Is the "Real Presence" real?

[SyCarl]

I would love to continue our discussion but as I have work tomorrow I must be off to bed. I will try to reply to anything tomorrow.

God bless and keep you.

 

[c659smith]

The words that Jesus spoke that were spirit and life included:

How do they fit in with a literal reading of the rest of the discourse?

Jesus tells us if we believe we will have life. He also says unless you eat His flesh and drink His Blood you have no life in you. Unless believing and the eating and drinking mean the same thing, Jesus is being inconsistent.

It is not inconsistent you must believe what He says and do as He tells you. Not what you feel. All the way not half way. For to eat of His Body and Drink His Blood you take Jesus within you. His Spirit becomes part of yours and your spirit within Him.

It is no more confusing then Baptism.

 

[c659smith]

The words that Jesus spoke that were spirit and life included:

How do they fit in with a literal reading of the rest of the discourse?

Jesus tells us if we believe we will have life. He also says unless you eat His flesh and drink His Blood you have no life in you. Unless believing and the eating and drinking mean the same thing, Jesus is being inconsistent.

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.

Again He is referring not to Him for hIs flesh profited everything for us. He is not telling us while He was alive before his Death to tear apart His Body and eat it or drink His Blood. But after His Resurrection It is the Spiritual transformation through His telling us what we must to throughout the Bible till the Last Supper when He showed us how to eat His Body and Drink His Blood.
For His Flesh is True Flesh and His Blood is true Blood.

New Covenant=Old Covenant
The priests = Jewish Priests
Sacrafice Jesus = Sacrafice Animal

Jesus died once on the cross for us. we follow literally in the Mass what Jesus told us to do in the Last Supper and believe that what is there when we do this is the real Presence of Jesus for anything less would not be what He taught (without stammering) that without eating His Body and Drinking His Blood there will be no life within us. It is called faith. I have faith in what Jesus said in the bible not what I feel it meant or what make sense for me.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Augustine does not say Jesus held Himself in His own hands. He says that in a manner He did so, which is not the same thing.

How is it not the same thing? explain please. You make yourself sound like the authority on the matter. What evidence do you have of it meaning something else? Did he explain himself in the exact same passage and say that it didn’t mean the same thing?

So in what way/manner was Jesus holding Himself in His own hands?

 

[justinthemartyr]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

1. The bread of life.
2. The light of the world
3. The door of the sheep
4. The good shepherd
5. The resurrection and the life
6. The way, the truth and the life
7. The true vine

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

Jesus is a type of door, of which no one can get to heaven unless they go through.
Jesus is a type of Vine, in that we are the branches that are in Him.

Jesus did not hold up a door and say “this is me”
Jesus did not hold up a Vine and say “this is me”

Jesus DID hold up bread, bless it, and say “this IS MY BODY”
Jesus DID hold up wine, bless it and say “this IS MY BLOOD”
Jesus did command us to eat His Flesh and Drink His Bood, several times.

The literalness of Christ in John 6 is emphatic, even after being questioned by the jews, he states again and again what they must do, and they cannot hear it, so they walk with him no more. they alreayd BELIEVED in Jesus, they had followed him for upwards of three years. They could not hear this teaching, and their minds were of the flesh(world) not of the Spirit(God).

vs. 60-63 has nothing to do with what He just taught and commanded them. It has everything to do with them being either of the flesh or of the Spirit. If you are of the flesh, you will walk away and not accept the command to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, just as many of his disciples did.

 

[justinthemartyr]

I have not regurgitated anyone else’s ideas. That was my own analysis.

This was not your own analysis. This is what most protestants have taught since they lost the ability to confect the Eucharist by the power of Christ’s ordained priesthood and decided to use private interpretation of scripture as their authority.

 

[justinthemartyr]

The words that Jesus spoke that were spirit and life included:

How do they fit in with a literal reading of the rest of the discourse?

Jesus tells us if we believe we will have life. He also says unless you eat His flesh and drink His Blood you have no life in you. Unless believing and the eating and drinking mean the same thing, Jesus is being inconsistent.

false, there are many things we MUST do for eternal life that follow our belief in Christ, including obey everything he has commanded us.

To not believe in the True Presence, Body blood soul and divinity, is to not fully believe in Christ.

 

[SyCarl]

How is it not the same thing? explain please. You make yourself sound like the authority on the matter. What evidence do you have of it meaning something else? Did he explain himself in the exact same passage and say that it didn’t mean the same thing?

