Is the "Real Presence" real?

[Jimmy_B]

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.

Hello c659simith,

All great points but don’t think you’ll get a response from (many) of our “Protestant”, non-Catholic Christian friends here, because my experience has been that there exists a serious and flawed disconnect that many of our “Protestant” friends have with the Early Christian (Catholic) Church (the first 1500 years) and even a disconnect with their own “Protestant” roots (1500’s to present).

This “disconnect” includes a disconnect with the early Christian/Catholic “Fathers of the Church” and with the early “Protestant” “Fathers” of their own “Protestant” Church(s).

The short answer I usually read is something to the effect of, "I don’t agree with everything that Luther or Calvin taught…etc.” or “what they wrote is not important”

When you belong to the “religion of your own intellect" which is the “religion” that many here belong to;”you don’t need to know what the “Early Church Fathers” or Early Christian Church believed or wrote."

General Comment -

The Apostles, their early disciples’, and those who wrote the New Testament books of the Bible are “Early Church Fathers” and/or those who worked directly with the “Early Church Fathers”. If one wants to read what the earliest “Church Fathers” wrote, it can be found in the New Testament. Some avoid very sacred and important aspects of Christianity and many Christian Truths, simply because “they are way too Catholic”.

All “Protestant” and non-Catholic Christians are still “protesting”, in one way or another the Roman Catholic Church, which also happens to be the Early Christian Church, and many get lost in the “noise”, which is “protesting” or “Protestantism”. This noise makes it difficult to hear God.

Great Post -God Bless You

 

[alice1rn]

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!

There’s no “If so” for me. I know what I saw and whenever I have doubts and backsliding enters my heart all I have to do is remember what I saw and how I felt at that moment to dispel it. Secondly, not to be confrontational, but to truly ask; what does it matter what Father uses, glass or gold? It’s still The Blood and nothing is going to change that. When The Lord offered the first cup to the Apostles i’ll bet it wasn’t a gold chalice.

 

[japhy]

There’s no “If so” for me. I know what I saw and whenever I have doubts and backsliding enters my heart all I have to do is remember what I saw and how I felt at that moment to dispel it.

I meant no disrespect by it.

Secondly, not to be confrontational, but to truly ask; what does it matter what Father uses, glass or gold? It’s still The Blood and nothing is going to change that. When The Lord offered the first cup to the Apostles i’ll bet it wasn’t a gold chalice.

(I’ll bet it wasn’t glass, either.) The Church guards her liturgy and has regulations set down for it. One such regulation is found in , n. 117Redemptionis Sacramentum:Sacred vessels for containing the Body and Blood of the Lord must be made in strict conformity with the norms of tradition and of the liturgical books. The Bishops’ Conferences have the faculty to decide whether it is appropriate, once their decisions have been given the recognitio by the Apostolic See, for sacred vessels to be made of other solid materials as well. It is strictly required, however, that such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region, so that honour will be given to the Lord by their use, and all risk of diminishing the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in the eyes of the faithful will be avoided. Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily. This norm is to be applied even as regards metals and other materials that easily rust or deteriorate.
As for the Last Supper, we know that Jesus told two of his disciples to go into the city, where they would meet a man carrying a jar of water; they were to follow him to the house he entered, and the master of the house would show them “a large upper room furnished and ready” (cf. Mark 14:12-16 and Luke 22:10-12). Matthew’s gospel contains a curious statement here: Jesus said, “Go into the city to a certain one, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at your house with my disciples.’” (Matthew 26:18). Matthew has taken great cares not to divulge the name of the master of the house, and probably for that man’s protection! Perhaps he was a secret disciple of Jesus? Anyway, given the description of the house (and that the man probably owned a servant, the one with the jar of water) we could imagine that the man was one of some means, and able to provide well for the Lord’s Passover meal.

 

[zagjames]

If it is God resting in that Chalice why wouldn’t you want to make it the nicest chalice possible?

 

[sambos671]

Hey I’m a protestant!

