Real Presence input wanted;

[Kliska]

So, this is a question for those of my brothers and sisters who believe in the Real Presence whatever your denomination. This is an area I’ve been studying for a long while now (as I come from a “symbolic” background as far as communion goes), and thus far Pitre has come the closest to helping me “get it” (it being the Real Presence) at least on a head level. One reason is the emphasis on consuming the flesh of the lambs in the various OT sacrifices which directly call for that. (Passover, Todah offerings, etc…)

My question is this; is there a parallel somewhere or in a form I’m missing for drinking blood? I see drinking and pouring out wine, I see drinking and even pouring out water… I see sprinkling blood, smearing blood, and dipping blood, but no drinking blood except in a negative sense, such as in Revelation. I’m aware of the prohibition about drinking blood, because the life of the soul resides in the blood. So perhaps there is no parallel with eating of flesh?

 

[Michael68]

So, this is a question for those of my brothers and sisters who believe in the Real Presence whatever your denomination. This is an area I’ve been studying for a long while now (as I come from a “symbolic” background as far as communion goes), and thus far Pitre has come the closest to helping me “get it” (it being the Real Presence) at least on a head level. One reason is the emphasis on consuming the flesh of the lambs in the various OT sacrifices which directly call for that. (Passover, Todah offerings, etc…)

My question is this; is there a parallel somewhere or in a form I’m missing for drinking blood? I see drinking and pouring out wine, I see drinking and even pouring out water… I see sprinkling blood, smearing blood, and dipping blood, but no drinking blood except in a negative sense, such as in Revelation. I’m aware of the prohibition about drinking blood, because the life of the soul resides in the blood. So perhaps there is no parallel with eating of flesh?

Hello again!!!

The Blood is after the fact that the Roman soldier pierced our Lord in the side and Blood and water came rushing out and instantly converted that soldier.
During Mass, the wine is mixed with Holy Water.
I hope this helps. I look forward to the replies

 

[Wesrock]

Wine was drunk as part of the rite of the Passover Seder and other circumstances, but I can’t think of a direct parallel with blood. However, I’ve understood the prohibition on drinking the blood as being a foreshadowing in itself. The blood was sacred. It was reserved for God, consecrating that which was to be made holy and offered at the altar. In the new covenant, it is the blood of God made flesh that we drink. We share in His life, His covenant. He consecrates us as His holy body. The “life” of animals was reserved for God as it is holy. How great it is then that God shares His life and presence with us to make us holy and give us participation in Him? And to emphasize our oneness in Him.

So again, I don’t think there is a direct parallel here (which is your main inquiry, I know), but the “reversal” on the blood doesn’t strike me as a contradiction, but as extremely profound and wonderful. The prohibition points to the new covenant.

Maybe others here will be more knowledgeable than me, though.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Jesus was making the point that His crucifixion was to be the price paid for our redemption. I think He was fulfilling several already known, and one not yet fulfilled, aspects of salvation into the one cup. He did the same thing with the Eucharist, that is, fulfilling several Jewish traditions and practices into the one Eucharist - Himself. He combined several practices into the third cup of the Seder meal. Those being: the third cup, the blood needed for a new covenant, and possibly, the practice of collecting blood in a cup for atonement.

St Paul called it the cup of blessing, but it would also have been known as the cup of redemption. Before each cup was drank at the Seder meal, the wine would be mixed with a little water by whoever was the MC of the meal. Jesus made Himself to be the third cup, so when he was pierced on the cross, blood (wine) and water came out.

And as Wesrock said, it may also have to do with the “life” that exists in the blood.

