Is the "Real Presence" real?

[sambos671]

I will attempt to do so latter this week as to the protestant answers to these questions when I have time. However, my problem with this is that I agree with you about the Eucharist as far as the early church believes. I’ve explained my positon on my discoveries from studies on this matter and I will attempt to hit each one of your questions from a protestant perspective. Now I know you won’t agree with it but I’ll give their answers

 

[Jimmy_B]

I will attempt to do so latter this week as to the protestant answers to these questions when I have time. However, my problem with this is that I agree with you about the Eucharist as far as the early church believes. I’ve explained my positon on my discoveries from studies on this matter and I will attempt to hit each one of your questions from a protestant perspective. Now I know you won’t agree with it but I’ll give their answers

Hello sambos,

What happen? Where did you go? I would like to read your response…

Peace

 

[sambos671]

Sorry, I got caught up with other things. I’ll get to it this evening but here are some of my thoughts while I have time:

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.

The first thing that Protestants will attest to which Catholics agree and so do most scholars is that the Gospel of John and the Revelation are very theological based and in use of constant symbolism. The disagreement between Protestants and Catholics is which items. If we look at the first at the verses you quote from John 6 we can approch it from two ways. One the Catholic option is that it is literal. Protestant it is not. How do the Protestants then come to this comclusion? I don’t have my bible with me but remember what Jesus said to the woman at the well? I can give you living water so that you will not thrist. Was he being literal? Or Spiritual? Psalms one states that the righteous are like trees planted by rivers of water that give its fruit in do season. Literal or Spiritual? So Protestans take it like the discussion at the well. The first one. What is the “food” spoken of here? The word of God possibly or the Eucharsit. Protestants would say the word and spirit of God. In protestant thought the spiritual is more substantial than physical so verses 54 - 56 will mean to most protestants that true flesh and true food is the more substantial. The essense of God which can only come through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Heliel, a contemporary of Jesus, stated we must eat Torah (pentateuch) not literally but be immersed in it that we live it. Protestants will view these verses the same way. Which is why I went to the early Church Fathers for answers. How did the apostles look at it? We can gleen it from earliest christian writers. They believed in the presense. The old testiment has a peminense in this idea as well. Scripture alone could not identify it for me.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Sorry, I got caught up with other things. I’ll get to it this evening but here are some of my thoughts while I have time:

The first thing that Protestants will attest to which Catholics agree and so do most scholars is that the Gospel of John and the Revelation are very theological based and in use of constant symbolism. The disagreement between Protestants and Catholics is which items. If we look at the first at the verses you quote from John 6 we can approch it from two ways. One the Catholic option is that it is literal. Protestant it is not. How do the Protestants then come to this comclusion? I don’t have my bible with me but remember what Jesus said to the woman at the well? I can give you living water so that you will not thrist. Was he being literal? Or Spiritual? Psalms one states that the righteous are like trees planted by rivers of water that give its fruit in do season. Literal or Spiritual? So Protestans take it like the discussion at the well. The first one. What is the “food” spoken of here? The word of God possibly or the Eucharsit. Protestants would say the word and spirit of God. In protestant thought the spiritual is more substantial than physical so verses 54 - 56 will mean to most protestants that true flesh and true food is the more substantial. The essense of God which can only come through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Heliel, a contemporary of Jesus, stated we must eat Torah (pentateuch) not literally but be immersed in it that we live it. Protestants will view these verses the same way. Which is why I went to the early Church Fathers for answers. How did the apostles look at it? We can gleen it from earliest christian writers. They believed in the presense. The old testiment has a peminense in this idea as well. Scripture alone could not identify it for me.

Hello Sambos671,

View it this way; you have used more effort and done more “personal” interpretation of the Bible to disprove the Real Presence than to prove the Real Presence…Pretend for a minute, that you are a Catholic and use the same process that you have use here to interpret the Bible (as a Catholic) and see what conclusion you reach.

Additionally, I believe that more scholars today are giving a much earlier date to the Gosple of John than earlier estimates. Most dates given for John today, are before the Destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans, in 70 CE.

