The Real Presence

[PJM]

=david ruiz;8147265]Hi Gabe Indeed ,what is carnal and what is truth ? It was the carnal, unbelieving souls that that thought they had to eat his body and drink his blood. The spiritually ignorant took His words literally ,and missed the bigger picture in John 6

***REALLY?

So let me see if i have this right.

Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and Saint Paul either don’t themselves understand what they are saying [dispite actually living a practicing what they preach. … OH! …And Dying for there belief.], or they lied, or they intentinally mislead.

WOW, that quite a position your clinging to my friend.***

From John 6:

41-42 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 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’?”

So they understand the humanity of Jesus but fail to accept His Divinity

52-53 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 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;

Once again now for the second time they are “hung up” on Christ humanity.

[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

And even after Christ clarifies WHAT HE MEANS, they still don’t get it. NOTE here its not “ALL,” but “MANY” verse 60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” [And they denied Christ and abandoned Him!]

61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? [63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. [64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him

So here’s the clincher; yes? “Is is the Spirit that gives life… [mortal /carnal] flesh means nothing! John.4: 23-24 “But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

*TRANSLATED it is God who gives life! “flesh means nothing” refers BACK to the [humanity ONLY- deserters understanding. They THINK Jesus speaks of His carnal body

67 -69 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

***Isn’t that strange? When the “many” denied and abandoned Him he did not call them back. RATHER he clarified for them “MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD AND MY BLOOD REAL DRINK…. “ What Jesus did not know what He was saying? Then He ask the Apostles: Do you wish to abandon Me too? A rather strange question for one who just turned off “many of his disciples.” NOTICE Christ DOES NOT CHANGE His Teaching! WHY?

NO! Friend, Christ speaks about His SOON to be Resurrected and GLORIFIED BODY! TIME DOES NOT EXIST for God. … Faith friend, it takes Faith. Christ Glorified is still the WHOLE and ENTIRE CHRIST. AMEN!***

It’s a MYSTERY FRIEND. It can can only be understood in the reflection of Christ Love for us. As I have invited you to do before: GOOGLE “Eucharisitc Miracels” … but I wounder do you REALLY want to discover the truth?

God Bless you,
Your in my prayers,
Pat**

 

[Telstar]

Augustine’s use of “certain” most certainly opens the door for the metaphorical. Jesus literally carried bread which was his body in a certain (metaphorical) way. And given the other quotes from Augustine which I am providing, it is the metaphorical that makes sense (see also Augustine’s use of “certain way” in Letter 98 below).

“And he was carried in his own hands. Now, brothers, who can understand how this can happen to a man? Who can be carried in his own hands? A man is able to be carried in the hands of others, but no one is carried in his own hands. How this is to be understood in a literal way of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: “This is my Body.” Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands.”

Continuing with his second sermon, he clarified:

“And he carried himself in his own hands: How was he carried in his own hands? Because, when he entrusted his own Body and Blood, he took into his hands that which the faithful are aware of; and he carried himself in a certain way when he said, ‘This is my Body.’”

Augustine’s use of “certain” most certainly opens the door for the metaphorical. Jesus literally carried bread which was his body in a certain (metaphorical) way. And given the other quotes from Augustine which I am providing, it is the metaphorical that makes sense (see also Augustine’s use of “certain way” in Letter 98 below).

I’m sorry, but I still have to disagree with your interpretation of St. Augustine’s meaning, here. I believe that’s where your misunderstanding of his other letter begins, too. IMHO, your emphasis in reading it as “certain way” is changing the entire meaning of his dialogues. The emphasis belongs on “certain”. I believe he was stating it as being in a "definite way, even an “indisputable way”, that Jesus was carrying His Own Body in His hands, because Augustine believed that He most certainly was.

CERTAIN

1. Definite; fixed: ‘set aside a certain sum each week.’
2. Sure to come or happen; inevitable: ‘certain success.’
3. Established beyond doubt or question; indisputable
4. Capable of being relied on; dependable
5. Having or showing confidence; assured.

In his letter to Bonafice, Augustine again uses “certain way” when he states: “Therefore as the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord is in a certain way the Body of the Lord” Allow me to set the context in point form.

a) Augustine states it is legitimate to say that the Lord rose on every Easter Sunday (year after year) b/c of the similitude those subsequent Easter Sundays bear to the first…Christ doesn’t actually rise from the dead year after year.

b) Again b/c of the similtudes, Augustine states it is legitimate to say that the Lord is immolated every day, even though he was immolated once and for all (and isn’t actually immolated week after week).

c) Again b/c of the similtudes, the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord is in a certain way the Body of the Lord

the certain way described by Augustine is by the way of similtude, or symbolically if you prefer.
.

I have to admit that I had no idea what the subject of that letter was. It’s been quite a while since I read anything of St. Augustine. It might have been a good thing for us to know that when you first posted it. (If you did say it, I must have missed it.) Since you were using it in reference to the RP, I ‘assumed’ (we all know what happens when we do that, right?) the letter was used in that same frame of reference. That was certainly my mistake. But, you’re still not putting the proper emphasis on the word “certain”, which seems to be the main problem in your posted examples and in your argument, IMHO. It’s the same kind of problem that different people seem to have in interpreting Scripture, too.

 

[KathleenGee]

The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is a historical event, not a symbolic one.

One of the ways young people are turning to God is realizing He is an event that transcends ‘religion’. It is a matter of re-defining in modern, contemporary terms…common language use of an encounter with Christ…those drawings that we have are Him drawing us to Him…to His event made present to us at every minute of the day…

 

[Radical]

I’m sorry, but I still have to disagree with your interpretation of St. Augustine’s meaning, here. I believe that’s where your misunderstanding of his other letter begins, too. IMHO, your emphasis in reading it as “certain way” is changing the entire meaning of his dialogues. The emphasis belongs on “certain”. I believe he was stating it as being in a "definite way, even an “indisputable way”, that Jesus was carrying His Own Body in His hands, because Augustine believed that He most certainly was.

tell you what, why don’t we test this hypothesis of yours. If you are married, engaged or in a rather serious relationship, it’ll be quite easy. For the next 5 times that your beloved asks, “Do you think I am beautiful?”, “Do you think that I am intelligent?” or “Do you love me?” …answer, “Yes, definitely.” and then for the next 5 times after that answer, “Yes, in a certain way.” Tell me how that works out for you (you could even put the emphais on “certain” if you liked)…or you could just research why the translator used “certain way” and not “certainly”.

I have to admit that I had no idea what the subject of that letter was. It’s been quite a while since I read anything of St. Augustine. It might have been a good thing for us to know that when you first posted it.

two things…first, it was one from your side of the argument that first posted a bit from that letter…I responded to him, and if he’s gonna post a bit of it, then he should know what it is about. Second, it is a very easy thing to find on the net

 

[david_ruiz]

There’s nothing in John 6 about people MISTAKENLY believing in the literal interpretation of what Christ was saying

 

[Jim_Roberts]

[No message]

 

[KathleenGee]

Jim,

Welcome to CAF!..

Please just explain again what you are trying to say here…

 

[david_ruiz]

Blessings David. I understand and respect your positions and beliefs. However, as Catholics we hold a different belief and I wanted to clarify any misunderstandings that we as Catholics are some how re-sacrificing Jesus over and over. Again…we are NOT!

Peace

Thank-you .no clarification needed .Never stated re-sacrificng.It is re-presenting ,or perhaps offering again .Again what are the words in the Mass ?I think it is "offering’. Again ,not saying resacrifice ,recrucify.

 

[KathleenGee]

Daily Mass is the perfect sacrifice…as atonement for sins committed everyday…but Christ died and suffered only one bloody, death…

 

[david_ruiz]

Daily Mass is the perfect sacrifice…as atonement for sins committed everyday…but Christ died and suffered only one bloody, death…

Calvary is the perfect sacrifice, an atonement for past, present and future sins, for daily sins or one timers .Mass can be hourly, daily,weekly ,monthly,even yearly ,and his blood perfectly still cleanses right ? Halleluiah !

