Real Presence input wanted;

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kliska
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This has occurred to me. There is a prophecy of the sacrifice of The Holy Mass.
Malachi wrote that from the rising of the sun to its setting a perfect sacrifice would be made.
That perfect sacrifice is Jesus Christ offering himself to us in the guise of bread and wine.
This sacrifice is being made daily in the Catholic Church throughout the world as prophesized by Malachi.
This could perhaps be a parallel you are looking for
 
Wesrock said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think this is the closest to being the best explanation I’ve seen. In the Old Testament, the Jews were prohibited from drinking/eating blood because it is the “life force” of any creature. It was used in the Temple as an important part of the sacrificial offering to God, and was sprinkled on the Altar. So, it was reserved for God, alone.

During Passover, the blood of the lamb was painted all around the door of their house as a protection of the firstborn against the plague. And, when the Jews later celebrated Passover, it symbolized it being a house of the Israelites, the chosen people of God.

In Jewish tradition the 4 cups of the Passover meal symbolize the ‘redemption’ of the Jews from the slavery of Egypt. Each one is a reference to one of God’s promises to the Israelites. (1. “I will take you out…”, 2. “I will save you…”, 3. “I will redeem you…”, 4. “I will take you as a nation…” )

At the Last Supper, Jesus took the cup and said, “This is my Blood”, referring to the Blood that He would shed for our Redemption. So, this one cup contains all of the promises that God made to His people. It is the “life force” of Jesus, which He shares with all of us in the Holy Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It is the only way that we can participate in the Eternal Life of Christ. This is why He said in John 6:54, "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." That is the only place we can receive His gift of eternal life. He said so, Himself.

The Holy Eucharist is food for our souls, that nourishes our spiritual life and bonds us to Jesus in a way that nothing else on earth can. We actually become a part of the Body of Christ in a real, physical and spiritual, way. Without the Body & Blood of Jesus Christ, we will all die, spiritually, because we “will have no life” in us. But, when we receive the Holy Eucharist, the Blood of the Lamb encircles the doors of our souls (our heart) to protect us from the enemy. Only His Body and Blood can sustain us, and give us any hope of eternal life.

One small side note: at the moment of transubstantiation, when the bread and wine are changed into the Body & Blood of Jesus, His entire Being is present in both the Body and the Blood, so, you do not need to take both forms. Every tiny particle or drop of either Species, is fully Jesus, Himself. You should always be extremely careful to never drop a crumb! (This is one reason why I refuse to take Communion in the hand.)
 
Kliska said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes, what was prohibited in the Old Covenant is now commanded in the New. Blood was not permitted in the Old because it was reserved for the New. The life of the soul is in the blood, therefore the life of Christ is in His blood. And since Jesus said we have no life in us unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, it makes sense that the bread and wine really are his flesh and blood. We gain our life through drinking Jesus’ blood, which contains His life.
 
Kliska said:
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?
Click to expand...
NO:)

Truly GREAT question though

Here’s the significance:

In the OT Tradition the Sacrifice; BLOOD was considered an essential element as it was a “giving of SELF”, in a metaphorical sense “Giving ALL” back to God from whom ALL comes.

In Catholic Holy Communion this then is present as Christ DID give His “ALL”; and because Jesus Christ is literally made "Really; Truly & Substantially [meaning the entire Christ is Present] in Catholic Holy Communion.

Blood]; the metaphor in the OT becomes perfected as the REALITY of the NT:thumbsup: [John 6:47-58 & 1st Cor. 11:2-30] as Jesus Christ Himself in Person. Body; Blood, Soul and Divinity! Amen!

God Bless you

Patrick
 
Kliska said:
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.

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.

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.
Click to expand...
No worries. You brought out valid questions. I can understand that the discussion can be quite emotional on this subject and thus results in digression rather than sticking to the relevant point.

I hope I am right to see where you are going to with this, in that you want to explore the connection with the OT.

My opinion was that you shouldn’t go there first before appreciating that the eating of the body and the drinking of the blood was the direct command of Jesus Christ himself. From the Catholic perspective this is the basic understanding of the Eucharist and the Real Presence - because Jesus said so.

Granted you have passed over that and so wanting to see into the parallel in OT.

Sure I can do that but at the risk that it would be pretty much our extrapolation or what the theologians would say. I hope you see this distinction.

There are many aspects of the Eucharist which cannot be simplified just into one thing.

The eating of the sacrificial lamb for example can he paralleled to the passover meal. Though it was eaten, in the Eucharist the eating was to give life which might not be emphasised that much in the passover meal, and so on.

As for the drinking of the blood. It is a good point that you brought up for if it was prohibited in the old Laws, therefore it has to be understood figuratively.

My contention is it does not have to be.

The main thing first - that the sacrifice was eaten by the family in the passover meal. It was not thrown away. They gathered together and ate.

The prohibition of the drinking of the blood was provided for in the Law. However, we see that most of the Laws were abolished or downgrade one way or the other by Jesus as he IS the fulfillment of the Law - dietary law, the ablution before eating, circumcision and even Sabbath. The moral Laws he expanded.

So we can say it is no longer prohibited in the drinking of the blood because Jesus has fulfilled this aspect of the provision of the Law but rather in the most radical way, He allowed it. That’s quite consistent with what Jesus did in the NT.
 
Kliska said:
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?
Click to expand...
Drinking of Blood: Jewish Tradition taught that the person who drank the blood of an animal would take on the animal’s nature. You allude to this in your OP and previous posters on this thread have mentioned something similar. So, it was a very bad thing for a human to consume blood from an animal, because they would be come animal-like. That is why you see in the Old Testament that it is bad to consume blood of animals. You see this mentioned in the NT as well (Acts 15/16). The important thing to understand here is the reason that was given - Jewish people did not want to taint their own blood with the blood of animals.

So, when it comes to the faith traditions that do believe in the real presence, this teaching is what is desired. By consuming Christ’s blood, we become Christ-like.

Eating Flesh: Exodus 12 is where I get most of my understanding on this one. Consuming the flesh of the lamb was required to be set free. In Revelation, we see the Lamb that was slain for our sake. So, in Exodus, the Jews had to eat the lamb, and they had to put the blood on the door posts. So, it was through both the flesh and the blood that they were saved - a physical parallel to the Real Presence of the Eucharist. This link is bolstered by the “new exodus” that Jesus discusses with Moses and Elijah shortly before his Passion.
 
Kliska said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well as we all know that in OT the drinking of blood is banned within the law. This was because it was a rite in pagan worship to drink blood. The Lord also says that the life within the body is the blood; and that’s the reason why we shouldn’t drink it. You have to understand that in pagan “blood” worship, they, the pagans thought that they inherit the power of the animal that they drink blood from. The Lord didn’t wish this kind of thinking among his followers, until, the perfect sacrifice was to come in the form of Jesus. The Lord permits us to drink the blood of his Son because he is the perfect man in whom the Holy Spirit is Completely unified. The Lord wants us to drink the blood of His Son in order that we may receive this perfect sacrifice; and the Power of the Spirit within Jesus, since the Spirit is within the blood–sanctifying the body (flesh); therefore, we must share within the sacrifice, both body and blood…
 
Thank you all for your replies, they are what I’m after in my research. I’m going to reread Hahn’s take on things to see if there are any other connections he draws in this area as well. Any other (name removed by moderator)ut would be great.
 
Michael68 said:
Hello again!!!

During Mass, the wine is mixed with Holy Water.
I hope this helps. I look forward to the replies
Click to expand...
Not that it matters really, but the wine is mixed with plain old tap/faucet water, not Holy Water.
 
Subscribed…

I think everyone seems to confirm the fact that drinking blood does not have an OT parallel. However, the prohibition offers an idea of the significance of Jesus establishing the Sacrament. His life is in His blood (the Word became flesh). And the life is in the blood.

Jesus seems to reveal that He is fundamentally different than any other creature on Earth. He comes from above, and is actually Life Himself!

I often wondered why the Jews (in John 6) did not rebuke His demand to drink His blood, since it is forbidden.
 
rcwitness said:
I often wondered why the Jews (in John 6) did not rebuke His demand to drink His blood, since it is forbidden.
Click to expand...
Maybe they new he was speaking symbolically…:crying: my world is falling apart! 😃

Peace!!!
 
Obviously, the consumption of blood is prohibited in the Old Testament, but there MAY be something that could foreshadow the Wine/Blood of the Eucharist in the New Testament.

This is the best I could come up with…

Exodus 12:7,22-23 - the blood of the lamb had to be sprinkled on the two door posts. This paschal sacrifice foreshadows the true Lamb of sacrifice and the two posts of His cross on which His blood was sprinkled.

They shall take some of its blood and apply it to the two doorposts and the lintel of every house in which they partake of the lamb.

Then take a bunch of hyssop, and dipping it in the blood that is in the basin, sprinkle the lintel and the two doorposts with this blood. But none of you shall go outdoors until morning. For the LORD will go by, striking down the Egyptians. Seeing the blood on the lintel and the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over that door and not let the destroyer come into your houses to strike you down.

Sir. 24:21 - God says those who eat Him will hunger for more, and those who drink Him

Zech. 13:1 - on the day of piercing, a fountain (of blood and water) will cleanse the sins of those in the new House of David.

This is the best I can come up with on short notice. 🤷 When I have more time to devote to this, maybe I’ll be able to do better…
 
Kliska said:
Thank you all for your replies, they are what I’m after in my research. I’m going to reread Hahn’s take on things to see if there are any other connections he draws in this area as well. Any other (name removed by moderator)ut would be great.
Click to expand...
I think, if you have not yet, understand the reasoning behind the prohibition of drinking blood in the OT dietary laws:

cuf.org/2004/04/eat-drink-and-be-catholic-the-biblical-prohibition-of-eating-blood/

The prohibition against eating blood was a discipline that reflected the mysteries of God’s revelation to the Jewish people at that point in history. This prohibition foreshadowed the complete revelation of Jesus Christ, and helped prepare the mind and heart of Israel to embrace the New Covenant in His Blood…Unlike the permanent, divine laws given on Mount Sinai (The 10 Commandments), the disciplinary laws of the Old Testament were temporary in nature, awaiting their fulfillment through the revelation of Christ. Having in view the New Covenant of Jesus’ Blood, these old disciplines were designed by God to prepare Israel for the New Covenant (Gal. 3:26-29). This prohibition was a disciplinary law abolished by Christ when He initiated the new and everlasting covenant in His Blood.

Bringing the fullness of revelation to man, Jesus completes the Old Law and brings in the New. No longer does the blood of animals signify life for man, but rather the Blood of Jesus Himself, poured out in the New Covenant, gives us new life. What the blood of animals signified, the Blood of Christ provides. Because His Blood provides redemption, He commands us to drink it (Jn. 6:54).

Given the New Law, why is blood prohibited to Gentile converts in Acts 15:28-29, especially after Peter’s dream in Acts 10? Animal blood was prudently prohibited at that time in the Church out of deference to the converts from Israel who found it offensive. Keep in mind, Jews who called themselves Christians still associated with those Jews who were not Christian. Paul says in Romans 14:13-15 that no food is unclean, but that Christians must not scandalize each other with what they eat. To avoid scandal, certain foods were temporarily forbidden. Furthermore, food that contained blood was associated with pagan rituals. To avoid an association of Christianity with pagan rituals, the temporary discipline was maintained. In short, the purpose of the discipline was not theological—as in the Old Testament—but social. When the danger of scandal to Christianity ceased, this temporary discipline was abolished.
 
Kliska said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think parallels that make a connection to the teachings of Christ are cool but, in the instance of the Lord’s Supper and Real Presence, He says at the meal, This is my body, This is my blood and He commands us to eat and drink. To me, that is all I need to know. Again, though, I do love to find parallels from Jewish traditions, commandments, etc., to what we do now. Very interesting stuff.
 
Sacrament is a visible sign instituted by Jesus Christ, that parts Grace to the believer.

The Orthodox generally uses the word “Mysterion” or Mystery in place of Sacrament.

A valid Sacrament, especially the Eucharist is not, and cannot be fully defined in human words or human understanding, which remains a Mystery, that is humanly approachable but not humanly exhaustible by a definition. Faith is called for here.

Here are a few biblical words the Catholic Church uses in relation to blood.

Covenant, Marriage, Lamb of God who takes away the Sin of the World, Bride groom, Bride, Apocalypse (Revelation of the Bride and Bride Groom in the Bridal Chamber), Communion, Holy Communion, Life, Cup of Blessing, Cross, Baptism, Reconciliation, Salvation, Redemption, to name a few.

It is an abomination to God for one to drink the blood of dead animals.

The Blood that Jesus Christ gives us to consume (sacramentally) does not come from anything dead. There fore Jesus flesh and blood is not an abomination to God.
That blood in Eucharist is eternal, Living and the Life. Recall Jesus words when He celebrated the Last Supper with His disciples. Jesus is present as He gives His flesh and blood to His disciples to consume, this is a mystery. This blessed Sacrament ( Eucharist) Jesus instituted, transcends, past, present and future time.

Jesus is present to His Bride the church in HIs body, blood, soul and divinity in Eucharist. For “no one goes before the Father except through the Son”.

The Mass, is when the bride (Church) celebrates her Marriage Covenant with her Bridegroom Jesus Christ in Presence.

The prayer of the bridegroom comes to fruition in every age, John 17:17 Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth.19
And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth. 20
“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
21
so** that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you,**** that they also may be in us,** that the world may believe that you sent me.
22
And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one,
23
**I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.
24
Father, they are your gift to me. I wish that where I am they also may be with me, that they may see my glory that you gave me, because you loved me before the foundation of the world.
26
I made known to them your name and I will make it known, ]that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them.”

Peace be with you
 
Moses asked for God’s name; God said, “I AM”

The apostles asked the Word of God made flesh (Jesus), “Show us the Father”?

The gospels record Jesus saying, “if you see me, you have seen the Father”, “no goes to the Father except through the Son”.

In the Old Covenant, Israel’s high priest, prophet’s and King’s renewed their covenant with God through the sacrificial blood of animals poured out, celebrated with a meal of bread and wine, which introduced the anticipated coming of the Kingdom of heaven.

In the New Covenant, As prophet; Jesus proclaimed the “Kingdom of heaven is at hand”, “scripture is fulfilled in your hearing”. The bride groom comes for His bride. Jesus fulfills God’s Word and Old Covenant, and pronounces a New (Marriage) Covenant in His body and blood.

As High priest, Jesus offers His own body and blood sacrificed in the lifting up of the cross to claim and cleanse His bride for the eternal nuptial covenant.

As King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Jesus celebrates His eternal victory over sin and death for His bride the Church in thanksgiving or Eucharist. The validity of this new and everlasting covenant is made when both bride and bride groom (must) are present who become ONE.

“**the Eucharistic mystery, precisely in being transformed by the idea of nuptiality, remains the heart of the concept of the Church as described by the term “Body of Christ”…**making plain the dynamic character of sacramental reality, which is not an already accomplished physical fact but takes place as a personal event. It is precisely the mystery of Love, seen as nuptial mystery”. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger “Called to Communion” pg. 38-39}
 
Kliska said:
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?
Click to expand...
From the Catholic dictionary.

SACRAMENTAL PRESENCE

Definition

The manner of presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. He is really, truly, and substantially “contained” under the appearances of bread and wine, in such a way that where they are and as long as they are, he is there in the fullness of his divinity and humanity.

I hope this helps.
 
Thank you all again for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

Some interesting things I’ve been reading about; the limits of the restrictions on not eating blood, and the intent. Also, from the Jewish perspective, what of human blood, and accidental ingestion of one’s own blood. Sources I’ve read lately are saying that if we only look at scriptural prohibition it is indeed only about the blood of beasts, birds, etc… and human blood is not included; however, the more strict rabbinical law did prohibit ingestion of any blood, including human.

Curious as to the response to ingesting one’s own blood (which we all do, usually accidentally), I looked that up as well; it is fine as long as it’s not appearing to do so. For example, if we stick out finger (such as when we sew) or if our gums/mouth is bleeding it’s fine to swallow it. The idea here is that human blood could appear to be any blood, therefore the appearance of ingesting blood needs to be avoided, the focus isn’t on the blood itself, if that makes sense.

In short, I can see where this could lend itself to explaining why it is allowed to participate in Jesus’ blood, in the manner He instituted, esp since the appearance of wine remains. Interesting.
 
Kliska said:
Thank you all again for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

Some interesting things I’ve been reading about; the limits of the restrictions on not eating blood, and the intent. Also, from the Jewish perspective, what of human blood, and accidental ingestion of one’s own blood. Sources I’ve read lately are saying that if we only look at scriptural prohibition it is indeed only about the blood of beasts, birds, etc… and human blood is not included; however, the more strict rabbinical law did prohibit ingestion of any blood, including human.

Curious as to the response to ingesting one’s own blood (which we all do, usually accidentally), I looked that up as well; it is fine as long as it’s not appearing to do so. For example, if we stick out finger (such as when we sew) or if our gums/mouth is bleeding it’s fine to swallow it. The idea here is that human blood could appear to be any blood, therefore the appearance of ingesting blood needs to be avoided, the focus isn’t on the blood itself, if that makes sense.

In short, I can see where this could lend itself to explaining why it is allowed to participate in Jesus’ blood, in the manner He instituted, esp since the appearance of wine remains. Interesting.
Click to expand...
Yes, interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top