Is the "Real Presence" real?

[MaryChristine]

I am chastened. It is so easy to forget one’s past. There was a time when I became doubtful of God. I didn’t really know Jesus, but felt if God was real, then Jesus was a cinch since God would be omnipotent. I was searching for proof. I was reading, reading, reading, and couldn’t find God. I read the bible but it made little difference in my search. One day in desperation, I begged God “Please, if you are real, show me.” Some wks/mos. later, while reading an explanation of transubstaniation, I had a conversion experience. I saw the “Light.” I won’t go into the details of the experience but we cannot know what we do not know. Faith is a gift of grace from God. If one searches in prayer and in earnest, God will open our eyes and our ears. We need to be ready to learn things contrary to ourselves if we want to follow God. Being simple and humble as children is the directive. God bless you all.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Catholics don’t deny we can be fed on God’s Word. The Mass consists of 2 major parts:

• The Liturgy of the Word
• The Liturgy of the Eucharist

First we are fed by God’s Word (both Old and New Testament); then we are fed by His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist.

 

[peary]

Greypilgrim (Gandalf?) originally said:

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.

But that goes contrary to the gospel of John, who sees Christ as the “bread that came down from heaven.” And if you connect all of the points made in his gospel along with the completion to the road to Emmaus experience, it becomes crystal clear as to what John is saying, and also explains why the early Christians were so devoted to the Eucharist and were consistently charged with being ‘cannibals.’ The Catholic Church has always had the common sense approach to Scriptures: take them as they are without attempting to find all sorts of bizarre interpretations in the passages. It is true that many protestants take the bible literally until it becomes a ‘catholic’ issue, in which case, what the Church maintains is real and actual becomes, for them, symbolic.

 

[sambos671]

I’ve bought and read through a catholic study bible (CAB) The best parts of it are all in the begining explaining the liturgy and how catholics view the bible ect… The notes were articles writen by other people. What I found curious was that the scholars who wrote the articles seem to indacate that the scriptures (particularily the OT) were put together over time primarily the earlier books starting during the Monarchy and the rest during the babylonian captivity. They question whether the Torah and Joshua was fabricated tales and take offs from the Babylonian mythology such as Gilgamesh or the sumarian epic of their gods Enuma Elish. If most Catholic scholars think this then how can they rely on the Bible as the Word of God? There are protestants (liberally educated) who would agree with this point. I don’t. I can see this taken more seriously with Catholics since the apocryphal writings are without a doubt fabricated like the book of Judith which has very little historical accuracy and the book of Tobit which is also entirely fiction. So do catholics take the bible “as it is” until it’s not a catholic issue?

 

[peary]

I’ve bought and read through a catholic study bible (CAB) The best parts of it are all in the begining explaining the liturgy and how catholics view the bible ect… The notes were articles writen by other people. What I found curious was that the scholars who wrote the articles seem to indacate that the scriptures (particularily the OT) were put together over time primarily the earlier books starting during the Monarchy and the rest during the babylonian captivity. They question whether the Torah and Joshua was fabricated tales and take offs from the Babylonian mythology such as Gilgamesh or the sumarian epic of their gods Enuma Elish. If most Catholic scholars think this then how can they rely on the Bible as the Word of God? There are protestants (liberally educated) who would agree with this point. I don’t. I can see this taken more seriously with Catholics since the apocryphal writings are without a doubt fabricated like the book of Judith which has very little historical accuracy and the book of Tobit which is also entirely fiction. So do catholics take the bible “as it is” until it’s not a catholic issue?

The Church understands the Bible (which is its 'memoirs) as the inspired Word of God. Just because God ‘used’ various myths that were incorporated into the Word to reveal a truth or point is no reason for any scholar to brand it otherwise. The Bible must be understood on many different levels: historical, allegorical, mythological, spiritual, etc. It’s all in there.

 

[sambos671]

Ah. And there is my point. Both groups believe they take the bible as it is to include

historical, allegorical, mythological, spiritual, etc

Or as it is, we believe, presented by God. That presentation is then in question. Catholics with one view and Protestants with another as to what parts are which. If Torah and Joshua are entirely mythology then Moses is a fabrication and so is the Law (perported to be taken from the code of Hemmarabi). If there is no Law then what need is there for Jesus’ sacrifice? And the Eucharist become mute point. You say Protestants take literal only those points that they agree with and catholic issues they take metaphorically. That’s true. Your right. But I must say so do Catholics. Tobit is fictional yet I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen a picture or prayer with the angel Raphael, who is a fictional character in the book of Tobit to make a point. Yet catholics believe him to be an actual angel and designate him as Saint Raphael one of the seven archangels. The gospel of John is primarily a book of theology to teach christians what to believe about Jesus. Many of its points are theologically based and a lot of symbolism is used. Why not the Eucharist? See? That’s why I had to go to ‘outside’ sources to get a clearer picture of what the early church thought about the Eucharist. But I will not buy into Catholics take the scriptures for what it is. Not entirely true we both are biased on our beliefs not the otherway around. Which is why so many non christians have problems with us christians.

