The Real Presence...?

[aubreyL]

If it is true that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist-body, blood, soul, and divinity- then why in Matt. 26:29, after blessing the wine, did Jesus continue to call it ‘fruit of the vine’ , instead of calling it his blood?

Also, if God doesn’t contradict Himself, why would He command His people not to partake of blood in the Old Testament and then command them to in the New Testament?

Also, how can Jesus be truly present(more than His Spirit) in the Eucharist if the Bible says after going back into heaven He was seated at the Right Hand of God and will come back to judge the living and the dead?

And…if taking the Eucharist was ‘neccessary for salvation’ than why did the writers of the New Testament not include it when they said what we had to do to be saved?

I would really appreciate some answers. Thanks so much.

 

[davidv]

If it is true that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist-body, blood, soul, and divinity- then why in Matt. 26:29, after blessing the wine, did Jesus continue to call it ‘fruit of the vine’ , instead of calling it his blood?

Could it be that His audience couldn’t handle that language?

Also, if God doesn’t contradict Himself, why would He command His people not to partake of blood in the Old Testament and then command them to in the New Testament?

Because the blood of the OT had no life in it. Christ’s blood in the Eucharist is life.

Also, how can Jesus be truly present(more than His Spirit) in the Eucharist if the Bible says after going back into heaven He was seated at the Right Hand of God and will come back to judge the living and the dead?

Because He is God.

And…if taking the Eucharist was ‘neccessary for salvation’ than why did the writers of the New Testament not include it when they said what we had to do to be saved?

I would really appreciate some answers. Thanks so much.

The writers did say it was necessary. See John 6.

 

[maximus]

This is a huge topic, if you wish to go into great depths. I recommend reading “Not by Bread Alone” by Robert Sungenis.

amazon.com/Not-Bread-Alone-Robert-Sungenis/dp/1579181244

Also, from B16

amazon.com/God-Near-Us-Eucharist-Heart/dp/0898709628/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226426364&sr=1-4

God bless,

 

[VociMike]

If it is true that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist-body, blood, soul, and divinity- then why in Matt. 26:29, after blessing the wine, did Jesus continue to call it ‘fruit of the vine’ , instead of calling it his blood?

Christ referred to himself as the vine.

Also, if God doesn’t contradict Himself, why would He command His people not to partake of blood in the Old Testament and then command them to in the New Testament?

By this logic we should still be obeying all Jewish law. Besides, what God commanded in the OT was to avoid the blood of creatures. God said nothing about the blood of the Creator.

Also, how can Jesus be truly present(more than His Spirit) in the Eucharist if the Bible says after going back into heaven He was seated at the Right Hand of God and will come back to judge the living and the dead?

Because with God all things are possible.

And…if taking the Eucharist was ‘neccessary for salvation’ than why did the writers of the New Testament not include it when they said what we had to do to be saved?

It’s written down in scripture. What more were they supposed to do? Anyway, they gave many different answers to that question.

 

[japhy]

If it is true that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist-body, blood, soul, and divinity- then why in Matt. 26:29, after blessing the wine, did Jesus continue to call it ‘fruit of the vine’ , instead of calling it his blood?

Perhaps because that’s what it looks like; perhaps because he was using the phrase in a spiritual context (note that he calls himself “the vine” in John 15), since it seems rather carnal to assume there will be literal drinking of literal wine in Heaven.

Also, if God doesn’t contradict Himself, why would He command His people not to partake of blood in the Old Testament and then command them to in the New Testament?

Because the drinking of blood was a practice of many surrounding pagan nations; these pagans thought they gained power through drinking the blood of animals or of their enemies, but these were false beliefs. God was preventing them from polluting their minds with false notions of blood-drinking. The only blood which is salvific is the blood of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Here is another way of looking at it. We are not supposed to have sexual relations until marriage. This is not because sexual relations are bad in and of themselves, but because they are only appropriate in the context of marriage.

Also, how can Jesus be truly present (more than His Spirit) in the Eucharist if the Bible says after going back into heaven He was seated at the Right Hand of God and will come back to judge the living and the dead?

His presence in the Eucharist is an “enduring” or “abiding” presence more than a “returning” presence. It is his sacramental (although most assuredly real) presence, not a “bodily” presence.

St. Paul might have seen Christ bodily after the Ascension (not sure). St. John probably saw Christ bodily after the Ascension (in Revelation).

if taking the Eucharist was ‘neccessary for salvation’ than why did the writers of the New Testament not include it when they said what we had to do to be saved?

St. John did (see John 6). It might even be referred to in Rev. 2:17. Anyway, we don’t necessarily have a record in Scripture of all the things the Apostles taught.

Hang in there, Aubrey! The Church Fathers weren’t making this stuff up!

 

[LilyM]

By this logic we should still be obeying all Jewish law. Besides, what God commanded in the OT was to avoid the blood of creatures. God said nothing about the blood of the Creator.

