P
peary
Guest
How do you know? and how is he present??
- Status
S
SyCarl
Guest
I prefer to refer to how He is actually present as a mystery.
It is difficult to explain how I know He is present. When the bread is distributed and while praying and contemplating before eating I can sense His presence. A great feeling of awe and love overwhelms me. At the same time I am filled with a combination of wonder, peace and calm. I have nothing to worry about because He is there and I have the confidence that He will always be with me. I can’t but it into words any better than that.
P
peary
Guest
I suppose. Protestant ecclesial communities who have Communion have Christ present to them spiritually …“Where two or more are gathered in my name…” For Catholics, however, it is much more than that, as you know.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hi Sycarl,
Transubstantiation is the “Real Presence”! You post page after page of Bible verses trying to disprove Transubstantiation … I think? And then your write that you believe in the “Real Presence”. I don’t get it.
Are you sure that you are not referring to Consubstantiation?
Peace
P
peary
Guest
Originally Posted by **SyCarl **
I hope that I am not perceived as being anti-Catholic. I am not. I am merely try explain why I believe as I do. As I have said before, I believe in the real presence, just not the same way as Catholics do. I think that transubstantiation tries to explain too much of what is a mystery. Whatever we think or understand, God will do what He wills in the sacrament.
Again, if I am coming off as anti-Catholic I apologize.
**No, you are not being perceived as anti-Catholic. Transubstantiation also honors the sacredness of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. All it says is that Christ is present body, blood, soul and Divinity under the outer appearances of bread and wine which, when consecrated, remains His body and blood for us. Consubstantiation (as far as I know) means that Christ is present in the same way, but this presence ‘leaves’ after communion has been served, and the bread and wine revert back to their original substance (I think
). But this also brings up the necessity of the priesthood and the authority given by Christ to His Church. Protestant ecclesial communities do not have this authority, and the apostolic succession is not there.
But I contend that protestant communion does have a spiritual aspect to it based on Christ’s words “Where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them.” But it is not Eucharistic as the Church understands it.**
I hope that I am not perceived as being anti-Catholic. I am not. I am merely try explain why I believe as I do. As I have said before, I believe in the real presence, just not the same way as Catholics do. I think that transubstantiation tries to explain too much of what is a mystery. Whatever we think or understand, God will do what He wills in the sacrament.
Again, if I am coming off as anti-Catholic I apologize.
**No, you are not being perceived as anti-Catholic. Transubstantiation also honors the sacredness of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. All it says is that Christ is present body, blood, soul and Divinity under the outer appearances of bread and wine which, when consecrated, remains His body and blood for us. Consubstantiation (as far as I know) means that Christ is present in the same way, but this presence ‘leaves’ after communion has been served, and the bread and wine revert back to their original substance (I think
). But this also brings up the necessity of the priesthood and the authority given by Christ to His Church. Protestant ecclesial communities do not have this authority, and the apostolic succession is not there.But I contend that protestant communion does have a spiritual aspect to it based on Christ’s words “Where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them.” But it is not Eucharistic as the Church understands it.**
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
Imagine what it would be like if you were able to receive the actual Eucharistic meal from Christ’s apostolic ministers. You may be speechless.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I believe one of the strong issues here on the true presence is, What is considered a valid Eucharist, and who is the Valid person who can confect the Eucharist as valid in being the true body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This plays a big part on the true presence, a valid priesthood that lasts forever as scripture states in Hebrews, to be able to consecrate a valid Eucharist.
T
teadough
Guest
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I am sort of awe struck, by how it is unfortunate that Jesus is present on earth to us, and yet our seperated brothers and sisters will not do and believe as Jesus commands us to eat his body and drink his blood. Maybe their true desire for the true presence in their invalid Eucharist may bring them to the light like the desire of baptism.(((prayers for Sycarl)))
Can this be a fulfillment of Jesus Gospel and of the prophet, because they refuse Jesus in his valid blessed Sacrament to be his true body, blood, soul and divinity:
Matthew 13:13 … **because ‘they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.’
14
Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says: ‘You shall indeed hear but not understand you shall indeed look but never see.
15
Gross is the heart of this people, they will hardly hear with their ears, they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them.’ **16
**7 "But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. **
17
**Amen, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
Yes Lord Jesus I believe in you, and I do see and hear you, and I obey your words that when you say take eat this bread, this is my body that is given for you, Take drink, this is my blood in the new and everlasting covenant. Amen**
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
amen amen. True food and true drink, true flesh and true blood, given for us and then offered to us! amen!
S
sambos671
Guest
If I believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ and that his presence is in the elements. Do I have to believe it works by transubstantiation? I know the Copts and the Orthodox have a different take.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
This is a profound question? Faith is required here sambos. Transubstantiation is the term used to defend the Eucharist against unbelievers of intellecutual devise who do not have faith.
Many of us have trouble understanding this mystical concept. I can only give you my opinion not a Catholic teaching. That is I dont understand exactly this mystery of the Eucharist in transubstantiation in terms of human words.
I believe in faith That Jesus says the bread is his body and wine is his blood in the Eucharist. This I will live and die for Jesus words. The word Transubstantiation does not prevent me from believing Jesus words. But I do not go against this teaching of the Authority that Jesus has placed on earth His church built on the Prince of the Apostles Peter.
I dont think the most scientific mind can explain this term without faith being the substance of understanding and believing how this transubstantiation occurs, and all of us Roman Catholics dont even consider to contest it, we just accept Jesus commandments to do this in remembrance of him in faith.
God bless you sambos, here is a Scripture that I apply to the teachings of Jesus and his Eucharist.
Hebrews 11:1
1 **Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence 2 of things not seen. ** (this to me, is the Eucharist transubstantiation)
3
By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, 3 so that what is visible came into being through the invisible. ( This to me, is Jesus incarnate, and present to me at his Eucharist at every Mass according to Jesus Word)
5 **But without faith it is impossible to please him, for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. ** ( When I approach God in his eternal Sacrifical body, blood, soul and divinity In his Eucharist that Jesus gives me, I believe that he exists)
I would recommend you read all of Hebrews 11 and see how the ancients taught us how to believe in God by faith.
Peace of the Lord be with you.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
In summary sambos what you have just declared, if you believe this in your heart even though your natural senses see bread and wine. This eternal food is for your soul on this journey on earth, and to carry on into the journey of death to Jesus. This faith concept in the true presence takes and took away the fear of death from the Apostles and many Catholic Martyrs. I dont know your faith, by your statement you sure sound Catholic, I would keep seeking Jesus in his body.
Peace be with you
S
sambos671
Guest
Thank you. I am a protestant in that I attend a protestant church. However, in my search of scripture and the more in depth questions of our faith I sought the earliest sources. In other words I made a fatal mistake for my protestant notions by reading the church fathers. My reasoning follows as thus. Sy put the protestant notion of the Eucharist pretty well. Christ is speaking symbolically of the Eucharist. If there is a mystery to it is in the spiritual sence. So it’s obvious that the Traditional Christian Churches believe in the presence and the Eucharist being the body and the blood of our Lord. So, My next step is this. The meaning of the NT verses is an unending exegete between those who believe the Eucharist in the traditional sence and those who don’t. When looking at any historical document you want to find external sources. The scriptures for instance can be substantiated by Josephus and others. For the New Testiment understanding of this topic I looked at what the earliest fathers had to say. The earliest writing I could get my hands on that was clear about the belief of the Eucharist was Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote before the end of the 1st century. Already NT writers were battling gnosticism and wrote against them. It seem that if Ignatius was off base so close to the Apostles they would have said something about this belief in Antioch but we don’t have that. The Next close writer and most clear is Justin Martyr. At this point I could not deny that the earliest christians believed this and the apostles did not oppose it. So, they must have taught it. When I re-read Matthew and the jews thought Jesus was talking about cannabalism he doesn’t explain it to his disciples as “I was speaking figuratively” but just asks Peter “will you also leave?” Strange response if the Jews got him wrong. Keep in mind that I read Clements writing as well (very scriptural though lots of quotes from the apochryphal writings which protestants have problems with) and he keeps hitting on obeying the bishops or the episcopals or who ever is the church leaders of the day. It hit home. Then I had to review authority. Protestants are Sola Scriptura but when you consider how the bible is put together to begin with you find that the New Testiment is much like oral tradition (except the gospels). I could compare it to the Jewish concept of the Talmud. When viewed from this perspective I had to give more credance to the Oral Tradition of the Church which is well documented in the early church fathers. If most protestants understood that when the NT writers refer to scripture their talking about LXX not the Bible as we now know it. So primarily the OT and the NT was first listed by Athenasius in it’s current form. Over 200 years later. So many letters and views were accepted Orally and the LXX was authoritative as well as teachings by the apostles and those they passed on these teachings to. I found myself having to believe in the Eucharist. I cannot deny the truth of the beliefs of the Early Church. Now, I’m reevaluating my stance on Catholicism. If you must know. Clement hits home and ultimately I will submit to the Lord even though I have my personal issues with Catholism. Does this make sence to you?
P
peary
Guest
**It’s really difficult having a change of mind when one is brought up believing an untruth. I consider it the Holy Spirit working through you in your sincere desire to know the Truth. It makes perfect sense. **
D
dcb188
Guest
I believe in the Real Presence. But look at John 6:63-64. This comes just after speaking literally about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. And before John 6:63, Jesus is speaking of belief in Him as the key, not the eating or drinking. So the verses just prior to and subsequent to the literal verses about eating His flesh, confuse me, as they are placed before and after the literal teaching re eating flesh and drinking blood. Can someone help me out here? It does not change my mind about the necessity of doing what Jesus tells us to do re eating real flesh and drinking real blood, but it is puzzling to see these before and after verses.
