The Real Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter grasscutter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
david ruiz:
Nevertheless, there is a time and place for everything(debating ,defending ,correcting) ,and may we be all things to all men… I like your point of personal experience ,and your emotional response ,based on spiritual truths.
Click to expand...
So when I had the same “emotional response” shoplifting a toy from a store that I had in Sunday service, was that the “spiritual truth” that what I was doing God’s will?

I could multiply examples of “emotional responses” that I got doing bad things that felt exactly the same as I did as I “felt the Spirit moving in me”.

Sorry, “emotional responses” are not spiritual truths. Much of the time they’re not even moral truths. They’re just human emotions. They’re definitely not “proofs”.

I believe that the Eucharist is Jesus’ body and blood because He says it is. Because I believe that He is God and I believe that He formed and continues to support His Church. Even if I never had any emotional response at all, I would still have to believe in the Eucharist because He said so.

That is faith.
david ruiz:
Sometimes I am moved also ,yes because He loves me and proved it , but also because He set me free from an institutional, dogmatic-error ridden sacrament. to a personal ,one on one,experience of remembrance , with no one between me and Him. No middleman priest, and the entire congregation are equal in participation, and roles, and thanksgiving. No thoughts of transubstantiation,consubstantiation etc.etc. , just thoughts of His sacrifice for us-being still ,and thus knowing Him in truth and spirit .Blessings
Click to expand...
And finally here comes the false dichotomy. You assume several things in your remarks that not only aren’t true, are indicative of modern protestant enlightenment thought.

You assume that Jesus didn’t found an institutional Church, a Church headed by approved men who taught and maintained the Faith. By the sheer fact that you believe in the Bible you implicitly approve of the Church’s institutional authority.

“Dogmatic-error ridden sacrament”? You are, again, begging the question.
You obviously are assigning negative undertones to the word “dogma” because you think you can get traction from it. Words like “dogma”, in such subjectivist circles as those that exist in protestantism, is too hard and harsh of a word.

“Dogma” is succinctly defined as the authoritative interpretation of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition(2 Thes 2:15). Dogma is how we know the truth(John 8:32; 16:13), the Church is how we know dogma(1 Tim 3:15; Heb 13:17).

What is funny is that what you reject the Catholic Church for you in turn follow in adhering to protestantism. Protetsant traditions “dogmas”, doctrines, or practices, principly speaking, are no more or no less Biblical than any Catholic doctrine that you reject.

" to a personal ,one on one,experience of remembrance , with no one between me and Him …"
That statement makes me question if you either were ever really Catholic, or if at least you were even properly taught. No Catholic, if was truly intellectually honest, would make such a statement. I’ve been a protestant, there is nothing in protestantism even close to the intimacy with Christ that is the Eucharist.

"No middleman priest, and the entire congregation are equal in participation, and roles, and thanksgiving. "

Again, sorry, but I’ve been an evangelical protestant. Aside from singing a few hyms after the opening announcements you hear a two-to-sometimes-three-hour-long sermon, interspersed with a maybe four or five verses read from the Bible(always followed by an extensive explaination of what that verse “really means”-or what it means to the pastor reading it).

The congregation sits and listens. That’s not participation.

And its not even close to the participation of congregants in the Mass.

Explain to me how that because the priest has a different role that it is not equal to the role of the people? That’s just protestant polemic.
 
Slinger said:
I prefer to look at the culture of the times back when Jesus was teaching and the context of how this all started referring to bread as his “body” and wine as his “blood”. Food, as you can guess, was very valuable and difficult to come by. Even simple bread was valuable to people to eat. To start everything, Jesus had performed a miracle of feeding the crowd with only a few loaves and fishes. Can you imagine the amazement of the crowd? Creating food for so many with so little? Jesus was, to put it mildly, the star of the crowd! What a perfect opportunity to teach those who were asking for more food after this…those who were physically not satisfied and wanted another miracle. Jesus seized this opportunity to teach in a radical way (Jesus had to be radical, don’t you think? How else would a man attract thousands to hear him speak…awesome!). He knew that telling people that they needed to “consume” him…not literally…in order to have eternal life. It’s not simply eating actual flesh and drinking blood that gets you eternal life but accepting HIM in their life would satisfy them spiritually. Using food, something extremely valuable because of it’s scarcity but something they NEEDED TO LIVE, was the best way to explain this to people who had no concept of salvation because Jesus had not died on the cross yet.

Why did the disciples have to be called back multiple times by Jesus? Because they were shocked! As I said, Jesus was radical with this message and the apostles were probably like rock stars to the crowd before then. From this time, many of his disciples, turned back and no longer wanted to follow him…this was the end of Jesus popularity and it was about to get difficult. Some could not take it. Jesus knew their hearts…the disciples were busted! It was easy to follow him but now they realized it wasn’t going to be to their advantage and it would be difficult. Later, during the last supper, the disciples GOT IT! Following Jesus was not going to be the easy life but if they “consumed” him they would be satisfied in their soul.

Don’t mean to sound preachy but that’s my interpretation! Jesus is so amazing, isn’t He? I wish I could have been so privileged to hear Him speak in person!
Click to expand...
Is it any wonder why religious subjectivism is so pervasive today?

So it is your observation that Jesus, on such an obvious and important issue, was given over to useless metaphors and deceptive language.

Jesus told us what the bread that He was going to give us would be, “the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.”(John 6:52).

In the face of the incredulousness of the Jews He only emphasized and reasserted His words.

So how do you interpret 1 Cor 11:27 in the face of your “interpretation”?
 
The_GreyPilgrim said:
Is it any wonder why religious subjectivism is so pervasive today?

So it is your observation that Jesus, on such an obvious and important issue, was given over to useless metaphors and deceptive language.

Jesus told us what the bread that He was going to give us would be, “the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.”(John 6:52).

In the face of the incredulousness of the Jews He only emphasized and reasserted His words.

So how do you interpret 1 Cor 11:27 in the face of your “interpretation”?
Click to expand...
1 Co 11:27, same thing, different place. It’s too short sided to take it literally…Jesus was wayyyy more deep than that. When he sat with the woman at the well and offered her living water he wasn’t meaning it in the literal sense but meaning himself as “living water” to give her eternal life. Same thing. I do not consider Jesus words “useless metaphors or deceptive”. Jesus was always saying shocking things or doing things that created a stir. Seriously, how do think a man who had no tv/radio/internet, sound system, news media, etc…how did he attract thousands to hear him speak??? He was RADICAL and the news spread like wildfire to hear him speak a truth people had never heard like this before.
 
Slinger said:
I prefer to look at the culture of the times back when Jesus was teaching and the context of how this all started referring to bread as his “body” and wine as his “blood”. Food, as you can guess, was very valuable and difficult to come by. Even simple bread was valuable to people to eat. To start everything, Jesus had performed a miracle of feeding the crowd with only a few loaves and fishes. Can you imagine the amazement of the crowd? Creating food for so many with so little? Jesus was, to put it mildly, the star of the crowd! What a perfect opportunity to teach those who were asking for more food after this…those who were physically not satisfied and wanted another miracle. Jesus seized this opportunity to teach in a radical way (Jesus had to be radical, don’t you think? How else would a man attract thousands to hear him speak…awesome!). He knew that telling people that they needed to “consume” him…not literally…in order to have eternal life. It’s not simply eating actual flesh and drinking blood that gets you eternal life but accepting HIM in their life would satisfy them spiritually. Using food, something extremely valuable because of it’s scarcity but something they NEEDED TO LIVE, was the best way to explain this to people who had no concept of salvation because Jesus had not died on the cross yet.

Why did the disciples have to be called back multiple times by Jesus? Because they were shocked! As I said, Jesus was radical with this message and the apostles were probably like rock stars to the crowd before then. From this time, many of his disciples, turned back and no longer wanted to follow him…this was the end of Jesus popularity and it was about to get difficult. Some could not take it. Jesus knew their hearts…the disciples were busted! It was easy to follow him but now they realized it wasn’t going to be to their advantage and it would be difficult. Later, during the last supper, the disciples GOT IT! Following Jesus was not going to be the easy life but if they “consumed” him they would be satisfied in their soul.

Don’t mean to sound preachy but that’s my interpretation! Jesus is so amazing, isn’t He? I wish I could have been so privileged to hear Him speak in person!
Click to expand...
gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=John+6

35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 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’?” 43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will 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?” 53 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. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread [3] the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus [4] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

continued…
 
continued…

The Words of Eternal Life
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who 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.”

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.

So, how much do you believe of what Jesus said? 36 verses just here to tell you to eat His flesh and drink His blood or you have no life in you.

Tell me, is he nuts, is he a liar? Or is He God?, and He is telling you the Truth.
 
Miriam1947 said:
So, how much do you believe of what Jesus said? 36 verses just here to tell you to eat His flesh and drink His blood or you have no life in you.

Tell me, is he nuts, is he a liar? Or is He God?, and He is telling you the Truth.
Click to expand...
These are all verses that illustrate exactly what I said I believe previously. I don’t take it literally and He didn’t mean it literally. Of course, I understand Catholics DO take it literally. I was just answering the OP’s question. I could not see a spiritual benefit that Jesus would expect if we literally drank his blood and literally ate his flesh. That does not mean a spiritual transformation because it does not feed our soul. But, it was the perfect way during that time to show to people how they are to accept him. It still works today, actually.
 
Slinger said:
I was just answering the OP’s question. .
Click to expand...
You see where you made the mistake? It’s the same mistake I made, you see I too thought the point was to answer the OP’s question but in reality anyone who answers with something that isn’t transubstantiation is going to have the dogs set on them.

Oh and Grey Pilgrim did you ever get around to answering my post from almost a week ago about why you feel it is simply not acceptable for anyone to believe in a real presence without believing in transubstantiation?
 
Miriam1947 said:
So, how much do you believe of what Jesus said? 36 verses just here to tell you to eat His flesh and drink His blood or you have no life in you.

Tell me, is he nuts, is he a liar? Or is He God?, and He is telling you the Truth.
Click to expand...
Was he a liar when He said you would not hunger and thirst no more ,or not die (because of eating His flesh/bread) ?
 
=The GreyPilgrim;8270524Vain disputation comes from those who think that truth comes from what they believe rather than conforming themselves and what they ought to believe to the Truth
Click to expand...
Partly true and it cuts both ways. However ,I prefer to think that some truth is not revealed unless we already believe or will believe(He does not cast His pearls before swine). So it makes your point mute, that I derive truth from what I believe. I suppose we are shown truth and are given the grace to believe it.
But the bottom line is that if someone is blinded by conceitedness or pride, then even in the face of overwhelming proof, that one will still rather believe what he wants rather than be proved that he’s wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes ,may we both have the grace to apply that to ourselves.
God calls us all to be faithful and obedient, He does not call us all to be theologians.
Click to expand...
That quite wasn’t my point .For indeed we are encouraged to give an account for our faith , to have an answer to all men for the hope that is within us.We are called to rightly divide the word and to know all things(John ).We are all priests, .theologians, .witnesses, testifiers, saints, etc.
Its statements like this that make me really wonder about the intellectual honesty of protestantism
Click to expand...
I stated that much of this discussion (RP) began AFTER the persecutions(4th C).I base that on not reading much church writing on transubstantiation before 130 A.D. Have not read much further .People have not quoted volumes say from Tertullian or others before Augustine . I have have seen a ton of stuff from Augustine. Did he write as much about the Eucharist as a handful of earlier fathers put together ? Not sure. But Augustine was AFTER the persecutions.I also heard that there was a big debate around the 900’s and from Aquinas, to a final dogma in the 1200’s. All these came about AFTER the persecutions and two of the latter after the church having fancy churches/buildings and residencies.That is my simple line of "intellectual thought .I am NOT saying the eucharist is not mentioned before 325.It is but not in great depth or volume as afterwards. I am willing to be honest to any new info you have of more writings before 325. Was I wrong in saying more was written on the subject after the persecutions ? QUOTE]you’ll ignore the volumes written before 313 Sorry if this is true ,not sure they have been quoted on this site .I have seen a lot of Augustine.
Explain to me how it is even close to analogous to compare David, an OT Jewish king living under the perscription of the Law(Acts 15:10), to Christ’s Church(Eph 1:22-23; 1 Tim 3:15).
Click to expand...
Are you sure you want to go deeper ,comparing the first three hundred years of Papal history ,and say any three hundred years after 1000 A.D,as far as holiness purity,attitude of servanthood etc .? I don’t know .I said there was "SOME’ similarity. Do you at least acknowledge David’s “fatness” and sin in the palace,compared to his early years.It is not a far stretch to say some popes had similar temptations and falls.
The corollary being that true dogma only comes from people like you?
Click to expand...
True dogma is given by grace ,not because we deserve it, or of a church system. Having said that, being in the flesh , being involved in worldly things may impede or make our vision of the truth cloudy.That is both true for one’s personal walk and for a corporate body of believers (Body of Christ).
Never mind those whom the Holy Spirit appoints above us to be our shepherds in the Church,] its the people who decide what is to be believed(
Click to expand...
You dichotomize to avoid the truth. I’ve done the same at times.That is exactly what the Pharisees accused the followers of Jesus .They went against (so they thought -dichotomized) the shepherds, teachers,interpreters of the of the Jewish Promise. Did Peter get his illumination from the Saduccees ,or the Pharisees,the Sanhedrin, the written word (Torah), or the Talmud ( Jewish “father” writings)/Traditions ? Tell me, how does the Mother Church, even Jesus, say Peter received illumination to whom Jesus was (the most important thing to know ,hence the method of enlightenment is most crucial to learn from ,even dogmatize) ???
 
@ david ruiz
It was quite a religious,catholic experience for me (even while I was NOT born again).
Click to expand...
So you were not baptized as a Catholic? Because if you were then you were BORN AGAIN in your baptism into Christ.

Sounds like some pretty poor catechesis in your life if you would give up the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I would never give up the Eucharist. I am a convert to the Church and it astounds me when cradle Catholics give up the Sacraments they received through Christ who built His Church on St. Peter.

What a shame.
 
Miriam1947 said:
@ david ruiz

So you were not baptized as a Catholic? Because if you were then you were BORN AGAIN in your baptism into Christ.

Sounds like some pretty poor catechesis in your life if you would give up the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I would never give up the Eucharist. I am a convert to the Church and it astounds me when cradle Catholics give up the Sacraments they received through Christ who built His Church on St. Peter.

What a shame.
Click to expand...
Because it is called spiritual pride: Because I KNOW BETTER than Jesus’ Church.

Protestanism founding root started with…ME! WhatI SAY! What I FEEL!

Protestanism foundation = self-centered,not Christ-centered.
 
Miriam1947 said:
@ david ruiz

Sounds like some pretty poor catechesis in your life if you would give up the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I would never give up the Eucharist. I am a convert to the Church and it astounds me when cradle Catholics give up the Sacraments they received through Christ who built His Church on St. Peter.

What a shame]
Click to expand...
That’s what the Pharisees said about their new sect,the followers of Jesus. Being Jewish was (is) a big , big deal with many wonderful traditions and feasts and rites.They just couldn’t imagine anything better. But I understand.Catholicicsm is very religiosly rich ,very atractive,and deep in history. But I dare say so is Bhuddhism and Islam, and other well entrenched religions of this world . It would take a miracle to see anything truer.Back to the Jews,they didnot understand that Jewish Christians did not really give anything up ,rather found the fullfillment of their heritage.
 
Nicea325 said:
Yes…tell me. What was he referring to?
Click to expand...
Yes what ,are you agreeing Jesus was speaking in spiritual terms , which Catholics refer to protestants as meaning figurative,of the spiritual world ? Again He said if you eat the bread you will not hunger ,thirst or die, You say it is real Bread/Flesh but figurative/spiritual hunger /thirst ,death ? So half His statement is literal and half figurative ? That is o.k. for you , just trying to make sense of it
 
david_ruiz said:
Yes what ,are you agreeing Jesus was speaking in spiritual terms , which Catholics refer to protestants as meaning figurative,of the spiritual world ? Again He said if you eat the bread you will not hunger ,thirst or die, You say it is real Bread/Flesh but figurative/spiritual hunger /thirst ,death ? So half His statement is literal and half figurative ? That is o.k. for you , just trying to make sense of it
Click to expand...
Ahhhhh…no! That is a Protestant position,wishy-washy and inconsistent. Show me the CC documents showing that Catholics believe Jesus statement is half literal and half figurative?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top