 

[jlhargus]

So, this is a question for those of my brothers and sisters who believe in the Real Presence whatever your denomination. This is an area I’ve been studying for a long while now (as I come from a “symbolic” background as far as communion goes), and thus far Pitre has come the closest to helping me “get it” (it being the Real Presence) at least on a head level. One reason is the emphasis on consuming the flesh of the lambs in the various OT sacrifices which directly call for that. (Passover, Todah offerings, etc…)

My question is this; is there a parallel somewhere or in a form I’m missing for drinking blood? I see drinking and pouring out wine, I see drinking and even pouring out water… I see sprinkling blood, smearing blood, and dipping blood, but no drinking blood except in a negative sense, such as in Revelation. I’m aware of the prohibition about drinking blood, because the life of the soul resides in the blood. So perhaps there is no parallel with eating of flesh?

I see the blood being poured out on my soul and body when I drink (pour) from the cup into my body. We receive a higher life (blood) of Christ. To drink the sacrificed blood of an animal would be a lower life than we even have as a natural human being. There is a better way to put this but I don’t have time to look it up.

 

[Kliska]

Thank you all for your answers thus far; another related topic that may help clarify something for me in my head relates to “sacramental presence.” So, the Real Presence is a sacramental presence, correct? (Just to clarify I do understand what is meant by transubstantiation because I get the Aristotelian reference.)

Can members describe to me what sacramental presence means exactly (as much as one can). And, do others such as Orthodox, Lutherans, and (some) Anglicans also describe the presence as a sacramental one?

 

[Reuben_J]

Referring to the OP. There’s no parallel in the OT to the drinking of the blood which in fact was an abomination to them.

The Eucharist is about the sacrifice in which the sacrificial lamb is killed. Jesus was slain (on the cross), a single very important event which must be ‘remembered’.

Death is usually understood as the separation of blood from the flesh - that has to be done … and so the sacrifice is ‘dead’.

Actually quite a lots happen during the mass.

edit:
The drinking of the blood (and the eating of the body) was commanded by Jesus, not the practice in the OT.

 

[Kliska]

Referring to the OP. There’s no parallel in the OT to the drinking of the blood which in fact was an abomination to them.

The Eucharist is about the sacrifice in which the sacrificial lamb is killed. Jesus was slain (on the cross), a single very important event which must be ‘remembered’.

Death is usually understood as the separation of blood from the flesh - that has to be done … and so the sacrifice is ‘dead’.

Actually quite a lots happen during the mass.

Right, but there is, as you point out, no connection with a command of drinking the blood of any sacrifice in order to make it, or show it, efficacious as there is with the commandment of eating the flesh of the sacrifice which is clear. As Wesrock points out it may be that very “reversal” that is meant to show a new covenant, but as someone trying to see if the real presence is true, what you point out (they were absolutely ordered to not drink blood as part of the Law) that is quite a (mental) block for one such as me not starting with a belief in the real presence.

It may well be that the connection is several fold (such as water into wine (the blood of grapes) into blood itself) and I’m wanting to know if there is something more direct as with “eat the flesh of the lamb.”

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Read the book: Eucharistic Miracles by Joan Carroll Cruz.

 

[ejb21]

In John 6 we have Jesus repeating the command to eat His body and drink His blood. Many of the disciples walked away because it was a hard teaching and they were taking Jesus literally. It could be that they walked away because of Leviticus 7:27 (whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people). I would think that the intention of Jesus was to cut off people from the Old Covenant and then enter the New Covenant which Jesus would establish.

 

[Reuben_J]

Right, but there is, as you point out, no connection with a command of drinking the blood of any sacrifice in **order to make it, or show it, efficacious **as there is with the commandment of eating the flesh of the sacrifice which is clear.

Hi.

The efficacy of the Eucharist does not depend/depend on a specific practice of the people of the OT. Obviously in the drinking of the blood, it was even prohibited as taboo.

I hope we get that point clear.

There is no teaching about the Eucharist that it should have a parallel into the minute details as what was done in the OT. Sure, some explanations try to demonstrate the depth of Eucharist by tying it to the unfinished sacrifices in the OT.

Similarly we often talk about Jesus being the Lamb of God and we try to draw parallel from the attempt of Abraham to sacrifice his son.

