Real Presence

[Philthy]

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.

This is largely irrelevant to the OP. Most non-Catholics deny the Real Presence and that is the discussion at hand.

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.

You clearly do not understand the post. These dynamics, like the one you point out above, are irrelevant to the discussion.

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”.

Not only is this, again, irrelevant, but it is ridiculous. I have NEVER seen a Catholic pulling out there Catechism to prove anything to a Protestant except when the Protestant erroneously accuses the Catholic Church of teaching something that they do not. I can only surmise that you have not had this conversation with very many Catholics at all - my guess is that your allegation of “dragging out the Catechism” is a second account.

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?

Any time you end your alleged point with an unanswerable question we can know that you have failed to say anything. This comment of yours, like each of the preceding ones, does not have a meaning that can be discerned as being relevant to the topic.

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.

Really??? I thought the Catechism was the Bible…
You are too funny. At this point all I can wonder is if it possible for you to be any more ignorant of something and yet volunteer to speak on the topic as if you knew what you were speaking of…

Blessings

 

[DPMartin]

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

Ignatius

thanks for the reply

I didn’t say you weren’t citing the Bible. But to get into a discussion of the subject, I ask only you not use the Catechism as proof, though of course I would expect you use Scripture to show that the theology behind the Catholic term “Eucharist” is true.

 

[Philthy]

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.

Jesus said of the Bread/Wine offered at the Last Supper:“This is my body/This is my blood”
It is mysterious but his words are perfectly clear. And they match precisely with what He said in John 6. Furthermore, the Catholic understanding is attested to by the earliest Christians - both in Acts (2:41-42) “…those who received his word were baptized, and …they devoted themselves to the …breaking of bread”, and in the early church fathers who taught exactly what the Catholic Church teaches now: the Eucharist is “the flesh of our Lord Jesus” (St Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans*). And you might wish to take note of the rest of that quote* by Ignatius:
“…those who deny this gift(ie the Eucharist) of God are perishing in their disputes…”
You simply don’t have your facts straight and you appear to be ignorant of history: Christians were celebrating the Eucharist long before men with itchy ears began searching the Bible to “figure out” what Christ meant.

*I am reciting this from memory…it is all available on line as well as in the Faith Tracts section of CA. St Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St John - the same guy that wrote John 6. Do you think he(Ignatius) was somehow confused on what John though Christ meant by “This is my body”? Or do you think that it is possible that perhaps you are the one who is confused? Im leaning toward the latter…

Blessings!

 

[DPMartin]

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

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.)

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.

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?

Gregg

thanks for the reply

For the record there is no disrespect intended, but for the sake of the discussion the question, what is the Bread and Wine, should be, I believe, adhered to.

Jesus gave these things at the supper table, where is the requirement for an altar? Why does that make a difference? Where is the scripture for that? Also isn’t true that it’s the Catholic Priest that offers it? And asks that it be acceptable? (Sorry if I be incorrect on that it’s been awhile) wouldn’t this offering or sacrifice be of the Catholic Priest?

 

[Barbkw]

For the record there is no disrespect intended, but for the sake of the discussion the question, what is the Bread and Wine, should be, I believe, adhered to.

For the record…an explaination of how the Early Church (approx. 150 AD) practiced the use of bread and wine in their worship services and what they believed.

See at: one-fold.com/?page_id=64

 

[DPMartin]

Jesus said of the Bread/Wine offered at the Last Supper:“This is my body/This is my blood”
It is mysterious but his words are perfectly clear. And they match precisely with what He said in John 6. Furthermore, the Catholic understanding is attested to by the earliest Christians - both in Acts (2:41-42) “…those who received his word were baptized, and …they devoted themselves to the …breaking of bread”, and in the early church fathers who taught exactly what the Catholic Church teaches now: the Eucharist is “the flesh of our Lord Jesus” (St Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans*). And you might wish to take note of the rest of that quote* by Ignatius:
“…those who deny this gift(ie the Eucharist) of God are perishing in their disputes…”
You simply don’t have your facts straight and you appear to be ignorant of history: Christians were celebrating the Eucharist long before men with itchy ears began searching the Bible to “figure out” what Christ meant.

*I am reciting this from memory…it is all available on line as well as in the Faith Tracts section of CA. St Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St John - the same guy that wrote John 6. Do you think he(Ignatius) was somehow confused on what John though Christ meant by “This is my body”? Or do you think that it is possible that perhaps you are the one who is confused? Im leaning toward the latter…

Blessings!

