The Real Presence

[pablope]

I have thank -you. It still makes it interesting to think why not more authors and books/letters were "chosen, and why they thought it apparently wise to stick close to the apostles writings only.

As I told you, it was to to have a standard set of writings to be read during liturgical services.

The Bible was never intended to be a source of doctrine.

Yes it was.

If you do not believe, then provide proof, David, that it was intended to be a source of doctrine. Provide the chapter and verse to prove your statement.

 

[CopticChristian]

Nicea325;8313480:

How did the Holy spirit tell the Dominicans one thing ,and the Augustinians another , dealing with some very important Mary doctrine ? Why did one pope say baptism is not effectual ,and another it was ? Why did some say they knew and wrote how Mary died, and Ambrose (maybe Jerome,I forget) says “Of her end no one knows” .Why does one pope condemn such books, and another proclaim some of their ideas dogma ?You could say they were still all united under Catholicism , correctly so .Well, I could also say Luther and Calvin were united under “the Reformation” or “Protestantism” . Isn’t that correct ? So now instead of two “segments” of Christ’s body (Catholicism and Orthodoxy ) you have a third , Protestant…And yet are we not all under Christ ?

Under Christ by Baptism, set apart in some mysterious way by doctrine, denominating from the fullness of faith.

Truly infused with grace, Faith, Hope and Charity by Baptism, Justified at Baptism. We accept and believe this. Many set apart deny this and other truths.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That is a big gap ,to go from ot and other stuff you mentioned to RP.Is lev 16 about RP ? I’d have to read it.
See, they didn’t believe in RP and hence didn’t participate .NO ! They didn’t participate (were they even baptized ,who was he talking to? ) because they didn’t believe he came in the flesh and suffered and died, if I recall correctly. It was not an RP issue (aside from “unity” or symbol of our full faith).It may have been the same issue as John 6 ,that their Messiah was NOT going to reign immediately (and give them bread ,kick out romans) but instead had to die AND Ascend as in “bye-bye now”-they didn’t believe or understand that- just like those addressed by Ignatius.

You are just rushing to type a response with total disregard for what is stated. Do you realize had the Jews accepted Christ the Cross would not have taken place? The Jews rejected Christ thus plan B was the Gentiles. All St Pauls greetings start with GRACE and PEACE be with you. Those are correct greetings for the converted Jews and Greeks/pagans. Here we see the new theology of Christ after the Jews rejection. We don’t know when the actual shift in thinking occurs from the Bible. But its does take place.

What I am talking about is the High Priesthood for the OT to the NT. The abolishing of the old law. Christ was of the OT, He fulfilled many of the Prophets prophecy. He existed from the begining, not at the Annunciation. He abolished Animal Sacrifice with His own Body and Blood which was REAL. He maintained the High Priesthood, passed it to His disciples since this was His birthright and of GOD, and then given to the Apostles students. No-one else has this, its Apostolic Succession, and its Biblical from OT/NT.

St Ignatius of Antioch

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

The difference in the above statement is the “heterodox” and the “US.” The us is the Catholic Church and those who not only believed in the RP, but taught it, and wrote it, and received it from Christ, and the OT confirms the teachings with the only replacement being Animal Sacrifice to Christ, and those were the Apostles who received the High Priesthood/Instruction, which Christ did have and was able to give to those ordained by the Apostles such as St Ignatius of Antioch:shrug: And its dates to the death of Christ.

Let me put this to you in another way since I also mentioned Pesch above: “So far its not been possible to come up with any convincing alternative explaination of the Last Supper tradition. Jesus interpretation of the bread presuppose’s the particular meaning of his person. The disciples could understand that he was saying: THIS IS I MYSELF, THE MESSIAH!” [Markusevangelium II pg. 357] And that David is the Breaking of the Bread referred to as the “I” or RP.

This is not an additional sector of Christianity alongside of worship. It is rooted in OT/NT and forms an intrinsic part of it. The vertical and horizontal axis cannot be seperated in the RP.

You asked for a 100-AD teaching from a ECF expecting one not to exist, then when its supplied, you propose a laughable response? As is your incorrect thinking of Protestants existing before the reformation.