 

[peary]

Ah. And there is my point. Both groups believe they take the bible as it is to include Or as it is, we believe, presented by God. That presentation is then in question. Catholics with one view and Protestants with another as to what parts are which. If Torah and Joshua are entirely mythology then Moses is a fabrication and so is the Law (perported to be taken from the code of Hemmarabi). If there is no Law then what need is there for Jesus’ sacrifice? And the Eucharist become mute point. You say Protestants take literal only those points that they agree with and catholic issues they take metaphorically. That’s true. Your right. But I must say so do Catholics. Tobit is fictional yet I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen a picture or prayer with the angel Raphael, who is a fictional character in the book of Tobit to make a point. Yet catholics believe him to be an actual angel and designate him as Saint Raphael one of the seven archangels. The gospel of John is primarily a book of theology to teach christians what to believe about Jesus. Many of its points are theologically based and a lot of symbolism is used. Why not the Eucharist? See? That’s why I had to go to ‘outside’ sources to get a clearer picture of what the early church thought about the Eucharist. But I will not buy into Catholics take the scriptures for what it is. Not entirely true we both are biased on our beliefs not the otherway around. Which is why so many non christians have problems with us christians.

**The comparison between the Code of Hammurabi and the Pentateuch has been an area of study and reflection for a long time in biblical studies. There is no evidence that has surfaced from all of these works that would indicate that the Hebrews directly borrowed material, in any way, shape, or form, from the Code of Hammurabi. There are some similarities, of course, but the similarities are a moot point because of the differences, and only point to some common elements among middle eastern covenants of various tribes.

Even allegorical stories may contain real characters and have been placed in such a form as to reveal a truth which could not be taught in any other way. For example, the names of the archangels teach us something about the ‘personality’ of God as understood in the Old Testament and extra-Judaistic writings. Raphael means “healing God.” Gabriel means “God’s able-bodied one,” or “hero of God.” Michael means “who resembles God.” Uriel means “flame of God,” see?

The fact is, and the Church understands this, God can use whatever is recorded in the Bible to reveal Himself to us, even if it can be found in myths, stories, and legends. It doesn’t make His presence any less for us, but is a way to teach us to reflect and become closer to Him.**

 

[sambos671]

The fact is, and the Church understands this, God can use whatever is recorded in the Bible to reveal Himself to us, even if it can be found in myths, stories, and legends. It doesn’t make His presence any less for us, but is a way to teach us to reflect and become closer to Him.

I have no disagreement here.

The comparison between the Code of Hammurabi and the Pentateuch has been an area of study and reflection for a long time in biblical studies. There is no evidence that has surfaced from all of these works that would indicate that the Hebrews directly borrowed material, in any way, shape, or form, from the Code of Hammurabi. There are some similarities, of course, but the similarities are a moot point because of the differences, and only point to some common elements among middle eastern covenants of various tribes

I agree with you on this point.

Even allegorical stories may contain real characters and have been placed in such a form as to reveal a truth which could not be taught in any other way. For example, the names of the archangels teach us something about the ‘personality’ of God as understood in the Old Testament and extra-Judaistic writings. Raphael means “healing God.” Gabriel means “God’s able-bodied one,” or “hero of God.” Michael means “who resembles God.” Uriel means “flame of God,” see?

Allegorical stories can have real persons in it however, I don’t accept that Raphael is one. Anymore than I believe in the other angels named in the book of Enoch. Your right about the angels names representing characteristics of God. But that is a literary format intended to say something about God. Not necissarily a being with that name.

 

[Delta2]

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

Yes, it’s real and never symbolic

Jesus said precisely that

“For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”
John, 6-55

But some didn’t accept it

“Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?”
John, 6-60

Besides of the bible, there is the traditions, all was transmitted by all apostles of Jesus, and the earlier Fathers of the Church, generation to generation

Trying to minimize, reduce, and cut off all the real significance of the real agony of the Son of God for all mankind redemption, is a Satan’s strategy, THE FATHER OF ALL LIES

• no…no…Jesus didn’t die
• no…no…Eucharist, is only symbolic…you can take it at any time, perhaps with a cup of coffee or Tea, just as a chocolate or something
• no…no…all that didn’t occurred as the bible stands

The sad thing in all of this is seeing millions of people being deceived by the Evil, and falling down

 

[peary]

Allegorical stories can have real persons in it however, I don’t accept that Raphael is one. Anymore than I believe in the other angels named in the book of Enoch. Your right about the angels names representing characteristics of God. But that is a literary format intended to say something about God. Not necissarily a being with that name.

