The Real Presence

[Gabriel_of_12]

I wish that you would have clarified this sooner…it would have saved a lot of time. For the record, I believe that Jesus is truly (and bodily) present in your Eucharist to the same extent as Augustine believed that that Jesus was truly (and bodily) present in the waters of baptism.

Well here is the problem with your St.Augustine writings when you try and force a Calvinistic approach. Calvin follows St.Augustine’s morality teachings but fails as you do to follow St.Augustines teachings on the Sacraments.

CCC 1324 “The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian faith”.

The difference between your understanding of the True presence and St.Augustines Catholic faith and sacramental teachings reveals that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ sacramentally truly present body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Your interpretation leaves doubt and faith becomes suspended, the Catholic faith in the True presence is never doubted and remains a reality of Jesus body and blood Truly present. A feeling or human sense does not make Jesus present in the Eucharist. God makes this happen by His Word and Catholics faithfully obey Jesus in our “Amen” to the True body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ Truly in our presence.

Here is a reality check for you; “The Church is a sacrament” CCC 774,775, “The Church in Christ” is a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men". The Catholic Church is “the Body of Christ Human and divine”.

A Sacrament has no symbolisms or metaphors attached to them. “a Sacrament is the finger of God touching our humanity”, a Sacrament is a visible sign instituted by Jesus Christ to part grace upon the believer.

 

[Nicea325]

Well here is the problem with your St.Augustine writings when you try and force a Calvinistic approach. Calvin follows St.Augustine’s morality teachings but fails as you do to follow St.Augustines teachings on the Sacraments.

CCC 1324 “The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian faith”.

The difference between your understanding of the True presence and St.Augustines Catholic faith and sacramental teachings reveals that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ sacramentally truly present body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Your interpretation leaves doubt and faith becomes suspended, the Catholic faith in the True presence is never doubted and remains a reality of Jesus body and blood Truly present. A feeling or human sense does not make Jesus present in the Eucharist. God makes this happen by His Word and Catholics faithfully obey Jesus in our “Amen” to the True body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ Truly in our presence.

Here is a reality check for you; “The Church is a sacrament” CCC 774,775, “The Church in Christ” is a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men". The Catholic Church is “the Body of Christ Human and divine”.

A Sacrament has no symbolisms or metaphors attached to them. “a Sacrament is the finger of God touching our humanity”, a Sacrament is a visible sign instituted by Jesus Christ to part grace upon the believer.

Exactly! As I always tell many of my Protestant brothers and sisters,you cannot place our humans senses and intelligence above God’s Will. If Jesus said it is His body,then he said what he said and meant what he meant.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Exactly! As I always tell many of my Protestant brothers and sisters,you cannot place our humans senses and intelligence above God’s Will. If Jesus said it is His body,then he said what he said and meant what he meant.

Wow, I was struck in the heart by your comment; “This is my body, This is my blood”, “Body of Christ, Blood of Christ” AMEN. So be it, I believe it. The apostles themselves handed down this Catholic Faith to us, when they could not sense or feel or judge the Word of God coming from their Master Jesus, “They all believed” as we Catholics do today unchanged in our One Holy and Apostolic Catholic faith, except One, and Jesus knew after He explained His Eucharist who this one devil was among His flock.

Thank you:thumbsup:

 

[david_ruiz]

CCC 1324 “The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian faith”.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Oh foolish galatians .who has bewitched you,having begun in the spirit you now go to the flesh. Even Chrysostom felt such an obligation should be limited , or that it could get out of hand, carry it too far. (like obligatory mass everyday or something).I see Paul cringing at this statement ,unless you mean Christ crucified and resurrected is our source and sum of the Christian faith-to "apprehend Him is our walk. I don’t see him or adoring the Eucharist,putting in a monstrance or genuflecting before any sanctified elements.Sorry ,that is how I read Paul.

Spirit? Did you forget Jesus is fully divine and fully human resurrected?

