Real Presence

[ignatius777]

John 6: 60-68 tells us that some of Jesus followers no longer wished to follow Him after explaining that the bread of life sent down from heaven was His flesh and His blood. Those who left Jesus understood Him to be speaking literally. Jesus never corrects them. This suggests they had a proper understanding of what Jesus meant and in fact reiterates the accuracy of their understanding by asking His disciples if they wanted to leave Him as well because they obviously heard the same message and Jesus fully expected they would have also come to the same understanding as those who left Him. This seems to put to rest the idea that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. I would love to hear from the non catholics here how you could possibly reach any conclusion other than Jesus was speaking literally about His body and His blood.

 

[CalCatholic]

John 6: 60-68 tells us that some of Jesus followers no longer wished to follow Him after explaining that the bread of life sent down from heaven was His flesh and His blood. Those who left Jesus understood Him to be speaking literally. Jesus never corrects them. This suggests they had a proper understanding of what Jesus meant and in fact reiterates the accuracy of their understanding by asking His disciples if they wanted to leave Him as well because they obviously heard the same message and Jesus fully expected they would have also come to the same understanding as those who left Him. This seems to put to rest the idea that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. I would love to hear from the non catholics here how you could possibly reach any conclusion other than Jesus was speaking literally about His body and His blood.

I agree, in addition to John chapter 6, when you add in Mark 14:22-25, Matthew 26:26-29, Luke 22:14-23, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (Jesus institutes the Eucharist), 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 (eating of the Eucharist unworthily) and the writings of many Early Church Fathers, it is hard to believe that anyone could write this off as symbolic.

 

[joanofarc2008]

I was just talking in one of my online classes about how much fun these types of threads were.

 

[JosePalazuelos]

I had to read several times the whole chapter and even though I knew the real meaning I didn’t grasp that I was not understanding correctly.

When He said before John 6:53 that he was the bread of Life that came down from heaven I was thinking, this part is probably figurative since he is using the bread as an example. But No… after reading and reading it over again I came to realize that He IS the Bread of LIFE haha plain and simple… but again failed to grasp at first.

Now I showed this chapter to a friend to an Non Denominational Christian, and He mentioned that even though they go over the Bible they kind of fast forward that chapter and not profound much about it. I guess most of them would be surprised of what God teaches us trough John 6

 

[ignatius777]

I had to read several times the whole chapter and even though I knew the real meaning I didn’t grasp that I was not understanding correctly.

When He said before John 6:53 that he was the bread of Life that came down from heaven I was thinking, this part is probably figurative since he is using the bread as an example. But No… after reading and reading it over again I came to realize that He IS the Bread of LIFE haha plain and simple… but again failed to grasp at first.

Now I showed this chapter to a friend to an Non Denominational Christian, and He mentioned that even though they go over the Bible they kind of fast forward that chapter and not profound much about it. I guess most of them would be surprised of what God teaches us trough John 6

I dont think He’s talking figuratively there either but I bet most non catholic churches spend very little time on this verse.

 

[Evan]

An interesting thing to do is this.

Highlight in yellow the word Bread in John 6
Highlight in blue the word Flesh in John 6

It points out that Bread becomes flesh!!!

 

[RosaryFan]

I couldn’t help but notice that, so far, no non-Catholics have ventured to answer the OP’s question.

To seal the deal, Jesus literally is the Bread of Life because He was born in “Bethlehem”, which means “house of bread”, and was laid in a manger! So they laid the Bread of Life, born in the house of bread, in a feeding trough! It really couldn’t be any clearer than that!

 

[JonNC]

I couldn’t help but notice that, so far, no non-Catholics have ventured to answer the OP’s question.

To seal the deal, Jesus literally is the Bread of Life because He was born in “Bethlehem”, which means “house of bread”, and was laid in a manger! So they laid the Bread of Life, born in the house of bread, in a feeding trough! It really couldn’t be any clearer than that!

Originally Posted by ignatius777
John 6: 60-68 tells us that some of Jesus followers no longer wished to follow Him after explaining that the bread of life sent down from heaven was His flesh and His blood. Those who left Jesus understood Him to be speaking literally. Jesus never corrects them. This suggests they had a proper understanding of what Jesus meant and in fact reiterates the accuracy of their understanding by asking His disciples if they wanted to leave Him as well because they obviously heard the same message and Jesus fully expected they would have also come to the same understanding as those who left Him. This seems to put to rest the idea that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. I would love to hear from the non catholics here how you could possibly reach any conclusion other than Jesus was speaking literally about His body and His blood.

I agree with the OP, though I view the Last Supper accounts to be the foundational support for the RP. Certainly, John 6, in light of the Last Supper accounts, is predictive of the reality of the RP.

Jon

 

[ignatius777]

I couldn’t help but notice that, so far, no non-Catholics have ventured to answer the OP’s question.

To seal the deal, Jesus literally is the Bread of Life because He was born in “Bethlehem”, which means “house of bread”, and was laid in a manger! So they laid the Bread of Life, born in the house of bread, in a feeding trough! It really couldn’t be any clearer than that!

Most protestants avoid catholics who can defend their beliefs

 

[DPMartin]

John 6: 60-68 tells us that some of Jesus followers no longer wished to follow Him after explaining that the bread of life sent down from heaven was His flesh and His blood. Those who left Jesus understood Him to be speaking literally. Jesus never corrects them. This suggests they had a proper understanding of what Jesus meant and in fact reiterates the accuracy of their understanding by asking His disciples if they wanted to leave Him as well because they obviously heard the same message and Jesus fully expected they would have also come to the same understanding as those who left Him. This seems to put to rest the idea that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. I would love to hear from the non catholics here how you could possibly reach any conclusion other than Jesus was speaking literally about His body and His blood.

Ignatius

Most none Catholic, Churches that I have spent any time with, do not dispute in any way that Jesus the Christ is the Bread of Life. That is nothing new under the sun when it comes to none Catholics.

But it is interesting that you have just come to that realization. And it was by focus on Scripture, not Catechism. If I understand the posting correctly. But none Catholics cannot discuss with Catholics on the Bread and Wine without the Catholics dragging out their catechisms and getting hostile, to prove there right about their view of “Eucharist”. When it should be agreed that Jesus is Right, meaning Correct. He’s the King of the Kingdom, and anything contrary is incorrect.

The Bread and the Wine, a hot button subject for sure. Which is a shame for anyone who follows Jesus surly knows that He is the beginning of all things and the fulfillment, “completion” of all things according to the Will of the Father and all things are unto Him. Bread is bread and wine is wine but who shall eat of the Tree of Life?

But if you want an average Christian to discuss the subject, that would be great, but I will tell you up front that the Catechism (no disrespect to those who use it for teaching) is not the Bible.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Ignatius

Most none Catholic, Churches that I have spent any time with, do not dispute in any way that Jesus the Christ is the Bread of Life. That is nothing new under the sun when it comes to none Catholics.

But it is interesting that you have just come to that realization. And it was by focus on Scripture, not Catechism. If I understand the posting correctly. But none Catholics cannot discuss with Catholics on the Bread and Wine without the Catholics dragging out their catechisms and getting hostile, to prove there right about their view of “Eucharist”. When it should be agreed that Jesus is Right, meaning Correct. He’s the King of the Kingdom, and anything contrary is incorrect.

The Bread and the Wine, a hot button subject for sure. Which is a shame for anyone who follows Jesus surly knows that He is the beginning of all things and the fulfillment, “completion” of all things according to the Will of the Father and all things are unto Him. Bread is bread and wine is wine but who shall eat of the Tree of Life?

But if you want an average Christian to discuss the subject, that would be great, but I will tell you up front that the Catechism (no disrespect to those who use it for teaching) is not the Bible.

And I think you touch on a very important aspect of apologetics - not to derail the thread but to take a slight intermission. The first rule is that you must establish common ground and argue from that common ground. If it is the Bible and the Bible only or only certain books or Bible and some early Saints well that is your common ground - because to do something else is to establish false doctrine*** in their eyes*** which is no different than what we accuse them of.

 

[DPMartin]

Did God build Adam from the ground, while out side of Adam as though forming Adam like a clay molding? Or did God make Adam from the ground, from within Adam like one would make a shelter around one’s self? Was the Presence of the Lord God within Adam as the Lord God was forming Adam?

Flesh is satisfied in flesh and in things that are of the ground, which the flesh is of.

