The Eucharist: Real Presence or symbol?

[DavidY]

**This is perhaps the mose comical **of ALL of the objections to the Real Presence. God created the universe out of nothing, yet he can’t allow the Real Presence of the glorified Christ to exist in the appearances of bread and wine??
That’s a real knee-slapper . . .

People can’t appear to others after they’ve been dead for centuries but Moses and Elijah did at the Transfiguration . . .

You can’t multiply a few loaves of Bread and fish into literally thousands. Tell that to Jesus, who fed over 5,000 people . . .

It’s impossible for a human being to disappear out of thin air, but Philip did in Acts 8:39 . . .

This is PRECISELY why John 6:63-64 states:
"The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.

What’s comical is that every one of your examples is logically coherent. What you are saying with transubstantiation involves a self-contradiction, things with two substances, Jesus is one physical body yet a million. It’s like positing a square circle.

God is the foundation of truth. Which means He is the foundation of logic.

He can’t both exist and NOT exist. 'But He can do anything, how DARE you question! ’

God cannot sin. ‘But He can do anything how DARE you question!’

God cannot contradict Himself. ’ But He can do anything…and so forth.’

So we now understand that God is the foundation of logic, and logic cannot contradict.

Care to take another look at this issue?

Your position is a humble one, one of piety, and I respect that. But it is not limitation on God to say that He is logical. Do be ‘all powerful’ does not equate to ‘can do anything.’

 

[DavidY]

David,
Christ never said anything about physical substances. He simply said, “This is my body”.
The issue Lutherans have had with Transubstantiation, and consubstantiation for that matter, is the expression of the real presence in these kinds of metaphysical terms, which Christ did not go into. He simply says, “This is my body”. And I believe those words, on the clear expression, and by faith.
John of Damascus is quoted as saying regarding how bread and wine are or become His body and blood, “… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit”.

In many ways, the doctrine of Transubstantiation has the positve effect of expressing in no uncertain terms that, in fact, Christ’s words are true, that the bread and wine ARE His body and blood, not by any means we understand, but by the declaration of His words by the pastor/priest and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Jon

I agree, and I don’t need to understand HOW it is done, necessarily. Just don’t anathemetize me because I don’t think it’s done THAT way. If the RCC would simply broaden their doctrine on this the issue would be resolved, in my mind.

 

[elvisman]

I agree with you, actually. An easy gospel is a false gospel. But do you think we should replace the Mosaic law’s restrictive and binding properties with a new law with the same characteristics?

How many good works have I done, is it enough to get into heaven or must I spend a millions years in purgatory? That’s not ‘good news,’ that’s BAD news.

**The Church didn’t invent these things. Jesus proclaimed that which is necessary for salvation - and that we must endure to the end. **

We’re not replacing anything - he fulfilled the Mosaic Law. BUT - that doesn’t mean that we don’t have to do anything.

As for Purgatory - it is a state, not necessarily a place. We don’t know how long or short it is, the the million-year analogy is moot. C.S. Lews, a non-Catholic believed in Purgatory and said that God’s mercy demands it because Rev. 21:27 tells us that nothing unclean can enter heaven. It is part of price that Jesus paid and part of God’s salvific plan.

 

[JonNC]

=DavidY;7666775]
And many can be resolved when reason is applied to the scriptures.

I think only the Holy Spirit can resolve them. Pope Benedict, last year, made this comment at the Lutheran Church in Rome: *“We must not content ourselves with the successes of ecumenism over recent years, because we still cannot drink from the same chalice or gather together around the same altar. **We must entrust ourselves to the Lord, because He is the only one Who can give us unity. **” * If we rely on human reason, we will all remain in division.

Others (like predestination) matter little to one’s walk with God.

If I lived under the prospect that I was possibly predestined Hell, it would certainly effect my walk.

Jon

 

[elvisman]

What’s comical is that every one of your examples is logically coherent. What you are saying with transubstantiation involves a self-contradiction, things with two substances, Jesus is one physical body yet a million. It’s like positing a square circle.

God is the foundation of truth. Which means He is the foundation of logic.

He can’t both exist and NOT exist. 'But He can do anything, how DARE you question! ’

God cannot sin. ‘But He can do anything how DARE you question!’

God cannot contradict Himself. ’ But He can do anything…and so forth.’

So we now understand that God is the foundation of logic, and logic cannot contradict.

Care to take another look at this issue?

Your position is a humble one, one of piety, and I respect that. But it is not limitation on God to say that He is logical. Do be ‘all powerful’ does not equate to ‘can do anything.’

**And the pricipal of logic is what has lead many people to atheism. **

Don’t be too proud of logic, which is a human trait. God doesn’t operate on pure logic - otherwise, he would have simply let us all die in sin instead of sending his Son to be sacrificed for us. The Bible clearly tells us that God is Love and he is Justice. **
NOWHERE does it say that he is the God of Logic . . .

 

[DavidY]

Not so easy when we hear Jesus talking about killing another person, hate, adultery, and so forth.

Yeah, i have yet to hear the world bother with any protestant congregations, but i hear a lot about the world attacking the holy father and the Catholic Church. so easy to see, yet many choose not to.

I know this is going to offend, but I have to say it.

Perhaps because they see a man wearing beautiful gold-rimmed robes and hat, living in a palace in his own city and being called ‘Holy Father,’ with people weeping at the sight of him and just trying to touch him.

…and Jesus condemned those who loved to be seen of men praying, wearing special robes. He who owned no property and had little money, identified with the poor, wanted all glory to be given to our HEAVENLY Father, and who said ‘call no man Father, except your Father in heaven.’ Could be that, too…

Don’t get me wrong, I think the pope is a good man and loves God, I just think it’s amazing how far we can get after a few thousand years of little changes…year by year.

And I would argue that ‘evangelicals’ are also highly attacked, BTW, though it’s more of a caricature.

 

[DavidY]

And the pricipal of logic is what has lead many people to atheism.

Don’t be too** proud of logic, which is a human trait. God doesn’t operate on pure logic - otherwise, he would have simply let us all die in sin instead of sending his Son to be sacrificed for us. The Bible clearly tells us that God is Love and he is Justice.
NOWHERE does it say that he is the God of Logic . . .

Perhaps, but I use these same principles to debate atheists every day. Most of their arguments really are not logical, more emotional.

I agree, I don’t want to try to constrain God, as if I could, but look at what you said. In order to even communicate a message to people, there has to be a logical underpinning. 'I am love = I am not NOT love."

 

[JonNC]

I agree, and I don’t need to understand HOW it is done, necessarily. Just don’t anathemetize me because I don’t think it’s done THAT way. If the RCC would simply broaden their doctrine on this the issue would be resolved, in my mind.

It might or might not, David. And the question becomes, what would you expect them to broaden their doctrine to include. Rather, coming to convergence on the doctrine can happen only through dialogue, with the help of the Holy Spirit. Again, from the document I quoted above:

48.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.

49.In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

50.The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

51.The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

None of this convergence in the bolded part happens without our common belief in the real and substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. In other words, the common foundation is in the first sentence of paragraph 48.

Jon

 

[elvisman]

Didn’t even look at the link, did you? It’s about orders of monks…Benedictine and so forth. Taken a vow of poverty lately?

Have they taken a vow of Marriage lately? **
**These aren’t differences of belief - they are differences of discipline and vocation. Like I said - read 1 Cor. 12, which tells us that we all have different functions within the Body of Christ.

Are these not divisions? Some have a different set of morays and customs, often more rigid. Perhaps they look at the average Catholic like you look at some of these Protestant denominations…

And many can be resolved when reason is applied to the scriptures. Others (like predestination) matter little to one’s walk with God. Others still (like eschatological understanding) really don’t matter at all with regard to discipleship.

Predestination isn’t essential? * EXCUSE me?? Ask a Calvinist if it is not essential.*

The belief in Calvinist predestination is one of the mose dangerous pseudo-Christian falsehoods ever preached because it asserts a false, anti-Biblical sense of security.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Thread topic please

 

[wisdomseeker]

I have been asking those questions as well, but no one answers them, other than JonNC. They are impossible questions to ask when a Christian makes scripture alone the Christian only authority.

I am trying to make a point here. I hope he gets it.

 

[mskejj]

I highly recommend Dr. Brandt Pitre’s new book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. He has a PHD in New Testament and Ancient Judaism from the University of Notre Dame and uses Jewish’s writing, before, during and after Jesus to show how the Jews practiced their faith at the time of Christ and what they were waiting for…“A New Exodus” and with that “New Exodus” comes a New Moses, New Manna, New Passover, New Covenant AND a New Bread of the Presence.

His chapter on the Bread of Presence or in Hebrew, Bread of the Face…blew me away! We need to look at John 6, Last Supper verses, Matthew 12:1-8 etc through the eyes of 1st century Jews and then we will see why the early Christians and the Early Church Fathers had no trouble seeing that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

GO AND GET THIS BOOK…it is SO worth it…you will be hearing more of him in the future…his work is that good!

 

[joe370]

I am trying to make a point here. I hope he gets it.

Oops, I meant to say impossible questions to answer. I understand the point you are trying to make.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Oops, I meant to say impossible questions to answer. I understand the point you are trying to make.

Well that too.

 

[NA77]

And I ask you if the CC is wrong, who is right? or do you believe that we are all right or all wrong(relativism)? I believe that we have some divergence of teachings, where do we go from here? Jesus said, take it to the Church. which Church do you think we should go to settle this matter?

Hello wisdomseeker,

Well the apostle Paul say, in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Jeremiah 19:13 states: And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Jesus himself states in Matthew 7:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you

Who do we look to? John 16:13 says:
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I think it is clear that the Holy Spirit guides his people into all Truth as we study the Word.

 

[Radical]

I understand, and I agree that either side, as is the case in anything, has the right to support their view in a sound fashion from scripture and in a sound fashion from history.

it is not merely a right that should be recognized, but rather each side should actually recognize that sound arguments exist in opposition to their own views. (obviously not convincing to all, but at least sound).

