Is the "Real Presence" real?

[NeedImprovement]

Even post-spiritual awakening, there can be such a thing as backsliding or kind of getting lost again along the way.

We have an expression: The Catholic Church is Holy, but it’s made up of sinners.

From the **Profession of Faith **in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Christ, ‘holy, innocent, and undefiled,’ knew nothing of sin, but came only to expiate the sins of the people. The Church, however, clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal. All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners. In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time. Hence the Church gathers sinners already caught up in Christ’s salvation but still on the way to holiness:

The Church is therefore holy, though having sinners in her midst, because she herself has no other life but the life of grace…

 

[MaryChristine]

Amen! I didn’t mean to imply I am sinless. I know my faults more surely now that I rest obediently in the bosom of Mother Church. It was when I struggled against Mother Church that I knew no peace and tried to defend my errors. I find true peace in obedience but I am not blind to my sins.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

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?

Thank the Lord!!! You got me scared with that title! I thought you didn’t believe in the real presence.

JOHN 6:53-54

 

[trustinyou]

You’re confusing John 6 with the Lord’s supper and there is no connection there at all. Jesus was using the analogy of eating flesh and blood to believing in HIM. Jesus also later clarifies that it is the SPIRIT that gives life, the flesh means nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. In response to Jesus question, Peter said where we shall we go, you have the words of eternal life and we BELIEVE. If you feed on GOD’s word do you eat the Bible or do you read it?? Jesus also tells us to chop our hands off and gouge our eyes out so only those parts go to hell sparing the rest of the body. Somehow we know the message here is figurative like so many teachings of this nature, yet you want to make this giant leap that Jesus was speaking literally when it comes to this teaching. Again we’ll waste our time disagreeing.

hello ndfan
notice in john 6 ver. 52-71
even some of his disciples couldnt except His teaching on the Eucharist,they knew he was not speaking symbollicaly,but literaly,and your right Peter did say were shall we go,you have the words of eternal life…but read futher “did I not choose the twelve of you myself?” YET ONE OF YOU IS A DEVIL"…this is were Jesus first lost Judas in scripture,he didnt believe it either…

 

[SacredHeartFan]

You’re confusing John 6 with the Lord’s supper and there is no connection there at all. Jesus was using the analogy of eating flesh and blood to believing in HIM. Jesus also later clarifies that it is the SPIRIT that gives life, the flesh means nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. In response to Jesus question, Peter said where we shall we go, you have the words of eternal life and we BELIEVE. If you feed on GOD’s word do you eat the Bible or do you read it?? Jesus also tells us to chop our hands off and gouge our eyes out so only those parts go to hell sparing the rest of the body. Somehow we know the message here is figurative like so many teachings of this nature, yet you want to make this giant leap that Jesus was speaking literally when it comes to this teaching. Again we’ll waste our time disagreeing.

hello ndfan
notice in john 6 ver. 52-71
even some of his disciples couldnt except His teaching on the Eucharist,they knew he was not speaking symbollicaly,but literaly,and your right Peter did say were shall we go,you have the words of eternal life…but read futher “did I not choose the twelve of you myself?” YET ONE OF YOU IS A DEVIL"…this is were Jesus first lost Judas in scripture,he didnt believe it either…

I just lost you.

 

[trustinyou]

I just lost you.

the diciples Jesus lost that day couldnt except His teaching on the eucharist…neither could judas

 

[SacredHeartFan]

the diciples Jesus lost that day couldnt except His teaching on the eucharist…neither could judas

so you are saying you believe in the real presence?

 

[historyb]

the disciples Jesus lost that day couldn’t except His teaching on the Eucharist…neither could judas

I understand the disciples, but how do you get Judas couldn’t?

 

[trustinyou]

I understand the disciples, but how do you get Judas couldn’t?

Jesus loses alot of disciples that day due to his teaching on his presence,eating his flesh etc,etc, …then he turns to his Twelve ands says,and one of you are the devil(judas)…how could judas except this teaching if he’s a devil? he had to not believe what Jesus was teaching…everyone remember,i’m not infallible

 

[MaryChristine]

It seems likely that Judas didn’t believe or he wouldn’t have betrayed Jesus…I would think…but even the devil believes in the Eucharist. Why else would satan mock the mass with black masses?

