Is the "Real Presence" real?

[MDK]

There are at least four takes on the Eucharist:

Transubstantiation
Consubstansiation
Sacramental Union
Memorialism

Only the last denies the real presence.

Only the first is correct. Christ is really, truly and substantially present in the Eucharist. The last three deny the reality taught by Christ.

 

[Bookworm88]

I asked a “real presence” question in another thread, and it wasn’t answered, so I figure this is a good thread in which to repeat it. I haven’t read all 54 pages, so maybe it’s already been covered, but perhaps someone will be kind enough to reiterate. Here’s the question:
If there is a real presence in the elements, then wouldn’t the sacrifice of the mass be a real sacrifice, thus causing Christ to be sacrificed over again and again each time mass is performed? I noticed someone in another thread commenting about this, wondering why non-Catholics always ask this question. That poster said that the sacrifice is only “re-presented,” not actually perfomed more than the one time it happened on Calvary. But wouldn’t that answer be the same as saying that the “sacrifice” part of the mass is really only symbolic? So the phrase “This is my body which is broken for you” would mean, “This is my body (real presence) which is broken for you (symbolic sacrifice)”?

Also, another question, that I am sure has been covered in the 54 pages:
Jesus said things like “I am the door” and “I am the vine” and I am the “Bread of Life.” When he said those, are we to assume that a “real presence” of doors or vines or bread entered him? Should we have doors and vines at the front of the church for a priest to bless so they contain a “real presence”? We are willing to understand that when Jesus spoke of doors and vines, he was using pictures to explain truth, right? It was the truth that Jesus was the only entrance to heaven, and that Jesus provides the support and sustenance for believers (the branches). So why is there the unwillingness to understand the bread concept in the same teaching-picture framework?

 

[MDK]

I asked a “real presence” question in another thread, and it wasn’t answered, so I figure this is a good thread in which to repeat it. I haven’t read all 54 pages, so maybe it’s already been covered, but perhaps someone will be kind enough to reiterate. Here’s the question:
If there is a real presence in the elements, then wouldn’t the sacrifice of the mass be a real sacrifice, thus causing Christ to be sacrificed over again and again each time mass is performed? I noticed someone in another thread commenting about this, wondering why non-Catholics always ask this question. That poster said that the sacrifice is only “re-presented,” not actually perfomed more than the one time it happened on Calvary. But wouldn’t that answer be the same as saying that the “sacrifice” part of the mass is really only symbolic? So the phrase “This is my body which is broken for you” would mean, “This is my body (real presence) which is broken for you (symbolic sacrifice)”?

The limitation of the evangelical view of “once and done” does not help one to understand the mystery of Christ’s sacrifice. It’s not once and done. It’s once for all time. It’s a never ending sacrifice. How can you redo something that doesn’t end? Christ’s sacrifice is represented, we go right back to Calvary with Him, and by receiving Communion worthily, the merits of His salvation are applied to our lives in our time.

So, no, the mass is not symbolic. If you check Revelation (and know what it means), you will see correlations to the mass. Keep in mind that Christ said “This is My Body.” He didn’t say the bread was “like His body,” or “represented His Body,” or some such other thing. His Words are clear. He also said we must eat His Body and Drink His Blood, else we have no life in us. Some people walked away from Him for this reason, because they knew what He meant, and it was so hard to believe… but a symbolic body and blood would not have been hard to believe. Notice that Christ did not attempt to change their understanding, or tell His Apostles that these people just didn’t understand. He didn’t say, wait, but you misunderstand, come back! He let them go, because they knew what He meant and rejected it. Sadly today, evangelicals reject Him also by rejecting those He sent, and also reject His true, real, and substantial presence in the Blessed Sacrament… and so, they lose out on this incomparable gift of Himself to us. All Salvation is related to Baptism and the Eucharist. Therefore, all salvation is related to the Church, which God established to give His Sacraments to His New Covenant family.

 

[MDK]

…Also, another question, that I am sure has been covered in the 54 pages:
Jesus said things like “I am the door” and “I am the vine” and I am the “Bread of Life.” When he said those, are we to assume that a “real presence” of doors or vines or bread entered him? Should we have doors and vines at the front of the church for a priest to bless so they contain a “real presence”? We are willing to understand that when Jesus spoke of doors and vines, he was using pictures to explain truth, right? It was the truth that Jesus was the only entrance to heaven, and that Jesus provides the support and sustenance for believers (the branches). So why is there the unwillingness to understand the bread concept in the same teaching-picture framework?

It would be ignorant to say that the Bible only includes allegory, or is all written literalistically. It is not. One must always understand what the inspired author meant. There are two senses of Scripture, being literal and the spiritual. In the spiritual sense, can be further divided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. So you need to be a little more careful in exegesis… as you are oversimplifying the Scriptures by only using one sense, thereby confusing the meanings by using the wrong sense in some cases. This is why God established His Church, to teach His revealed truth without error… which she has done faithfully for almost 2,000 years following the creation of the Church from Christ’s wounded side on the cross, followed by getting her legs (not to be read literally), at Pentecost. Even so, when our Bible study results in opposing view with God’s Church, we must accept the Church’s teachings, as she teaches without error due to protection of the Holy Spirit, just as Christ said would teach His Apostles all truth.

