What do YOU think of Catholic Evidence of the REAL Presence

[Lenten_ashes]

The 4th century was a long time ago and seems relatively close to the time of Christ from where we are in 2016, but 300 years is a long time for things to change. Just think of what our world and Christianity was like 300 years ago as compared to now.

They did not have a leather bound book with Holy Bible on the cover, but Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose were aware of what Scripture was.

1. Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous. The Manichæans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort. Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all, and the last work of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul. But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by yourself, as you have heard me say. Thus much of these subjects."
   newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm
   The only one I don’t see is Revelation. (I believe the 2 Esdras include Ezra and Nehemiah).

**Greetings and thanks for replying.

This is true, 300 years seems like quite a while to you and I. But in actuality the Patristic era runs all the way to II Nicea in 787 AD because the Church was still trying to make certain everyone was on the same page. The limitations of the era made things quite challenging… So, relatively speaking, folks like Ambrose and Augustine are still considered plenty early…**

I don’t know how “spiritual food” clearly means bread literally transformed into flesh. Also, why couldn’t bread that was blessed with prayer and taken in church in memory of Jesus’ sacrifice be “spiritual food?” I think that the term “spiritual food” is not very specific as to what the author believed the elements to be

I don’t think it, in and of itself, spells out Transubstantiation. It’s a part of the preponderance of evidence for it. But even if this were all we had to go by, is it reasonable to say we could, theoretically, come to a consubstantiation type understanding here, like that of the Anglicans?

Consubstantiation is a theological doctrine that (like Transubstantiation) attempts to describe the nature of the Christian Eucharist in concrete metaphysical terms. It holds that during the sacrament, the fundamental “substance” of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiation

Spiritual food= real presence of some sort?

I do believe that the early Christians did believe that the Eucharist was similar to a sacrifice. It was a thank offering to remember that Jesus had already completed the propitiatory (sin) sacrifice and they were now “saved” and giving praise to God with their Eucharist which literally means “thanksgiving.”

"Zebach Sh’lamim: Peace Offering

A peace offering is an offering expressing thanks or gratitude to G-d for His bounties and mercies. The Hebrew term for this type of offering is zebach sh’lamim (or sometimes just sh’lamim), which is related to the word shalom, meaning “peace” or “whole.” A representative portion of the offering is burnt on the altar, a portion is given to the kohanim, and the rest is eaten by the offerer and his family; thus, everyone gets a part of this offering. This category of offerings includes thanksgiving-offerings (in Hebrew, Todah, which was obligatory for survivors of life-threatening crises), free will-offerings, and offerings made after fulfillment of a vow. Note that this class of offerings has nothing to do with sin; in fact, the Talmud states that in the age of the messiah (when there is no more sin), this will be the only class of offering that is brought to the Temple."
jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm

Just in case there’s any doubt about the organic belief of the non-bloody sacrificial nature of the Mass in the Early Church, I have another quote from Justin Martyr, this is his dialogue with Trypho(a Jewish Rabbi) describing the Catholic Mass and the OT prophetic passage I quoted from earlier, same time frame 150-160 AD:

God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it].

newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm

Of course this idea is rejected by all of protestantism…even “Anglo-Catholics” reject it, and it’s likely why their holy orders are considered invalid by the Church. It’s deviation from sound doctrine taught throughout the ages. And honestly, I think it’s likely a language issue or lack of understanding. It’s not a re-sacrifice as the critics claim, it’s entering into the one time eternal sacrifice at Calvary

 

[susanlo]

Just in case there’s any doubt about the organic belief of the non-bloody sacrificial nature of the Mass in the Early Church, I have another quote from Justin Martyr, this is his dialogue with Trypho(a Jewish Rabbi) describing the Catholic Mass and the OT prophetic passage I quoted from earlier, same time frame 150-160 AD:

Of course this idea is rejected by all of protestantism…even “Anglo-Catholics” reject it, and it’s likely why their holy orders are considered invalid by the Church. It’s deviation from sound doctrine taught throughout the ages. And honestly, I think it’s likely a language issue or lack of understanding. It’s not a re-sacrifice as the critics claim, it’s entering into the one time eternal sacrifice at Calvary

Justin Martyr mentions the Eucharist quite a few places in his lengthy Dialogue with Trypho. It seems to fit with other references that early Christians believed Eucharist to be a type of sacrifice. However there is no evidence that they believed it to be a propitiatory sacrifice performed to atone for their sin. Their understanding seemed to be following the example of the OT todah sacrifice or thank offering. It was a sacrifice given to thank Jesus for already saving them. Of all of the OT sacrifices, the Eucharist (which literally means thanksgiving) best reflects this “thanksgiving” offering. I agree that Protestant churches do not use the term sacrifice in relation to communion very often, but I imagine many would agree with the concept of sacrifice of praise or offering of thanks by celebrating communion.

"“And the offering of fine flour, sirs,” I said, “which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will.” - Chapter 41

"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy[allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.” - Chapter 70

“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind,” - Chapter 117
earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

Additional info: justforcatholics.org/a173.htm

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Justin Martyr mentions the Eucharist quite a few places in his lengthy Dialogue with Trypho. It seems to fit with other references that early Christians believed Eucharist to be a type of sacrifice. However there is no evidence that they believed it to be a propitiatory sacrifice performed to atone for their sin. Their understanding seemed to be following the example of the OT todah sacrifice or thank offering. It was a sacrifice given to thank Jesus for already saving them. Of all of the OT sacrifices, the Eucharist (which literally means thanksgiving) best reflects this “thanksgiving” offering. I agree that Protestant churches do not use the term sacrifice in relation to communion very often, but I imagine many would agree with the concept of sacrifice of praise or offering of thanks by celebrating communion.

"“And the offering of fine flour, sirs,” I said, “which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will.” - Chapter 41

"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy[allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.” - Chapter 70

“Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind,” - Chapter 117
earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

Additional info: justforcatholics.org/a173.htm

**Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, susan.

This is the first time I’ve heard or read a protestant acknowledging the Mass could be be a sacrifice of any sort.

I would just note in our disagreement that Mal 1:11 seems to imply it is a propitiatory sacrifice. Reason being is, it is pleasing to our Father:**

Simple Definition of propitiate
: to make (someone) pleased or less angry by giving or saying something desired

Now let’s look at Mal 1:11 but in context:

Malachi 1:6-14King James Version (KJV)

6 A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?

7 Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible.

8 And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts.

9 And now, I pray you, beseech God that he will be gracious unto us: this hath been by your means: will he regard your persons? saith the Lord of hosts.

10 Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.

11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

12 But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the Lord is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.

13 Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness is it! and ye have snuffed at it, saith the Lord of hosts; and ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick; thus ye brought an offering: should I accept this of your hand? saith the Lord.

14 But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the Lord of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen.

**We see what is happening here. The Jews are offering blind, lame and sick sacrificial animals, unpleasing to the Lord. And the Lord responds by saying there will be incense and a pure offering made everyday by the gentiles in all his churches…and He appears to be very pleased by it. So that fits in the definition of propitiate.

Since Jesus is God and God is outside time and space, His sacrifice is timeless allowing us to enter into it during every Mass.

Thanks for the dialogue and God bless**.

 

[ajcstr]

This answer gets into some deep epistemology. Such as how one determines which passages of scripture are supposed to be interpreted literally verses figuratively, and how non-scripture traditions/sayings/other factors weigh in.

Jane are you responding to the Eucharistic beliefs or to the claims of Eucharistic miracles that have occurred over time?

As to the first point I could understand from your point of view and from a Protestant’s point of view how it would be dismissed as a mere issue of interpretation. From my point of view, the Bible is filled with Eucharistic images and the earliest Christians made this a central point of worship. We see debates about many issues in the early councils, but I don’t think the belief in the Real Presence ever was questioned until the Reformation. I could certainly be wrong on this, but I have not come across anything to make me think otherwise.

As to the second, I have not spent a lot of time researching them, but I would go in with a HIGH degree of skepticism.

 

[PJM]

I find much of the Catholic evidence for the Real Presence to be in line with my own beliefs. I don’t go so far as to say it definitely happens by way of Transubstantiation. But I do believe via the sacred mystery, whatever form that takes, that Christ’s body and blood are truly present in the Eucharist. So I would say it’s on the whole valid.

Thank you, but again ONLY in churches/faiths that have provable DIRECT Apostolic succession

GBY

 

[Padres1969]

Thank you, but again ONLY in churches/faiths that have provable DIRECT Apostolic succession

GBY

True. That’s where we’ll of course differ. You accept Pope Leo’s judgement that Anglicans lack valid Apostolic Succession, Anglican disagree.

 

[susanlo]

**Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, susan.

This is the first time I’ve heard or read a protestant acknowledging the Mass could be be a sacrifice of any** sort.

I would just note in our disagreement that Mal 1:11 seems to imply it is a propitiatory sacrifice. Reason being is, it is pleasing to our Father:

Now let’s look at Mal 1:11 but in context:

**We see what is happening here. The Jews are offering blind, lame and sick sacrificial animals, unpleasing to the Lord. And the Lord responds by saying there will be incense and a pure offering made everyday by the gentiles in all his churches…and He appears to be very pleased by it. So that fits in the definition of propitiate.

Since Jesus is God and God is outside time and space, His sacrifice is timeless allowing us to enter into it during every Mass.

Thanks for the dialogue and God bless**.

There is a difference between a sacrifice of praise or offering of thanks as opposed to a sacrifice to atone for sins. A propitiatory sacrifice is one that is done to atone for sin. Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was the propitiatory sacrifice. What Justin Martyr describes is a sacrifice of praise given to thank Jesus.

