To those who deny the true presence

[O.S.Luke]

I suspect it is folly to try to equate the words of Augustine or Chrystostom or any other Church Father and then to fast forward to the 11th century and further to the dogma of transubstantiation and the philosophies of Thomism and Aristotelianism. To complicate the matter would be to see how the West and the East differ on Real Presence in terms of substance and accidents.

I think it would be simplest to simply say, it’s the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. No explanation necessary… or even possible. Sacraments are mysterious and supernatural - thus defying explanation.

It might well be that to attempt to explain the Real Presence at any level of depth is to deny the miracle and means of grace that it is. Sacraments are mysterion!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I suspect it is folly to try to equate the words of Augustine or Chrystostom or any other Church Father and then to fast forward to the 11th century and further to the dogma of transubstantiation and the philosophies of Thomism and Aristotelianism. To complicate the matter would be to see how the West and the East differ on Real Presence in terms of substance and accidents.

I think it would be simplest to simply say, it’s the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. No explanation necessary… or even possible. Sacraments are mysterious and supernatural - thus defying explanation.

It might well be that to attempt to explain the Real Presence at any level of depth is to deny the miracle and means of grace that it is. Sacraments are mysterion!

Gabriel of 12;
Let us be clear here; Catholics both living and deceased including the apostles and ECF’s believed in the True presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Catholics dont have a problem with this understanding of the Christian faith Taught by Jesus and handed down to us today.

The christians you have a problem with convincing, teaching or believing in this 2000 year old Truth are non catholics and protestant denominations, never Catholics who have a problem with the True Presence of Jesus in his Eucharist.

As far as the Eastern Catholic Church is concerned, the protestant heretical view of a symbolic Jesus came from the East never the Roman Catholic Church who always defended the True presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. It should be noted also that those in the East who preached a different Jesus from the apostolic church were exiled, excommunicated, or labeled heretics.

Let us be clear. Transubstantiation in no way defines this mystery of the Eucharist. Transubstantiation defeats a non believers understanding always. Because it places the faith and truth in practice so as never to be doubted again by the Children of God.

Peace be with you

 

[O.S.Luke]

The christians you have a problem with convincing, teaching or believing in this 2000 year old Truth are non catholics and protestant denominations, never Catholics who have a problem with the True Presence of Jesus in his Eucharist.

Not all non-Catholics and Protestants denominations have a problem with the Real Presence. Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans embrace the Real Presence as well. And consubstantiation, which has been erroneously linked to Luther and Lutheranism, is not an official teaching of Lutherans. Just ask one.

As far as the Eastern Catholic Church is concerned, the protestant heretical view of a symbolic Jesus came from the East never the Roman Catholic Church who always defended the True presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

As said above, not all Protestants believe in a “symbolic” Jesus at the Eucharist.

Let us be clear. Transubstantiation in no way defines this mystery of the Eucharist. Transubstantiation defeats a non believers understanding always.

That is debatable. In fact, some would say it limits the mystery of the Eucharist instead of enhancing it.

Do you KNOW what the Eastern position is? It is NOT transubstantiation (μετουσίωσις/metousiosis), but simply change or turn about (μεταβολή/metabole or μεταβάλλω/metaballein). The term μετουσίωσις is a change of essence and substance, while μεταβολή is simply a transformation. In short, while the West describes the theory (transubstantiation uses philosophical theory according to Aristotelian and Thomistic terminology), the East simply calls it a fact - which, in reading the works of the ECF’s (in Greek) was in keeping with Patristic tradition.

The problem came when the West translated Greek into Latin. The East never went to Latin. And scholasticism (in Latin) came along and the West went full throttle into it. The problem with translations is that they are never “neat” - try translating present-day languages and see how that works.

From The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware:

As the words of the Epiclesis make abundantly plain, the Orthodox Church believes that after the consecration the bread and wine become in very truth the Body and Blood of Christ: they are not mere symbols, but the reality. But while Orthodoxy has always insisted on the reality of the change, it has never attempted to explain the manner of the change: the Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy simply uses the neutral term metaballo, to “turn about”, to “change”, to “alter”.

It is true that in the seventeenth century not only individual Orthodox writers, but Orthodox councils such as that of Jerusalem in 1672, made use of the Latin term “transubstantiation” (in Greek, metousiosis), together with the Scholastic distinction between substance and accidents. But at the same time the Fathers of Jerusalem were careful to add that the use of these terms does not constitute an explanation of the manner of the change, since this is a mystery and must always remain incomprehensible.

Yet despite this disclaimer, many Orthodox felt that Jerusalem had committed itself too unreservedly to the terminology of Latin Scholasticism, and it is significant that when in 1838 the Russian Church issued a translation of the Acts of Jerusalem, while retaining the word transubstantiation, it carefully paraphrased the rest of the passage in such a way that the technical terms substance and accidents were not employed.

Today a few Orthodox writers still use the word transubstantiation, but they insist on two points: first, there are many other words which can with equal legitimacy be used to describe the consecration, and, among them all, the term transubstantiation enjoys no unique or decisive authority; secondly, its use does not commit theologians to the acceptance of Aristotelian philosophical concepts." - from The Orthodox Church, pp 283-284

The Real Presence of Christ is… the Real Presence of Christ. The bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Period. No explanation necessary - or possible.

Being Methodist, we tend to be more Eastern than Western when it comes to liturgical and sacramental theology - Wesley was heavily influenced by John Chrystostom and the Eastern Fathers. Hence, our present statement is much like the Eastern statement. And while the Eastern Orthodox Church certainly doesn’t recognize our Eucharist as valid, you should also realize that they don’t consider the Catholic’s Eucharist as valid either (again, just ask one ). The East is fairly sure that we Westerners don’t “get” it when it comes to mystery. And they might be right.

O+

 

[imkingdad]

what I did not know is the holy spirit lived in me each and every day of my life…

The bible says this…
What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. 2Tim 1:13-14

I believe this is true of every single human being on the face of this earth.
The holy spirit lives in all of us…no exception…right from the day we are born

That being the case…

His real presence is right there with me, in me every day of my life. I can not get away from Him even if I try.

---

Then why pray tell does the HS allow you or I or any man to Sin, To bring sin into his Divine Presence. Following your logic Hitler Stalin Khan Mao PolPot were all possessors of the H.S. even when they were committing their multitude of Heinous acts. Kinda makes it look like God is there & sanctioning these acts.

The Catholic Church has 2000 years or so of Teaching that clarifies these Points in the smallest detail Too Bad you lack this. But Help is available at the Nearest Catholic Church. Perhaps you should seek it out.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Not all non-Catholics and Protestants denominations have a problem with the Real Presence. Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans embrace the Real Presence as well. And consubstantiation, which has been erroneously linked to Luther and Lutheranism, is not an official teaching of Lutherans. Just ask one.

As said above, not all Protestants believe in a “symbolic” Jesus at the Eucharist.

That is debatable. In fact, some would say it limits the mystery of the Eucharist instead of enhancing it.

Do you KNOW what the Eastern position is? It is NOT transubstantiation (μετουσίωσις/metousiosis), but simply change or turn about (μεταβολή/metabole or μεταβάλλω/metaballein). The term μετουσίωσις is a change of essence and substance, while μεταβολή is simply a transformation. In short, while the West describes the theory (transubstantiation uses philosophical theory according to Aristotelian and Thomistic terminology), the East simply calls it a fact - which, in reading the works of the ECF’s (in Greek) was in keeping with Patristic tradition.

“It is true that in the seventeenth century not only individual Orthodox writers, but Orthodox councils such as that of Jerusalem in 1672, made use of the Latin term “transubstantiation” (in Greek, metousiosis), together with the Scholastic distinction between substance and accidents. But at the same time the Fathers of Jerusalem were careful to add that the use of these terms does not constitute an explanation of the manner of the change, since this is a mystery and must always remain incomprehensible”.

Gabriel of 12
What you raise here is an ancient pride that never ceases from the “East”. And if you study the ECF’s from the East, you will find they are very mystical and enlightened. Some Eastern Patriarchs from times past, did not see it fit for the West to be enlightened or to defend the Apostolic Catholic Faith in terms of defining without their approval. This raises many levels of debate of which you unknowingly probably enter from your pronouncements of Thomas, and Aristotle. There is much more emphasis made on these particular doctrines that come from men, not God.

That said, it serves no purpose to try and find a difference in Communion or Eucharist between the East and Western Catholic Church. Both communities believe in the True Presence confected by an ordained valid Priest. The Eastern Rites in full communion with Peter (present day Pope) both East and West in some cases under certain circumstances are able to recieve communion from one another. Whereby neither East or West can recieve communion from any of the protestants church’s.

This Aristotle argument you raise, only confirms the validity of the True presence defended by the Roman Catholic Church. Transubstantiation again does not exhaust the mystery of the Eucharist. Transubstantiation validates that the Eucharist is truly the body, blood of Jesus Christ in an age and language when human science and understanding has matured somewhat. The Catholic Church was able to give an answer for her faith in the True Presence of Jesus Christ, when it seemed as though humanity from her gained knowledge of the World was ready to attack the Eucharist again by science.

The Catholic Church settled the matter, by taking the worlds gained knowledge and once again “Championed” the Apostolic faith of the Eucharist. All the While the Eastern side did not come under such attacks, she was already trying to exist.

To try and discredit the Eucharist from transubstantiation using Thomas and Aristotle is a very weak argument. These dont negate nor discredit the Eucharist. What you should use are Church councils arguments, but these are negated also, because the outcome of the faith in the Eucharist does not and did not ever change. The Eucharist from either East or Western definition or language; the Eucharist remains the True body, blood of Jesus Christ. No matter how you shape this from any perspective it will not change the “Rock” Catholic faith in the True presence of Jesus in his Eucharist even unto death this faith will not die.

Peace be with you

 

[Justy90]

This is for those who deny the true literal presence of Christ how do you justify the following out of John 6

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

54 “Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood”… To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

source drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm

How can one say it is figurative language or only a “spiritual presence”. Just wondering how one can ratonalize that it is not the literal presence.

I agree.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Gabriel of 12To try and discredit the Eucharist from transubstantiation using Thomas and Aristotle is a very weak argument. These dont negate nor discredit the Eucharist. What you should use are Church councils arguments, but these are negated also, because the outcome of the faith in the Eucharist does not and did not ever change. The Eucharist from either East or Western definition or language; the Eucharist remains the True body, blood of Jesus Christ. No matter how you shape this from any perspective it will not change the “Rock” Catholic faith in the True presence of Jesus in his Eucharist even unto death this faith will not die.

Peace be with you

Nice try, but you missed some points, and you smugly repeated a few of mine and passed them off as yours. I nowhere discredited the Eucharist - I was giving the viewpoints of the East and West… and you show your own lack of understanding of Eucharistic theology; I could no more discredit the Eucharist than I could move the moon, since Christ is the principal actor at any Eucharist.

The gist of the argument is over philosophy, not Real Presence. And I will let Eastern (as well as Western) folks speak up for themselves in places where you dropped the ball, historically and grammatically, where Greek and Latin are concerned.

I studied patristics and historical sacramental theology in depth, all from Catholic scholars. I suppose you would smugly call them wrong, too. Enjoy your arrogance.

Peace be with you, too.

 

[Radical]

Hi Justy90, I note that you agree with workingman when he asked:

How can one say it is figurative language or only a “spiritual presence”. Just wondering how one can ratonalize that it is not the literal presence.

This is the sort of thing that gets so frustratiing when talking to those of the RP ilk.

First, from this side of the fence, it appears that the RP side is the one standing knee deep in rationalization. Everyone can see that no change occurs to the bread and that no change occurs to the wine. At Jesus’s first miracle water actually (and literally) became wine. There wasn’t the need for a bunch of disciples to go around to the wedding guests to explain that, although what they had in their glasses looked and tasted just like water, it was in fact wine. Also, when Jesus announced that anyone who does the will of his Father is his brother, sister and mother no one took his words literally b/c they could easily see that his disciples hadn’t morphed into different persons. It is those of the RP view that must rationalize a way around what we can all observe.

Second, when the RPer wants to sound more pious or more faithful he claims that he takes John 6 literally and that he eats the Lord’s flesh at the Eucharist. When confronted by a Protestant claiming that the Catholic view of the Eucharist amounts to the endorsement of cannibalism, the RPer quickly talks out of the other side of his mouth and explains that no cannibalism is involved b/c the “accidents” of Christ’s body aren’t actually/literally present to be chewed, ground and swallowed. Again, it is the RP view that must rationalize a way around how one can literally comply with Christ’s requirement to eat his flesh w/o committing the sin of cannibalism at the same time.

 

[Justy90]

Hi Justy90, I note that you agree with workingman when he asked:

This is the sort of thing that gets so frustratiing when talking to those of the RP ilk.

First, from this side of the fence, it appears that the RP side is the one standing knee deep in rationalization. Everyone can see that no change occurs to the bread and that no change occurs to the wine. At Jesus’s first miracle water actually (and literally) became wine. There wasn’t the need for a bunch of disciples to go around to the wedding guests to explain that, although what they had in their glasses looked and tasted just like water, it was in fact wine. Also, when Jesus announced that anyone who does the will of his Father is his brother, sister and mother no one took his words literally b/c they could easily see that his disciples hadn’t morphed into different persons. It is those of the RP view that must rationalize a way around what we can all observe.

Second, when the RPer wants to sound more pious or more faithful he claims that he takes John 6 literally and that he eats the Lord’s flesh at the Eucharist. When confronted by a Protestant claiming that the Catholic view of the Eucharist amounts to the endorsement of cannibalism, the RPer quickly talks out of the other side of his mouth and explains that no cannibalism is involved b/c the “accidents” of Christ’s body aren’t actually/literally present to be chewed, ground and swallowed. Again, it is the RP view that must rationalize a way around how one can literally comply with Christ’s requirement to eat his flesh w/o committing the sin of cannibalism at the same time.

I tend to agree with what Martin Luther believed regarding the Eucharist which is cosubstantiation. This seems to me to be the most supported by Scripture. It simply means that the bread and wine are still bread and wine while also being the body and blood of Jesus. Jesus said that the bread which comes down from Heaven is my flesh. i accept much of it as a mystery simply because we know by Scripture that God’s ways are not our ways.

 

[Radical]

i accept much of it as a mystery simply because we know by Scripture that God’s ways are not our ways.

That’s fair…what baffles me is that Catholics start these threads over and over again. They agressively ask, “How could someone possibly believe that the bread is only a symbol of Christ’s body?” when the fact that the bread remains and no body appears makes the symbolic view the most obvious one. Catholics have a hard enough time getting their own adherents to believe in a Real bodily Presence and yet they are somehow baffled as to how a protestant would understand the Lord’s supper figuratively (when the NT is packed with figures and symbols). They might not agree, but surely they should be able to grasp how a symbolic meaning could be favored by someone else.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Nice try, but you missed some points, and you smugly repeated a few of mine and passed them off as yours. I nowhere discredited the Eucharist - I was giving the viewpoints of the East and West… and you show your own lack of understanding of Eucharistic theology; I could no more discredit the Eucharist than I could move the moon, since Christ is the principal actor at any Eucharist.

The gist of the argument is over philosophy, not Real Presence. And I will let Eastern (as well as Western) folks speak up for themselves in places where you dropped the ball, historically and grammatically, where Greek and Latin are concerned.

I studied patristics and historical sacramental theology in depth, all from Catholic scholars. I suppose you would smugly call them wrong, too. Enjoy your arrogance.

Peace be with you, too.

Gabriel of 12;
LoL… and I thought we were clear. I will repeat again; know matter how you wish to argue or pit philosophical arguments or language against the True presence, and I will repeat again, it never negates the Catholic faith from either west or east, north and south of the True presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Their is only arguments of the True Presence from the Protestant side of Christianity, and I will entertain you with just two. One the validity of the Priesthood and Eucharist (sacraments) in Protestantism, two a symbolic Jesus in the bread and or grape juice. Ask any Eastern Orthodox or Western Catholic if they can recieve a Protestants “Eucharist” or bread and grape juice in the form of the True presence? This is the fundamental argument you should be raising from your camp, not your opinion of the East and West faith or Thomas Aquainus, Aristotle’s scientific revelations.

Secondly, you may have studied Patristic and Historical Sacramental? theology (congrats, are in order to you ) THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS, I AM LIVING THEm OUT (unchanged) TODAY IN MY APOSTOLIC BIBLICAL CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITH, not studying them.

I missed your joke about dropping a ball somewhere? You have to excuse my lack of understanding to your boastful intelligence when I humbly submit only to my faith and how I live it and practice it, not study it.

I barely understand Thomas Aquainus, Aristotle I know, but when did we begin discussing Greek and Latin? Maybe you have me confused with another poster? If its the languages you wish to engage, to make it fair game, let us include both Hebrew and Aramaic languages so as never to confuse the understanding of the translation from Hebrew, to Greek, Aramaic to Greek with a Hebrew mindset, and finally Greek into Latin so that nothing gets misinterpreted. I leave you with a challenge, name your topic? "Tennis anyone?

And also with you

 

[StrawberryJam]

That’s fair…what baffles me is that Catholics start these threads over and over again. They agressively ask, “How could someone possibly believe that the bread is only a symbol of Christ’s body?” when the fact that the bread remains and no body appears makes the symbolic view the most obvious one. Catholics have a hard enough time getting their own adherents to believe in a Real bodily Presence and yet they are somehow baffled as to how a protestant would understand the Lord’s supper figuratively (when the NT is packed with figures and symbols). They might not agree, but surely they should be able to grasp how a symbolic meaning could be favored by someone else.

Good observations. But, let’s not ignore the powerful imagry that was put forth to those who could not read. Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics of all rites rely on this imagry.

 

[O.S.Luke]

You have to excuse my lack of understanding to your boastful intelligence when I humbly submit only to my faith and how I live it and practice it, not study it.

You may find this hard to believe, but I am a man of faith and submit to it as well.

You are the most arrogant poster I’ve ever seen here. That’s saying a lot at CAF.

Pax.

 

[Justy90]

That’s fair…what baffles me is that Catholics start these threads over and over again. They agressively ask, “How could someone possibly believe that the bread is only a symbol of Christ’s body?” when the fact that the bread remains and no body appears makes the symbolic view the most obvious one. Catholics have a hard enough time getting their own adherents to believe in a Real bodily Presence and yet they are somehow baffled as to how a protestant would understand the Lord’s supper figuratively (when the NT is packed with figures and symbols). They might not agree, but surely they should be able to grasp how a symbolic meaning could be favored by someone else.

And that’s certainly a fair statement as well. You are correct that there are many a thread here solely created to be a snare instead of cultivating good conversation and dialogue. I don’t think that most Catholics care what Protestants believe and why they believe it. They just fall all over each other trying to be the first one to try and disprove it. It’s redundant, it’s the obvious folly of a falsehood and above all, it’s not the least bit Christianlike or charitable.

 

[workingman]

Radical;5742342]Hi Justy90, I note that you agree with workingman when he asked:

This is the sort of thing that gets so frustratiing when talking to those of the RP ilk.

First, from this side of the fence, it appears that the RP side is the one standing knee deep in rationalization. Everyone can see that no change occurs to the bread and that no change occurs to the wine. At Jesus’s first miracle water actually (and literally) became wine. There wasn’t the need for a bunch of disciples to go around to the wedding guests to explain that, although what they had in their glasses looked and tasted just like water, it was in fact wine. Also, when Jesus announced that anyone who does the will of his Father is his brother, sister and mother no one took his words literally b/c they could easily see that his disciples hadn’t morphed into different persons. It is those of the RP view that must rationalize a way around what we can all observe.

Yes the properties of bread and wine do stay. Though their are miracles that do show a literal presence where bread and wine cease to exist. Brother in the text from the time did not mean blood relations we all know this. No rationalizing is necessary due to the words also in the words of institution. Look at Matt 26:26-28; 26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
How else does one define the word is?

Second, when the RPer wants to sound more pious or more faithful he claims that he takes John 6 literally and that he eats the Lord’s flesh at the Eucharist. When confronted by a Protestant claiming that the Catholic view of the Eucharist amounts to the endorsement of cannibalism, the RPer quickly talks out of the other side of his mouth and explains that no cannibalism is involved b/c the “accidents” of Christ’s body aren’t actually/literally present to be chewed, ground and swallowed. Again, it is the RP view that must rationalize a way around how one can literally comply with Christ’s requirement to eat his flesh w/o committing the sin of cannibalism at the same time.

If the words are not literal of his flesh and blood then why in John 6:61 I believe are Jesus disciples leaving if Jesus is only speaking figuratively. Would Jesus give a command that would be a sin? No. That is a very old view of the Eucharist calling it cannibalism. I don’t even feel that is worth trying to refute. Call it talking out the side of ones mouth if you will.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

That’s fair…what baffles me is that Catholics start these threads over and over again. They agressively ask, “How could someone possibly believe that the bread is only a symbol of Christ’s body?” when the fact that the bread remains and no body appears makes the symbolic view the most obvious one. Catholics have a hard enough time getting their own adherents to believe in a Real bodily Presence and yet they are somehow baffled as to how a protestant would understand the Lord’s supper figuratively (when the NT is packed with figures and symbols). They might not agree, but surely they should be able to grasp how a symbolic meaning could be favored by someone else.

Gabriel of 12;

Before going over board with anymore new interpretations and attaching the word “Christian” to them. Let me help you understand a 2000 year old Apostolic Judeo Christian faith that comes from another 2000 year old Hebrew faith that Jesus (Emmanuel) revealed to his Catholic Church.

It begins with the Hebrew Word “Zakar” used in the Old Testament when God would reveal himself to his people who believed in him when they did everything as prescribed (see one among many scriptures in Exodus 20:24) in “Zakar” in rememberance of him is the word Jesus uses to make himself present to his people who believe in him (God).

Any Christian faith outside of this “rememberance” in the New Covenant is not practicing or believing the New Covenant Jesus prescribed to his Apostolic Catholic faith his followers. Again anything new outside this apostolic faith and Tradition is a man made theology and is not of God.

This is what truly Catholics are practicing in the 2000 year old Mass.

Hebrews 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since through the blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary
20 by the new and living way he opened for us through the veil, that is, his flesh,
21 and since we have “a great priest over the house of God,” 22 **let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water. 23 Let us hold unwaveringly to our confession that gives us hope, for he who made the promise is trustworthy. **

Hebrew 12;22 No, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering, 23 and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, 6 and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect, 24 and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood that speaks more eloquently 7 than that of Abel. 25 **See that you do not reject the one who speaks. For if they did not escape when they refused the one who warned them on earth, how much more in our case if we turn away from the one who warns from heaven. **

1Corinthians 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?

True Christians and followers of Jesus should begin to not doubt Jesus words because men have convinced you otherwise or the world brings you shame for trusting Jesus at his own Words to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

**Romans 1: 19 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. **As a result, they have no excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 **While claiming to be wise, they became fools **

Let me update you in todays 2000 year old Apostolic Catholic Christian faith.

In the old covenant these** “forshadowed” **and announced the coming Messiah, in the New Testament Jesus **“imaged” **the Father and revealed in the present what was foretold or foreshadowed in the past. “Today” thanks be to God the Catholic Church is living out the **“Reality” **of the mysteries of God.

Colossians 1: 15 **He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16
For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church. 9 He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross 11 (through him), whether those on earth or those in heaven. **

What makes reality? those things that are of the Spirit which are eternal not the flesh as you presume. This is the Eucharist the reality of creation.

Peace be with you

 

[workingman]

That’s fair…what baffles me is that Catholics start these threads over and over again. They agressively ask, “How could someone possibly believe that the bread is only a symbol of Christ’s body?” when the fact that the bread remains and no body appears makes the symbolic view the most obvious one. Catholics have a hard enough time getting their own adherents to believe in a Real bodily Presence and yet they are somehow baffled as to how a protestant would understand the Lord’s supper figuratively (when the NT is packed with figures and symbols). They might not agree, but surely they should be able to grasp how a symbolic meaning could be favored by someone else.

That shoe can be made to fit many feet. We worship Mary and the Saints would be a good example also. I was brought up outside of the CC and was taught that it is only a spiritual presence. This as I grew just did not seem to jive to me with the words that were spoken by Jesus. Once again Look at the words given in the Last Supper when Jesus give the blessing and says what it is. This is my body this is my blood. If one does not believe the literal that is Catholic then that Catholic needs to be reeducated and prayed for. Now as a protestant who went from Baptist to Lutheran (LCMS) to Catholic I could see the literal words and what I was looking for in response was how can one back up a none literal presence. Yes their is much figurative language used in the NT as throughout the Bible. One needs to be able to distinguish between the literal and figurative though.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You may find this hard to believe, but I am a man of faith and submit to it as well.

You are the most arrogant poster I’ve ever seen here. That’s saying a lot at CAF.

Pax.

forgive me I never once challenged your faith about Christ). I thought we engaged in hermeneutics and differences of opinion. If I came across that way to you, I pray for your forgiveness and hope you understand that what I have been sharing here is my life of faith of which I am willing to go to the death for, forgive my never ending confidence in my Catholic faith if it comes across as arrogant, I humbly submit this apology to you. What you accuse me of here must have some truth to it, because you are not the first to accuse me of this. I will confess this to my confessor and seek humility and guidance in this field. I have yeild to you. God be with you, and may Jesus bring peace and joy to you.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Thank you. My apologies as well. The peace of Christ be with you and yours.

 

[Radical]

And that’s certainly a fair statement as well. You are correct that there are many a thread here solely created to be a snare instead of cultivating good conversation and dialogue.

well Justy90, you strike me as a good candidate for a good converstion and dialogue…I’ll look forward to more posts from you (on this or other threads). Peace.