Philthy

thanks for the reply

In remembrance of is what is calibrated by most Christians outside the Catholic Church as in respect to, or respecting Jesus Christ, the Lord God’s Offering. As He showed us in respecting Abel and Abel’s offering. But the theology behind the Catholic term “Eucharist” declares His Presence therein which is much different then in remembrance of, or respecting.

 

[ignatius777]

Ignatius

thanks for the reply

I didn’t say you weren’t citing the Bible. But to get into a discussion of the subject, I ask only you not use the Catechism as proof, though of course I would expect you use Scripture to show that the theology behind the Catholic term “Eucharist” is true./QUO

Then why mention the catechism with me if I never mentioned it at all?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

…[F]or the sake of the discussion the question, what is the Bread and Wine, should be, I believe, adhered to.

What does this mean? I am not understanding.

We are supposed to be discussing whether or not Jesus was literal about His Body and Blood.

1. Jesus gave these things at the supper table, where is the requirement for an altar? 2. Why does that make a difference? 3. Where is the scripture for that? 4. Also isn’t true that it’s the Catholic Priest that offers it? 5. And asks that it be acceptable? (Sorry if I be incorrect on that it’s been awhile) 6. wouldn’t this offering or sacrifice be of the Catholic Priest?

I numbered them for ease, as I am typing from my phone (which is extremely difficult).

But, to be honest, I cannot answer those questions very well. I do not know them, but I will answer to the best of MY ability.

1. Altar. Table. What does it matter what we call it?
2. Most humans eat and prepare food on tables of sorts.
3. The Last Supper was eaten on a table.
4. Yes, because the Catholic Priest is a sacramental representation of Christ. If you have ever been to Mass, you may have noticed that the priest says, “This is my Body.” Not “This is His Body.”
5. Yes, but more precisely, we pray that it is acceptable.
6. The offering is done by Christ in the form of the priest according to Catholic Tradition. That is, as I understand it anyway. I could be completely wrong.

I am not too familiar with that stuff, and in any case, it is irrelevant to whether or not Jesus was being literal.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

…[F]or the sake of the discussion the question, what is the Bread and Wine, should be, I believe, adhered to.

What does this mean? I am not understanding.

We are supposed to be discussing whether or not Jesus was literal about His Body and Blood.

1. Jesus gave these things at the supper table, where is the requirement for an altar? 2. Why does that make a difference? 3. Where is the scripture for that? 4. Also isn’t true that it’s the Catholic Priest that offers it? 5. And asks that it be acceptable? (Sorry if I be incorrect on that it’s been awhile) 6. wouldn’t this offering or sacrifice be of the Catholic Priest?

I numbered them for ease, as I am typing from my phone (which is extremely difficult).

But, to be honest, I cannot answer those questions very well. I do not know them, but I will answer to the best of MY ability.

1. Altar. Table. What does it matter what we call it?
2. Most humans eat and prepare food on tables of sorts.
3. The Last Supper was eaten on a table.
4. Yes, because the Catholic Priest is a sacramental representation of Christ. If you have ever been to Mass, you may have noticed that the priest says, “This is my Body.” Not “This is His Body.”
5. Yes, but more precisely, we pray that it is acceptable.
6. The offering is done by Christ in the form of the priest according to Catholic Tradition. That is, as I understand it anyway. I could be completely wrong

I am not too familiar with that stuff, and in any case, it is irrelevant to whether or not Jesus was being literal.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

In remembrance of is what is calibrated by most Christians outside the Catholic Church as in respect to, or respecting Jesus Christ, the Lord God’s Offering.

Which was His Body and Blood. Christ said, “This is my Body.” This indicates the literalness (if there ever was such a word) of His Body and Blood at the prepared Passocer table.

By the way, the Church also sees it as remembrance and respect.

How does “remembrance” mean “symbolic”?

As He showed us in respecting Abel and Abel’s offering. But the theology behind the Catholic term “Eucharist” declares His Presence therein which is much different then in remembrance of, or respecting.

That is still remembrance and respecting. If you are going to make that claim, you need some reasons behind it.

But, you are wrong. We do it “in remembrance of” and the Eucharist is the most respected in all of Catholicism. So, what you say is just false.

If you had an old friend whom you used to have a beer at a certain bar, he came to visit you and you said you wanted to grab a beer with him at the bar in memory of old times, what would you do? You would literally do what literally happened X number of years ago. My point with this is that the fact that Jesus is literally present does not make the action symbolic.

In this case, Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross is what is being made eternal.

All you are doing is saying false things about what the Church believes.

Just curious, why do you put quotations around Eucharist?

