Is the "Real Presence" real?

[justinthemartyr]

I would like to comment further to my last post above:

Christ Was Crucified "Without The Camp"

12. Without the camp. Exo 29:14, Heb 13:13 The whole bullock was carried without the camp and burned in a clean place, not merely to dispose of it, nor because it was considered unclean, for it is distinctly called “most holy” (ch. 6:25).

The book of Hebrews attaches a symbolic meaning to the burning of the victim without the camp. Says Paul, “Jesus also … suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach” (Heb. 13:12, 13).

The burning of the body without the camp was then a type (example) of Christ, crucified outside the city of Jerusalem, “that he might sanctify the people with his own blood” (Heb. 13:12).

Some have seen in this the further thought that He died not for the Jews only but for the world. No sacrificial use was made of the body even though it was considered most holy. As it was not burned on the altar, no redemptive value inhered in it. **It was therefore not the body **that counted in the atonement, for “it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Lev. 17:11).

However, it was not the blood as such that atoned, but the blood shed and applied. No atonement could have been effected in the sacrificial service by having an animal killed and the blood poured out on the ground. It was to be caught in a vessel, after which the priest ministered it by sprinkling and otherwise.

It was the sprinkled blood that effected atonement, not the unused portion of the blood later poured out on the ground (see on ch. 4:7). The atonement was made by the blood that was put on the horns of the altar, not by that which was poured out on the ground (Ex. 29:12; Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34).

One poster who thought to comment earlier on the Passover, and how it may relate to the Atonement, as a type, should consider with the rest of Catholics here that the “bread” or “flesh” was not ever the instrument of conferring grace unto the human race. Christ and Him crucified is the great central doctrine of Christianity. All other doctrines are invested with power and influence, according to their relation to this theme. To me; the Eucharist, in the Catholic Mass, in effect, mocks the heaven approved Christian Atonement of the Bible; by Christ’s blood, mystically changing it to Christ compacted into a loaf of bread as a way to get to the blood or “apply” the blood, which Christ Himself applies in the heavenly sanctuary to every suppliant who comes to The Father, through Him:

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Heaven will not forever tolerate humans who try to do what only Christ is appointed to do:

Heb 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
Heb 7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

There is no shedding of blood without first the wounding and striping of the body. Scripture says that we are healed by his wounds. It is both/and.

In the OT the shed blood was what made atonement for the sins of the people and the priest would offer up the sins of the people once a year. You must also remember that they ahd to EAT the flesh of the lamb they slayed or the the sacrifice was useless.

In the same way, but greater we must eat the flersha nd drink the blood of the spotless Lamb of God, who is God Himself.

 

[zagjames]

There are at least four takes on the Eucharist:

Transubstantiation
Consubstansiation
Sacramental Union
Memorialism

Only the last denies the real presence.

The last three deny in various degrees the fullness of the real presnense. The EO disagree with all 4 but still say that Christ is physically present in the Sacred Species. They just dont believe in delving into the mystery of the real presense. (But and EO council, a non-authoritative one, did side with transubstantiation)

 

[Jimmy_B]

There is no shedding of blood without first the wounding and striping of the body. Scripture says that we are healed by his wounds. It is both/and.

In the OT the shed blood was what made atonement for the sins of the people and the priest would offer up the sins of the people once a year. You must also remember that they ahd to EAT the flesh of the lamb they slayed or the the sacrifice was useless.

In the same way, but greater we must eat the flersha nd drink the blood of the spotless Lamb of God, who is God Himself.

Thank you brother, all great points…

Lord have Mercy, Christ have Mercy, Lord have Mercy.

O’ Lord, have mercy on me a sinner.

 

[Protestant101]

There is no shedding of blood without first the wounding and striping of the body. Scripture says that we are healed by his wounds. It is both/and.

In the OT the shed blood was what made atonement for the sins of the people and the priest would offer up the sins of the people once a year. You must also remember that they ahd to EAT the flesh of the lamb they slayed or the the sacrifice was useless.

In the same way, but greater we must eat the flersha nd drink the blood of the spotless Lamb of God, who is God Himself.

Perhaps you can quote for us the specific scripture text you are referring to? It would be interesting to discuss that point further.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Perhaps you can quote for us the specific scripture text you are referring to? It would be interesting to discuss that point further.

which specific part are you referring to? that will help me with which scripture you are seeking.
thanks.

 

[thirdn6]

I believe the real presence of our Lord Jesus in the Eucharist. Otherwise His sacrifice on the calvary is meaningless.

We Catholics also call it the Sacrifice of the Mass. For truly He is the Lamb of God, the Christ. The pure unblemished sacrificial lamb for the forgiveness of sins- our sins. A sacrifice in its strict sense is a material (unblemished animals in the OT- body and blood). Performed only by valid priests.