Where is your proof of the RP not existing? Its certainly isn’t Biblical nor is it the ECF and the early Church. So its Luther?

However the RP existing in Bible in History with the ECF is all fact, which has not only been laid out for you, but for anyone who reads the thread which “is” the real concern.

The only aspect you have supplied to counter the arguement is Luther?

Peace

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Very easy to answer David,please answer the following:

And show me one explaining the that you need a NT canon, a one volume Bible with 66/73 books containing both the OT/NT before 130 A.D.? Why do you adhere to a 27 NT canon -David?

Let’s stick to the topic.Your question deserves better train of thought that I can provide, AGAIN ,to that question

It is sticking to the topic. The fact that you fail to acknowledge the similarities and refusal to answer says a lot. Most Protestants usually refuse to answer and for obvious reasons.

So David,if you are claiming their is a lack of evidence discussing the RP before 130 A.D.thus making it false;thus, I am curious to now why you adhere to a canonized Bible?

Please tell me WHO discusses a canonized one volume Bible containing 66/73 books before 130 A.D.? Did Jesus discuss the canon of scripture? St.Paul? So why do you even adhere to it?

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;8313480:

How did the Holy spirit tell the Dominicans one thing ,and the Augustinians another , dealing with some very important Mary doctrine ? Why did one pope say baptism is not effectual ,and another it was ? Why did some say they knew and wrote how Mary died, and Ambrose (maybe Jerome,I forget) says “Of her end no one knows” .Why does one pope condemn such books, and another proclaim some of their ideas dogma ?You could say they were still all united under Catholicism , correctly so .Well, I could also say Luther and Calvin were united under “the Reformation” or “Protestantism” . Isn’t that correct ? So now instead of two “segments” of Christ’s body (Catholicism and Orthodoxy ) you have a third , Protestant…And yet are we not all under Christ ?

Nope! Nice try David,now you are truly being the very typical Protestant trying to justify the thousands of dvisions and teachings. There is a big and vast difference between Catholic monks from different orders and the early reformers. This is one weak argument that many Protestants constantly try to use to justfiy Protestanism and its vasy array of flavors.

 

[CopticChristian]

You are just rushing to type a response with total disregard for what is stated. Do you realize had the Jews accepted Christ the Cross would not have taken place? The Jews rejected Christ thus plan B was the Gentiles. All St Pauls greetings start with GRACE and PEACE be with you. Those are correct greetings for the converted Jews and Greeks/pagans. Here we see the new theology of Christ after the Jews rejection. We don’t know when the actual shift in thinking occurs from the Bible. But its does take place.

What I am talking about is the High Priesthood for the OT to the NT. The abolishing of the old law. Christ was of the OT, He fulfilled many of the Prophets prophecy. He existed from the begining, not at the Annunciation. He abolished Animal Sacrifice with His own Body and Blood which was REAL. He maintained the High Priesthood, passed it to His disciples since this was His birthright and of GOD, and then given to the Apostles students. No-one else has this, its Apostolic Succession, and its Biblical from OT/NT.

St Ignatius of Antioch

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

The difference in the above statement is the “heterodox” and the “US.” The us is the Catholic Church and those who not only believed in the RP, but taught it, and wrote it, and received it from Christ, and the OT confirms the teachings with the only replacement being Animal Sacrifice to Christ, and those were the Apostles who received the High Priesthood/Instruction, which Christ did have and was able to give to those ordained by the Apostles such as St Ignatius of Antioch:shrug: And its dates to the death of Christ.

Let me put this to you in another way since I also mentioned Pesch above: “So far its not been possible to come up with any convincing alternative explaination of the Last Supper tradition. Jesus interpretation of the bread presuppose’s the particular meaning of his person. The disciples could understand that he was saying: THIS IS I MYSELF, THE MESSIAH!” [Markusevangelium II pg. 357] And that David is the Breaking of the Bread referred to as the “I” or RP.

This is not an additional sector of Christianity alongside of worship. It is rooted in OT/NT and forms an intrinsic part of it. The vertical and horizontal axis cannot be seperated in the RP.

You asked for a 100-AD teaching from a ECF expecting one not to exist, then when its supplied, you propose a laughable response? As is your incorrect thinking of Protestants existing before the reformation.

