Question about the real presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Phillipos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Phillipos

Guest
I am what you would call a “protestant” although I don’t recall nailing 95 problems I have with the Church outside on it’s front door for debate. I have been trying to understand my Catholic brothers and sisters better and not just take what other non-Catholics have told me about the faith (which in turn has mostly been wrong). So as you read this don’t think Im trying to convert anyone here. I need a better explanation then what I’ve been given. Thus, I am struggling to comprehend a few key concepts of the faith such as Mary Queen of Heaven and her perpetual virginity, why priests and other men of vocation aren’t allowed to have wives before they enter the vocation if Peter had a wife before he became a fisher of men, and some other menial things. However, one subject that keeps coming up is transubstantiation.

Mat 26:26 During the meal Jesus took some bread in his hands. He blessed the bread and broke it. Then he gave it to his disciples and said, “Take this and eat it. This is my body.” 27 Jesus picked up a cup of wine and gave thanks to God. He then gave it to his disciples and said, "Take this and drink it. 28 This is my blood, and with it God makes his agreement with you. It will be poured out, so that many people will have their sins forgiven.

I understand that in the literal sense Jesus states that the wine is his blood and the bread is his body, and in John 6:53…

John 6:53 Jesus answered: I tell you for certain that you won’t live unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man.

Ok, so here is where I start having problems. I always hear to keep everything in context. Well didnt Jesus just feed a very large crowd who came to him just for a free meal, and not for the eucharist. And now they come back for more literal bread. So why would john 6:53 mingle with Matthew 26:27-28 if they seem to be un related topics. Plus, if the bread becomes his flesh and the wine his blood why would Jesus say only verses later in verse 63 while talking to the founders of the church that the flesh profits nothing, but its his words that give spirit and life? Apparently in the Greek the word flesh in verse 63 and 53 are the same word.

As i scan the New Testament I can’t find a place where in the acts of the apostles or any of the epistles where Paul, Peter, or any other leader of the church refer to the communion turning into the real host. All I see is them breaking bread daily. I understand that Paul told the Corinthians not to eat the Eucharist in an unworthy manner, but no mention of the transubstantiation. (Granted they wouldnt have used that term)

Also, Jesus said in the sermon on the mount that he didnt come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. So why would he go against his Father’s own words in Genesis 9:4 when said to not eat flesh, with its life, that is its blood.

If someone, or some people could help me out here that would help out a lot. As I have been listening to Catholic answers live podcats at work I am finding a love for the Catholic Church but seem stuck mainly on this issue. Once I get this issue wrapped up perhaps you can help me understand other issues.

-Phillipos

“Jesus paid a debt he didn’t owe because we owed a debt we couldn’t pay.”
 
Phillipos said:
If someone, or some people could help me out here that would help out a lot. As I have been listening to Catholic answers live podcats at work I am finding a love for the Catholic Church but seem stuck mainly on this issue. Once I get this issue wrapped up perhaps you can help me understand other issues.
Click to expand...
All excellent questions. To me, the essence of the Eucharist is to believe that He is really present there because He told us that He would be.

Beyond that, it is a mystery that we will not be capable of understanding fully until we are with the Lord in eternity.

You are also aware, of course, that several Protestant denoms also accept the Real Presence, though they define it somewhat differently.
 
I realize that I’m not answering your questions above directly, but I’ve posted an essay on the history of the Real Presence among early Christians that extensively cites sources and is very relevant to your exploration of the topic. I’m an assistant professor of history at a private college in the South, so it’s written from a scholarly perspective. Rather than repost what is admittedly a long article, I refer you to posts 19-27 in the following thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4151729#post4151729
 
yeah it’s hard
but why u should know the answer
there is still something to find ,to seek

like the pure love:) 🙂 🙂
 
only God know the real answer right

forget it , there is still something to seek

what about the ture love between catholic

yeah i know a great place u can meet the single
catholic:blush: 😊
 
All good questions, Phillipos. I don’t really have any time this AM to answer each one of your points (need to get to work), but I think you’ll find these two sources helpful in giving the Catholic argument & traditional perspective on the Real Presence. Suffice it to say, if you delve into the history of your faith you’ll find that since its founding, Christians have been proclaiming the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Christ in the Eucharist

Real Presence (Fathers*)

I hope that is helpful & if not, please let us know. God bless!
 
I want to point out that all to often, all of us focus on “bread” and “flesh” and not on the verb used. The actual word for eat is best translated as gnaw or grind with the teeth. It held two meanings then. That is the first and most common one. The second is an insult. So, Jesus was either saying that you must insult him OR that you must gnaw on his flesh. THe Jews understood it as the latter, and so do we.

Now, the connection with the loaves and fishes is key. Yes, the people were looking for more free food. Jesus also discusses the manna in the dessert. WHY people come to Jesus is never the important part. Even today, some come with selfish motives. If they are open to Jesus, though, they will be transformed. Back to the loaves and fishes. First, it is symbolic as to how one man’s flesh can feed the multitude. If Jesus can use normal bread and fish to feed so many, how much more can his Heavenly Body feed? Second, it re-inforces the concept that Jesus is the provider of all sustanence, physical and spiritual. Third, it once again shows that through God all things are possible.

I hope this helps./
 
Phillipos said:
I am what you would call a “protestant” although I don’t recall nailing 95 problems I have with the Church outside on it’s front door for debate. I have been trying to understand my Catholic brothers and sisters better and not just take what other non-Catholics have told me about the faith (which in turn has mostly been wrong). So as you read this don’t think Im trying to convert anyone here. I need a better explanation then what I’ve been given. Thus, I am struggling to comprehend a few key concepts of the faith such as Mary Queen of Heaven and her perpetual virginity, why priests and other men of vocation aren’t allowed to have wives before they enter the vocation if Peter had a wife before he became a fisher of men, and some other menial things. However, one subject that keeps coming up is transubstantiation.

Mat 26:26 During the meal Jesus took some bread in his hands. He blessed the bread and broke it. Then he gave it to his disciples and said, “Take this and eat it. This is my body.” 27 Jesus picked up a cup of wine and gave thanks to God. He then gave it to his disciples and said, "Take this and drink it. 28 This is my blood, and with it God makes his agreement with you. It will be poured out, so that many people will have their sins forgiven.

I understand that in the literal sense Jesus states that the wine is his blood and the bread is his body, and in John 6:53…

John 6:53 Jesus answered: I tell you for certain that you won’t live unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man.

Ok, so here is where I start having problems. I always hear to keep everything in context. Well didnt Jesus just feed a very large crowd who came to him just for a free meal, and not for the eucharist. And now they come back for more literal bread. So why would john 6:53 mingle with Matthew 26:27-28 if they seem to be un related topics. Plus, if the bread becomes his flesh and the wine his blood why would Jesus say only verses later in verse 63 while talking to the founders of the church that the flesh profits nothing, but its his words that give spirit and life? Apparently in the Greek the word flesh in verse 63 and 53 are the same word.

As i scan the New Testament I can’t find a place where in the acts of the apostles or any of the epistles where Paul, Peter, or any other leader of the church refer to the communion turning into the real host. All I see is them breaking bread daily. I understand that Paul told the Corinthians not to eat the Eucharist in an unworthy manner, but no mention of the transubstantiation. (Granted they wouldnt have used that term)

Also, Jesus said in the sermon on the mount that he didnt come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. So why would he go against his Father’s own words in Genesis 9:4 when said to not eat flesh, with its life, that is its blood.

If someone, or some people could help me out here that would help out a lot. As I have been listening to Catholic answers live podcats at work I am finding a love for the Catholic Church but seem stuck mainly on this issue. Once I get this issue wrapped up perhaps you can help me understand other issues.

-Phillipos

“Jesus paid a debt he didn’t owe because we owed a debt we couldn’t pay.”
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum, I appreciate that you want to truly know what we Catholic Christians believe without any preconceived notions. It is so easy to get caught up into the falsehoods and misunderstandings of the Catholic Faith. I am sure there are going to be many more questions in the future. There are a lot more experts here on this forum than I, so I am going to leave you with this thought. All of the beliefs of the CC are based on Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, which is scriptural, and on the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, which also is scriptural. With this in mind I think you will find that what you want to know is based on a solid foundation, it is up to you whether you accept the truth or not. Good luck And God Bless.
 
Hi there

Welcome
From my personal experience, spending time in front of the Blessed Sacrament help me a lot. Just sit there in silent and think, pray, talk to Jesus.

for Scriptural references
therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

this site has answers lot of my questions.

www.masstimes.org also has a listing of Eucharistic Adorations schedules from various churches

Tak
 
Phillipos said:
…As i scan the New Testament I can’t find a place where in the acts of the apostles or any of the epistles where Paul, Peter, or any other leader of the church refer to the communion turning into the real host. All I see is them breaking bread daily. I understand that Paul told the Corinthians not to eat the Eucharist in an unworthy manner, but no mention of the transubstantiation. (Granted they wouldnt have used that term)

Also, Jesus said in the sermon on the mount that he didnt come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. So why would he go against his Father’s own words in Genesis 9:4 when said to not eat flesh, with its life, that is its blood…
Click to expand...
Here’s the problem.

“Transubstantiation” -couched in terms of ancient Greek philosophy,
is, in fact, a perfect description of the claimed reality.

Two views of events are possible, and the CC espouses both:
-the Eucharist was said to be established during the
Passover ritual meal. A meal of rememberance.
Lamb and unleavened bread is consumed during this
ritual meal - as His chosen people call to mind the
saving acts of God, in their behalf.

OK. So now ‘rememberance’ is covered.
Yet, at the same time, Temple sacrifice is also addressed.
Jesus is said to have become the ‘perfect sacrifice’ -
once, for all. The CC, just as in the Temple, offers this
sacrifice, each day, as the Levitical priesthood offered
daily sacrifice, in the 2nd Temple.

So what two ‘ideas’ are here? [ideas = theological reality?]
The ‘meal of rememberance’ will now recall
God’s saving act for all people.
Christ did not ‘pass over,’ he was crucified -
the perfect sacrifice.

If God’s thought was to continue revelation,
then 2 new realities evince:

-God’s saving act remembered [Eucharist as both
meal of rememberance, as well as the continuation
of Temple sacrifice, daily. Two seamless realities,
now changed in form, as Logos now informs each.]
As theology, these are exquisite constructs.
I don’t at all believe this, yet it is a gorgeous theology,
the basis of which is said to be - according to Saul of Tarsus,
original sin.

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Original_Sin.html

Here’s where the ‘seamless’ starts to unravel.

The parent faith states that the God of Israel is Savior,
offering mercy, forgiveness and eternal life - to all people,
not just His chosen people.

beingjewish.com/toshuv/salvation.html

From this stance, Christianity is redundant - and in profound error,
regardless of which view of Eucharist is espoused.

And BTW, the notion of original sin was such that a
Father of the Church, Augustine, speculated - at one point -
that an infant, who dies without baptism - would be subject to
‘the positive miseries of the damned’

Forget that Augustine had this repugnant ‘thought.’
The fact is, that it is the Christian doctrine of original sin
that made such thought possible - in terms speculative.
This, alone, testifies to the flawed nature of such a doctrine -
original sin. No original sin, no ‘need’ for a savior from same.
The God of Israel had already granted mercy, forgiveness
and life eternal, to all people.

Come now, let us set things right, says the Lord: Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow…Is.1:18

reen12
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top