Is the "Real Presence" real?

[peary]

Wow…you deny the Resurrection.

What does the resurrection have to do with what I said? Don’t make foolish statements in an attempt to discredit someone.

It has EVERYTHING to do with what you wrote! For one thing, WHO is it that is RECEIVED in the Eucharist? IT IS THE RISEN LORD IN HIS GLORIFIED PHYSICAL BODY! He isn’t some “spiritual entity” whisping around in the heavenly realms somewhere like a ghost. Christ is real flesh and blood yet He is glorified in a resurrected PHYSICAL BODY. It was a physical body that the gospels tell us was able to appear/disappear at the will of Christ Himself, a body that could walk through walls, a body that could even ‘hide’ Christ’s identity as on the road to Emmaus. It is a body that even ate with the disciples on the seashore after the Resurrection. So, when a Catholic says that he or she receives Christ in the Holy Eucharist fully, it is meant that He is there body, blood, soul, and Divinity. All of that is contained within His now physical glorified body - a body that we ourselves will inhabit have someday. That has been the belief of martyrs for the Faith since the earliest days, and thousands upon thousands have been martyred because of their profession of Faith in the Eucharist. As God, the Eucharist is the greatest gift that He has given us. I am certainly not discrediting your opinion, but to say that Christ is only ‘spiritually’ present is not a complete understanding. Sorry if it came across that way.

 

[elvisman]

I quite agree that Jesus’ becoming flesh and sacrificing Himself for us is everything. And as I said earlier I believe in the real presence of Jesus but define it as a mystery. When Augustine says why are you making teeth and stomach ready and they were not to eat the body they saw, I think it shows that his view of real presence does not conform with transubstantiation because does that not mean that those who receive Communion are actually eating the whole body they saw under the accidents of bread?

Once again - I think you fail to see the point Augustine and the passage itself are making.
The eating of Jesus’ actual tissue is what shocked the people because they didn’t see the deeper, spiritual meaning.
**The Eucharist is indeed a heavy spiritual sustenance. However, ****we are to eat - physically eat - his flesh under the appearance of bread. That is why the verb “phagon” was used in this passage instead of the more general, “trogon”. **

"Phagon" decribes how an animal masticates its food - gnawing and chewing. If Jesus meant this only in a spiritual or symbolic sense, he would have used the “trogon”, which would have been a more poetic usage of the word. He would have also had to change some of the earlier verses about his flesh and blood being “true food” and “true drink”.

This is why the early Christians were butchered for their beliefs and were actually called “cannibals” by the Jewish leaders and the Romans.

 

[justinthemartyr]

I find it interesting that sy places augustine before jesus in what was actually being said concerning the Eucharist.

Augustine has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not this is true, because Augustine does not make up the entire magesterium of the Church. the church has spoken, it is final.

Also, as you can see, Jesus ended the discourse before 60-63 in John 6. he already responded to the jews and was then asked a question by his disciples, therefore we see specifically that jesus answered the question the jews asked about eating his flesh.

he was entirely literal. and his response to the jews, 6 times, all literal, was emphatic and evident. The church’s unanimous teaching in every age agrees.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I find it funny that sy hangs on a quote from Augustine denying the real presence when I have a commentary from Augustine supporting the real presence.

I would like sy to give us a source as to where his quote came from.

 

[justinthemartyr]

It should be noted that Jesus did explain in verses 60-63. I quoted Augustine earlier and will do so again.

So Jesus did explain but they did not understand the explanation in the same way that Nicodemus did not it John 3 and the Samaratan women in John 4.

False.

In John 6 Jesus is literal and repeats himself literally again and again repeating himself even more literally to the jews question. He then hears some of the disciples mumbling amongst themselves and directs the comments in 60-63 to them, defining the difference between being of the flesh(world) and of the Spirit(God) and that if they cannot understand what he just taught, they are of the flesh and the flesh profits nothing.

In John 3, jesus was being figurative concerning being born again from his mothers womb, as they responded. he then explained what he meant about baptism and then went with them where the water was plentiful at Aenon to watch john baptize others.

John 6 literal and emphatically repeated himself
John 3 figurative and explained

 

[justinthemartyr]

I find it funny that sy hangs on a quote from Augustine denying the real presence when I have a commentary from Augustine supporting the real presence.