**Angel means "messenger of God (from the Greek ‘angelos’). Although some modern exegesis has ‘decided’ that these are either literary devices or could be other human beings, both the OT and NT agree, when taken at face value, that they were supernatural beings who could take human form and were sent by God to deliver an important message to His people. There is no reason as to why they shouldn’t have revealed their names. Names do matter (mine is important to me just as yours is important to you). The names are in the Bible; I have no issue with angelic names or, for that matter, the existence of these beings. **

 

[sambos671]

I don’t have a problem with angelic names my point was that Catholics as well as protestants both choose what to take literally and not. Tobit a fictional book names an angel Raphael and Catholics take this to be a real being and venerating him rather than saying the truth: could be real being or not. I believe Raphael to be symbolic but Catholics take literally. Protestants take streets of gold literally but Catholics take symbolicly. By the way several other angle names for the seven venerated by Catholics are taken from Jewish Apocolyptic Literature the Book of Enoch not the Bible. Also not Cannon.
Protestants tend to take more aspects of scriptures literally because for them it is the sole authority to base their faith on. Catholics have three things: Tradition (Apostolic Deposit of faith), Scripture, and the magesterium. But both pick and choose what they’ll take symbolicly and literally. I’m just trying to provide a fair debate. Catholics often complain about how literal Protestants take the scripture except when speaking about the Eucharist. True but it goes both ways.:coffeeread:

 

[NeedImprovement]

Angels to God (and us) aren’t just like flowers which are nice to look at. They actually have a ministry. God created each one for a specific purpose and each one carries out His will to perfection.

I don’t have a problem with St. Raphael (God heals). Please tell me you at least believe that St. Michael the Archangel exists. If you do, then it’s because you read chapter xii of the Book of Revelation; because if the other 3 scriptural references to St. Michael (- Daniel x ; Daniel xii; and Jude ix) were the only available criteria we had to consider whether St. Michael really existed, one surmises you’d have to have relegated him into the same category as St. Raphael.

Did you know that satan once was also an angel ? Did you know that some non christian religions think the devil is just a “literary format intended to say something about” evil ? I hope this thread isn’t heading into that ‘hood’.

For a Christian, denying the existence of angels and claiming they are but literary formats or devices is tantamount to heading out into murky water.

Listen how it sounds when we incorporate this notion into sacred scripture:[paraphrasing Luke 2: 9-15] **The literary device of the Lord without a name appeared to the shepherds and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were very much afraid. The literary device without a name said to them: “Be not afraid. I come to proclaim good news to you - tidings of great joy to be shared by the whole people. This day in David’s city a saviour has been born to you, the Messiah and Lord”…Suddenly there was, with the literary device without a name, a multitude of the heavenly literary devices without names, praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest heaven and peace on earth to men of good will." When the literary devices without names had returned to heaven, the shepherds said to one another…

(Now tell me that didn’t make you smile, even just a little, and that will be one more thing I can’t quite believe).

Perhaps angels could now serve to reposition the thread a little and orient it towards its original subject.

Angels, like the Eucharist, have to be taken largely on faith, and faith untested is no faith at all.

Angels are so closely linked to the Eucharist…: Eucharistic Prayer I :"…Almighty God we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing…"

Here are what some of the great Christians who went before us marked with the sign of faith had to say about angels and their ministry:

Taken from Fr. Paul O’Sullivan’s book, THE WONDER OF THE MASS, TAN Books.

St. Gregory: “The Heavens open and multitudes of Angels come to assist at the Holy Sacrifice.”

St. Augustine: “The Angels surround and help the priest when he is celebrating Mass.”

St. John Chrysostom: “When Mass is being celebrated, the Sanctuary is filled with countless Angels, who adore the Divine Victim immolated on the altar.”

The efficacy of the Mass is so wonderful, God’s mercy and generosity are then so unlimited, that there is no moment so propitious to ask for favors as when Jesus is born on the altar. What we then ask we shall almost certainly receive, and what we do not obtain in the Mass we may scarcely hope to receive by all other prayers, penances or pilgrimages.