God didn’t intend for people have a Master’s in Divinity or Theology to understand the Bible.

Note: Catholics do not interpret the Bible in a way that goes against Catholic teaching.

Thanks for your PM and your post here.

Peace

 

[sambos671]

I definately do not have a masters in Bible or theology (though I do in business). I can honestly see the benefit in a Deposit of Faith (left by the apostles) and a magisterium. Which as you say transmit the interpretation of scriputres to the laity. As I study these things I find myself more in line with Catholic thinking. I find myself also agreeing with Jerome that there are levels of understanding the bible beyond the surface. Most protestants would understand scripture translation by the surface meaning and seek guidance through the Holy Spirit. And for a time that is sufficeint. However, to seek more truth a christian must dig. I believe most protestants scratch the surface. There is a well of information. Catholics have done a lot of this. I find that I had to read some really early text to get an idea of what the early christian beliefs actually were. And honestly they were more in line with statements of the Catholic Church. Look at the Didache for instance. Clement’s writings were all about unity and submission to the Bishops. So, yes I struggle. My issues with Catholism are more personal than theological except for some really non issues such as Mary, Prayer to the Saints ect… You don’t really have to believe these to be “saved” under catholic understanding. Though most catholics would say your missing out on some grace here. Eucharist is a big issue for me. However, so is a personal relationship with Jesus. I never seem to understand that when I was a catholic. It seem to fly over my head.
On a side note. I attended mass last week (Assention Thursday). First time in many, many Years. And I understood it a lot better now then ever before. It is litterally crammed packed with theological discussion all with in a short period of time. I must say I enjoyed more now then when I was growing up. Now that I understood everything in a historical context. As a Catholic I would have just said the prayers and all of it go over my head. It occured to me that Mass (though (name removed by moderator)ortant) is just the starting point. If a Catholic were a follower of Christ. Mass would be the starting point and the rest of the week would be spent in prayer and meditation, reading the scriptures, ect… things that protestants do as a matter of course. I know there are catholics who do these things but there are many who just meet the obligations of mass and confession. I was one of the latter. Now I see it a lot differently.

 

[MaryChristine]

Jesus said we are to be as children and when I hear/read extremely convoluted and complex explanations, it sends a shudder through me. Jesus said things simply and we still want to obfuscate. The richness and depth of scripture is not to be confused with complex theology. Jesus’ theology is simple. God bless, Pax Christi.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Jesus said we are to be as children and when I hear/read extremely convoluted and complex explanations, it sends a shudder through me. Jesus said things simply and we still want to obfuscate. The richness and depth of scripture is not to be confused with complex theology. Jesus’ theology is simple. God bless, Pax Christi.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Jesus said we are to be as children and when I hear/read extremely convoluted and complex explanations, it sends a shudder through me. Jesus said things simply and we still want to obfuscate. The richness and depth of scripture is not to be confused with complex theology. Jesus’ theology is simple. God bless, Pax Christi.

Matthew 11: 25-26

On one occasion Jesus spoke thus: “Father, Lord of heaven and earth, to you I offer praise; for what you have hidden from the learned and clever you have revealed to the merest children. Father, it is true. you have graciously willed it so.”

 

[Jimmy_B]

Matthew 11: 25-26

On one occasion Jesus spoke thus: “Father, Lord of heaven and earth, to you I offer praise; for what you have hidden from the learned and clever you have revealed to the merest children. Father, it is true. you have graciously willed it so.”

 

[SIA]

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?

I absolutely agree.

 

[MaryChristine]

If Jesus didn’t mean true flesh and true blood, then the disciples would never have run away in horror. He certainly didn’t chase after them to say “I only meant symbol.” The Romans who were slaughtering the christians were doing so partly because they believed christians to be “cannibals.” The christians weren’t saying “oh no, it’s just symbol” but were dying because they knew the bread and wine to be the actual Body & Blood of Our Lord. It has been the true Body & Blood of Jesus since Jesus declared it so. The truth changes with Luther and goes from transubstantiation to consubstantiation, and from there the true meaning is altered, changed, disputed, and lost to most protestants. Very sad.