I would like sy to give us a source as to where his quote came from.

His quote is real, i have read it in augustines writings from newadvent.org. But that is not Augustines final word on the matter. his final word states that christ held himself in his own hands.

Look for his sermons on john 6 to see where sy got it. My previous post nails it though, sy is reading scripture from a protestant lens, not from the lens that the Christ’s church utilized from the beginning. He will look for any loophole to direct it toward his way of thinking. that is normal, I used to do that when i was protestant also.

 

[SyCarl]

I find it interesting that sy places augustine before jesus in what was actually being said concerning the Eucharist.

Augustine has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not this is true, because Augustine does not make up the entire magesterium of the Church. the church has spoken, it is final.

Also, as you can see, Jesus ended the discourse before 60-63 in John 6. he already responded to the jews and was then asked a question by his disciples, therefore we see specifically that jesus answered the question the jews asked about eating his flesh.

he was entirely literal. and his response to the jews, 6 times, all literal, was emphatic and evident. The church’s unanimous teaching in every age agrees.

I am not taking Augustine above what Jesus said. I can provide exegis of the whole bread of life discourse if you wish but it would take several pages.

I also find it interesting that you say that verses 60-63 are not part of the discourse. His disciples were grumbling because of His previous words. He addressed their concerns. Many Catholics use these verses to support the literallness of Jesus statements by noting that the disciples left because they could not accept what He said.

 

[justinthemartyr]

I am not taking Augustine above what Jesus said. I can provide exegis of the whole bread of life discourse if you wish but it would take several pages.

I also find it interesting that you say that verses 60-63 are not part of the discourse. His disciples were grumbling because of His previous words. He addressed their concerns. Many Catholics use these verses to support the literallness of Jesus statements by noting that the disciples left because they could not accept what He said.

Jesus was responding to the jews up to verse 59.

Jesus was responding to his own disciples in 60-63 concerning the difference between being of the flesh and of the spirit, and the reason they cannot uderstand what he just taught and how it was very real, and very literal as his own words spoke in response to the jews question “how can this man give us his flesh to eat”
simple.

many of his disciples did leave when he told them they must eat his flesh and drink his blood for eternal life, and then reiterated it again and again. never telling them any differently.

In John 6 Jesus is literal and repeats himself literally again and again repeating himself even more literally to the jews question. He then hears some of the disciples mumbling amongst themselves and directs the comments in 60-63 to them, defining the difference between being of the flesh(world) and of the Spirit(God) and that if they cannot understand what he just taught, they are of the flesh and the flesh profits nothing.

In John 3, jesus was being figurative concerning being born again from his mothers womb, as they responded. he then explained what he meant about baptism and then went with them where the water was plentiful at Aenon to watch john baptize others.

John 6 literal and emphatically repeated himself
John 3 figurative and explained

 

[teadough]

SyCarl

Do you mind stating what denomination you are? I am sure you have been asked a million times but I just want to have a general idea of your church background so I can understand you a bit more.

Thanks

PS-Please don’t say “non-denomination”

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Wel l have this quote from St Ambrose who baptized St Augustine into the Church:

"Let us be assured that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated, and that greater efficacy resides in the blessing than in nature, for by the blessing nature is changed." To confirm the truth of this mystery, he recounts many of the miracles described in the Scriptures, including Christ’s birth of the Virgin Mary, and then turning to the work of creation, concludes thus: “Surely the word of Christ, which could make out of nothing that which did not exist, can change things already in existence into what they were not. For it is no less extraordinary to give things new natures than to change their natures.”[55]

And from St Augustine himself:
“It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation. No one, however, eats of this without having first adored it . . . and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would sin if we did not do so.”

newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06mf.htm

 

[justinthemartyr]

Wel lI have this quote from St Ambrose who baptized St Augustine into the Church:

"Let us be assured that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated, and that greater efficacy resides in the blessing than in nature, for by the blessing nature is changed." To confirm the truth of this mystery, he recounts many of the miracles described in the Scriptures, including Christ’s birth of the Virgin Mary, and then turning to the work of creation, concludes thus: “Surely the word of Christ, which could make out of nothing that which did not exist, can change things already in existence into what they were not. For it is no less extraordinary to give things new natures than to change their natures.”[55]

And from St Augustine himself:
“It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation. No one, however, eats of this without having first adored it . . . and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would sin if we did not do so.”

newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06mf.htm

amen

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl

Do you mind stating what denomination you are? I am sure you have been asked a million times but I just want to have a general idea of your church background so I can understand you a bit more.

Thanks

PS-Please don’t say “non-denomination”

Presbyterian Church in Canada

 

[justinthemartyr]

by the way sy, many of Jesus’ disciples left and walked with him no more before vs 60, therefore vs 60-63 has nothing to do with this teaching being in any way figurative, if it were he would have called them all back and straightened it out, but he did not.

The only reason he clarifies between being of the flesh and of the spirit is because the remaining disciples were still there and he was explaining their reason for unbelief in this teaching, and that is because they were of the flesh(world) and not of the spirit, and therefore they could not understand. similar to why you struggle with it.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I find it funny that sy hangs on a quote from Augustine denying the real presence when I have a commentary from Augustine supporting the real presence.

I would like sy to give us a source as to where his quote came from.

Hello GreyPilgrim,

I Agree!

It seems odd to me that anyone would use a “Catholic Book”, the Bible and a Catholic Saint and Doctor of the (Catholic) Church to try to disprove any aspect of Catholicism.

It’s bad enough, that people here post Bible verses, which are taken out of context but I read posts here, where Doctors of the Church, Catholic Saints, Catholic Popes, the Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent, online) and even lay Catholics here at CAF are also taken out of context to try to disprove Catholicism. :banghead:

Peace

 

[teadough]

Presbyterian Church in Canada

thanks for answering. I am not trying to bait you by any means. I just wanted to check for my own sake.

God Bless and never stop searching

 

[SyCarl]

Hello GreyPilgrim,

I Agree!

It seems odd to me that anyone would use a “Catholic Book”, the Bible and a Catholic Saint and Doctor of the (Catholic) Church to try to disprove any aspect of Catholicism.

It’s bad enough, that people here post Bible verses, which are taken out of context but I read posts here, where Doctors of the Church, Catholic Saints, Catholic Popes, the Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent, online) and even lay Catholics here at CAF are also taken out of context to try to disprove Catholicism. :banghead:

Peace

I have not taken anything that Augustine said out of context. You can read the whole tractates if you want and tell me how I have. I also find it strange that Catholics deride Protestants for not reading the church fathers and then become upset when we do read them and find things in them to support our views.

If I had wanted to support a symbolic view I would have quoted from Eusebius of Caesariea who does speak of symbols.

Many Protestant ideas can be found in the church fathers as both Luther and Calvin cited them. The most popular was Augustine for some of his writings on predestination and his views of how we merit nothing from God. This is particularly noticible in his anti-Pelagian writings.

 

[justinthemartyr]

And again, the fathers who do not believe/teach in union with the church, do not matter on those subjects, for they do not make up the church magesterium. You can pick and choose anything, either from scripture or from history to support your views, but the only thing that matters is that it is equal to the view of the church Christ instituted upon kephas.

Also, you have once again ignored what I have said in my last few posts, and have not discussed nor answered my posts on the way jesus responds to those thinking he is being literal or figurative.
I eagerly await your discussion on this matter.
You may have to go back and read my posts.

 

[SyCarl]

The whole bread of life discourse should be looked at as a whole so that the interpretation is consistent with the whole. Jesus just doesn’t start when talks about eating His body and drinking His blood. It must also be consitent with the rest of Scripture.

In the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 Jesus says a number of things.

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
(John 6:51 NASB)

"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
(John 6:54 NASB)

These are unequivocal promises that anyone who eats His flesh and drinks His blood will have eternal life. There are no qualifications put on the promises; no requirements of faith or belief are given and no requirement is made that one partake in a worthy manner. If transubstantiation is true, then according to these promises all one would have to do to have eternal life is go to a Catholic Mass and partake of the Eucharist. It would not matter that this was done illicitly or without any faith at all; the requirements of the promises would be met.

Jesus says more about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

So Jesus said to them, "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 yourselves.
(John 6:53 NASB)

Here another unequivocal statement is made telling us that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Unless we do so, nothing else can help us because no exceptions are given to the requirement. Taken together, if interpreted literally, these passages would mean that we could receive eternal life if and only if we eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood.

Earlier in John 6 Jesus makes other unequivocal promises.