 

[5pintLutheran]

Absolutely. I used to have membership at a Presbyterian church, and we did not believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Fortunately, I started dating a Roman Catholic (Who is now my wife) who opened my eyes to what Christ really meant when he said “this is my body… this is my blood…” These words are the real obstacle to those who deny the Real Presence of Jesus’ body and blood in the Lord’s Supper. If they refuse to deal with these words, any discussion of the Lord’s Supper is useless.

Now as a true believer in the real presence, I have a hypothetical situation for the Reformed postition on the “symbolic” understanding they see in the upper room…

Jesus says, “This is my body… This is my blood.” Now, on Judgment Day, if I am wrong in taking those words literally, and Jesus rebukes me, “Why did you misunderstand my Supper?” I will be able to answer, “Lord, I was simply taking you at your Word.”

But if Jesus intended those words to be taken literally, and I have taken them figuratively (symbolically), what will be my answer? All I could say would be, “I trusted my reason more than your words.” I would rather be rebuked for taking Jesus at His word, than for not doing so.

This scenario is purely hypothetical, but it serves to expose what those who question and deny the simple meaning of Jesus’ words are really doing.

 

[Adam14]

Absolutely. I used to have membership at a Presbyterian church, and we did not believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Fortunately, I started dating a Roman Catholic (Who is now my wife) who opened my eyes to what Christ really meant when he said “this is my body… this is my blood…” These words are the real obstacle to those who deny the Real Presence of Jesus’ body and blood in the Lord’s Supper. If they refuse to deal with these words, any discussion of the Lord’s Supper is useless.

Now as a true believer in the real presence, I have a hypothetical situation for the Reformed postition on the “symbolic” understanding they see in the upper room…

Jesus says, “This is my body… This is my blood.” Now, on Judgment Day, if I am wrong in taking those words literally, and Jesus rebukes me, “Why did you misunderstand my Supper?” I will be able to answer, “Lord, I was simply taking you at your Word.”

But if Jesus intended those words to be taken literally, and I have taken them figuratively (symbolically), what will be my answer? All I could say would be, “I trusted my reason more than your words.” I would rather be rebuked for taking Jesus at His word, than for not doing so.

This scenario is purely hypothetical, but it serves to expose what those who question and deny the simple meaning of Jesus’ words are really doing.

Good points 5Pint, but how would you explain Matthew 5:29-30? Should we cut off our hands just to be on the safe side?

I’m not trying to be a jerk…I promise. I posed a question about interpretation on another thread, so I think this relates to it. So I’m just curious…

 

[5pintLutheran]

Good points 5Pint, but how would you explain Matthew 5:29-30? Should we cut off our hands just to be on the safe side?

I’m not trying to be a jerk…I promise. I posed a question about interpretation on another thread, so I think this relates to it. So I’m just curious…

Right. Praise God we can discuss things like this in a civil manner, and not be at each other’s throats as in days of old.lol:thumbsup:

As for Matthew 5:29-30… I would look at the context. Jesus is speaking about adultery in this matter, and I would say by reading this text he was speaking correctly. I would interpret it in saying that no sacrifice is too great to avoid hell. As for literally cutting off your hands… I would say no, and I don’t think anyone would take that verse literally. Christ is just telling us to distance ourselves from things that cause us to sin, but he was teaching it in a way that would have great impact on the crowd he was preaching to. After all, he is our High priest, lol.
Jesus is teaching the crowd how to live a holy life! Distance yourself from those things that cause you to sin.

As for 1 Cor 11:23-34… Where Paul says (ver 29)"For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning (Websters dictionary: to percieve, to see clearly)the body, eats and drinks judgement on Himself. That’s kind of scary to anyone reading this verse, b/c this is either talking about profaning the Eucharist, or not believing in Jesus Christ as the Lord, who died for all sinners.

I believe in both, and not to say: “just to be on the safe side.” This is another reason I believe in the real presence. If it’s just symbolic, why does St Paul speak of taking the Lords Supper in an unworthy manner can actually kill or condemn (ver 30). This is very frightning indeed! Dominus Tecum. Amen.

 

[5pintLutheran]

I heard/read some good arguments FOR the real presence from Todd Wilken, former host of Issues Etc.

