and flavor: a generous wine.
5. Obsolete Of noble lineage.

I meant it in the third sense. He posts a lot here; there was no allusion as to the quality or type of posts…simply quantity.

It is correct usage of the word in the third sense.

 

[distracted]

“Generous contribution” in terms of the number of posts. If we don’t have anyone posting, the thread doesn’t move really…no exchanges are made.

Did I splain myself clearly, or just 'bscure it more?

no, you splained pretty good…

can you sum up what contribution s/he made… or are you going to make me go back and read everything?? :banghead:

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4080198]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The problem though is not belief but what did He mean. We believe all kinds of things that may not be true. We must first have a proper understanding of something before we can say we are justified in believing it to be true. Just because Jesus certain things does not mean we “just believe it” but do we understand correctly what He means by what He says.

guanophore
It is not a “problem” for those who have received the Apostolic Faith. We are quite clear that what He said is what He meant.

Just because you claim some kind of Apostolic faith does not mean you have understanding.

We have clarity about this because this is the way those who were present understood Him, and this is what they taught to their successors, and they to us.

Think about what you are claiming here. Not even His own disciples at the time of His ministry understood Him. Certainly in John 6 do we see the diciples truly grasping what He just taught them and the people.

It is this paradosis, or the handing down of the message of Truth in which we trust. Sola Scripturists are separated from this paradosis to a large extent. Reading the passages in a vaccuum without Sacred Tradition, there are all kinds of “meanings” that spring out from the text, many of them not related to what the writers meant.

What “Sacred Tradition” are you referring to here?

There are many divine mysteries that are simply beyond human comprehension. The expectatoin that we “understand correctly what he says” is a bit of hubris, I think. I do not believe that it is possible for the human mind to grasp the spiritual reality of the Eucharist.

 

[Lilyflower]

Not sure why anyone would doubt? The early Church Fathers believed in the Real Presence as did their disciples

Am I real? Yet I believe it is more real than I am!

 

[Lilyflower]

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

So how is it that I can discern the Real Presence without knowing whether a Church is Catholic or Protestant. Whether the Sacrament is reserved or not without being able to see the confirmation of a Sanctuary lamp. On seeing a Sanctuary Lamp confirm no Real Presence before discovering there is no Tabernacle.

I have genuinely confused a Protestant Church with a Catholic one and become very sad there was no Real Presence reserved therein.

Blessings and peace.

 

[Matariel]

Originally Posted by NDfan :
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.

But Jesus said, “A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.”

Jesus was physically ressurected, and He has a physical body! That is orthodox Christian belief! The bodily ressurection!

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.

St.Paul and the Fathers say otherwise.

And yet

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…

This is what the Catholic Church teaches. Jesus uses the presbyter, but it is His actions, not the priest’s!

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.

Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of the apostle John):
“**Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains ***. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Be ye** careful therefore to observe one Eucharist *(for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God.

 

[guanophore]

Just because you claim some kind of Apostolic faith does not mean you have understanding.

This is absolutely true for me. I have decided to take the route of the Beroans:

“That very night the believers sent Paul and Silas off to Beroea; and when they arrived, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 These Jews were more receptive than those in Thessalonica, for they welcomed the message very eagerly and examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed, including not a few Greek women and men of high standing.” Acts 17:10-12

I have chose a receptive attitude, and welcome the message eagerly. When I read the Scriptures, I do so in the light of the Apostolic teaching. Wehn I do this, I find my faith strengthened. However, I cannot say that I “understand” the Real Presence. There are few things in life that seem to defy my cognition more…

Think about what you are claiming here. Not even His own disciples at the time of His ministry understood Him. Certainly in John 6 do we see the diciples truly grasping what He just taught them and the people.

I really do think that His own disciples did not understand. The difference between them and the unbelieving Jews is that they knew that Jesus had “the words of eternal life”. They accepted what He said by faith, even though it defied their understanding. Even when he showed them the meaning of His words at the last supper, I am still not sure they fully understood. However, for one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. For one who has not, no explanation will suffice.

What “Sacred Tradition” are you referring to here?

Those that you have already stated are “false teachings” and “speculations of men”.

… your church makes these great claims based on Sacred Traditions …

… i don’t see the evidence for the claim. Its like trying to nail jello to the wall.

I’m beginning to think that such a thing (Sacred Tradition) really doesn’t exist and is something that is introduced in the discussion that has no real substance. I don’t see how it tells catholics anything.

i know catholics accept these things as true. However due to the nature of these sacred traditons and the claims made in regard to them, they really don’t support what the apostles taught. Your church goes far beyond what the apostles taught with so many of its doctrines.

I’m interested because the truth matters. If what the catholic church teaches is true, then there must be evidence for it. If you want to claim the sacred traditions support your beliefs then i would think you would want to know the foundation of these traditions i.e. who taught it, when and on what scriptural basis are they using to support the claim. **This is the only way to avoid being deceived by false teachers which the scriptures warned would come into the church itself. Sadly i see catholics unwilling or fearful to hold their church accountable. **

The Catholic church is not a “bible based” Church, but our Teachings are based on Christ Himself. We do not draw our doctrine from the NT, because the NT was produced from the doctrine. When John 6 was written, it was done by a Church that had been practicing and living the real presence in the eucharist for almost 60 years. This is why we interpret it as we do, because of what the Apostles believed, practiced, and handed down to us. We believe that Jesus meant what He said when He promised that the Spirit would lead us into all truth. We trust in Him, that is why we are not concerned about “false teachers”.