Real Presence Apologetics

[Porknpie]

Regarding the types and shadows in the Old Testament ,I too would accept your assertions that they were all fulfilled in and by the Coming into the world of he whom these things typified.
The Passover lamb,although to be received internally in the stomach ,was not meant to convey ,to those eating of it ; the one symbolised ( the lamb of God ) actually to the inward parts(or spiritually) by the eaten lamb being effectual ,.and in so doing .( I know the “Eucharist " is not independent of belief ,but the Passover lamb was independent of a “real presence”)
Likewise in the giving of the heavenly manna ,which Jesus himself ,uses to symbolise that “true bread”,which was given by his Father from heaven, John 6:32 : the true and the heavenly manna .In so doing Jesus is comparing himself to bread and that which " give the life unto the world”( verse 33).

Where is there then a connection with the "Eucharist "( in the literal sense practiced) as Jesus with the example of “Manna” is continuing its use as a picture ,and that of himself as the “true bread from heaven”?,

Bernard,

I highly recommend watching the video here on youtube by Brand Pitre titled Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. He has a book out out the same subject.

In the video, Dr Pitre explains why the Jewish Christian converts so readily accepted the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, including the typologies of the Showbread, The Manna and the Passover Meal.

PnP

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Doctrine is what unites. I’ve been extremely interested in the ecumenical process on Catholic doctrine. And astonished by the conclusions on the Eucharist of the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue. The prospects for reunification are staggering.

Saint Hilary had a way of discussing complicated topics with simplicity of understandings that both camps could find common ground. I will attempt at his discipline of thought in the following.

What difference does it make, because the substantial change has taken place in the Eucharist, whether by trans. from the intellectual or by faith from the humble, in both cases the change is perceived in thought, amplified by faith.

That said, it serves no purpose to refute either explanation of the true presence, that the substantial change has occurred in both camps.

I do not attempt to refute or reject a Lutheran’s faith of the True Presence, that leaves the mystery suspended in faith. nor should the Lutheran view protest or reject my Catholic faith in the True Presence expressed from trans. which confirms my faith on rock that confirms the mystery has taken place in time and space from the eternal.

The rejection serves no purpose, when both views are perceived in thought.

We can begin from this “faith” foundation as a cause of reconciliation instead of separation. Though we can reach for respecting each ones faith expressed in the true presence, to be reconciled comes with the accepting of the faith expressed, not the rejection of ones faith, that respects the others view does not meet ecumenical standards towards full communion.

This is a huge topic you present here that deserves more dialogue.

Peace be with you

 

[JonNC]

Saint Hilary had a way of discussing complicated topics with simplicity of understandings that both camps could find common ground. I will attempt at his discipline of thought in the following.

What difference does it make, because the substantial change has taken place in the Eucharist, whether by trans. from the intellectual or by faith from the humble, in both cases the change is perceived in thought, amplified by faith.

That said, it serves no purpose to refute either explanation of the true presence, that the substantial change has occurred in both camps.

I do not attempt to refute or reject a Lutheran’s faith of the True Presence, that leaves the mystery suspended in faith. nor should the Lutheran view protest or reject my Catholic faith in the True Presence expressed from trans. which confirms my faith on rock that confirms the mystery has taken place in time and space from the eternal.

The rejection serves no purpose, when both views are perceived in thought.

We can begin from this “faith” foundation as a cause of reconciliation instead of separation. Though we can reach for respecting each ones faith expressed in the true presence, to be reconciled comes with the accepting of the faith expressed, not the rejection of ones faith, that respects the others view does not meet ecumenical standards towards full communion.

This is a huge topic you present here that deserves more dialogue.

Peace be with you

I strongly agree.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Doctrine is what unites. I’ve been extremely interested in the ecumenical process on Catholic doctrine. And astonished by the conclusions on the Eucharist of the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue. The prospects for reunification are staggering.

I noticed you used the word “reunification”. This cannot be, for the simple fact that the Lutheran does not have an apostolic Liturgy. The Lutheran Liturgy removed itself from the Apostolic Latin Liturgy. There can not be a reunification as if both Liturgies remaining different that can find unity. The Lutheran Liturgy would have to prove it’s Liturgy came the Lutheran way from the original apostles, in order for our communions to be ecumenical, or reunited as one.

My comment serves no purpose if it causes offense, it becomes productive if it invites the dialogue of discussion and clarification.

Peace be with you

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I noticed you used the word “reunification”. This cannot be, for the simple fact that the Lutheran does not have an apostolic Liturgy. The Lutheran Liturgy removed itself from the Apostolic Latin Liturgy. There can not be a reunification as if both Liturgies remaining different that can find unity. The Lutheran Liturgy would have to prove it’s Liturgy came the Lutheran way from the original apostles, in order for our communions to be ecumenical, or reunited as one.

My comment serves no purpose if it causes offense, it becomes productive if it invites the dialogue of discussion and clarification.

Peace be with you

No offense but how do you reconcile your comments with your Church’s opposite position? Or are you simply ignoring the Pontifical Dialogue & conclusions with Lutherans?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Saint Hilary had a way of discussing complicated topics with simplicity of understandings that both camps could find common ground. I will attempt at his discipline of thought in the following.

What difference does it make, because the substantial change has taken place in the Eucharist, whether by trans. from the intellectual or by faith from the humble, in both cases the change is perceived in thought, amplified by faith.

That said, it serves no purpose to refute either explanation of the true presence, that the substantial change has occurred in both camps.

I do not attempt to refute or reject a Lutheran’s faith of the True Presence, that leaves the mystery suspended in faith. nor should the Lutheran view protest or reject my Catholic faith in the True Presence expressed from trans. which confirms my faith on rock that confirms the mystery has taken place in time and space from the eternal.

The rejection serves no purpose, when both views are perceived in thought.

We can begin from this “faith” foundation as a cause of reconciliation instead of separation. Though we can reach for respecting each ones faith expressed in the true presence, to be reconciled comes with the accepting of the faith expressed, not the rejection of ones faith, that respects the others view does not meet ecumenical standards towards full communion.

This is a huge topic you present here that deserves more dialogue.

Peace be with you

I posted this on another thread earlier:

The Eucharist: Lutheran/Roman Catholic Joint Commission

The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

 

[rcwitness]

Lutheran theology is not specific as to the duration of the presence. The concern of the Reformers was the use of the reliquae in ways not connected to Christ’s command, that we eat and drink.
Scripture does not give direction regarding what is left over, but the Lutheran view is that the best practice is for all to be consumed during the sacramental act, save what is needed for the sick and shut in. More and more often, though, Lutheran parishes are reserving the sacrament in an ambry.

Jon

Peace Jon,
Interesting you share this. I believe (though never heard mention of it) John’s account of the five thousand fed has some relavence for recording Jesus’ comment to, “Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost.”

This miracle is ironically performed before the Teaching of the Bread that Jesus will give for the life of the world. His body perpetually multiplied for the ages.

But your comment may be more directed at Adoration? Adoration is definately a harder thing for me (as an Evangelical convert) to practice. Though I readily admit, I MOST LIKELY should spend some time before HIS Sacrament.

P.S. I have only read up to this post, sorry if Im back tracking
Michael

 

[JonNC]

Peace Jon,
Interesting you share this. I believe (though never heard mention of it) John’s account of the five thousand fed has some relavence for recording Jesus’ comment to, “Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost.”

This miracle is ironically performed before the Teaching of the Bread that Jesus will give for the life of the world. His body perpetually multiplied for the ages.

But your comment may be more directed at Adoration? Adoration is definately a harder thing for me (as an Evangelical convert) to practice. Though I readily admit, I MOST LIKELY should spend some time before HIS Sacrament.

P.S. I have only read up to this post, sorry if Im back tracking
Michael

Michael,
Thanks for this. Yours is an interesting post, from an angle different than I’ve considered. Something to ponder.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

And, personally, my simple explanation for the Eucharist is this:

Our Father in heaven, through His Holy Spirit, no longer considers the gifts of bread and wine to be anything but the one holy sacrifice which brought Himself together with man. So, to the man who receives worthily, He is able to transform.

Michael

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Perhaps this can help as well:

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, Chapter IV

QUESTION III

Why this Sacrament is called Eucharist,

Why this Eucharist is called a Sacrament.

As has already been stated the word 'Eucharist ’ ( Greek word for thanks) was never used by the Lord Jesus or his apostles( or for that matter was the word " Mass") to denote any ordinance or feast in the New Testament .
But what of the word ‘Sacrament’ can we find it being used by the Lord Jesus or his apostles to denote any ordinance?

Sacrament?This word is derived from the ecclesiastical Latin for ‘Mystery’.
But the new testament was written in Greek not Latin. The Greek for ’ mystery’- or, if you will sacrament- musterion , is applied by the holy apostles to the preaching of the gospel and the gospel fellowship which this brings in:’ the mystery of the gospel’, the fellowship of the mystery’.

It is never,never applied to any ordinance at all,least of all the Lord’s supper.Therefore the Lord’s supper( I believe) is neither Latin sacrament nor new testament Greek mystery.

The Lord’s supper is however an ordinance ,and is identified as such ( especially by Paul) .
But to what purpose was it given?

‘For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup,ye do show the Lord’s death till he come’

If so,then the re-enactment of the Last Supper shows his death.For that to be valid,in turn the Last Supper itself must have shown his death.Not convey his life ,but; show his death.

