real presence

[Mickey]

Perhaps all our protestant brethren can chime in on this one. After reading the Gospel of John, how can anyone possibly interpret those passages as meaning anything other than the Catholic and Orthodox sacrament of the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist?

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Mickey:

Perhaps all our protestant brethren can chime in on this one. After reading the Gospel of John, how can anyone possibly interpret those passages as meaning anything other than the Catholic and Orthodox sacrament of the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist?

Hi Mickey,All you have to do is prove it to me. God Bless

 

[Mickey]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Mickey,All you have to do is prove it to me. God Bless

I’ll let our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ prove it to you. My words will not sway you.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Mickey:

Perhaps all our protestant brethren can chime in on this one. After reading the Gospel of John, how can anyone possibly interpret those passages as meaning anything other than the Catholic and Orthodox sacrament of the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist?

Seems like we just had a 5-page thread on this recently. Anyway, as a Catholic, I can grant a symbolic interpretation of the relevant passages is theoretically possible, but by watching anti-Catholics work it, I am more inclined to believe the Catholic version is true because the naysayers who always bang the drum for biblical perspicuity give us reams of pages of tortured analysis all in a tragicomic attempt to show that the Catholic posistion is not even possible. Why? I have never seen are argument suggesting any other reason than simply because it is Catholic and therefore, must be incorrect.

Scott

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Mickey:

I’ll let our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ prove it to you. My words will not sway you.

Hi Mickey,Good wisdom. Supernatural cannot be proven.All that is required is faith. God Bless

 

[Church_Militant]

Mickey:

I’ll let our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ prove it to you. My words will not sway you.

I’m with you Mickey. I can’t understand it either since to me it all but glows in the dark. I believe that some folks just plain don’t want to accept the truth that the bread of life passage of John 6 is literal. What was it God called the Jews in the OT “hard hearted, stiff necked, and rebellious?”

P.S. to SPOKENWORD;
Have that glass of sweat tea willya? :banghead:

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Church Militant:

I’m with you Mickey. I can’t understand it either since to me it all but glows in the dark. I believe that some folks just plain don’t want to accept the truth that the bread of life passage of John 6 is literal. What was it God called the Jews in the OT “hard hearted, stiff necked, and rebellious?”

P.S. to SPOKENWORD;
Have that glass of sweat tea willya? :banghead:

Hi C.M. There are mysteries we will never understand and thats why they are called mysteries. Just kicked the wine habit. Thinking about drinking tea.Might take up your recommendation. God Bless.

 

[Exporter]

Scott Waddel,

Great Post Scott.

 

[Mickey]

Scott Waddell:

Seems like we just had a 5-page thread on this recently.

Sorry about that. I’m fairly new to this forum and did not see previous threads.

 

[tkdnick]

Exporter:

Scott Waddel,

Great Post Scott.

I second this!

 

[rayne89]

A couple years back I was in a dialogue with an ex-catholic. We exchanged “letters” discussing different points we disagreed on. She actually told me to read John 6 as an arguement disprove the Eucharist. I was completely at a loss as to how the passage disproved the true presence. All I can say is “there are none so blind as those who simply refuse to see.”

 

[angel_crooks]

Seems like we just had a 5-page thread on this recently. Anyway, as a Catholic, I can grant a symbolic interpretation of the relevant passages is theoretically possible, but by watching anti-Catholics work it, I am more inclined to believe the Catholic version is true because the naysayers who always bang the drum for biblical perspicuity give us reams of pages of tortured analysis all in a tragicomic attempt to show that the Catholic posistion is not even possible. Why? I have never seen are argument suggesting any other reason than simply because it is Catholic and therefore, must be incorrect.

Scott

I have had a feeling after talking with non Catholics, that anything slightly or remotely Catholic like is straightaway often condemned by non Catholics! Such as eg: The Sign of the Cross! I mean there is documents stating the very first Christians doing the Sign of the Cross yet because it’s a tradition and it’s being carried on my Catholics, Non Catholics won’t accept it!

 

[ncgolf]

Scott Waddell:

Seems like we just had a 5-page thread on this recently.

I was in on that debate on a now closed forum. I do not believe that discussions like that will change anyone’s mind. What it did do for me as I listened to the other point of view was to help me appreciate what a gift the Eucharist really is. The more I read about John 6, the Eucharist and even my own meditations made me realize just how special a gift it is. I, after my research, felt less deserving of the Eucharist than more deserving, but since Jesus himself said the words “Eat my body and drink my blood”, I will obey him.
I received more from the debate than I ever would have by not particpating and would encourage people not to be afraid of joining those discussions but not to try to convert people. Try to understand more fully what the Eucharist is. In my opinion resist the temptation to slug it out but to carefully choose your words in explaining what the Eucharist is … especially what it means personally to you.

Thanks

 

[Mickey]

ncgolf:

I was in on that debate on a now closed forum. I do not believe that discussions like that will change anyone’s mind. What it did do for me as I listened to the other point of view was to help me appreciate what a gift the Eucharist really is. The more I read about John 6, the Eucharist and even my own meditations made me realize just how special a gift it is. I, after my research, felt less deserving of the Eucharist than more deserving, but since Jesus himself said the words “Eat my body and drink my blood”, I will obey him.
I received more from the debate than I ever would have by not particpating and would encourage people not to be afraid of joining those discussions but not to try to convert people. Try to understand more fully what the Eucharist is. In my opinion resist the temptation to slug it out but to carefully choose your words in explaining what the Eucharist is … especially what it means personally to you.

You are wise ncgolf,

One can learn abundantly from such debates while strengthening one’s own faith. But it is not an easy task. The attacks are viscious and relentless and it takes much patience and wisdom to respond firmly yet lovingly. But since patience and humility are high virtues, perhaps we can strengthen these too.

 

[Mickey]

ncgolf:

I The more I read about John 6, the Eucharist and even my own meditations made me realize just how special a gift it is.

“After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66)

I wonder if it is coincidence that this passage is chapter 6 verse 66.

 

[reggie]

While most who believe in the real presence of Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist turn to John as their proof, I offer a passage that is not usually thought of in this sense. It is in Matthew(4:4) when Jesus is being tempted by satan and taunted to turn stones into bread. Jesus replies that “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” Now, I see that passage as a sort of foreshadowing of the Eucharist. Jesus is already telling us that His body will be true food, for if man does not live by “bread alone, but by every word” then Jesus as the Word of God must be present in the Eucharist. Jesus is speaking here of eternal life and when considered with the Gospel of John, when Jesus says that unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you shall not have life within you, this from Matthew is further proof. The Eucharist cannot be merely a symbol and remain as bread and nothing more for we have it from Jesus that bread alone is not sufficient for life. I don’t understand the fear that most protestants seem to have about the real presence, but I am grateful to be a Catholic who believes through the grace of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Cherub]

“After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66)

I wonder if it is coincidence that this passage is chapter 6 verse 66.

 

[ppcpilot]

But don’t forget some Protestants believe in the Real Presence…Lutherans, for one.

 

[JimO]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Mickey,All you have to do is prove it to me. God Bless

It cannot be “proven” in the physical sense, if that is what you mean. The atheists I’ve been clubbing it out with on other threads make the same statement about the existence of God.

I offer the same answer. Isn’t even the possibility that it is true worth more than a casual examination? Isn’t it such an incredible possibility that it would inspire an earnest and objective search of the truth? I spent many years as a Catholic indifferent to the Eucharist until I realized what it was - simply the greatest gift left by Jesus to His followers. Then I couldn’t find enough materials to study on the subject to satisfy my appetite for the truth.

Research the Greek in John 6, the three Gospel accounts, I Cor. 10:16-18 and I Cor 11:23-31 and read the writings of the early fathers to see what believers in the first, second and third centuries believed. Do these things and pray earnestly to the Holy Spirit for guidance. Forget Catholic and Protestant for the moment and do these things. If you do and you come away believing as you do now, then you are justified in asking for proof.

The problem is that those who are absolutely opposed to the Catholic Church and who have much invested in a Reformed theology simply cannot accept the Church’s position on this because the alternative is unthinkable. I’m not being critical. I really do understand this dilema. It is a difficult position for a Reformed Protestant to be faced with the possibility that the Catholic Church might be correct on this matter.

I have Protestant friends who can accept that Mary might intercede for us, that there might be some kind final purging (purgatory) before entering God’s presence, or that reading the lives of saints can inspire a believer. However, they refuse to even consider Transubstantiation. Why? I believe it is because ackowledging the possibility of the other doctrines doesn’t change anything. But, to recognize that Transubstantiation might be true and that Jesus might really want us to partake of Him in the Eucharist, then they must approach the Catholic Church.

A well studied friend once told me that all the renouned Protestant theologians have discredited the Catholic interpretation of John 6. My response was - of course they did. What was the alternative? Conversion?

 

[silverbullet]

Mickey:

Perhaps all our protestant brethren can chime in on this one. After reading the Gospel of John, how can anyone possibly interpret those passages as meaning anything other than the Catholic and Orthodox sacrament of the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist?

I was brought up Baptist and taught that The Lord’s supper was ‘in remembrance’ ie- a symbol. When I REALLy got into the Bible at about age 23, I ran across this.

1 Corin 11:27,30(NAS) To paraphrase: *whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

For this reason, many among you are weak and sick and a number asleep.*

Now it was not until years later that I was introduced to The Eucharist and Catholicism, but I remember wondering how a ‘symbol’ could make you sick, that this did not make sense and something was not quite right…

Now on Christmas Eve 1990, a friend took me to Mass for the first time, and even though I was not then Catholic (was doing RCIA in 1991), the priest allowed me to take the Eucharist. Now, after all those years of believing it was a symbol,even though I knew something about that was not quite right, during that Eucharist, when I said ‘Amen’, I believed. That ‘instant’ belief perhaps was a mystery.

While I was not so sure about the priest turning the wine and bread into Jesus’ body and blood, or how it happened, I just knew that it was really Him, I never questioned the ‘real presence’, from that point forward.

Laura