The Real Presence

[Miriam1947]

John 6:51 and on is what convinces me of the Real Presence. Here John says that the Jews murmured to each other in disbelief about how Jesus’s flesh could possibly be eaten. This shows that the way Jesus said it led people to believe he was speaking literally. Then he responds by saying that, yes, they have to eat if they want eternal life. He didn’t correct them by saying, “Oh no, I meant it symbolically.” He told them they actually had to eat it. Furthermore, he emphasizes that he is the bread from “Heaven.” This means that his body and blood may not actually be of the human body, but of what bodies look like in Heaven. So the bread and wine don’t have to look like human body and blood to be Jesus.

Additionally, the word “eat” that John used was the Greek word for animals eating, not for humans eating. My Bible has a footnote saying that this emphasizes how Jesus meant his body and blood should be literally eaten.

That’s my take on all this.

This was posted on another thread here by a Catholic convert. Her teenage daughter said it:

Jesus used a lot of material objects to describe Himself–He said, “I am the Light.” “I am the Door.” “I am the Shepherd.”

But He never said, “That light is Me.” “That door is Me.” “That shepherd is Me.”

However, He did say, “That Bread is Me. That Wine is Me.”

(Thank you Cat)

That really resonated with her and her husband. Her daughter, who is still not Catholic, believes completely that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ, Truly Present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, because Jesus SAID SO, in the Bible.

 

[david_ruiz]

@ david ruiz

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

 

[Miriam1947]

Yes David it took me a long time to get it. I was baptized into the Catholic Church at Easter Vigil 2008. I was 61 years old.

Every single day I thank God for making me Catholic. It is the best thing that every happened to me.

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes David it took me a long time to get it. I was baptized into the Catholic Church at Easter Vigil 2008. I was 61 years old.

Every single day I thank God for making me Catholic. It is the best thing that every happened to me.

How about this .When you get to the Pearly Gates and the angel asks you why he should let you in , tell him, “Because of the Blood of the Lamb , shed for me (Miriam)”. That is good “Protestantism” and good “Catholicism”, quite universal. I have heard the gates of hell can not prevail with such a statement. And folks like me could fully rejoice with you, with no doctrinal division.

 

[david_ruiz]

Ahhhhh…no! That is a Protestant position,wishy-washy and inconsistent. Show me the CC documents showing that Catholics believe Jesus statement is half literal and half figurative?

Well you say the bread/flesh is literal ,to eat now ,here on earth,but the benefits are not now and here ,but for heaven .,So if Jesus says, “eat the bread /me ,and you wont hunger ,thirst or die” you make one now and three later .With “my” interpretation ,all four are now .How am I inconsistent , wish -washy .Do the math.

 

[david_ruiz]

1. Christ was the God-man, and the apostles were the men he appointed. They had the authority to oppose the Pharisees.

Yes but you miss my point .You look at the situation as opposing ,opposing ,that is a paradigm.The bigger paradigm , the bigger picture, is that the apostles did not oppose the Pharisees or Tradition or the Sanhedrin ,but were busting at the seems with fulfillment of all things Jewish .Do you need authority for that , to be filled with Spirit, to be a fountain of life

Protestants have no authority from heaven to uproot the Catholic/Orthodox Christian faith.

Again ,wrong paradigm.We do not uproot you. .Even the Vatican states we are a plus to your church, that we build from it ,and are from it .hence we view it as a fulfillment of every good and noble (biblical) Catholic goal.
2)

Fulfillment doesn’t mean abolition–Jesus said so himself–so Christians don’t have to abandon the “wonderful traditions and feasts and rites” of Judaism wholesale, just modify them or exchange them for something specifically Christian (cf. Passover/Easter and circumcision/baptism, respectively).

See, you make my point from above.

1. The difference between Catholic and Orthodox Christianity (both equally liturgical and “ritualistic”) on the one hand and Buddhism and Islam on the other is… Christ. His mission, passion, and resurrection. Equating Catholicism and Orthodoxy with non-Christian religions is also comparing apples and oranges.

Of course,but again ,my point was not doctrinal ,but one of shared religious,positive experiences in these faiths.

 

[david_ruiz]

.

Yep! Martin Luther! Take a jab at his attitude and you let me know if his pride was not higher than cloud nine? Orthodoxy? Really? Tell me the name of its founder and year it was founded? .

What happened to starting with Wycliffe ? As for Luther he was a Catholic product , a monk .From what I understand he was par for the course as far as his manner of speech ,even crudeness,beer drinking .The clergy needed quite a “Reformation”, indeed it was Jesuits and Dominicans( I think) to the rescue , and elevated the demeanor of clergy. Again Luther , yes , if God can speak thru a mule…If Luther was so bad, the movement must have been of God, you know to confound the wise .A little like the apostles .You know brash Peter ,foot in mouth, and the sons of thunder (temper,temper) and a doubting Thomas.etc.etc. and they (was it really just them) set the world upside down.God had to be behind them.

You know exactly what I mean. Protestanism roots stem from prideful men who apparently knew better and wanted to implement their novel beliefs: Sola Scriptura,Faith Alone,etc,etc and still no end in sight.

Remember ,the Catholic church would not let them implement their “novel” ideas ,in fact wanted to arrest them all ,confiscate their property ,even kill some.Thus these religious “confused” souls " protested" Romes’ shackles and denial of freedom of religion .Hence the term “Protetsant”. Their ideas were not novel ,except that some were forgotten or were compromised .That some terms had to be “deveoloped” (sola scriptura) was a simple antithesis to “developed” tradition.But in actuality ,the end result was getting back to the original,BEFORE any “DEVELOPEMENTS” (interpretations that led away from original intent -it happened in the O.T. too).

 

[Trebor135]

Yes but you miss my point .You look at the situation as opposing ,opposing ,that is a paradigm.The bigger paradigm , the bigger picture, is that the apostles did not oppose the Pharisees or Tradition or the Sanhedrin ,but were busting at the seems with fulfillment of all things Jewish .Do you need authority for that , to be filled with Spirit, to be a fountain of life Again ,wrong paradigm.

No, you don’t need authority to be “filled with spirit”, but you do need authority to modify the received faith so profoundly, as Protestants have done. St. Paul would never have been in favour of the kind of anarchy and individualism particularly rampant in the creedless (Ana)baptist evangelicalism which you advocate.

We do not uproot you. .Even the Vatican states we are a plus to your church, that we build from it ,and are from it .hence we view it as a fulfillment of every good and noble (biblical) Catholic goal.

The Catholic Church, for its part, (rightly) considers Protestants to be Christian. But everything you have was taken by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and their ilk from a church which they wanted to remodel as they saw fit, indeed turn upside-down. You don’t “build” upon what your theological ancestors took from the Catholic Church, for all that was brought along was taken illegitimately. And how can Protestantism, which teaches doctrines–like sola fide–unheard of before Luther, correctly claim to be a “fulfillment” of the biblical, historical Christian faith?

Of course,but again ,my point was not doctrinal ,but one of shared religious,positive experiences in these faiths.

Sure. But if Christ envisioned a visible church, which the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (of all Christian groups today) most closely resemble, why not be a part, especially given the presence of the Catholic Charismatic Revival?

 

[david_ruiz]

Perhaps St. Augustine figured his audience would understand him. It’s impossible to determine his true meaning without having the whole sermon in front of us (or dropping him a line in heaven)

.Did you have the whole sermon in front of you when you said Augustine was speaking in away that fit your interpretation and not mine ?

or dropping him a line in heaven If you have a link, please share.

This is funny, thanks for the much needed humor. It is still a teachable moment though . I am sure some would say we have a link , in the Church /magisteruim .Others would say we have a link to Augustine and what he meant thru the Spirit .The same Spirit that taught him , he would say is eternal .and unchangeable, and can teach us.(Confessions)

The first passage refers to someone who has to be forced to recognize and flee from his sin by experiencing punishment in the world. The second is quite vague

I thought it was simple enough for a child - “Adam was made a quickening spirit”. That we are spiritual beings , as well as fleshly creatures (from first passage - “deliver his flesh to Satan so that his spirit may be saved”) .That is what both scriptures seem to explicitly imply .So if Augustine says we participate spiritually , it is as opposed to fleshly .He says forget your" teeth and bellies". Quite simple.

The Bible doesn’t use “spiritual” to mean “figurative” or “symbolic” in any case I’m aware of. That’s really the crux of the matter.

Correct ,I think.Spiritual is spiritual . Jesus does use symbolism ,and figure of speech , and quite literally anything (a seed, a stone ), to convey spiritual realities.

