Is the "Real Presence" real?

[Rolltide]

Here are several more quotes:
**
Origen**

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
**
Hippolytus**

"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper " (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
**
Tertullian*

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
**
Clement of Alexandria**

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Here is what J. N. D. Kelly has to say in his book Early Christian Doctrines about the above quotes. (pgs 211-212):

“Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. (see my last post) Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally”.

Now, out of these last few passages, no single quote would support belief in the Real Presence all by itself. However, taken as a collection, it provides strong evidence that the belief was widespread. In light of even earlier documentary evidence (which I’ll give in my next post) that is far more clear on the doctrine of the Real Presence, these quotes become important as evidence of continuity.*

 

[Rolltide]

And finally, we come to the most important quotes of all:
**
Irenaeus**

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

About this passage, J.N. D. Kelly states:
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly,** for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” **(ibid., 197–98).

Now this IS significant! We have Iraneus of Lyons, in 189 A.D., writing an entire tract to refute the heresy of the Docetists. Here is what Wikipedia says about the Docetists:

"In Christianity, Docetism (from the Greek δοκέω [dokeō], “to seem”) is the belief that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence “the Word was made Flesh” (John 1:14) as merely figurative. Docetism has historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians.

Christology and theological implications

This belief is most commonly attributed to the Gnostics, who believed that matter was evil, and hence that God would not take on a material body. This statement is rooted in the idea that a divine spark is imprisoned within the material body, and that the material body is in itself an obstacle, deliberately created by an evil lesser god (the demiurge) to prevent man from seeing his divine origin.

Docetism could be further explained as the view that, because the human body is temporary and the spirit is eternal, the body of Jesus therefore must have been an illusion and his crucifixion as well. Even so, saying that the human body is temporary has a tendency to undercut the importance of the belief in resurrection of the dead and the goodness of created matter, and is in opposition to this orthodox view. Docetism was rejected by the ecumenical councils and mainstream Christianity, largely dying out during the first millennium A.D. . Other surviving gnostic movements, such as Catharism incorporated docetism into their beliefs, but the movement was destroyed by the Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229)."

Irenaeus is arguing against Docetism because it denies the sacrifice of Jesus. If God could never take true human form because it was evil, then Jesus’ death was simply an illusion with no real value. Irenaeus HAD to emphasize the Real Presence as part of his argument to prove that Jesus actually DID become flesh. How could someone reject the Real Presence as possible if it didn’t already exist?! The document by Irenaeus is long, but clear, and combined with the other quotes above, helps to push the date for the Real Presence all the way back to the late 2nd century. Keep in mind that Irenaeus was born a mere 25-30 years after the death of the Apostle John, so we are now getting VERY close to the New Testament era

 

[Rolltide]

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Here, we have Justin Martyr writing an Apology (a defense of the Christian faith) to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius to try and defend the practices of the Christians and thus end the illegality and persecution of the Church. As such, it had to be very accurate as to the current beliefs of the Catholic Church, as it would be read by high officials, and possibly Antoninus Pius himself. As a classically trained philosopher, he was well-versed in the debating methods of the time, as well as the arguments of the Romans themselves. The First Apology was written in 151 A.D., so the Real Presence is now clearly a Catholic doctrine just a mere 121 years after the death of Christ, and about 50 years after the death of John, the last surviving apostle.
**
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 which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

And finally, we have the most important quote of all. Our existing evidence suggests that Ignatius was trained by none other than the Apostle John himself, and that he was personally ordained a bishop by the Apostle Peter. This is a man who intimately knew and conversed with the Apostles, and even HE is professing belief in the Real Presence. He is doing this in his letters to his congregations, and we have written records of it as early as 110 AD. The Didache, written about 70 AD (not by Ignatius, but by an unknown author), is the oldest non-Biblical surviving document that we have about Christianity, and it too emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

So what’s the bottom line? If the Real Presence of the Eucharist is a false teaching, then the Apostles themselves incorrectly trained and appointed a bishop with false beliefs, and are responsible for the perversion of the Catholic Church. It is very clear that this would not be likely. There are other documents that also support this opinion, but I’ve only listed the most important and significant ones. I should also point out some relevant Bible passages:

1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71

It would also do you well to read “The Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn. It describes in detail how the Catholic Church has always taught that the Book of Revelation by John is in fact an analogy describing the Sacrifice of the Mass. Most of the images used are direct symbolic representations of the various parts of the Catholic Mass. His interpretation is not new (nor is it the only acceptable one), but it does demonstrate how the Mass IS highly Biblical, as is the Real Presence and its sacrificial nature.

I now give you some time to digest all of this… *

 

[Rolltide]

I should also note that the vast majority of Christian denominations believe in the Real Presence. By numbers:

Those that believe in the Real Presence
Catholics - 1,120,000,000
Eastern Orthodox - 225,000,000
Oriental Orthodox - 72,000,000

Total - 1,417,000,000

Anglicanism - 77,000,000 (Some believe in the Real Presence, some do not)

Those that reject the Real Presence
Protestantism (mainline) - 590,000,000
Pentacostalism - 105,000,000
Non-Trinitarian - 28,500,000
Restorationaism - 18,000,000

Total - 741,500,000

Total number of Christians - 2,235,500,000
Percentage of those that believe in the Real Presence - 63.38%
Percentage of those that reject the Real Presence - 33.17%
Percentage of Anglicans - 3.44%

Now, of course, I realize that this says nothing about whether the belief is actually true or not, but is a powerful indication of what the MAJORITY of Christians believe.

Edit: I forgot to add in Lutherans, which ALSO believe in a form of the Real Presence…

 

[Rolltide]

I’d also like to present the following Biblical argument, spelled out expertly in The Lamb’s Supper by Dr. Scott Hahn. Perhaps you would like to re-read Revelation in light of the following idea. Compare the imagery of Revelation to the parts of the Catholic Mass:

Sunday worship 1:10
a high priest 1:13
an altar 8:3-4; 11:1; 14:18
priests (presybteroi) 4:4; 11:15; 14:3; 19:4
vestments 1:13; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9; 15:6; 19:13-14
consecrated celibacy 14:4
lamp stands, or Menorah 1:12, 2:5
penitence ch. 2 and 3
incense 5:8; 8:3-5
the book, or scroll 5:1
the Eucharistic Host 2:17
chalices 15:7; ch. 16; 21:9
the Sign of the Cross (the tau) 7:3; 14:1; 22:4
the Gloria 15:3-4
the Alleluia 19:1, 3, 4, 6
Lift up your hearts 11:12
the “Holy, Holy, Holy” 4:8
the Amen 19:4; 22:21
the “Lamb of God” 5:6 and throughout
the prominence of the Virgin Mary 12:1-6; 13-17
intercession of angels and saints 5:8; 6:0-10; 8:3-4
(You will want to pay attention to these three in particular. Jesus is referred to as the “Lamb of God” in Revelation (and almost exclusively in Revelation) to emphasize his ongoing sacrifice. He becomes the one perfect sacrifice for all, and replaces eternally all other sacrifice. His sacrifice, which continues for all time in the Catholic Mass, is a foreshadowing of the worship we will have for God in Heaven.)
devotion to St. Michael, archangel 12:7
antiphonal chant 4:8-11; 5:9-14; 7:10-12; 18:1-8
readings from Scripture ch 2-3; 5; 8:2-11
(again, note the strong importance of Scripture with regard to the Mass)
the priesthood of the faithful 1:6; 20:6
catholicity, or universality 7:9
silent contemplation 8:1
the marriage supper of the Lamb 19:9, 17

I could go into much greater detail, but Dr. Hahn does it much better than I.

 

[Harpazo]

Rolltide, before you get blasted by some protestants on here, you must realize that some of them believe in the “real presence” but fail to define what it means for their denomination. Only the high church Anglicans or “Anglo-Catholics” will believe exactly as Catholics on “Eucharistology” yet will still claim to be Catholic without having to submit to Christ’s appointed Apostle. Perhaps “submit” is not the best word to use.

Regardless, many Protestant groups that use the term “real presence” do so in not the way Apostolic Christianity does. Some may even attempt quoting the ECFs. Most will not admit to it, but their “Eucharistology” is in lines with or at Consubstantiation.

I’ll say it again, it takes a lot of pride to accept another man’s view on Christ and the Eucharist, other than Christ’s and that of His Church. Even moreso, it takes a lot more pride to cling to it when presented with evidence showing otherwise.

That’s my 2 cents on the matter.

Al-Masih qam!
Andrew

 

[Rolltide]

Rolltide, before you get blasted by some protestants on here, you must realize that some of them believe in the “real presence” but fail to define what it means for their denomination.

The poster just before me that I was responding to seemed to outright reject any notion of the Real Presence.

Only the high church Anglicans or “Anglo-Catholics” will believe exactly as Catholics on “Eucharistology”

As I pointed out, the Orthodox belief in the Real Presence also does not conflict with Catholic theology, and they are certainly a major percentage of total Christians.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I know I am coming into this conversation abit late, but this caught my eye.

Are you saying that Christ is still offering a sacrifice in Heaven?

What you wrote above is in the present tense. The quote which you refered to is in past tense. Which is it? what do you believe?

Re 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

I’m confused, because Hebrews says the following;

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Please explain what I have outlined in Red. What you wrote and what these passages say seem contradictory to me.

Thank you

the one you are persecuting". Certainly a persecuted person will feel something. If a child is harmed doesn’t the parent feel something? God is no remote out of touch God. He is well connected to us.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cruisin;3480483:

I know I am coming into this conversation abit late, but this caught my eye.

Are you saying that Christ is still offering a sacrifice in Heaven?

What you wrote above is in the present tense. The quote which you refered to is in past tense. Which is it? what do you believe?

Re 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain

, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

I’m confused, because Hebrews says the following;

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Please explain what I have outlined in Red. What you wrote and what these passages say seem contradictory to me.

Thank youthe one you are persecuting

". Certainly a persecuted person will feel something. If a child is harmed doesn’t the parent feel something? God is no remote out of touch God. He is well connected to us.

I am sorry cruisint, I can answer the highlights for you. But I warn you, are you Catholic? because this takes deep reflection of the Eucharist. Do you understand the Mass? I hate to go, but I will return, and post up. If I lose you just let me know ok, I have to go now. Peace and Love, maybe someone else can share in the mystical body of Christ. Ps., this thought comes from along line of explanations, If you get a chance review the previous threads leading up to the comment you questtioned.

 

[Jimmy_B]

cruisin;3480483:

I know I am coming into this conversation abit late, but this caught my eye.

Are you saying that Christ is still offering a sacrifice in Heaven?

What you wrote above is in the present tense. The quote which you refered to is in past tense. Which is it? what do you believe?

Re 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain

, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

I’m confused, because Hebrews says the following;

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Please explain what I have outlined in Red. What you wrote and what these passages say seem contradictory to me.

Thank youthe one you are persecuting

". Certainly a persecuted person will feel something. If a child is harmed doesn’t the parent feel something? God is no remote out of touch God. He is well connected to us.Hello NeedImprovement,

I take it from the “Protestant” talking points that you have posted here, which are out of context and most of which do not address the issue of the Eucharist, that you reject transubstantiation or the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, am I correct? If so, what do you believe? I will try to help as best I can. First, do you believe that God is and can be, both omnipotent and omnipresent? Second, do you believe that there exists conflict in the Bible or that one Bible verse can conflict with another?

Peace

 

[Jimmy_B]

I know I am coming into this conversation abit late, but this caught my eye.

Are you saying that Christ is still offering a sacrifice in Heaven?

What you wrote above is in the present tense. The quote which you refered to is in past tense. Which is it? what do you believe?

Re 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

I’m confused, because Hebrews says the following;

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Please explain what I have outlined in Red. What you wrote and what these passages say seem contradictory to me.

Thank you

Hello cruisin,

I take it from the “Protestant” talking points that you have posted here, which appear to be taken out of context (most of which do not address the issue of the Eucharist) that you reject transubstantiation or the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, am I correct?

If so, what do you believe? I will try to help as best I can. First, do you believe that God is and can be, both omnipotent and omnipresent? Second, do you believe that there exists conflict in the Bible or that one Bible verse can conflict with another?

Peace

 

[peary]

**Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”

Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus’ use of “poured out” in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.

Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses’ statement “blood of the covenant.”

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.

Acts 2:42 - from the Church’s inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the “breaking of the bread”) to fulfill Jesus’ command “do this in remembrance of me.”

Acts 20:28 - Paul charges the Church elders to “feed” the Church of the Lord, that is, with the flesh and blood of Christ.

Matt. 6:11; Luke 11:3 - in the Our Father, we ask God to give us this day our daily bread, that is the bread of life, Jesus Christ.

Matt. 12:39 – Jesus says no “sign” will be given except the “sign of the prophet Jonah.” While Protestants focus only on the “sign” of the Eucharist, this verse demonstrates that a sign can be followed by the reality (here, Jesus’ resurrection, which is intimately connected to the Eucharist).

Matt. 19:6 - Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ’s union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ’s body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).

Luke 14:15 - blessed is he who eats this bread in the kingdom of God, on earth and in heaven.

Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus commands the apostles to “do this,” that is, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, in remembrance of Him.

Luke 24:26-35 - in the Emmaus road story, Jesus gives a homily on the Scriptures and then follows it with the celebration of the Eucharist. This is the Holy Mass, and the Church has followed this order of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist for 2,000 years.

Luke 24:30-31,35 - Jesus is known only in the breaking of bread. Luke is emphasizing that we only receive the fullness of Jesus by celebrating the Eucharistic feast of His body and blood, which is only offered in its fullness by the Catholic Church.

John 1:14 - literally, this verse teaches that the Word was made flesh and “pitched His tabernacle” among us. The Eucharist, which is the Incarnate Word of God under the appearance of bread, is stored in the tabernacles of Catholic churches around the world.

John 21:15,17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed” His sheep, that is, with the Word of God through preaching and the Eucharist.

Acts 9:4-5; 22:8; 26:14-15 – Jesus asks Saul, “Why are you persecuting me?” when Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus and the Church are one body (Bridegroom and Bride), and we are one with Jesus through His flesh and blood (the Eucharist).

1 Cor. 12:13 - we “drink” of one Spirit in the Eucharist by consuming the blood of Christ eternally offered to the Father.

Heb. 10:25,29 - these verses allude to the reality that failing to meet together to celebrate the Eucharist is mortal sin. It is profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Heb. 12:22-23 - the Eucharistic liturgy brings about full union with angels in festal gathering, the just spirits, and God Himself, which takes place in the assembly or “ecclesia” (the Church).

Heb. 12:24 - we couldn’t come to Jesus’ sprinkled blood if it were no longer offered by Jesus to the Father and made present for us.

2 Pet. 1:4 - we partake of His divine nature, most notably through the Eucharist - a sacred family bond where we become one.

Rev. 2:7; 22:14 - we are invited to eat of the tree of life, which is the resurrected flesh of Jesus which, before, hung on the tree.**

 

[Jimmy_B]

John 6:31-56

31 16 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’"
32 So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
35 17 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
36 But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.”
41 The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,”
42 and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring 18 among yourselves.
44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.
46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

*John 6:55 *“For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink”

 

[cruisin]

Jimmy B.

I am glad your are catholic and prowd of it. I am not going to argue aout who is greater in the kingdom. Our Lord has already addressed that. This is what I see you doing. your are greater because you practice in a certain way, and work hard to force everyone who doesn’t believe the way you do, to believe your way.

I have no desire at this time to become catholic.

I am here to understand the catholic faith and try to encourage the catholics around me to, to stop living a double life. behaving one way in church and another after they leave. Now that you know where I stand, Please let me continue.

I am not going to repost the whole passage you are refering to but after reading this and trying to look at the whole picture. I asked myself what was going on. There are two views happening in John chapter 6.

Remember 1 thing in all of this. Before Christ died and arose even his disciples where continuing to think in earthly terms. In cultural terms. To me this is was happening here. My clue is verse 42. Where his earthly parents are mentioned. Christ on the otherhand is speaking within Gods plan. His desire is for then to recognize Him ( Messiah) as the only doorway to God. To accept Him as the one to banish sin forever. He speaks in terms they would undersatand.
I see no reason at this time to read between the lines. Always looking for hidden meanings. I think Jesus was very plain in his speaking. It seems to me to be our nature as humans to look for the conspiracy. Remember the culture then, is not our culture. We have to change our thinking.

AT this time I do not agree with the catholic interpretation. I assume your regurgitating what the church has taught you.

May Christ go wtih you.

 

[peary]

originally posted by cruisin:
I see no reason at this time to read between the lines. Always looking for hidden meanings. I think Jesus was very plain in his speaking. It seems to me to be our nature as humans to look for the conspiracy. Remember the culture then, is not our culture. We have to change our thinking.

**Wow, Jimmy - I didn’t know you were part of that vast right-wing conspiracy **

 

[NeedImprovement]

…
I have no desire at this time to become catholic.

I am here to understand the catholic faith and try to encourage the catholics around me to, to stop living a double life. behaving one way in church and another after they leave. Now that you know where I stand, …
.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I’m sorry for my reply cruisin. I was assuming you were catholic. My answer probably wasn’t very helpful to you then. The living the double life you speak of kinda reminds me of St. Paul speaking of the warring within his members…where he wanted to do one thing but would end up doing another.

Regards, NeedImprovement

 

[sambos671]

Hey Crusin,

Just checking out postings since this subject is pretty much talked out. You make an interesting statement.

This is what I see you doing. your are greater because you practice in a certain way, and work hard to force everyone who doesn’t believe the way you do, to believe your way.

I would normally agree. However, if you read my previous postings you may see that I’m struggling with the whole Eucharist thing and examining if the Catholic faith is the faithful presenter of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. I admit it is a struggle. Many of my previous notions which caused me to leave the Catholic faith to begin with are being put to the test and I’m finding the Church is not so far off as I originally thought. However, I’m getting off my point which is this. I was reviewing Joshua and came to some thoughts about this matter and was wondering about yours. Keep in mind that I’ve come to the conclusion that the teachings of the apostles were that the presence is in the Eucharist. Though, they did not think of it as transubstantiation or any other modern term. But they did believe it to be the body and blood. Very clear. Now Joshua 22 recounts a story that when Joshua was old, Isreal, newly found, was about to go into a civil war over
an alter built by tribes living on the east of the Jordan-
Joshua 22:10-11

When they came to Geliloth near the Jordan in the land of Canaan, the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half tribe of Manasseh built an imposing alter there by the Jordan. And when the Isrealites heard that they had built the alter on the border of Canaan at Geliloth near the Jordan on the Isrealite side, the whole assemblyof Israel gathered at Shiloh to go to war against them.

Here Phineas responce is of interest to my thoughts:
Joshua 22:16-17

The whole assembly of the Lord says:" How could you break faith with the God of Isreal like this? How can you turn away from the Lord and build yourselves an alter in rebellion against him now? Was not the sin of Peor enough for us?

 

[sambos671]

Continued:
If you remember Peor was mentioned in the book of Numbers where just after Balaam shows Moab how to seduce Isreal Peor

Numbers 25:2-3

who invited them to the sacrifices of their gods. The people ate and bowed down before these gods. So Israel joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them.

So even though the eastern tribes built an alter to the Almighty it was considered rebellion because sacrifices were to occur at the tabernacle that Moses had established not one they made. In other words if it’s not how God intended it to be done then is it rebellion to do otherwise? The Eastern Tribes indicate it was a memorial and not for sacrifices and a civil war was averted but when considering this with the Eucharist. Are we rebelling against the very Lord we love? Though we may have historical grievances with the Catholic Church as well as present ones are we forsaking, possibly, the deposit that the Apostles left? I know the Catholic answer. But it hit me and when you take this in consideration with Clements Letter to the Corinthians and Pauls letters as well that we are to submit to authority I am again conserned about my stances. What are your thoughts?

 

[Holly3278]

No, the sacrament (communion, eucharist, etc) is purely symbolic. It is to be done in remembrance of Jesus. Jesus would never have condoned eating His flesh and drinking His blood.