Is the "Real Presence" real?

[SyCarl]

1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.171

I should note that Justin Martyr’s description would describe just as well any Protestant Communion service I have been to. It is really pretty generic.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Answer to Poll: Yes

I like the way Fr. Corapi expressed it in a talk I once heard. He said that when we take the Eucharist, we do not assimilate Jesus into ourselves, He assimilates us into Him.

 

[justinthemartyr]

I should note that Justin Martyr’s description would describe just as well any Protestant Communion service I have been to. It is really pretty generic.

This description outlines the basic points of the Catholic mass, as it was being celebrated during the second century and previous to this.

There was no such thing as a protestant service until the 16th century, and that was a mere mime of what the church had been doing for the previous 1500 years.

So sure, it does look a lot like the Catholic mas at some protestant churches, yet the lack of power in the succession of the priesthood christ ordained is what is missing and therefore the Eucharist is not present.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Just as our human nature will cease to exist. Please see 1 Corinthians 15.

Our SINFUL natures will no longer exist, but we will still have our human natures. Where on earth does Scripture say that Jesus gave up his Human Nature after the Resurrection? In the Bible Jesus describes himself as having “flesh and bones” and he eats boiled fish and honey comb. Jesus retains a human body in Heaven, and we will have human bodies and be human beings in Heaven.

 

[Mickey]

However if He is speaking literally in verse 53 He is contradicting this statement

He most certainly is not.

Believe and partake my friend. Believe and partake.

 

[Mickey]

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Again the use of the word logos is philosophical.

Again, Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh. That is why your “eat the Bible” analogy is meaningless.

Exactly. To prove that He was the risen Christ.

Amen.

No maybe it’s just above your understanding. When I look at the bread I see Jesus. When I look at the wine I see Jesus blood. I remember HIS sacrifice.

Again, you see His Body and you see His Blood but you do not beleive it is His Body and Blood.

 

[justinthemartyr]

JOHN 6 - all literal, never symbolic
There are five reasons that jesus was speaking literally and not symbolically about His real flesh and blood.

1. This discourse takes place just after the famous miracle of the fish and loaves. This miracle should really be called the
   “Multi-location” of the fish and loaves. The Apostles distribute five loaves of bread to a huge crowd. The VERY SAME FIVE LOAVES
   feed thousands of hungry people at the same time, filling twelve baskets with leftovers! This clearly prefigures the one body of Christ being really and truly present to millions of people , without being divided or diminished.
2. Jesus claims the 'superiority ’ of His flesh over the manna which God gave the people in the desert." I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die"(vs 48-50)jn 6 The miracle of the manna was enormous: Everyday several israelites received an omer(abouit two quarts) of manna per person. This amounts to several tons of manna raining down in the desert daily(except the sabbath) for FORTY YEARS! Jesus says He will perform an even greater miracle than the manna. But mere earthly, natural bread serving as a symbol of Christ would be inferior to the heavenly, supernatural manna. The bread Christ gives us mUST be MORE REAL and MORE MIRACULOUS than even the manna.
3. Everyone who heard Jesus understood him to be speaking LITERALLY of his body and blood. " how can he give us his flesh to eat"?, object the unbelieving jews(vs 52) “this saying is too hard, who can accept it”? declare his unbelieving disciples(vs 60)
   Many of these disciples had lived, eaten and walked with Jesus for nearly two years. They spoke the same language and dialect as Jesus. Day in and Day out, they heard him use different figures of speech. They heard him speak symbolically, using parables, allegories,and analogies(such as calling herod a fox). They also heard him speak literally, meaning exactly what he said. In Christs Eucharistic discourse, these disciples heard him “live”. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a live presentation is worth a thousand pictures. Yet these same disciples- many of whom quit following Christ-never even asked Jesus to explain himself. They understood perfectly that jesus meant precisely what he said!
   ( how can we, living 2000 years later , think we can know more about what Jesus said than those who experieneced Him firsthand and knew the ancient languages. How can wwe think we can know these ancient languages 2000 years removed from the time they were being fluently spoken and used by millions who were familiar with them)? It would be the height of arrogance to assume that all the eye and ear witnesses got it all wrong, while we, far removed from the time, place language and culture-got it right!)
4. Instead of explaining that His listeners were misunderstanding him, that he was only spekaing figuratively, Jesus- using the strongest language possible, emphatically REPEATS the literalness of this teaching, six times in six verses(vs 53-58)! " amen amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you"(vs 53).
   “My flesh is REAL FOOD and my blood REAL DRINK”(vs 55)
   This is NOT the language of symbolism!
5. Many of Jesus’ own disciples can’t accept the literalness of His teaching and leave him(vs66). Notice that Jesus DOESN"T call them back and explain that he is only speaking figuratively, as he did on previous occasions when they mistook Him for speaking literally. For example, in John 4:31-34, Jesus says" I have food to eat of which you do not know". His disciples take him literally, so Jesus explains " My food is to do the will of the One who sent me". In Matthew 16:5-12, Jesus says " beware of the leaven of the pharisees and sadducees". Once again, his disciples think Jesus is speaking literally. Again, Jesus corrects them and explains that he is not talkoing about real bread. " then they understood that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the pharisees and Sadducees".