 

[babylonsfalling]

babylonsfalling;8150317:

. Please reread what I wrote .The fact is what I wrote does not go against Catholic teaching . Never said they were mistaken about the literal interpretation

.<–Their mistake was to reject the literal interpretation that Christ was teaching in favor of some religious belief…same as you Dave. The fact is that is how they took it ,and the fact is they were non-believers in Christ .The discourse does not state what the apostles thought on this saying (eating Him) .<–If the apostles had rejected Christ’s literal teaching, they would have been mistaken also. What scripture plainly states in John 6 is that the apostles believed , that He was the Christ <—Then it’s sensible to assume the apostles would have very little problem believing in the literal interpretation, not only because he taught it literally, but because the Christ could easily accomplish such a supernatural feat.-this being the half of the bigger picture they got right and the others wrong. Neither of the two groups understood the total picture , that the messiah must die.That is the big picture , not "real presence’’ . Yes, Jesus was going to literally die ,and spiritually we must eat that truth .Scripture is silent here on the apostles belief in it’s literalness , but quite explicit for the unbelievers taking it that way. <—You’re finally at least half right about something Dave. Scripture is clear regarding “the unbelievers” taking it as they did. They couldn’t accept Christ’s literal teaching and were ultimately dismissed in John 6:66 as being those who walked with Christ no more. As to literalness, Jesus said many things about himself .He is the bread of life , is he literally bread? He is the Alpha and Omega , is he then the Greek alphabet ? He is the vine , the Rock etc etc .
Disagree, the ignorant did get it to be literal , as other Catholics have quoted to help prove “literalness”.They took it literally , but more as "cannibalism"<—It’s correct to take it literally because He said His flesh is real meat, not symbolic meat. Christ taught it in a literal sense, and when doubters like yourself didn’t believe, Christ became more insistent, not less. for he had not died yet ,but the real stumbling block was that they just did not see him as Messiah,either as a living King forever or as a Lamb to be slaughtered.He further chided them for not getting past eating him and or His death by prophesying his ascension. Like if my death or eating me blows you away ,how can you handle my ascension , my leaving you .Like so much for my messiah setting up his earthly rule and kicking out the Romans ,and the good old days of David and Solomon again. My opinion is the apostles took it symbolically , for they yet did not understand His emminent death yet ,and they were good Jews opposed to improperly eating of flesh.One could also say that the apostles did not fully understand the whole discourse and the Eating ,<—One could say (and does say in your case) whatever helps them maintain their man-made religious beliefs. And apparently those religious beliefs are more important than even what Christ said in the Bible.** but they simply were going to follow Him,their Messiah, <—Following Him includes accepting the literal interpretation…We know from Scripture that those who rejected the literal interpretation are the ones who ended their walk with Christ. We know the apostles did not end their walk with Christ so it’s safe and reasonable to assume that they accepted Christ’s literal teaching. regardless of any interpretation.

You’re choosing the wrong path to walk Dave…just as those mentioned in John 6:66. And you seem to be doing it intentionally because unlike those unbelievers of two thousand years ago, you have a Scriptural basis which has been shown to your in order to help you to the truth. The unbelievers of two thousand years ago didn’t have an example of the incorrect belief in this matter, so (arguably) they had something of an excuse. Today’s unbelievers don’t have that excuse because of the example provided by the unbelievers of 2000 years ago.

You need more faith in what Christ said Dave, not in what your religion told you to believe. You’re rejecting Scripture in preference of religion and you need to correct yourself on this matter.

 

[KathleenGee]

Dave…

Why not read Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s book on ‘Spirit of the Liturgy’? I think it will do much good for you…

You are not understanding the scope and depth of the Eucharistic Meal, the fulfillment of the Passover…even the Apostles did not fully understand all that they were entering when they were at the Last Supper…

The Holy Spirit has always been at work at the Church and the means through which the Word is Made Flesh. You are limiting yourself and there is a brand new dimension to your faith that resides in the liturgy…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Calvary is the perfect sacrifice, an atonement for past, present and future sins, for daily sins or one timers .Mass can be hourly, daily,weekly ,monthly,even yearly ,and his blood perfectly still cleanses right ? Halleluiah !

But in order for the graces that gives eternal life, “you must consume the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”. The consuming of the Lamb was foreshadowed in the Old Covenant passover from the angel of death.

Now fulfilled and made a reality in time from eternity in; “This cup is the New covenant in my blood which will be shed for you”, in the New and everlasting covenant we must consume this Lamb because this Lamb’s body and blood gives us eternal life.

Without the consuming of the New Covenant Lamb, death and sin can conquer, when death has no power over those who consume the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Daily Mass is the perfect sacrifice…as atonement for sins committed everyday…but Christ died and suffered only one bloody, death…

Hello KathleenGee; Daily Mass is the perfect prayer to our Heavenly Father “with Him, In Him, and through Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit” is when the “Father seeks such people to worship Him”, for God is Spirit and we Catholics worship God in Spirit and Truth because it is at the communion table of the Lord that the Spirit reveals our Lord Jesus who is Truth in His Eucharist. This perfect sacrifice is the one that is acceptable to the Father in heaven.

**The daily Mass fulfills the Prophets here;

Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. **

Amen

 

[david_ruiz]

Your statement can go both ways. None of us are rejecting scripture however. Is it religion teaching us ,or is it as St.Augustine put it , “He teaches us.” ? Is it milk or is it meat , that is , is it what someone else wrestled with and received “His teaching” and passed to us (milk), or is it something we also personally wrestled with and received “His” teaching (meat) ? It is like the sketch of a beautiful lady with a fancy, feathery hat, but another look and it is an old lady with a big warted nose.Same sketch…Neither of us are rejecting the sketch, we just have different illuminations, perspective ,interpretation . Unlike the sketch , however, only one can be right on this issue…You still evade my point as to why they rejected Christ…Scripture does not allude that it had anything to do with “real presence” , but with His prophesied death and how we partake of it spiritually.As a matter of fact Jesus says flesh can’t get you there .My flesh does not need His flesh ,but my whole being needs His spirit. His spirit tells me He died in the flesh, which I believe and commemorate with the breaking of bread and wine .His Real Presence is a spiritual thing, according to verse 63 “my words are spirit…flesh profiteth nothing” .You can not compare me with the "literal"unbelievers .They rejected His messiahship , His death, His ascension .I do not .I fully accept that He is the Bread of Life, and I partake of His flesh spiritually , even to die with Him and be raised up a new creature ! Oh yes, it is quite literal , but quite spiritual .There is no comparison between myself and them. Again “real presence” was NOT the issue here, that is an issue that came about generations later.

 

[david_ruiz]

But in order for the graces that gives eternal life, “you must consume the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”. The consuming of the Lamb was foreshadowed in the Old Covenant passover from the angel of death.

Now fulfilled and made a reality in time from eternity in; “This cup is the New covenant in my blood which will be shed for you”, in the New and everlasting covenant we must consume this Lamb because this Lamb’s body and blood gives us eternal life.

Without the consuming of the New Covenant Lamb, death and sin can conquer, when death has no power over those who consume the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Yes and that is the debate .How do you consume Him .It is quite clear one can consume Him and still go to hell( a real presence ,priestly offered consumation,or a protestant consumation)). Is it a literal fleshly thing or a literal spiritual thing ? I do partake and commemorate His fleshly death, even die and rise with him a new creature. Is the bread literally His flesh and did I literally die and rise with Him, or did I spiritually partake of His flesh death and resurrection ?

 

[david_ruiz]

Only a true presence of Jesus body and blood can one come to share in the divine nature. A symbolic presence can never achieve this and a symbolic Jesus contradicts many of the scriptures.

Then how is it that so many Christians share in his divine nature with out your transubstantiation belief ? Certainly when Paul and Peter saw the Holy Ghost fall upon and fill the gentiles , to where they believed the gospel and spoke in tongues etc,.they were partaking in His divine nature quite fully.You either partake in his nature or not ,in a very literal ,spiritual sense.I do not believe I must eat his fleshly molecules to be like Him. He was once broken but He is fully whole , before the Father making intercession for us. He indwells us with His Holy Spirit. Yes fasting and prayer ,and reading and fellowship and the breaking of bread with fellow saints can bring us closer to him and each other . Halleluiah .

 

[KathleenGee]

David,

You are putting yourself in the position then to believe in another form of worship, man made worship…and reducing the saving grace of Calvary to the reading of Scripture without the Church and sacraments, which again, bumps you back to personal interpretation.

St. Peter warned us not to give in to personal interpretation but to be faithful to the witness of the Apostles. Returning to the Apostles, then we must look at how people worshipped God after Christ’s resurrection, and by 100 AD, worship then is similar to that of today’s liturgy, but in regards to the tone and spirit and intent…it is the same today as yesterday.

God dictates how we are to worship Him, not man. We cannot just offer up to the Lord our praises of Sacred Scripture. We must be resurrected with Him, and that happens at the Mass in mystery and actualized in the Final Resurrection.

 

[david_ruiz]

David,

You are putting yourself in the position then to believe in another form of worship, man made worship

.This goes both ways…and

reducing the saving grace of Calvary to the reading of Scripture without the Church and sacraments,

I have a church ,and we have sacraments

which again, bumps you back to personal interpretation.

That is your view.You personally interpret also ,just that you think your church is right and mine isn’t.It is not “my” interpretation. As ST .Augustine said ,“He teaches us”.That is what Peter meant in private interpretation ,that scripture is inspired ,thru holy men and the Holy Ghost. So it must be read and received and believed.It is not so much in privately interpreting but in the prophesying and writing of scripture that Peter was talking about.It was not that we are robots and can not see the Light ALSO for ourselves.

Returning to the Apostles, then we must look at how people worshipped God after Christ’s resurrection, and by 100 AD, worship then is similar to that of today’s liturgy

, I have read the church fathers to about 100 years after Christ and there is nothing clear cut beyond what protestantism practices today.Real presence was not an issue yet. You had nothing more specific than what is already in scripture itself .If there was any debate outside the church it was whether He came in the flesh or not. So we both believe we are doing what the earliest Christians did.
.

We cannot just offer up to the Lord our praises of Sacred Scripture.

Where does it say we must offer Him up again (I do not mean recrucify) Where does it say we can not gives thanks to the Father for his sacrificed Son ,that we can not “eucharist”? For we do "eucharist '"also .It is not only a Catholic sacrament.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Radical
Augustine’s use of “certain” most certainly opens the door for the metaphorical. Jesus literally carried bread which was his body in a certain (metaphorical) way. And given the other quotes from Augustine which I am providing, it is the metaphorical that makes sense (see also Augustine’s use of “certain way” in Letter 98 below).

“And he was carried in his own hands. Now, brothers, who can understand how this can happen to a man? Who can be carried in his own hands? A man is able to be carried in the hands of others, but no one is carried in his own hands. How this is to be understood in a literal way of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: “This is my Body.” Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands.”

And Like Paul would say [Harvey that is]… HERE IS THE REST OF THE STORY

**St. Augustine, Sermons, [227] A.D. 391-430: **

… I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. 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. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received.

**St. Augustine, Sermons, [272] A.D. 391-430: *****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 the Blood of Christ. … How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit. … ***You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.' If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: Amen’; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: The Body of Christ!' and you answer: Amen!’ Be a member of Christ’s Body, so that your `Amen’ may be the truth.

St. Augustine, Explanations on the Psalms, [33, 1, 10] A.D. 392-418:
And he was carried in his own hands [3 Kgs 20:13 LXX? corrupted].' But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands.*** How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it was meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: This is My Body.’ For He carried that Body in His hands. ***

GOD BLESS FRIENDS,
Pat