The Angels know this full well and come in multitudes to adore God and make their petitions at this hour of mercy.

We read in the revelations of St. Bridget: "One day when I was assisting at the Holy Sacrifice, I saw an immense number of Holy Angels descend and gather around the altar, contemplating the priest. They sang heavenly canticles that ravished my heart; Heaven itself seemed to be contemplating the great Sacrifice. And yet we poor, blind and miserable creatures assist at the Mass with so little love, relish and respect!

“Oh, if God would open our eyes, what wonders should we not see!”

When Blessed Henry Suso, the holy Dominican, was saying Mass, Angels in visible form gathered around the altar, and some came near to him in raptures of love.

This is what takes place at every Mass, though we do not see it.

Do Catholics ever think of this amazing truth? At Mass they are praying in the midst of thousands of God’s Angels."

 

[peary]

Protestants tend to take more aspects of scriptures literally because :

…anything that goes against the Church is fine with them

 

[sambos671]

I believe in angels. I even believe in personal Guardian angels (a Catholic teaching kept). I believe in Gabriel and Michael. I believe in multitudes more though I have no idea what their names are. However, Tobit is a fictional book so Raphael could be real or a literary tool. I don’t believe there is enough evidence to say one way or another with him. That would be like me taking Clarance from the movie “Its a Wonderful Life” making him a saint. Paint exquisit pictures of him and Statues and asking him for his assistance or prayers for things. Satan or Ha Satan (accuser or the accuser) is an angel fallen. Scripture pretty clear about it. When Jesus rebukes Satan pretty clear that there is an enemy there. No argument from me there. However, it is interesting to note a greek title for him, Lucifer, in christianity. Lucifer ( in greek mythology) is the morning star. The last one that could be seen at dawn when the other stars have disapeared. The light of the sun eventually makes that star disapear. Greeks believed that this was a god who was chased away by Apollo. That doesn’t mean I don’t think there is a real Devil. I do. I just find it interesting about the greek referrence.

There are protestants who think the Catholic church is to blame for everything and that the Pope is the Antichrist or that it’s the “whore of bablyon” These are carryovers from the difficult reformation period. You have to be patient with them because they really don’t know what they are talking about and regurgitating nonsense. You’ll generally find that these are the same ones who will only read the King James Version of the Bible (I jokingly say that they say "I use the bible Jesus used The KIng James version). The fact is they have no idea what the church teaches. They only see outward traditions such as genuflecting, making the sign of the cross, lighting incense, prayers in front of statues, repetative prayers and think these things reflect a pegan past. I am not one of them. (except the secret vault in the vatican that has the name of all the protestants for a future inquisition )

 

[peary]

I believe in angels. I even believe in personal Guardian angels (a Catholic teaching kept). I believe in Gabriel and Michael. I believe in multitudes more though I have no idea what their names are. However, Tobit is a fictional book so Raphael could be real or a literary tool. I don’t believe there is enough evidence to say one way or another with him.

I trust the Church in telling us that, yes, Raphael is a real angel
And remember, the name means “God heals.” So, keep that in mind the next time you read Tobit. It may give the book a whole new meaning.

Satan or Ha Satan (accuser or the accuser) is an angel fallen. Scripture pretty clear about it. When Jesus rebukes Satan pretty clear that there is an enemy there. No argument from me there. However, it is interesting to note a greek title for him, Lucifer, in christianity. Lucifer ( in greek mythology) is the morning star. The last one that could be seen at dawn when the other stars have disapeared. The light of the sun eventually makes that star disapear. Greeks believed that this was a god who was chased away by Apollo. That doesn’t mean I don’t think there is a real Devil. I do. I just find it interesting about the greek referrence.

The Greek name for Lucifer is Phosphoros which translates from the Hebrew *Helel ben Shahar *in Isaiah 14:12, and when the Greek was translated into Latin, Jerome used Lucifer: “How you have fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” The verse was interpreted by Christians as a reference to “Satan,” because of the mention of a fall from Heaven, even though it is literally a reference to the King of Babylon.

There are protestants who think the Catholic church is to blame for everything and that the Pope is the Antichrist or that it’s the “whore of bablyon” These are carryovers from the difficult reformation period.

…but have been perpetuated as christian fundamentalism has increased.

)

 

[sambos671]

Thanks for the correction on Lucifer.

…but have been perpetuated as christian fundamentalism has increased.

