Proving Real Presence

[stevekehl]

Steve, can it be possible that one man and his bible really more enlightened as to doctrine than:

**Simon Peter
Andrew
James
John
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew
James the Less
Thaddeus
Simon the Zealot
Matthias

Saint Paul**

The early Church fathers:

Alexander of Alexandria
Alexander of Lycopolis
Ambrose
Aphrahat/Aphraates (c. 280-367)
Archelaus
Aristides the Philosopher
Arnobius
Athanasius
Athenagoras
Augustine of Hippo
Bardesanes (154-222)
Barnabas
Basil the Great
Caius
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Rome
Commodianus
Cyprian of Carthage
Cyril of Jerusalem
Dionysius of Rome
Dionysius the Great
Ephraim the Syrian
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-c. 340)
Gennadius of Marseilles
Gregory the Great, Pope
Gregory Nazianzen
Gregory of Nyssa
Gregory Thaumaturgus [SAINT]
Hermas
Hilary of Poitiers
Hippolytus
Ignatius of Antioch
Irenaeus of Lyons
Jerome
John of Damascus
John Cassian (c. 360-c. 435)
John Chrysostom
Julius Africanus
Justin Martyr
Lactantius
Leo the Great, Pope (c. 395-461)
Malchion
Mar Jacob (452-521)
Mathetes
Methodius
Minucius Felix
Moses of Chorene (c. 400-c. 490)
Novatian
Origen
Pamphilus
Papias
Peter of Alexandria
Polycarp
Rufinus
Socrates Scholasticus (c. 379-c. 450)
Sozomen (c. 375-c. 447)
Sulpitius Severus (c. 363-c. 420)
Tatian
Tertullian
Theodoret
Theodotus
Theophilus
Venantius
Victorinus
Vincent of Lérins (d. c. 450)

The Doctors of the Church (some included above)

St. Albert
St. Alphonsus Liguori
St. Ambrose
St. Anselm
St. Anthony of Padua
St. Athanasius
St. Augustine
St. Basil
St. Bede, the Venerable
St. Bernard of Clairvaux
St. Bonaventure
St. Catherine of Siena
St. Cyril of Alexandria
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
St. Ephraem of Syria
St. Francis de Sales
St. Gregory Nazianzus
St. Gregory the Great
St. Hilary of Poitiers
St. Isidore
St. Jerome
St. John Chrysostom
St. John Damascene
St. John of the Cross
St. Lawrence of Brindisi
St. Leo the Great
St. Peter Canisius
St. Peter Chrysologus
St. Peter Damian
St. Robert Bellarmine
St. Teresa of Avila
St. Therese of Lisieux
St. Thomas Aquinas

And every Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, Monsignor, Priest, Abbot, Mother Superior, Monk, Religious Brother, Religious Sister, Nun, Deacon, sub-Deacon, 1.2 Billion living Catholic laity, and…

…not to mention 300 million Eastern Orthodox and additional tens of millions of Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East Christians, Martin Luther John Wesley, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists…

…and our Lord Jesus Christ?

It appears to me that you are seriously outgunned here, as each and everyone of them teaches and believes in the true Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. The last One named reveals this to all creation by His presence, from which I have just come, rejoicing.

What now?

Any Catholic scholar who opposed church teaching was either forced to recant or be burned at the stake. You don’t get canonized or made a doctor without towing the line.

 

[Nicea325]

If the Eucharist is merely symbolic,then kindly show me one historical writing outside the NT, the first 500 years attacking the Real Presence as heretical or usurpation against Christ?

Please, I really want to read your vast list of primary sources supporting your novelty of the Eucharist.

 

[po18guy]

OK, I’ll play your game. What about the Orthodox? What about the Lutherans? What about the Anglicans? What about the Methodists? Does the Vatican control them?

Facing an entire world of Christians who believe (and always have) in the True Presence, you might honestly ask yourself if you are practicing a parallel faith.

 

[fxcc]

Any Catholic scholar who opposed church teaching was either forced to recant or be burned at the stake. You don’t get canonized or made a doctor without towing the line.

That’s right! Never mind that so many of these people gave their very lives to defend their faith - handed over to their killers by the wicked Catholic Church of course!

Talk about a ridiculous, churlish and hateful demeaning of our gloriously sainted forefathers in the faith - starting with Christ’s apostles themselves!!! Incredible!!!

 

[fxcc]

Any Catholic scholar who opposed church teaching was either forced to recant or be burned at the stake. You don’t get canonized or made a doctor without towing the line.

If the Eucharist is merely symbolic,then kindly show me one historical writing outside the NT, the first 500 years attacking the Real Presence as heretical or usurpation against Christ? Please, I really want to read your vast list of primary sources supporting your novelty of the Eucharist.

You’re going to be waiting a long time for that list, Nicea. Even the very Father of Protestantism, Martin Luther, preached the Real Presence to his dying day. It was Zwingli who first denied it, in a major fallout with HIS father in the new faith. He was the first Protestant to float this “symbolic” notion. The rest is tragic history.

 

[Nicea325]

You’re going to be waiting a long time for that list, Nicea. Even the very Father of Protestantism, Martin Luther, preached the Real Presence to his dying day. It was Zwingli who first denied it, in a major fallout with HIS father in the new faith. He was the first Protestant to float this “symbolic” notion. The rest is tragic history.

Actually I’ll be waiting for nothing,because no such evidence exists.

 

[Rafik_Gabriel]

Great, Blessings

 

[stevekehl]

How convenient Steve,nice cop-out! And Protestants never burned ANYONE on the stake or killed anyone for going against their teachings? How easily we forget the glorious Protestant movements in Europe and here in the U.S.
When you have the courage,you are free to answer!

Sensitive about that, are we. I would concede the point if we were talking about witchcraft, but not Scripture interpretation. Protestants have abused people, but as many have pointed out on this forum, Catholicism has a 1500 year head start.

If the Eucharist is merely symbolic,then kindly show me one historical writing outside the NT, the first 500 years attacking the Real Presence as heretical or usurpation against Christ?
Please, I really want to read your vast list of primary sources supporting your novelty of the Eucharist.

I refer to my post you quoted.There were many people who questioned the church’s official teachings, however, if they disagreed with the church, the church didn’t expend energy trying to copy and preserve what they taught. Some famous and widely believed ideas have been preserved by history (don’t know much about heresies). Some alternative teachings are only known by ECF writings against them. So does the vast list of ECF writings defending the Eucharist trying to convince those who opposed them?

 

[stevekehl]

OK, I’ll play your game. What about the Orthodox? What about the Lutherans? What about the Anglicans? What about the Methodists? Does the Vatican control them? Facing an entire world of Christians who believe (and always have) in the True Presence, you might honestly ask yourself if you are practicing a parallel faith.

So if a lot of people do it, it must be right?

 

[stevekehl]

That’s right! Never mind that so many of these people gave their very lives to defend their faith - handed over to their killers by the wicked Catholic Church of course!

What? Are you saying catholics were killed for their faith by the catholic church?

Talk about a ridiculous, churlish and hateful demeaning of our gloriously sainted forefathers in the faith - starting with Christ’s apostles themselves!!! Incredible!!!

That’s a lot of hyperbole and non sequiter statements. I don’t recall any of the apostles executing anyone because of a disagreement over doctrine. Lying to the Holy Spirit, yes, disagreements over doctrine,no. I’ve also noticed no one denying what I posted.

 

[fxcc]

1. What? Are you saying catholics were killed for their faith by the catholic church?
2. That’s a lot of hyperbole and non sequiter statements. I don’t recall any of the apostles executing anyone because of a disagreement over doctrine. Lying to the Holy Spirit, yes, disagreements over doctrine,no. I’ve also noticed no one denying what I posted.

1. No, that’s exactly what YOU’RE claiming - that, for centuries, if anyone professed the truth or refused to “tow the (assumedly false) line”, they’d be burned at the stake by the evil Catholic Church!!!
2. You’ve noticed no one denying what? That the Catholic Church once persecuted people? As did her (Protestant) enemies? What relevance do those earthly scandals (or any other) have in regards to the ancient and scriptural doctrine about the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist - which, if you recall, is the actual topic under discussion here?

You’ve been challenged - more than once in fact - to produce a list of early Church figures, who at any time prior to the so called “reformation” of the 16th century, supported your notion of a “symbolic” Eucharist. So far you’ve failed to list even a single name of an early Christian who agreed with your Johnny-come-lately doctrine, whereas we’ve provided you with a list as long as your arm of well known Christians throughout the centuries who believed exactly the opposite. That speaks volumes enough about the historicity and solidity (or miserable lack thereof) of your arguments, doesn’t it? Unless you now wish to assert that you personally understand Truth better than billions of Christians have done over centuries, right from the time of Christ.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
How convenient Steve,nice cop-out! And Protestants never burned ANYONE on the stake or killed anyone for going against their teachings? How easily we forget the glorious Protestant movements in Europe and here in the U.S.
When you have the courage,you are free to answer!

Stevekehl:

Sensitive about that, are we. I would concede the point if we were talking about witchcraft, but not Scripture interpretation. Protestants have abused people, but as many have pointed out on this forum, Catholicism has a 1500 year head start.

No more sensitive than you since you mentioned it first? And who cares if the CC had a million year head start, Protestants have done it too.

Quote:
If the Eucharist is merely symbolic,then kindly show me one historical writing outside the NT, the first 500 years attacking the Real Presence as heretical or usurpation against Christ?
Please, I really want to read your vast list of primary sources supporting your novelty of the Eucharist.

Stevehekl:

I refer to my post you quoted.There were many people who questioned the church’s official teachings, however, if they disagreed with the church, the church didn’t expend energy trying to copy and preserve what they taught.

You still did not provide what I asked you-why is that Steve? Yeah Steve and the Arians and numerous other heretical sects questioned Christ divinity,humanity,etc and the Trinitarian doctrine, do you agree with them? Does that make them right? Protestanism founding root is self-centered,not Christ-centered. Steve, why would the CC church need to preserve what those heretical groups taught when they,those groups wrote plenty? Time to read history Steve.

Some famous and widely believed ideas have been preserved by history (don’t know much about heresies). Some alternative teachings are only known by ECF writings against them. So does the vast list of ECF writings defending the Eucharist trying to convince those who opposed them?

I admire your opinions…your opinion Steve. How about actually presenting real primary documents clearly rebuking the Real Presence of the Eucharist Steve? Opinions require little effort Steve, primary sources require time and effort. Any time you can present what I asked,then I’ll truly see if your novelty of symbolic Eucharist is truly orthodox or merely a Protestant invention.

 

[stevekehl]

From the online Jewish Encyclopedia (section on “Passover Sacrifice”):
The lamb was set on the table at the evening banquet, and was EATEN by the assembled company… The sacrifice had to be consumed entirely… While eating it, the entire company of those who partook was obliged to remain together (think: “sacrament of unity”), **and EVERY participant HAD to take a piece of the lamb at least as large as an olive. Women and girls also might take part in the banquet and EAT of the sacrifice.
The paschal sacrifice belongs to the “shelamim,” thus forming one of the SACRIFICES in which the MEAL is the PRINCIPAL part and indicates the COMMUNITY between God and man (think: “Holy Communion”). It is really a house or family sacrifice, and each household is regarded as constituting a small community in itself, not only because the lamb is eaten at home, but also because every member of the family is OBLIGED to PARTAKE of the meal, on PAIN OF EXCOMMUNICATION (“karet”), **(think: the Church’s requirement that every Catholic must receive Holy Communion at least once a year - preferably during the season of Easter - the Paschal season) although each man must be circumcised and all must be ritually clean (think: the Church’s requirement to receive the Eucharist in a state of grace and St Paul’s admonitions about receiving unworthily - i.e. without discerning the Body and the Blood… which was causing some of the early Christians to become “sick and dying”).
Although the initial Passover of the Jews involved the sacrifice and eating of a lamb, the Essene way of celebrating it involved consumption of Mazzah - the “Bread of Affliction” - and wine. Pope Benedict XVI opined recently that Jesus was most likely celebrating “the” Passover (the “Last Supper”) that way - with bread and wine. This reminded me of something I had noticed a while back - that in almost all the classical paintings of the Last Supper, there is no lamb on the table! Then it struck me: there is no lamb ON the table, because THE LAMB OF GOD was AT the table - giving His people His own flesh to eat!!! Yes, at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the supreme Passover Sacrifice is indeed made present to us, so that we too can partake of the Body “given up for you and for many” (to “take, eat”) and the “cup of the New Covenant” (to “drink, all of you”). Yes, we ARE indeed “there” “when they crucified my Lord”. And yes, it does cause us to “tremble, tremble, tremble”.

So the Essenes did not eat the obligatory lamb at Passover they must have been excommunicated, grave sinners. If they weren’t excommunicated they must have not altered the meal. But then Jesus observed the Essene passover meal? Scripture says Jesus instituted communion after they ate. The lamb had been consumed. Jesus doesn’t say you will eat me like the passover lamb. The supper was separate from the meal. Also, I didn’t realize Da Vinci was an eyewitness to the last supper, wait he couldn’t have been because Jesus and the apostles were reclining, not at a table.

The traditional blessing said over every passover meal (which Jesus Himself said at the Last Supper) was: *“Barukh atah Adonai Eloheinu, melekh ha-olam, hamotzi lechem min ha’aretz. Amein” * (“Blessed be thou, O Lord, our God, King of the world, who has caused bread to come forth out of the earth. Amen.”) Now ask yourself: what, or rather Who, in fact, is the True Bread that God has “caused to come forth out of the earth” (eucharisted for man),

Are you referring to Jesus coming out of the earth at His resurrection. or bread as a product of the earth? John 6 Jesus was the bread that came down from heaven, not out of the earth. If I misunderstood then disregard this comment.

What clinches the reality of the Eucharistic Sacrifice for me is God’s own decree that the Passover was to be a sacrifice IN PERPETUITY. “Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendants" (Exodus 12:27). However, the Jewish temple is no longer, and their sacrifices have ceased (stopped by God for a very good reason, one could rightly argue).

The Jews didn’t have a temple for hundreds of years after they left Egypt and still observed the Passover. You’re also confusing two things, sacrifices offered at the temple were not eaten, the passover meal was eaten at home. Jews can and still do observe the Passover meal. Additionally, if you’re going to follow part of the law we have to follow all the law.

Hence, in the book of Malachi, we find God confirming that this ETERNAL sacrifice is eventually to be offered to Him by people “descended from the Jews” in another way, in a spiritual way… Gentiles… us… Christians! “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, (think: to the end of the age) my name is great among the GENTILES, and in EVERY PLACE there IS SACRIFICE, and there is offered to my name a CLEAN OBLATION: (think: what, or rather Who, is the only “clean oblation” acceptable to God?) for my name is great among the GENTILES, saith the Lord of hosts.” (Mal 1:11).

Malachi 1 is talking about how the Israelites were disrespecting God by bringing lame or already dead animals to sacrifice. As I’ve said before Christ was sacrificed once for all (Rom. 6:10, Heb. 10:10) And Paul says to offer ourselves as living sacrifices, **holy **and blameless to God (Rom. 12:1).

There you have it: the absolutely undeniable reality of God’s own eternal sacrifice - and the Real Presence of its sacred Victim, whose flesh and blood must be eaten and drunk for the validity of the sacrifice and the attainment of eternal life.

“Unless you eat my flesh, and drink my blood, you have no life within you!”

If you are convinced that’s fine. I am not.

 

[po18guy]

If you are convinced that’s fine. I am not.

Clearly not! But, you do seem awfully convinced that your personal take on this is infallible. If the Pope cannot be infallible, how can stevekehl be?

 

[fxcc]

Have you ever read any of the Church’s vast tomes of documents, including the writings of the early Church Fathers? These days they’re even online - only a mouse click (or two) away! How come such a vast array of heresies over the centuries has been documented by (Church) historians and refuted over the centuries (more often than not in written arguments by Catholic theologians and in well-documented condemnations by Church Councils) EXCEPT the alleged disagreements about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Why would that be an exception to the rule? Would you care to explain? Or provide proof of even one major heresy (such as an argument against the Real Presence would be) that was disregarded or “covered up” by the Church - due, assumedly, to her inability to answer it? You do realize that making wild, fanciful, unprovable and patently false claims such as the one you just made above doesn’t actually constitute sensible debate by even a long stretch of anyone’s imagination, don’t you?

 

[po18guy]

So if a lot of people do it, it must be right?

The vast majority of Christians, for nearing 2,000 years, have believed what the bible says, combined with what the Apostles handed on to them - without twisting. Those who reject Christ’s Church have been forced into twisting it to mean something else.

Just wondering: What are your qualifications for interpreting scripture?

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
***Nine (9) posts have been deleted and citations have been issued for violations of the rules & guidelines found in the link in my sig line below.

I recommend that all concerned carefully review that link and insure that all future posts comply.

Please get back on topic (i.e. Proving Real Presence) and stay there or this thread may be closed***

 

[fxcc]

1. So the Essenes did not eat the obligatory lamb at Passover they must have been excommunicated, grave sinners. If they weren’t excommunicated they must have not altered the meal. But then Jesus observed the Essene passover meal? Scripture says Jesus instituted communion after they ate. The lamb had been consumed. Jesus doesn’t say you will eat me like the passover lamb. The supper was separate from the meal. Also, I didn’t realize Da Vinci was an eyewitness to the last supper, wait he couldn’t have been because Jesus and the apostles were reclining, not at a table.
2. Are you referring to Jesus coming out of the earth at His resurrection. or bread as a product of the earth? John 6 Jesus was the bread that came down from heaven, not out of the earth. If I misunderstood then disregard this comment.
3. The Jews didn’t have a temple for hundreds of years after they left Egypt and still observed the Passover. You’re also confusing two things, sacrifices offered at the temple were not eaten, the passover meal was eaten at home. Jews can and still do observe the Passover meal. Additionally, if you’re going to follow part of the law we have to follow all the law.
4. Malachi 1 is talking about how the Israelites were disrespecting God by bringing lame or already dead animals to sacrifice. As I’ve said before Christ was sacrificed once for all (Rom. 6:10, Heb. 10:10) And Paul says to offer ourselves as living sacrifices, **holy **and blameless to God (Rom. 12:1).

If you are convinced that’s fine. I am not.

1. According to scriptural accounts, the “Last Supper” was celebrated the night before the Day of Preparation - the day on which the lambs were sacrificially slaughtered in the temples for families to take home and eat. So where was the alleged lamb at the Last Supper sacrificed and acquired? Da Vinci was obviously guided by the beliefs of the early Church in his depictions of the sacred - i.e. no lamb on the table. He didn’t invent scenes to paint in a vacuum.
2. You obviously don’t understand Old Testament typology, so you miss the point about the Bread of Life coming down from heaven as well as being produce of the earth - a “grain of wheat” etc…
3. Wrong. The lambs sacrificed in the temple were taken home and eaten - that was the Passover celebration of the Jews.
4. How conveniently you’ve skirted the actual verse I quoted (Mal 1:11) in favor the preceding verses where God rages against imperfect sacrifices!

In Mal 1:11 God prophecies the PERPETUAL offering to Him (“from the rising of the sun even unto its setting”) of a “CLEAN oblation” (or “PURE offering” in some translations) - the ONLY sacrifice acceptable to Him in atonement for mankind’s sins. We say that that is none other than Christ - the only pure, unblemished Lamb of God. You suggest that YOU are the clean “living sacrifice”, the sufficient sacrifice, instead of Christ. Are YOU really clean, holy and pleasing to God - as St Paul exhorts us to be? Are we perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect - as Christ urges us to be? If we are, then why on earth did Christ need to be sacrificed? If we’re not, where is the “clean oblation” that is being offered to God “from the rising of the sun to its setting” and “in every place”? Granted Christ was sacrificed “once and for all” but how do you propose that that sacrifice is not eternal (time transcending) if Christ is indeed our real and eternal High Priest? An eternal High Priest without an eternal sacrifice? Oh, wait, I get it! Don’t bother replying. Christ is our “symbolic” High Priest, with a “symbolic” sacrifice, on a “symbolic” altar, in a “symbolic” heaven, before a “symbolic” God. Bah, humbug.

 

[Faithdancer]

OK, I’ll play your game. What about the Orthodox? What about the Lutherans? What about the Anglicans? What about the Methodists? Does the Vatican control them?

Facing an entire world of Christians who believe (and always have) in the True Presence, you might honestly ask yourself if you are practicing a parallel faith.

More divergent than parallel, unfortunately.

 

[Faithdancer]

What meaning do you apply to the fact that he didn’t do it immediately? He didn’t immediately rise from the dead – does that mean something?

Precisely, Lisa. Furthermore Jesus didn’t “offer” the consumption of his body and blood in John 6. He flat out commanded it, as the only way to have eternal life. The Eucharist and the New Covenant are initiated in John 6, just as surely as they are in Matthew 26. The details are different but the words are essentially the same, and in John 6 Jesus says that his words are life and spirit- as in real time, here and now life and spirit.
cf. Scott Hahn’s discussion at ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc2.htm