So WHY Don't you believe in the Real Presence?

[PJM]

=Roy5;8154801]As I understand it, all Christians believe in the real presence of Christ. He promised: “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

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.

As a Informed and fully practicing Catholic, I hear your philosophy frequently. And frankly I 'm AMAZED. No-longer surprised but truly amazed. To hold your position One MUST deny the precise language Jesus uses, then deny Matt. [26], Mk. [14], Lk. [22] Paul 1st. Cor. 11. ALL of them speak candidly and each of the suffered Martyrdom for this belief. The Bible shows that the early church practiced “the Breaking of the Bread” [Eucharist] and MANY more gave there lives based on a misunderstanding?

Such a position can ONLY come from a Lack of TRUE Faith, whose fruit id Wisdom and Understanding. Catholic believe for 2,000 years. The fact that some don’t proves they too lack FAITH and that Satan is having a great deal of success.

So Christ and the Apostles misunderstood, and for 1,500 years this was the accepted belief of the CC. The Protestant revolution comes around and all of a sudden it’s wrong. Kinda convenient wouldn’t you say? I can provide much evidence of early belief and practice. I can even explain why so “many” Catholics don’t believe it. But let’s start with this:

Explaining John Six [at least trying too].

41-42 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, `I have come down from heaven’?”

So they understand the humanity of Jesus but fail to accept His Divinity

52-53 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, "Truly, 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;

Once again now for the second time they are “hung up” on Christ humanity.

[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

And even after Christ clarifies WHAT HE MEANS, they still don’t get it. NOTE here its not “ALL,” but “MANY” verse 60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” [And they denied Christ and abandoned Him!]

61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? [63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. [64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him

So here’s the clincher; yes? “Is is the Spirit that gives life… [mortal /carnal] flesh means nothing! John.4: 23-24 “But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

TRANSLATED it is God who gives life! “flesh means nothing” refers BACK to the humanity ONLY- deserters understanding. They THINK Jesus speaks of His carnal body

67 -69 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

Isn’t that strange? When the “many” denied and abandoned Him he did not call them back. RATHER he clarified for them “MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD AND MY BLOOD REAL DRINK…. “ What Jesus did not know what He was saying? Then He ask the Apostles: Do you wish to abandon Me too? A rather strange question for one who just turned off “many of his disciples.” NOTICE Christ DOES NOT CHANGE His Teaching! WHY?

NO! Friend, Christ speaks about His SOON to be Resurrected and GLORIFIED BODY! TIME DOES NOT EXIST for God. … Faith friend, it takes Faith. Christ Glorified is still the WHOLE and ENTIRE CHRIST. AMEN! SE what a lack of faith and true understanding leads too:shrug: GOOGLE: “Eucharistic Miracles” for visible proof.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Shogun]

I wish I could remember where I read it, but when asked by a Evangelical about the presence in our Communion with God, I ask this simple question. If the Holy Spirit can enter a person and send them to the front of the Church seeking salvation; if the Holy Spirit can guide your understanding of scripture, then why can’t the Holy Spirit enter the bread and wine at Communion? God Bless.

 

[Defender1]

As I understand it, all Christians believe in the real presence of Christ. He promised: “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

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.

If one refers back to the church father teachings (such as Ignatius of antioch and the Didache ) one would understand why we believe what we believe in the Eucharist , you see, the Church fathers taught the transubstantiation and the importance of the Eucharist in both the Didache and the Letters of Ignatius . To be truly CAtholic you must believe in the real presence .Bishop Ignatius of Antioch(a student of John the Apostle, who was a student of Jesus, who would not have taught him wrong ) taught the real presence . Also if you read closely John 6 . You dig into it to understand the meaning . Not only reading it in English but also to read certain words in Greek (The word Phagon " To eat" is changed to Trogon “to munch and naw” to put greater emphasis on actually eating ) If you did deep enough you realize that we believe what the first Christians believe as well as what Jesus intended for us to believe . Didache 5:9 "Do not give to the dogs what is filthy " this was what the apostles were saying to refer to the Eucharist telling us we must be baptized before the Eucharist can be given to us . Now if it were a symbol then surely we would not have to be baptized to hear his word . He preached to non baptized all of the time as well as the Apostles. See what I mean ? You may come back with : If the Didache was so important or relevant then why is it not in the Bible ? By the time of 393 Council of Hippo( part of a series of councils where the church leaders through the guidance of the holy spirit chose what books to put into the bible)the Didache was lost and not founded until the late 1700-1800s (not sure of date but in between there ) Just somethings to think about is all .

 

[Roy5]

As I said, if someone can believe in transubstantiation, fine. I don’t for a moment suggest that I have a monopoly on the truth. I simply reject the idea that any human being does - or any church, too. We live in a world so magnificent and so mammoth and so miraculous that none of us can pretend to understand it. I must say in their defense that religions try their best to bring all this mystery to us in ways that provide us with meaning and comfort. I find considerable comfort in religion despite my areas of skepticism.

It always seemed to me that it is in the area of the Eucharist where the influence of paganism is most dangerous. When I read John 6 I find it symbolic language, which Christ used often. His parables, most of them, are examples. They were fables with a point in many instances. The gist of John 6 is that Christ came to bring us the message of love, that just as he fed the body (feeding of the 5000) he came even more to feed our souls. This isn't done by consuming 'God' in a piece of transubstantiated bread but through preaching a message and himself serving as an example to us of love, devotion, and sacrifice.

 Okay. When I attend Mass, as I still often do, I have a problem that the priest is to be viewed as the image of Christ, that he in some way re-presents the crucifixion which he offers up to God the Father. Apparently, millions have no problem with that. My problems:  (1) the idea that the priest is somehow acting as Christ among us; (2) that he has the power through his prayer of consecration to bring about transubstantiation of the elements; and (3) that God somehow is appeased by this sacrifice. There seem to be aspects of the shaman and the need for human sacrifice in all this.

 Frankly, the whole idea of God the Father deliberately killing his only Son so that we can be saved strikes me as strange.  It seems to me that this is a weird way to be reconciled with God. I would think that our omniscient God - and I stand in awe before the Lord - could find a less brutal and unjust and bloody way to achieve this. As I recall, he gave the Ten Commandments that include 'thou shalt no kill'. Gosh, in addition to the Eucharist, the Old Testament is filled with 'God-endorsed' or "God-demanded' genocide.

 Of course, Jesus also must have known that his suffering would end and he would rise and reign eternally 'on the right hand of God the Father Almighty." Millions of people suffered enormous torture throughout history, often over long periods of time, without that prospect. This 'right hand' always puzzles me. I don't recall which Church Father it was, perhaps more than one, but I recall reading that this all is to be taken literally. Jesus the Son sits on a throne alongside God the Father. Easy to believe before Copernicus and Galileo and good telescopes.

   When I once asked a priest years ago about transubstantiation and related topics,, his response was that "it's a great mystery"! Not a very helpful explanation. He went on to insist - just believe what the Church teaches! (or words to that effect). Must be I have an independent streak? Is that sinful? Or does God honor honest doubt? 

 All for now. God bless everybody - of every creed, color, culture and country. Religion should serve as a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[josephback]

By popular request [because inquiring MINDS REALLY DO WANT TO KNOW]

WHY don’t you believe in the REAL Presence?

God Bless you,
Pat

When I wasn’t Catholic I didn’t really think about it much. It just doesn’t come up. Not until I started studying more and looking to be taught did I even realize that there was a difference in belief!

That said, by the time of my late teens I put a certain emphasis on Communion and would abstain if I didn’t feel “worthy”. I wouldn’t call it the Real Presence because I DIDN’T KNOW about the Real Presence. I was just trying to go off what Paul said in Corinthians.

Being non-Catholic makes for a somewhat haphazard, incomplete religous education. My guess is that most non-Catholics are never taught about it.

 

[JonNC]

When I wasn’t Catholic I didn’t really think about it much. It just doesn’t come up. Not until I started studying more and looking to be taught did I even realize that there was a difference in belief!

That said, by the time of my late teens I put a certain emphasis on Communion and would abstain if I didn’t feel “worthy”. I wouldn’t call it the Real Presence because I DIDN’T KNOW about the Real Presence. I was just trying to go off what Paul said in Corinthians.

Being non-Catholic makes for a somewhat haphazard, incomplete religous education. My guess is that most non-Catholics are never taught about it.

I think it depends on the communion one’s a member of. Understanding the RP is an important aspect of catechesis in Lutheranism. I suspect this is true in most segments of Anglicanism, as well, and perhaps others.

What many others are taught about will, again, depend on their communion. It wouldn’t seem logical to teach about the RP if one’s belief is in a symbolic presence.

Jon

 

[PJM]

=Shogun;8156426]I wish I could remember where I read it, but when asked by a Evangelical about the presence in our Communion with God, I ask this simple question. If the Holy Spirit can enter a person and send them to the front of the Church seeking salvation; if the Holy Spirit can guide your understanding of scripture, then why can’t the Holy Spirit enter the bread and wine at Communion? God Bless.

***Reasonable question except my Friend that it NOT The Trinity that is REALLY present. It is the Dual Nature of Christ: True God AND TRUE man. There is a profound sense in the TRINITY being One [unseperartable YET Seperate “Persons” that one could claim ALL are Present SPIRITUALLY; But Only Christ is Present BOTH GLORIGIED BODY and Spirit.]

PROCEED from prayer with what ever level of Faith you have. BUT Understand that these are the WORDS OF A PERFECT GOD; who can not lie, nor deceive***

FROM JOHN CHPT> SIX: JESUS CHRIST SPEAKING FOR HIMSELF!

**27-33 ** Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal."

**35 **Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

41-42 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, `I have come down from heaven’

They are unable to accept Jesus as “The Messiah” , Christ the savior. IS CHRIST TRULY YOUR SAVIOR?

48 I am the bread of life.

51 I 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."

**52 **The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “**How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” **

Again they can’t [LACK OF FAITH] see God and Jesus are One

53-54 NOTE: NO DENIAL BY CHRIST: “So Jesus said to them, "Truly, 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

KEEP IN MIND WHOSE WORDS THESE ARE: GODS! How can anyone pretend God does not KNOW what He is saying and doing?

55-56 [JESUS VERY WORDS!!!] “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 him.

60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” …. and MANY [not all] desert Him… Matt.22: 14 “For many are called, but few are chosen."

61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? … 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. …. **John 4:24 “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” **

Christ answers there doubts and cannibal human understanding right on the SPOT!

1. They see God /Christ ONLY as a man.
2. Therefore he MUST be speaking of His HUMAN body
3. Jesus allows there unbelief and lack of UNDERSTANDING because it is WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE.
4. Still being a JUST God: He shares the complete TRUTH: **It’s NOT HUMAN FLESH that saves [not even the human flesh of Jesus; it is the TOTAL CHRIST [Savior]; the GLORIFIED BODY: Body, Blood soul AND WITH AT THE SAME TIME HIS DIVINITY. [TIME DOES NOT EXIST FOR GOD: everything happens in Gods “NOW.” The “complete God-man” … not just God; AND NOT just man; BUT THE COMPLETE CHRIST. The ONLY Person of the Blessed Trinity to Possess TWO Complete Separate but unable to be separated, Natures. Perfect God AND perfect Glorified and Risen man.” THAT IS WHAT EUCHARIST IS.[/COLOR]

64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him

65 **And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” **

Meaning Faith and with it Wisdom and UNDERSTANDING ARE GIFTS FROM GOD ALONE.

**2 Peter 3: 14 –17 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

2nd. Peter 1: 20-21 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

So there friend is the truth: ARE you able to accept it

God Bless you an thanks for permitting me to use your comments to teach otheres what and why we DO BELIEVE

Pat**

 

[Godith]

Thanks, PJM, for explaining the Catholic view.

Part 2 of 2:

This is what the Early Church Fathers thought about the Real Presence:

Ignatius of Antioch

“I 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 incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Thank you, also, CatholicZ09, for providing all those quotes from the Early Church Fathers. I am fairly ignorant when it comes to early church history, so I found those very interesting, especially that the Real Presence was being taught about so early.

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 “easier” 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.

I agree with you on the first. Faith comes from God, and so does wisdom. We don’t know anything about spiritual truth unless He reveals it. Your second point, though, assumes non-Catholics see ourselves as being in competition with Catholics to get bums on seats in church. In my own church, and in many others nowadays, we don’t see ourselves as in competition. We see ourselves as brothers and sisters, fellow pilgrims with you on the journey of faith. We don’t see anyone as having all the answers - we are all just trying to follow Jesus and understand the things of God as best we can as fallible human beings. If people choose to join our community, we rejoice. If they choose to be part of another Christian church, we also rejoice. The important thing is making disciples, not how many show up to worship with us on Sunday.

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.

