Is the "Real Presence" real?

[Jimmy_B]

John 6:28-66

29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.”
30 So they said to him, “What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you? What can you do?
31 16 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
32 So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
35 17 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
36 But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.”
41 The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,”
42 and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring 18 among yourselves.
44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.
46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

 

[NeedImprovement]

What this means is that Christ is now the bread and the wine that has been consecrated?

That’s pretty well it justasking4. Transubstantiation can’t be explained in one sentence. Neither does it explain how Our Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament; that is a mystery of our faith. Transubstantiation shows that the doctrine of His presence is not something contrary to reason.

If you’re willing to look at a paragraph or two below, Rev. Albert Joseph Mary Shamon in his book “Behind The Mass” gives a fairly graspable definition of transubstantiation. If you read it, it will give you ( all of us- myself included) a little better understanding of what we believe. You’re always free to agree with it or not.

From Rev. Shamon’s book, “Behind The Mass”:

"Let’s take any thing. Everything has two elements: a visible one: what can be seen or perceived by the senses - the appearances; and an invisible one: what cannot be seen or perceived by the senses - the substance.

Consider a bar of iron for instance. These are its appearances: it is cold; black; rigid.

Now, put this bar of iron in a smelting furnace and melt it. In doing this we change all its appearances. It is no longer shaped like a bar, but has the form of the receptacle in which it was melted; it is no longer cold,but hot; no longer black, but red; no longer rigid, but fluid.

In other words we have changed all the appearances but still have iron.

Suppose I and my clothes were one: every time I changed my clothes I’d be changing me. But I can change my clothes and not myself, because I and my clothes are distinct. Likewise I can change all the appearances of iron and still have iron. What does that tell me ? It says loud and clear, that there is something else in iron, besides the appearances - and that, the other something is precisely what makes it iron. That something else philosophers call substance - that which *stands under *the appearances of the thing and makes it what it is. The substance, not the appearances make a thing what it really is. And so we speak of the essence, the heart, the substance of a thing.

Now consider what we can do to the appearances and the substance of a thing.

We can, for instance change the appearances of a thing and not the substance. We are always doing this. When we change the furniture in a room, when we paint a house and so on…

We can also change both the appearances and the substance of a thing. In chemistry we call this a chemical or substantial change; eg, we can take two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen and use an electric spark to get water -(…) we are reducing two gases to a liquid. Whenever we smoke, we reduce a cigarette to gas and ash. These are substantial changes.

But we cannot change the substance of a thing and leave its appearances untouched. For instance , we cannot change a bar of iron into gold and still have it look like iron.

Jesus, however, showed He had the power to make such a change.

First, He could change the appearances of a thing and not its substance - anybody can do that.

Secondly, He could change both the appearances and the substance of a thing as He did at Cana in Galilee. There he changed what looked like water and was water into what looked like wine and was wine.

And thirdly, He showed that He can do what we cannot do, namely, change the substance of a thing and not its appearance. He did this when he multiplied five loaves and two fish to feed about 15,000 people (John 6:1-15). It is significant that we refer to this miracle as the multiplying of the loaves, and not as the creating of them.

What was Jesus doing? He was proving He could affect the substance of things without changing their appearances…

…It is also significant that after this miracle, Jesus walked on the water, to show that He could do with His Body whatever he pleased.

…But the bread still looked like bread and the wine still looked like wine. But Jesus said they were no longer bread and wine, but His Body and Blood. What happened?

The miracle of transubstantiation took place. Transubstantiation is the miracle whereby the substance of the bread changed into the Body of Christ and the substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, the appearances alone remaining.

The outside stays the same; it changes on the inside." …

 

[Jimmy_B]

That’s pretty well it justasking4. Transubstantiation can’t be explained in one sentence. Neither does it explain how Our Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament; that is a mystery of our faith. Transubstantiation shows that the doctrine of His presence is not something contrary to reason.