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
(John 6:40 NASB)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
(John 6:47 NASB)

In these promises Jesus tells us that if we believe in Him we will have eternal life. Paul also talks about the Lord’s Supper.

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.
(1 Corinthians 11:27-32 NASB)

In this passage Paul tells us that we must partake in a worthy manner yet Jesus puts no such requirement in his statement. If Jesus’ statements about eating His flesh and drinking His blood are taken literally then those statements contradict what both Jesus and Paul say elsewhere. However, Scripture cannot contradict itself so Jesus must not be speaking literally of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. What then does Jesus mean?

It can be seen that He makes two very similar statements, “everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." and "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. “ It is apparent that Jesus is speaking figuratively and that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is equivalent to believing in Him. Is such figurative speaking consistent with Jesus’ other teaching?

It can be seen that throughout John’s Gospel Jesus does frequently speak figuratively. In fact, He says so Himself.

"These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father.
(John 16:25 NASB)

Another characteristic of Jesus’ teaching in John’s gospel is the repeated use of the phrase “I am the”.

1. The bread of life.

Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
(John 6:35 NASB)

1. The light of the world

Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”
(John 8:12 NASB)

1. The door of the sheep

So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
(John 10:7 NASB)

1. The good shepherd

"I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.
(John 10:11 NASB)

1. The resurrection and the life

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”
(John 11:25-26 NASB)

1. The way, the truth and the life

Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
(John 14:6 NASB)

1. The true vine

"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
(John 15:1 NASB)

It is clear that many of these statements are figurative since Jesus is not literally a door or a vine. The statement “I am the bread of life” fits into the pattern that Jesus established of speaking about Himself figuratively.

to be continued

 

[SyCarl]

It is claimed that Jesus knew his listeners believed He was speaking literally and that, if He had not been, He would have corrected them. However, in John, there are several places where the hearers misunderstand Jesus yet He does not correct them.

1. The Jews in the temple

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
(John 2:19-21 NASB)

The Gospel writer explains but Jesus does not.

1. Nicodemus

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”
(John 3:3-4 NASB)

Nicodemus does not understand even after Jesus talks to him more.

1. The Samaritan woman

Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” She *said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
(John 4:10-11 NASB)

1. The Jews in the temple

Therefore Jesus said, "For a little while longer I am with you, then I go to Him who sent Me. “You will seek Me, and will not find Me; and where I am, you cannot come.” The Jews then said to one another, "Where does this man intend to go that we will not find Him? He is not intending to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks, is He?
(John 7:33-35 NASB)

1. The Jews in the temple

Then He said again to them, “I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.” So the Jews were saying, “Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?”
(John 8:21-22 NASB)

However, Jesus does ask his disciples about their understanding.

But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
(John 6:61-63 NASB)

Jesus asks them what they would think of His statement if they saw Him ascending to Heaven. If He is in Heaven then His disciples could not physically eat His flesh or drink His blood. He then tells them His words are spirit and the Apostles understand with Peter replying:

Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. “We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”
(John 6:68-69 NASB)

That Peter answers this way is important in the context of the passage as a whole. Jesus has just been talking about being the bread of life and about the necessity of them eating Him. However, Peter does not refer to bread; he refers to words and belief, understanding the equivalence of eating and believing in the discourse.

Finally with respect to John 6, it should be recognized that Jesus tells us:

Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (John 6:35 NASB)

Earlier in John, Jesus tells us what He gives us that we would never thirst.

Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”
(John 4:13-14 NASB)

It is not blood or wine that cause us never to thirst; it is the living water.

to be continued

 

[SyCarl]

Is a non-literal reading of the bread of life discourse consistent other Scriptural passages dealing with the Lord’s Supper? Each of the three synoptic Gospels describes the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
(Matthew 26:26-29 NASB)

While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. “Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
(Mark 14:22-25 NASB)

When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
(Luke 22:14-20 NASB)

In Matthew’s account Jesus still refers to the wine “as fruit of the vine” even after the words of consecration. This would be consistent with a non-literal interpretation as, in this statement, He is specifically referring to what is in the cup they had all shared as still being wine.

In both Mark’s and Luke’s account the cup is passed around and the Apostles drink from it prior to Jesus speaking the words of consecration. Thus they are also consistent with a non-literal reading since the drinking was done prior to anything that would have changed the substance of the wine.

to be continued