Your reading of Paul is something new and invented outside of Pauls revealed teachings; For Paul handed down (what was revealed to him by Jesus) his Eucharistic faith to the Church, I don’t know nor believe in your new wind of doctrine handed down by men of a symbolic presence.Here is Paul speaking his Catholic faith clearly in the True presence of the Eucharist from the bread and the chalice;

For your information Paul is revealing from Scripture the Mass verbatim as practiced today in the Catholic Mass. You should be informed the Mass is soaked in Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Traditions handed down by the Apostles themselves. Tell me do you follow Paul’s teaching according to the scriptures?

1Corinthians (not Galatians) 11:23 ** For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,** that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, **“This is my body **that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, **“This cup is the new covenant in my blood. **Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26
**For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. **
27
**Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. **
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
**For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself. **

Can anyone be judged for not discerning a symbolic body? Or does one get judged for not discerning the “True” body and blood of Jesus Christ in the eating and drinking of the Eucharist elements revealed in the bread and cup? You be the judge, or does one obey the scriptures? I can see one who denies the True presence cringing at Paul’s teaching in the Eucharist.

Can you answer Paul’s question here?

I Corinthians 10:16
**The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? **

The Eucharist is Jesus resurrected present; If you are like doubting Thomas, The sacrifice of our Lord is revealed in the Eucharist, our Lords wounds remain as a Lamb as thou slain, standing “in our presence” both in the heavenly and earthly liturgy.

Revelations 5;6
Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain.

 

[shaky]

Well here is the problem with your St.Augustine writings when you try and force a Calvinistic approach. Calvin follows St.Augustine’s morality teachings but fails as you do to follow St.Augustines teachings on the Sacraments.

CCC 1324 “The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian faith”.

The difference between your understanding of the True presence and St.Augustines Catholic faith and sacramental teachings reveals that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ sacramentally truly present body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Your interpretation leaves doubt and faith becomes suspended, the Catholic faith in the True presence is never doubted and remains a reality of Jesus body and blood Truly present. A feeling or human sense does not make Jesus present in the Eucharist. God makes this happen by His Word and Catholics faithfully obey Jesus in our “Amen” to the True body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ Truly in our presence.

Here is a reality check for you; “The Church is a sacrament” CCC 774,775, “The Church in Christ” is a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men". The Catholic Church is “the Body of Christ Human and divine”.

A Sacrament has no symbolisms or metaphors attached to them. “a Sacrament is the finger of God touching our humanity”, a Sacrament is a visible sign instituted by Jesus Christ to part grace upon the believer.

When you look at the bread and wine in the Natural it will always be bread and wine. So our belief should be in the supernatural where we Just simply choose to believe it is truly the body and blood of Jesus.

 

[Nicea325]

Wow, I was struck in the heart by your comment; “This is my body, This is my blood”, “Body of Christ, Blood of Christ” AMEN. So be it, I believe it. The apostles themselves handed down this Catholic Faith to us, when they could not sense or feel or judge the Word of God coming from their Master Jesus, “They all believed” as we Catholics do today unchanged in our One Holy and Apostolic Catholic faith, except One, and Jesus knew after He explained His Eucharist who this one devil was among His flock.

Thank you:thumbsup:

Amen brother!

 

[KathleenGee]

Agree…excellent and teachable statement of faith, Nicea.

People are not looking at the history of faith in the Eucharist since Christianity’s beginning…

I stay with the tradition of the practice of faith.

 

[Nicea325]

When you look at the bread and wine in the Natural it will always be bread and wine. So our belief should be in the supernatural where we Just simply choose to believe it is truly the body and blood of Jesus.

Exactly! I find it amazing those who advocate a “symbolic” Eucharist have no qualms or issues with God being the Creator of everything and made everything out of nothing. However, God simply cannot offer Himself through two simple elements: Bread & Wine. I do not get it,they believe God is the Creator and INCARNATED,but He cannot be bread and wine? I find that belief rather arrogant.

 

[Nicea325]

Agree…excellent and teachable statement of faith, Nicea.

People are not looking at the history of faith in the Eucharist since Christianity’s beginning…

I stay with the tradition of the practice of faith.

I agree 100%. This whole notion of symbolic Eucharist is a novel and no where taught in the NT or in the early church. I have yet to read and see from any advocate of a symbolic Eucharist show me one writing from any NT author or ECF clearly teaching that the belief in the RP or literal interpretation is a heretical teaching,unorthoodx or a great usurpation of Christ? Still waiting to read that damaging evidence,so I too can believe in a symbolic Eucharist.

 

[hn160]

Luther applied the term “consubstantial” to the Eucharist, believing the bread and wine remained present alongside the new substances of Christ’s body and blood. Your definition that you applied agrees with Luther’s new doctrien of the Eucharist that the bread and wine “see and taste the bread and wine”, “but Christ True Body and Blood is there ALSO”.

The RC did not try and use Aristotel’s teaching on matter, She did use it to defend the True presence of Jesus in the Eucharist against all science who refuted the true presence, by using their own scientific term “Transubstantiation” which no science can ever refute their own intellectual logic of matter, because the Church proved the True presence of Jesus in the Eucharist in terms that any intellectual can begin the path of Faith in Jesus Christ.

The RC did not try and explain the True presence she did explain in natural terms what happens to the bread and wine their substance transubstantiates into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, this calls for the True Faith.

Luther took the cowards way out, but stating the bread and wine remain bread and wine and somehow thinks that Jesus is somewhere in space “in, with and under”? the bread and wiine? Luther’s definition “in, with and under” the bread and wine is officially defined as “Consubstantiation”.

Give me a break, show me the quote where Luther used the term consubstantiation.

 

[david_ruiz]

I agree 100%. This whole notion of symbolic Eucharist is a novel and no where taught in the NT or in the early church. I have yet to read and see from any advocate of a symbolic Eucharist show me one writing from any NT author or ECF clearly teaching that the belief in the RP or literal interpretation is a heretical teaching,unorthoodx or a great usurpation of Christ? Still waiting to read that damaging evidence,so I too can believe in a symbolic Eucharist.

If we disagree on scripture ,we will disagree on early fathers ,and we do .Not much is said first century .Could go either way- symbolic or literal .Chrysostom does say it can go to far ,at least in the obligation of frequency of communion.

 

[david_ruiz]

Spirit? Did you forget Jesus is fully divine and fully human resurrected?

Amen for both views.

The Eucharist is Jesus resurrected present;

Your interpretation.

Revelations 5;6
Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain

Again ,yes Amen -irrelevant to either view.

 

[david_ruiz]

Just read some writings of John Wycliffe-13th Century.Before he was branded a heretic ,he was a well respected Catholic philosopher and theologian thruout Europe, and taught at Oxford. I imagine he read all of Augustines works.He understands Augustine Eucharist to be different than what was later developed and announced by the Catholic church .That it is a figurative speech ,to eat Him. The priest is NOT used to bring Jesus down from heaven into the bread and wine… By your fruits you shall know them .The church was very deeply entrenched into politics and money. In some countries one third the land was the churches .Christ-like servanthood was not the basis of many practices.The peasants were kept in place , both spiritually and socially.(for which the wealthy were grateful to the church) .By pronouncing transubstantiation and confession etc ,only thru the priesthood, and keeping scripture and rites,mass, only in Latin etc etc .the church power stucture benefited. So some decrees ,practices even doctrine could be tainted with self -service ,or conflict of interest.To be fair protetstants would have done the same,given such power. “Let every man be a liar ,only God is true”-so says scripture. Halleluiah.

 

[david_ruiz]

“Do not suppose that Isaah or other prophets speak of sacrifices of blood or libations being presented at the altar of His second advent, but a true and spiritual praises and of giving thanks” - #118…“The giving of thanks is the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifice to God” - #117 (Justin Martyr ?)

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Radical,

Just a quick update for you: I am still writing up the replies to your posts and have not forgotten about you. I believe there are four posts and I have replied to one so far but have yet to post it.

Also, I will be giving my (name removed by moderator)ut on Augustine’s sermon #227. I believe that’s the one you want an answer to? Or is it 272? Or both? Anyway, I’ll assume it’s 227 unless further clarified.

Have a great evening and God bless you, brother!

 

[patricius79]

speaking of Augustine, here is a link to many of Augustine’s statements on the Real Presence and Sacrifice

“By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof.” (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)
philvaz.com/apologetics/num30.htm

 

[david_ruiz]

By their fruits you shall know them .Sometimes I think eating his flesh went too far in it’s meaning by the subsequent decrees surrounding the Eucharist .Decrees that were never there in the beginning. So how about this , I’ll believe in a primitive early church rendering of “real presence” if you drop the following:# 1- that only the priest can consecrate,for we are all priests, # 2-you do not adore the the consecrated host, that is genuflect or put in a monstrance , for an early father said we are the monstrance ,# 3- that you do not place the consecrated in a tabernacle , behind a veil , for Calvary broke that veil in two and we all have access to the Holy of Holies, not just the priest or an appointee., #4-the Host is not effectual ,other than what is obtained in “remembrance” and thanksgiving,and no to the idea that the elements literally revitalize, # 5- shift focus of offering or re-presenting the Son to the Father to remembering and giving thanks for Calvary (Eucharist) to God,that is we offer God thanks for presenting ,offering His son to and for us, # 6 - drop all the protocol for “drippage and spillage” of the elements for they sound a lot like the man made rules of the Pharisees on holiness and cleanliness that Jesus criticized, # 7 - drop the indulgences, “special” blessings for the number and timing (first Fridays ,novenas) of Eucharistic celebrations, even paying a money offering to have one-…Again ,in my opinion these things surrounding the RP doctrine muddy the waters and perhaps are fruit of a doctrine gone too far .Far from biblical precepts and from early 1st century practice.

 

[patricius79]

By their fruits you shall know them .Sometimes I think eating his flesh went too far in it’s meaning by the subsequent decrees surrounding the Eucharist .Decrees that were never there in the beginning. So how about this , I’ll believe in a primitive early church rendering of “real presence” if you drop the following:# 1- that only the priest can consecrate,for we are all priests, # 2-you do not adore the the consecrated host, that is genuflect or put in a monstrance , for an early father said we are the monstrance ,# 3- that you do not place the consecrated in a tabernacle , behind a veil , for Calvary broke that veil in two and we all have access to the Holy of Holies, not just the priest or an appointee., #4-the Host is not effectual ,other than what is obtained in “remembrance” and thanksgiving,and no to the idea that the elements literally revitalize, .

do you agree with the unanimous patristic interpretation of the Lord’s Supper as a Sacrifice?

philvaz.com/apologetics/num8.htm

the James White-approved and well respected Protestant historian JND Kelly:

“…the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian SACRIFICE from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi’s prediction (1,10f) that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have ‘a pure offering’ made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized upon by Christians [Did 14,3; Justin dial 41,2f; Irenaeus ad haer 4,17,5] as a prophecy of the eucharist…It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper…Ignatius roundly declares [Smyrn 6,2] that ‘the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised’. The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood [Rom 7,3]. CLEARLY he intends this realism to be taken STRICTLY, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ DENIAL of the REALITY of Christ’s body…Justin actually refers to the CHANGE [1 Apol 66,2]…So Irenaeus teaches [Haer 4,17,5; 4,18,4; 5,2,3] that the bread and wine are REALLY the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more IMPRESSIVE because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic REJECTION of the Lord’s real humanity. Like Justin, too, he seems to postulate a CHANGE [Haer 4,18,5]…The eucharist was also, of course, the great act of worship of Christians, their SACRIFICE. The writers and liturgies of the period are UNANIMOUS in recognizing it as such.” (Early Christian Doctrines, page 196-198, 214 emphasis added)
philvaz.com/apologetics/num8.htm

As Scripture says,

“offer this in memory of me”

 

[david_ruiz]

James White had this as footnote to his Council of Nicea article : "For those who struggle with the idea that it was not “Roman Catholicism” in those days, consider this: if one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacle on the altars in their churches, would one think they were in a “Roman Catholic Church” ? Of course not. Yet , the Church of 325 had none of these beliefs,either. Hence ,while they called themselves “Catholics”, they would not have had any idea what “Roman Catholic” meant."www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea-