Is the "Real Presence" real?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello Jimmy B

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.

**The problem with this reading of scripture is that you end up with many different interpretations of the text. That is why the Roman Catholic church has only one teacher, the holy Spirit and the body of Christ the Catholic church in order to translate these teachings to one faith, one Church, one baptism.

What you dont understand is that the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Apostles Cant change, and will not change. The Roman Catholic church and her magisterium are the appointed shepherds or custodians if you will of the Truth revealed to humanity, she does not have the authority to change these 2000 year old teachings and doctrine.

Only to define them to the different ages, cultures, languages and teach them without error, infallibly. That is why The Roman Catholic church has been around these 2000 years, with unchanged doctrine. Just defined and defended in councils against heretical teachings that come against her, but will not prevail.**

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.

Unless you have been given authority to by God himself to bind and loose, the keys to the kingdom of God, to teach and feed God’s sheep, you have no authority to read God’s word and teach your own tranlation of scripture, this is why there are so many denominations today just from how you instructed. There is only one Truth, one Faith, one Holy Catholic Apostolic church. The John chapter six interpretation does not belong to the poster, The 2000 year old teaching is taught from the Catholic church, Who got it from her Popes, Bishops, Saints, Martyr’s, Disciples of the Apostles, who got it from the Apostles themselves, who got it from Jesus.

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.

You make sense here, but definition is needed. God is omnipresent everywhere in his creation Yes I agree. The lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity is presence ONLY TO THOSE whom the Father wishes to reveal himself, which is all his children who believe in his word and commandment to eat and drink the Transubstantiated presence of the body and blood of the lamb of God who provides the sacrafice himself, Jesus Christ “Parousia” to take away the sins of the world.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello Jimmy B

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.

**The problem with this reading of scripture is that you end up with many different interpretations of the text. That is why the Roman Catholic church has only one teacher, the holy Spirit and the body of Christ the Catholic church in order to translate these teachings to one faith, one Church, one baptism.

What you dont understand is that the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Apostles Cant change, and will not change. The Roman Catholic church and her magisterium are the appointed shepherds or custodians if you will of the Truth revealed to humanity, she does not have the authority to change these 2000 year old teachings and doctrine.

Only to define them to the different ages, cultures, languages and teach them without error, infallibly. That is why The Roman Catholic church has been around these 2000 years, with unchanged doctrine. Just defined and defended in councils against heretical teachings that come against her, but will not prevail.**

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.

Unless you have been given authority to by God himself to bind and loose, the keys to the kingdom of God, to teach and feed God’s sheep, you have no authority to read God’s word and teach your own tranlation of scripture, this is why there are so many denominations today just from how you instructed. There is only one Truth, one Faith, one Holy Catholic Apostolic church. The John chapter six interpretation does not belong to the poster, The 2000 year old teaching is taught from the Catholic church, Who got it from her Popes, Bishops, Saints, Martyr’s, Disciples of the Apostles, who got it from the Apostles themselves, who got it from Jesus.

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.

**You make sense here, but definition is needed. God is omnipresent everywhere in his creation Yes I agree. The lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity is presence ONLY TO THOSE whom the Father wishes to reveal himself, which is all his children who believe in his word and commandment to eat and drink the Transubstantiated presence of the body and blood of the lamb of God who provides the sacrafice himself, Jesus Christ “Parousia” to take away the sins of the world.

This is the true presence of Jesus in his church, to have a symbolic Jesus is not the same as to have the Real Jesus presence in his body The Catholic church.**

 

[junietan]

Holy day!
Re: Is the “Real Presence” real?
The answer is Amen, in CHRIST JESUS Our LORD.
Please visit this site ( copy and paste ) HE our LORD JESUS is fully documented.
www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm
The Eucharistic Miracles of the World
and please read the HOLY SCRIPTURE
**HOLY GOSPEL of St. John chapter 6 verses 22 to 71
**
Hope you will find it helpful.
Thank you and GOD Bless…
Supreme thanks be to GOD!

 

[justinthemartyr]

**You make sense here, but definition is needed. God is omnipresent everywhere in his creation Yes I agree. The lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity is presence ONLY TO THOSE whom the Father wishes to reveal himself, which is all his children who believe in his word and commandment to eat and drink the Transubstantiated presence of the body and blood of the lamb of God who provides the sacrafice himself, Jesus Christ “Parousia” to take away the sins of the world.

This is the true presence of Jesus in his church, to have a symbolic Jesus is not the same as to have the Real Jesus presence in his body The Catholic church.**

amen.

I will be with you always, even til the end of the age.

 

[Protestant101]

Now I am not adding or deleting anything in scripture and nor is the Catholic Church here …
Jesus did not stop and explain His statement…
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.

“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.

This is totally false, for the scriptures tell us clearly that we can “merely eat or drink” “to the glory of God…”

1Co 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Your personal opinion on 1 Cor.11 falls flat on it’s face when compared to other scriptures and ALL that Jesus is trying to tell us here.

Contrary to what you state above; Christ explains Himself all the time:

Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Jesus did this with those who knew Him best; and today, with those who know their God; His word will be explained to them.

 

[justinthemartyr]

This is totally false, for the scriptures tell us clearly that we can “merely eat or drink” “to the glory of God…”

Your personal opinion on 1 Cor.11 falls flat on it’s face when compared to other scriptures and ALL that Jesus is trying to tell us here.

Contrary to what you state above; Christ explains Himself all the time:

Jesus did this with those who knew Him best; and today, with those who know their God; His word will be explained to them.

eating and drinking to the glory of god is entirely different than when Jesus specifically and literally commands us to eat his flesh and drink his blood for eternal,life, then they walk away because they cannot hear it and he doesn’t call them back and apologise and explain that he was being figurative or symbolic.

he who does not, has no life within him.

ALL churches tuahgt this as literal until the reformation period in the 16th century, and they can;t agree on much of anything according to their private interpretation of scripture, what would make them correct or authoritative about something this solid in the first 1500 years of Christianity?

 

[Protestant101]

eating and drinking to the glory of god is entirely different than when Jesus specifically and literally commands us to eat his flesh and drink his blood for eternal,life, then they walk away because they cannot hear it and he doesn’t call them back and apologise and explain that he was being figurative or symbolic.

he who does not, has no life within him.

ALL churches tuahgt this as literal until the reformation period in the 16th century, and they can;t agree on much of anything according to their private interpretation of scripture, what would make them correct or authoritative about something this solid in the first 1500 years of Christianity?

You are correct; they are two different things; but the context in which I mentioned the fact of eating or drinking to the glory of God, was in reference to the poster of [post #120 ](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=223473&page=8post #120)who tried to say that Protestants were wrong for concluding that the transubstantiation doctrine was not actually in the physical, literal sense.

That poster tried to say that it was impossible for us to “eat or drink to the glory of God” when they said: “How could eating mere bread and wine unworthily be so serious?” It simply is a falsehood to say it can’t be done; and then try to use this “fact” to “prove” transubstantiation.

“All churches” did not always teach this doctrine of transubstantiation, infact, if you look into it, you will see how your own history books tell us differently.

Your troubled appeal to the Catholic perceived “weak authority” of Protestants to decide what is doctrine can always be expected in any disagreement like this; however, to prove it is quite another thing.

Out of all the alleged Catholic “proof” from the Bible to “prove” transubstantiation; I have not seen one Bible text that EXPLICITLY SAYS “eucharist”, “transubstantiation;” nor any, similar thing.

In my next post; I will be happy to begin a review of the “scripture evidence” supplied by Catholics for those who may be interested.

 

[c659smith]

You are correct; they are two different things; but the context in which I mentioned the fact of eating or drinking to the glory of God, was in reference to the poster of [post #120 ](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=223473&page=8post #120)who tried to say that Protestants were wrong for concluding that the transubstantiation doctrine was not actually in the physical, literal sense.

That poster tried to say that it was impossible for us to “eat or drink to the glory of God” when they said: “How could eating mere bread and wine unworthily be so serious?” It simply is a falsehood to say it can’t be done; and then try to use this “fact” to “prove” transubstantiation.

“All churches” did not always teach this doctrine of transubstantiation, infact, if you look into it, you will see how your own history books tell us differently.

Your troubled appeal to the Catholic perceived “weak authority” of Protestants to decide what is doctrine can always be expected in any disagreement like this; however, to prove it is quite another thing.

Out of all the alleged Catholic “proof” from the Bible to “prove” transubstantiation; I have not seen one Bible text that EXPLICITLY SAYS “eucharist”, “transubstantiation;” nor any, similar thing.

In my next post; I will be happy to begin a review of the “scripture evidence” supplied by Catholics for those who may be interested.

Yes it is explicit as I have stated. The words transubstansiation are not there you are correct.

But the words the Holy Trinity is not either but we know it to be truth.

For it is there if you wish to find it.
The Bible teaches that Jesus is really, not just symbolically, present in the Eucharist (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 1 Cor. 11:23-29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32-71).

I have given you proof from the bible that is beyond any other proof in the bible that you can give me. Explicit language but yet you deny scripture for Jesus did not say could be, might be, sybolizes Me, Jesus said the Bread and Wine is Him.

Your Quote

That poster tried to say that it was impossible for us to “eat or drink to the glory of God” when they said: “How could eating mere bread and wine unworthily be so serious?” It simply is a falsehood to say it can’t be done; and then try to use this “fact” to “prove” transubstantiation.

Then explain what is Paul saying as before do not add, subtract,or give your opinion on this scripture for it is plain and factual. Just tell me what it says.

Your quote

“All churches” did not always teach this doctrine of transubstantiation, infact, if you look into it, you will see how your own history books tell us differently.

Here is the early Church fathers below so I have no idea what churches you are talking about? Take notice of the years.

Ignatius of Antioch

"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 which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Epistle 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 who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [baptism] 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 which 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 66:1-20 [A.D. 148]).

Again what is it that is hard for you to understand the word churches does not and did not exist. There is only one Church
One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
You may have churches but we have the Church of Christ, the original, the only, the One.

 

[japhy]

Out of all the alleged Catholic “proof” from the Bible to “prove” transubstantiation; I have not seen one Bible text that EXPLICITLY SAYS “eucharist”, “transubstantiation;” nor any, similar thing.

You won’t find “transubstantiate” in the Bible, of course – nor “Incarnation”, “Trinity”, etc. – because it was a later description of the event. But that which is described by “transubstantiation” is indeed found in Scripture and the other writings of the early Church.

As for “eucharist”, you won’t find it in English Bibles, for certain. But you will find it in the Greek in John 6; also in Matthew 26:27, among other places. The Greek word means something similar to todah in Hebrew: “to give thanks”.

In my next post; I will be happy to begin a review of the “scripture evidence” supplied by Catholics for those who may be interested.

I’d appreciate a response to my reply to you about the Eucharist at the Last Supper in the context of Passover.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Hello Protestant 101,

Protestant 101 posted-
One of the many reasons why protestants cannot accept the catholic doctrine of “transubstantiation” is traceable back to the very reason we are Protestant.

This comment is incorrect. Many “Protestants” and non-Catholic Christians today and 500 years ago, accepted “transubstantiation” or the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Your beliefs are not only in conflict with Catholicism, they are also in conflict with other “Protestants” and non-Catholic Christians, past and present.

Protestant 101 posted-
" We protest, and will continue to protest the consistent use of Scripture out of it’s intended context, to “prove” Catholic doctrine.

This comment is incorrect. Who is “We”? Do you actually believe that your beliefs are your own and not influenced by others. Your beliefs originate from the first Protestant, Martin Luther and others who were in error and these beliefs were forcibly put into place by an insane murderer named King Henry VIII (creator of the first Protestant Church). This was because the Catholic Church would not grant him (King Henry VIII) a divorce and because “he grew tired of murdering his wives”. Please provide examples of “consistent use of Scripture out of its intended context” (using your words) by Catholicism. It is difficult for me to put any “verses” in “context”, when you don;t provide any.

Protestant 101

posted-
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,

"Cannibalism”

This comment is incorrect and I am offended by this heretical anti-Catholic remark; referring to Catholics as “cannibals”, may God forgive you. Why are you responding to me, if you do not know which post if mine it is that you are allegedly responding to?

Protestant 101 posted-
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.

This comment is incorrect, please provide examples. These are all your own personal unsupported opinions. One cannot respond fairly to comments like this when they are not properly sourced.

Protestant 101 posted-
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.

This comment is incorrect. Now you “sound” like you are “plagiarizing” me. This looks a lot like my words posted here many times at CAF, responding to “Protestants”. Cut and paste what? Bible verses? You need to go back and read my posts. I use mostly Bible verses to support various aspects of Catholicism. If you are in disagreement with a particular Bible verse that I have posted here, please let me know what verse it is that you are referring to. I believe that your disagreement is with the Bible and not with me and that is why you are not using the Bible to support any of your arguments here, it is because you know that myself and others here will show you what “context” truly is.

Protestant 101 posted-
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.

This comment is incorrect. Again, please post the Bible verses that you believe support your position.

Protestant 101 posted-
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.

This comment doesn’t make any sense, are you saying here that you do believe in the “Real Presence”?

 

[Jimmy_B]

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.

Every single one of your comments here is baseless and unsupported. The only reference to the Bible made by you here, was “John 6” and you agree that it supports the Catholic position. Not a single one of your comments here is supported by a single fact or Bible verse; “So much talk about the Bible and so little use of it”. If you plan on postings so many ‘personal” opinions here, then please provide the source information that supports your opinions. In the future, If you respond to me specifically, then please provide the post of mine that you are responding to. Thank you.

Note: See post #129 for a more detailed response.

 

[Protestant101]

Every single one of your comments here is baseless and unsupported. The only reference to the Bible made by you here, was “John 6” and you agree that it supports the Catholic position. Not a single one of your comments here is supported by a single fact or Bible verse; “So much talk about the Bible and so little use of it”. If you plan on postings so many ‘personal” opinions here, then please provide the source nformation that supports your opinions. In the future, If you respond to me specifically, then please provide the post of mine that you are responding to. Thank you.

Note: See post #129 for a more detailed response.

Well; now perhaps I should get my feathers all in a ruffle like you and get all offended at your heretical anti-Adventist rhetoric and diatribe. You are not the skilled apologist that you so pride yourself in being; you have convinced me of nothing positive yet; and as evidenced by your attack mode OP for this topic, you are spewing forth anti-Protestantism. Quite frankly; I too am offended at your approach here to all protestants in general.

But personally speaking, it would take a lot more than what you could dish out to shut me up, as you seem like you want to do. I do not take “instructions” from you on how to post here; but if I am corrected by a forum Admin, then I will be happy to abide.

Contrary to what you tried to say in your last post; not all Catholics are united on this transubstantiation idea. Some, (many) outright reject it, and have posted so here on Catholic Answers.

Jimmy; when I think of what you have said on this forum about “the real presence;” I must ask first: "Do you worship Christ, or the bread at Mass? In fact, the way you have explained it makes me think that YOU believe the Eucharist teaches that the Roman Catholic Priesthood must be held by me to be creator of the Creator, when they dish out those wafers/bread at your communion service!! Now, that’s what I call what YOU called me!!

 

[c659smith]

Well; now perhaps I should get my feathers all in a ruffle like you and get all offended at your heretical anti-Adventist rhetoric and diatribe. You are not the skilled apologist that you so pride yourself in being; you have convinced me of nothing positive yet; and as evidenced by your attack mode OP for this topic, you are spewing forth anti-Protestantism. Quite frankly; I too am offended at your approach here to all protestants in general.

But personally speaking, it would take a lot more than what you could dish out to shut me up, as you seem like you want to do. I do not take “instructions” from you on how to post here; but if I am corrected by a forum Admin, then I will be happy to abide.

Contrary to what you tried to say in your last post; not all Catholics are united on this transubstantiation idea. Some, (many) outright reject it, and have posted so here on Catholic Answers.

Jimmy; when I think of what you have said on this forum about “the real presence;” I must ask first: "Do you worship Christ, or the bread at Mass? In fact, the way you have explained it makes me think that YOU believe the Eucharist teaches that the Roman Catholic Priesthood must be held by me to be creator of the Creator, when they dish out those wafers/bread at your communion service!! Now, that’s what I call what YOU called me!!

You just do not get it.

The Eucharist is the Church
The Eucharist is Christ
Christ is the Church

 

[Jimmy_B]

Well; now perhaps I should get my feathers all in a ruffle like you and get all offended at your heretical anti-Adventist rhetoric and diatribe. You are not the skilled apologist that you so pride yourself in being; you have convinced me of nothing positive yet; and as evidenced by your attack mode OP for this topic, you are spewing forth anti-Protestantism. Quite frankly; I too am offended at your approach here to all protestants in general.

But personally speaking, it would take a lot more than what you could dish out to shut me up, as you seem like you want to do. I do not take “instructions” from you on how to post here; but if I am corrected by a forum Admin, then I will be happy to abide.

Contrary to what you tried to say in your last post; not all Catholics are united on this transubstantiation idea. Some, (many) outright reject it, and have posted so here on Catholic Answers.

Jimmy; when I think of what you have said on this forum about “the real presence;” I must ask first: "Do you worship Christ, or the bread at Mass? In fact, the way you have explained it makes me think that YOU believe the Eucharist teaches that the Roman Catholic Priesthood must be held by me to be creator of the Creator, when they dish out those wafers/bread at your communion service!! Now, that’s what I call what YOU called me!!

Hello Protestant 101,

Your comments, based on your own theology, which is obviously different from mine, does not bother me. It just seemed to me that your “argument” here was turning more personal in nature and less theological or biblical in nature. I have read many of your posts, so I know you are capable of putting a good post together, which goes after the ‘message “ and not the messenger.

The only remark in your post that offended me was your comment, where you implied that Catholics are “cannibals” I believe that this comment of yours was in bad taste, inappropriate and that it “crossed the line”.

I am more than happy to continue our discussion but please address my theological differences and not me personally and I would probably try to avoid the “c” word when talking about or to Catholics. I am sure that I am not the only Catholic here who finds a comment like this offensive.

Additionally, if you refer to a comment or comments that I have made, please post my comment or provide a link to the post that you are currently addressing and do not paraphrase what you ‘think “ I posted.

Now, having said that, can you please support you opinions with reliable facts that anyone here can verify. I would like to see the Bible verses that you believe support your position.

 

[Protestant101]

Hello Protestant 101,

The only remark in your post the offended me was your comment, where you implied that Catholics are “cannibals” I believe that this comment of yours was in bad taste, inappropriate and that it “crossed the line”.

I am more than happy to continue our discussion but please address my theological differences and not me personally and I would probably try to avoid the “c” word when talking about or to Catholics. I am sure that I am not the only Catholic here who finds a comment like this offensive.

Additionally, if you refer to a comment or comments that I have made, please post my comment or provide a link to the post that you are currently addressing and do not paraphrase what you ‘think “ I posted.

Now, having said that, can you please support you opinions with reliable facts that anyone here can verify. I would like to see the Bible verses that you believe support your position.

OK; then lets start from square one. Which post do you think that I said this in? And can you quote the specific paragraph where I called Catholics “cannibals?”

Also, can you comment on this quote from my last post? Hopefully, you won’t try to dismiss it be labelling it as “personal.”

Jimmy; when I think of what you have said on this forum about “the real presence;” I must ask first: "Do you worship Christ, or the bread at Mass? In fact, the way you have explained it makes me think that YOU believe the Eucharist teaches that the Roman Catholic Priesthood must be held by me to be creator of the Creator, when they dish out those wafers/bread at your communion service!! Now, that’s what I call what YOU called me!!

 

[justinthemartyr]

You are correct; they are two different things; but the context in which I mentioned the fact of eating or drinking to the glory of God, was in reference to the poster of [post #120 ](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=223473&page=8post #120)who tried to say that Protestants were wrong for concluding that the transubstantiation doctrine was not actually in the physical, literal sense.

That poster tried to say that it was impossible for us to “eat or drink to the glory of God” when they said: “How could eating mere bread and wine unworthily be so serious?” It simply is a falsehood to say it can’t be done; and then try to use this “fact” to “prove” transubstantiation.

“All churches” did not always teach this doctrine of transubstantiation, infact, if you look into it, you will see how your own history books tell us differently.

Your troubled appeal to the Catholic perceived “weak authority” of Protestants to decide what is doctrine can always be expected in any disagreement like this; however, to prove it is quite another thing.

Out of all the alleged Catholic “proof” from the Bible to “prove” transubstantiation; I have not seen one Bible text that EXPLICITLY SAYS “eucharist”, “transubstantiation;” nor any, similar thing.

In my next post; I will be happy to begin a review of the “scripture evidence” supplied by Catholics for those who may be interested.

False,
the term “eucharist” means bread of thanksgiving and Christ Himself gave thanks when btaking the bread and blessing it. Therefore Christ gave the term to this blessing which the apostles and the bishops and priests bless.

The term "transubstantiation is the explanation of the miracle that occurs when the bread and wine are blessed(consecrated) by jesus and His ordained presbyters. No different than any other term used to explain a process or doctrine of the church(yours or mine) which is not explicitly used in scripture but is implicitly there.

Show me a church which did not believe the eucharist to be the actual glorified body and blood of christ before the reformation please.

 

[Jimmy_B]

OK; then lets start from square one. Which post do you think that I said this in? And can you quote the specific paragraph where I called Catholics “cannibals?”

Also, can you comment on this quote from my last post? Hopefully, you won’t try to dismiss it be labelling it as “personal.”

Are we going to start “from square one” or are you asking me to revisit everything you posted in post #115. I would rather stay on topic if you don’t mind. Feel free to go back and read your own post.

Do you have any Bible verses, which support your position? If so lets see em…

 

[Protestant101]

Are we going to start “from square one” or are you asking me to revisit everything you posted in post #115. I would rather stay on topic if you don’t mind. Feel free to go back and read your own post.

Do you have any Bible verses, which support your position? If so lets see em…

I didn’t ask you to “revisit” “everything” of anything. All I asked is that you give the quote where I allegedly called Catholics “Cannibals.” Is there something you don’t understand about that Sir? As far as I can see, I am on topic, since you accused me publicly here of calling catholics “cannibals;” in relation to something I posted earlier. There are some questions and confusions about cannibalism that can and do arise with many sincere searching people when they read the Catholic take on transubstantiation. But people with whom such questions arise, have done nothing wrong therein, nor are they usually calling Catholics Cannibals. Now; I am not that nieve that I do not know that a true Catholic would never commit such an atrocious act; I personally know many Catholics, they might want to yell at me sometimes; but I KNOW they would never put me in their soup pot!! Catholics do owe the public a sensible explanation about this; because to the unlearned, it does sound really bizzarre and confusing. I guess it’s up to you what you do with that; but I would hope that you could dispense with the accusations of “anti-Catholic” or “heretic.” They simply do not apply in this case. It is very difficult to reconcile “eating Jesus’ literal flesh” with the definition of cannibalism. Catholics are the ones saying they literally eat His flesh, not me. Besides; what catholics say “the flesh” does when 'eaten" during the Eucharist, is what Jesus says ONLY the blood is needed for; and that was accomplished on Calvary. No repeat performance such as the Eucharist can improve upon Christ’s “once for all” sacrifice.

Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

The application of that Blood, as the Scriptures note, is NOT done by any Priest, and their “daily ministering,” through the Eucharist. “The same sacrifices” which the Priest offers "can NEVER take away sins."

---

Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

It was with His blood, not His “flesh.”

 

[Protestant101]

Do you have any Bible verses, which support your position? If so lets see em…

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

Christ Was Crucified "Without The Camp"

Heb 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.
Heb 13:11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
Heb 13:13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

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.

 

[Mickey]

To me; the Eucharist, in the Catholic Mass, in effect, mocks the heaven approved Christian Atonement of the Bible…

Then you, my friend, have had your earsd tickled by strange doctrine and misleading false teachers as you follow the understandings of innovative reformers such as Zwingli.