 

[rcwitness]

Why this Eucharist is called a Sacrament.

As has already been stated the word 'Eucharist ’ ( Greek word for thanks) was never used by the Lord Jesus or his apostles( or for that matter was the word " Mass") to denote any ordinance or feast in the New Testament .
But what of the word ‘Sacrament’ can we find it being used by the Lord Jesus or his apostles to denote any ordinance?

Sacrament?This word is derived from the ecclesiastical Latin for ‘Mystery’.
But the new testament was written in Greek not Latin. The Greek for ’ mystery’- or, if you will sacrament- musterion , is applied by the holy apostles to the preaching of the gospel and the gospel fellowship which this brings in:’ the mystery of the gospel’, the fellowship of the mystery’.

It is never,never applied to any ordinance at all,least of all the Lord’s supper.Therefore the Lord’s supper( I believe) is neither Latin sacrament nor new testament Greek mystery.

When is the word ‘ordinance’ used in the New Testament? And how?

The Church has the authority to bind and lose what is the ordinance and definitions of the New Covenant.

Mass means ‘sent’

Words are meant to communicate. Tell us what you think is wrong with the definitions of Eucharist, Sacrament, Mass, etc.

Peace
Michael

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

When is the word ‘ordinance’ used in the New Testament? And how?

 

[rcwitness]

Bernard,

Im not quite sure I understand what you are getting at…

If it is your ‘opinion’ that the term Eucharist somehow contradicts the Lord’s Supper, Im missing your point.

Michael

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Bernard,

Im not quite sure I understand what you are getting at…

If it is your ‘opinion’ that the term Eucharist somehow contradicts the Lord’s Supper, Im missing your point.

Michael

Hi Michael
See post #112. “Real Presence Apologetics”

 

[janeway529]

Being taught about the Real Presence in high school, what really helped me was that our religion teacher brought up the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Why this Eucharist is called a Sacrament.

As has already been stated the word 'Eucharist ’ ( Greek word for thanks) was never used by the Lord Jesus or his apostles( or for that matter was the word " Mass") to denote any ordinance or feast in the New Testament .
But what of the word ‘Sacrament’ can we find it being used by the Lord Jesus or his apostles to denote any ordinance?

So your argument is…

Because the word was not used by Christ or the Apostles…

Note:

St Justin Martyr was already using the word Eukaristia before 165 A.D. in his 1st Apology.

CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Imagine that… using 2nd century apologetics in the 21st century…

[bibledrb]2 timothy 2:14[/bibledrb]

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No offense but how do you reconcile your comments with your Church’s opposite position? Or are you simply ignoring the Pontifical Dialogue & conclusions with Lutherans?

My comments are in conformity with the official teachings of the Church which do not change.

Your commentaries become debatable, and are not official teachings of the Church.

They are still in dialogue, nothing is set in concrete. Thus my comments do not need reconciling because the Church has not spoken. My comments derive from the official position of the whole Church, not commentaries from theologians which are subject to change.

The Pope as a theologian is at liberty to dialogue and reach for theological summaries, commentaries, with efforts to reach reconciliation or theological conclusions. The commentaries you presented have not and do not change the status quo position and my commentary of the whole Church which do not conflict.

So that it is made clear to you, my commentaries are expressed from the current official position of the Church. Your commentaries are a work in progress, nothing officially is attained.

My commentaries point to the official Church position that remains a stumbling block to Lutheran’s from reconciliation with the Catholic Church.

Your commentaries only reveal theological dialogue findings that hopefully clears smoking screens and misunderstandings, they do not officially speak for the whole Church nor do they draw an official conclusion of the Church.

Thus, I do not have to be reconciled with the Church, because I have never left Her, nor has She spoken officially about the theological dialogue, which you presented.

Iam not ignoring the theological dialogue or commentaries you presented. I am just stating your commentaries are dialogue and have not reached the official position of the Church, because She has not spoken yet on them. Your commentaries remain in the dialogue phase.

In conclusion, although some of the commentary show to use the word “ecumenical”, you would be hard pressed to prove that the Catholic Church officially used the word or writes the word “ecumenical” in the theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church. Thus far, you reveal that the Lutheran’s who write, have used the ecumenical word from their commentaries.

I would be interested if you can reveal a quote or personal writing from a Pope, or Bishop who used the word “ecumenical” using the Church’s definition applied to the Lutheran Church and the Catholic Church? Does such a document exists? Or is it just the Lutheran commentaries who use the “ecumenical” word outside of the arena with the Catholic dialogue?

Peace be with you

 

[EvangelCatholic]

My comments are in conformity with the official teachings of the Church which do not change.

Your commentaries become debatable, and are not official teachings of the Church.

They are still in dialogue, nothing is set in concrete. Thus my comments do not need reconciling because the Church has not spoken. My comments derive from the official position of the whole Church, not commentaries from theologians which are subject to change.

The Pope as a theologian is at liberty to dialogue and reach for theological summaries, commentaries, with efforts to reach reconciliation or theological conclusions. The commentaries you presented have not and do not change the status quo position and my commentary of the whole Church which do not conflict.

So that it is made clear to you, my commentaries are expressed from the current official position of the Church. Your commentaries are a work in progress, nothing officially is attained.

My commentaries point to the official Church position that remains a stumbling block to Lutheran’s from reconciliation with the Catholic Church.

Your commentaries only reveal theological dialogue findings that hopefully clears smoking screens and misunderstandings, they do not officially speak for the whole Church nor do they draw an official conclusion of the Church.

Thus, I do not have to be reconciled with the Church, because I have never left Her, nor has She spoken officially about the theological dialogue, which you presented.

Iam not ignoring the theological dialogue or commentaries you presented. I am just stating your commentaries are dialogue and have not reached the official position of the Church, because She has not spoken yet on them. Your commentaries remain in the dialogue phase.

In conclusion, although some of the commentary show to use the word “ecumenical”, you would be hard pressed to prove that the Catholic Church officially used the word or writes the word “ecumenical” in the theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church. Thus far, you reveal that the Lutheran’s who write, have used the ecumenical word from their commentaries.

I would be interested if you can reveal a quote or personal writing from a Pope, or Bishop who used the word “ecumenical” using the Church’s definition applied to the Lutheran Church and the Catholic Church? Does such a document exists? Or is it just the Lutheran commentaries who use the “ecumenical” word outside of the arena with the Catholic dialogue?

Peace be with you

I provided these websites on another thread: National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/koinonia-of-salvation.cfm

Or perhaps you may want to access the discussions on the Vatican website:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Bernard Lyons;11708694]Why this Eucharist is called a Sacrament.

As has already been stated the word 'Eucharist ’ ( Greek word for thanks) was never used by the Lord Jesus or his apostles( or for that matter was the word " Mass") to denote any ordinance or feast in the New Testament .
But what of the word ‘Sacrament’ can we find it being used by the Lord Jesus or his apostles to denote any ordinance?

Bernard; I see no point in your argument here? No matter what language Jesus spoke in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin? the latter were the most used languages spoken during His ministry when Jesus walked the earth.

We Know for Jesus gave “Thanks” in what ever language you see fit. When Jesus spoke the Word “thanks, or thanksgiving”, all the other languages of his time repeated it, from Latin the Word Eucharist comes from the Word Jesus spoke His thanks, or thanksgiving.

As far as Sacrament which comes from “Oath”, is never a word that denotes an ordinance. You have confused “Rite” with “Sacrament”. Yes Jesus used the word “Oath”, and practiced the sacramental rites of the Old Covenant in order to fulfill them.

A Play on words should never be a reason for your faith. The practice and works from what Jesus said and did, reveals our Catholic faith from our practice and works.

Sacrament?This word is derived from the ecclesiastical Latin for ‘Mystery’.
But the new testament was written in Greek not Latin. The Greek for ’ mystery’- or, if you will sacrament- musterion , is applied by the holy apostles to the preaching of the gospel and the gospel fellowship which this brings in:’ the mystery of the gospel’, the fellowship of the mystery’.

Sacrament comes from the word “sacramentum”, which is a sworn oath of allegiance that changes the person’s character.

Sacrament by the Church’s definition is CCC 1116b…“they are the masterworks of God”, in the new covenant.

CCC 1128 The Sacraments act “ex oere operato” (literally; by the very fact of the actions being performed), i.e., by the virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once and for all…

Are you the first person to reject that Jesus holy humanity was never a sacrament for our salvation? Before rejecting any thing Catholic, learn first what your rejecting.

CCC 774 b…The saving work of His holy and sanctifying humanity is the sacrament of salvation, which is revealed and active in the Church’s sacraments…

A sacrament is never an ordinance as you have been misinformed.

A sacrament is a visible sign instituted by Jesus Christ to part grace to the beliver.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I provided these websites on another thread: National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/koinonia-of-salvation.cfm

Or perhaps you may want to access the discussions on the Vatican website:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

I have to rest my case EvangelCatholic; the websites you provided do not reveal any Pope or bishop speaking the ecumenical during the dialogue with a Lutheran theologian.

The Ecumenical work of the Catholic Church and it’s wording from the U.S Catholic bishop’s is spoken in general terms that include the Orthodox and all Christians.

I was hoping you could provide a Pope or bishop using ecumenical in the context you have been using the term.

Peace be with you