 

[Bookworm88]

Keep in mind that Christ said “This is My Body.” He didn’t say the bread was “like His body,” or “represented His Body,” or some such other thing. His Words are clear.

But his word-picture would also be clear, if a word-picture is really what it was. When he said “I am the door,” he didn’t use “like” or “represent” either.

He also said we must eat His Body and Drink His Blood, else we have no life in us. Some people walked away from Him for this reason, because they knew what He meant, and it was so hard to believe… but a symbolic body and blood would not have been hard to believe. Notice that Christ did not attempt to change their understanding, or tell His Apostles that these people just didn’t understand. He didn’t say, wait, but you misunderstand, come back! He let them go, because they knew what He meant and rejected it.

But they also could have left due to a rejection of the message of the word-picture. They were unwilling to rely on Christ for their eternal life. Many people followed Him just to see miracles, or to be fed, but then the message came that they needed to follow Him with the same kind of completely dependent reliance that the Isrealites had on the daily giving of the manna. Christ claimed to be sent from God in just the same way as the manna had been sent from God, and some people were not willing to come to Jesus with that level of utter dependence. So yes, even a symbolic body and blood would have been hard to believe coming from someone whom they considered to be just a carpenter, but who was claiming to have been sent from God. One doesn’t have to explain their leaving by blaming it on fears of cannibalism.

 

[Bookworm88]

Even so, when our Bible study results in opposing view with God’s Church, we must accept the Church’s teachings, as she teaches without error due to protection of the Holy Spirit, just as Christ said would teach His Apostles all truth.

In my mind, this is a dangerous circular argument, since it allows the Church to then teach just about anything, even things that oppose Biblical teaching, because you always get to say that you’re right, and the reason you get to say that you are right is because you always get to say that you are right.

 

[Lilyflower]

His Words are clear. He also said we must eat His Body and Drink His Blood, else we have no life in us. Some people walked away from Him for this reason, because they knew what He meant, and it was so hard to believe… but a symbolic body and blood would not have been hard to believe. Notice that Christ did not attempt to change their understanding, or tell His Apostles that these people just didn’t understand. He didn’t say, wait, but you misunderstand, come back! He let them go, .

It couldn’t have been clearer, He let them go rather than say ‘Hey guys, I didn’t mean it literally’. So we must conclude that He DID mean it literally!

Blessings and peace

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I asked a “real presence” question in another thread, and it wasn’t answered, so I figure this is a good thread in which to repeat it. I haven’t read all 54 pages, so maybe it’s already been covered, but perhaps someone will be kind enough to reiterate. Here’s the question:
If there is a real presence in the elements, then wouldn’t the sacrifice of the mass be a real sacrifice, thus causing Christ to be sacrificed over again and again each time mass is performed? I noticed someone in another thread commenting about this, wondering why non-Catholics always ask this question. That poster said that the sacrifice is only “re-presented,” not actually perfomed more than the one time it happened on Calvary. But wouldn’t that answer be the same as saying that the “sacrifice” part of the mass is really only symbolic? So the phrase “This is my body which is broken for you” would mean, “This is my body (real presence) which is broken for you (symbolic sacrifice)”?

Also, another question, that I am sure has been covered in the 54 pages:
Jesus said things like “I am the door” and “I am the vine” and I am the “Bread of Life.” When he said those, are we to assume that a “real presence” of doors or vines or bread entered him? Should we have doors and vines at the front of the church for a priest to bless so they contain a “real presence”? We are willing to understand that when Jesus spoke of doors and vines, he was using pictures to explain truth, right? It was the truth that Jesus was the only entrance to heaven, and that Jesus provides the support and sustenance for believers (the branches). So why is there the unwillingness to understand the bread concept in the same teaching-picture framework?

During the Mass we are through the power of God are there to be witnesses at the Crucifixion. So while it is a sacrifice it is not a repeated over and over again, but a mystical transformation of the first Crucifixion. That is why it is referred to a mystery. Also Jesus is a door as it is only there him that we can enter into Gods presences. He is really a vine as we are the the branches that have grown from that vine.

You are mixing apples and oranges though in comparing the mystery of the Eucharist and Christ being the Door and Vine.

 

[KingAlfred]

Many years ago, my wife and I went to London to visit Westminster Abbey and Westminster Cathedral, In my innocence, thought the Abbey was Catholic and the Cathedral Anglican [rather than how it really is, the other way around].

We agreed to visit the Abbey first. On arrival I was shocked and horrified that I could not FEEL the Real Presence. My faith hung in the balance, I was bewildered and confused.

My dealy beloved upon asking why I was so perplexed, told her I could not feel the Real Presence I ALWAYS feel whenever I go into a Catholic Church.

She laughed and told me what I silly fool I was, this was the Head Anglican Church not the Catholic one!