Those who argue for the Real Absence of Jesus’ body and blood in the Lord’s Supper often say that Jesus’ words, “This is my body…This is my blood” are figures of speech.

Their argument is basically that the words, “This is…” regarding the Lord’s Supper are like the words “I am…” when Jesus said, “I am the Door,” or “I am the Light of the world.”

But there is a problem with this argument. The non-literal elements in phrases like, “I am the Door,” or “I am the Light of the world,” are not the words “I am”, but the words, “Door” and “Light”.

In other words, when Jesus said, “I am the Door,” or “I am the Light of the world” Jesus was claiming TO BE something, not merely TO REPRESENT something. He was not saying “I REPRESENT the Light of the world”, He was claiming TO BE the Light of the world. The real question is not what Jesus meant by “I am…” but what He meant by “the Light of the world”.

So, if these figures of speech are parallel to Jesus’ words regarding His body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, then the non-literal element in Jesus’ phrase, “This is my body” is the word “body”, not the word “is”. Likewise, the non-literal element in Jesus’ phrase, “This is my blood” is the word “blood”, not the word “is”. You might even write it out in two columns.

Literal Non-Literal
I am… …the Door (John 10:9)
I am… …the Light of the World (John 8:12)

This is… …my body
This is… …my blood

Now, if the word “body” is non-literal, then to what (other than Jesus’ literal body) does it refer? If the word “blood” is non-literal, then to what (other than Jesus’ literal blood) does it refer? There are no Scriptural answers to these questions.
The fact is, there is no reason in the text itself to take Jesus’ words metaphorically. The only reason to do so is not in the text, but in our minds, which cannot understand how His words can be true. And as so often is the case, Jesus words are to be believed over our reason or senses.:idea:

 

[Adam14]

Right. Praise God we can discuss things like this in a civil manner, and not be at each other’s throats as in days of old.lol:thumbsup:

As for Matthew 5:29-30… I would look at the context. Jesus is speaking about adultery in this matter, and I would say by reading this text he was speaking correctly. I would interpret it in saying that no sacrifice is too great to avoid hell. As for literally cutting off your hands… I would say no, and I don’t think anyone would take that verse literally. Christ is just telling us to distance ourselves from things that cause us to sin, but he was teaching it in a way that would have great impact on the crowd he was preaching to. After all, he is our High priest, lol.
Jesus is teaching the crowd how to live a holy life! Distance yourself from those things that cause you to sin.

As for 1 Cor 11:23-34… Where Paul says (ver 29)"For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning (Websters dictionary: to percieve, to see clearly)the body, eats and drinks judgement on Himself. That’s kind of scary to anyone reading this verse, b/c this is either talking about profaning the Eucharist, or not believing in Jesus Christ as the Lord, who died for all sinners.

I believe in both, and not to say: “just to be on the safe side.” This is another reason I believe in the real presence. If it’s just symbolic, why does St Paul speak of taking the Lords Supper in an unworthy manner can actually kill or condemn (ver 30). This is very frightning indeed! Dominus Tecum. Amen.

Thanks 5Pint…

I would be lying if I said none of this scared me…that’s for sure! Especially when I’m trying so hard to understand it all, and can’t get the exact same message out of that verse pertaining to the Eucharist as you do! By no means am I downplaying the Eucharist, I beleive Jesus is there, no question, but I just really struggle with being convinced that He’s phyically the bread and wine. I really want to believe that…but again I’d be lying if I said I was 100% in agreement with that right now.

Thanks so much for your insight!

 

[5pintLutheran]

Thanks 5Pint…

I would be lying if I said none of this scared me…that’s for sure! Especially when I’m trying so hard to understand it all, and can’t get the exact same message out of that verse pertaining to the Eucharist as you do! By no means am I downplaying the Eucharist, I beleive Jesus is there, no question, but I just really struggle with being convinced that He’s phyically the bread and wine. I really want to believe that…but again I’d be lying if I said I was 100% in agreement with that right now.

Thanks so much for your insight!

You’re very welcome. One thing that helped me very much is Christ’s own words. Jesus said it, so it must be true.

Another verse that helped my understanding of it is John 6:51-61,which exactly deals with what this thread is about…

Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
Jhn 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Jhn 6:53 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 you;
Jhn 6:54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Jhn 6:56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Jhn 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
Jhn 6:58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
Jhn 6:59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um.
Jhn 6:60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
Jhn 6:61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?

This doesn’t downplay the importance of having faith in Christ, but He gives us the Eucharist as a means of Grace.

At first… being of a reformed mindset, I thought I was thinking blashphemous thoughts when I started believing in the real presence, and listening to debates back and forth between the Reformed and Catholic viewpoints, made me more confused than ever!
I just trusted God, and let Him lead me wherever He will (It’s THY will be done, not MY will be done! lol). My journey isn’t through by a longshot, and that’s why I find myself on this website talking to Catholics and Protestants alike, trying to gain insight and understanding. Peace be with you.

 

[Adam14]

You’re very welcome. One thing that helped me very much is Christ’s own words. Jesus said it, so it must be true.

At first… being of a reformed mindset, I thought I was thinking blashphemous thoughts when I started believing in the real presence, and listening to debates back and forth between the Reformed and Catholic viewpoints, made me more confused than ever!
I just trusted God, and let Him lead me wherever He will (It’s THY will be done, not MY will be done! lol). My journey isn’t through by a longshot, and that’s why I find myself on this website talking to Catholics and Protestants alike, trying to gain insight and understanding. Peace be with you.

Now that I think about it more, I don’t think it’s only the physical presense that I’m struggling with, but the way it becomes the physical presense(Priest). I take communion at my Lutheran church. Let’s say hypothetically that I all of a sudden believed it was THE BODY and THE BLOOD of Christ…it really wouldn’t be, because it’s given by a Lutheran minister (according to the Catholic Church). So I guess my struggle with this also ties in to the Priesthood being the only people who can actually do this…and that too is a big hangup for me. My belief is that Jesus does the miracles. So confusing!

 

[5pintLutheran]

Now that I think about it more, I don’t think it’s only the physical presense that I’m struggling with, but the way it becomes the physical presense(Priest). I take communion at my Lutheran church. Let’s say hypothetically that I all of a sudden believed it was THE BODY and THE BLOOD of Christ…it really wouldn’t be, because it’s given by a Lutheran minister (according to the Catholic Church). So I guess my struggle with this also ties in to the Priesthood being the only people who can actually do this…and that too is a big hangup for me. My belief is that Jesus does the miracles. So confusing!

This is something I’m struggling with as well. One one hand, after Jesus gives the Apostles his Body and Blood in the upper room… He tells them (Luke 22:19) “Do this in rememberance of me.” And the RCC viewpoint says that Jesus was appointing responsibility of the Eucharist to the Apostles and their successors, so only ordained RC priests and those in line with the Pope can provide the Holy Eucharist, as Christ intended. Of course Christ does the miracle of being present in the Holy Eucharist, he works through the Priest, b/c the priest is “standing in” for Jesus, and I don’t mean that in a mean way. In the same way when Jesus says: “If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld”, he is giving authority of absolving sins to the 12 (John 20:21-23).

Of course, we know the reformed viewpoint, so it’s not relevent to what I’m trying to convey.

The Lutheran viewpoint is that ANY ordained minister can absolve sins, and give the eucharist to sinners, b/c they are an “ordained servant of Christ.” This is a big debate/discussion in the RC/Anglican/Lutheran and any other church that suscribes to confession/absolution and forgiveness in the body and blood (eucharist).

 

[Catherine_S]

Why do you feel this way? The majority of Protestants do not believe in the real presence, yet have a** *full ***appreciation of Christ’s sacrifice and what it means.

:nope: !
salvationhistory.com/spcImages//accents/small_audio.gifPart
.

 

[mikew262]

Now, if the word “body” is non-literal, then to what (other than Jesus’ literal body) does it refer? If the word “blood” is non-literal, then to what (other than Jesus’ literal blood) does it refer? There are no Scriptural answers to these questions.
The fact is, there is no reason in the text itself to take Jesus’ words metaphorically. The only reason to do so is not in the text, but in our minds, which cannot understand how His words can be true. And as so often is the case, Jesus words are to be believed over our reason or senses.:idea:

I’m Catholic and I constantly struggle with the real meaning of the Eucharist (as I think many do). I constantly pray on it and ask God for guidance. I do know Jesus is there in one fashion or another, if not physically in the bread and wine, then at least spiritually.