(Jesus’ reaction to objections is remakably consistent. Whenever an audience WRONGLY understands Him to be speking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ canstant practice is to EXPLAIN that he was only speaking figuratively(see John 3:3-5, Matthew 1924-26, JOhn 8:21-23, John 8:32-36John8:39-44 and John 16:18-22
On the other hand, when the audience RIGHTLY understands Him to be speaking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ Jesus" constant practice is to repeat what he said(se Matthew 9:2-6, John8:56-59, and john 6:42-51). When the Jews object to Jesus saying the bread He will give is His flesh , does Jeuss explain himself or repeat himself? Jesus emphatically repeats Himself six times in a row, confirming that he intends to be understood literally.)

peace, justin

“beginning apologetics” series

 

[justinthemartyr]

NDFAN,

exactly what part of ignatius’ writings concerning the Eucharist are you referring to when you mean that he wasn’t referring to the actual flesh of Christ? you think this is not referring to Jesus and us eating His flesh as He commanded us to in john 6?

tell me how Ignatius is not speaking about this?

i do not understand, the whole focus in this passage is on the Eucharist, and those persons who arenot admitting that it is the flesh of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

what part of that statement means it is symbolic/spiritual only?

does he use the word “symbolic” or “spiritual” when referring to their non admittance of it being the actual flesh of our Lord?

I just do not see it.

 

[NDfan]

Again, Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh. That is why your “eat the Bible” analogy is meaningless.

But when I say I’m feeding on the word of GOD, referring to Jesus as the Logos/Word, I read the Bible. Jesus as the LOGOS is what makes up the Bible. HIS word is in the Bible. Therefore feeding on the word is not eating it. It’s reading it. Feeding on Jesus spiritually is partaking in the Eucharist. The 2 are separate.

Amen.

See we can agree

Again, you see His Body and you see His Blood but you do not beleive it is His Body and Blood.

I don’t believe it is literally a piece of flesh and bone, and a literal cup of blood. I see Jesus spiritually. Now if you say that means body, blood, soul, divinity then we probably agree but are saying it in different ways. It’s hard when you can only read a post and not hear someone verbalize it. I think that’s the problem with half the debates we have here. Sometimes it difficult to put into words the exact thought you have.

PEACE Brother

 

[Mickey]

HIS word is in the Bible. Therefore feeding on the word is not eating it.

I beg to differ.

Jesus Christ is the Word/Logos.

And as the priest says before we receive communion in the Holy Orthodox Church:

"The servant of God, partakes of the precious, most holy and most pure Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and for life everlasting. Amen".

Peace and blessings to you and your loved ones NDfan!

 

[mathematician]

I will post here what I recently posted elsewhere on this site. If the doctrine of Transubstantiation is supposed to have biblical support, where in the NT do you hear Jesus, or anybody else, using Aristotlean categories to talk about the Eucharist?

It is not a thought form which belongs in the ancient Hebrew mind and, given what we now know about the nature of matter, it doesn’t belong in the modern world either. It belongs in ancient Greece, maybe medieval Europe, but nowhere else.

 

[justinthemartyr]

But when I say I’m feeding on the word of GOD, referring to Jesus as the Logos/Word, I read the Bible. Jesus as the LOGOS is what makes up the Bible. HIS word is in the Bible. Therefore feeding on the word is not eating it. It’s reading it. Feeding on Jesus spiritually is partaking in the Eucharist. The 2 are separate.

See we can agree

I don’t believe it is literally a piece of flesh and bone, and a literal cup of blood. I see Jesus spiritually. Now if you say that means body, blood, soul, divinity then we probably agree but are saying it in different ways. It’s hard when you can only read a post and not hear someone verbalize it. I think that’s the problem with half the debates we have here. Sometimes it difficult to put into words the exact thought you have.

PEACE Brother

Again, the church does not say it is bone. please understand me when i tell you this so that you can stop making this mistake.

Also, where does Jesus say when teaching the Eucharist, “take, eat, this is my spiritual body”?

or " take eat, this is a symbol of my flesh and blood for you to remember me by in your head only"?

he does not.

he DOES say, when He holds up the cup and the bread "This IS my Body, this IS my blood.

 

[MelanieAnne]

In instituting the sacramental form of the Eucharist, Jesus said “this is my body” and “this is my blood”. That’s how we know that the body and blood of Jesus are in the Eucharist.

I was thinking about this during Mass this morning. The question had been asked, either her or on a similar thread, about the various sects that believe in “Real Presence”. It seems to me that if a Crucifix (rather than a simple Cross) isn’t hanging above the Alter, there’s no “Real Presence” in the Sacrament. Of course, I could be wrong about that. But for me at least, the Crucifix reminds me what the Mass is all about.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Many of Jesus’ own disciples can’t accept the literalness of His teaching and leave him(vs66). Notice that Jesus DOESN"T call them back and explain that he is only speaking figuratively, as he did on previous occasions when they mistook Him for speaking literally. For example, in John 4:31-34, Jesus says" I have food to eat of which you do not know". His disciples take him literally, so Jesus explains " My food is to do the will of the One who sent me". In Matthew 16:5-12, Jesus says " beware of the leaven of the pharisees and sadducees". Once again, his disciples think Jesus is speaking literally. Again, Jesus corrects them and explains that he is not talkoing about real bread. " then they understood that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the pharisees and Sadducees".

(Jesus’ reaction to objections is remakably consistent. Whenever an audience WRONGLY understands Him to be speaking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ constant practice is to EXPLAIN that he was only speaking figuratively(see John 3:3-5, Matthew 1924-26, JOhn 8:21-23, John 8:32-36John8:39-44 and John 16:18-22
On the other hand, when the audience RIGHTLY understands Him to be speaking -literally - and raises objections, Jesus’ Jesus" constant practice is to repeat what he said(se Matthew 9:2-6, John8:56-59, and john 6:42-51). When the Jews object to Jesus saying the bread He will give is His flesh , does Jeuss explain himself or repeat himself? Jesus emphatically repeats Himself six times in a row, confirming that he intends to be understood literally.)

 

[tmango]

justinthemartyr did a nice job showing the areas of the CCC concerning the Eucharist, but I thouoght I would add just one more: CCC 1358 We must therefore consider the Eucharist as:
-thanksgiving and praise to the Father;
-the sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body;
-the presence of Christ by the power of his word and of his Spirit.

He is present in the Eucharist. As a catholic, I believe he is truly present.

As another item for debate I offer this: I asked a priest recently about the wine, and if I did not take of the wine, would I be rejecting the blood of Christ. He informed me that to take the bread and not the wine did not mean that I passed on the blood of Christ, because the blood is present in the body.

 

[SyCarl]

Many of Jesus’ own disciples can’t accept the literalness of His teaching and leave him(vs66). Notice that Jesus DOESN"T call them back and explain that he is only speaking figuratively, as he did on previous occasions when they mistook Him for speaking literally. For example, in John 4:31-34, Jesus says" I have food to eat of which you do not know". His disciples take him literally, so Jesus explains " My food is to do the will of the One who sent me". In Matthew 16:5-12, Jesus says " beware of the leaven of the pharisees and sadducees". Once again, his disciples think Jesus is speaking literally. Again, Jesus corrects them and explains that he is not talkoing about real bread. " then they understood that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the pharisees and Sadducees".

(Jesus’ reaction to objections is remakably consistent. Whenever an audience WRONGLY understands Him to be speaking literally and raises objections, Jesus’ constant practice is to EXPLAIN that he was only speaking figuratively(see John 3:3-5, Matthew 1924-26, JOhn 8:21-23, John 8:32-36John8:39-44 and John 16:18-22
On the other hand, when the audience RIGHTLY understands Him to be speaking -literally - and raises objections, Jesus’ Jesus" constant practice is to repeat what he said(se Matthew 9:2-6, John8:56-59, and john 6:42-51). When the Jews object to Jesus saying the bread He will give is His flesh , does Jeuss explain himself or repeat himself? Jesus emphatically repeats Himself six times in a row, confirming that he intends to be understood literally.)

Jesus did reply to the objections in verses 60-63. I will use Augustines explanation.

1. “But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,”—for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,—answered and said, “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.

newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I will post here what I recently posted elsewhere on this site. If the doctrine of Transubstantiation is supposed to have biblical support, where in the NT do you hear Jesus, or anybody else, using Aristotlean categories to talk about the Eucharist?

You are mistaken, When the Word of God created the universe with his Word, and the Word became flesh. Can you define this incarnation that has taken place in time, through scripture?
Then neither does one have to prove Transubstantiation through scripture scientifically. This is a doctrine of Faith. When Jesus the word of God made flesh, speaks to his creation to become his body and blood, it is believed by his followers, are you a follower of Jesus and do you obey his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Transubstantiatioin defines what takes place, It is faith that supercedes the logic that God calls his children too. For the children of God are not of this world. Christians have died to this self knowledge of the flesh, and raised in the newness of life, in spiritual realities.

It is not a thought form which belongs in the ancient Hebrew mind and, given what we now know about the nature of matter, it doesn’t belong in the modern world either. It belongs in ancient Greece, maybe medieval Europe, but nowhere else.

**The True presence in the Eucharist is prefigured, in the ancient Hebrew mind and belief system. The Hebrews believed God was in a Rock, in a cloud, in the bread that rained from heaven, in the meeting tent with Moses, in a serpent lifted on a pole, in the Whisper of the wind.

Its not hard for the Holy Spirit to reveal Jesus’s body,blood, soul and divinity to those who love him. Do you love Jesus?B]**

 

[Mickey]

I will use Augustines explanation.

That quote does nothing to further your cause.

 

[mathematician]

You are mistaken, When the Word of God created the universe with his Word, and the Word became flesh. Can you define this incarnation that has taken place in time, through scripture?

What do you mean by “define”? Have I got a metaphysical theory about how God can become man? No, and I don’t particularly want one, but I am sure the Vatican would have no trouble coming up with one if I did.

Then neither does one have to prove Transubstantiation through scripture scientifically. This is a doctrine of Faith.

You mean the Vatican came up with it? Well I hope they thought they had some biblical basis for doing so.

When Jesus the word of God made flesh, speaks to his creation to become his body and blood, it is believed by his followers, are you a follower of Jesus?

Translate that into English, and I might be able to answer you.

and do you obey his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood?

Itake part in the Eucharist if that’s what you mean.

Transubstantiatioin defines what takes place

It is a metaphysical theory without a biblical basis. That wouldn’t be so bad if it didn’t clash with what we otherwise know about the universe, but it does. The problem some RC’s have (and the Catholic priest I was talking to this morning wasn’t one of them) is that they can’t get it out of their heads that transubstantiation and real presence are synonyms.

 

[SyCarl]

That quote does nothing to further your cause.

I believe it does. The point being replied to was that Jesus did notthing to explain to His disciples what He meant. Augustine indicates that He did clearly provide an answer. Jesus would ascend to Heaven. They would not be consuming Him by tooth-biting which would indicate that it would not be a physical consumption. It is interesting to read the several tractates in which Augustine deals with the Bread of Life discourse. A couple earlier he indicates that:

1. “They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already.

newadvent.org/fathers/1701025.htm

While other writings indicate that Augustine believed in a Real Presence it would appear to be spiritual, not physical. He says elsewhere.

1. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm