Is the "Real Presence" real?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Based on what, exactly?

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

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. John 6:53
 
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.
A sacrament is not just a sign; it is a sense perceptible sign which effects what it signifies. Think about it a little, ruminate a moment : A sign isn’t really anything in and of itself; it always points to something else.

In John 6: 54-68, these same passages reflected upon by KJK80 we also see the effects of Jesus’ discourse. Once he claimed we were to eat his flesh and drink his blood, “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink” …many of his disciples broke away and would not remain in his company any longer."
 
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 **😛
Yeah, I get comments like from time to time.

Maybe the OP is mad because I posted too many Bible verses… in order… and in context…sensory overload…Who knows?

Personal attacks like this don’t usually bother me, they get to me every once and a while but this comment directed towards me here, is pretty tame compared to some others I have read. I am not bothered by it.

I can come across as being “blunt” to some people at times and there are some here that if you do not share their views and in some cases, their personalities, they get upset.

I try to be nice. 🙂

The OP was responding to me based on a post which consisted entirely of Bible verses and not a single opinion of mine. Maybe the OP will take a deep breath and join our discussion later, here or elsewhere at CAF. I hope he does.

I choose to defend my Catholic Faith, not because it will make me “popular” but because I know I should and I enjoy doing it.

Now back to the question posed in this thread - “Is the “Real Presence” real?”

Peace
 
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.

I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book. - Joseph Smith Jr.
Truth is Mormonism, God is the author of it. - Author Unknown
Boy, a can of worms there huh? The original Church did not believe as you say that it was just a symbol. Though since you’re most likely a Mormon it’s kind of a mute point discussing what the original church believed. Mormons as I understand it are more concerned with the personal revelation that Joseph Smith had and those of the present day prophets in charge of the Church of the Later Day Saints. Prophets in the Mormon church have changed their revelation in a short time period. Such as Black People were related to Satan then not so much. Interestingly just before a missionary effort to Africa. Historically, the Christian Church believed in the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. I have documents and archeology on my side of this issue. On the other hand I find very few archeological evidence of the lost civilization (tribe) of Isreal as mentioned in the book of Mormon. Nor is there evidence that Jesus stopped by and visited with this lost tribe after his accention. Nor did I get a burning in my busom after reading the tedious book of Mormon. I know I sounded harsh. Sorry, I meant it to be a little more mischievous. 😃
 
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
Simply put Hebrews is giving an account about the once and for all sacrifice. Revelations is the liturgical act in heaven taken place, of the eternal lamb sacrifice for our sins.

Revelations 5:6
Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain. ( an eternal living sacrifice for our sins)

This passage is made in the eternal present tense (standing) not past tense. Your text may describe the whole text in present and refers to the lamb stood in a present tense. Different wording but same present tense account.

The book of Hebrews supports the book of Revelations it does not conflict with each other. Hebrews is describing the Sacrifice made once and for all in time. Revelations is showing the Sacrifice being made eternally before the throne of God for our sins. Hebrews describes the event, Revelations reveals the event.
Revelations 5: continues this liturgy in heaven with Jesus eternal priesthood to which Jesus himself instituted on earth in his body the Catholic church, from the apostles and their successors today our bishops. Jesus made them priest at the last supper in order for his sacrifice of blood and body (death) is proclaimed until he returns for his Church. This is the rememberance they are to do, speak to the bread and wine that they become his body, blood,soul and divinity that gives life to his people, just like God ordered Moses to speak to the rock to give living water to God’s people in the desert after he smite the Rock once, Just as Jesus the shephard was stricken once and for all.

Revelations5;9
They sang a new hymn: “Worthy are you to receive the scroll and to break open its seals, for you were slain and with your blood you purchased for God those from every tribe and tongue, people and nation.
10
**You made them a kingdom and priests for our God, and they will reign on earth.” **

The Mass is heaven on earth literally as describes in the book of Revelations. Jesus himself gave us the liturgical prayer… Thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us… This is lived out in the eternal sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacrifice for our sins made present for us with eternity.

Revelations 5:13
Then I heard **every creature **in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, everything in the universe, cry out: “To the one who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor, glory and might, forever and ever.”

This verse above is proclaimed in every Mass vertabim, after the liturgical prayer that Jesus gave us, the Our Father.

So you see, you ask a question of the mystical body of Jesus Christ, a mystery that human words cannot exhaust its meaning, only God can teach you. And he can teach you, through his body, The Catholic church, Where he built his church on Peter, and gave him and the apostles to forgive sins in the priestly ministery, as well to bring to remembrance his sacrifice with eternity until he returns.

The Mass is revealed in the book of Revelations, The Mass is the unbloody sacrificial eternal sacrifice and worship that participates with all of Gods creation made in present time from eternity.
Thus the Lamb standing as though slain, our eternal sacrificial lamb sacrifice is unbloody because he lives.
Peace be with you.
 
Based on what, exactly?

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

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. John 6:53
What makes you think this has anything to do with Lord’s supper? Where for example in the accounts on the Lord’s supper do we see any promise that if you take of it you will have eternal life?
 
Because Jesus tells us in John 6:27 to “LABOR for the food that leads to eternal life, which He will give us.”

And in John 6:55 Jesus says His FLESH, not His words but His FLESH, is real food.(v. 54)

What does Jesus mean when He tells us to LABOR for the food that leads to eternal life?

And what does He mean that by eating this food-eating His flesh-we will have eternal life?

And where in scripture does it say that the Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act?
 
Using the term logos for Jesus is a strict philosophical description. Or are you saying that Jesus was a word and then became flesh.
In answer to this: Yes. Jesus is literally the Word of God made flesh. Pope Benedict has said it this way: In the beginning God gave His people the Torah (Law). But it was a written Law. When God sent His Son, He sent His the true and complete Torah. Christ was the fulfillment of what God gave to Moses. In other words, EVERYTHING God wanted to say to humanity He said in Jesus Christ.
Fulton J. Sheen also explained in “Life of Christ”: What are ones words but the manifestation of the mind (ones own thoughts)? Therefore Jesus as the Word of God is also the Thought of God.
Remember when God created the universe, He SPOKE it into existence. “Let there be light…etc.” Thus, the very Word that created us also redeems us. So in obedience and love we consume the Word of God in the most Blessed Sacrement of the Altar (which the Word of God has told us IS His Body and Blood) and the Word of God consumes us making us one Body in Him and partakers in the Divine Nature.
 
In answer to this: Yes. Jesus is literally the Word of God made flesh. Pope Benedict has said it this way: In the beginning God gave His people the Torah (Law). But it was a written Law. When God sent His Son, He sent His the true and complete Torah. Christ was the fulfillment of what God gave to Moses. In other words, EVERYTHING God wanted to say to humanity He said in Jesus Christ.
Fulton J. Sheen also explained in “Life of Christ”: What are ones words but the manifestation of the mind (ones own thoughts)? Therefore Jesus as the Word of God is also the Thought of God.
Remember when God created the universe, He SPOKE it into existence. “Let there be light…etc.” Thus, the very Word that created us also redeems us. So in obedience and love we consume the Word of God in the most Blessed Sacrement of the Altar (which the Word of God has told us IS His Body and Blood) and the Word of God consumes us making us one Body in Him and partakers in the Divine Nature.
Hello Layp3rs0n,
Welcome to CAF. Great Post! I look forward to reading your posts in the future. 👍

Peace 🙂
 
What makes you think this has anything to do with Lord’s supper? Where for example in the accounts on the Lord’s supper do we see any promise that if you take of it you will have eternal life?
These are difficult questions justasking4. You may not be able to get a simple one sentence answer.

It might be easier to answer if we knew whether you are questioning :

a) Whether Jesus Christ Son of the Living God in his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, **has the power **to exist under the appearance of a piece of bread or under the appearance of wine.

b) Whether Jesus Christ Son of the Living God wanted to make himself present Body, Blood , Soul and Divinity in this same most Holy Sacrament of the altar.

We can certainly agree that the answer to a) is yes he has the power to transform his body as he wishes, such as when he walked on the water. If your answer to a) isn’t yes, then it is better
to stop reading right here…because you aren’t thinking about an omnipotent God.

Here now is a rather unorthodox (no pun intended) approach to b):

Jesus, in his revelations to St. Faustina Kowalska of The Divine Mercy told St. Faustina: " My Mercy is so great that neither man nor angel could ever fathom it, even were they to contemplate it for all eternity."

Now let us add one quote from sacred scripture- Matt 11: 29 :
"Take my yoke upon your shoulders and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart."

Jesus is humble - he just said it in the quote from scripture. But he isn’t only humble like a human being is humble; Jesus is speaking of the humility of God- that is infinite humility. Just as his Mercy is so great we can never fathom it, his humility is so great; or he can bow down so low; or he can make himself so small that we can never fathom it.

A favorite quote of Fr. John Corapi is that our Lord said “Take this and eat it” ,…not “Take this and understand it” adding"even the angels would like to understand it".

The Blessed Sacrament is such a many splendoured sacrament…true for catholics that we say and adhere to: “Whoever eats my body and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in him.” But I’ve always thought it better to start with the fact that Our Lord instituted this Sacrament out of love, so he could remain with us, hidden- so that he wouldn’t impose himself upon us; to ensure or free will did indeed remain free.
 
Is the “Real Presence” real?

I believe that it is real, that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist (Holy Communion) and not merely present “symbolically”.

A belief in the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is supported Biblically.

Many “Protestants” and non-Catholic Christians who reject the Eucharist as the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ, don’t have a problem with the Christian concept that God is both omnipresent and omnipotent, except that is, when it comes to the Eucharist.

Many will accept for example, the belief that God created the Universe, or that God can manifest himself as a “burning bush”, or that the Resurrection occurred, but they do not believe that Jesus can be present in the Holy Eucharist. Where in the Bible, does it say He can’t?

This seems to be a contradiction in beliefs.

Is the “Real Presence” real?
This still seems to me to be a contradiction in beliefs.

Peace 🙂
 
Because Jesus tells us in John 6:27 to “LABOR for the food that leads to eternal life, which He will give us.”

And in John 6:55 Jesus says His FLESH, not His words but His FLESH, is real food.(v. 54)

What does Jesus mean when He tells us to LABOR for the food that leads to eternal life?

And what does He mean that by eating this food-eating His flesh-we will have eternal life?

And where in scripture does it say that the Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act?
👍
 
**
Is the “Real Presence” real?
I believe that it is real, that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist (Holy Communion) and not merely present “symbolically”.

A belief in the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is supported Biblically.

Many “Protestants” and non-Catholic Christians who reject the Eucharist as the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ, don’t have a problem with the Christian concept that God is both omnipresent and omnipotent, except that is, when it comes to the Eucharist.

Many will accept for example, the belief that God created the Universe, or that God can manifest himself as a “burning bush”, or that the Resurrection occurred, but they do not believe that Jesus can be present in the Holy Eucharist. Where in the Bible, does it say He can’t?

This seems to be a contradiction in beliefs.

Is the “Real Presence” real?

Your Thoughts?

Jimmy B

**
 
originally posted by JimmyB:

Is the “Real Presence” real?

I believe that it is real, that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist (Holy Communion) and not merely present “symbolically”.

A belief in the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is supported Biblically.

Many “Protestants” and non-Catholic Christians who reject the Eucharist as the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ, don’t have a problem with the Christian concept that God is both omnipresent and omnipotent, except that is, when it comes to the Eucharist.

Many will accept for example, the belief that God created the Universe, or that God can manifest himself as a “burning bush”, or that the Resurrection occurred, but they do not believe that Jesus can be present in the Holy Eucharist. Where in the Bible, does it say He can’t?

This seems to be a contradiction in beliefs.

Is the “Real Presence” real?

Your Thoughts?

Jimmy B

What was one of the first things Christ did after His resurrection? HE SAID MASS. Yes, He did - on the road to Emmaus.

First, he came to the two disciples as a stranger. He then gave a HOMILY - NOT a sermon - but a Homily. He revealed the Scriptures to them and “their hearts were opened with understanding.”

Next, He and they went to an inn and He broke bread with them, and at that moment THEY RECOGNIZED HIM AS THE LORD - and then…he disappeared.

Is Christ present in the Holy Eucharist? In the Catholic Church and Orthodox churches, yes, He does, and that has been the standard belief of authentic Christianity since its inception. He said it. I believe it. That settles it (for me, anyway!) 🙂
 
What was one of the first things Christ did after His resurrection? HE SAID MASS. Yes, He did - on the road to Emmaus.

First, he came to the two disciples as a stranger. He then gave a HOMILY - NOT a sermon - but a Homily. He revealed the Scriptures to them and “their hearts were opened with understanding.”

Next, He and they went to an inn and He broke bread with them, and at that moment THEY RECOGNIZED HIM AS THE LORD - and then…he disappeared.

Is Christ present in the Holy Eucharist? In the Catholic Church and Orthodox churches, yes, He does, and that has been the standard belief of authentic Christianity since its inception. He said it. I believe it. That settles it (for me, anyway!) 🙂
 
Here is a quote from a missionary I know. More food for thought on this subject.
Great minds and thinkers - sages of the ages - brilliant bible scholars have weighed in on this one for nearly two millennia, so who says they have the corner on God’s wisdom. Let us seek the Spirit’s Holy Guidance and the Wisdom of God and see what He will reveal to us on the matter (John 16:13 and James 1:5). Given that; " God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are: that no flesh should glory in His presence." (I Cor 1:27-29), I therefore have confidence that I am qualified to weigh in on the discussion, though with trepidation - for who is man to solve the Mysteries of God, especially as they relate to our union with Him by Grace through Faith alone-Eph 2:8-9. I find the error of transubstantiation akin to the error of Nicodemus, i.e., misunderstanding the spirit of the Word-John 3:1-11, and II Cor 3:6. Secondly, the belief that the Priest has the authority and power of God to perform the “miracle”, places him in the position of a mediator which was the position of the Old Covenant Priesthood, whereas Christ is now the Priest of the New Covenant. The following scripture speaks expressly to this issue: " For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (I Tim 2:5 and Heb 10:1-18). The carry over of the Old Covenant Priesthood into the New Covenant continues in various ways to this day, not only in Roman Catholicism, but in many post-reformation “churches”. There are those who hold that the person administering the communion must be “Ordained”. Yet the scripture testifies that every child of God (John 1:12) is not only in His Family, but “…a royal priesthood commissioned to “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” Matt 28:19-20. While I know that the RCs and certain others have held that this commission was not given to other than the apostles and their successors, the Scriptures testify to the contrary, i.e., Acts 8:1"And Saul was consenting unto the death of Stephen. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Vs 4 - " Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where PREACHING THE WORD.” Vs 12 - “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” Vs 38b…and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. I find no example of any believer, apostle or otherwise, conducting any “transubstantiation act” in the Scripture. Rather, it is a fabrication of man, a precept of man taught as a doctrine of God and one which is contrary to His doctrine of Salvation. It is so taught and practiced as essential to ones salvation that The Council of Trent, in Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon IV, pronounces an “anathema” upon those who teach that the sacraments are not necessary to salvation. Brother, I encourage you to rest your soul in the sure Word of God, knowing that you are His Child through receiving Christ and His Saving Grace - John 1:12, Eh 2:8-9, and I John 5:9-13.
 
I have had this discussion with many devout & pious non-Catholics and find myself always walking away shaking my head time and again. It seems so simple. Jesus said “is”…“is” my body…“is” my blood…hard teaching…yes…but simple. People who are extremely literal about such things as call no man your father, or repetitive prayer, seem unable to grasp the simplicity of this completely literal statement…“IS”…It just puzzles me why this teaching seems exempt from the “take everything literal mentality?”
 
^That’s one of the things that always drove me away from Evangelical Protestantism. They always demanded a literalist interpretation to all of scripture, especially St. John’s Revelation, but when it came to John 6 then “Oh, no, that’s just symbolic.”!?

🤷
 
Greypilgrim (Gandalf?) originally said:
That’s one of the things that always drove me away from Evangelical Protestantism. They always demanded a literalist interpretation to all of scripture, especially St. John’s Revelation, but when it came to John 6 then “Oh, no, that’s just symbolic.”!?
That’s kind of a cheap shot. Both Protestants and Catholics do not take everything in the bible literally. The question for both groups is to what extent or what pasages. Both groups choose what to take literally and what not to take literally. Johns gospel and the apocolypse are very theologically packed. Though I agree about the Eucharist my argument against the “is” issue is this: the rabbis of the period like Hemiel (Jesus Contemporary) spoke about eating Torah. It’s obvious that they didn’t mean eating scrolls. They meant to be so immersed in it that they are nurished spiritually by it and are ultimately change by it. John quotes Jesus saying that we must eat his flesh. In the same context he also talked about suffering. So it could be understood from a Jewish context to “eat” Jesus’ self sacrificing example and to be so immersed by him that we are willing to lay down our lives for others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top