I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ died for my sins (also). I believe that He sacrificed His life for me (also) in the calvary. Flesh and Blood. Not spirit. And is re-represented always in the Catholic mass presided by a valid priest who acts in person of Christ, who is also the High Priest Himself forever.

The institution of the Eucharist in the Last Supper, realised in the calvary, is a commandment to commemorate him always. For it has always please the Father by the sacrifice of His only begotten Son.

Where there is no valid priest, there is no valid commemoration of this sacrifice. no valid eucharist, no life!

I also believe that those who will be raised with Jesus will have glorified body. both physically and spiritually. Glorified body in the sense that it no longer be corruptible- free from sin, free from death.

I hope that those who believe that we don’t a have physical body after the resurrection will have their own false teeth. It wouldn’t be noisy in hell when they start gnashing and grinding their teeth!

 

[Protestant101]

which specific part are you referring to? that will help me with which scripture you are seeking. thanks.

OK; I was wondering which scripture/s you are referring to by this paragraph taken from your post above which I quoted:

In the OT the shed blood was what made atonement for the sins of the people and the priest would offer up the sins of the people once a year. You must also remember that they ahd to EAT the flesh of the lamb they slayed or the the sacrifice was useless.

“the sacrifice was useless” is the part I am looking for scripture references in particular; but I would also like to see which verses you are referring to in the other points made in this exerpt from your post.

 

[c659smith]

The Catholic Mass is not only based on the “Last Supper” that Jesus had with his disciples, but is also influenced by a long history of special meals celebrated by ancient Jews and early Christians, both before, during, and after the lifetime of Jesus:

The first Passover meal of the Israelites in Egypt (Exod 12:1-28)

The annual Jewish Passover meals (Exod 12:43-51; Lev 23:4-14; Num 9:1-14; 28:16-25; Deut 16:1-8)

Jesus’ feeding of the 5000 in Galilee (Mark 6:30-44; Matt 14:13-21; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-14)

Jesus’ feeding of another crowd of 4000 people (Mark 8:1-10; Matt 15:32-39)

Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples (Mark 14:12-27; Matt 26:17-30; Luke 22:7-39; cf. 1 Cor 11:23-25)

The risen Jesus’ meal with two disciples at Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35)

The risen Jesus’ breakfast at the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-14)
Early Christians in Jerusalem share in the “Breaking of the Bread” (Acts 2:42-47)

Early Christians in Troas “break bread” with Paul (Acts 20:5-11)

Early Christians in Corinth celebrate the “Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor 10:16-17; 11:17-34)

 

[c659smith]

Ignatius roundly declares that . . . the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity. . . .

Hippolytus speaks of “the body and the blood” through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as “the Lord’s body.” The converted pagan, he remarks, “feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.” The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist “the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.” Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, “do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.” Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally (ibid., 197–98, 211–12).
Ignatius of Antioch

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh that suffered for our sins and that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

---

Justin Martyr

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it except one who believes our teaching to be true and has been washed in the washing that is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food that has been made into the Eucharist by the eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).*

 

[c659smith]

Irenaeus

If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood? (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh that is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

“Eat my flesh,” [Jesus] says, “and drink my blood.” The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

terturtullian

There is not a soul that can at all procure salvation except it believe while it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh that actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed. . . . The flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul may also be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Origen

Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way. . . . Now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: “My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” [John 6:56] (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Council of Nicaea I

It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters *, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the eucharistic sacrifice] should give the body of Christ to them that do offer [it] (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Hippolytus

“And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table” [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper * (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Cyprian of Carthage

He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, “Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul (ibid., 22:6, 9).**

 

[c659smith]

The last 3 threads posted shows Sacred Scripture, Sacred Teachings, and Sacred Traditions as a basis for the Real Presence.

Name me a person within the reformation that denied the Real Pesence who?

Once you get to that (who) please remember (whose) teaching you are basing your salvation on.

For I have shown you (who and what) Catholics are basing their salvation on.

I’ll stick with the Catholic Version–thank you.

One question I have here:

Do you not feel like something is something missing after your service in a protestant Church?

Does your heart yearn for and know that there is something missing?

The Holy Spirit with true faith should tell you that. (I could only imagine).

Please ask yourself who had the right, the special revelation, in your or anyone elses organization to deny scripture and what the early church, and it’s fathers had established?

Look at the scriptures and the teachings of the early Church fathers.
I can only ask you to follow your heart, mind, soul, and to have faith.

 

[mikew262]

I believe the real presence of our Lord Jesus in the Eucharist. Otherwise His sacrifice on the calvary is meaningless.

Why do you feel this way? The majority of Protestants do not believe in the real presence, yet have a full appreciation of Christ’s sacrifice and what it means.