 

[Jimmy_B]

If Jesus didn’t mean true flesh and true blood, then the disciples would never have run away in horror. He certainly didn’t chase after them to say “I only meant symbol.” The Romans who were slaughtering the christians were doing so partly because they believed christians to be “cannibals.” The christians weren’t saying “oh no, it’s just symbol” but were dying because they knew the bread and wine to be the actual Body & Blood of Our Lord. It has been the true Body & Blood of Jesus since Jesus declared it so. The truth changes with Luther and goes from transubstantiation to consubstantiation, and from there the true meaning is altered, changed, disputed, and lost to most protestants. Very sad.

Hello **MaryChristine **and welcome to CAF.

Great post…Great points and All True…I just wanted to add, that most of the Apostles and many of the early Christian Martyrs’… happily, often times singing, went to their deaths because of this Christian Truth. The early Christians had no doubt, whether or not the Holy Eucharist was the Real Presence of Jesus Christ…

People who reject the Real Presence of Christ Jesus in the Eucharist are rejecting a Central Christian Truth and in doing so, are rejecting Christ Himself.

Can anyone who rejects Christian Truths as important and as pivotal to Christianity, really be Christian?

Peace

 

[sambos671]

People who reject the Real Presence of Christ Jesus in the Eucharist are rejecting a Central Christian Truth and in doing so, are rejecting Christ Himself.

Can anyone who rejects Christian Truths as important and as pivotal to Christianity, really be Christian?

I think your point is that if the Protestant Churches who do not believe in the presence in the Eucharist are not really christian. I think the Catholic church would disagree with you on this point though probably not the Orthodox. If what you said were true then the Catholic church would not accept a protestant baptism. Though they do. Protestants becoming Catholic do not have to be re-baptised. I believe the Catholic stance is that protestants not in communion with the church are missing out on grace that the Lord provides in the sacraments for better and more full christian living. Most protestants agree with the apostles creed though they would differ on the meaning of Catholic (Universal). The Catholic church would think of it as their own physical church which is lead by the apostolic see the bishop of Rome or the Father of Rome or the Papa of Rome or the Pope. Protestants would take this to mean all “real” (born again) believers in Jesus Christ (an invisible church which spans all denominations).

 

[mikew262]

People who reject the Real Presence of Christ Jesus in the Eucharist are rejecting a Central Christian Truth and in doing so, are rejecting Christ Himself.

Can anyone who rejects Christian Truths as important and as pivotal to Christianity, really be Christian?

Peace

Easy Jimmy. People who reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist are rejecting a central Catholic doctrine, not rejecting Christ. It doesn’t mean they are not a Christian.

What you and many others fail to understand is just because Protestants do not subscribe to Catholic doctrine doesn’t make them any less a Christian. Even the Church doesn’t make that claim.

Obviously, you are a very devout Catholic, but you need to be careful about making assumptions about other people’s faith. God is the final judge on whose faith is appropriate and whose isn’t, not you, me or anybody else in this world.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Baptism is the one which unites all Christians. It’s amazing when one reads how many Christian sects or denominations have validly baptised members.

The validity would appear to apply principally to the intention of the individual conferring baptism and to the form and matter of course; the general intention of doing what the Church does is sufficient. In my annotated Code of Canon Law [commentary section] it says, “It is important to remember that the minister’s lack of faith or sanctity does not affect the validity of baptism.”

Among those whose baptism is to be considered for validity, the commentary mentioned Disciples of Christ, Presbyterians, Congregationalists,Baptists, Methodist [there are others]. Although the term “rebaptised” is sometimes employed, it can be misleading because nobody can be baptised “again” or “a second time”. When there is doubt as to whether a Christian convert to catholicism has been baptised, or whether the baptism is valid, a conditional formula is used. If the person was already baptised validly, the conditional baptism has no effect. If the baptism was not valid, then the person is indeed baptised by (using) the conditional formula.