I totally agree with you, exnihilo. Ancient people weren’t stupid. At least, they were no more stupid than we are today. lol

Frankly, the whole idea of God the Father deliberately killing his only Son so that we can be saved strikes me as strange. It seems to me that this is a weird way to be reconciled with God. I would think that our omniscient God - and I stand in awe before the Lord - could find a less brutal and unjust and bloody way to achieve this. As I recall, he gave the Ten Commandments that include ‘thou shalt no kill’. Gosh, in addition to the Eucharist, the Old Testament is filled with ‘God-endorsed’ or "God-demanded’ genocide.

 Of course, Jesus also must have known that his suffering would end and he would rise and reign eternally 'on the right hand of God the Father Almighty." Millions of people suffered enormous torture throughout history, often over long periods of time, without that prospect. This 'right hand' always puzzles me. I don't recall which Church Father it was, perhaps more than one, but I recall reading that this all is to be taken literally. Jesus the Son sits on a throne alongside God the Father. Easy to believe before Copernicus and Galileo and good telescopes.

Um, what have telescopes got to do with it? Heaven is a different, spiritual realm, totally separate from the natural realm of planets and stars.

Probably this isn’t the place to try and explain the meaning of the Cross, and why Jesus had to die in the way that he did. All Christianity, though, is based on Jesus’ death and resurrection. Without the Cross, none of it makes sense, IMO. I know that’s a bit off-topic, but your comments stood out to me.

You asked am I ready to accept the Real Presence, PJM. I certainly believe Jesus is present in Communion in a special and particular way, or He wouldn’t have spoken about it so much. He wouldn’t have told us it was so important if it wasn’t, so clearly something deep is going on when we celebrate Communion that is more than just a symbolic meal. Whether I have quite reached the point of accepting the Catholic understanding of Jesus being present ‘body, soul and divinity’ (if I got the words slightly wrong there, I apologise), I don’t think so. Not yet, anyway. I will join you in praying for God’s wisdom, and for true faith, though.

 

[cooterhein]

By popular request [because inquiring MINDS REALLY DO WANT TO KNOW]

WHY don’t you beleive in the REAL Presence?

God Bless you,
Pat

Objectively speaking, the elements remain unchanged. In many ways, it’s kind of like trying to get a young-earther to wrap his/her mind around the idea of an old earth. Here’s a quick parallel.

Suppose you are a young-earther. (Easier for some to imagine than others). If that’s your camp, of course you believe old-earthers are ignoring certain things from Scripture. Of course you think “they” are screwing up how they read Scripture and how they view tradition. Of course “they” don’t care about what God has so clearly revealed. But I can tell you this from experience, this is the kind of thing that you can’t argue someone away from by presenting interpretive alternatives. If you’re a young-earther, you already have your standards for what the correct interpretations are.

It ultimately comes down to the age of the earth. If you want to convince a young-earther that the earth is actually old, all you have to do is demonstrate that objectively speaking, the earth is old. The age of the earth is measurable, it is knowable, and we know that it is old. Because of that, you have to look at Genesis in such a way that it doesn’t contradict this reality. As long as a young-earther doesn’t need to do that, a young-earther will continue believing there’s no reading of Scripture that could possibly work with an old-earth paradigm. Objective reality has a way of changing that, though. All of a sudden, you’re reconsidering those interpretive options.

It’s a lot like that with transubstantiation. You begin with the question of whether or not the communion elements are changed. You aren’t lacking for people on CAF who believe there’s no possible way for Scripture or tradition to be reconciled with something besides that, and a few of those people have found your thread already.

But here’s the skinny.

The elements remain unchanged. That’s just the way it is. When you start seeing things that way, I promise it changes your perspective on the things “those people” have to say about it. There are some pretty good places to go from there in terms of biblical interpretation and with regard to various aspects of tradition, but you can’t possibly take any of it seriously as long as you’re fully convinced that the elements get alchemist every time a priest says “please.”

That’s my perspective, anyway. If I’m talking to a young-earther, my process beings with “The earth is old and we know this to be true. Let’s go from there.” If it’s transubstantiation we’re talking about, I begin by saying “The elements remain unchanged. Would you like to verify that? Name the test and let’s run it. This is one of those things that can be objectively ascertained.”

We can do all sorts of things to figure this out. I know a few people; it’s not that hard to do. Anyone wants to donate part of the Host for the cause, feel free.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cooterhein;8159799]Objectively speaking, the elements remain unchanged. In many ways, it’s kind of like trying to get a young-earther to wrap his/her mind around the idea of an old earth. Here’s a quick parallel.

It’s a lot like that with transubstantiation. You begin with the question of whether or not the communion elements are changed. You aren’t lacking for people on CAF who believe there’s no possible way for Scripture or tradition to be reconciled with something besides that, and a few of those people have found your thread already.

The elements remain unchanged. That’s just the way it is. When you start seeing things that way, I promise it changes your perspective on the things “those people” have to say about it. There are some pretty good places to go from there in terms of biblical interpretation and with regard to various aspects of tradition, but you can’t possibly take any of it seriously as long as you’re fully convinced that the elements get alchemist every time a priest says “please.”

That’s my perspective, anyway. If I’m talking to a young-earther, my process beings with “The earth is old and we know this to be true. Let’s go from there.” If it’s transubstantiation we’re talking about, I begin by saying "The elements remain unchanged. Would you like to verify that?

Then you agree with the Catholic Church, the species of bread and wine remain unchanged to our senses in Transubstantiation, what is changed is the whole substance from which bread and wine are created from “God”.

Do you know the source of the wind from which it comes and which it goes? Yet you can relate to the wind by your senses from which the wind reveals itself. These mysteries are made manifest by the Spirit.

Can you see or touch any of your emotions, yet you can only sense them from your physical attributes. Yet we know we have a conscience but no one has never seen a conscience. Do you deny what stems from the heart and consciences of man do not exist? because they are not visible to our senses? Have you ever seen your “will” ?, we can only discover the accidents (specifics or species) resulting from our “Will”.

Faith is called for here. If you want a biblical persepective please read here;

1Corinthians 2:1
When I came to you, brothers, proclaiming the mystery of God, 1 I did not come with sublimity of words or of wisdom.

3
I came to you in weakness 2 and fear and much trembling,
5
so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.
6
4 Yet we do speak a wisdom to those who are mature, but not a wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away.
7
Rather, we speak God’s wisdom, 5 mysterious, hidden, which God predetermined before the ages for our glory,
8
and which none of the rulers of this age 6 knew; for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9
But as it is written: **“What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,”
10
this God has revealed to us through the Spirit.For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. **
11
**Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. **
12
We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God.
13
And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms. 7
14
Now the natural person 8 does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually.
15
**The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment 9 by anyone.
16
For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ. **

CCC1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207

One can have faith in nature and believe because nature is seen, but what is not seen is the substance from which nature begins. Faith then in nature graduates to a Faith in the Creator from which nature derives its existance from the “True substance” Which created it.

Thus Jesus divine body and blood are truly present in His Eucharist, because He is the Son of God, who creates from His substance of life that lives in creation, although invisible to our senses, the life of God exists in all of creation.

This is a perspective of the eternal reality that exists to our senses in time as we live, when God is all and in all, amen.

Peace be with you

 

[cooterhein]

Then you agree with the Catholic Church,

You know that’s not true. Why would you say that?

the species of bread and wine remain unchanged to our senses in Transubstantiation,

That’s not what I said. What I said is not at all similar to Catholic teaching. In Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth terms, I’m the person who says the earth is old and you’re the person who says the Earth is cleverly disguised as a planet that’s billions of years old when in fact it was created 6,000 years ago. Or 10,000 years ago. Or last Wednesday. Take your pick.

Can you see or touch any of your emotions, yet you can only sense them from your physical attributes. Yet we know we have a conscience but no one has never seen a conscience.

Doesn’t really address the issue. You saw why it is that I don’t believe in transubstantiation. Remember that?

Do you deny what stems from the heart and consciences of man do not exist? because they are not visible to our senses? Have you ever seen your “will” ?, we can only discover the accidents (specifics or species) resulting from our “Will”.

Say it back to me. Why is it that I don’t buy transubstantiation? Use my words, not yours.

“Because they are not visible to our senses” would fall under the “yours” category, btw.

Faith is called for here.

I’m telling you what’s called for. Are you listening?

by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.

The substance does not change. This can be demonstrated in a wide variety of ways. Feel free to pick one. If it did change, I’d have a reason to carefully explore your designated interpretations for further details. If we start with something that changes, I have a reason to care about the nature of that change. If we’re dealing with something that changes, anything else that pertains to the topic gains relevance.