Gen:3:19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

But the Spirit is satisfied in that which it is of, that is in the Holy Spirit, the Word of God.

Jn:6:63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Therefore is the Bread and Wine the Lord Jesus speaks of, from Heaven or from earth?

---

---

If you want to understand more of what, or why the Lord associates Himself to the Bread and Wine. You would have to go back to where the association started.

First mentioning of the bread:

Gen:3:19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Therefore if you think about it. Bread is a preparation as a result of that which is of the seed that is set in the ground. Hence is the bread of the ground? Or of the instruction in the seed? Or both? But bread justifies the existence of the flesh to continue on a daily basis, for by eating bread for sustenance the flesh continues, otherwise eventually the flesh will expire. And flesh is not of Heaven nor the inheritor of Heavenly things.

First mentioning of the wine:
Gen:9:21: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

Notice: uncovered, nakedness “shame”. Of which one son made known and the other two covered being sure not to see themselves.

And what should be noted is that Jesus toke the blame for what causes men to die. And removed the guilt of the sinner and replaced it with God’s Forgiveness, and covered the shame by washing us clean in His Blood.

Second mentioning of bread and or wine:

Gen:14:18: And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Notice that Apostle Paul teaches

Heb:5:8: Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9: And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10: Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Now the bread is associated to Adam why? The wine is associated to Noah why? And the second time ever mention in the scriptures the King of Salem “ now Jerusalem” the priest of the Most High God ( Note not one of the priests) brings the Bread and the Wine to Abram, why?

 

[Church_Militant]

The Eucharist IS Scriptural

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Flesh is satisfied in flesh and in things that are of the ground, which the flesh is of.

Agreed.

Gen:3:19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Agreed.

But the Spirit is satisfied in that which it is of, that is in the Holy Spirit, the Word of God.

This is a very strange sentence. The Holy Spirit is not the Word of God. Same nature, different Persons. But it is strange that St. Paul mentions in the first or second chapter of Colossians that Christ’s Divinity dwells fully in His flesh, meaning that His humanity (flesh) and divinity (spirit) are in hypostatic union and therefore inseparable. Most Christians agree with this. I imagine you are part of this group (rightly so).

Jn:6:63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

But, to say Christ’s flesh profits nothing is to say that He is not both fully God and Man. Son of God and Son of Man. So, my question for you is this: If Jesus calls Himself the Bread of Life, then how does this verse contradict the Eucharist?

Therefore is the Bread and Wine the Lord Jesus speaks of, from Heaven or from earth?

Heaven. He is the Bread from Heaven. Panis Angelicus. The Bread of Angels. There is no reason to think God cannot make something earthly into something divine. Your verse from Genesis proves this. Adam was earthly made divine. In the same way, earthly bread can be made heavenly bread.

If you want to understand more of what, or why the Lord associates Himself to the Bread and Wine. You would have to go back to where the association started.

Agreed.

First mentioning of the bread:

Gen:3:19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Therefore if you think about it. Bread is a preparation as a result of that which is of the seed that is set in the ground. Hence is the bread of the ground? Or of the instruction in the seed? Or both? But bread justifies the existence of the flesh to continue on a daily basis, for by eating bread for sustenance the flesh continues, otherwise eventually the flesh will expire. And flesh is not of Heaven nor the inheritor of Heavenly things.

So, then Jesus is NOT the Bread from Heaven as claims. He was deluded, a liar or a deluded liar. The problem with this is a straw man. It reduces the Eucharist to nothing more than plain old human flesh. This is sinless flesh inseparably and hypostatically together with the Word of God. This is what nourishes our entire being. So, if you are going to object to the Eucharist, object to what it really is.

First mentioning of the wine:
Gen:9:21: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

Notice: uncovered, nakedness “shame”. Of which one son made known and the other two covered being sure not to see themselves.

And what should be noted is that Jesus toke the blame for what causes men to die. And removed the guilt of the sinner and replaced it with God’s Forgiveness, and covered the shame by washing us clean in His Blood.

Notice how in the Eucharist, we are not drinking wine. We are drinking His Blood as He has commanded. So, this is another straw man.

The Eucharist is something divine under the appearance of something earthly. Jesus Christ comes to mind with that statement. In the same way the Jews did, non-Eucharist Christians are unknowingly attempting to eradicate Christ’s physical presence from the world. The Jews did not believe in His divinity and crucified Him. Non-Eucharist Christians do not believe in His physical presence and attempt to convince the world that it is false. If they do, then where is He physically?