However, it was reading the early church fathers that led me to re-examine the Eucharist. A whole new door of theology opened up and there is a deep well there. I’m still holding out on the Assumption and other issues. However, I can’t deny the earliest church writings indicate a belief in the real presence.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Yes, that was my finding as a protestant.

I was shocked when my ladyfriend at the time handed me a catholic missal at mass and pointed me to a statement on the back asking me to refrain from the Eucharist if I am not Catholic, and why to refrain. I was very confused.

Not long thereafter I went to a local college and looked up the term “cephas” and “kephas” in a hebrew and aramaic dictionary. This was the name given to simon in John 1:42 when Jesus first changed his name from simon to cephas. I had a big problem with the verse in matthe 16:18 where Christ builds his church on cephas(peter), and whether it was small stone, pebble, large stone etc…

it meant large, massive stone. “you are rock and upon this rock I will build my church” - Jesus

I then believed not only in the fact that Christ built the Church upon peter, but also in the Eucharist. who else was I to go to for authority outside of scripture as it pertains to scripture?

 

[alice1rn]

If it is God resting in that Chalice why wouldn’t you want to make it the nicest chalice possible?

I’m with you on that. Beautiful Churches to show the glory of God, etc. I have no problem with gem encrusted, gold chalices. But if it was then I would have never saw what I saw. And I know I can’t be the only one to witness a miracle at the altar. I’m just saying that whatever vessel Father is using… it doesn’t change the fact that God is there.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Well, if that glass chalice were to be broken, then not only would the vast traces of glss be difficult to locate, but also the precious blood of Jesus would be all over the place also, which would be disrespectful of the Jesus, the Most Holy Sacrament of the alter.

 

[c659smith]

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 am sure Pilot and many of the Jewish priests also had a full appreciation of Christ’s sacrafice but that doe not mean that they followed Him or His directions for salvation.
In all due respect to our protestant friends they cannot tell me what they are now protesting nor can they tell me why it is not important to follow the teachings of their past or present Church leaders.
Like many of our Atheist friends they will not believe writtings of the early church fathers that I have shown or what gives them the authority to not follow the early Church fathers or the Apostles.

For instance why is baptism important but the Eucharist is not?

Why when Jesus spoke of divorce it does not apply to them.

An argument I have heard is that Jesus really did not mean that or Jesus said this when taking a verse from scriture and not the whole chapter or considering who the Apostle was talking to or about.

One of the tough things I would imagine for many of our Protestant friends is how much knowledge Catholics do have of scripture. A myth that Catholics do not know the bible is really being put to sleep here.
The only thing we can do here for the most part is not to get frustrated but in a loving way hope the mustard seed is planted on good, deep, fertile soil and it takes root.

 

[c659smith]

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.

I asked some questions here and posted scripture and the early Church Fathers writtings.

I asked a simple question to all protestants here and that is what authorized the reformation and it’s invalidation of the Apostles and the early Church Fathers on many of these writtings?

Who?

And then for most protestant sects who authorized and what gave them authority to change what was set forth by their founders?

Does comfort or it’s an inconvenience cause this?

Does going regularly to your Church not matter in the eyes of Christ?

What is the effect for not going?

Are you saying that all protestant churches should shut their doors because it realy does not matter on attending church services?

Is it ok for a baptist to turn Lutheran to turn adventist and then calvinist and back to baptist again because of something they personnally do not agree with at the time or would mean a challenge to physical comfort such as abortion, divorce, tithing, etc…?

Is this not like a constant protest?

 

[c659smith]

There’s no “If so” for me. I know what I saw and whenever I have doubts and backsliding enters my heart all I have to do is remember what I saw and how I felt at that moment to dispel it. Secondly, not to be confrontational, but to truly ask; what does it matter what Father uses, glass or gold? It’s still The Blood and nothing is going to change that. When The Lord offered the first cup to the Apostles i’ll bet it wasn’t a gold chalice.

It does matter as left unchecked we may turn out to be like many of our protestant friends and use paper cups and place Jesus in the garbage.

