Were the Eucharist not really the Body and Blood of Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter invisiblewitnes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

invisiblewitnes

Guest
Hi,

I just wanted to state my position for discussion that if I did not believe that the Eucharist were the actual physical Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church teaches it is, I would have to conclude that the whole Catholic Church, the Bible, all of Catholic teaching and even Christ Himself are liars or even demonic. Were it not for the Eucharist, I would not care, and in fact would declare myself an enemy of the Church and of Christ as well. I could go more into my reasoning behind this, but there was a point last year just before Palm Sunday where I was heading into this mindset. I know that God is ultimately good and there can be found nothing to despise in Him simply from human reason alone without requiring the use of faith or revelation. If the Eucharist or any clear teaching or dogma as promulgated by the papal magisterium were false or not inspired by the Holy Spirit, the whole foundations for the Catholic Church would be evil, and premised on a lie, which Jesus Christ had guaranteed against. No institution or organization or Communion of people has preserved the teaching of Christ as the Catholic Church, and if the Catholic Church has not preserved it accurately, than everything we have regarding Jesus Christ is a lie.

But I just want to express that I was given a faith at a very low point in my life just prior to Palm Sunday and Easter last year, and never lost that faith in the Eucharist or the infallibility of the Church dogma as defined by the Pope’s magisterium. And I’ve seen prayers be answered in relationship to my intentions during the perfect prayer of the Mass and reception of the Eucharist and going to the Sacrament of Reconciliation. So if the Eucharist were not really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Divine Son of God and Savior of each of us from our sins, then I would have to conclude that all the doctrines of the Church and of Christ are completely phony, and perhaps Satanic or evil in origin. But as I go further and further, that is the most absurd thing I could believe. I had to get to that extreme point where I literally considered Jesus the most evil deceiver that had ever been alive in this world. But then upon meeting some people in a parish that had Perpetual Adoration, it was like that gift of faith hit me. Nothing I could reason out gave me that faith. I had gone down to the pit of believing Jesus and the whole Catholic Church to be a completely evil fraud, with the veneer of “charity” clothing it, and then it was just an instantaneous faith in the Eucharist that has never left me that reversed my decision. It was given to me, I couldn’t give it to myself. It was like the God given proof was put into my soul, and God was asking me what I wanted to do with it, and I said “This is real.”

I wanted to share that. I hope it might help someone’s faith, and maybe other people could share their struggles with believing in the Eucharist or other Sacraments, and maybe share a story of how they received the gift of faith. I still remember that moment. It was like all doubts were taken away from my mind and I just said to myself and to God “This is real.” I can’t explain it. I had read hundreds of theology books, and nothing could convince me beyond a doubt. I could always have some kind of doubt. Since that moment, there have been none. After that it was just the question of whether I would struggle to live up to the faith that I had been given.

Hope to have a good discussion. God bless.
 
There is a way of KNOWING something without being able to prove it to others. The Holy Spirit gives prophesy, and wisdom to people every day. People doubt Jesus is present in the Eucharist even though he kept repeating it! Many believe everything else he said, but refuse to believe this. All because they cannot SEE his presence with their eyes.

Would you measure the distance between California, and Ohio with a measuring cup? Would you measure tire pressure with a weight scale? Would you measure how much light is in a room with a thermometer? No! You have to use the right tool to get an accurate reading, and a truthful answer. So too with the Eucharist, you must measure God’s presence with the Holy Spirit, and your soul, not with your eyes! 👍
 
Another thread stated 75% believe in real presence. I think the primary belief must be in the spirit of Christ at communion. The remaining details we can have honest disagreements
 
Another thread stated 75% believe in real presence. I think the primary belief must be in the spirit of Christ at communion. The remaining details we can have honest disagreements
There are no remaining details to have honest disagreements. You either believe that Christ is wholly and trully present, body, soul, humanity and divinity in the eucharistic speices as the Church teaches or you don’t. Pretty simple.
 
There are no remaining details to have honest disagreements. You either believe that Christ is wholly and trully present, body, soul, humanity and divinity in the eucharistic speices as the Church teaches or you don’t. Pretty simple.
Appears with 75% many in Catholicism disagree with you, sorry.
 
Appears with 75% many in Catholicism disagree with you, sorry.
It doesn’t matter how many do/don’t believe what the Church teaches. Numbers of those who believe/disbelieve proves nothing about the truth of this teaching.

I’ve heard that most Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence. This idea is based on a faulty poll in which the wording was difficult to understand. It had multiple questions that sounded so like one another that even theologians had a hard time with it, let alone lay people who are not schooled in theological language.

In any case, Christ is wholly present in the Eucharist. Only the appearance and taste of bread and wine remains. Transubstantiation is a difficult concept to explain and many may not fully grasp it, but it’s still the best explanation of the change that takes place during consecration.
 
Appears with 75% many in Catholicism disagree with you, sorry.
Dubay: just because a small minority of catholics may not believe in the Real Presence doesn’t make it untrue. They will have to answer to God for their unbelief. I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist because that is what Jesus taught and which has always been taught by Holy Mother Church. I pray for those who do not believe in the Real Presence that their faith will be strenghtened because they clearly do not know or understand their faith.
 
Dubay: just because a small minority of catholics may not believe in the Real Presence doesn’t make it untrue. They will have to answer to God for their unbelief. I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist because that is what Jesus taught and which has always been taught by Holy Mother Church. I pray for those who do not believe in the Real Presence that their faith will be strenghtened because they clearly do not know or understand their faith.
I am not stating true or not true. I am saying 75% of Catholics believe in real presence based on stat from previous thread on this topic.
 
I am not stating true or not true. I am saying 75% of Catholics believe in real presence based on stat from previous thread on this topic.
And your point being, in relation to the OP’s post?
 
I am not stating true or not true. I am saying 75% of Catholics believe in real presence based on stat from previous thread on this topic.
The percentage of people that are wrong does not make them any less wrong. It is not relevant at all, and you should not even bring it up. Truth is Truth.

The Church has presented more evidence for the True Presence than any other denomination can present against it. We have the Tradition of the Church, the writings of Church Fathers (all the way from the Apostolic Fathers), and Scriptural references to which we point. Everyone else just has personal interpretation.

If Catholics don’t believe in True Presence, they by default to not believe in the teaching authority of the Church, and thus do not believe in the infallibility of the Church. They are essentially Protestant without realizing it, and almost never have anything to back up their unbelief except personal interpretation and a severe lack of proper instruction on why the Church teaches what she does.
 
So if the Eucharist were not really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Divine Son of God and Savior of each of us from our sins, then I would have to conclude that all the doctrines of the Church and of Christ are completely phony, and perhaps Satanic or evil in origin.
No, you really, really would not have to conclude any such thing.

Were the Catholic Church to be wrong in any one idea, there is no logical necessity whatsoever that it must be wrong about any other idea except when the second idea is predicated upon the first.
 
Oh just an added missing detail as Richta was attempting to make.
Perhaps missing to you, but I don’t see it. It’s true that one either believes in the Real Presence as taught by the Church or one doesn’t. Those who don’t make be confused as to what the Church teaches or what they’ve been told or what non-Catholics have said about it. But the teaching is correct, no matter who believes or doesn’t believe it, so it hardly matters for the purposes of the thread, IMHO.

We all have doubts and difficulties, and we may be misinformed–that’s understandable. I rather doubt there are a vast majority who fully understand the Church’s teaching about the Real Presence who disbelieve it. Rather, it would be the poorly catechised or confused.
 
No, you really, really would not have to conclude any such thing.

Were the Catholic Church to be wrong in any one idea, there is no logical necessity whatsoever that it must be wrong about any other idea except when the second idea is predicated upon the first.
If the Church were wrong about any one thing, it would also be wrong on declaring that it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church because the Magisterium is infallible and derives its teaching authority from the Holy Spirit. Thus, if it were wrong on one dogmatic teaching, then one of the teachings used as a foundation of the Church would also be wrong. The Church would not be what it claims it is, and thus would be founded on a lie. Why would you want to be in a Church like that?

Luckily, the Church is what She says it is.
 
I just wanted to state my position for discussion that if I did not believe that the Eucharist were the actual physical Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church teaches it is
I’ve got a really technical quibble with your statement. The Church doesn’t teach that the Eucharist is the physical Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. It teaches that it’s the sacramental Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Physically, in its accidents (i.e., in its physical qualities), it remains bread and wine. (Substantially, though, it becomes Christ.)
 
If the Church were wrong about any one thing, it would also be wrong on declaring that it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church because the Magisterium is infallible and derives its teaching authority from the Holy Spirit. Thus, if it were wrong on one dogmatic teaching, then one of the teachings used as a foundation of the Church would also be wrong.
If the Catholic Church were demonstrably wrong about any one idea, it would also be demonstrably wrong in declaring itself infallible. It would not, logically, be wrong about declaring itself the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, since nothing in that title necessitates infallibility.
The Church would not be what it claims it is, and thus would be founded on a lie.
It would be predicated upon a misunderstanding, not a lie: there is no evidence of intent to deceive.
Why would you want to be in a Church like that?
I would much rather be in a Church which admits its own fallibility.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by invisiblewitnes
I just wanted to state my position for discussion that if I did not believe that the Eucharist were the actual physical Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church teaches it is.
I’ve got a really

technical quibble with your statement. The Church doesn’t teach that the Eucharist is the physical Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. It teaches that it’s the sacramental Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Physically, in its accidents (i.e., in its physical qualities), it remains bread and wine. (Substantially, though, it becomes Christ.)
The Catchism of the Catholic Church states:

In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained. (#1374)

Again:
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation. (#1376)

Consequently, the bread and wine are truly changed into the physical body and blood of Christ. Only the accidents of bread and wine remain to our senses. Transubstantiation is a miracle performed by Christ through the ministry of the priest.

A sacrament is a visible sign of a invisible reality. The visible signs of the eucharist are the bread and wine, but in reality it is not bread and wine but the very body and blood of Christ which cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith which rests on the words of Christ.

I totally and absolutely disagree that the eucharist is not the physical body and blood of Christ. If after the consecration, the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine and if they are not the true phyical body and blood of Christ, then what are they?
 
The Catchism of the Catholic Church states:

In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained. (#1374)
Yes – truly, really, substantially. Notice that it doesn’t say ‘physically’? 😉
Again:
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation. (#1376)
Again: truly and substantially. Again, notice that it doesn’t say ‘physically’? 😉
Consequently, the bread and wine are truly changed into the physical body and blood of Christ.
No… consequently, the bread and wine are truly changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ.
Only the accidents of bread and wine remain to our senses.
Right! The ‘accidents’ are the physical parts that we can experience through our senses!
A sacrament is a visible sign of a invisible reality. The visible signs of the eucharist are the bread and wine, but in reality it is not bread and wine but the very body and blood of Christ which cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith which rests on the words of Christ.
Agreed. It’s not bread and wine in substance, but it is the physical appearance of bread and wine. In other words, substantially Christ, but not physically…!
I totally and absolutely disagree that the eucharist is not the physical body and blood of Christ.
That’s interesting… since everything you’ve written does nothing to prove your point. 🤷
If after the consecration, the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine and if they are not the true phyical body and blood of Christ, then what are they?
They are the body and blood of Christ, of course! They are truly and substantially Christ! (They’re just not the physical elements of Christ’s body, though.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top