- Status
P
PJM
Guest
Jesus termed himself âthe good Sherpardâ for this precise reason. And note how John the Baptist intoduces Christ to HIS followersd⌠many of whom thought that John might be the long awaited Messiah.
John.1: 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! [36] and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, âBehold, the Lamb of God!â
Exod.12: 5 âYour lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goatsâ
God Bless,
Pat
For me, Pat it isnât difficult. First, Christ says so in His testament, âtake and eat, this is My bodyâ, etc., and this is supported in scripture by the words of St. Paul. Second, it is the consistent teaching of the universal Church, east and west, that the bread is His true body, and the wine His true blood. Third, the testimony of the Church fathers to the same. Finally, the testimony of the Lutheran Church, through its confessions and its historic constant teaching, citing scripture and the historic Church, that Christ is to be taken at His word.By popular request [because inquiring MINDS REALLY DO WANT TO KNOW]
WHY donât you beleive in the REAL Presence?
God Bless you,
Pat
Jon
P
PJM
Guest
THAT my friend is a PROFOUND statement:thumbsup: WHY would it not at least be questioned when Jesus Himself and four different Apostles give testimony is the most specific language possible:shrug:
Very interestering, THANKS,
God Bless,
Pat
V
vikingwarlord77
Guest
I only believe in the presence in the wine not the bread. from the documentery what the bleep do we know: scientific proof that the wine changes youtube.com/watch?v=TWAuc9GIvFo
G
Godith
Guest
That would be my experience, as well. Iâve heard teaching on the meaning of Communion, but never a great deal about the Real Presence. The idea of the Real Presence isnât upheld, but no-one spends much (any?) time refuting it either, that Iâve heard.
Why donât I personally believe in it? Well, Iâm not entirely sure I donât.
I donât find anything in the Bible that says categorically that itâs not true. I was at a high church Anglican service this Easter, and felt a shiver down my spine when the elements were elevated, and the bell rung. We donât base our faith on feelings, obviously, but something was going on there. Iâve read a little about the Catholic view, and nothing jumped out at me as not making sense.I do still have questions, though. Jesus said a lot of things about Himself that He meant figuratively, like âI am the vineâ. Plainly, Heâs not an actual vine, and He never meant that. Did he mean âThis is my bodyâ figuratively, too? As I understand it, the Greek in that sentence allows for both figurative and literal interpretations. Also, Jesus lead the first Communion in person. When He held up the bread and the wine, they were clearly separate objects from His person. Would the disciples have understood His statements in a literal way, bearing in mind they could see His body in front of them? Iâm not sure.
Mostly, I am hoping God will forgive my doubts, and lead me into the truth.
C
CatholicZ09
Guest
Part 1 of 2:That would be my experience, as well. Iâve heard teaching on the meaning of Communion, but never a great deal about the Real Presence. The idea of the Real Presence isnât upheld, but no-one spends much (any?) time refuting it either, that Iâve heard.
Why donât I personally believe in it? Well, Iâm not entirely sure I donât.
I do still have questions, though. Jesus said a lot of things about Himself that He meant figuratively, like âI am the vineâ. Plainly, Heâs not an actual vine, and He never meant that. Did he mean âThis is my bodyâ figuratively, too? As I understand it, the Greek in that sentence allows for both figurative and literal interpretations. Also, Jesus lead the first Communion in person. When He held up the bread and the wine, they were clearly separate objects from His person. Would the disciples have understood His statements in a literal way, bearing in mind they could see His body in front of them? Iâm not sure.
Mostly, I am hoping God will forgive my doubts, and lead me into the truth.
If you look in the Gospel of John Chapter 6 verse 60, we read: âMany of his disciples, when they heard it, said, âThis is a hard saying; who can listen to it?ââ These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: âIt is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and lifeâ (John 6:63).
We continue to John 6:66 where we read that many drew away because they thought âcarnally,â not spiritually - this was actually the Body and Blood of Christ.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: ââI am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.â The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, âHow can this man give us his flesh to eat?ââ (John 6:51â52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literallyâand correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: âTruly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in himâ (John 6:53â56).
Why didnât He call back those who left if he meant it only in a symbolic way?
As you have stated above, some people use other verses to contradict this, such as John 10:9 (âI am the doorâ) and John 15:1 (âI am the true vineâ).
The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, âI am the bread of life.â âI am the doorâ and âI am the vineâ make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a doorâwe go to heaven through himâand he is also like a vineâwe get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, âFor my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeedâ (John 6:55).
He continues: âAs the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of meâ (John 6:57). The Greek word used for âeatsâ (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of âchewingâ or âgnawing.â This is not the language of metaphor.
Paul later confirms this:
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: âThe cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?â (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, âTherefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himselfâ (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). âTo answer for the body and bloodâ of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine âunworthilyâ be so serious? Paulâs comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
R
rainbow1
Guest
There have been hundreds of Eucharistic miracles that the Church is aware of and which are very well documented that prove that the Eucharist is truly the Real Presence! There is a Vatican display that is going around the country that shows pictures of the miracles. If you google Eucharistic Miracles of Catholic Church you can see what they are! Truly amazing miracles!!!
C
CatholicZ09
Guest
Part 2 of 2:
This is what the Early Church Fathers thought about the Real Presence:
Ignatius of Antioch
âI have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptibleâ (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
âTake note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputesâ (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2â7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
âWe call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesusâ (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
âIf the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?â (Against Heresies 4:33â32 [A.D. 189]).
âHe has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal lifeâflesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?â (ibid., 5:2).
Augustine
âChrist was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, âThis is my bodyâ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his handsâ (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
âWhen [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, âThis is the symbol of my body,â but, âThis is my body.â In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, âThis is the symbol of my blood,â but, âThis is my bloodâ; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spiritâ (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
âThe bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christâ (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
âDo not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Masterâs declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soulâ (ibid., 22:6, 9).*
This is what the Early Church Fathers thought about the Real Presence:
Ignatius of Antioch
âI have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptibleâ (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
âTake note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputesâ (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2â7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
âWe call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesusâ (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
âIf the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?â (Against Heresies 4:33â32 [A.D. 189]).
âHe has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal lifeâflesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?â (ibid., 5:2).
Augustine
âChrist was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, âThis is my bodyâ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his handsâ (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
âWhen [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, âThis is the symbol of my body,â but, âThis is my body.â In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, âThis is the symbol of my blood,â but, âThis is my bloodâ; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spiritâ (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
âThe bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christâ (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
âDo not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Masterâs declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soulâ (ibid., 22:6, 9).*
I
Izdaari
Guest
Sorry, but you are mistaken here. I was not taking it as referring to me personally, but to the set of non-Catholic Christians, to which I happen to belong. The assumption that Protestants would not believe in the Real Presence seemed one that ought to be questioned, and I did so. The OP answered my question well enough, and Iâm happy to move on.
P
PJM
Guest
Iâve never before encountered such an understanding. Please tell us more.
God Bless,
Pat
D
Defender1
Guest
I believe that protestants have not dug deep enough into the subject to understand it . I believe that they only touch the surface and it is a source of preacher commentary .
While this may be true of many in the laity, I donât think one can claim this of people such as Zwingli and Calvin and their learned followers. I believe they are unqualifyingly wrong regarding the real presence, but I donât think it can be said that they did/do not dig deep into the subject.
Jon
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
D
Defender1
Guest
WEll What I mean is that they dont look to the teachings of Ignatius of Antioch , The didache , or even Greek language change in John 6 (change of the word Phagon into Trogon to put greater emphasis on actual eating ) Many of them certainly dont open their minds to the possibility of the real presence.
P
PJM
Guest
***Like our friend Jon, Iâm not sure that this is an answer that applies to "allâ or perhaps even to âmany.â
I have given MUCH prayerful thought and consideration to the lack of understanding; especially when it seems to me to be completely illogicial. HOW MANY TRUTHS can there be one One precise issue? Even if you accept more than One, there certanily are NOT humdreds or thousands of possibilities
The Bible actually supplies the answer BUT for one of two possible reasons; it too is ignored, overlooked, forgotten or denined.***
**REASON #**1. Is Widom⌠TRUE WISDOM is a fruit of TRUE FAITH. TRue faith comes ONLY and exclusively from God. So God witholds TRUE Wisdom form some for rerasons we might understand and MANY that only God Himself understands.
REASON #2. Is Logical [at least it seems so to me:shrug:], a direct but perhaps not always a known and delibert fact that in order to compete for congregation members, one must eiter do someting; offer something that is âeasierâ or proveably better. This results in all other faiths competating with the One Catholic Faith, founded by Christ. This fact is indispuitable and historically proveable.
This requires then that everyone hold positions different form those taught and practiced by the CC. One must be different in order to justify there existence and differences become âKey.â
2nd. Peter 1: 16-21 âFor we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, âThis is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,â we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.*** First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of oneâs own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.â***
Matt.13:9-12 âHe who has ears, let him hear." Then the disciples came and said to him, âWhy do you speak to them in parables?â And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.â For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. â
**Eph.3: 9 to 12 ** âAnd to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church [SINGULAR: meaning THE CATHOLIC Church] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him. â
2 Peter 3: 14 â17 14 Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures
Eph. 4: 1-7 âI therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body [WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH] and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, [Meaning only One set of beliefs] one baptism,
one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christâs gift.
John.10: 16 âAnd I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherdâ
LET US PRAY FOR GODS WISDOM, GODS UNDERSTANDING AND TRUE FAITH: AMEN:thumbsup:
R
Roy5
Guest
As I understand it, all Christians believe in the real presence of Christ. He promised: âLo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.â
Code:
Now, when it comes to the Eucharist, that is a different matter. I read in the US Catholic magazine a year or so again that a poll indicated that over half of Catholics don't believe in transubstantiation. That's understandable. Forgive this plain talk, but it seems to many to be a superstition even with a hint of cannibalism thrown in. The idea that a consecration prayer by a priest changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ would have been easy for people to accept 2000 years ago. Various pagan faiths taught similar beliefs e. g., Mithraism.. But today most people would interpret the words of Jesus as symbolic.
Christ is present at communion as elsewhere. Is he more in the bread and wine, physically more present in those elements? Honesty on my part leads me to confess that I doubt it.
Ironically, fundamentalist Protestants see the language as symbolic while Catholics, in this one area, seem to be more fundamentalist than such Protestants.
Jesus often spoke in analogies or using figures of speech. I am the door, I am the gate, etc.
But no need to debate it. If people can believe it, fine. There are various other parts of the Bible that I don't accept literally, starting with Adam and Eve. Did God actually order Joshua to kill the inhabitants of Jericho and did the Lord demand that Saul exterminate every living Amalekite? Did the Lord stop the sun so that Joshua could win a battle? What about thet account in II Kings 2:23-24 where Elisha cursed children "in the name of the Lord" who mocked his bald head, and two she-bears then appeared and tore 42 children to pieces.
I personally need a reasonable religious faith, not one in which legends, myths, and fables are presented as facts. I simply cannot believe the unbelievable. This has led me away from Catholicism (as well as fundamentalist Protestantism). I find that the 'big tent' Protestant denominations - Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, UCC, etc. - permit considerable freedom of conscience when it comes to doctrine.
But God bless people of every creed, color, culture and country. Let's make our faith more of a bridge and less of a barrier.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Roy5,
I agree that Christ is with us always. However, there are some serious issues related to consuming the Body and Blood of Christ. For example, it is related to eternal life.
John 6:54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
If the bread and wine do not become the flesh and blood of Christ, how is one to fulfill this requirement in order to have eternal life and be raised on the last day?
Peace,
Anna
E
exnihilo
Guest
I always have a problem with the idea that ancient man would believe things that we, in our enlightened age, would not. No doubt superstition and less scientific knowledge can allow us to envision these people as simple but actually their knowledge was quite advanced and it could be that we misinterpret what people truly believed. Modern man does not seem so smart to me and is full of misinformation. Just the other day someone told me that daddy longlegs spiders are the most venomous. I dont think most Americans can name, let alone locate, half the states. Anyway if you believe in God and the Incarnate Christ and His Resurrection then it seems to me the Real Presence is not hard to believe in.
Again, it seems to me that if you believe there is a God and He was born as a man and resurrected then anything incredible is possible. A great flood is nothing compared to rising from the dead.
I dont know why you wouldnât enjoy or benefit from fables. The fables of Aesop and Hans Christian Andersen still come to my mind when I run across ideas illustrated best by them. âThe Emperorâs New Clothesâ gets played out time and time again with men of power.
- Status