With that said, leaving ill-informed arrogant assertions out of it for the moment, it seems fair to say, based on your assessment, that Jesus did not leave Christianity with a way to know, with certainty, the truth regarding the Eucharist? Forgetting about who is right and who is wrong for the moment - is that what you believe?

I would like to make your question more precise. First, Christianity is a religion and therefore it doesn’t know things. The USA and IBM also don’t know things…in each case it is the individuals within Christianity, within the USA and within a corporation who actually possess knowledge and certainty. As such, I think your question should be reworded to read: It seems fair to say, based on your assessment, that Jesus did not leave Christians with a way to know, with certainty, the truth regarding the Eucharist?

Second, “certainty” is a subjective and relative thing. I possess certainty that there is no “real bodily presence” and (I expect that) you possess certainty that there is a “real bodily presence”. We both possess certainty b/c our fallible natures allow us to be absolutely certain and wrong at the same time. I suspect that you are contemplating a level of certainty that has absolutely no possibility of error…a perfectly infallible knowledge. I don’t see how that would work even if I adopted your point of view and believed that the CC possesses an infallible teaching authority. In order to arrive at that belief my fallible mind would have to ask and answer the following questions (and more):

a) did God provide his church with an infallible teaching authority?

b) if so, does that infallible teaching authority continue until this day?

c) if so, is that infallible teaching authority found in the CC?

After my fallible mind answered those questions all in the affirmative I could then, like you, claim that I can know with certainty the truth regarding the Eucharist by looking to the infallible teaching authority found in the CC…but if I am to be completely honest, I would have to acknowledge that, at its root, my knowledge is still founded on the conclusion of my fallible mind at (a), (b) and (c) and b/c my mind is ** fallible**, I would have to admit there is a possibility that I erred in answering (a), (b) and (c). If I possibly erred WRT (a), (b) and (c), then I must acknowledge that my certainty regarding the truth of the CC’s Eucharist may also be in error. One can’t achieve a perfectly infallible knowledge and still be human, unless one is also fully God…it ain’t gonna happen for us.

Now you seem extremely uncomfortable with that reality, so allow me to point out that (what you call) the CC suffered exactly from such uncertainty for a good period of time. Suppose you were born in 250 AD and lived a long life of 70 years. Suppose you were a Christian from Jerusalem. During your lifetime, you would never have had perfect certain knowledge WRT things such as 1) what is scripture and what isn’t?; 2) is Jesus a member of a trinitarian Godhead or not?; and 3) does Jesus possess two natures or one? If you had asked your bishop any of those questions, he might have excluded Revelation WRT the first, provided an Arian answer WRT the second and provided a monophysite answer WRT the third. Even if he provided the current Catholic answer WRT all three, you still wouldn’t have perfect certain knowledge b/c bishops err. Until the CC’s infallible teaching authority ruled on the matters in question, one does not achieve perfect certain knowledge (even with your approach and even disregarding the problem with needing to and answer (a)- (c) utilizing a fallible mind). If it is your contention that the Church can’t work properly when its members lack access to infallible teaching WRT the key matters, then it seems that you are saying that the Church couldn’t work properly in the first few centuries…and I wouldn’t agree with you (yet again )

 

[NA77]

Hello (name removed by moderator),

Well, perhaps we must agree to disagree. The catechism does state that Christ offered once His sacrifice, and that sacrifice once and for all, eternally, satisfies the demands of the Law. Why then does the catholic priest re-present the sacrifice in the literal and physcial body and blood of Christ?

 

[elvisman]

Hello wisdomseeker,

Well the apostle Paul say, in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Jeremiah 19:13 states: And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Jesus himself states in Matthew 7:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you

Who do we look to? John 16:13 says:
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I think it is clear that the Holy Spirit guides his people into all Truth as we study the Word.

**I have posted - TWICE - the essential differences Protestants have gleaned from the Scripture. If they are ALL different - who is RIGHT? Can you tell me that? **

WHICH denomination is correct on these essentials where the others are wrong? If this guarantee was given to the Church - which Church was given that guarantee?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hello wisdomseeker,

Well the apostle Paul say, in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Jeremiah 19:13 states: And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Jesus himself states in Matthew 7:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you

Who do we look to? John 16:13 says:
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I think it is clear that the Holy Spirit guides his people into all Truth as we study the Word.

Jesus said, If you have a problem with you brother, take to the Church. If he doesnt listen to the Church, treat him as an anathema. my question is, Which Church should we go to resolve our dissagreements? Jesus built One Church not many churches. so, what is your answer?

I know those passages are in Sacred Scritures. they are teachings of the CC. before your congregation ever existed, the Church has been teaching this for 2000 yrs. so, you are actually kind of late.

 

[pablope]

Hello wisdomseeker,

Well the apostle Paul say, in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Jeremiah 19:13 states: And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Jesus himself states in Matthew 7:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you

Who do we look to? John 16:13 says:
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I think it is clear that the Holy Spirit guides his people into all Truth as we study the Word.

Let me ask you a question first…which do you think came first…the Catholic priests celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or, in particular, the NT?