 

[Protestant101]

I will reply in blue:

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?

Whether or not a given person of The Reformation believed in “The Real Presence” would not always be a factor to determine doctrinal conclusions today. Because no one can “know it all” it is necessary to continue to grow in your knowledge thereof, even for Catholics, though they don’t like to admit that. Prov.4:18, 2 Pet.3:18 reinforce this fact, which all the reformers were subject to; along with believers today, Catholic or Protestant.

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.

Actually; you have managed to tie together a lot of things in your three posts above; however it is very disappointing to see you use ropes of sand to tie it all together. For one eg., you quoted Scripture if it had something about “breaking bread,” without regards to context and if it was even referring to Mass/Communion ordinances, and “the real presence therein.” You need some ropes that won’t break under the weight of context.

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

The Catholic Version, as you portray it leaves me cold. I have been to Mass, and of course, attended commuion in various Protestant fellowships, but I feel just as close to God in any of these settings, it is always special to me, and not one is any better than the next; because the true “real presence” is in the heart of every true believer. It’s not in a piece of bread! It’s in your heart!!

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).

I feel absolutely nothing missing, for I take Jesus with me wherever I go; He wants to live in the Tabernacle of my heart; and if I let Him; He “will come in.” ( ) I don’t have to even be in a Church for that to happen!

Rev 3:20

Everybody today says only they have the truth; so that’s a rather tired cliche’ these days. The best we can hope to do is to be a “true witness” of the True Witness. I feel that the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist works against the True Witness, and His teachings which he wants to write upon our hearts. None of the many scriptures presented here by Catholics can prove that the divine Christ is literally present in a piece of bread. Unless you dig up some more of the out of context (pretext) stuff.

 

[Protestant101]

Is this not like a constant protest?

Perhaps I missed something; but I don’t see any of the scripture references in this post that I asked for.

 

[Protestant101]

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.

Well; in the Passover, “the eating” was only done by the Priest, the rest of the people didn’t have to do any eating at all. The eating part had no Atonement value, it did not do the saving of even one human being lost in sin.

 

[thirdn6]

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.

This is how I see it. R Catholics please correct me if I’m wrong.

This three must be present in the celebration of the eucharist:

1. A valid priest (acting in person of Christ truly present)
2. A valid host - bread and wine (a sacrificial offering- flesh and blood, the Lamb of God- must be truly present in the consecrated host)
3. Worthy partakers (members of the visible one, holy, apostolic, and Catholic Church)

Without a valid priest, anyone can do it but meant nothing- unprofitable. Without a valid offering, it meant nothing- just some ordinary bread/wine. No link to the Lamb of God. No presence of Christ- not profitable.

Without the presence of Christ, how could you turn an ordinary bread to become a sacrificial offering and be beneficial to your soul? How could ministers consecrate a bread when they do not have the power to do so? How can they give something that they do not have?

 

[c659smith]

I will reply in blue:

Everybody today says only they have the truth; so that’s a rather tired cliche’ these days. The best we can hope to do is to be a “true witness” of the True Witness. **I feel **that the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist works against the True Witness, and His teachings which he wants to write upon our hearts. None of the many scriptures presented here by Catholics can prove that the divine Christ is literally present in a piece of bread. Unless you dig up some more of the out of context (pretext) stuff.

You see alot of what you are saying is I feel not what is written.

Do you not see a problem with that. I have given you every early Church Father beginning with the year 110 and knew the Apostles and clearly state what the Eucharist is.

I have given you the Apostle Paul which any Evangelist protestants rely on for sola scripture and what he said as it relates to the Eucharist.

You know the Gospels and what Jesus clearly stated over and over again. I know you are not ignorant in this area.

A;; were asked on this site as to what early reformation protestant church did not agree with Real Presence and none volunteered that info. because there are none.

It was only for the past 100 to 150 years that this idea took hold and is quite sad as whoever does not eat my body and drink my blood shall have no life within them.

