Real Presence question

[agent_grey]

I believe in the real presence and always felt that the denial of this was a blatant denial of scripture but I discovered something that I need to understand that seams to have this doctrine at an impass in my mind.

Luke 24: 30 -31

And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight.

This is the most profound evidence in scripture that the only way to know Christ is through communion. At least this was my previouse belief.

John 20:17

Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.

How do I reconcile these 2 passages and the doctrine of the real presence? Did Yeshua ascend to his Father after the dealing with Mary and before the encounter with the 2 men. That is all I can come up with.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I believe in the real presence and always felt that the denial of this was a blatant denial of scripture but I discovered something that I need to understand that seams to have this doctrine at an impass in my mind.

Luke 24: 30 -31

And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight.

This is the most profound evidence in scripture that the only way to know Christ is through communion. At least this was my previouse belief.

John 20:17

Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.

How do I reconcile these 2 passages and the doctrine of the real presence? Did Yeshua ascend to his Father after the dealing with Mary and before the encounter with the 2 men. That is all I can come up with.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Yeah, that’s exactly what’s going on. He even says as much in John 20:17. He sends Mary to go tell the others He’s going to ascend.

But I’m baffled as to how either of these verses would hurt a belief in the Real Presence? Can you explain that a bit more?

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I am not sure that the passage in Luke’s Gospel is Holy Communion. I thought it was a regular meal. I don’t want to minimize the Blessed Sacrament, but neither do I want to minimize other means of grace both sacramental and non-sacramental. Are you sure it is the teaching of the Church that “the only way to know Christ is through communion”.

The Ascension is 40 days after the Resurrection and the Emmaus events were before that. I am not sure of the signifcance of Our Lord’s words to Magdalene, but they wouldn’t necessarily preclude Holy Communion anyway. Remember, Jesus allowed St. Thomas to touch his sides and hands where the crucifixion wounds had healed? Perhaps His admonition to not touch Him at that moment is in connection with His desire that she would immediately announce His Resurrection to the Apostles.

There are many other passages supportive of the Real Presence as you surely know. John 6 and I Cor. 11 are very strong. But the reason I believe it is because Christ’s Church teaches it. I am aware that infidels and heretics can interpret the Bible in truly clever ways that are contrary to the way Holy Church does. But to whom do the books they interpret belong? That is my concern. I know that these who cast doubt on the Real Presence aren’t in the line of Apostolic Succession or Tradition. Why should we pay attention to them? I believe because the Catholic Church teaches it.

The Church has taught it from the beginning and there is no plausible way that anyone could make up a thing like that and introduce it unless it had. It is easy to imagine that over time, souls would tend toward not believing it even though it had always been believed. It takes faith to believe this doctrine. But try to imagine the first person who decides to introduce as a novelty to people who had always understood it as symbolic…“Oh by the way…you realize this is really more than symbolism?” “Ummmm, yeah…this is well…” I’ll stop there. It is hard for me to imagine that without Tradition to back it up, people who valued their own souls made a leap from symbolism to literalism. Why would they do that? Anyway, St. Ignatius referred to people who denied the literal Presence in the Eucharist around 107 AD as heretics. Our beliefs are Apostolic.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I am not sure that the passage in Luke’s Gospel is Holy Communion. I thought it was a regular meal. I don’t want to minimize the Blessed Sacrament, but neither do I want to minimize other means of grace both sacramental and non-sacramental. Are you sure it is the teaching of the Church that “the only way to know Christ is through communion”.

It’s **not **the teaching of the Church that the only way to know Christ is through the Eucharist. Children, for example, can know Christ, but in the Western Church, aren’t allowed to receive until they’re old enough to get what’s going on more fully.

I understand that you believe in the Eucharist from the rest of your post. And there’s not some binding teaching that says that the Emmaus meal has to be understood as Eucharist, but I’m strongly of the opinion that it is. St. Matthew’s Cathedral in Washington, D.C., actually has a depiction of the scene behind the tabernacle, with the words “He was made known to them in the Breaking of the Bread.”

If this isn’t Eucharistic, it would be an awfully strange thing to do. Note: He blesses the Bread, breaks it and shares it with them. They suddenly realize it’s Jesus, and then He disappears. Meaning He left them with the Eucharist (which is to say, He didn’t leave them at all). If this isn’t the Eucharist, what’s going on? Why break bread, begin a meal, and then disappear instead of eating?

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

It’s **not **the teaching of the Church that the only way to know Christ is through the Eucharist. Children, for example, can know Christ, but in the Western Church, aren’t allowed to receive until they’re old enough to get what’s going on more fully.

I understand that you believe in the Eucharist from the rest of your post. And there’s not some binding teaching that says that the Emmaus meal has to be understood as Eucharist, but I’m strongly of the opinion that it is. St. Matthew’s Cathedral in Washington, D.C., actually has a depiction of the scene behind the tabernacle, with the words “He was made known to them in the Breaking of the Bread.”

If this isn’t Eucharistic, it would be an awfully strange thing to do. Note: He blesses the Bread, breaks it and shares it with them. They suddenly realize it’s Jesus, and then He disappears. Meaning He left them with the Eucharist (which is to say, He didn’t leave them at all). If this isn’t the Eucharist, what’s going on? Why break bread, begin a meal, and then disappear instead of eating?

Belloc, Thanks. And you too agent grey. I hadn’t seen the parallels. If it wasn’t literally Eucharistic, it is clearly symbolic of it. You have me leaning your way. But agent grey, I still doubt that Our Lod’s appearance to Magdalen offers any difficulty with regard to the Real Presence.

 

[youngsaint]

It’s **not **the teaching of the Church that the only way to know Christ is through the Eucharist. Children, for example, can know Christ, but in the Western Church, aren’t allowed to receive until they’re old enough to get what’s going on more fully.

I understand that you believe in the Eucharist from the rest of your post. And there’s not some binding teaching that says that the Emmaus meal has to be understood as Eucharist, but I’m strongly of the opinion that it is. St. Matthew’s Cathedral in Washington, D.C., actually has a depiction of the scene behind the tabernacle, with the words “He was made known to them in the Breaking of the Bread.”

If this isn’t Eucharistic, it would be an awfully strange thing to do. Note: He blesses the Bread, breaks it and shares it with them. They suddenly realize it’s Jesus, and then He disappears. Meaning He left them with the Eucharist (which is to say, He didn’t leave them at all). If this isn’t the Eucharist, what’s going on? Why break bread, begin a meal, and then disappear instead of eating?

The sad thing is, that most children, heck, even adults, don’t get it.

I think it isn’t the only way to know God, but it is God, what better way is there?

And I would have taken the bread, you know how delicious bread is

 

[Mad_Amos]

Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father.

This is a common yet imperfect translation of the verse; a more accurate rendering would be “Do not cling to Me…”

The heretofore grieving Mary is quite understandably overjoyed at the prospect of her Lord’s renewed earthly Presence; however, Christ is reminding her of the transience of His temporal sojourn, as He will not so remain until the consummation of creation at the end of time. In a certain way this passage is very Eucharistic, since we are led to understand that the Holy Sacrament of the Altar is at present our only encounter with Jesus in a physical sense.

Did Yeshua ascend to his Father after the dealing with Mary and before the encounter with the 2 men.

All of Jesus’ post-Resurrection physical interactions occurred prior to the Ascension.

 

[JustaServant]

It’s **not **the teaching of the Church that the only way to know Christ is through the Eucharist. Children, for example, can know Christ, but in the Western Church, aren’t allowed to receive until they’re old enough to get what’s going on more fully.

I understand that you believe in the Eucharist from the rest of your post. And there’s not some binding teaching that says that the Emmaus meal has to be understood as Eucharist, but I’m strongly of the opinion that it is. St. Matthew’s Cathedral in Washington, D.C., actually has a depiction of the scene behind the tabernacle, with the words “He was made known to them in the Breaking of the Bread.”

If this isn’t Eucharistic, it would be an awfully strange thing to do. Note: He blesses the Bread, breaks it and shares it with them. They suddenly realize it’s Jesus, and then He disappears. Meaning He left them with the Eucharist (which is to say, He didn’t leave them at all). If this isn’t the Eucharist, what’s going on? Why break bread, begin a meal, and then disappear instead of eating?

It was that passage in Luke that finally opened MY eyes to the Real Presence.

 

[scylla]

There is the interpretation that, Jesus says “do not touch me” “do not cling to me” as a pointing to the sacredness of the Priesthood and their special place where they are mandated to touch and present Jesus for us.
The Priests, through the power of God, present and give us Jesus, the laity receive and share Him with the world, through their witness and love of Christ. The way we regular folk cling to Jesus is by receiving Him in the Holy Eucharist.

The only one He asks to touch Him is Thomas and then later on He ascends into Heaven.

In Christ,
Scylla

 

[peary]

I believe in the real presence and always felt that the denial of this was a blatant denial of scripture but I discovered something that I need to understand that seams to have this doctrine at an impass in my mind.

Luke 24: 30 -31

And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight.

This is the most profound evidence in scripture that the only way to know Christ is through communion. At least this was my previouse belief.

John 20:17

Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.

How do I reconcile these 2 passages and the doctrine of the real presence? Did Yeshua ascend to his Father after the dealing with Mary and before the encounter with the 2 men. That is all I can come up with.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

You are dealing with two gospel accounts. In Luke’s gospel, he is sharing the experience that two of the apostles had on the road, and it was only when they stopped to get something to eat did they recognize the stranger as Jesus, the Risen Lord. This may have or may not have happened after the Ascension; we don’t know, although Acts would be a continuation from the gospels the way it is arranged in the bible.

Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalen immediately after His Resurrection. He did not say exactly when he would ascend, but that He was to ascend, which He did, as recorded in Acts.

 

[agent_grey]

I never said the church taught that communion is the only way to know Yeshua. That is my belief and I came to that conclusion through experience. I believe scripture supports this. The Church may or may not have publicly taught it. Why so many examples of Appostles not knowing who he is?

I do not know Christ. I believe but do not know. I have prayed much and much to my suprise I actually pray without end. But I can not say I know Christ. I even for a time kept the Saturday Sabbath wich was an absolute waste of time and a great burden upon my head. Saturday keepers will know what I mean when I say a “burden upon my head”. I now call it the heal of the blessed virgin.

Why my question. Yeshua says that he can not be touched. then he gives what seams to be communion to the 2 travellers. If the real presence is a fact then the 2 travellers touched. Although I am reading a translation. I am planning on learning the languages of scripture (hebrew, aramaic, kione greek).

Why I post my question here. I don’t trust anybody’s opinion aside from Traditional Catholics. Why only Trads… The doctrine of the Real presence.

If there is another way to know Christ I would certainly like to hear it. I know by experience that prayer is not a way and the Gospel even records Christ as saying that when you see the abomination many false teachers will say he is here and there and one of the examples given is prayer. And since the novelty of symbolic communion began(Lords name on a vein thing) many say he is in the inner room of prayer.

Thank you all for your reply’s. It is greatly appreciated. What I get from this is I need to learn the biblical Languages.

 

[Mad_Amos]

With nothing but the highest respect, might I suggest that you are adding undue complexity to a sublimely simple Gospel?

That Christ is ineffably present with us in The Eucharist is an incontrovertible tenet of our faith; however, He is further with us always and everywhere; as St. Paul reminds us: “in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).

As to your question about ‘knowing’ God, Sacred Scripture again reveals the key:

1 John 7*:** Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God.*

Christians understand quite acutely that God Is Love, and that Christ Is God. To know Him, then, is to be like Him - as the Evangelist has so wonderfully conveyed.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I never said the church taught that communion is the only way to know Yeshua. That is my belief and I came to that conclusion through experience. I believe scripture supports this. The Church may or may not have publicly taught it. Why so many examples of Appostles not knowing who he is?

I do not know Christ. I believe but do not know. I have prayed much and much to my suprise I actually pray without end. But I can not say I know Christ. I even for a time kept the Saturday Sabbath wich was an absolute waste of time and a great burden upon my head. Saturday keepers will know what I mean when I say a “burden upon my head”. I now call it the heal of the blessed virgin.

Why my question. Yeshua says that he can not be touched. then he gives what seams to be communion to the 2 travellers. If the real presence is a fact then the 2 travellers touched. Although I am reading a translation. I am planning on learning the languages of scripture (hebrew, aramaic, kione greek).

Why I post my question here. I don’t trust anybody’s opinion aside from Traditional Catholics. Why only Trads… The doctrine of the Real presence.

If there is another way to know Christ I would certainly like to hear it. I know by experience that prayer is not a way and the Gospel even records Christ as saying that when you see the abomination many false teachers will say he is here and there and one of the examples given is prayer. And since the novelty of symbolic communion began(Lords name on a vein thing) many say he is in the inner room of prayer.

Thank you all for your reply’s. It is greatly appreciated. What I get from this is I need to learn the biblical Languages.

Grey - You are using an English word here “to know”. A very imprecise verb since in English alone, it has many meanings. Christ has said that " … I know Mine and Mine know Me …" without much qualification. However, we do know that Christ tells us that unless you eat of His flesh and drink His blood, you have no life within you. Why are not these two points sufficient? It is what the Church teaches and as Catholics, we have the privilege of a infallible Magisterium so that, unlike our Protestant bretheren, we do not have to learn hebrew, aramaic, and kione greek to understand what the scripture ‘really’ says and thus determine what is necessary for salvation on our own. Sounds like you are trying way too hard to find the basis for the answer to a question that has been thoroughlly elaborated by the Church and which you already know the answer to. The true presence is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ as confected at the Consecration in the Mass. What more is there to know? That Christ said don;t touch me “noli me tangere” to Mary, yet He touched her on the forehead (hence the spot of ‘noli me tangere’ on the relic of Mary) yet he invited St. Thomas to put his hand into the wound on His side has nothing whatsoever to do with the True Presence. Just think what a boon it would be if you spent the time you will spend learning hebrew, aramaic, and kione greek praying for the Poor Souls in Purgatory.