Anyway, as I mentioned, the sacrifice must be killed in order that it is a sacrifice. That’s represented in the Eucharist – death, the separation of the body and blood.

The blood is significant in the sacrifice and the New Covenant – it is by the blood that we are saved; it is by the blood that our price is paid; it is by the blood we are purified; without the blood being shed there would be no death on the cross and therefore no salvation.

I would say IMO, because I am not a theologian, that the blood is important enough to deserve separate recognition as accorded to the body.

But those are side issues in the Eucharist, more importantly the drinking of his blood is commanded by Jesus, as been mentioned.

As Wesrock points out it may be that very “reversal” that is meant to show a new covenant, but as someone trying to see if the real presence is true, what you point out (they were absolutely ordered to not drink blood as part of the Law) that is quite a (mental) block for one such as me not starting with a belief in the real presence.

Fair enough.

Probably that was one reason in the Gospel why they went away . They could not overcome the mental block. They had been thoroughly conditioned that the drinking of the blood was an abomination and that if they did they would be kicked out from the society and to be treated as foreigners. Jesus hard teaching was certainly radical. If they did not really trust in Jesus for what he was, they would surely not accept such teaching.

It may well be that the connection is several fold (such as water into wine (the blood of grapes) into blood itself) and I’m wanting to know if there is something more direct as with “eat the flesh of the lamb.”

Personally I do not think there is such connection. And there does not have to be.

 

[adf417]

Thank you all for your answers thus far; another related topic that may help clarify something for me in my head relates to “sacramental presence.” So, the Real Presence is a sacramental presence, correct? (Just to clarify I do understand what is meant by transubstantiation because I get the Aristotelian reference.)

Can members describe to me what sacramental presence means exactly (as much as one can). And, do others such as Orthodox, Lutherans, and (some) Anglicans also describe the presence as a sacramental one?

To see the sacramental presence is to look at the difference in a Mass vs a Euchraistic service. In both instances we have the real presence but only in the Mass we have the point in which the transubstantiation takes place at the Epiclesis and God Himself coming down from heaven to receive our thanksgiving and present Himself.

Peace!!!

 

[Kliska]

Reuben, I can’t help but feel you’re seeing my questions as arguments. My questions are seeking questions, I’m not trying to disprove the real presence. I see the direct connection in scripture between OT and NT. Jesus Himself took a large chunk of time on the road to Emmaus expounding how the OT points to Him. I get the arguments that directly connect the Passover to His Eucharist, specifically the eating of the Lamb. Also with the Todah offerings. It’s extremely clear in that respect… and that’s just scratching the surface. However, to get to an actual literal real presence, for those of us that can argue against it because that’s all we’ve known and have “evidences” or reasons we believe the way we do, takes more than that. I’m testing it as we are told to do in scripture. I’m seeking help in gaining info. I’ve no interest in arguing against it.

That being said, I am interested in seeing support of Jesus directly commanding something that was prohibited in the OT, and that He was prohibited from (drinking blood). I find plenty supporting eating His flesh in symbol in the OT will the sacrificial offerings and their instructions, so I definitely see how that could support the Real Presence. I don’t see that same thing for blood (yet). Hence my question. I think you’ve answered it from your POV; there isn’t a parallel. Thank you for answering as you see it.

 

[Kliska]

To see the sacramental presence is to look at the difference in a Mass vs a Euchraistic service. In both instances we have the real presence but only in the Mass we have the point in which the transubstantiation takes place at the Epiclesis and God Himself coming down from heaven to receive our thanksgiving and present Himself.

Peace!!!

Interesting! Thank you, I’d not thought of that before.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben, I can’t help but feel you’re seeing my questions as arguments. My questions are seeking questions, I’m not trying to disprove the real presence.

No, dear. At least not this one. I am seeing them as questions. It is in my interest as a believing Catholic to answer them correctly. My explanation may look like an argument and if it so, it is due to my deficiency in articulating my reply and not because of your questions.