 

[mathematician]

Why do you feel this way? The majority of Protestants do not believe in the real presence, yet have a full appreciation of Christ’s sacrifice and what it means.

I must admit that it slightly surprises me, but my impression is that the majority of Protestants do believe in the real presence; it is transubstantiation they won’t buy.

 

[japhy]

OK; I was wondering which scripture/s you are referring to by this paragraph taken from your post above which I quoted…

The sacrifice of Christ was prefigured by the numerous (constant) sacrifices of Israel, but especially the ram/lamb sacrificed by Abraham in place of Isaac (cf. Gen 22), the Yom Kippur sacrifices (cf. Lev 16), and Passover (cf. Ex 12-13).

God provided the true Lamb to be offered, in Jesus, as he provided a ram for Abraham in Isaac’s stead.

The blood of the bull and goat of the Yom Kippur sacrifice were sprinkled eight times (once on the front, seven times before it). Jesus, after manifesting his blood in the cup at the Last Supper, shed his blood on eight occasions: once, before his arrest (in Gethsemane as he sweat drops of blood), then seven times more (his scourging, the crown of thorns, his hands and feet (4), and the spear thrust into his side). The other goat of the Yom Kippur sacrifice had the weight of all the sins of Israel placed on it, and it was sent out into the wilderness: clearly Jesus had all the sins placed on him.

As for the Passover (where the eating comes into play), God makes it clear to Israel that not only is the slaying of the lamb and the smearing of its blood on their doorposts necessary, but also the eating of the lamb. One who failed to keep the Passover was cut off from Israel.

This is why calling Jesus the “Lamb of God” would have had a tremendous impact on a Jew who heard it.

 

[sambos671]

NDFAN,

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. 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. 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.

You seem very gnostic in your thinking. I can bridge many gnostics to your statements quoted here. Jesus’ physical resurection was real. He had a glorified body but body still. Our human nature will not cease to exist but will be as God intended it. We will not have corruptable bodies and I’m not sure of the entirety of it but we will still be human much beter than now. This is close to what people believe about us turning into angels. You make a good point about the gospel of John when considering it with what rabbi Haliel and other of Jesus’ contemporaries were saying about Torah. The stong relationship to the greek understanding of Logos lead many astray because the Greek Logos was a Demurge rather than equal with God. Don’t forget what Ignatius wrote to the Smynans or Justin Martyr wrote to the emperor. Or how Polycarp related Johns teaching to the church.

 

[japhy]

Jesus’ physical resurection was real. He had a glorified body but body still. Our human nature will not cease to exist but will be as God intended it. We will not have corruptable bodies and I’m not sure of the entirety of it but we will still be human much beter than now. This is close to what people believe about us turning into angels.

I think the important connection to make is that the tomb where Jesus was laid no longer had his body in it. If Jesus’s resurrected body no longer consisted of flesh and blood, why would it matter if his “old” body was in the tomb? The fact that his “old” body was no longer in the tomb points out a continuation of body: his resurrected body was his “old” body glorified.

 

[sambos671]

Thanks, I didn’t want to make it seem we’re talking about two bodies just an upgrade so to speak. I want to emphasise that we are not talking about becoming something else entirely just what we are ment to be.

 

[alice1rn]

On this past All Saints Day, I was at Mass at a different Church than I usually attend. I was intently watching Father prepare the Host to see if he did it differently then our Priest because this was the first time I had attended Mass at a different Parish. While he was holding up the wine I SAW it turn to blood. It wasn’t any trick of the light and as an ER nurse for 20 years I know what blood looks like all too well. It slowly went from light pink colored wine to a nice, deep red blood. Then slowly changed back again.

I don’t really understand why God chose to show this to me, but let me tell you one thing I know for sure. It’s the Real Presence alright.

 

[justinthemartyr]

OK; I was wondering which scripture/s you are referring to by this paragraph taken from your post above which I quoted:

“the sacrifice was useless” is the part I am looking for scripture references in particular; but I would also like to see which verses you are referring to in the other points made in this exerpt from your post.

Well, it looks as if the group has posted all the verses for me following our posts on the matter of verses you wanted. go ahead and read them.

 

[japhy]

While he was holding up the wine I SAW it turn to blood. It wasn’t any trick of the light and as an ER nurse for 20 years I know what blood looks like all too well. It slowly went from light pink colored wine to a nice, deep red blood. Then slowly changed back again. I don’t really understand why God chose to show this to me, but let me tell you one thing I know for sure. It’s the Real Presence alright.

If so, that is indeed quite a miracle you witnessed. It shows that God grants the Church the Real Presence of Jesus Christ even when Her priests use glass (or acrylic, etc.) for sacred vessels… How much more reason, then, to use something far more precious to hold the Precious Blood!