 

[david_ruiz]

Well, for a magnificent example of boundless pride, let’s look at the words penned by the founder of Protestantism (these excerpts are taken from “Martin Luther the ‘Super-Pope’ and ‘de facto’ Infallibility”):

I thought it was fantastic .Countless times he says he is what he is by the grace of God .Counltees times he quotes scriptures to show a basis for standing. This is pride and arrogance ?I thought it was rather tame compared to other stuff I have read on him .Why don’t you show some of the stuff that was written by about him , by supposedly humble holy men of Rome ? What would you say of Paul when he confronted St Peter, “withstood him face to face” about his cowardice and two facedness with the gentiles ? Was he being brash and arrogant to the Vicar of Christ ?? But really ,can you even possibly put yourself in Luther’s shoes .As you said earlier , you need the whole story , all the writings and proceedings that led to this given discourse .Apparently this is the third time he made his case .Why don’t you quote the first two ? I am sure they were much more humble and respectful …But as another said on a different thread , there is a time to shake the dust off your feet…Many historians say they (Rome) mishandled Luther and should have placated him from the get go ,over minor issues ,that the church later corrected anyway.He could have been a saint.Luther was right ,you almost made a martyr out of him ,made him bigger than he had to be…Did you get the part where
the Holy Catholics cursed ,him ? Where they slandered him-made up lies ? where they condemned him and wanted to burn him ? Is this one of those doctrines that “developed”, where you did this to a fallen brother , even an “heretick” ? Is this apostolic , even early church father ??? And this began over what , a guy named Tetzel, pretty much selling salvation to Luther’s Catholic flock ?? You and I would both deplore such abuses.Are we being arrogant and proud .Yes ,maybe of our heritage ,and beloved Church ,and of the Truth placed in your heart.

 

[Nicea325]

Well you say the bread/flesh is literal ,to eat now ,here on earth,but the benefits are not now and here ,but for heaven .,So if Jesus says, “eat the bread /me ,and you wont hunger ,thirst or die” you make one now and three later .With “my” interpretation ,all four are now .How am I inconsistent , wish -washy .Do the math.

Exactly…do the math,so present what I asked? I’ll ask again,show me the CC document stating Jesus was speaking half literal & figurative? Apparently you were a Catholic at one point in time,so please enlighten me.

 

[Nicea325]

What happened to starting with Wycliffe ? As for Luther he was a Catholic product , a monk .From what I understand he was par for the course as far as his manner of speech ,even crudeness,beer drinking .The clergy needed quite a “Reformation”, indeed it was Jesuits and Dominicans( I think) to the rescue , and elevated the demeanor of clergy. Again Luther , yes , if God can speak thru a mule…If Luther was so bad, the movement must have been of God, you know to confound the wise .A little like the apostles .You know brash Peter ,foot in mouth, and the sons of thunder (temper,temper) and a doubting Thomas.etc.etc. and they (was it really just them) set the world upside down.God had to be behind them.

Remember ,the Catholic church would not let them implement their “novel” ideas ,in fact wanted to arrest them all ,confiscate their property ,even kill some.Thus these religious “confused” souls " protested" Romes’ shackles and denial of freedom of religion .Hence the term “Protetsant”. Their ideas were not novel ,except that some were forgotten or were compromised .That some terms had to be “deveoloped” (sola scriptura) was a simple antithesis to “developed” tradition.But in actuality ,the end result was getting back to the original,BEFORE any “DEVELOPEMENTS” (interpretations that led away from original intent -it happened in the O.T. too).

Sorry,but I am referring to Luther’s pride and if you wish to defend it,then apparently you too are prideful to admit he had an attitude.

But in actuality ,the end result was getting back to the original,BEFORE any “DEVELOPEMENTS” (interpretations that led away from original intent -it happened in the O.T. too

Weak argument and a flat out a fabrication of history. Going back to the original? Seriously? Show me where one Apostle was all about himself and implementing his own doctrines? Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide were part of the original? That is just plain absurd!

 

[ndismyhome]

Sure three are Anglicans who believe in a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist, but Anglican liturgy, history, and theology don’t really accommodate that. It could allow for a Catholic/orthodox understanding, or a more Lutheran/spiritual understanding, but no really a symbol-only understanding.

(Emphasis added)

FYI, Lutherans DO NOT accept a “spiritual” understanding. This is one of the major dividing lines between Lutheran and Calvinistic theology. Confessional Lutheranism, and Luther himself, strongly hold/ held to the doctrine of the real presence. “With, in, and under” means just that: the body and blood are literally with, in and under the forms of bread and wine. Luther himself famously argued against Ulrich Zwingli that “is means is”. When Christ says “this is My Body” etc. He means exactly that! If someone tries to tell you different, he or she has thoroughly confused Lutheran and Calvinist (perhaps Anabaptist) theology.