So in what way/manner was Jesus holding Himself in His own hands?

This is what Augustine wrote:

1. Because there was there a sacrifice after the order of Aaron, and afterwards He of His Own Body and Blood appointed a sacrifice after the order of Melchizedek; He changed then His Countenance in the Priesthood, and sent away the kingdom of the Jews, and came to the Gentiles. What then is, “He affected”? He was full of affection. For what is so full of affection as the Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, seeing our infirmity, that He might deliver us from everlasting death, underwent temporal death with such great injury and contumely? “And He drummed:” because a drum is not made, except when a skin is extended on wood; and David drummed, to signify that Christ should be crucified. But, “He drummed upon the doors of the city:” what are “the doors of the city,” but our hearts which we had closed against Christ, who by the drum of His Cross has opened the hearts of mortal men?** “And was carried in His Own Hands:” how “carried in His Own Hands”? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body**.” Matthew 26:26 “And He fell down at the doors of the gate;” that is, He humbled Himself. For this it is, to fall down even at the very beginning of our faith. For the door of the gate is the beginning of faith; whence begins the Church, and arrives at last even unto sight: that as it believes those things which it sees not, it may deserve to enjoy them, when it shall have begun to see face to face. So is the title of the Psalm; briefly we have heard it; let us now hear the very words of Him that affects, and drums upon the doors of the city.

newadvent.org/fathers/1801034.htm

This is the first paragraph in Augustine’s exposition of the Psalm. In it he is explaining how David changing his countenance before Abimelech, which is the heading of the Psalm, applies to Jesus. Augustine explains how being carried in his own hands applied to Jesus. He connects by saying that in a manner Jesus carried Himself in the institution of the Eucharist. He does not just say Jesus carried Himself but adds in a manner to indicate that Jesus was not actually physically carrying Himself but was in some way.

 

[SyCarl]

This was not your own analysis. This is what most protestants have taught since they lost the ability to confect the Eucharist by the power of Christ’s ordained priesthood and decided to use private interpretation of scripture as their authority.

That may well be, but what I posted was the result of my reading the passages in question. I am glad that I do agree with others. While you are entitled to your opinion, I disagree that only a priest can confect the Eucharist. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that places a limit on who can do it. God can use whoever He wishes.

 

[SyCarl]

false, there are many things we MUST do for eternal life that follow our belief in Christ, including obey everything he has commanded us.

To not believe in the True Presence, Body blood soul and divinity, is to not fully believe in Christ.

I agree that eternal life involves many things. That is why I interpret Jesus’ words to give effect to all of them. Jesus says that if we eat and drink His flesh and blood we will have eternal life. If we are to take part of the sentence literally, why should we not take the whole sentence? The sentence says nothing about faith, just eating and drinking. Taking verses 53-60 literally would mean that I, or even an athiest, could go to a Catholic Mass, illicitly receive the Eucharist and meet the conditions of the promise Jesus has given here. After all the elements, once consecrated, would be the flesh and blood of Jesus no matter who ate them. If you start adding conditions to what Jesus uncondionally says in the passage, you are no longer taking Him at His word and are not taking what He says literally.

On the Catholic view anyone who eats and drinks recieves the body and blood of Christ, whatever they may believe. However if the real presence is something other than an actual physical change, then He would indeed be present to those who believe in Him, but not to those who don’t. All His statements then stand in harmony to one another.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I agree that eternal life involves many things. That is why I interpret Jesus’ words to give effect to all of them.

SyCarl it is ok, to interpret a personal reflection or meditation of the scriptures, but it is not ok, to teach your personal reflection as doctrine unless it agrees with the Teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. This the Catholic church does, it measures the teachings to Jesus, if it conflicts, it is thrown out, this is one reason why the Catholic church has survived these 2000 years. It has never changed her doctrines, only revealed them at different ages when the teachings of Jesus were contested.

I think, this is what you might be finding in the reflections of St. Augustine, many of our Catholic Saints, wrote teachings and reflections, and when they were in error, the Pope was quick to respond, many corrected their statements, and others obstinate to their teaching, which brand them a heretic.

Jesus says that if we eat and drink His flesh and blood we will have eternal life. If we are to take part of the sentence literally, why should we not take the whole sentence? The sentence says nothing about faith, just eating and drinking.

**Yes and who was he addressing? his many disciples and some Jews. Not the Gentiles yet. This audience was told they must consume his body and blood. That meant, they must break their old covenant with God, by eating flesh and blood which was against the Jewish Law to do so. Faith here does not play a part yet, because these are already in a Faith covenant of the flesh.

