Question for protestants - Real Presence

[mercygate]

Thanks for the encouragement. The more I learn about the Catholic Church the more I feel drawn to it.

God Bless,
JPatton

Welcome to the journey.:hug3:

It can only be the grace of God, because a lot of us Catholics (and might I say, particularly us converts!) can be pretty offputting. GK Chesterton said that he would have converted years before he did if it hadn’t been for – Catholics!

Now back to the Real Presence.

 

[mozart-250]

This entire dialogue between you and me has brought out how Catholic theology is all one thing. The Eucharist depends on the priesthood, the priesthood on Apostolic Succession (you can find THAT in the Bible, can’t you?), the authenticity of Scripture is assured by the Church, whose unity Christ prayed for and promised on His last night on earth.

Might I tamely suggest that you really do believe that the Eucharistic Presence relies on human agency? It is God that effects the change in the Elements, of course. But how could it happen except through human agency?

I understand Catholic theology on the point.

But when I try to verify it I just don’t see the depencies on the priesthoold or apostolic succession in Scripture. It is not an ambiguity (as in the case of the real presence). I don’t see anything there to be ambiguous about.

Of course on one level it does depend on human involvement (as humans obviously have to prepare and distribute the elements). I just don’t see whether there is any difference on whether the humans are your priests or our ministers.

 

[mercygate]

I understand Catholic theology on the point.

But when I try to verify it I just don’t see the depencies on the priesthoold or apostolic succession in Scripture. It is not an ambiguity (as in the case of the real presence). I don’t see anything there to be ambiguous about.

Of course on one level it does depend on human involvement (as humans obviously have to prepare and distribute the elements). I just don’t see whether there is any difference on whether the humans are your priests or our ministers.

We see it as the need for One Church, linked (Acts 1?) to the Apostolic line. Even Paul, with his great personal revelation, not only received his commission at the hands of the Church but went up to Jerusalem to check with “the Pillars” that he was preaching the same Gospel they were. Later, he boasts that “those who were of repute . . . added nothing to me.”

In other words, Catholics believe that the NT model is a model of Apostolic consensus. If you are not teaching with the Apostles, then you are distancing yourself from Christ. The Apostolic Church undeniably believed in the Real Presence.

All that hand-laying-on throughout the NT is part of the physical, historical unity of the Church, through which the Sacramental unity is transmitted and preserved.

Just as a personal note, as a convert myself, the great turning point for me in a long, slow, conversion was when the Lord convicted me in prayer of the need to take this on HIS terms: His Church*, *linked through time – I had read the early Fathers – His Church as SHE understands herself, i.e., not without Peter . . . For me, that was the lynch pin.

Once I “got” that, then I began to experience a supernatural hunger for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because I finally understood that only through the living community of Apostolic faith that the Real Presence can be – REAL.

That’s my story. It makes sense to me. Of course, by the time I reached that point, I had already absorbed enough Catholic theology to recognized that the “grid” of Catholic teaching, when laid over the skeleton of Scripture was the lens that made sense of it all. This doesn’t happen in a day.

I recommend switching from K-250 to K-618 for a while.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thanks for the encouragement. The more I learn about the Catholic Church the more I feel drawn to it.

God Bless,
JPatton

I will keep you in my prayers and pray the Holy Spirit will guide you in your possible conversion.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;2945183:

It does say that they felt that is was a hard teaching and who can understand it. What does that mean? They left. Walked off. Why did Christ let them go? Think about it. Either he let them leave, knowing his words held eternal life and he let them go and die or he knew that they understood him correctly but since it was before the Last Supper, it would not be clear to anyone yet

Read the passage again. First of all, your presupposition is that this about the last supper. I do not agree.
Second, the passage says, who can hear it?
He does not say they do not understand. He says, does if OFFEND you. There is absolutely no reason after his further explaination in 6:62-65 to think they do not understand.

Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

Jhn 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

Jhn 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Jhn 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him

 

[mercygate]

Read the passage again. First of all, your presupposition is that this about the last supper. I do not agree.

I think there is a nuance here that you have not captured. Catholics read the Bread of Life discourse as related to the Eucharist as a whole, celebrated until He comes again, and not specifically limited to the Last Supper.

Still, “Eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” foretell the language of the Last Supper. The connection is hard to miss.

Second, the passage says, who can hear it?
He does not say they do not understand. He says, does if OFFEND you. There is absolutely no reason after his further explaination in 6:62-65 to think they do not understand.

Agreed. Nobody understands it at this point. And those who leave ARE offended because what they “understand” is that Jesus has just invited them to come up and chomp on his fingers & toes.

The suspension of discredit.-- i.e., FAITH, is precisely the value in Peter’s response to Jesus’ question, “Will you also leave?” Peter does not understand the Bread of Life discourse any better than those who left. But in faith, he prophetically links the Bread of Life Discourse to the Last Supper without even knowing it by answering: “You have the words of eternal life.”

For Catholics, the “words of eternal life” include: “Take and eat. This is my body; do this in remembrance of me.”