How do you answer to everything I have just stated? The objections are based on only what the belief is and what you have given me plus one connecting belief between us: the hypostatic union of His humanity and divinity.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Ignatius

Most none Catholic, Churches that I have spent any time with, do not dispute in any way that Jesus the Christ is the Bread of Life. That is nothing new under the sun when it comes to none Catholics.

Agreed. As the Bible explicitly states this.

But it is interesting that you have just come to that realization. And it was by focus on Scripture, not Catechism. If I understand the posting correctly. But none Catholics cannot discuss with Catholics on the Bread and Wine without the Catholics dragging out their catechisms and getting hostile, to prove there right about their view of “Eucharist”. When it should be agreed that Jesus is Right, meaning Correct. He’s the King of the Kingdom, and anything contrary is incorrect.

Yet, you are the first person on this thread to bring up the Catechism.

The only why we use the Catechism is to precisely state what we believe in order that you disagree with the belief and not a straw man. And according to you most recent post, you should probably look into the Catechism yourself in order to fully understand what you fully disagree with.

The Bread and the Wine, a hot button subject for sure. Which is a shame for anyone who follows Jesus surly knows that He is the beginning of all things and the fulfillment, “completion” of all things according to the Will of the Father and all things are unto Him. Bread is bread and wine is wine but who shall eat of the Tree of Life?

The Bread of Life is the Bread of Life and Blood is Blood.

Again, it is not “Bread and Wine”, it is Body and Blood. The Bread from Heaven and the Precious Blood that has redeemed humanity. This is under the apearance of earthly bread and wine.

But if you want an average Christian to discuss the subject, that would be great, but I will tell you up front that the Catechism (no disrespect to those who use it for teaching) is not the Bible.

Fair enough. You were the one who brought it up in the first place. But, a Catholic will not refrain from correcting a false position that you may have. For example, you think the Eucharist is “the Bread and the Wine.” Any Catholic would put a Catechism reference for you to understand what it is you do not believe in.

And no Catholic likens the Catechism to the Bible. If one does, shame on them. The Catechism is for anybody who wants to learn more about the Catholic Faith, and not as a replacement of the Bible.

I would quote a Catechism number on THAT belief but I have no clue where it is. This is the second time where you have actually needed a reference to what Catholics really believe. If we do use it, it is in order to correct any misconception you may have in regards to Catholicism. It is not to force you to believe anything.

But again, you are the first one to bring the Catechism anyway.

 

[ignatius777]

Ignatius

Most none Catholic, Churches that I have spent any time with, do not dispute in any way that Jesus the Christ is the Bread of Life. That is nothing new under the sun when it comes to none Catholics.

But it is interesting that you have just come to that realization. And it was by focus on Scripture, not Catechism. If I understand the posting correctly. But none Catholics cannot discuss with Catholics on the Bread and Wine without the Catholics dragging out their catechisms and getting hostile, to prove there right about their view of “Eucharist”. When it should be agreed that Jesus is Right, meaning Correct. He’s the King of the Kingdom, and anything contrary is incorrect.

The Bread and the Wine, a hot button subject for sure. Which is a shame for anyone who follows Jesus surly knows that He is the beginning of all things and the fulfillment, “completion” of all things according to the Will of the Father and all things are unto Him. Bread is bread and wine is wine but who shall eat of the Tree of Life?

But if you want an average Christian to discuss the subject, that would be great, but I will tell you up front that the Catechism (no disrespect to those who use it for teaching) is not the Bible.

I am citing ONLY the bible here my friend. It seems that a simple reading of the bible tells us that Jesus taught that His flesh and blood not bread and wine are the food of eternal life. You can focus on the cathecism if you like since it seems to make you feel more comfortable dealing with catholics but the fact remains whats in the cathecism comes from scripture. You seem unwilling to discuss the issue of the real presence which appears in scripture and prefer instead to believe it comes from the cathecism. When you are ready to discuss scripture and not the cathecism let me know. Thanks

 

[DPMartin]

Gregg
Thanks for the reply

This is a very strange sentence. The Holy Spirit is not the Word of God. Same nature, different Persons. But it is strange that St. Paul mentions in the first or second chapter of Colossians that Christ’s Divinity dwells fully in His flesh, meaning that His humanity (flesh) and divinity (spirit) are in hypostatic union and therefore inseparable. Most Christians agree with this. I imagine you are part of this group (rightly so).

