Question regarding the real presence

[rotlex]

Not sure if this is the right forum, but, I have a question, or I should say, I’m not really sure how to answer this when asked.

I understand the real presence. (Although maybe not as well as I think)!

How would you respond in a conversation with someone who believes 100% in the real presence, during the last supper? What I mean is, when Christ said this IS my body, and this IS my blood, of course he had the power and ability to turn those substances into whatever He wanted, right then and their. Where is it conveyed that that IS the case when a priest, or thousands of priests, say it each and every day?

In a nutshell, when someone tells you they believe Christ turned bread and wine into his body and blood at the last supper, but never said anything about anyone else doing it down the road, do you respond? (Hence, the belief by many that it is only a symbol now).

Thanks, and hope I’m being clear on that question.

 

[FCEGM]

Not sure if this is the right forum, but, I have a question, or I should say, I’m not really sure how to answer this when asked.

I understand the real presence. (Although maybe not as well as I think)!

How would you respond in a conversation with someone who believes 100% in the real presence, during the last supper? What I mean is, when Christ said this IS my body, and this IS my blood, of course he had the power and ability to turn those substances into whatever He wanted, right then and their. Where is it conveyed that that IS the case when a priest, or thousands of priests, say it each and every day?

In a nutshell, when someone tells you they believe Christ turned bread and wine into his body and blood at the last supper, but never said anything about anyone else doing it down the road, do you respond? (Hence, the belief by many that it is only a symbol now).

Thanks, and hope I’m being clear on that question.

If that were the case, then He wouldn’t have said, “Do this in memory of Me.” IOW, “This IS My Body. . .This IS My Blood”, but when I tell you to do the same it won’t be."

 

[rotlex]

If that were the case, then He wouldn’t have said, “Do this in memory of Me.” IOW, “This IS My Body. . .This IS My Blood”, but when I tell you to do the same it won’t be."

I have said this exact thing. The response was basically the same as in my original question. Yes, he said, “this is My body, This is My Blood”. The “Do this in memory of Me”, means exactly that. Do this in my memory, as a symbol, etc. etc. Again, I’m no expert here, but I can see how someone would have a lot of trouble with using that as “proof”.

 

[FCEGM]

I have said this exact thing. The response was basically the same as in my original question. Yes, he said, “this is My body, This is My Blood”. The “Do this in memory of Me”, means exactly that. Do this in my memory, as a symbol, etc. etc. Again, I’m no expert here, but I can see how someone would have a lot of trouble with using that as “proof”.

Yes, I’ve seen that claim before, but those who make it are unaware of the strongly sacrificial aspect of “in memory”:

During the Last Supper, the Lord said to his disciples, “Do this in memory of me.” In Greek, this statement reads, “Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin.” There are two.aspects of this phrase that deserve consideration. For one, the phrase touto poieite can be translated as do this or as offer this. In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites “you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar two lambs” (Ex. 29:38). This use of poiein is translated as offer this or sacrifice this over seventy times in the Old Testament. So the same word that is used for the sacrifice under the Old Covenant is used for the sacrifice of the Mass in the New.

The second key.aspect of this phrase is Our Lord’s use of the word anamnesin. If you were to ask a Protestant to look in a Greek Translation of his Bible, every time this word (anamnesis) appears it is within a sacrificial context (see, for example, Numbers 10:10). It also can be translated as memorial offering or memorial sacrifice. While these nuances are lost in the English translation, Jewish ears would have understood the sacrificial meaning of Christ’s words.

Another New Testament passage that testifies to the sacrificial nature of the Mass is 1 Corinthians 10:14–21. Here Paul argues that participation in the Lord’s table means refusing to participate in the sacrifices of demons. Paul contrasts two groups: The first are those who participate in one altar (the table of demons), eating the sacrifice and drinking from the cup of demons. The second are those who partake of the table of the Lord (which, according to Malachi 1:7 is synonymous with an altar of sacrifice) and drink from the cup of the Lord. Paul’s argument is based upon the parallelism between the demonic sacrifice and the Christian sacrifice. Hebrews 13:10 follows this thought, saying that we have an altar from which those who serve the tent (Jewish priests serving in the temple) have no right to eat.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109sbs.asp

 

[skeyes]

Here is my take on this. We try to limit God to our understanding of time and space. He is not limited by anything. The bread and cup we receive at Mass is the same bread and cup that was received by the Disciples in the upper room when Jesus uttered those famous words. Jesus is not being resacrificed at each and every Mass. The celebration that we participate in is a “representing” of the original sacrifice. It gets even better, to God, our prayers and petitions during mass are being received by Him simultaneously, but that isn’t a good word here, as He receives the Sacrifice offered for us by Jesus on the cross. It is all in the present tense to God and we are part of this. If we could all get our minds in tune with this, our participation at the celebration of Mass or the Divine Liturgy would become so much more genuine and we would love what was going on "with Him, in Him and through Him. It is awesome. Jesus didn’t just offer this Sacrifice once and done, it continues and continues as long as the world is in need of salvation. Ask your friend to give Jesus the benefit of the doubt, that He can do what He says. Being a former Baptist, the mystery of the Eucharistic Celebration continues to open up for me. I am not a wafer worshipper, but a believer that Jesus was a man of His word and He meant it when He said “this is”. I don’t know that this will help you, but it helps me to say all this to continue to understand more and more how Jesus loves us to where He is still sacrifing Himself for us.

In His service,
Stan

 

[gt8952b]

Have you ever heard of the miracle of Lanciano? I like to bring it up when talking with marginal Catholics who kind of believe in the real presence and if I’m feeling daring, some Muslim friends as well. You can find a really good description of the miracle here along with all of the scientific study that has been done on it (there are other great miraculous examples on this site as well)… therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

Here is some text from the site for your reading enjoyment:

Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.

The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.

Various ecclesiastical investigation (“Recognitions”) were conducted since 1574.

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

I encourage you to read more about it - the story is really amazing and hard to refute considering the existing miraculous tissue still preserved to this day without any kind of preservatives used.

Pax

 

[gt8952b]

One more thing I heard not too long ago from a priest on the radio that really stuck in my head: The last supper was a celebration of the Passover meal, and the good Jewish people alive during the time of Christ did not simply view the Passover meal as an event that once occurred and was then remembered each year - they believed it was a participation in the original Passover. The disciples would have shared this belief, and understood (after the crucifixion) that what Christ was doing would allow for the perpetual participation in his one time sacrifice. In a similar vein, if Christ was able to transform the bread and wine into His body and blood at the last supper, our participation in that meal would mean we are sharing in the same body and blood.

Jesus is the Lamb of God, just as the lamb was eaten at the passover meal, Jesus is eaten at our participation in the new Passover meal.

I hope that helps at least a little.

 

[rotlex]

Thank you all, who replied here. There are some things in here, being very uneducated in the subject myself, that are VERY helpful.

I think sometimes it is difficult, when you simply “believe on faith”, to attempt to portray that to someone either asking the question, or attempting an argument against it.

Thank you all, again, and God bless.

 

[InternetWoman]

Have you read Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 11 - it has a section, starting V17, that deals with “The Lord’s Supper.” Verses 27-29 say “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” Really sounds to me like Paul believes in the real presence.

This is also a great text to use for those who aren’t Catholic (or who have fallen away) who ask “Why can’t I take communion too?” If they haven’t “examined themselves” (as in sinfulness) then taking communion will bring “judgment” on them.

Also - I’ve been told that the Greek word that gets translated as “remember” is actually more precise than that. It actually means “to take an event that occurred in the past and to bring it into the present.” Which is what the Mass does, it transcends time and takes us to the actual Last Supper, as well as to Jesus’ death on the cross. There is a website catholicity.com/ that has two great talks one by Vinny Flynn on “The Seven Secrets of the Eucharist” and the other Fr. Larry Richards “The Mass Explained.” They are only $1 each and are fantastic!

 

[JimG]

Have you read Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 11 - it has a section, starting V17, that deals with “The Lord’s Supper.” Verses 27-29 say “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” Really sounds to me like Paul believes in the real presence.

This is also a great text to use for those who aren’t Catholic (or who have fallen away) who ask “Why can’t I take communion too?” If they haven’t “examined themselves” (as in sinfulness) then taking communion will bring “judgment” on them.

Also - I’ve been told that the Greek word that gets translated as “remember” is actually more precise than that. It actually means “to take an event that occurred in the past and to bring it into the present.” Which is what the Mass does, it transcends time and takes us to the actual Last Supper, as well as to Jesus’ death on the cross. There is a website catholicity.com/ that has two great talks one by Vinny Flynn on “The Seven Secrets of the Eucharist” and the other Fr. Larry Richards “The Mass Explained.” They are only $1 each and are fantastic!

Yes, it is obvious from 1 Cor 11 that Paul believed in the real presence and severely admonished those who did not. That also makes it clear that the Church was celebrating the Eucharist, as Jesus had commanded at the Last Supper.