Jesus commands them to be delivered from the flesh covenant they must eat and drink his body and blood. That is why Jesus compares the Words he speaks are of the (Eternal) Spirit ( New Covenant which he will give in his body and blood), because the Flesh (covenant after he fulfills his Father’s will in heaven) is of no avail.

Then after the bread of life discourse is finished. The question of belief becomes a factor, to which many of his disciples leave him to return to their former way of life ( the flesh, old covenant).Not to mention the Jews who rejected his words altogether.**

Taking verses 53-60 literally would mean that I, or even an athiest, could go to a Catholic Mass, illicitly receive the Eucharist and meet the conditions of the promise Jesus has given here.

**No, it does not. You cant isolate scripture like that, like you say, it has to fit the whole of God’s ( word) saving plan, then when you are (Born anothen) saved, you are no longer of the flesh but of the Spirit. You must be of the Spirit( baptised )and in communion with the Catholic church in order to recieve this blessed Sacrament in the new and everlasting covenant in his body and blood. In the whole of the context believe and faith and action are all in the discourse.

Now in the first centuries this Holy Sacrament was not openly spoken publicly as we do here. That is why we hear other words applied to it like , the true presence, the breaking of bread, communion, lamb supper, agape feast (which was celebrated in the same day), Mysteries of God, The cup of blessing. This sacrificial meal of bread and wine did not get revealed to the catechumans coming in to the (Church) body of Christ, until they were baptised, They only heard the liturgy of the Word, and then they were excused before the Eucharist liturgy, this is still done in the Roman Catholic church today 2000 years later.**

After all the elements, once consecrated, would be the flesh and blood of Jesus no matter who ate them. If you start adding conditions to what Jesus uncondionally says in the passage, you are no longer taking Him at His word and are not taking what He says literally.

The words of Jesus are taken literally here, to those of the flesh it is foolishness, but to those of the Spirit it is eternal life and Jesus will raise our bodies on the last day, what a wonderful hope and promise just for believing and trusting him at his word. The only condition Jesus states elsewhere in order to enter the Kingdom one must be born of Water and Spirit. After you are born from above (baptised), now you celebrate your victory in the lamb supper wedding feast, in your eternal life of hope on earth, and consume the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. At the same time believing it is because of the lambs body and blood we are saved and are given into eternal life with God himself.

On the Catholic view anyone who eats and drinks recieves the body and blood of Christ, whatever they may believe.

This is not the Catholic view at all, please dont make such assertions, maybe put it in a question? The Catholic church will not administer the blessed sacrament to anyone who does not believe as the Catholic church teaches. Now some may not understand or care to delve in the mysteries intellectually, but by faith, and if this is what Jesus commands us to do as a citizen of the kingdom of God, then one on an act of faith obeys the Word of God.

However if the real presence is something other than an actual physical change, then He would indeed be present to those who believe in Him, but not to those who don’t. All His statements then stand in harmony to one another.

This wonderful Sacrament does not limit God to how he wants to reveal himself to pagans, unbelievers or Christians. In order to partake of the Eucharist one already has to be baptised into the New Covenant in order to partake of his divinity and come to him in his mysteries. I know Jesus does not say this in the bread discourse but he states entrance into the new covenant with Nicodemus John 3: a teacher of the Law (natural law or Flesh), and then displays the new covenant at the last supper discourses.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

To SyCarl

**I have read some of your postings, and I do not find you anti-catholic intentionally. What I do sense by your comments that God is dealing with you and he loves you, and wants a pure intimacy with all his bride. This consumation of the bride (Church) and the groom (Jesus) is done only through the Eucharist, where both bride and groom are physically present to one another, and Spritually, and both are joined as one in the consummation of the Marriage supper of the Lamb.

I pray to God, you join Jesus in his wedding feast as well as all of his children, this is the Calling of the Catholic church and her duty, to invite everyone and anyone before the groom closes the door.**

For a Royal groom to select his Bride, the Bride must be of Royalty blood line, this is done through baptism. When the groom has fallen in love with his bride, and gives all his life for her, so as to be wed with her eternally. He dies, resurrects to life, and invites his bride to consummate this eternally wedding feast with him so that his bride can live eternally with the groom. And they encounter each other when love joins the other body, blood, soul, and divinity and are forever in love eternally, and the groom promises his bride, even though you live in the world bodily but you are not of the world, I have conqured death, and I cant wait to have you with me in eternity, so I give myself to you body, blood, soul and divinity in my Eucharist which I give you, so that I can remain with you, my bride for all time, for I too have a body and divinity which I freely give to you my bride to partake of always in the present and eternally.