 

[richelleoa]

many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood.
LeanSpa

 

[DPMartin]

Which was His Body and Blood. Christ said, “This is my Body.” This indicates the literalness (if there ever was such a word) of His Body and Blood at the prepared Passocer table.

By the way, the Church also sees it as remembrance and respect.

How does “remembrance” mean “symbolic”?

That is still remembrance and respecting. If you are going to make that claim, you need some reasons behind it.

But, you are wrong. We do it “in remembrance of” and the Eucharist is the most respected in all of Catholicism. So, what you say is just false.

If you had an old friend whom you used to have a beer at a certain bar, he came to visit you and you said you wanted to grab a beer with him at the bar in memory of old times, what would you do? You would literally do what literally happened X number of years ago. My point with this is that the fact that Jesus is literally present does not make the action symbolic.

In this case, Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross is what is being made eternal.

All you are doing is saying false things about what the Church believes.

Just curious, why do you put quotations around Eucharist?

Gregg

thanks for the reply

No offence my friend in Christ, it is not to be against anything Catholic so to speak, it’s merely to avoid any complications from preconceived notions about a thing.

Despite all that has been said on the subject so far:

It is true The Lord said that the Bread is His Body therefore it is. The Lord said that the Wine is His Blood the new and everlasting covenant. Therefore it is. Then consider my friend when Jesus said this He was yet in the flesh of the Son of man and was not crucified yet, therefore no bleeding. But when He said these things it is so. He didn’t say it was going to be. He said it is, when He ordained it at the Last Supper.

Why is the Bread and Wine chosen? And that choice of Bread and Wine was expressed with Adam and with Noah, and affirmed with Abraham.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I am having difficulties with my phone so I will have to be brief. This may be my last comment because not being able to scroll down is very frustrating. I will try though because there are very few times when a Eucharist debate goes smoothly

It is good that you bring up the temporal aspect of the order of events. (Most objections come from the spatial aspect which limit God’s omnipotence, which any limitation would contradict an unlimited attribute.)

The theology of the Eucharist has several dimensions which are pertinent to this discussion.

When Jesus said “This is my Body”, He followed it with “which will be given up for you”. Same with His Blood, “This is my blood… which will be shed so that all may be forgiven.” (Or something like that. I do not remember the exact thing.)

Notice how He says “will be given” or “will be shed”. The events of the Eucharist which are made present are these: The Last Supper, the Crucifixion on the Cross at Calvary, the triumphant Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven. Notice another thing: the fittingness of “will be” during the Last Supper in comparison to the order of events.

It is really a beautiful thing to think about. As a side note, this is one of the reasons why I believe in God after many years of atheism. No human can make up something like that.

Anyway, I will try my best to reply, but I am getting really annoyed with my phone. So, if I take a while, you will know why.

God bless you, my friend.

 

[DPMartin]

I am having difficulties with my phone so I will have to be brief. This may be my last comment because not being able to scroll down is very frustrating. I will try though because there are very few times when a Eucharist debate goes smoothly

It is good that you bring up the temporal aspect of the order of events. (Most objections come from the spatial aspect which limit God’s omnipotence, which any limitation would contradict an unlimited attribute.)

The theology of the Eucharist has several dimensions which are pertinent to this discussion.

When Jesus said “This is my Body”, He followed it with “which will be given up for you”. Same with His Blood, “This is my blood… which will be shed so that all may be forgiven.” (Or something like that. I do not remember the exact thing.)

Notice how He says “will be given” or “will be shed”. The events of the Eucharist which are made present are these: The Last Supper, the Crucifixion on the Cross at Calvary, the triumphant Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven. Notice another thing: the fittingness of “will be” during the Last Supper in comparison to the order of events.

It is really a beautiful thing to think about. As a side note, this is one of the reasons why I believe in God after many years of atheism. No human can make up something like that.

Anyway, I will try my best to reply, but I am getting really annoyed with my phone. So, if I take a while, you will know why.

God bless you, my friend.

Gregg

thanks for the reply

You know, I can wait until you get to a computer to respond, I’m retired, I got lots a time.

Well your right about “which is shed for you” and “which is given for you”. It sucks when one gets caught up in trying to be right, and then miss something significant .

I didn’t set out to change the Catholic mind about the Presence of God in the Eucharist, but I don’t see it. A man need not find the Presence of God if the Lord walk with him already. Other than with the Brotherhood.

Therefore it doesn’t seem logical that if the Lord be with you, in your daily walk, for what other reason would you partake of the Bread and Wine other then in respect for the real Bread of Life and Life of the Body of Christ you already have received within you that is of God.