Exactly, one and the same God who in Leviticus commanded the Jews not to eat the flesh of unclean animals is the same one who commanded Peter to ‘rise, kill and eat’ those very same animals. And He give us the clue as to how it is possible - ‘what I have called clean, you shall not call unclean’. Simply put, God is permitted to change the way He does things.

As for how Christ can be present on Earth and in Heaven - firstly because, as has been pointed out, He is indeed God and omnipresent. Secondly we know it is so because He promised to be with US always.

Or are you subscribing to medieval ideas of God being ‘in his heaven’ when Jesus has told us where the Kingdom of God is - ‘WITHIN you’, ie not in a specific physical location.

It’s written down in scripture. What more were they supposed to do? Anyway, they gave many different answers to that question.

Amen! What part of
a) ‘unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you shall not have life within you’,
b) ‘take and eat, THIS [consecrated bread] is my body … take and drink, THIS [consecrated wine] is my blood’ and
c) ‘do THIS [eat and drink] in remembrance of me’

is either less than crystal clear or unscriptural in your opinion?

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

If it is true that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist-body, blood, soul, and divinity- then why in Matt. 26:29, after blessing the wine, did Jesus continue to call it ‘fruit of the vine’ , instead of calling it his blood?

Most translations have “My Blood”, it is only the following verse that has “fruit of the vine”, or “produce of the vine”.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (KJV)
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. (Dhouay Rheims)

Including the Literal translations:

Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the New Covenant which concerning many is being poured out for remission of sins. (LITV)
Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out–to remission of sins; (YLT)

The NAB also has “My Blood”. It’s only in the ‘sanitized’ translations such as NIV, and ISV that it is translated differently.

The same is true in the rest of the Gospels.

Also, if God doesn’t contradict Himself, why would He command His people not to partake of blood in the Old Testament and then command them to in the New Testament?

Because the blood is life.

Lev 17:14 For the life of all flesh is in the blood. Therefore I said to the children of Israel: you shall not eat the blood of any flesh at all, because the life of the flesh is in the blood, and whosoever eateth it, shall be cut off.
Deu 12:23 Only beware of this, that thou eat not the blood, for the blood is for the soul: and therefore thou must not eat the soul with the flesh:

Blood was to be used upon the Altar, in the foreshadowing of Christ:

Lev 17:11 Because the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul.
Deu 12:27 And shalt offer thy oblations, the flesh and the blood upon the altar of the Lord thy God: the blood of thy victims thou shalt pour on the altar: and the flesh thou thyself shalt eat.

Also, how can Jesus be truly present(more than His Spirit) in the Eucharist if the Bible says after going back into heaven He was seated at the Right Hand of God and will come back to judge the living and the dead?

And…if taking the Eucharist was ‘neccessary for salvation’ than why did the writers of the New Testament not include it when they said what we had to do to be saved?

Jesus spoke of the Importance of the Eucharist - and exactly what it is - as well as Paul. See above and:

.
Joh 6:48 I am the bread of life.
Joh 6:49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness and died.
Joh 6:50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that a person may eat it and not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread, he will live forever. And the bread I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
Joh 6:52 Then the Jews debated angrily with each other, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

These people knew exactly what Jesus meant - yet He didn’t correct them, but rather repeated Himself:

Joh 6:53 So Jesus told them, “Truly, truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves.
Joh 6:54 The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him to life on the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink.
Joh 6:56 The person who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will also live because of me.
Joh 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not the kind that your ancestors ate. They died, but the one who eats this bread will live forever.”

For Paul:

1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you-how the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took a loaf of bread,
1Co 11:24 gave thanks for it, and broke it in pieces, saying, “This is my body that is for you. Keep doing this in memory of me.”
1Co 11:25 He did the same with the cup after the supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. As often as you drink from it, keep doing this in memory of me.”
1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
1Co 11:27 **Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks from the cup in an unworthy manner will be held responsible for the Lord’s body and blood. **
1Co 11:28 A person must examine himself and then eat the bread and drink from the cup.
1Co 11:29 For the one who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
1Co 11:30

(From the ISV for ease of reading, remember the ‘sanitation’ of later translations)

How could Paul have stated this, and more importantly the Holy Spirit have directed the writing of this - unless it were True?
Why would people die for not recognizing the Real Presence, if it were NOT the Real Presence?

Peace

John

 

[aubreyL]

Thanks for the answers. They made sense. I actually gave some of the same answers to my parents last night. They do not agree w/ me on joining the Catholic Church at ALL. They brought up the questions I asked in a discussion and my answers didn’t satisfy them so…idk.

Thanks for the encouragement japhy!

 

[Pax]

Thanks for the answers. They made sense. I actually gave some of the same answers to my parents last night. They do not agree w/ me on joining the Catholic Church at ALL. They brought up the questions I asked in a discussion and my answers didn’t satisfy them so…idk.

Thanks for the encouragement japhy!

I will pray for you and your parents.