We set off in earnest to find Westminster Cathedral. Before we reached it, from a distance I caught a glimpse and even over the half mile or so from it, I felt the enormous Power of the Real Presence. I sobbed tears of emotion, elation and faith convicted.

Since that day, I have never entered a Catholic Church and not felt that Power.

If it not from the Real Presence then from where does the Power come?

Pax Christi

Something like that happened to me years ago. I was stationed overseas, going through a divorce, and was very, very depressed. When I returned state-side on TDY to Washington DC, I awoke the next day, which was Easter, and without any directions or prior coordination, mysteriously drove directly to the National Basilica and attended a wonderful, gigantic, multi-lingual Mass. I was overwhelmed, and started crying as I entered the cathedral. I felt the Spirit upon me in a major way.

 

[MDK]

But his word-picture would also be clear, if a word-picture is really what it was. When he said “I am the door,” he didn’t use “like” or “represent” either.

It is quite obvious also from context what each of these mean. What I told you is also upheld by those who learned directly from the Apostles, and was taught in the early Church, and is still taught today.

But they also could have left due to a rejection of the message of the word-picture. They were unwilling to rely on Christ for their eternal life. Many people followed Him just to see miracles, or to be fed, but then the message came that they needed to follow Him with the same kind of completely dependent reliance that the Isrealites had on the daily giving of the manna. Christ claimed to be sent from God in just the same way as the manna had been sent from God, and some people were not willing to come to Jesus with that level of utter dependence. So yes, even a symbolic body and blood would have been hard to believe coming from someone whom they considered to be just a carpenter, but who was claiming to have been sent from God. One doesn’t have to explain their leaving by blaming it on fears of cannibalism.

Just like today, there were many who followed Him for the food and the show. No, symbolic blood would not have been hard to believe,as it is easy for those to believe today. This is quite easy, as attested to all the do-it-yourself “churches” adopting some form of this which is quite easy for them to promote. It’s the same today, many will stay out of the Catholic Church because it is a hard teaching. We have to go completely on faith and ignore what our physical eyes are telling us.

Do you think that those following him thought he was no more than a carpenter? How many carpenters in that time had followings like Jesus?

The truth of this has been handed down as well from the Apostles, and is taught in God’s one Church… the same Church who authored the Scriptures that you are trying to tell me that the author did not know what she was doing… and yet you believe it as the word of God. The only way you know it is the word of God is by the Catholic Church’s claims. Like others today, you try to come in 2,000 years later, without Sacred Tradition, without any link to the Apostles who were there, and tell us what it means? Could that be called arrogant?

 

[MDK]

In my mind, this is a dangerous circular argument, since it allows the Church to then teach just about anything, even things that oppose Biblical teaching, because you always get to say that you’re right, and the reason you get to say that you are right is because you always get to say that you are right.

Yes, it’s hard to conceive because your basis is in a church built by mortal man.

When referring to the Church built by Christ, it is quite a different story. I, for one, trust Christ that He will do as He said, and keep the Church from error, so that the gates of Hell will never prevail.

Unfortunately, the gates of Hell have already prevailed to a greater or lesser extent in all the man made “churches.”

 

[MDK]

In my mind, this is a dangerous circular argument, since it allows the Church to then teach just about anything, even things that oppose Biblical teaching, because you always get to say that you’re right, and the reason you get to say that you are right is because you always get to say that you are right.

You have an interesting argument, with only one problem… namely you attribute this to the wrong entity. It should be attributed to the Bible-alone crowd who interprets our Scriptures any way they desire.

Do you first of all even know where the Bible came from? The kind of response you provided is unfortunately born of ignorance of even where the Bible came from. The Catholic Church authored Scriptures from beginning to closed canon. Apostles and Bishops ordained legitimately by the Apostles (and so on with valid and licit succession) of one true faith of Christ taught for years with no Scriptures. Scripture even says to hold fast to the traditions as well as Scriptures. When it was time to write these teachings down, all of the inspired authors of the NT were still in the one true faith of Christ, the Church being built by Christ. One of the inspired authors of the NT Scripture was also the head bishop of the one true faith. The scriptures were assembled into the Bible only by God’s one true faith. The canon was closed by God’s one true faith. This one true faith still has the office of head Bishop over all of Christ’s Church, and is called the Catholic Church. Christ said He would keep this Church from teaching error, such that the gates of Hell will never prevail against her. God’s one true faith could teach accurately without Scriptures, and did for some time. There is nothing in Scriptures that is opposed to the Catholic Church, and nothing in the Catholic Church that is opposed to the Scriptures she authored. The Catholic Church has the authority from God to interpret Scriptures she authored. This is why there is no circular argument for those educated in the truth, and believing in Christ.

For those in an ecclesial community or faith system with no legitimate authority from God to teach, it is certainly hard for you to understand true authority. The true authority to teach rests only in the Catholic Church… because Christ established this Church and protects her. Without this, it would be as you described.

 

[Jimmy_B]

:yup::yup::yup::yup::yup:

 

[Jimmy_B]

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?