If you’re willing to look at a paragraph or two below, Rev. Albert Joseph Mary Shamon in his book “Behind The Mass” gives a fairly graspable definition of transubstantiation. If you read it, it will give you ( all of us- myself included) a little better understanding of what we believe. You’re always free to agree with it or not.

From Rev. Shamon’s book, “Behind The Mass”:

"Let’s take any thing. Everything has two elements: a visible one: what can be seen or perceived by the senses - the appearances; and an invisible one: what cannot be seen or perceived by the senses - the substance.

Consider a bar of iron for instance. These are its appearances: it is cold; black; rigid.

Now, put this bar of iron in a smelting furnace and melt it. In doing this we change all its appearances. It is no longer shaped like a bar, but has the form of the receptacle in which it was melted; it is no longer cold,but hot; no longer black, but red; no longer rigid, but fluid.

In other words we have changed all the appearances but still have iron.

Suppose I and my clothes were one: every time I changed my clothes I’d be changing me. But I can change my clothes and not myself, because I and my clothes are distinct. Likewise I can change all the appearances of iron and still have iron. What does that tell me ? It says loud and clear, that there is something else in iron, besides the appearances - and that, the other something is precisely what makes it iron. That something else philosophers call substance - that which *stands under *the appearances of the thing and makes it what it is. The substance, not the appearances make a thing what it really is. And so we speak of the essence, the heart, the substance of a thing.

Now consider what we can do to the appearances and the substance of a thing.

We can, for instance change the appearances of a thing and not the substance. We are always doing this. When we change the furniture in a room, when we paint a house and so on…

We can also change both the appearances and the substance of a thing. In chemistry we call this a chemical or substantial change; eg, we can take two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen and use an electric spark to get water -(…) we are reducing two gases to a liquid. Whenever we smoke, we reduce a cigarette to gas and ash. These are substantial changes.

But we cannot change the substance of a thing and leave its appearances untouched. For instance , we cannot change a bar of iron into gold and still have it look like iron.

Jesus, however, showed He had the power to make such a change.

First, He could change the appearances of a thing and not its substance - anybody can do that.

Secondly, He could change both the appearances and the substance of a thing as He did at Cana in Galilee. There he changed what looked like water and was water into what looked like wine and was wine.

And thirdly, He showed that He can do what we cannot do, namely, change the substance of a thing and not its appearance. He did this when he multiplied five loaves and two fish to feed about 15,000 people (John 6:1-15). It is significant that we refer to this miracle as the multiplying of the loaves, and not as the creating of them.

What was Jesus doing? He was proving He could affect the substance of things without changing their appearances…

…It is also significant that after this miracle, Jesus walked on the water, to show that He could do with His Body whatever he pleased.

…But the bread still looked like bread and the wine still looked like wine. But Jesus said they were no longer bread and wine, but His Body and Blood. What happened?

The miracle of transubstantiation took place. Transubstantiation is the miracle whereby the substance of the bread changed into the Body of Christ and the substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, the appearances alone remaining.

The outside stays the same; it changes on the inside." …

“Jesus, however, showed He had the power to make such a change”

 

[justasking4]

That’s pretty well it justasking4. Transubstantiation can’t be explained in one sentence. Neither does it explain how Our Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament; that is a mystery of our faith. Transubstantiation shows that the doctrine of His presence is not something contrary to reason.

If you’re willing to look at a paragraph or two below, Rev. Albert Joseph Mary Shamon in his book “Behind The Mass” gives a fairly graspable definition of transubstantiation. If you read it, it will give you ( all of us- myself included) a little better understanding of what we believe. You’re always free to agree with it or not.

From Rev. Shamon’s book, “Behind The Mass”:

"Let’s take any thing. Everything has two elements: a visible one: what can be seen or perceived by the senses - the appearances; and an invisible one: what cannot be seen or perceived by the senses - the substance.

Consider a bar of iron for instance. These are its appearances: it is cold; black; rigid.

Now, put this bar of iron in a smelting furnace and melt it. In doing this we change all its appearances. It is no longer shaped like a bar, but has the form of the receptacle in which it was melted; it is no longer cold,but hot; no longer black, but red; no longer rigid, but fluid.

In other words we have changed all the appearances but still have iron.

Suppose I and my clothes were one: every time I changed my clothes I’d be changing me. But I can change my clothes and not myself, because I and my clothes are distinct. Likewise I can change all the appearances of iron and still have iron. What does that tell me ? It says loud and clear, that there is something else in iron, besides the appearances - and that, the other something is precisely what makes it iron. That something else philosophers call substance - that which *stands under *the appearances of the thing and makes it what it is. The substance, not the appearances make a thing what it really is. And so we speak of the essence, the heart, the substance of a thing.

Now consider what we can do to the appearances and the substance of a thing.

We can, for instance change the appearances of a thing and not the substance. We are always doing this. When we change the furniture in a room, when we paint a house and so on…

We can also change both the appearances and the substance of a thing. In chemistry we call this a chemical or substantial change; eg, we can take two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen and use an electric spark to get water -(…) we are reducing two gases to a liquid. Whenever we smoke, we reduce a cigarette to gas and ash. These are substantial changes.

But we cannot change the substance of a thing and leave its appearances untouched. For instance , we cannot change a bar of iron into gold and still have it look like iron.

Jesus, however, showed He had the power to make such a change.

First, He could change the appearances of a thing and not its substance - anybody can do that.

Secondly, He could change both the appearances and the substance of a thing as He did at Cana in Galilee. There he changed what looked like water and was water into what looked like wine and was wine.

And thirdly, He showed that He can do what we cannot do, namely, change the substance of a thing and not its appearance. He did this when he multiplied five loaves and two fish to feed about 15,000 people (John 6:1-15). It is significant that we refer to this miracle as the multiplying of the loaves, and not as the creating of them.

What was Jesus doing? He was proving He could affect the substance of things without changing their appearances…

…It is also significant that after this miracle, Jesus walked on the water, to show that He could do with His Body whatever he pleased.

…But the bread still looked like bread and the wine still looked like wine. But Jesus said they were no longer bread and wine, but His Body and Blood. What happened?

The miracle of transubstantiation took place. Transubstantiation is the miracle whereby the substance of the bread changed into the Body of Christ and the substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, the appearances alone remaining.

The outside stays the same; it changes on the inside." …

There is so much here. Lets concentrate on the last section. When Jesus performed a miracle something did change and was discerned by the senses i.e. taste, touch or appearance. There was no doubt to those that saw these things something changed. The water that was changed to wine tasted like wine. The feeding of the 5000 people was not only seen in the multiplication of the loves and fish but the people were no longer hungry.
This kinds of evidences are absent in the Transubstantiation doctrine. There is no change in appearance or substance as we see in the miracles. The bread is still bread i.e. taste the same, feels the same, etc. Nothing has changed. Miracle has happened although one is claimed.

 

[NeedImprovement]

There is so much here. Lets concentrate on the last section. When Jesus performed a miracle something did change and was discerned by the senses i.e. taste, touch or appearance. There was no doubt to those that saw these things something changed. The water that was changed to wine tasted like wine. The feeding of the 5000 people was not only seen in the multiplication of the loves and fish but the people were no longer hungry.
This kinds of evidences are absent in the Transubstantiation doctrine. There is no change in appearance or substance as we see in the miracles. The bread is still bread i.e. taste the same, feels the same, etc. Nothing has changed. Miracle has happened although one is claimed.

Sorry justasking4…I know it’s pretty rich, but it’s a good working man’s definition of transubstantiation.

So we agree that the appearances of the bread and wine remain unchanged. Where we differ is in belief as to whether the substance changes into the Body and Blood of Christ.

I don’t know what else to say it’s a point of faith/belief here.
In that same book by Fr. Shamon, he writes that," Father (frederick) Faber, while yet a Protestant, said (about transubstantiation); ‘I am worried about the Roman doctrine because whatever may be said of the proofs of it, I do not see how any man can disprove it. If they say that the substance changes, but that all appearances remain the same, then they say that something changes of which no man has any experience and yet which reason must postulate as the reality underlying all appearances and separate from them.’ "

 

[AlegreFe]

There is no change in appearance or substance as we see in the miracles.

Huh? The bread and the fish did not change. It stayed bread & fish. No substantial change took place in the bread and/or fish. The only thing that changed was the amount of bread & fish so that everyone can be fed and be full.

The bread is still bread i.e. taste the same, feels the same, etc. Nothing has changed. Miracle has happened although one is claimed.

Jesus in the Eucharist only appears to be bread. And the Eucharist tastes like bread. That says nothing about the substance. After the consecration it is no longer bread. It is the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus Christ.

You need the Holy Spirit, since the words spoken by Jesus are spirit & life, in order to believe in what Jesus said while not misinterpreting His words. He spoke very clearly on the matter. So clearly that He reiterated His words and even emphasized the word for eat so as to make it clear that He really means “to eat” His flesh; to chew, to masticate, munch, swallow …etc.

The only thing that comes to mind is to say that when a sinner finds Christ he is a changed man. His appearance on the outside is still the same. He only appears to be the same. But on the inside, where it counts, he is a different man. Does that makes sense to you? I don’t know what else to say. But there is nothing that I can say to convince you of the truth. As I said before you need the Holy Spirit on this one. Only He can convince you of the truth. So I will pray for you.

 

[guanophore]

The problem you have is that the scriptures don’t support the conclusions you and others are drawing.

No, ja4, at least own what belongs to you. This is not a problem for Catholics, since we are not bound by the scriptures as you are. Furthermore, since you are separated from the Apostolic Teaching, you cannot understand the scriptures as the writers did, and therefore cannot perceive that they do, indeed, support these conclusions. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. It reflects 100% Catholic teaching.

Is it not true that the catholic church teaches that the bread and wine actually becomes the body of Christ?

This is the teaching of Jesus, and the Apostles. It is shared by all those who have received the Apostolic Teaching, even those who do not call themselves “Catholic”.

What this means is that Christ is now the bread and the wine that has been consecrated?

I think the other way around describes it better. In some mysterious manner that is impossible for the human mind to grasp, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

There is so much here.

Yes, I agree. In fact, I think you are in way over your head on this topic. It would make more sense for you to concentrate on the elementary doctrines until you have a good foundation.

Lets concentrate on the last section. When Jesus performed a miracle something did change and was discerned by the senses i.e. taste, touch or appearance.

Not always. However, most of the “signs” He did during HIs public ministry were to pursuade unbelievers. The eucharist, however, is only open to believers, who can believe without seeing.
This is, by the way, the reason that you would not be welcomed at Communion. To approach with faithlessness is considered a profanation.

There was no doubt to those that saw these things something changed. The water that was changed to wine tasted like wine. The feeding of the 5000 people was not only seen in the multiplication of the loves and fish but the people were no longer hungry.

If and when youbecome one of those about whom Jesus said “blessed is he who has not seen, and yet believes” then you too will no longer be hungry!

This kinds of evidences are absent in the Transubstantiation doctrine. There is no change in appearance or substance as we see in the miracles. The bread is still bread i.e. taste the same, feels the same, etc. Nothing has changed. Miracle has happened although one is claimed.

You are right that transubstantiation is a doctrine, and does not, of itself, contain any miraculous signs. No doctrine does. However you are incorrect that no changes in appearance or substance have taken place. There are numerous eucharistic miracles. I am sure that you, reading about this from a position of faithlessness, would find reasons why they are not true.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Huh? The bread and the fish did not change. It stayed bread & fish. No substantial change took place in the bread and/or fish. The only thing that changed was the amount of bread & fish so that everyone can be fed and be full.

Jesus in the Eucharist only appears to be bread. And the Eucharist tastes like bread. That says nothing about the substance. After the consecration it is no longer bread. It is the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus Christ.

You need the Holy Spirit, since the words spoken by Jesus are spirit & life, in order to believe in what Jesus said while not misinterpreting His words. He spoke very clearly on the matter. So clearly that He reiterated His words and even emphasized the word for eat so as to make it clear that He really means “to eat” His flesh; to chew, to masticate, munch, swallow …etc.

The only thing that comes to mind is to say that when a sinner finds Christ he is a changed man. His appearance on the outside is still the same. He only appears to be the same. But on the inside, where it counts, he is a different man. Does that makes sense to you? I don’t know what else to say. But there is nothing that I can say to convince you of the truth. As I said before you need the Holy Spirit on this one. Only He can convince you of the truth. So I will pray for you.

 

[distracted]

Where in the last supper accounts does Jesus mention by eating the bread and drinking the wine you have eternal life?

it’ss in St. John 6:27-54

 

[justasking4]

AlegreFe;4054070]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
There is no change in appearance or substance as we see in the miracles.

AlegreFe;
Huh? The bread and the fish did not change. It stayed bread & fish. No substantial change took place in the bread and/or fish. The only thing that changed was the amount of bread & fish so that everyone can be fed and be full.

In this particular miracle something was seen. Where there was only a few fish were now thousands. People saw this and there was physcial evidence for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The bread is still bread i.e. taste the same, feels the same, etc. Nothing has changed. Miracle has happened although one is claimed.

AlegreFe;
Jesus in the Eucharist only appears to be bread. And the Eucharist tastes like bread. That says nothing about the substance. After the consecration it is no longer bread. It is the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus Christ.

It is still bread because it still has the properties of bread. If someone were to look at the bread after consecration they would not have any sense that the bread was now Christ. There is no evidence that it is Him.

You need the Holy Spirit, since the words spoken by Jesus are spirit & life, in order to believe in what Jesus said while not misinterpreting His words. He spoke very clearly on the matter. So clearly that He reiterated His words and even emphasized the word for eat so as to make it clear that He really means “to eat” His flesh; to chew, to masticate, munch, swallow …etc.

The problem is that your interpretation does not lead to what you claim. If you take His words in a literal sense it leads to canabalism. Rather it makes best sense to uderstand His words metaphorically. This was one of His primary ways of teaching.

The only thing that comes to mind is to say that when a sinner finds Christ he is a changed man. His appearance on the outside is still the same. He only appears to be the same. But on the inside, where it counts, he is a different man. Does that makes sense to you?

Yes. Thats why Jesus said in John 6:63 that the words He had just said were spirit. Here is what a Greek scholar says bout the word “spirit” in this verse.** Metaphorically** (John 6:63, “the spirit in man gives life to the body, so my words are spirit and life to the soul”
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G4151).

I don’t know what else to say. But there is nothing that I can say to convince you of the truth. As I said before you need the Holy Spirit on this one. Only He can convince you of the truth. So I will pray for you.

What i encourage you to do is to study the Scriptures in context.

 

[guanophore]

In this particular miracle something was seen. Where there was only a few fish were now thousands. People saw this and there was physcial evidence for it.

Are you saying that no miracle can take place unless there is physical evidence for it?

I think it would be a miracle if you were healed of your anti-Catholic bigotry. I have a hard time thinking that this would be physically demonstrable.

For many, finding forgiveness is a miracle, or in your case, healing from the mother wound. Would this be physically visible? Or do you not consider inner healing a miracle?

It is still bread because it still has the properties of bread. If someone were to look at the bread after consecration they would not have any sense that the bread was now Christ. There is no evidence that it is Him.

“Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet believe!”

The problem is that your interpretation does not lead to what you claim. If you take His words in a literal sense it leads to canabalism. Rather it makes best sense to uderstand His words metaphorically. This was one of His primary ways of teaching.

Yes. He also had to clarify what He said in the Bread of Life discourse at the Last supper, when He held up the Bread, saying “this is my Body” and the wine, saying “this is my Blood”. In some myterious way that defies the natural mind, He has made these elements into Himself.

Yes. Thats why Jesus said in John 6:63 that the words He had just said were spirit. Here is what a Greek scholar says bout the word "spirit" in this verse.** Metaphorically** (John 6:63, “the spirit in man gives life to the body, so my words are spirit and life to the soul”

Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G4151).

What i encourage you to do is to study the Scriptures in context.

The context of the new testament is the Catholic Church. CAtholics always study them in context, because we study them in the light of the Teaching that produced them.

 

[AlegreFe]

In this particular miracle something was seen. Where there was only a few fish were now thousands. People saw this and there was physcial evidence for it.

It is still bread because it still has the properties of bread. If someone were to look at the bread after consecration they would not have any sense that the bread was now Christ. There is no evidence that it is Him.

The problem is that your interpretation does not lead to what you claim. If you take His words in a literal sense it leads to canabalism. Rather it makes best sense to uderstand His words metaphorically. This was one of His primary ways of teaching.

Yes. Thats why Jesus said in John 6:63 that the words He had just said were spirit. Here is what a Greek scholar says bout the word “spirit” in this verse.** Metaphorically** (John 6:63, “the spirit in man gives life to the body, so my words are spirit and life to the soul”
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G4151).

What i encourage you to do is to study the Scriptures in context.

All these posts for you to try to explain what we believe.
But to no avail.
I quote my previous statement;
“As I said before you need the Holy Spirit on this one. Only He can convince you of the truth. So I will pray for you.”

So this is me praying for you.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4059143]Are you saying that no miracle can take place unless there is physical evidence for it?

If a miracle has taken place there needs to be some evidence. There is no evidence that the bread has changed. I know you are told that it has changed but there is no evidence that it has.

I think it would be a miracle if you were healed of your anti-Catholic bigotry. I have a hard time thinking that this would be physically demonstrable.

For many, finding forgiveness is a miracle, or in your case, healing from the mother wound. Would this be physically visible? Or do you not consider inner healing a miracle?

Where in scirpture is this kind of thing spoken of as a miracle?

“Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet believe!”

Do you know the context for this saying? What was Jesus referring to?

Yes. He also had to clarify what He said in the Bread of Life discourse at the Last supper, when He held up the Bread, saying “this is my Body” and the wine, saying “this is my Blood”. In some myterious way that defies the natural mind, He has made these elements into Himself.

That’s what you are claiming but this claim is not supported by the text.

The context of the new testament is the Catholic Church. CAtholics always study them in context, because we study them in the light of the Teaching that produced them.

You are mistaken in thinking that the context of the NT is the Catholic church. If anything the primary focus is Christ and what He did.

 

[guanophore]

If a miracle has taken place there needs to be some evidence.

Maybe so. Indeed there was a plethora of such sense perceptable evidence recorded in the New Testament. However, many changes take place that do not yield sense perceptable evidence that are also miraculous.

When Jesus holds up the bread and the wine, and says “this is my Body”, and “this is my Blood” we choose to take His word for it, whether it appears that way to us, or not. To us, there is no difference between those statements and God saying “let there be light”, etc. Although I did not witness the creation, I accept on faith that it did happen, because God said it. I love that little bumper sticker that says “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”. Such would be the case with the Body and the Blood.

There is no evidence that the bread has changed. I know you are told that it has changed but there is no evidence that it has. /'quote]

Perhaps you experience no “evidence”, but those who have accepted the Real Presence certainly do. One example of this is recorded in Scripture when the disciples “recognized Him in the breaking of the bread”. They reflected back, and remembered that their “hearts were burning within” as He expounded on the scriptures. Does this burning heart qualify as "evidence’? You have told us before that it does not. You have equated it to what the Mormons talk about during evangelism. However, it was clearly evidence for the disciples who encountered Christ on the road to Emmaus, as they jumped up and ran back to Jerusalem in the dark.
justasking4;4060963:

Where in scirpture is this kind of thing spoken of as a miracle?

Luke 19:5-10
5 When Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, hurry and come down; for I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he hurried down and was happy to welcome him. 7 All who saw it began to grumble and said, “He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner.” 8 Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, “Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.” 9 Then Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost.”

The people grumbled because Zachy had a very bad reputation for defrauding others. How did Jesus know that salvation had come? What was the “evidence” that Zachy had a change of heart? He made a statement that he would make restitution for his wrongs, but where is the visible healing miracle that transformed this man from “lost” to “saved”? Some miracles take place deep in the heart, and only the person who experineces them knows how powerful they really are. It is my prayer that you will experience such a miracle.

Do you know the context for this saying? What was Jesus referring to?

That’s what you are claiming but this claim is not supported by the text.

You are mistaken in thinking that the context of the NT is the Catholic church. If anything the primary focus is Christ and what He did.

 

[Mary61]

To those of you who posted that when you receive Holy Communion you offer it up for all the innocent babies who are aborted, I’m with you. I’m also very saddened to know that a lot of Catholics will be voting for someone who is not only for abortion but he is also against medical attention for any baby who survives a botched abortion from receiving medical treatment. I beg all Catholics out there to PLEASE don’t vote for this person. You will be just as guilty of this horrific crime as the doctors who are committing this crime.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I think it’s great that you have a candidate who takes a public stance against abortion, and especially that you offer Holy Communion on occasion for the aborted Mary 61.

Up here north of the border we don’t have many high profile politicians who would do that (that’s how morally anaemic this country is). Most would consider it an act of political suicide. Instead, the odd one will pay lip-service to abortion. Here’s the quip most often used: “I’m personally against it but I can’t let that interfere with my running of the country.”

Lord Jesus, Son of the living God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

 

[historyb]

** Is the “Real Presence” real?**

Change my vote to - not sure

 

[distracted]

To those of you who posted that when you receive Holy Communion you offer it up for all the innocent babies who are aborted, I’m with you. I’m also very saddened to know that a lot of Catholics will be voting for someone who is not only for abortion but he is also against medical attention for any baby who survives a botched abortion from receiving medical treatment. I beg all Catholics out there to PLEASE don’t vote for this person. You will be just as guilty of this horrific crime as the doctors who are committing this crime.

:clapping: :clapping:

 

[distracted]

. Most would consider it an act of political suicide. Instead, the odd one will pay lip-service to abortion. Here’s the quip most often used: “I’m personally against it but I can’t let that interfere with my running of the country.”

.

i cna’t for the life of me undersand WHY…

Most people in this country are pro-life… and we have had 35 long yrs of abortion on demand to teach us the errors of our ways… There is no better wy to see the magnitude of any given sin than to commit it… and then those around the ones who commit it also see the adverse affects… (I am speaking of post abortion syndrome in partic…). Many have seen the horrible pictures of aborted babies… and read about fetal development. I believe a solid 80% of Americans are against most forms of abortion. Or is that just wishful thinking?? Maybe…

Anyway… i do know that a majority are against abortion on demand… so why all this fear to come out hard against i t?? (Yes, i know… even if it were not the majority opinion, one should not back down…)…

 

[NeedImprovement]

i cna’t for the life of me undersand WHY…

Most people in this country are pro-life… and we have had 35 long yrs of abortion on demand to teach us the errors of our ways… There is no better wy to see the magnitude of any given sin than to commit it… and then those around the ones who commit it also see the adverse affects… (I am speaking of post abortion syndrome in partic…). Many have seen the horrible pictures of aborted babies… and read about fetal development. I believe a solid 80% of Americans are against most forms of abortion. Or is that just wishful thinking?? Maybe…

Anyway… i do know that a majority are against abortion on demand… so why all this fear to come out hard against i t?? (Yes, i know… even if it were not the majority opinion, one should not back down…)…

(I believe JimmyB will forgive us for leaning slightly to a different thread subject because of its gravity).

I don’t know whether 80% of Americans are against abortion distracted, but the Guttmacher Institute reports that in the USA 22% of **all pregnancies **end in abortion.

guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html