If you mean He is who He is and we are who we are but yet inseparable in His Spirit, yes. And it must be understood that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are One. One is not without the others.

Jn:14:10: Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Hence the Presence of the Fullness of God, according to the Will of God in the flesh. Not of the flesh.

But, to say Christ’s flesh profits nothing is to say that He is not both fully God and Man. Son of God and Son of Man. So, my question for you is this: If Jesus calls Himself the Bread of Life, then how does this verse contradict the Eucharist?

When the Lord Jesus left the flesh via the way we leave the flesh, didn’t He as Paul taught, preach the good news to those that were waiting on Him.

In the day that the Lord visited Abraham and Abraham fed Him and had His feet washed. Could it be that the Lord can be in the flesh any time He wants to. Isn’t He the Master of reality? Didn’t He show this to the Apostles when He walked on water, or stopped the storm or even healed anyone He agreed to heal. And this is not to mention what He did in the days of Moses. The Lord agreed to fulfill, the Will of God for man as, and in the Son of Man.

Gen:3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The sons of men come into the world via a woman, don’t they? Therefore Jesus establishing in the flesh the Way of God, in the way of the sons of men. For He left the flesh as we do also. But yet resurrected it. Proving He is the One who has power over death. By experiencing the same things the sons of men do, and overcame it all. He could have stepped off the Cross and said enough of this, but He didn’t.

Heaven. He is the Bread from Heaven. Panis Angelicus. The Bread of Angels. There is no reason to think God cannot make something earthly into something divine. Your verse from Genesis proves this. Adam was earthly made divine. In the same way, earthly bread can be made heavenly bread.

What is divine is the Presence of the Lord God for it is Holy. Not Adam. Without the Presence of God it is not Holy. Men are to be in the Presence of God by His Presence in them.

 

[DPMartin]

Continued

So, then Jesus is NOT the Bread from Heaven as claims. He was deluded, a liar or a deluded liar. The problem with this is a straw man. It reduces the Eucharist to nothing more than plain old human flesh. This is sinless flesh inseparably and hypostatically together with the Word of God. This is what nourishes our entire being. So, if you are going to object to the Eucharist, object to what it really is.

Notice how in the Eucharist, we are not drinking wine. We are drinking His Blood as He has commanded. So, this is another straw man.

The Eucharist is something divine under the appearance of something earthly. Jesus Christ comes to mind with that statement. In the same way the Jews did, non-Eucharist Christians are unknowingly attempting to eradicate Christ’s physical presence from the world. The Jews did not believe in His divinity and crucified Him. Non-Eucharist Christians do not believe in His physical presence and attempt to convince the world that it is false. If they do, then where is He physically?

How do you answer to everything I have just stated? The objections are based on only what the belief is and what you have given me plus one connecting belief between us: the hypostatic union of His humanity and divinity.

The reality is that “Eucharist” is a Catholic term based on a theology, that is Catholic, of what the Bread and the Wine presented during a Catholic Mass is. Not necessarily the reality of the Bread and Wine that the Lord offered at the Last Supper.

Do you not yet know, that the physical presence of the Lord our God in the world, is in His People. Not in the physical Bread and the Wine. The physical bread and wine does nothing of itself. It is the Presence of God within you that does. The uncircumcised shall not eat of the Passover. One can be without the Lord and receive the physical bread and wine that is presented in the Mass. But one cannot eat of the Heavenly Bread and Wine if he is not Born of the Holy Spirit in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Mat:25:34: Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37: Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38: When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39: Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40: And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41: Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44: Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45: Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

---

Luk:17:20: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Gregg
Thanks for the reply

No problem. I think that Christians should always have fruitful discussions whether or not they are in complete disagreement.

If you mean He is who He is and we are who we are but yet inseparable in His Spirit, yes. And it must be understood that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are One. One is not without the others.

I agree. But, to say they are One is NOT to say that the Father IS the Son AND the Holy Spirit (and all other combinations).

Each Person of the Trinity is unique and distinct from the others, but that is not to say they are separate. For example, the Holy Spirit protects us from untruth; the Son of Man came as a ransom for many; the Father sent the Son.

When the Lord Jesus left the flesh via the way we leave the flesh, didn’t He as Paul taught, preach the good news to those that were waiting on Him.

I do not understand the relevance.

In the day that the Lord visited Abraham and Abraham fed Him and had His feet washed. Could it be that the Lord can be in the flesh any time He wants to. Isn’t He the Master of reality?

Yes, so why not in the Eucharist? Clearly, you believe His physical Presence is an important function of His Divinity.

Didn’t He show this to the Apostles when He walked on water, or stopped the storm or even healed anyone He agreed to heal…

Yes, but this was after “the Word became flesh.”

Gen:3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The sons of men come into the world via a woman, don’t they? Therefore Jesus establishing in the flesh the Way of God, in the way of the sons of men. For He left the flesh as we do also. But yet resurrected it. Proving He is the One who has power over death. By experiencing the same things the sons of men do, and overcame it all. He could have stepped off the Cross and said enough of this, but He didn’t.

This basically says this: He has the power to give life to the flesh. This is exactly what we believe happens in the Eucharist. You have to prove why He cannot do this if you disagree with this.

What is divine is the Presence of the Lord God for it is Holy. Not Adam. Without the Presence of God it is not Holy. Men are to be in the Presence of God by His Presence in them.

I agree. But, God breathed His divine life into Him. This is NOT saying that Adam was holy in and of himself (obviously, we are speaking of pre-Fall of Man). God chose to make Man in His divine image. Not make a divine image in the form of Man. This is a subtle difference but a necessary one.

But, it goes a little too much on a tangent so I will have to leave it there.

Continued…

 

[GreggAlvarez]

The reality is that “Eucharist” is a Catholic term based on a theology, that is Catholic, of what the Bread and the Wine presented during a Catholic Mass is. Not necessarily the reality of the Bread and Wine that the Lord offered at the Last Supper.

I agree. It is the Body and Blood that Jesus offered at the Last Supper.

[His physical Presence is] not in the physical Bread and the Wine. The physical bread and wine does nothing of itself.

You see… This is exactly what we are discussing. You cannot just say His Presence is not there with no justification. But, yes the bread and wine do nothing of itself because there IS not bread and wine on the altar. It is Our Lord’s Body and Blood.

As a sign of respect, would you please refer to “His Body and Blood” instead of “bread and wine”? Or at least “what you believe to be His Body and Blood”? Or something? This is also for clarification that I know you disbelieve in His Presence and not disbelieve in some kind of magical bread and wine. (Keep in mind that “not disbelieve” does not mean that you believe it. I say this as a disclaimer.)

Do you not yet know, that the physical presence of the Lord our God in the world, is in His People… It is the Presence of God within you that does.

Whoah… No need for derision. Of course I know that! Why do you ask if I do not yet know that? We are not talking about His Presence in His people. We are talking about His Presence at the altar.

How do you worship God’s physical presence? Do YOU not yet know that sacrifice is the highest form of worship?

So, again I ask this: How do you worship Christ’s Body that was given up for you (inexplicably for me also) and His precious Blood that freed you from sin (and for my lowly self)?

The uncircumcised shall not eat of the Passover. One can be without the Lord and receive the physical bread and wine that is presented in the Mass.
DPMartin;7724292:

Nobody eats bread and drinks wine at the Mass.

This is what we are discussing here. That is, we are discussing whether or not Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist is real. And one cannot just tell a Catholic that it is false. We will obviously defend it.
DPMartin;7724292:

But one cannot eat of the Heavenly Bread and Wine if he is not Born of [water and] the Holy Spirit in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

I added the “[water and]” because Jesus explicitly states that.

In any case, I am in agreement with you. Except the fact that the wine is Blood and not wine. We must establish that we are talking about Christ’s Body and Blood here. And not about bread and wine.

It seems to me that you fully disagree with something you only partially understand. The fact that you say “bread and wine” shows that you do not have full understanding of what the Eucharist is.

In any case, you should respond to the OP about John 6. That is one of the most explicit statements about the necessity of eating His Body and drinking His Blood.

So, with that said, how are we supposed to eat His Body and drink His Blood if they are nowhere to be found on this Earth?