The Eucharist - Real Presence or Symbolic?

[EA_Man]

Mickey:

Yes. All of history dating back to the earliest Christians says: “Just believe”! Transubstantiation was defined later in response to certain protestant attacks on “The Real Presence”. As an Eastern Catholic, I hold to the historic Orthodox understading of the “Real” or “True” Presence–and this is in line with Catholic teaching. It is a mystery that is to be “just believed” as the Scriptures indicate. I will not walk away like the disciples.

Jesus says, "This is my body… This is my blood.” Now, on Judgment Day, if I am wrong in taking those words literally, and Jesus rebukes me, “Why did you misunderstand my Supper?” I will be able to answer, “Lord, I was simply taking you at your Word.”

But if Jesus intended those words to be taken literally, and I have taken them figuratively, what will be my answer? All I could say would be, "I trusted my reason more than your words."

I would rather be rebuked for taking Jesus at His word, than for not doing so.

While this scenario is purely hypothetical, it serves to expose what those who question and deny the simple meaning of Jesus’ words are really doing.

Blessings,
Mickey

Again, you’re not taking Jesus “at His word”.

Jesus took the bread saying “This is My body…”

Then He took the cup saying “This is My blood…”

He did not say taking the bread "this is my body, blood, soul, and divinity, then say the same about the wine.

So the question becomes: Should I believe what Jesus said or the RCC?

Peace

 

[mercygate]

EA_Man:

Thanks for you responses - this is about what I expected - no offense.

First, I must accept this de fide.
Second, Jesus said this is my Body, which the RCC has declared to be a literal fulfillment of the literal meaning of Jesus’ words. That’s fair enough, BUT - Jesus also made the following statements, do you interpret these literally as well?

John 8:12: Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I AM the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” Is Jesus a big light?

John 10:9: “I AM the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.” Is Jesus made of wood?

John 15:1: "I AM the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
Is Jesus a plant?

I really shouldn’t answer this now because I have no time – hope to get back to it later.

For starters, “This is my body” is the inverse of “I am the door.” Jesus is not pointing to a door and saying: “this piece of wood is “me” and is the way into the kindom of heaven.” To say “I am the door” is metaphor in a way that “this is my body” is not.

“I am the light . . .” Jesus is God and therefore, indeed, light itself. The light we see in the sun is a metaphor for Christ, not the other way around.

As for the vine passage; if you read that in juxtaposition with John 6, you see what it points to: it is the other half of the symbolon of the Body and Blood. “You have already been pruned”: i.e., those disciples have already left who rejected this “hard thing.” Remember, John 6 is where Judas falls away. The other 11 disciples did not remain because they understood what Jesus meant in John 6; they stayed because they trusted him. They did not understand the words, but they knew that these were “the words of eternal life.” They accepted Jesus’ words *de fide *because they had a close personal relationship with him. (Hm. Sounds like a good Protestant principle to me.) But that relationship was on *his *terms, not their own.

 

[Mickey]

EA_Man:

Again, you’re not taking Jesus “at His word”.

Jesus took the bread saying “This is My body…”

Then He took the cup saying “This is My blood…”

He did not say taking the bread "this is my body, blood, soul, and divinity, then say the same about the wine.

“This is My Body…”

“This** is** My Blood…”

Are you saying that Jesus’ soul and divinity are somehow separated from His Body and Blood. That sounds like the Nestorian heresy!

 

[JimG]

EA_Man:

Actually Dr. Ott said that the “Sacremental Accidents continue without a subject in which to inhere.” So not only do they not inhere in Jesus, as you said. They also do not inhere ANYWHERE. So where has the substance gone to?

That’s correct. The accidents / appearances of the bread and wine reman, but do not inhere in any subject.

The bread is gone. My understanding of the doctrine of transubstantiation is that the entire substance of the bread is transformed into the entire substance of the body and blood of Christ.

We only ‘know’ of the transformation because we have been present at the consecration. We can only perceive the change through faith. An examination of the consecrated host with scientific instruments would tell us nothing about the change.

It’s true that Jesus simply states the doctrine, both in John, and in the words of institution. He doesn’t explain it. It isn’t necessary either for his disciples or us to understand how it happens, only to believe that it does. The explanations of scholastic philosophy are an attempt to understand, but I am sure they do not exhaust the reality of it. The same could be said of such doctrines as the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union of the divine and human natures of Christ. Faith does not require a theological degree as a prerequisite.

 

[mercygate]

JimG:

It’s true that Jesus simply states the doctrine, both in John, and in the words of institution. He doesn’t explain it. It isn’t necessary either for his disciples or us to understand how it happens, only to believe that it does.

Not only unnecessary, but after 2000 years, we are beginning to realize that this side of grace, it is impossible for human intelligence to understand “the words of eternal life.” That’s why we are saved by faith, not by intellect.

 

[EA_Man]

mercygate:

Not only unnecessary, but after 2000 years, we are beginning to realize that this side of grace, it is impossible for human intelligence to understand “the words of eternal life.” That’s why we are saved by faith, not by intellect.