P
peary
Guest
**So, wouldn’t belief in Him as the key subsequently conclude that what He says about eating His flesh and drinking His blood a matter of total trust in Him that He is speaking the Truth?
And you also have to remember that it is His glorified body as God that He gives to us in the Eucharist, not a mere human body.**
D
dcb188
Guest
Yes. I believe. First and foremost. The verses I cited do not cause me to doubt but to wonder at them, but I looked at two different Bible translations just now and John 6:63-64 are slightly different in both, so it may be that the word “spirit” does not mean that Jesus was speaking about spirit and not literally. This is a little confusing, still, but I am not on the fence about it, I am just wondering what the EXACT meaning of 6:63-64 is, and what it refers to. It apparently does not refer to what Jesus just said about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Then what does it refer to?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
You have touched on alot here, the septuagint which Jesus Christ and the Apostles made quotes from in the New Testament, authority, and early church fathers belief in the Eucharist. And you havent touched the iceburg yet. I read your post you write like many of the saints who at once protested the Catholic beliefs, but when they put aside their prejudices and misunderstandings about how they percieved these ancient teachings, if God did not knock them off their horse, they found themselves in Love with the body of Jesus Christ and his Church. One example of intellectual mind is St. Augustine. He at first refused the Catholic church, and her teachings, later to find himself, living a celebate life, and became one of those prolific writers of Christianity many have compared him to St. Paul of Tarsaus.
Sounds like you are on the right path to Truth. You will find many enemies of the early Catholic church after the apostles such as Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysites, Malchedians, Monastacism and others, but I have never found any dispute of the Holy Eucharist until the 15th century during the reformation, until then the Eucharist was uncontested belief for 1500 years since Jesus Christ instituted it at the last supper.
Now you will find many Christians being put to death for the belief of Jesus true presence in the Eucharist, especially by the Roman Emperors, This Eucharist belief has always been a fundamental belief of Christianity since the Apostles on to this day in the Catholic church. How protestantism seperated from Apostolic succession which they had, and refused the Sacraments which they had, and the authority of the Church which they possesed in their kings and bishops. From here continue to water down the beliefs of the true Apostolic church. Some have these sacraments and holy orders, but are presumed invalid from the Apostolic fathers of the body of Jesus Christ.
I take you to be reasonable and forthwright in your pursuit of Jesus truly present. I dont think with the careful study you are giving this topic, no one can pull the wool over your eyes. I am like you, I have to see it for myself, to believe it. And I have.
One more note if you will, The true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is found in the New Testament, as well as the Apostles and early Church fathers, Saints and Martyrs. What is a fascinating study is how the Eucharist can be seen typologically in the old testament, and then receive its Glorious view in heaven in the book of the Apocolypse (book of Revelations). I would encourage you to look into these when ever you get a chance, if you want to be edified and enlightened.
God bless you on your wonderful Journey to the true presence of our dear Lord, King, and Savior Jesus Christ. Praise be Jesus Christ both now and forever.
Ps. if I can be of help on resources please Email me here or post up.
B
banjo
Guest
Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, offer the following commentary: “**6:63 the spirit . . . the flesh: **A contrast between the Spirit’s ability to enlighten our minds (14:26) and human reason’s inability to comprehend revealed truths apart from faith (8:15). It is this earthbound perspective that is profitless in the face of divine mysteries. Note that Jesus is not speaking of his own “flesh”, which does in fact give life to the world (6:51; Eph 2:13-16; Heb 10:10).
In the same source, Hahn and Mitch also divide the “Bread of Life” discourse into two parts. “(1) *Invitation to FaithI (6:35-47). *The first half of the discourse opens with the statement ‘I am the bread of life’ (6:35). This is followed by a string of invitations to come to Jesus and believe in him for salvation. The metaphorical import of Jesus’ teaching is so obvious that it stands out in the response of the Jews, who ask him, not why he calls himself bread, but how he can claim to have descended from heaven (6:42). (2) Invitation to the Eucharist (6:48-58). The second half of the discourse likewise opens with the statement ‘I am the brad of life’ (6:48). This is followed by a string of invitations to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood. Here the literal import of Jesus’ teaching is so obvious that it, too, stands out in the response of the Jews, who ask how it is possible to consume his flesh (6:52). In the end, these two halves of the sermon work in tandem, since without faith we can neither be united with Christ nor recognize his presence in the Eucharist. If eating is believing in 6:35-47, then believing leads to eating in 6:48-58.”
- Status