But it doesn’t change. That’s where I start. Long as you’re talking to me, that’s where you find the beginning of a worthwhile process.

 

[PJM]

Thanks, PJM, for explaining the Catholic view.

Thank you, also, CatholicZ09, for providing all those quotes from the Early Church Fathers. I am fairly ignorant when it comes to early church history, so I found those very interesting, especially that the Real Presence was being taught about so early.

I agree with you on the first. Faith comes from God, and so does wisdom. We don’t know anything about spiritual truth unless He reveals it. Your second point, though, assumes non-Catholics see ourselves as being in competition with Catholics to get bums on seats in church. In my own church, and in many others nowadays, we don’t see ourselves as in competition. We see ourselves as brothers and sisters, fellow pilgrims with you on the journey of faith. We don’t see anyone as having all the answers - we are all just trying to follow Jesus and understand the things of God as best we can as fallible human beings. If people choose to join our community, we rejoice. If they choose to be part of another Christian church, we also rejoice. The important thing is making disciples, not how many show up to worship with us on Sunday.

I totally agree with you, exnihilo. Ancient people weren’t stupid. At least, they were no more stupid than we are today. lol

Um, what have telescopes got to do with it? Heaven is a different, spiritual realm, totally separate from the natural realm of planets and stars.

Probably this isn’t the place to try and explain the meaning of the Cross, and why Jesus had to die in the way that he did. All Christianity, though, is based on Jesus’ death and resurrection. Without the Cross, none of it makes sense, IMO. I know that’s a bit off-topic, but your comments stood out to me.

You asked am I ready to accept the Real Presence, PJM. I certainly believe Jesus is present in Communion in a special and particular way, or He wouldn’t have spoken about it so much. He wouldn’t have told us it was so important if it wasn’t, so clearly something deep is going on when we celebrate Communion that is more than just a symbolic meal. Whether I have quite reached the point of accepting the Catholic understanding of Jesus being present ‘body, soul and divinity’ (if I got the words slightly wrong there, I apologise), I don’t think so. Not yet, anyway. I will join you in praying for God’s wisdom, and for true faith, though.

***My dear friend in Christ,

Thanks for taking the time read and consider what we share. May I suggest a GREAT next step for you would be to investiage “Eucharisitc Miracales.” There are some in every generation although not widely reported.

God does this to “bump” us past doubt. There are great amounts of evidence for those seriously looking and seeking Christ.

God Bless, please PM me if you have any other issues you’d like to discuss.

PAT ***

 

[rinnie]

Well why don’t you think that people don’t believe in the real prescence?Have you got a better answer?

Here is what I think. If everyone truly were taught that Christ is indeed the living bread that comes down from heaven, where would that put many Protestant Preachers?

I mean not to cause any insult to anyone but Christ only gave the Priests through the Sacrament of Holy Orders to turn the bread and wine into the true Body and Blood of Christ.

How can a Protestant Preacher claim to do this? He can’t. He does not have the authority to do so by the power of the Laying of hands.

So if this truth be known and becomes revealed, which it will what happens? People come back to the RCC.

You have heard it millions of times. when the truth has been revealed to them, and they could not deny it any longer it was the Eucharist that brought them back to the CC.

 

[PJM]

=cooterhein;8159799]Objectively speaking, the elements remain unchanged. In many ways, it’s kind of like trying to get a young-earther to wrap his/her mind around the idea of an old earth. Here’s a quick parallel.

Suppose you are a young-earther. (Easier for some to imagine than others). If that’s your camp, of course you believe old-earthers are ignoring certain things from Scripture. Of course you think “they” are screwing up how they read Scripture and how they view tradition. Of course “they” don’t care about what God has so clearly revealed. But I can tell you this from experience, this is the kind of thing that you can’t argue someone away from by presenting interpretive alternatives. If you’re a young-earther, you already have your standards for what the correct interpretations are.

It ultimately comes down to the age of the earth. If you want to convince a young-earther that the earth is actually old, all you have to do is demonstrate that objectively speaking, the earth is old. The age of the earth is measurable, it is knowable, and we know that it is old. Because of that, you have to look at Genesis in such a way that it doesn’t contradict this reality. As long as a young-earther doesn’t need to do that, a young-earther will continue believing there’s no reading of Scripture that could possibly work with an old-earth paradigm. Objective reality has a way of changing that, though. All of a sudden, you’re reconsidering those interpretive options.