Possibly. I see less of that then I use to. Maybe its because I really don’t associate with those type of protestants. They tend to be clickish (like many independent baptist churches) or ultra strange pentecostal churches. My difficulty with the people I’m around is getting them past the surface bible stuff. For being Sola Scriptura many protestants are fuzzy about how the bible was put together or understand the Jewish context of New Testiment Statements. And here is the real kicker. I wonder how many non seminary students know what happen between the time of the return from Babylon to the birth of Jesus? Much less to have a decent discussion about the Eucharist. One pastor I spoke with on my Early Fathers discussion about the Eucharist said " Yes they believe that but I’m not sure its necissary for salvation." At least he was honest about what he thought. On the other hand I think it was a find he had in seminary that he struggled with.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Greypilgrim (Gandalf?) originally said:

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.

But where in the bible does it say “to eat Jesus’ self-sacrificing example”?

The Catholic Church reads and interprets the bible in a literal sense-that is that we read and interpret following the history, context, and intent of the inspired author.

Many Evangelical Protestants read and interpret the bible in a literalistic sense-that is that what the bible says is exactly what the bible says and that’s it.

Here’s an example:
2000 years ago an author writes that “it’s raining cats and dogs.”

2000 years later that sentence is read once by someone following a literal sense and once by another who follows a literalistic sense of interpretation.

Literal sense- sentence is understood to mean that the intent of the author was trying to convey that it was raining very very hard.

Literalist sense-sentence is interpreted to mean that cats and dogs were falling from the sky like rain.

My point was that Evangelical Protestants insist on this style of literalistic interpretation especially when it come to the book of Revelation, yet when they read John 6 they backpedal.

Exactly how is that “a cheap shot” by pointing out an obvious inconsistency in there tradition?

 

[sambos671]

My point was that Evangelical Protestants insist on this style of literalistic interpretation especially when it come to the book of Revelation, yet when they read John 6 they backpedal.

Exactly how is that “a cheap shot” by pointing out an obvious inconsistency in there tradition?

Oh, I understand your meaning. The fact is how both protestants and catholics take what they believe to be literal, literally, and what they don’t think should be taken literally, they don’t. It’s not just protestants. For instance the gospel of John is theologically motivated and symbolism is used. Not all of it but parts. If we take Jesus statement from a Jewish context, like I mentioned before, from that time period; we could say that like Hemiel (a contemporary of Jesus who said we must eat Torah) Jesus could be saying we must eat him. I’m not saying this is what Jesus is saying but I’m saying that would be an argument for it. Which is why the whole “is” argument is not quite as strong as one thought. The whole Tobit discource I had reflects why I thought the argument was kind of a cheap shot. We both do it Catholics and Protestant. The question is which parts and why. Your argument will obviously be the Catholics interprete it correctly. I would say why do you say so? Well your answer should be that you have many more years incorporated in the church’s magisterium and that the Catholic Church has faithfully carried on the Deposit of Faith left by the apostles. That must be your primary anwer. Arguing textually is a slippery slide for both Catholics and Protestants. Ultimately, We both have to go back to what was the context and how was it originally intended. If I were to ask a Jew how he would interepret Jesus sayings from a Rabbinic perspective I would have a different answer than what you have given. And if we’re both honest we do know a lot about the time period but there are just as many mysteries about the time period. Qumran helped solve some of those but there are still others. My challenge to you is how greek did the understanding of what Jesus said become accepted through the early church? Like the Logos quickly changed from explaining a role of Jesus as creator to demiurge of platoism creating the gnostic movement. How much of that infiltrated the early church? I’m not passing judgement just questioning.

 

[AntePavelic]

Yes.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

As far as the ‘is’ argument I don’t take that approach.

The approach I take is this:

John 6:[27] Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal."

John 6:55 “For my Flesh is true food, and my Blood is true drink.”

John 6:[54] “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

What does Jesus mean when He says to “LABOR” for the food that leads to eternal life which He will give us?

What does Jesus mean when He says that His FLESH is true food and that whoever eats this food-eats His FLESH-will have eternal life?

Why does He say that the way to abide in Him is to eat His flesh?

Where in John 6 does the Lord say that he means to just “spiritually eat His flesh”?

And where in John 6 does it say that His flesh-Jesus’ flesh- is of no avail?

As far as the real presence in the early church:

1 Cor 10:[16] The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

What does Paul mean when he says that the bread and the wine are a participation IN the Body and Blood of Christ?

1 Cor 11:[27] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

& [29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

If it just a matter of bread and wine then why does Paul write here that those who receive them in an unworthy manner are guilty of blasphemy?

And if the sacrament of bread and wine has no real effect beyond being a symbol of profession to the community how can one partake of it unworthily much less be guilty of profaning the Lord?

I have yet to get a decent response to any of my questions.