Sure.

Every Protestant I know subscribes to that particular belief.

 

[E.E.N.S]

EA_Man:

Sure.

Every Protestant I know subscribes to that particular belief.

But do they believe in the Real Presence?

 

[EA_Man]

JimG:

That’s correct. The accidents / appearances of the bread and wine reman, but do not inhere in any subject.

The bread is gone. My understanding of the doctrine of transubstantiation is that the entire substance of the bread is transformed into the entire substance of the body and blood of Christ.

We only ‘know’ of the transformation because we have been present at the consecration. We can only perceive the change through faith. An examination of the consecrated host with scientific instruments would tell us nothing about the change.

The only way to perceive the change is through faith?

Then why bother with lengthy explanations from the Magesterium?

Peace

 

[E.E.N.S]

EA_Man:

The only way to perceive the change is through faith?

Then why bother with lengthy explanations from the Magesterium?

Peace

To deepen your faith…you can’t love something/someone that you do not know…it is in an effort to get to know Our Lord better, and an attempt to understand the deeper mysteries of our Faith.

 

[Fergal]

EA_Man:

So the question becomes: Should I believe what Jesus said or the RCC?

Yes. You should believe what Jesus said and what the RCC continues to say. For it is only one statement.

 

[wcknight]

EA_Man:

What extraordinary lengths am I going to here? Asking what happens to the bread? Asking how Jesus could expect those that He was speaking to comprehend an event and miracle that He had yet to perform? Transubstantiation is a Catholic dogma, it is only fair to expect that the proponents of that dogma be able to explain it. I expect an explanation that is commensurate with the degree of certitude evinced by the holder of that belief. There is no lack of certainty that BOTH body and blood are present despite the fact that Jesus said that the bread was His body and the wine His blood. How has the RCC determined that bread and wine are both body and blood?

Apparently the “answer” that you have is “just believe”. I really don’t want to end up in front of Jesus someday saying “Hey, they told to me believe, so I did without questioning.”

If we were supposed to believe without questioning why bother documenting Jesus genealogy or His fulfillment of prophecy in Scripture to begin with?

Bless you too.

We see even in the Gospels that Jesus meant it to be literal. When He first suggested this, some of HIs disciple actually left believing this was a barbaric and insane statement to make.

IF Jesus had meant it to be symbolic, they would not have left. There would have been no reason for them to leave. However Jesus goes on to explain that He meant every word. His Body is true food and His Blood true drink.

Writings from the first century further attests to the fact that the Church early on believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Eucharistic miracles as early as the 700’s makes it perfectly clear that God Himself wants His Chruch to believe in the real presence. That such things happened to priest who did not believe in the real presence, makes the case that much more compelling.

That Eucharistic miracles do NOT happen in protestant services make it that much more convincing that God acknowledges the Catholic Church as His one true Church.

IF you want to go with the real deal, become Catholic. If you want to continue living a lie, stay protestant. It is no secret that the Catholic Church is where miracles abound. It was the case during Christ’s time, and it is still the case today.

wc

 

[Fiat]

EA_Man:

The only way to perceive the change is through faith?

Then why bother with lengthy explanations from the Magesterium?

Peace

If you find the Magesterium’s “lengthy explanations” irksome, then why are you on this thread looking for an explanation in the first place?

Scripture seems clear that salvation is only through the blood of Jesus. We Catholics come in contact with the Blood in some very specific ways, including baptism and communion. Baptism puts us in direct contact with Christ’s death on the cross, where His precious blood flowed (Romans 6:4) and Holy Communion allows us to fulfill Christ’s mandate in John 6 that we consume Him.

How do non-Catholics who deny sacramental forms of grace come into contact with the blood? Do they just imagine they have done so by forming an opinion for themselves or by speaking magical words about accepting Jesus as a personal savior?

In spite of what you may perceive as complex explanations of sacramental truths, I find the mysteries of such much more satisfying than the empty non-Catholic alternatives. It seems to me that non-Catholics who insist that baptism and communion are nothing more than symbols are really just professing a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.

May Mary embrace you
Fiat

 

[sonseeker]

mercygate:

For starters, “This is my body” is the inverse of “I am the door.” Jesus is not pointing to a door and saying: “this piece of wood is “me” and is the way into the kindom of heaven.” To say “I am the door” is metaphor in a way that “this is my body” is not.

What makes a metaphor a metaphor, is any form of the verb “to be.” Such as, “is,” “am,” “are.” A metaphor states, figuratively, “a this, is that,” or “I am that,” or “we are that.” John writes it as he understands it, and as Christ stated it: metaphorically.

“I am the light . . .” Jesus is God and therefore, indeed, light itself. The light we see in the sun is a metaphor for Christ, not the other way around.

That is frightening. The only thing the light from the sun has to do with Christ is its Creator.

 

[Angainor]

viktor aleksndr:

Did Jesus Christ said “this is the symbol of my BODY”?:nope:

Definitely it is not symbolic.