It can be a real challenge sometimes to show the full measure of Christian charity in particular threads,moreso when it feels like our faith is being attacked…especially our faith in the true presence of Christ Himself - in His infinite humility, in the Holy Eucharist. Who among the Catholic portion of us can’t recall the prayer the Angel of Fatima taught the three visionaries in 1917 ?

St. Tarcisius’ history is worth a read. It’s very brief (takes maybe 1 minute to read). He was a boy of about 12 years old who gave his life for the Holy Eucharist…literally…a martyr of the Eucharist.

The Vatican II DECREE ON ECUMENISM put forth the ideal or “model” if you prefer, on how we should regard our fellow Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic church.
I found one particular section of the DECREE to be applicable to the present coordinates in this thread. It moved me deeply when I read it…hope it does the same for others.

Chapter 1; Catholic Principles on Ecumenism
Beginning of article 3:

1. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

 

[sambos671]

St. Tarcisius’ history is worth a read. It’s very brief (takes maybe 1 minute to read). He was a boy of about 12 years old who gave his life for the Holy Eucharist…literally…a martyr of the Eucharist

I remember my mother reading this story to me when I was 10. I was really moved as a child and fondly remember that story. He held the Eucharist to his breast not to his death while others beat him. As a child I wanted to stand for my faith like him. Strange how it is that it’s not till many years later that I’ve actually accepted the presence of the Lord in the Eucharist.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I remember maybe 20 or so years ago a priest coming to give a mission on the Real Presence at our parish. For about 90% of the time he was walking around the church with the Blessed Sacramant exposed in a monstrance stopping at each pew, slowly and gently repeating over and over again. “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.”

At the end of the mission I asked myself:“How come they never told us that before?” (I believe the answer was that they did but my ears hadn’t been opened yet).

 

[Jimmy_B]

Easy Jimmy. People who reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist are rejecting a central Catholic doctrine, not rejecting Christ. It doesn’t mean they are not a Christian.

What you and many others fail to understand is just because Protestants do not subscribe to Catholic doctrine doesn’t make them any less a Christian. Even the Church doesn’t make that claim.

Obviously, you are a very devout Catholic, but you need to be careful about making assumptions about other people’s faith. God is the final judge on whose faith is appropriate and whose isn’t, not you, me or anybody else in this world.

You’re right Mike262, all those who are properly baptized are by definition, “Christian”. However, not all “Christians” are going to heaven, don’t you agree? I wasn’t making a statement; I was asking an important question.

Catholics too, can be guilty of rejecting Christ. Every time we choose sin, we reject Christ. Whenever we reject any Christian truth, we reject Christ, because all Christian truths, originate from Christ…Right?

I wrote, “Christian truths”, because “Catholic truths”, are Christian truths. Catholicism is the original Christian religion.

How many Christian truths are we “allowed” to reject before we are, by are own beliefs and by our own actions, no longer Christian? Is there a special number?

There are some denominations today for example, who claim to be Christian and they are not.

The so-called Christian denominations, which are not considered “Christian”, are not… because of a rejection of Christian truths.

There exist some “Christian” denominations today, who do not have as a belief, the most basic Christian requirement; Baptism.

Where does it end? How many Christian truths are people allowed to reject. I don’t believe that we are allowed to reject any…And that was my point…

Your thoughts?

Thank you for your post.

Peace

 

[sambos671]

So Jimmy that begs the question: “what does one have to believe about Jesus to be saved?” I’ve mentioned before the apostles creed and that most protestants would agree with it except maybe for the definition of Catholic. If you’re going from a completly definitive view a protestant would accept Catholic as universal not necissarily represented by the Bishop of Rome. If protestants believe in the apostles creed and they live a life worthy of the name christian. Then are they saved?

 

[gavanhe]

To all of us who are catholic this is a no brainer, the question was settled 2000 years ago (sorry 1975 years)!!
Gerry