SPLIT: Why do we believe in the Real Presence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BryanM27
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BryanM27

Guest
For the past couple weeks I’ve been asking the question “why do we as Catholics believe that Christ is truly present in the eucharist?”

I’ve found partial answers in multiple places, mostly with the catch phrase along the lines of “the real presence is beyond human understanding.” Okay, I get that I cannot understand HOW it becomes body and blood from being bread and wine. But I kept asking WHY we believe it.

While I still haven’t gotten the answer I’m looking for, I cannot argue with the evidence presented in the video. Not that I actually doubted, but I wondered.
 
Well, since Jesus said (in John 6:53) that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood we will not have everlasting life, shouldn’t we expect that there is a way for us to do that?

If there is not real presence, then we the promise of heaven will never be realized.
 
BryanM27 said:
For the past couple weeks I’ve been asking the question “why do we as Catholics believe that Christ is truly present in the eucharist?”

I’ve found partial answers in multiple places, mostly with the catch phrase along the lines of “the real presence is beyond human understanding.” Okay, I get that I cannot understand HOW it becomes body and blood from being bread and wine. But I kept asking WHY we believe it.

While I still haven’t gotten the answer I’m looking for, I cannot argue with the evidence presented in the video. Not that I actually doubted, but I wondered.
Click to expand...
If you truly mean why do we believe it, the answer is simple and straightforward – Because Jesus said so and He is God, He is truth.

Or, by your question do you mean something more like "Why did Jesus establish the Eucharist?/“Why does He want to be truly present?” or "Why does the Catholic Church think He decided to be truly present in the Eucharist?
 
To me, there doesn’t seem to be any difference in the question “why do we believe in the real presence” and “why do we believe in God?” Or, why do we believe God actually listens to our prayers. The latter facts are taken for granted. It is a part of the Divine Revelation. Prior to the reformation, for the most part, the real presence was taken for granted in the same way.
 
Aside from the fact that we believe it because it’s the truth, we believe it because God loves us so much that He gives Himself to us as our food to sustain us and to make us holy.
 
For an exhaustive answer I really recommend the book by Robert Sungenis “Not by Bread Alone”; I think it is a high quality work. That said, so I do not get beheaded on this thread, I do not subscribe to some of the ideas he has come up of late.

God bless
 
Because the Incarnation is an eternal reality. Eternity entered the earthly realm in an earthly form. This means Jesus is eternally present body and soul even if He didn’t offer Himself to us in the Eucharist.

Heaven and earth are made one in Christ there is never one without the other in regards of the New Creation. So, wanting to give Himself fully, we recieve Him in that same manner. He is an earthly reality as well as a heavenly reality and to recieve Him fully, as He intends to give Himself, we recieve Him in the Eucharist. As He is, Really Present.
 
Chesster said:
Aside from the fact that we believe it because it’s the truth, we believe it because God loves us so much that He gives Himself to us as our food to sustain us and to make us holy.
Click to expand...
Thank you to everyone who has posted. This one above made the most sense in a very basic way and helped a great deal.
Pax said:
Bryan,

You can read my response by way of a couple of posts on another thread. Here’s the link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6688843#post6688843
Click to expand...
Pax, thanks for the link. This was also very helpful because it gave me the basic scriptural argument that goes along with Chesster’s answer.
 
Why do I believe in the Real Presence?

It was a question I had to answer on my journey into the Catholic Church.

I think when I examined all the claims out there by the different Protestant sects and what the Catholics had to say I saw the Catholics as having the best answer. When I say best answer I don’t mean they had the cleverest comebacks or that they could argue anybody into the ground, I just mean that the Catholic exegesis of passages like John 6 were the most consistent and seemed logical. This interpretation squared up very well what I was reading in writings from the earliest Christians. I could see a line of continuity there that I couldn’t find among the Protestants. Historically it all made the most sense to me.

I have to second another poster’s recommendation of Sungenis’ “Not by Bread Alone.” It’s a heavy duty book that took me two tries to get through, because the first time I wasn’t prepared well enough to grasp it like I needed to. Also, I’d like to recommend Mike Auilina’s “Mass of the Early Christians” book. It’s a compilation of quotes from the Early Church Fathers about their views on the sacrifice of the Mass and the real presence in the Eucharist. I had the opportunity to meet him at a conference and he is a very smart, nice and humble man.

ChadS
 
Exo 29:32 And Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram, and the bread that [is] in the basket, [by] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 33 And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate [and] to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat [thereof], because they [are] holy.
 
BryanM27 said:
For the past couple weeks I’ve been asking the question “why do we as Catholics believe that Christ is truly present in the eucharist?”

I’ve found partial answers in multiple places, mostly with the catch phrase along the lines of “the real presence is beyond human understanding.” Okay, I get that I cannot understand HOW it becomes body and blood from being bread and wine. But I kept asking WHY we believe it.

While I still haven’t gotten the answer I’m looking for, I cannot argue with the evidence presented in the video. Not that I actually doubted, but I wondered.
Click to expand...
We believe it because the Church just happens to be right about it. Scripture et al can be argued endlessly regarding the Real Presence as well as a myriad of other things but Jesus established a Church to show a the way.
 
fhansen said:
We believe it because the Church just happens to be right about it. Scripture et al can be argued endlessly regarding the Real Presence as well as a myriad of other things but Jesus established a Church to show a the way.
Click to expand...
I’ve never understood this argument. I’m not saying the Church is wrong, but I always struggle with taking authority’s word for anything. This goes for any earthly authority. Just because someone says so is not a valid argument.
 
BryanM27 said:
I’ve never understood this argument. I’m not saying the Church is wrong, but I always struggle with taking authority’s word for anything. This goes for any earthly authority. Just because someone says so is not a valid argument.
Click to expand...
It is when it is Christ’s Church speaking with His authority:
Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Matthew 28:18-20
Click to expand...
 
FCEGM said:
It is when it is Christ’s Church speaking with His authority:
Click to expand...
I understand that Christ gave the authority to the Church. But I also know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Church has some of that corruption in her own history. That’s why I don’t take everything said ay face value.

The argument of “because this person said so” is only valid if you can point to where they said it and on what authority they said it. That was my main point.

In this case, the argument can become valid because Jesus is the one who said it, and He received the authority from His Father. We still need that supporting evidence, which Package provided with the link to another thread.
 
BryanM27 said:
I’ve never understood this argument. I’m not saying the Church is wrong, but I always struggle with taking authority’s word for anything. This goes for any earthly authority. Just because someone says so is not a valid argument.
Click to expand...
No, you’re right, trust has to be established over time. Generally speaking converts and reverts nowadays have studied their way to the Church. “To know history is to cease to be Protestant”, etc. Little by little objections are overcome and doctrines are accepted.

If Scripture is considered to be the authority, the reader is actually the authority since he’s also the interpreter whether he recognizes this fact or not (unless, of course, he’s relying on the interpretation of his pastor or denomination or favorite televangelist or particular Christian tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top