The Real Presence

[Radical]

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

as others on this thread before you, you have provided some taken-out-of-context snippets (which is far from the rest of the story)…please refer to posts 155, 156 & 157 from this thread

 

[KathleenGee]

I believe in the Word Made Flesh…Jesus is the Word Made Flesh…again we are falling back on the tradition of the concrete…and not just words that lead to confusion and misunderstanding…

What is lacking is Tradition…how the faith has been practiced from the beginning…the depth of meaning and action of our worship…that is based on God’s will and not our own creation or works.

Jesus is the Alpha and Omega of worship.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

david ruiz;8153641]Yes and that is the debate .How do you consume Him

For 2000 years now since the resurrection Christians have been cosuming the body, blood soul and divinity “Sacramentally”. This is the mystery protestants left this apostolic revelation in Jesus Christ and invented a new doctrine of men. That appears to be your crutch and condraction to the mystical body of Jesus Christ.

You are forcing a non Christian carnal understanding and twisting with the word “spirit” to believe as something applying to human emotions or something symbolic. Your solution is a 101 in the biblical sacramental economy what Jesus Christ instituted and handed to His Catholic Church practiced since the resurrection of Jesus.

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 ?

The answer to your misunderstandings about the spirit and literal application of eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus Christ, it is called “Sacrament”. Sacrament mystically literally leaves ones carnal understandings and false symbolic interpretations of the Spirit. The divine becomes united with our humanity only sacramentally combined with faith.

If you are forcing a carnal eating and or a symbolic eating of the Lamb, you miss all the Graces Jesus bestowed upon His living body which is His Catholic Church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

david ruiz;8153698]Then how is it that so many Christians share in his divine nature with out your transubstantiation belief ?

The only way we on earth celebrate the partaking of His divine nature is “Sacramentally”. The consuming of the Lamb of God’s true body and blood is for the Believer who can discern the body and blood of Jesus as Paul teaches in 1Cor.11:21-27. The Eucharist is never for the unbeliever nor for non -catholic christians who do not discern the body and blood of our dear Lord, Less they be cursed and judged for the body and blood of Jesus see aforementioned scripture regarding this curse for those who do not discern the true body and blood of Jesus in the cup of blessing or in the breaking of Bread.

Transubstantiation only helps the unbelieving intellectual graduate to begin faith in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation points to what is happening after the consecration by the Word of God, the term is never an action for a believer to take. Don’t mean to split hairs here, but clarification is needed, because it appears again you have been misinformed about the True biblical Christian Faith handed down to us these past 2000 years.

Your interpretation of consuming of the lamb of God, is never heard of until protestantism rejected the biblical sacramental economy of salvation from God.

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

.

Ohh yes, read your biblical text carefully, it reveals the sacrament of baptism. Only the baptised are able to partake of the table of the Lord. The sacrament of baptism enter’s one in the Kingdom of God, the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the food for the soul to joureny across death into eternal life. This is a promise from God not man.

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 .

I mean no disrespect here, but the “Cross” is your stumbling block which is the Eucharist manifested to our humanity in the “do this in rememberance of me”. We should be discussing the difference between carnal knowledge, symbolism, and the Spirit which is a person of the God head, never a “feeling” or emotion stemming from the flesh. You got the gift of joy confused with the Spirit which brings us joy.

I am not resisting your belief’s, I am just clarifying my apostolic faith to you in terms that you can understand. Mystery, mystagogy, True presence of Jesus body and blood are the real terms the early Church Fathers used to reveal our apostolic faith in the Eucharist. Carnal eating or referencing a symbolic spirit is not even in the scriptures and never taught by any Church Father east or western Catholic.

Again If you are forcing a carnal eating and or a symbolic eating of the Lamb, you miss all the Graces Jesus bestowed upon His living body which is His Catholic Church. The mystical element of the revelation here that you are missing is done Sacramentally when the divine is united to our humanity. This can never be done by a carnal understanding of eating or symbolically eating, I dare say nor by your symbolic spirit can this consuming of the lamb of God be done, Jesus is never present in these.

Only by a valid sacrament instituted by Jesus himself can Jesus be present with His body, blood soul and divinity . Any thing else is not of the “Spirit and Truth”.

I hope this clarifies some-thing’s for you

Peace be with you

 

[babylonsfalling]

Your statement can go both ways. None of us are rejecting scripture however.

<–Those who reject the fact that Christ’s flesh is real meat and His blood real drink, ARE rejecting Scripture. **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…****<—The use of philosophical meanderings only highlights the fact that you rejecting the use of faith in the Words of Christ. You still evade my point as to why they rejected Christ…<–They rejected Christ out of lack of faith. **Scripture does not allude that it had anything to do with “real presence” , **<—That passage is about consuming His flesh and blood as real meat and drink. His flesh and blood ARE his 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 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
,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, Real Presence is Christ’s flesh and blood. It is physical. If you want to believe that physical AND spiritual, you could still be in the confines of Scripture, in my opinion. If you want to say it’s physical WITH spiritual benefits, you’re still in the confines of Scripture, in my opinion. If you want say it’s only spiritual, not physical…you’re CLEARLY outside of Scripture. 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 ***<—You are comparable in rejecting his message of Real Presence, but not in rejecting his messiahship.***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. <—I already explained why there is such a comparison. Again “real presence” was NOT the issue here, that is an issue that came about generations later.

You’re trying way too hard here Dave. The philosophical acrobatics mean nothing compared to Christ telling us that his flesh and blood are REAL food and drink. And honestly Dave…as a Christian you shouldn’t need anyone to explain that to you. It says a LOT when you blow off Christ’s Words in preference of stuff like that.

It’s starting to sound like your trying MUCH harder to convince YOURSELF than anyone else.

 

[david_ruiz]

as others on this thread before you, you have provided some taken-out-of-context snippets (which is far from the rest of the story)…please refer to posts 155, 156 & 157 from this thread

Thank-you .Good stuff. Amazing how we can look at a scripture and get two different views .Why should it be any different with Augustine , or anyone else. This stuff goes all the way back to the Garden, “Hath God really said …?” .Thanks again

 

[coolduude]

RE: Augustine and the Real Presence:
Wikipedia:

Convinced of the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Augustine made the following logical observation regarding this sacrament: "Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands."98]

In a sermon addressed to new Christians, Augustine explicitly described the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ.

I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ.**99**]

What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction".**100**]

Citations:
98: Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]
99: Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]
100: Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]

He seems pretty explicit about the matter to me.

 

[david_ruiz]

I believe in the Word Made Flesh…Jesus is the Word Made Flesh…again we are falling back on the tradition of the concrete…and not just words that lead to confusion and misunderstanding…

I thought Jesus is the Alpha and Omega , which has everything to do with words. That words lead to confusion is not the litmus test for it’s truth.If words did not confuse me at times .I would never need the Holy Spirit.Indeed .Christ is the master and using words to confuse one heart and bless another-the same words ,done purposely. In fact John 6 discourse is just that using words to confuse and separate-they started to follow Him for the food,feeding five thousand is quite a stunt.What , should He speak plainly so that they understand ,and be saved (without a change) ?

What is lacking is Tradition…how the faith has been practiced from the beginning.

.Tradition (history) has that cutting both ways. Quantity sometimes has nothing to do with quality.The time span of your tradition may or may not have anything to do with it’s rightness (righteousness-God’s way). In fact most of the time the truth is laid up in the remnant ,the smaller portion, the less popular “tradition”. Christianity began that way .The first Jews strayed ,and the more they strayed the more they relied on tradition .We are no different , as Paul warns us.t

 

[Radical]

RE: Augustine and the Real Presence:

Citations:
98: Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]
99: Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]
100: Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]

He seems pretty explicit about the matter to me.

Yes, snippets taken out of context can have that effect. BTW the third quote is from Sermon 272 (not 227)

 

[coolduude]

I don’t believe it was taken out of context. What was said was said. I don’t see the problem here

If you can provide a link to Sermon 227 I would be happy to read the whole thing and see if Augustine was truly ‘taken out of context’. But please provide a link and not just enough ‘context’ so Augustine suddenly begins to sound Protestant.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t believe it was taken out of context. What was said was said. I don’t see the problem here

If you can provide a link to Sermon 227 I would be happy to read the whole thing and see if Augustine was truly ‘taken out of context’. But please provide a link and not just enough ‘context’ so Augustine suddenly begins to sound Protestant.

St.Augustine Bishop of Hippo is a canonized Catholic Saint. The Church would of never canonized him as a venerated Saint, if his teachings contradicted the apostolic faith on the Eucharist? St.Augustine understood the difference between carnal eating of the flesh and eating of the flesh and drinking of the cup. He also reveals the true presence of Jesus body and blood deals with the mystery of his teachings of the sacraments.

“Except a man eat my flesh, he shall not have eternal life” (Jn.6:54). Some recieved this foolishly (the Capharnaites), they thought of it CARNALLY, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them…But He instructed them, and said unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”(ib.64) Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain MYSTERY; SPIRITUALLY UNDERSTOOD, It will quicken you. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood".
EXPOSITIONS ON THE PSALMS, 98:9

 

[Angels_Eyes]

I believe there MUST be a real presence. There is an undescribable feeling I get after receiving communion. Humble, not worthy, but at the same time, emotional (very:crying, thankful and an amazing and beautiful feeling of peace.

I am a Catholic Revert (only still quite recent) and accepting God and the ‘very real’ presence in the Bread and Wine only confirms it for me.

 

[KathleenGee]

How people can deny the historical practice of the Eucharist, and to not interpret Sacred Scriptures outside the spirit of the Church does not make sense.

I don’t even think it is the issue of whether or not the Eucharist is real.

The issue is accepting God’s authority in consecrated souls He chose and not us with our strong convictions.

St. Augustine withheld become a Christian for a long time. He finally got to the point where he could see clearly what was keeping him back, and it was the demon of lust.

I think some times there are demons at work that prevent one from believing in the Eucharist…and to ask people why they don’t believe…I think it is better some times to pray more, and see what it is in their heart that is rebelling against the total belief in Jesus Christ.

You cannot use the Cross as a stand alone to build an argument against the Eucharist. The Cross is only half the message. The other is Christ’s resurrection, His redemptive saving grace and works within us.

When we receive the Eucharist, we are receiving the post Cross Christ, we are receiving the Risen Lord…Who appeared to Thomas and had Him put his fingers into Christ’s hands.

Furthermore, you do not create worship. God does. Only God can create worship that is pleasing to Him. What do you know, more than God, what is pleasing to Him?
That is pride. It is one thing to be raised in a belief that has its own worship. It is another thing to actively deny God’s worship He called us to. You know more and will not to believe.

 

[PJM]

=Radical;8154479]as others on this thread before you, you have provided some taken-out-of-context snippets (which is far from the rest of the story)…please refer to posts 155, 156 & 157 from this thread

My friend I am not FIRMLY convienced that your really not interested in the singular truth. As I reviewed many of the presisious post including the visible proof of the Miracle at Lacinio [others can be found by GOOGLING “Euchatistic Miracles”], but this isn’t about truth; its about you knowing more anf knowing better than Christ, Mt., Mk. Lk. Jn. and Paul, Agustine and MANY other Fathers.

I’ll stick around because others ARE seeking the truth. And we will GOD WILLING, help them discover it.

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[Radical]

My friend I am not FIRMLY convienced that your really not interested in the singular truth.

did you mean to use the double negative? In any event, I am not unsure that I do not care about the firmness of your convictions.

As I reviewed many of the presisious post including the visible proof of the Miracle at Lacinio [others can be found by GOOGLING “Euchatistic Miracles”],…

The so called Eucharistic miracles do not impress me in the least…every faith has their miraculous claims…and I don’t see the Eucharistic miracles as in a superior class. Tell you what, however, if you and your Church were truly interested in establishing/testing the truth of the alleged miracles, it would be a rather easy thing to do. As I have suggested on another thread:

…but here is something all you faithful adherents could do for us skeptics:

1. pick the five Eucharistics miracles that enjoy the greatest confidence of Catholics;
2. run DNA tests on the flesh and blood samples from those five miracles;
3. the results should either:
   

        a) prove to the rest of us that all the DNA samples came from a single person, a male semite to be precise; or
   
        b) prove that the adherents are a gullible and mistaken lot (when it comes to Eucharistic miracles)

We have the technology, let’s do the test for the good of all of us…until then, don’t expect me to buy into the claims…there are just too many holes in them.

Really, PJM…your Church has the opportunity, by way of independent scientific testing, to prove that God is working miracles wrt the Catholic Eucharist…that would go a long, long way in validating the Catholic claims wrt its Eucharist. (It would surely do it for me) Note, however, the emphasis on independent! Please don’t refer me to any tests conducted by Catholics (who are clearly out to prove the validity of their “miracle” w/o any independent checks on their methodology).

I’ll stick around because others ARE seeking the truth. And we will GOD WILLING, help them discover it.

God Bless you,
Pat

God bless you too, Pat

 

[Nicea325]

**

Yes, snippets taken out of context can have that effect. BTW the third quote is from Sermon 272 (not 227)

I find it rather arrogant how you claim others give snippets taken out of context,when you do the exact same thing. And trust me you do because I know you lack the education and skills to present historical references in the proper context. This is all about you knowing more than Jesus,Apostles and the ECF’s. I find it rather amusing how Protestants as yourself go to great extremes to present men like St.Augustine as supporting Protestant beliefs and teachings.

BTW: You pervert St.Augustine’s works to prove your agendas and novelties,whether you care to hear it or not. And finally,for the last time St. Augustine WAS NOT PROTESTANT…period!**

 

[Radical]

I don’t believe it was taken out of context.

and that is the thing…you haven’t even seen the whole Sermon, yet you quote it as if you know what it advocates wrt the Eucharist.

What was said was said. I don’t see the problem here

well you seem to have a problem with the “protestant” bits that he said…in that regard it is also, what was said, was said…and it is necessary to reconcile the “catholic bits” with the “protestant bits” and not just quote the “catholic bits” and pretend that the “protestant bits” don’t exist (or be unaware of their existence)

If you can provide a link to Sermon 227 I would be happy to read the whole thing and see if Augustine was truly ‘taken out of context’.

I have only found the Sermon at one place on the net…It can be read in Google Books. The work is by W. Harmless and is called “Augustine in His Own Words” at pages 153-155…limited preview only…so hopefully it remains available.

But please provide a link and not just enough ‘context’ so Augustine suddenly begins to sound Protestant.

Oh…so it is OK to quote a little snippet that makes him sound Catholic (even though you have no clue as to what the rest of the Sermon says)…but it is bad form for me to provide an additional bit from the Sermon? Unbelievable!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I believe there MUST be a real presence. There is an undescribable feeling I get after receiving communion. Humble, not worthy, but at the same time, emotional (very:crying, thankful and an amazing and beautiful feeling of peace.

I am a Catholic Revert (only still quite recent) and accepting God and the ‘very real’ presence in the Bread and Wine only confirms it for me.

Matthew 10:32
14 Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father.
33
But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.

God bless you

 

[Radical]

Thank-you .Good stuff. Amazing how we can look at a scripture and get two different views .Why should it be any different with Augustine , or anyone else. This stuff goes all the way back to the Garden, “Hath God really said …?” .Thanks again

You are welcome…keep up the good fight.

 

[Radical]

St.Augustine Bishop of Hippo is a canonized Catholic Saint. The Church would of never canonized him as a venerated Saint, if his teachings contradicted the apostolic faith on the Eucharist?

…and therein lies the problem…a conservative Catholic has no option but to interpret Augustine in a fashion that supports conservative Catholic teaching, b/c otherwise it just gets downright embarassing