Furthermore, Lutheranism cannot accept the doctrine of spiritual presence because to do so would deny Lutheranism’s adherence to Chalcedonian Christology: Christ can only be spiritually present if one divides his humanity and divinity.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

(Emphasis added)

FYI, Lutherans DO NOT accept a “spiritual” understanding. This is one of the major dividing lines between Lutheran and Calvinistic theology. Confessional Lutheranism, and Luther himself, strongly hold/ held to the doctrine of the real presence. “With, in, and under” means just that: the body and blood are literally with, in and under the forms of bread and wine. Luther himself famously argued against Ulrich Zwingli that “is means is”. When Christ says “this is My Body” etc. He means exactly that! If someone tries to tell you different, he or she has thoroughly confused Lutheran and Calvinist (perhaps Anabaptist) theology.

Furthermore, Lutheranism cannot accept the doctrine of spiritual presence because to do so would deny Lutheranism’s adherence to Chalcedonian Christology: Christ can only be spiritually present if one divides his humanity and divinity.

And that is the Calvinist conundrum. Calvinism sounds frighteningly like Nestorianism on many levels.

 

[ndismyhome]

And that is the Calvinist conundrum. Calvinism sounds frighteningly like Nestorianism on many levels.

You got it

 

[david_ruiz]

Exactly…do the math,so present what I asked? I’ll ask again,show me the CC document stating Jesus was speaking half literal & figurative? Apparently you were a Catholic at one point in time,so please enlighten me.

I’ll try: #1-Eat bread/flesh-now,on Earth ,literal
#2-no more thirst-later ,in heaven ,figurative, #3- no more hunger-later ,in heaven ,figurative, #4 die not-later,in heaven,figurative

 

[Nicea325]

I’ll try: #1-Eat bread/flesh-now,on Earth ,literal
#2-no more thirst-later ,in heaven ,figurative, #3- no more hunger-later ,in heaven ,figurative, #4 die not-later,in heaven,figurative

I’ll ask again,show me the CC document stating Jesus was speaking half literal & figurative?

 

[david_ruiz]

Remember ,the Catholic church would not let them implement their “novel” ideas ,in fact wanted to arrest them all ,confiscate their property ,even kill some.Thus these religious “confused” souls " protested" Romes’ shackles and denial of freedom of religion .Hence the term “Protetsant”. Their ideas were not novel ,except that some were forgotten or were compromised .That some terms had to be “deveoloped” (sola scriptura) was a simple antithesis to “developed” tradition.But in actuality ,the end result was getting back to the original,BEFORE any “DEVELOPEMENTS” (interpretations that led away from original intent -it happened in the O.T. too).

Sorry,but I am referring to Luther’s pride and if you wish to defend it,then apparently you too are prideful to admit he had an attitude

. Sorry ,I was referring to who put that attitude in Luther,or who brought it out.You want attitude, how about two apostles who were known as “sons of thunder”. Anyways, I am not Lutheran .I will repeat again , “let all men be liars (and prideful) ,but let God be true (humble)”. How about this for pride, “I acknowledge no civil power;I am the subject of no prince. I am more than this.I claim to be the supreme judge and director of the conscience of men;of the peasant who tills his field,and of the prince who sits upon the throne;of the household that lives in the shade of privacy,and the legislator that makes laws for the kingdom.I am sole,last,supreme judge of what is right or wrong”. Apparently this from Cardinal Manning for the lips of the pope in one of his lectures .Don’t worry .I got this from a “bad” source they will tell you ,a former Catholic priest at the time, and his book “50 years in the Church of Rome”. However , we know Cardinal Manning did push for the final declaration of Papal Infallibility in the late 1800’s.We also know popes (3 of them) at this time also condemned freedom of religion , freedom of conscience ,bible societies ,vernacular translations etc.And while Catholics may not like the tone of the quote ,they see it as accurate in doctrinal substance. Again “,let all men be bad ,only God is good”-my paraphrase for Romans 3:4

Show me where one Apostle was all about himself and implementing his own doctrines?

That is your take on Luther,quite slanted but understandable from your position. .

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide were part of the original? That is just plain absurd!

The word is “foolish” as Luther states about what he was called .So absurd there are countless threads/posts on CA showing ,documentation ,and scripture ,tradition ,and church fathers etc ,trying to show it is not as simply absurd as you say.

 

[david_ruiz]

I’ll ask again,show me the CC document stating Jesus was speaking half literal & figurative?

Show me a document to show me i am wrong .Skip the first one .We agree that is your stand on that one .So far I am only going by what another Catholic said on this thread ,that the last 3 were for Heaven, later. Were they wrong ?

 

[Nicea325]

Show me a document to show me i am wrong .Skip the first one .We agree that is your stand on that one .So far I am only going by what another Catholic said on this thread ,that the last 3 were for Heaven, later. Were they wrong ?

Precisely David! If you are so confident you are right and your “interpretation” is infallible,then show me the CC document agreeing with you?