On your side note the Lord Jesus Christ is always a beautiful thing to think about and talk about, He is our destiny my friend. Consider, though yet He walk with you, His is were your going to be and He shows you how to get there.

There something else that has come to mind as we have been conversing. The given Body and the shed Blood is the completion to the Father’s Satisfaction. We can seek satisfaction in ourselves, we can seek satisfaction in the world, or we can seek the Father’s Satisfaction. And I believe that in the receiving of the Bread and Wine we agree to the Father’s Satisfaction that in His Satisfaction we are satisfied. In His Life and in His Blessing in the Spirit through His Son Jesus Chirst.

It has been a very fine conversation, God Bless.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy

thanks for the reply

In remembrance of is what is calibrated by most Christians outside the Catholic Church as in respect to, or respecting Jesus Christ, the Lord God’s Offering. As He showed us in respecting Abel and Abel’s offering. But the theology behind the Catholic term “Eucharist” declares His Presence therein which is much different then in remembrance of, or respecting.

Hi DP -

Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately you havent actually “replied” to any of my comments. You seem to be confused. Christ didnt merely say “do this in memory of me”, he also, as I pointed out, said “This IS my body”. You appear to be of the opinion that participating in the Lord’s Supper as a “remembrance” is the only thing that we need to believe or practice while being free to ignore that he also said “This is my body”. I both believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and I participate in the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Him. Just like Scripture and the testimony of the earliest Christians calls us to do. Why don’t you??
Furthermore, the remainder of my comments apparently went completely over your head - allow me to restate briefly. The earliest Christians(ie Apostles and their contemporaries) were “devoted to” the breaking of the bread (Acts 2:42); in fact it is put on par with their devotion to the Apostles’ teaching and praying. Their disciples (ie, St Ignatius of Antioch et al) articulated this devotion and the beliefs of the Church regarding the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in Eucharist quite clearly.
Are you as “devoted” to the breaking of the bread as you are to studying Scripture and prayer? Is your church? Why not?
On what basis have you and your theological ancestors determined that a mere remembrance defines the truth regarding participating in the Lord’s Supper? I find no basis for it in history or in Scripture and you certainly havent provided either to support your position…

Blessings!

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Gregg

thanks for the reply

You know, I can wait until you get to a computer to respond, I’m retired, I got lots a time.

Haha… Fair enough

Well your right about “which is shed for you” and “which is given for you”. It sucks when one gets caught up in trying to be right, and then miss something significant .

Indeed.

I didn’t set out to change the Catholic mind about the Presence of God in the Eucharist, but I don’t see it. A man need not find the Presence of God if the Lord walk with him already. Other than with the Brotherhood.

I disagree. Christ’s physical presence is (or at least should be) of utmost importance to a Christian seeking Christ. “Whoever eats my flesh…” and “This is my Body” are what we are concerned with here. We should continue our conversation (if you even see this post) with these two phrases. His physical presence on Earth is how it was 2000 years ago. Why should that change? If the Eucharist is not Christ, then where is His physical Body? His sinless Body that inexplicably died for you and me? How are we supposed to eat His flesh (as He commanded) if His flesh is nowhere to be found?

Therefore it doesn’t seem logical that if the Lord be with you, in your daily walk, for what other reason would you partake of the Bread and Wine other then in respect for the real Bread of Life and Life of the Body of Christ you already have received within you that is of God.

Because it is His physical presence that we are talking about. Not just His Soul or Divinity… (Although the Eucharist does include that) His physical presence is inseparable from His deity as seen in Colossians 2:9

On your side note the Lord Jesus Christ is always a beautiful thing to think about and talk about, He is our destiny my friend. Consider, though yet He walk with you, His is were your going to be and He shows you how to get there.

Well, at the rate I am going, I may end up where I do not want to be. (No need to go into a debate about Faith Alone vs. Faith and Works or Once Saved, Always Saved. I know the Truth already.)

There something else that has come to mind as we have been conversing. The given Body and the shed Blood is the completion to the Father’s Satisfaction. We can seek satisfaction in ourselves, we can seek satisfaction in the world, or we can seek the Father’s Satisfaction. And I believe that in the receiving of the Bread and Wine we agree to the Father’s Satisfaction that in His Satisfaction we are satisfied. In His Life and in His Blessing in the Spirit through His Son Jesus Chirst.

I have no clue what you just said.

But, that bold sentence is exactly what the Eucharist is. Read Malachi 1:11 and you will see why that same sacrifice is made present daily in the Eucharist.

It has been a very fine conversation, God Bless.

Indeed, my friend in Christ.

Take care and God bless.