Did Jesus say “I am the symbolic vine and you are the symbolic branches?”

 

[E.E.N.S]

Angainor:

Did Jesus say “I am the symbolic vine and you are the symbolic branches?”

No he didn’t, but they way he said it was different, and the stress put on it was much different as well…and no one had a problem when He said that, as they did when He gave the Bread of Life discourse (remember, thousands of people turned from Jesus at that point never to follow Him again, John 6:66)

 

[JimG]

I think that historicallly, the reason the magisterium gets involved in more detailed explanations of doctrine is because someone mis-states it first, creating a distinction, but one that is heretical. The Church then says, “No, that is not what we have always believed.” But in order to p(name removed by moderator)oint where the heresy went wrong requires a further intellectual refinement of the doctrine.

 

[Mickey]

sonseeker:

What makes a metaphor a metaphor, is any form of the verb “to be.” Such as, “is,” “am,” “are.” A metaphor states, figuratively, “a this, is that,” or “I am that,” or “we are that.” John writes it as he understands it, and as Christ stated it: metaphorically.

Oh no!!! The verbal gymnastics regarding metaphors and metonymies are going to begin again. Help!!! :bigyikes:

John writes it as he understands it, and as Christ stated it: Literally. And we have 2000 years of witnesses who concur.

 

[EA_Man]

wcknight:

We see even in the Gospels that Jesus meant it to be literal. When He first suggested this, some of HIs disciple actually left believing this was a barbaric and insane statement to make.

IF Jesus had meant it to be symbolic, they would not have left. There would have been no reason for them to leave. However Jesus goes on to explain that He meant every word. His Body is true food and His Blood true drink.

Unfortunately, this is not correct. We actually do not know that the people leaving in John 6:66 are leaving for the reason that you cite or for Jesus’ statements in John 6:64-65 or a combination thereof.

Also you have made a mess of the order of events in John 6.
The disciples who leave Jesus, leave in John 6:66. Jesus’ statement that His body is true food and His blood true drink is John 6:55.

It’s nice to know that you have definitive proof of why they left, oh wait no you don’t; you only have your opinion which you have superimposed onto the text…

wcknight:

Writings from the first century further attests to the fact that the Church early on believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Great. And other writings from Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian and others demonstrate that they did not hold to Transubstantiation as taught by the RCC.

wcknight:

Eucharistic miracles as early as the 700’s makes it perfectly clear that God Himself wants His Chruch to believe in the real presence. That such things happened to priest who did not believe in the real presence, makes the case that much more compelling.

That Eucharistic miracles do NOT happen in protestant services make it that much more convincing that God acknowledges the Catholic Church as His one true Church.

I know many Catholics that were TOLD stories about how thieves had broken in to a church to steal hosts from the tabernacle, but they were thwarted in their plans and ran away when the hosts began to bleed.

I’ve also heard the story about how someone had pushed a pin into a host only to observe it bleed as well. Although the name of the church, the burgulars, or an explanation of what someone was doing with a consecrated host and a pin were never given. Surprising.

wcknight:

IF you want to go with the real deal, become Catholic. If you want to continue living a lie, stay protestant. It is no secret that the Catholic Church is where miracles abound. It was the case during Christ’s time, and it is still the case today.

wc

This sounds like Protestants are not saved. Is that your meaning?

Peace

 

[EA_Man]

Fiat:

If you find the Magesterium’s “lengthy explanations” irksome, then why are you on this thread looking for an explanation in the first place?

Scripture seems clear that salvation is only through the blood of Jesus. We Catholics come in contact with the Blood in some very specific ways, including baptism and communion. Baptism puts us in direct contact with Christ’s death on the cross, where His precious blood flowed (Romans 6:4) and Holy Communion allows us to fulfill Christ’s mandate in John 6 that we consume Him.

How do non-Catholics who deny sacramental forms of grace come into contact with the blood? Do they just imagine they have done so by forming an opinion for themselves or by speaking magical words about accepting Jesus as a personal savior?

In spite of what you may perceive as complex explanations of sacramental truths, I find the mysteries of such much more satisfying than the empty non-Catholic alternatives. It seems to me that non-Catholics who insist that baptism and communion are nothing more than symbols are really just professing a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.

May Mary embrace you
Fiat

Yes - the Protestants (Fundamentalists) cannot fathom Mystery approach ala Karl Keating.

Very good.

If you really believe what you are saying, then you should have “nothing to do with them.”

Why are you responding to me then?

Peace

 

[E.E.N.S]

EA_Man:

Great. And other writings from Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian and others demonstrate that they did not hold to Transubstantiation as taught by the RCC.

Really?
Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (*The Instructor of Children *1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (*The Resurrection of the Dead *8 [A.D. 210]).

Origen

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (*Homilies on Numbers *7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (*The Lapsed *15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Ambrose of Milan

“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (*The Mysteries *9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Augustine

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (*Explanations of the Psalms *33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (*Sermons *227 [A.D. 411]).

…

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

Shall I continue…?