It’s a lot like that with transubstantiation. You begin with the question of whether or not the communion elements are changed. You aren’t lacking for people on CAF who believe there’s no possible way for Scripture or tradition to be reconciled with something besides that, and a few of those people have found your thread already.

But here’s the skinny.

The elements remain unchanged. That’s just the way it is. When you start seeing things that way, I promise it changes your perspective on the things “those people” have to say about it. There are some pretty good places to go from there in terms of biblical interpretation and with regard to various aspects of tradition, but you can’t possibly take any of it seriously as long as you’re fully convinced that the elements get alchemist every time a priest says “please.”

That’s my perspective, anyway. If I’m talking to a young-earther, my process beings with “The earth is old and we know this to be true. Let’s go from there.” If it’s transubstantiation we’re talking about, I begin by saying “The elements remain unchanged. Would you like to verify that? Name the test and let’s run it. This is one of those things that can be objectively ascertained.”

We can do all sorts of things to figure this out. I know a few people; it’s not that hard to do. Anyone wants to donate part of the Host for the cause, feel free.

Hi again my friend!

What seems to be missing in your [and others] conclusions is that applying HUMAN REASON to Divine Miracles are never going to reach a proper conclusion.

The Biblical evidence and Early Church history that support these beliefs is over-whelming.

Take all of that and add the PHYSICAL Evidence of Eucharisitic Miracales and no reasonable doubt ought to remain. The FACT that doubt does remain is attribuitable to a lack of FAITH, and for educated folks like yourself, a lack of understanding of the Divine Nature. Surely God CAN do this if God chooses to right?

So why does God: the physical evidence lies in the Incarnation and the Passion, Death and Ressurection. Were I to ask: Give me ONE WORD that is foundational to EVERY teaching and lesson in the Bible. MIGHT NOT THAT ONE WORD BE LOVE?

Nice to talk with you again,

Pat

 

[Shogun]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Holy Spirit makes present the mystery of Christ

1104 Christian liturgy not only recalls the events that saved us but actualizes them, makes them present. The Paschal mystery of Christ is celebrated, not repeated. It is the celebrations that are repeated, and in each celebration there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that makes the unique mystery present.

1105 The Epiclesis (“invocation upon”) is the intercession in which the priest begs the Father to send the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, so that the offerings may become the body and blood of Christ and that the faithful by receiving them, may themselves become a living offering to God.23

1106 Together with the anamnesis, the epiclesis is at the heart of each sacramental celebration, most especially of the Eucharist:

You ask how the bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the wine . . . the Blood of Christ I shall tell you: the Holy Spirit comes upon them and accomplishes what surpasses every word and thought. . . . Let it be enough for you to understand that it is by the Holy Spirit, just as it was of the Holy Virgin and by the Holy Spirit that the Lord, through and in himself, took flesh.24

1107 The Holy Spirit’s transforming power in the liturgy hastens the coming of the kingdom and the consummation of the mystery of salvation. While we wait in hope he causes us really to anticipate the fullness of communion with the Holy Trinity. Sent by the Father who hears the epiclesis of the Church, the Spirit gives life to those who accept him and is, even now, the “guarantee” of their inheritance.25

 

[PJM]

from Godith

I agree with you on the first. Faith comes from God, and so does wisdom. We don’t know anything about spiritual truth unless He reveals it. Your second point, though, assumes non-Catholics see ourselves as being in competition with Catholics to get bums on seats in church. In my own church, and in many others nowadays, we don’t see ourselves as in competition. We see ourselves as brothers and sisters, fellow pilgrims with you on the journey of faith. We don’t see anyone as having all the answers - we are all just trying to follow Jesus and understand the things of God as best we can as fallible human beings. If people choose to join our community, we rejoice. If they choose to be part of another Christian church, we also rejoice. The important thing is making disciples, not how many show up to worship with us on Sunday

.

Interesting responce: YOUR RIGHT, I do see all other faiths is competition with the CC. There is very good reason for this.

No where in the Bible can one point to God being willing to tolerate any God BUT HIM, or any set of Faith beliefs other than that which He God teaches. In that the CC is the ONLY church, ONLY set of beliefs founded by God and COMPLETELY acceptable to Him,and warranted personally By Him. [John 14:16-17, John 17:15-19, Mt. 16:19, and John 20:19-23] give evidence of these facts.

