Is the "Real Presence" real?

[justinthemartyr]

Humbling yourself before God is one thing; humbling yourself before the Roman magesterium is another.

You think dying to self is just a question of going through a rite of baptism? It will take a lifetime, and even then you won’t manage it - or if you do you will be in line for canonisation.

Thank God we are shown by scripture that the people humbled themselves to the apostles(magesterium) any time they were in need of guidance, knowledge, and even forgiveness of sins and healing.

As far as baptism, it is but a beginning and the rest of our life is built upon that beginning of dying to one’s self and being buried with Christ so that we may, hopefully rise again to eternal life as Christ showed us. Endure til the end and you shall be saved.

 

[c659smith]

and back to the subject at hand!!!

The Eucharist

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).

Many left and Jesus did not say wait it’s only a symbol but let them leave and asked the Apostles are you going to leave also?

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

even Paul writes,

“Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

 

[justinthemartyr]

and back to the subject at hand!!!

The Eucharist

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).

Many left and Jesus did not say wait it’s only a symbol but let them leave and asked the Apostles are you going to leave also?

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

even Paul writes,

“Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

amen.

a no brainer, yet all faith.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

amen.

a no brainer, yet all faith.

You know justinthemartyr, I dont think much discussion was made on who can validly consecrate the bread and wine, to become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Maybe this is why non catholics are having a hard time with believing Jesus words when he says “This is my body” like wise “This is my blood in the new and everlasting covenant”. Non catholics cant have a valid Eucharist, maybe that explains why they dont believe in the “Parousia” presence of our dear Lord Jesus Christ.

All they are left with is bread and wine (grape juice) to symbolize Jesus body and blood. This makes sense to me now. How can Protestants and non catholics experience the fullness of Truth, and the blessings that come with it, if they dont have the true body and blood of Jesus Christ in their communities. They have Truth by faith, but they dont have the fullness of Truth. Just a martyrs thought.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It is real in the domain of faith and belief.

​

Its reality is not the crudely material - & heretical - reality of a pork chop. The Presence of the Lord as the Eucharistic is real in a way that is

• sacramental
• spiritual
• perceived by faith
  As well as being a real mode of Presence it is also a :
• true
• substantial (which does not = material) Presence.

There is nothing particularly Catholic about belief in the Real Presence - the Catholic insistence on the substantiality of this Presence is what sets the Catholic dogma apart from the Protestant on the Eucharist; but the Real Presence as such is no big deal. The Presence of Christ is real (in the sense in which Trent uses the word) in many ways.

 

[justinthemartyr]

​

Its reality is not the crudely material - & heretical - reality of a pork chop. The Presence of the Lord as the Eucharistic is real in a way that is

• sacramental
• spiritual
• perceived by faith
  As well as being a real mode of Presence it is also a :
• true
• substantial (which does not = material) Presence.

There is nothing particularly Catholic about belief in the Real Presence - the Catholic insistence on the substantiality of this Presence is what sets the Catholic dogma apart from the Protestant on the Eucharist; but the Real Presence as such is no big deal. The Presence of Christ is real (in the sense in which Trent uses the word) in many ways.

The Presence of Christ is real in the sense that only an ordained catholic priest can confect the sacrament, and thereby bring Jesus Christ’s glorified flesh and blood to us substantially.

 

[Alexius]

I agree with most Protestants: Christ is not present in their Eucharist in body, soul, flesh and Divinity…That should satisfy both sides.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[c659smith]

I agree with most Protestants: Christ is not present in their Eucharist in body, soul, flesh and Divinity…That should satisfy both sides.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

So then according to scripture I am sure you agree you have no life within you. Even Paul understood the Eucharist, why don’t you?

If you believe in scripture than you cannot add nor dispute but follow what Christ has taught. He in no way said symbolically and many followers left his Church after this statement and I’m sure Christ would not have let them fall from faith for a confusion on His statement.
Would you not agree?

The Eucharist

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).

Many left and Jesus did not say wait it’s only a symbol but let them leave and asked the Apostles are you going to leave also?

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

even Paul writes,

“Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I agree with most Protestants: Christ is not present in their Eucharist in body, soul, flesh and Divinity…That should satisfy both sides.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

I think you mean body, BLOOD (not flesh), soul and divinity.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

So then according to scripture I am sure you agree you have no life within you. Even Paul understood the Eucharist, why don’t you?

c659smith, I believe Alexis does believe in a valid Eucharist, and agrees with Prostestants that they dont have a valid Eucharist, because Prostestants do not have Valid Holy orders, or Ordained Priesthood to validate their Eucharist. Thus Protestants have an invalid symbolic Eucharist only, Catholics have a real valid Eucharist. I cant speak for Alexis, but from the posts that is what I concluded.

 

[valient_Lucy]

c659smith;3402715:

So then according to scripture I am sure you agree you have no life within you. Even Paul understood the Eucharist, why don’t you?

c659smith, I believe Alexis does believe in a valid Eucharist, and agrees with Prostestants that they dont have a valid Eucharist, because Prostestants do not have Valid Holy orders, or Ordained Priesthood to validate their Eucharist. Thus Protestants have an invalid symbolic Eucharist only, Catholics have a real valid Eucharist. I cant speak for Alexis, but from the posts that is what I concluded.

I agree with you.

 

[mikew262]

I voted yes, but I’ve always had trouble with this concept. I suppose real presence to me means that Christ is indeed present in some form or fashion. I do accept that. Whether Christ is truly there physically in some fashion, just spiritually, or somewhere in between really makes no difference to me. To me, the fact he is there period is whats important.

I always pray that God will eventually clear my confusion up on this issue.

 

[justinthemartyr]

I do not know exactly what the source of electricity is, where it really comes from, is rooted in, and how we are able to harness it’s energy, but I trust and have faith in it all the same, just as most do.

They cannot see electricity, or the wind, but they see the results of it.

I cannot see or fully understand the fact that Christ is truly present, body blood soul and divinity in the Eucharist, but I can see the results of it, just look at mother teresa and pope john paul etc… all the wya down to members of my parish who are amazing in their love and service.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I do not know exactly what the source of electricity is, where it really comes from, is rooted in, and how we are able to harness it’s energy, but I trust and have faith in it all the same, just as most do.

They cannot see electricity, or the wind, but they see the results of it.

I cannot see or fully understand the fact that Christ is truly present, body blood soul and divinity in the Eucharist, but I can see the results of it, just look at mother teresa and pope john paul etc… all the wya down to members of my parish who are amazing in their love and service.

Thats a good description of cause and effect.

 

[Protestant101]

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?

Hello Jimmy B

One of the many reasons why protestants cannot accept the catholic doctrine of “transubstantiation” is traceable back to the very reason we are Protestant." We protest, and will continue to protest the consistent use of Scripture out of it’s intended context, to “prove” Catholic doctrine. This is a very clear case where you have done so. It is hard to tell from reading all of these posts which you and others have done here, just what the implications re Pantheism or Cannibalism would be, but it all appears to be based upon a very shaky foundation for the contest you have created between literal or symbolic use of scripture.

You appear to be just cutting and pasting from another website - perhaps one of those “expert” Catholic apologists; and it is my belief that everyone should stop doing this, and just read ALL that the Scriptures have to say on this, or any other doctrine. Often, as soon as we read ALL that the Bible has to say on a given topic; then, yes, the context does change.

If we went with your use of John, Chapter six, we would then cross the line between Christianity and Pantheism. This is why it’s so important to read, not just select verses, chosen to give the appearance of supporting our pet theories; but to read ALL verses related to the subject.

It is a straw man to try to make a contest out of "should we believe in the “real presence;” when in fact, this “real presence” happens in many situations other than the so called “eucharist.” Jesus has been, is, and will be present in many ways besides our communion services.

 

[japhy]

One of the many reasons why protestants cannot accept the catholic doctrine of “transubstantiation” is traceable back to the very reason we are Protestant." We protest, and will continue to protest the consistent use of Scripture out of it’s intended context, to “prove” Catholic doctrine.

I think history shows that a) the belief is historical in the Church, even in the second century, even if you disagree it is present in Paul’s letters and in the Gospels themselves, and b) the Catholic understanding of the Last Supper is based on our recognition of it in the context of the Passover and what the Passover was to Israel (a re-presentation of the exodus, not a mere memorial).

 

[Protestant101]

I think history shows that a) the belief is historical in the Church, even in the second century, even if you disagree it is present in Paul’s letters and in the Gospels themselves, and b) the Catholic understanding of the Last Supper is based on our recognition of it in the context of the Passover and what the Passover was to Israel (a re-presentation of the exodus, not a mere memorial).

So; in the Catholic understanding of this subject; the “Eucharist” “re-presents” the Passover? Or, are you saying that by the Eucharist, grace is conferred upon the suppliant or partaker thereof?

 

[japhy]

So; in the Catholic understanding of this subject; the “Eucharist” “re-presents” the Passover? Or, are you saying that by the Eucharist, grace is conferred upon the suppliant or partaker thereof?

The Passover, for Israel, re-presented the Exodus. That’s why it was eaten with loins girt, staff in hand, throughout generations. And the Passover lamb had to be eaten, not just killed and cooked. You had to partake of it. For a Jew to celebrate the Passover, they celebrate not their ancestors’ liberation from slavery, but their own.

The Eucharist, for (Catholic and Orthodox) Christians, re-presents the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross in an unbloody manner, just as Christ pre-presented his sacrifice for the Apostles in an unbloody manner. The Mass is not so much a recreation of the Last Supper as it is our experience at the foot of the cross. And, true to form, we eat of the Paschal Lamb, not in a cannibalistic way of course, but in a true and sacramental way.

There are many other connections which, although not written in Scripture, begin to reveal themselves from study of the Passover as celebrated at the time of Christ. The evangelists don’t describe in detail the Passover meal Jesus shared with his Apostles, but knowing what goes into such a meal gives a context to what Jesus did. It seems most likely that the bread he blessed and broke was the afikomen (“that/he which is to come”), a piece of matzoh bread which is broken and distributed to each guest; the meal cannot resume until this has been done. After that comes the third cup of wine (of four). Jesus stopped the meal before its end: he ended the meal after this third cup, the “cup of blessing” as Paul calls it, also known as the “cup of redemption” or “salvation” – they didn’t drink the fourth cup! They went to Gethsemane singing hymns: the Hallel psalms (113-118), which are sung after the third cup. While in the garden, the “suspended” Passover was kept up: Jesus prayed that the “cup” might pass him by. Which cup? Well, there was yet the fourth cup to drink (the “cup of restoration”, which would bring his Passover to its close), but Jesus is probably also referring to the “cup of wrath” (Isaiah 51:17). Jesus ended his Passover – “it is finished!” – on the cross in drinking the “wine” of sour vinegar offered to him, as John describes.

Another interesting point is found in Luke 24:13-32: Jesus opened up the Scriptures to his disciples on the road to Emmaus (cf. 24:27,32), but it was not until the breaking of the bread that they recognized the man they were with was Jesus. Put in another way, it was not by Scripture alone that they recognized Jesus in their midst, but by the Eucharist (after the Word).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello Jimmy B

One of the many reasons why protestants cannot accept the catholic doctrine of “transubstantiation” is traceable back to the very reason we are Protestant." We protest, and will continue to protest the consistent use of Scripture out of it’s intended context, to “prove” Catholic doctrine. This is a very clear case where you have done so.

**One has to know and understand what transubstantiation is before another can protest a doctrine. I have read the posts, I have not found one non catholic or protestant that can correctly define Transubstantiantion.

As far as Scripture is concerned. The Roman Catholic church because she Cannonized the books of the bible, she carries the Sacred Traditions from the Apostles themselves, not to mention the Authority given to our first pope to go out and teach and baptise all nations. The Catholic church Has the divine authority given to her to translate these Sacred Scriptures and teach all that Jesus has revealed.

Your protest is not against the Catholic Church or her Vicar of Christ, Peter (present chair Pope). Your protest is a repeat of history, “Saul, Saul why do you persecute me”, It is the Body of Jesus Christ you protest against not a human institution or a man. These are just instruments so that the finger of God can touch humanity.**

It is hard to tell from reading all of these posts which you and others have done here, just what the implications re Pantheism or Cannibalism would be, but it all appears to be based upon a very shaky foundation for the contest you have created between literal or symbolic use of scripture.

**]The contest you speak of is the ancient battle of powers and principalities, between good and evil. The difference here between Catholics and Protestants, is Catholics believe “It is finished” because she posseses the fullness of Truth, the True presence of Jesus Christ, whereby Protestants and non-catholics possess Part truth, in a symbolic Jesus presence, therefore in search for the fullness of truth that has already been finished. This hunger for truth does not get fulfilled unless one comes to the revealed knowledge and true teachings of Jesus Christ. **

 

[c659smith]

Hello Jimmy B

One of the many reasons why protestants cannot accept the catholic doctrine of “transubstantiation” is traceable back to the very reason we are Protestant." We protest, and will continue to protest the consistent use of Scripture out of it’s intended context, to “prove” Catholic doctrine. This is a very clear case where you have done so. It is hard to tell from reading all of these posts which you and others have done here, just what the implications re Pantheism or Cannibalism would be, but it all appears to be based upon a very shaky foundation for the contest you have created between literal or symbolic use of scripture.

You appear to be just cutting and pasting from another website - perhaps one of those “expert” Catholic apologists; and it is my belief that everyone should stop doing this, and just read ALL that the Scriptures have to say on this, or any other doctrine. Often, as soon as we read ALL that the Bible has to say on a given topic; then, yes, the context does change.

If we went with your use of John, Chapter six, we would then cross the line between Christianity and Pantheism. This is why it’s so important to read, not just select verses, chosen to give the appearance of supporting our pet theories; but to read ALL verses related to the subject.

It is a straw man to try to make a contest out of "should we believe in the “real presence;” when in fact, this “real presence” happens in many situations other than the so called “eucharist.” Jesus has been, is, and will be present in many ways besides our communion services.

Now I am not adding or deleting anything in scripture and nor is the Catholic Church here and I say here because I want the subject to stay on the subject and not wave in different directions.

Jesus was explicit throughout the New Testament and Direct when it came to this subject as well as His Apostles. The people that knew Him best.

Jesus did not stop and explain His statement as He did all if not most others as it is what it is. Many a follower was left behind because of His truth on this issue.

Christ will not explain any of the verses to you on this subject. I will not interpet and neither did Christ. For what He said was truth. It is what It is.

Now read and to not use conjecture ,interpetation, or what you feel. Tell me what Jesus said explicitly.

For if you add or take away from this book there is a special place for you.

The Eucharist

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).

Many left and Jesus did not say wait it’s only a symbol but let them leave and asked the Apostles are you going to leave also?

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

even Paul writes,

“Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.