It is pure scripture and nothing can say differently.

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book; if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Do you add or take away from scripture.

 

[c659smith]

Protestant 101

You see alot of what you are saying is I feel not what is written.

Do you not see a problem with that. I have given you every early Church Father beginning with the year 110 and knew the Apostles and clearly state what the Eucharist is.

I have given you the Apostle Paul which any Evangelist protestants rely on for sola scripture and what he said as it relates to the Eucharist.

You know the Gospels and what Jesus clearly stated over and over again. I know you are not ignorant in this area.

A;; were asked on this site as to what early reformation protestant church did not agree with Real Presence and none volunteered that info. because there are none.

It was only for the past 100 to 150 years that this idea took hold and is quite sad as whoever does not eat my body and drink my blood shall have no life within them.

It is pure scripture and nothing can say differently.

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book; if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Do you add or take away from scripture.

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]).

Tell me who was Ignatius of Antioch and what year was the above written?

 

[c659smith]

I will reply in blue:

Everybody today says only they have the truth; so that’s a rather tired cliche’ these days. The best we can hope to do is to be a “true witness” of the True Witness. I feel that the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist works against the True Witness, and His teachings which he wants to write upon our hearts. None of the many scriptures presented here by Catholics can prove that the divine Christ is literally present in a piece of bread. Unless you dig up some more of the out of context (pretext) stuff.

I do not understand your quotes here are you saying the Bible is wrong?
Are you saying the 2nd and 3rd generations of Apostles are wrong?

Do you not believe the Bible is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

 

[japhy]

Well; in the Passover, “the eating” was only done by the Priest, the rest of the people didn’t have to do any eating at all. The eating part had no Atonement value, it did not do the saving of even one human being lost in sin.

Other sacrifices were eaten by the priest; the Passover lamb was eaten by everyone.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well; in the Passover, “the eating” was only done by the Priest, the rest of the people didn’t have to do any eating at all. The eating part had no Atonement value, it did not do the saving of even one human being lost in sin.

You might be confusing different sacrafices from the levitical laws. The Passover is one of the meals celebrated by all Jewish families, which partook of the blessing of bread ,blessing of the 4 cups of wine, with the consuming of a lamb. This was a seder meal.

The other sacrafices that only the priests consumed were of the sacred kind, when only the Priest and his immediate family members could only consume.

They’re are others, what I like to mention is these all sacraficial meals Jesus fulfilled once and for all, through his passion as the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, in the unleavend bread as his body, and oblation of wine which became his blood. By his own words of consecration.

The fact to take note is that in the passover (Seder) meal, Jesus saves humanity by not allowing us to die a death in our sins and not allow death to overtake us in eternity, just as it fulfills the OT passover from the angel of death to passover all the first born and animals included.

The celebration of the High priest sacrafice for atonement meal was consumed by God from heaven in fire, then what was left was for the High priest and his family.

This is a typo of Jesus and the sons and daughters of the living God, that consume the lamb sacrafice in the sacred place, thus this is fulfilled also in the Lamb sacrafice and must be a perpetual sacrafice, just as Jesus stated to do in “remembrance of me” (make me present).

The perpetual of the law is fulfilled in Jesus. This takes place only in the Mass, because it is here where the high priest Jesus and his brothers and sisters partake of the hidden manna in the secret Place, in the Mass, where heaven and earth meet. Protestant 101 makes a good point, but Jesus fulfills all the sacrafices, and liturgical laws pertaining to the bread and wine. He fulfills them in the true presence of the Eucharist celebration.

It must be a true presence as Jesus states his body and blood we must eat and drink in order to have life. For without the shedding of blood their is no salvation. God will not accept a sacrafice like that of cain a symbolic sacrafice, only the one that speaks from the earth more eloguently as Abels sacrafice a real lamb and real blood. Anything else will cause the one offering this unholy sacrafice wrath and curses, as ST. Paul states in 1Corinthians 11, their is much more to address on these sacrafices that Jesus fulfilled that have not been mentioned here.