Catholic DO see other Christians as BREATHERN; but nevertheless understand that this is in great part, because God commads us to LOVE everyone. The beliefs and understading differences between us are signifiant, notable and many. Followship is wounderful. But always needs to be founded on God’s Single TRUTH.

THANK you for your KIND responce:thumbsup:

God Bless you,
Pat

**John.10: 16 **“And 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 shepherd”

Phil.2: 2 “complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.”

Eph. 4: 1-7 “I 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 Christ’s gift.

Eph. 2: 18-22 “ for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,[Noteably SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

 

[PJM]

=cooterhein;8160297]You know that’s not true. Why would you say that?

That’s not what I said. What I said is not at all similar to Catholic teaching. In Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth terms, I’m the person who says the earth is old and you’re the person who says the Earth is cleverly disguised as a planet that’s billions of years old when in fact it was created 6,000 years ago. Or 10,000 years ago. Or last Wednesday. Take your pick.

Doesn’t really address the issue. You saw why it is that I don’t believe in transubstantiation. Remember that?

Say it back to me. Why is it that I don’t buy transubstantiation? Use my words, not yours.

“Because they are not visible to our senses” would fall under the “yours” category, btw.

I’m telling you what’s called for. Are you listening?

The substance does not change. This can be demonstrated in a wide variety of ways. Feel free to pick one. If it did change, I’d have a reason to carefully explore your designated interpretations for further details. If we start with something that changes, I have a reason to care about the nature of that change. If we’re dealing with something that changes, anything else that pertains to the topic gains relevance.

But it doesn’t change. That’s where I start. Long as you’re talking to me, that’s where you find the beginning of a worthwhile process.

So my friend,

Faith, Mysteries and Miracles have no legitmacy? What, God can’t do this?

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Defender1]

BUT like I stated before the Greek in John 6 is changed from Phagon (to eat) to Trogon( munch and naw ) . This does not lead you to believe that the reasoning behind the word change was to put greater emphasis on actual eating the body and blood of Christ ? COme on now . And as far as the priests go, Church father teachings as well as SCripture in the epistles show us a clergy position here . Were not throwing smoke and mirrors at you its in church historic writings as well as the Bible . Confession : John 20:21-23 , The sacrifice of the mass is prophesies in Malichi 1:11 . John 6 :55 says that his flesh is true food and true drink . And every time you see eat when he speaks of eating his flesh , write down the words Munch and naw so you may better understand the reality of the transubstantiation .

 

[PJM]

=cooterhein;8160297]You know that’s not true. Why would you say that?

That’s not what I said. What I said is not at all similar to Catholic teaching. In Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth terms, I’m the person who says the earth is old and you’re the person who says the Earth is cleverly disguised as a planet that’s billions of years old when in fact it was created 6,000 years ago. Or 10,000 years ago. Or last Wednesday. Take your pick.

Doesn’t really address the issue. You saw why it is that I don’t believe in transubstantiation. Remember that?

Say it back to me. Why is it that I don’t buy transubstantiation? Use my words, not yours.

“Because they are not visible to our senses” would fall under the “yours” category, btw.

I’m telling you what’s called for. Are you listening?

The substance does not change. This can be demonstrated in a wide variety of ways. Feel free to pick one. If it did change, I’d have a reason to carefully explore your designated interpretations for further details. If we start with something that changes, I have a reason to care about the nature of that change. If we’re dealing with something that changes, anything else that pertains to the topic gains relevance.

But it doesn’t change. That’s where I start. Long as you’re talking to me, that’s where you find the beginning of a worthwhile process.

Transubstanuation is ONLY the recent theological term applied to expalin what takes place. It’s Mystery and a Miracle that ONLY God can [and DOES] accomplish.

Let me ask you a queston. Why wouldn’t God do this?

God Bless,
Pat

 

[rinnie]

Transubstanuation is ONLY the recent theological term applied to expalin what takes place. It’s Mystery and a Miracle that ONLY God can [and DOES] accomplish.

Let me ask you a queston. Why wouldn’t God do this?

God Bless,
Pat

Not only why would GOd NOT do this, Why would he tell us in order to have eternal life we must eat his body and drink his blood, and then not make it possible for us to do.

ANd why would he say unless you do this, you have no life in you?