Where is your proof of the RP not existing? Its certainly isn’t Biblical nor is it the ECF and the early Church. So its Luther?

However the RP existing in Bible in History with the ECF is all fact, which has not only been laid out for you, but for anyone who reads the thread which “is” the real concern.

The only aspect you have supplied to counter the arguement is Luther?

Peace

I was listening to Catholic radio today and heard on the coming home radio show a fellow who was a Sunday School teacher, plays guitar, did not get his name. The point of this is though after discussing John 6, what really got him turned around he said was when he studied the early liturgy of the Church.

Today any person can walk into a Church and ask, may I join in communion. Only in the Catholic Church will there be questions, I believe.

In the early Church this gentleman said that at the completion of the liturgy of the word, the catechumens left.

Focusing on what was meant in writing is OK, perhaps a look at what was done in practice might be fruitful as well.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I was listening to Catholic radio today and heard on the coming home radio show a fellow who was a Sunday School teacher, plays guitar, did not get his name. The point of this is though after discussing John 6, what really got him turned around he said was when he studied the early liturgy of the Church.

Today any person can walk into a Church and ask, may I join in communion. Only in the Catholic Church will there be questions, I believe.

In the early Church this gentleman said that at the completion of the liturgy of the word, the catechumens left.

Focusing on what was meant in writing is OK, perhaps a look at what was done in practice might be fruitful as well.

Your preaching to the choir my brother. If you only knew how many children from dysfunctional familys I tried to take to Baptism? Its a good thing the CC accepts Baptism from other Christian Faiths. Yes their are some fundemental issues we shall all work through together. When we all walk together. we’ll figure this out.

Peace

 

[benedictus2]

Noooooh.Just said that I have only read up to about 130 A.D. and some Augustine .That’s all folks.

I knew you wouldn’t be able to support your claim.

It’s always been like that with you.

 

[benedictus2]

Actually ,John 6 would be my foundation for symbolic (like the apostles), as it is for you literal (like the unbelievers that left.)

Actually the unbelievers left because they knew it was literal and they were disgusted. Did Christ stop them to explain?

If you read John 6 - Christ re-iterates the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood about 5 times to make sure that the listeners get it alright.

At the first mention there was already murmuring among His disciples. But instead of softening His language He hardens it. He makes it even more unpalatable. Here’s the chance to say “I mean this symbolically” but instead, 4 times He hammers it, with the words becoming more graphic.

Mind you these are His disciples not just on-lookers These are people who would have seen him perform miracles, heard him speak so they know when He was being symbolic and when He was being literal. So they knew He meant exactly what they thought He meant. So they left.

Did He stop them? No. Did He explain that it was symbolic? No. All He had to do was explain that He was speaking figuratively and He didn’t.

The apostles felt exactly the same as those who left. And notice, He did not even explain it to the apostles even. All He said is “Will you leave too?”. Fr Barron refers to that as the most plaintive verse in the Gospel. Here is God asking His disciples would they leave too because of what He has said.

The apostles did not know what to say and even Peter’s answer was more an affirmation of faith in Him rather than a comprehension of how this is to happen.

Those who remained with the apostles are the ones who continued the practice of the Eucharist. Those who separated from the apostles (1500 years later) are the ones who like the other disciples, walked away because they didn’t understand it and could not accept Jesus words in faith.

So yes, you are the one who walked away from Jesus at the point when He was promising the greatest gift He will give His followers.

But you know what, I don’t think you will even bother to read that thoroughly to absorb it, becuase at the end of the day, you are not really interested in the truth.

 

[benedictus2]

Show me one that shows transubstantiation , that you need a priest, that it is behind a veil or tabernacle or in gold ,that it is adored, worshiped, indeed that is an offering (re-presenting), that you had to fast, before 130 A.D.

What has that got to do with anything?

You are staying to pull at straws now aren’t you? Unable to prove your claim that for the first 100 years the Church did not believe in the real presence you now go down this tangent.

That is a sure sign of one who has run out of good arguments.

 

[Radical]

Actually **the unbelievers left because they knew it was literal **and they were disgusted. Did Christ stop them to explain?

If you read John 6 - Christ re-iterates the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood about 5 times to make sure that the listeners get it alright.

At the first mention there was already murmuring among His disciples. But instead of softening His language He hardens it. He makes it even more unpalatable. **Here’s the chance to say “I mean this symbolically” but instead, 4 times **He hammers it, with the words becoming more graphic.

IMHO this (what I have emboldened) is one of the greatest misconceptions concerning what happened that day. It appears to occur b/c modern Catholics (around here) simply do not take into account the perspective of that first century Jewish audience. There is no need for Christ to explain that he was speaking figuratively b/c there would have been only three ways that the Jewish audience could have understood him on that day:

a) they could have thought that he was speaking literally (which would have been cannibalism and not transubstantive eating)…but I doubt many, if any, would have held that understanding b/c it would mean that Christ was saying that they must kill and eat him (that would have been understood as being too improbable to actually be his meaning)

b) they could have thought that his words were extremely offensive nonsense (this would be the position of those who left)

c) they could have thought that he was speaking figuratively (using an extremely offensive figure), but nevertheless believed that his words contained truth b/c he was the Son of God (this would have been the position of Peter et al)

What option wasn’t even on the table to consider that day was that he was talking about some miraculous manner of eating that allowed one to consume a whole body in one bite w/o teeth ever touching flesh, bone or hair. These were first century Jews. They were absolutely unaware that the Last Supper would be held some time in the future. They were absolutely unaware that a transubstantial mode of existence was even possible. It is not as if the proverbial light would pop on with this sort of epiphany: “Oh now I get it…you know if he had only said it once or twice I would have missed his meaning, but since he said it four or five times and used graphic words, it has become clear as day. Obviously, he is talking about a requirement that we actually eat his flesh, but we will do so by way of a miraculous presence whereby his flesh is really present, but not materially present…You know, ten minutes ago such a thing hadn’t even entered my consciousness as a possiblility ( it was right up there with nuclear weaponry, which I haven’t envisioned yet either), but now it is plain as day! Undoubtedly, he’ll introduce a ritual where we are to do that fantastic eating. Now of course, when he said “flesh” he didn’t really mean flesh, b/c we are actually supposed to eat all of him and not just his flesh…we are to eat his whole body (well technically, it wouldn’t just be his body either, b/c that wouldn’t include his head, and he means that we are to eat him fully and not just partially). Oh my, that is disgusting. That is a hard requirement…I’m leaving.” Nothing like that came close to happening. No Jew that day even began to contemplate the type of eating that Catholics believes happens at their Eucharist. If the Catholic understanding was Christ’s meaning, then that is the explanation that is missing and yet, was vitally necessary. What Christ didn’t explain that day was what his figure of speech meant…but his failure to do that didn’t result in the loss of anyone that the Father had given to him.

Likewise at the last supper, there was no need to explain that he was speaking symbolically. That is the only way the disciples could have understood him. They could see that nothing had changed with the bread…it was still bread. That the bread had also become his body is something that would not have occured to them…no more so than when he said that any one who did his Father’s will was his mother etc. No one in that audience would have thought, “Hey, if I do God’s will the substance of my body will be transformed into the substance of Mary’s body.” If in fact Christ had actually been talking about the bread really changing into his body, then that is the explanation that is both missing and vital.

 

[CopticChristian]

IMHO this (what I have emboldened) is one of the greatest misconceptions concerning what happened that day. It appears to occur b/c modern Catholics (around here) simply do not take into account the perspective of that first century Jewish audience. There is no need for Christ to explain that he was speaking figuratively b/c there would have been only three ways that the Jewish audience could have understood him on that day:

a) they could have thought that he was speaking literally (which would have been cannibalism and not transubstantive eating)…but I doubt many, if any, would have held that understanding b/c it would mean that Christ was saying that they must kill and eat him (that would have been understood as being too improbable to actually be his meaning)

b) they could have thought that his words were extremely offensive nonsense (this would be the position of those who left)

c) they could have thought that he was speaking figuratively (using an extremely offensive figure), but nevertheless believed that his words contained truth b/c he was the Son of God (this would have been the position of Peter et al)

What option wasn’t even on the table to consider that day was that he was talking about some miraculous manner of eating that allowed one to consume a whole body in one bite w/o teeth ever touching flesh, bone or hair. These were first century Jews. They were absolutely unaware that the Last Supper would be held some time in the future. They were absolutely unaware that a transubstantial mode of existence was even possible. It is not as if the proverbial light would pop on with this sort of epiphany: “Oh now I get it…you know if he had only said it once or twice I would have missed his meaning, but since he said it four or five times and used graphic words, it has become clear as day. Obviously, he is talking about a requirement that we actually eat his flesh, but we will do so by way of a miraculous presence whereby his flesh is really present, but not materially present…You know, ten minutes ago such a thing hadn’t even entered my consciousness as a possiblility ( it was right up there with nuclear weaponry, which I haven’t envisioned yet either), but now it is plain as day! Undoubtedly, he’ll introduce a ritual where we are to do that fantastic eating. Now of course, when he said “flesh” he didn’t really mean flesh, b/c we are actually supposed to eat all of him and not just his flesh…we are to eat his whole body (well technically, it wouldn’t just be his body either, b/c that wouldn’t include his head, and he means that we are to eat him fully and not just partially). Oh my, that is disgusting. That is a hard requirement…I’m leaving.” Nothing like that came close to happening. No Jew that day even began to contemplate the type of eating that Catholics believes happens at their Eucharist. If the Catholic understanding was Christ’s meaning, then that is the explanation that is missing and yet, was vitally necessary. What Christ didn’t explain that day was what his figure of speech meant…but his failure to do that didn’t result in the loss of anyone that the Father had given to him.

Likewise at the last supper, there was no need to explain that he was speaking symbolically. That is the only way the disciples could have understood him. They could see that nothing had changed with the bread…it was still bread. That the bread had also become his body is something that would not have occured to them…no more so than when he said that any one who did his Father’s will was his mother etc. No one in that audience would have thought, “Hey, if I do God’s will the substance of my body will be transformed into the substance of Mary’s body.” If in fact Christ had actually been talking about the bread really changing into his body, then that is the explanation that is both missing and vital.

Well thought out denial of transubstantiation and the Eucharist. You are sincere and as a Catholic I believe you are sincerely wrong.

First Century Christians were accused of being cannibals.

It appears you deny the Eucharistic celebration that unites the OHCAC and in time the Orthodox and divides those that denominated.

 

[Radical]

Well thought out denial of transubstantiation and the Eucharist. You are sincere and as a Catholic I believe you are sincerely wrong.

I know…its mutual my brother.

First Century Christians were accused of being cannibals.

Here is a quote from Tertullian that describes the pagan criticism of Christian worship:

Monsters of wickedness, we are accused of observing a holy rite in which we kill a little child and then eat it; in which, after the feast, we practise incest, the dogs our pimps, forsooth, overturning the lights and getting us the shamelessness of darkness for our impious lusts. Apology 7.1

Please note that the Christians are accused of more than just cannibalism…and that the cannibalism involved eating an infant (in that case). Would you suggest that there must have been more to the love between a Christian brother and a Christian sister than mere spiritual love, otherwise the pagans wouldn’t have accused the Christians of incest? The accusation of cannibalism does not in any way supprt your claim to a RBP…it supports the claim that the Pagans were truly ignorant of what was involved in Christian worship or that they manufactured slander to discredit Christians.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by david ruiz
Actually ,John 6 would be my foundation for symbolic (like the apostles), as it is for you literal (like the unbelievers that left.)

How nice,but pure conjecture and poor understanding of the text and terminology. Not ONE ECF agrees with you,including Augustine.

 

[CopticChristian]

I know…its mutual my brother.

Here is a quote from Tertullian that describes the pagan criticism of Christian worship:

Monsters of wickedness, we are accused of observing a holy rite in which we kill a little child and then eat it; in which, after the feast, we practise incest, the dogs our pimps, forsooth, overturning the lights and getting us the shamelessness of darkness for our impious lusts. Apology 7.1

Please note that the Christians are accused of more than just cannibalism…and that the cannibalism involved eating an infant (in that case). Would you suggest that there must have been more to the love between a Christian brother and a Christian sister than mere spiritual love, otherwise the pagans wouldn’t have accused the Christians of incest? The accusation of cannibalism does not in any way supprt your claim to a RBP…it supports the claim that the Pagans were truly ignorant of what was involved in Christian worship or that they manufactured slander to discredit Christians.

I never suggested that cannibalism supported my claim. This is your inference. I pointed out before that you lack the ability to infer. A statement is a statement.

You deny the Real presence.:sad_bye:

Do you deny this?

Faith is the evidence of things not seen, the substance of those things hoped for. I believe in the Eucharist because as Augustine says of the Gospel, if it were not for the Catholic Church I could not believe.

Your beliefs are based on fallible suppositions and propositions and I assume you believe that the bible is inerrant and infallible. I may be wrong.

You I believe want to get into a discussion about Tertullian, Alexandria and Carthage. Your entire dialogue is to be found here. It is your only post.

On the Corruption from the Original Non Real Presence Church, to the V century Real Presence Church

David Ruiz has picked Augustine as his ECF to deny the Real Presence and you have picked Tertullian. You and David should compare and contrast your understandings of your denial.

Pagans and others are ingnorant of Christian worship. There is the Liturgy Word/Liturgy Eucharist and even today many believe we worship Mary in the mass, resacrifice Christ, and all other manor of ignorance. The Eucharist unites, denial of the Eucharist divides.

You want unity. I would ask on what basis you believe unity is possible.

 

[Radical]

I never suggested that cannibalism supported my claim. This is your inference

…and I never claimed that you did I merely made a statement too …apparently you inferred something?

You deny the Real presence. Do you deny this?

I deny a real ** bodily** presence at the Eucharist

Faith is the evidence of things not seen, the substance of those things hoped for. I believe in the Eucharist because as Augustine says of the Gospel, if it were not for the Catholic Church I could not believe.

understood, but this thread is to be about what I (and other Protestants) believe and why…not what you (and other Catholics) believe and why.

You I believe want to get into a discussion about Tertullian, Alexandria and Carthage.

nope…

Your entire dialogue is to be found here. It is your only post.

did you mean the only thread that I have started?

David Ruiz has picked Augustine as his ECF to deny the Real Presence and you have picked Tertullian.

you are misrepresenting what has been done.

The Eucharist unites, denial of the Eucharist divides.

hmmm…I kinda felt an affinity for David…not a disunity

You want unity. I would ask on what basis you believe unity is possible.

unity exists whether the CC is prepared to acknowledge it or not…as believers, Christ dwells in us and us in him…we are unified by that reality. The CC has moderated its position substantially in the last 500 years and IMHO things are only going to speed up from here. I am optimistic that, eventually, the CC will find a way to redefine what it has already declared enabling a substantially more significant, visible unity

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well thought out denial of transubstantiation and the Eucharist. You are sincere and as a Catholic I believe you are sincerely wrong.

Agree’d. I suppose “You Catholic’s Here” would be the first thing which stricks me as off center.

Since we have been speaking Biblical context.

From this point of view I could only suggest to our friend he enter into this task before hand without preconceived notions. However the words of Scripture leave no-doubt.

Mark 14:22 and Matthew 26:26 give the words spoken over the bread…“This is my body”

Paul 1 Cor 11:24 “This is my body which is for you”

Luke 22:19 “This is my body which is given for you”

For Luke and Paul this is followed with the instruction “Do this in remembrance of Me”

Mark 14:24, “This is the blood of the covenant which is poured out for many”

Matthew 26:28 “for many for the forgiveness of sin’s”

Paul 1 Cor 11:25, “This chalice is the new covenant of my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it in rememberence of Me”

Luke 22:20 “This chalice which is poured out for you, is the new covenant of my blood”

Clearly understood by all the Apostles, preached, and followed till “today”.

Mark and Matthew speak of “blood of the covenant” pointing to Exodus 24:8, the sealing of the covenant on Mt Sinai.

Paul and Luke speak of the new covenant and refer to Jeremiah 31:31.

Mark and Matthew speak of the shedding of the blood “for many” which point to Isaiah 53:12 whereas Paul and Luke say “For You” which brings the community of disciples directly to mind.

What does John say? I like John BTW:thumbsup:

John 6:53-58, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father , so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. THIS IS THE BREAD THAT CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this BREAD will live forever.

Matthew 26:26-29, While they were eating, Jesus took the BREAD, gave thanks and broke it, and GAVE it to His disciples, saying…“Take and Eat; This “is” MY BODY.”
Then He took the cup gave Thanks and offered it to them. saying, “Drink from it. ALL of you” This is blood of the covenant, which is poured out for the many for the forgiveness of sin’s. I tell you, I will not drink of this Fruit of the Vine from now on until the day it anew with you in My Fathers Kingdom.

Mark 14:23-24, Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they drank from it. “This is the blood of my covenant, which is poured out for the many”

Luke 22:20 After the supper He took the cup saying, “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you”

Paul 1 Cor 11:25 He took the cup saying “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in rememberance of Me”

John 6;32-33, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, it is not Mose’s who has given you the bread from Heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true Bread from Heaven. For the Bread of God “IS” HE WHO COMES DOWN FROM HEAVEN AND GIVES LIFE TO THE WORLD.

John 6:61-64, The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing, The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are LIFE. Yet their are some of YOU WHO DO NOT BELIEVE. For Jesus had known this from the begining which did not believe and who would betray Him.

Peace

 

[CopticChristian]

…and I never claimed that you did I merely made a statement too …apparently you inferred something?

I deny a real ** bodily** presence at the Eucharist

understood, but this thread is to be about what I (and other Protestants) believe and why…not what you (and other Catholics) believe and why.

nope…

did you mean the only thread that I have started?

you are misrepresenting what has been done.

hmmm…I kinda felt an affinity for David…not a disunity

unity exists whether the CC is prepared to acknowledge it or not…as believers, Christ dwells in us and us in him…we are unified by that reality. The CC has moderated its position substantially in the last 500 years and IMHO things are only going to speed up from here. I am optimistic that, eventually, the CC will find a way to redefine what it has already declared enabling a substantially more significant, visible unity

The Catechism and all documents of the OHCAC state that the Eucharist is the center of Worship from which all else flows. The Eucharist is Christ and therefore it stands to reason in that context all else flows. You optimism is appreciated and understood.

I thought you might want to expand your view based on known Eucharistic Miracles. One in particular is relevant. While the reformation is 500 years old. If the reformers had succeeded in satisfying and meeting your intent to make the Eucharist purely symbolic then there would be no celebration of a miracle 600 years old.

You previously posted about “what about Bob and Martha” as the reasons for the Reformation. I ask you to look at the Eucharstic Miracles in general, in particular how that miracle aided the faithful of Croatia.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

In 1411 at Ludbreg, in the chapel of the Count Batthyany’s castle, a priest was celebrating
Mass. During the consecration of the wine, the priest doubted the truth of transubstantiation, and the wine in the chalice turned into Blood.

Even some priests may doubt. This one did and look what happened in Croatia.

cppsmissionaries.org/news/?p=995

On May 22, 2011 approximately 1500 believers from various parts of Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina and Vojvodina (Serbia) participated. The Most Rev. Josip Mrzljak, bishop of Varazdin, presided at the Eucharistic celebration. He preached about the significance of faith for every Christian, reminding us that we are called by God to believe and to live our faith. The Eucharist fills us with strength which helps us to live by faith, to give witness to our beliefs, and to follow Jesus with every step.

I understand your concern for Bob and Martha. I ask you to consider the Eucharistic Miracles, particularly in Croatia and ask how that might have affected Andro, Ante, Franjo, Jadranka and the Bob and Martha of Croatia Baldo & Mare. What about them? This was real and not fiction.

 

[Miriam1947]

The Real Presence. Why is there even a question? Jesus said it, I believe it, we’re done.

 

[lyrikal]

I am currently typing a VERY lengthy reply to Radical’s interpretation on John 6. I was planning on doing this whether or not the topic was going to be brought up. I was planning on posting a new thread to post what I was planning on posting but since the topic has been brought up in this thread, I will post it here. I am still typing it on Microsoft Word and so far it is 10 pages long and I am not close to being done yet. The reply will not be directed towards Radical, but it will be for Catholics and Non-Catholics alike to see how the Catholic Church sees things. Although I did not make it a direct reply to Radical’s post, I do address the claim that Radical is making in his/her reply.

Stay tuned.