Love has conquered all. Peace and Love in Jesus Christ our bride groom.

 

[justinthemartyr]

This is what Augustine wrote:

newadvent.org/fathers/1801034.htm

This is the first paragraph in Augustine’s exposition of the Psalm. In it he is explaining how David changing his countenance before Abimelech, which is the heading of the Psalm, applies to Jesus. Augustine explains how being carried in his own hands applied to Jesus. He connects by saying that in a manner Jesus carried Himself in the institution of the Eucharist. He does not just say Jesus carried Himself but adds in a manner to indicate that Jesus was not actually physically carrying Himself but was in some way.

Very true, and I agree with Augustine. Jesus was carrying Himself, not physically of course and the church does not teach this. Maybe that is your misconception?

Jesus was carrying His own glorified body blood soul and divinity, not his human physical self. We partake of the glorified flesh and blood of Jesus. The church has spoken. It is not a mere symbolic presence, but an actual true presence of the glorified Body and Blood of Christ, in that if the appearance of bread and wine were to cease to exist, we would actually see His flesh and blood in a glorified form, just as his apostles did post resurrection.

I like the previous post. Only those in the fold, explicitly in the one fold Christ gave us, that He shepherds along with his earthly shepherd, can partake of this Bread of Life, this Eicharist in this most real and absolute way. to have Christ actually become part of your body, truly, even just for a time. What a beautiful miracle and mystery.

So i guess since you are not explicitly in the One Fold, with the One Shepherd, you really do not have to worry about whether or not it is actually so, as Christ’t church has defined. the same church that speaks with His own voice on these matters and always has.

 

[claude1]

*On the Catholic view anyone who eats and drinks recieves the body and blood of Christ, whatever they may believe. *

In a way, this is a sorrowful truth. As if you think some of them only go through all the motions and don’t even believe, as they don’t look or act any different. Faith is something that grows, not some static “I believe” without putting it into practice. Don’t judge too much by appearances, though, they could be in deep prayer.

*However if the real presence is something other than an actual physical change, then He would indeed be present to those who believe in Him, but not to those who don’t. *

This is also in a way true, in that Jesus doesn’t force himself on people, and the more the person responds, He becomes more and more present.

This morning I listed to Fr. Corapi’s sermon for Holy Thursday on EWTN and wish I could pass on how he can explain things. If its repeated or offered somewhere I hope many of us get to hear it again.

He touched on so many things. One, for instance, is pointing out that God is everywhere - not just in people with faith. But God in the Eucharist is different, closer, more intimate, It is the great gift He gave to his apostles (and through them, and their successors, to all) when He was leaving this world.

He said that even most Catholics don’t fully realize that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, that if we did we could change this whole world. He said that if we really wanted to get rid of abortion there should be a perpetual-adoration chapel built right across the street from the abortion clinic.

He said that we, the Catholics who receive Jesus in the Eucharist, we are the body of Christ, to do the will of the Father, which is what Jesus in His mortal life did. We are the ones now who can bring His presence into the world which doesn’t understand how much they need him. All we have to do, he more or less said, is not put obstacles in Jesus’ way.
And much more.

And I will add, if you believe that Jesus took on human flesh, it’s as easy to believe that He can exist in a little piece of bread. The important thing is Who Jesus is and what He wants of us, not try to twist even His own words into something we want to believe.

 

[SyCarl]

On the Catholic view anyone who eats and drinks recieves the body and blood of Christ, whatever they may believe.

This is not the Catholic view at all, please dont make such assertions, maybe put it in a question? The Catholic church will not administer the blessed sacrament to anyone who does not believe as the Catholic church teaches. Now some may not understand or care to delve in the mysteries intellectually, but by faith, and if this is what Jesus commands us to do as a citizen of the kingdom of God, then one on an act of faith obeys the Word of God.

I think that you misunderstand what I am saying here. By “on the Catholic view” I am saying if the Catholic view of transubstantiation is correct, then anyone who eats and drinks the sacrament receives the body and blood. Am I wrong that Catholics believes that Jesus is wholly present in each of the hosts or any part of one? If I were to go to a Catholic church and go up to recieve during Mass, it is likely that they would give it to me without questioning my religion. (I would never do that.) I would eat the host and receive the same body and blood that a Catholic does. If Jesus statement in John 6:54 is meant to be taken literally, I would have satisfied the condition He placed on the receipt of eternal life. That cannot be what is intended. I can see no way out of this, however if it is accepted that Jesus is speaking literally in this verse. I know that Jesus says more elsewhere but if you take the verse as it stands, He makes an unconditional statement “do A and receive B”.

 

[SyCarl]

So i guess since you are not explicitly in the One Fold, with the One Shepherd, you really do not have to worry about whether or not it is actually so, as Christ’t church has defined. the same church that speaks with His own voice on these matters and always has.

This is only true if you accept that the Church is limited to the Catholic Church. As a Protestant does not accept that I do not accept your conclusion.

All I can say is I know what I experience when I recieve communion. I can feel the real presence of Jesus. It brings peace and calm as well as awe. It is really hard to put into words.

On an aside, please do not think that I am trying to change your view. I know that I would not be able to do that. What I do want to do is convey at least this Protestant’s views of the Eucharist and the reasons for them. I do not think believing in transubstantiation will help or harm anyone. God does not require us to understand what He does or how. We have been told what to do and if we do it in faith, we will receive what is promised. The Gospel was not preached with the expectation that its hearers would have to know and understand Aristotilean metaphysics. The Eucharist is a mystery and I am content to leave it that way and trust God. I don’t need to know everything.

 

[justinthemartyr]

This is only true if you accept that the Church is limited to the Catholic Church. As a Protestant does not accept that I do not accept your conclusion.

All I can say is I know what I experience when I recieve communion. I can feel the real presence of Jesus. It brings peace and calm as well as awe. It is really hard to put into words.

On an aside, please do not think that I am trying to change your view. I know that I would not be able to do that. What I do want to do is convey at least this Protestant’s views of the Eucharist and the reasons for them. I do not think believing in transubstantiation will help or harm anyone. God does not require us to understand what He does or how. We have been told what to do and if we do it in faith, we will receive what is promised. The Gospel was not preached with the expectation that its hearers would have to know and understand Aristotilean metaphysics. The Eucharist is a mystery and I am content to leave it that way and trust God. I don’t need to know everything.

I did not say that the church is limited to the Catholic church. Christ built a church, not many.

All those who are explicitly outside of the Catholic church yet are still in Christ, are implicitly catholic. There is no salvation outside of the Catholic church, implicitly speaking. I hope you understand what I am saying.

As far as the Eucharist, it cannot be confected outside of the perameters of the Catholic church. if there is no ordained priest in union with the Church Christ instituted, then the clergy in any other church lacks the line of power given directly to the apostles and those they ordained and the bishops that were prdained by the apostles. This would be like holding an electric plug a half an inch from the socket and trying to power up whatever it is you are attempting to power up. There is no power without being directly connected.

What you experience when you receive your bread and wine at your church cannot be the Eucharist, it is impossible.

I do not gauge my faith on feeling as I did when I was protestant. i gauge it on what the Apostolic church Christ built teaches as a matter of doctrine. It is the aposltes doctrines that i hold to, not feeling, sensatinalism and the like. i am not saying that is what you base your faith on, I am just giving you my experience.

mother teresa did not feel the presence of God nearly all her life, yet lived by faith and served over 60,000 dying men in Calcutta.

This once again shows that our real obstacle is the matter of authority. We could go on for years discussing doctrines and interpretations of scripture, but the real situation is that of authority.
My authority is Sacred Scripture and The sacred Tradition of the Church Christ built upon cephas.

 

[SyCarl]

I did not say that the church is limited to the Catholic church. Christ built a church, not many.

All those who are explicitly outside of the Catholic church yet are still in Christ, are implicitly catholic. There is no salvation outside of the Catholic church, implicitly speaking. I hope you understand what I am saying.

As far as the Eucharist, it cannot be confected outside of the perameters of the Catholic church. if there is no ordained priest in union with the Church Christ instituted, then the clergy in any other church lacks the line of power given directly to the apostles and those they ordained and the bishops that were prdained by the apostles. This would be like holding an electric plug a half an inch from the socket and trying to power up whatever it is you are attempting to power up. There is no power without being directly connected.

What you experience when you receive your bread and wine at your church cannot be the Eucharist, it is impossible.

I do not gauge my faith on feeling as I did when I was protestant. i gauge it on what the Apostolic church Christ built teaches as a matter of doctrine. It is the aposltes doctrines that i hold to, not feeling, sensatinalism and the like. i am not saying that is what you base your faith on, I am just giving you my experience.

mother teresa did not feel the presence of God nearly all her life, yet lived by faith and served over 60,000 dying men in Calcutta.

This once again shows that our real obstacle is the matter of authority. We could go on for years discussing doctrines and interpretations of scripture, but the real situation is that of authority.
My authority is Sacred Scripture and The sacred Tradition of the Church Christ built upon cephas.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. I see absolutely no authority in Scripture that limits who can confect the Eucharist. I know that you don’t subscribe to scripture alone. I also know that Jesus is indeed present at our Eucharist.

 

[justinthemartyr]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. I see absolutely no authority in Scripture that limits who can confect the Eucharist. I know that you don’t subscribe to scripture alone. I also know that Jesus is indeed present at our Eucharist.

Jesus ordained priests(presbuteros). Does your church have a priesthood that is traceable to the apostles and Jesus Himself?

That is the priesthood. He told no one else except His apostles to “do this in remembrance of me” when he instituted the Eucharist at the last supper. Those apostles had successors as we see in the case of Matthias taking the office of bishopric(acts 1:20 kjv)

show me a church celebrating the eucharist in the first 1000 years of Christianity that was not Catholic.

You are correct, jesus is present at your communion, just not in it. and cannot be.

And yes, we can agree to disagree. peace, Justin

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I think that you misunderstand what I am saying here. By “on the Catholic view” I am saying if the Catholic view of transubstantiation is correct, then anyone who eats and drinks the sacrament receives the body and blood.

**Anyone present at the Lords supper and believes at the words of Jesus Christ, the bread and the wine are transubstantiated into the body,blood,soul and divinity of Jesus Christ made present in persona Christi by his designated Priest of the High Priest. And truly believes and the discerns the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This “do this rememberance of me”, is the Last Supper made present verbatim in the present. And is of the bride of Jesus Christ can partake of his divinity in the Eucharist.

If you are not of the bride of Jesus Christ and consume of the Eucharist, or do not discern the body and blood of Jesus Christ. It brings the curses that ST. Paul speaks of why many of you are sick and are dying. To partake of the body and blood of Jesus Christ with out being baptised into his body the bride of Jesus the Catholic church. It is like a woman consummating a marriage without her husband, making her a harlot bringing in the curses of God.**

Am I wrong that Catholics believes that Jesus is wholly present in each of the hosts or any part of one? If I were to go to a Catholic church and go up to recieve during Mass, it is likely that they would give it to me without questioning my religion. (I would never do that.) I would eat the host and receive the same body and blood that a Catholic does.

If a Catholic Priest is aware that non catholics are in attendance of a Mass, the Priest will give protocol to the mysteries. It is up to the individual to adhere. If he or she does not, then liability of sacrilege is upon the individual.

If Jesus statement in John 6:54 is meant to be taken literally, I would have satisfied the condition He placed on the receipt of eternal life. That cannot be what is intended. I can see no way out of this, however if it is accepted that Jesus is speaking literally in this verse. I know that Jesus says more elsewhere but if you take the verse as it stands, He makes an unconditional statement “do A and receive B”.

**It is meant to be taken literally. Jesus is speaking literally to the old covenant bride, who reject him and leave him. Only the 12 chosen remain and Jesus states and one of them is a devil.

These words are meant for us only after the Resurrection where we become his new bride in the new and everlasting covenant, where God has saved the best wine for last, when Jesus gave the first sign, of taking the Jewish ceremonial waters (old covenant) and miraculously changes these waters into the best tasting wine, where the head waiter (servant) states to the bride groom you have saved the best for the last (new covenant).

These words are Spirit (new covenant) not Flesh (old covenant) for the flesh is of no avail. We can not interpret these scriptures ourselves, we need a teacher, and the Catholic church’s teacher is the Holy Spirit (eternal), and my teacher in human years is 2000 years old.

To grasp this I think you need not interpret these scriptures to 20th century thought, or you will end up confused and resentful of the Catholic churches teaching because your interpretation wont fit, the cultural, the language and thought of the time when and to whom it was written in the first century has to come into consideration. The Catholic church has been around for 2000 years of Tradition and know God’s word, for the Catholic church canonized the bible, In her wisdom she knows what she is teaching or else God would not have remained with her these 2 milenium. **