I see the direct connection in scripture between OT and NT.

Agreed.

Again, from my perspective, one has to see the correct connection. That connection can be similar but also it can be the reverse. It is not uncommon that Jesus came out with the latter in the NT.

Jesus Himself took a large chunk of time on the road to Emmaus expounding how the OT points to Him. I get the arguments that directly connect the Passover to His Eucharist, specifically the eating of the Lamb. Also with the Todah offerings. It’s extremely clear in that respect… and that’s just scratching the surface. However, to get to an actual literal real presence, for those of us that can argue against it because that’s all we’ve known and have “evidences” or reasons we believe the way we do, takes more than that. I’m testing it as we are told to do in scripture. I’m seeking help in gaining info. I’ve no interest in arguing against it.

No arguing. What you may see as arguing was probably because I tried to clarify what the Eucharist is not. When I explain it, it is through the understanding of the Catholic Eucharist, to keep it to the point.

That being said, I am interested in seeing support of Jesus directly commanding something that was prohibited in the OT, and that He was prohibited from (drinking blood). I find plenty supporting eating His flesh in symbol in the OT will the sacrificial offerings and their instructions, so I definitely see how that could support the Real Presence. I don’t see that same thing for blood (yet). Hence my question. I think you’ve answered it from your POV; there isn’t a parallel. Thank you for answering as you see it.

No problem.

Yes, that was my answer.

Again I just want to add (another clarification):

The important aspect in the eating of the Body and the drinking of the blood in the Eucharist is the Communion.

It is about Communion with Jesus - a true communion with his body and his blood and his divinity.

As he is the vine and we are the branches, we are to abide in him. There are two ways that can be achieved from the guideline of the Gospel – by following his word, and by eating his body and drinking his blood.

In a physical way, the branches grow by the infusion of sap from the vine and without it they would be nothing and die, useless, to be thrown to the ground to be burned. That is what communion with Jesus in the Eucharist does to us in our souls – giving nourishment and without it they would be nothing.

This is the basic of the purpose of Real Presence – Jesus, nothing less, as food to our souls.

 

[Kliska]

No, dear. At least not this one. I am seeing them as questions. It is in my interest as a believing Catholic to answer them correctly. My explanation may look like an argument and if it so, it is due to my deficiency in articulating my reply and not because of your questions.

I want arguments (in the formal sense; conclusions based on premises) from Catholics, so that’s a good thing. I’m just trying to be clear to everyone that I’m not sparing, I just am trying to see if there is something I’ve missed in regard to a OT connection with consuming the blood.

Again, from my perspective, one has to see the correct connection. That connection can be similar but also it can be the reverse. It is not uncommon that Jesus came out with the latter in the NT.

Right, and that’s why I’ve thought along the same lines as Wesrock mentioned; the prohibition may in fact prove the opposite; however, I don’t want to just to that conclusion ahead of myself because that takes my research down a different track, and away from what I’ve found most helpful in writers like Pitre.

The important aspect in the eating of the Body and the drinking of the blood in the Eucharist is the Communion.

It is about Communion with Jesus - a true communion with his body and his blood and his divinity.

As he is the vine and we are the branches, we are to abide in him. There are two ways that can be achieved from the guideline of the Gospel – by following his word, and by eating his body and drinking his blood.

In a physical way, the branches grow by the infusion of sap from the vine and without it they would be nothing and die, useless, to be thrown to the ground to be burned. That is what communion with Jesus in the Eucharist does to us in our souls – giving nourishment and without it they would be nothing.

This is the basic of the purpose of Real Presence – Jesus, nothing less, as food to our souls.

Right, I understand that is the teaching. I’ve read so much on it, and had so many conversations that I have the definitions, intentions, beliefs, etc… down. And out of all I’ve researched the connection to the sacrifices in the OT have been the clearest and most persuasive to me; that’s shown the connection both between consuming bread in multiple settings and consuming the flesh of the sacrifice multiple times, but not the same thing for blood (again, nothing in the positive sense). I wanted to know if I’m missing something along those lines. You point out that you don’t think I am. There are for sure perhaps other ways of getting there, but not in the exact same manner as partaking of the flesh, which may be exactly why flesh and blood are separate but joined.

 

[Michael68]

I don’t think there is a parellel in the OT. This is something new.

 

[Wesrock]

I think the closest we can get is the Passover ritual. It involved the eating of bread, the eating of the lamb, and the drinking of wine. Jesus’ blood is the wine of the New Covenant. The Eucharist Celebration is a New Passover celebration. As drinking wine was a part of Passover, the drinking of this new messianic wine (the Blood of the Lamb/Christ) is a part of our New Passover.

It’s not the direct tie in (as with consuming the lamb), but I think it’s the most direct there is. That is not to contradict my “reversal” point from earlier, which to my mind magnifies the significance of the Eucharistic chalice, if we consider the why of it being forbidden then and the why of it being instructed later. Even if it is a shift from sprinkling/anointing/pouring out to drinking, I don’t think it is a strict reversal to think of it as a parallel to using blood to consecrate things as holy or set apart. And certainly Saint Paul speaks of us as individuals and as an assembly being living sacrifices to God ourselves in our own lives, as baptized priests, and if I continue this line of thought, that in a sense makes us each temples and altars to be consecrated, no? We are being set apart and regularly consecrated and purified to be places of living sacrifices, in Christ, to the Father.

I’ve read Dr. Pitre myself, so I know that’s not exactly what you are looking for. Pitre would, in my experience, emphasize the Passover connection.

 

[Kliska]

I don’t think there is a parellel in the OT. This is something new.

That is a definite possibility!

I think the closest we can get is the Passover ritual. It involved the eating of bread, the eating of the lamb, and the drinking of wine. Jesus’ blood is the wine of the New Covenant. The Eucharist Celebration is a New Passover celebration. As drinking wine was a part of Passover, the drinking of this new messianic wine (the Blood of the Lamb/Christ) is a part of our New Passover.

It’s not the direct tie in (as with consuming the lamb), but I think it’s the most direct there is. That is not to contradict my “reversal” point from earlier, which to my mind magnifies the significance of the Eucharistic chalice, if we consider the why of it being forbidden then and the why of it being instructed later. Even if it is a shift from sprinkling/anointing/pouring out to drinking, I don’t think it is a strict reversal to think of it as a parallel to using blood to consecrate things as holy or set apart. And certainly Saint Paul speaks of us as individuals and as an assembly being living sacrifices to God ourselves in our own lives, as baptized priests, and if I continue this line of thought, that in a sense makes us each temples and altars to be consecrated, no? We are being set apart and regularly consecrated and purified to be places of living sacrifices, in Christ, to the Father.

I’ve read Dr. Pitre myself, so I know that’s not exactly what you are looking for. Pitre would, in my experience, emphasize the Passover connection.

Yes, Pitre definitely focuses on the cups at the Passover, which I do see. As you and I have pointed out, that reversal idea, or the idea of the connection between “the blood of the grape” and His Blood is there too, I’m definitely not denying that, but since you’ve read Pitre, I think you “get” what I was trying to make sure I wasn’t missing. Hahn’s work on it was similar, and I think I’ll review that and see if he drew any different parallels too.

 

[Wesrock]

To complete the thought in my second paragraph, the lamb’s blood was put on the door to set apart the house’s of the Israelites. It was sprinkled on the altar in the Temple. As priests and places of sacrifice through Christ, the blood of the true unblemished lamb is given to us to set us apart and make us holy and acceptable sacrifices, offerers of sacrifice, and places of sacrifice (in and through Christ).

Alright, I may be straying into my own exegesis here, but I’m pretty certain it’s orthodox. I’ll stop with this line of thinking, though.

Edit: Yeah, I don’t think you’re ‘missing’ any thing.