The word ‘offering’ in Malachi 1:11 is the word minchah (ū·min·ḥāh). This is defined by Strong’s Concordance as: “gift, oblation, meat offering, present, sacrifice
From an unused root meaning to apportion, i.e. Bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary) – gift, oblation, (meat) offering, present, sacrifice.”
biblehub.com/text/malachi/1-11.htm
biblehub.com/strongs/hebrew/4503.htm

So the prophecy he was referring to was not about a sacrifice to atone for sin, but a voluntary offering or gift.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

There is a difference between a sacrifice of praise or offering of thanks as opposed to a sacrifice to atone for sins. A propitiatory sacrifice is one that is done to atone for sin. Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was the propitiatory sacrifice. What Justin Martyr describes is a sacrifice of praise given to thank Jesus.

The word ‘offering’ in Malachi 1:11 is the word minchah (ū·min·ḥāh). This is defined by Strong’s Concordance as: “gift, oblation, meat offering, present, sacrifice
From an unused root meaning to apportion, i.e. Bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary) – gift, oblation, (meat) offering, present, sacrifice.”
biblehub.com/text/malachi/1-11.htm
biblehub.com/strongs/hebrew/4503.htm

So the prophecy he was referring to was not about a sacrifice to atone for sin, but a voluntary offering or gift.

Susan, from everything I have seen from Hebrew, unlike Greek, it’s a*** very*** generic language:

The last doubt is dispelled by the Hebrew text, which has no fewer than three classic sacerdotal declarations referring to the promised sacrifice, thus designedly doing away with the possibility of interpreting it metaphorically. Especially important is a substantive Hebrew for “sacrifice”.** Although in its origin the generic term for every sacrifice, the bloody included** (cf. Genesis 4:4 sq.; 1 Samuel 2:17), it was not only never used to indicate an unreal sacrifice (such as a prayer offering), but even became the technical term for an unbloody sacrifice (mostly food offerings), in contradistinction to the bloody sacrifice which is given the name of Sebach

newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

So while the text seems to emphasize thanksgiving, it certainly does not negate the idea of propitiatory. Especially when you consider that God is telling the Jews that the ***old ***system is to be done away with and all the other passages like John 6:51-55 and Matt 26:28

In order for something to be apostolic Tradition, it must be unanimously understood by the Fathers, and it was with this passage believed to be a sacrifice in the strictest sense

And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator,

~St. Irenaeus

newadvent.org/fathers/0103418.htm

And BTW, the Eastern Orthodox who split long before the protestants and long before that 1054 AD arbitrary number, believe it’s a propitiatory sacrifice as well. Proof positive that this is not some modern Roman invention like some of the reformers seemed to imply.

Pax

 

[PJM]

True. That’s where we’ll of course differ. You accept Pope Leo’s judgement that Anglicans lack valid Apostolic Succession, Anglican disagree.

My friend, its VERY good the you do believe in the Real Presence

As to whether ot not , in the case of your church & faith it actually} REALLY is:shrug:

That is a mute point, as it is between “you” and GOD

Thanks for believing the truth my friend

 

[Lenten_ashes]

My friend, its VERY good the you do believe in the Real Presence

As to whether ot not , in the case of your church & faith it actually} REALLY is:shrug:

That is a mute point, as it is between “you” and GOD

Thanks for believing the truth my friend

Hi PJM

Since the Catechism acknowledges that validly baptized protestants are Christians, and the scriptures say :

Matthew 18:20New International Version (NIV)

20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Is it safe to say that Protestants who believe in the real presence get some sort of benefit from it? I know they lack valid holy orders and correct understanding of the Mass, but they are Christians and they gather in His name.

 

[PJM]

Hi PJM

Since the Catechism acknowledges that validly baptized protestants are Christians, and the scriptures say :

Is it safe to say that Protestants who believe in the real presence get some sort of benefit from it? I know they lack valid holy orders and correct understanding of the Mass, but they are Christians and they gather in His name.

Yes, of course.

No faith belief in TRUTH is “wasted”

We MIGHT think of it this way, some Grace is better than no grace; YES!

Thanks for asking,

well done

GBY

 

[philipl]

True there is no scientific evidence that God exist.

There is no scientific evidence that proves where Love comes from and Love exist.

There is no scientific evidence what is contained in the human conscience.

I can go and on about what scientific evidence cannot prove.

Yet scientific evidence can never disprove that God does not exist, Love does not exist, ones conscience does not exist, nor can science disprove the real presence.

Yet the Church disproves science’s argument against the real, true substantial presence in the Eucharist using it’s own understanding which silences the scientific mind’s with TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

peace be with you

WOW, not one statement here is factual. You cant disprove a negative. As I said, I have faith there is a God, I have faith that Transubstation is real. Just because there is no proof doesn’t mean I don’t have faith.

 

[PJM]

WOW, not one statement here is factual. You cant disprove a negative. As I said, I have faith there is a God, I have faith that Transubstation is real. Just because there is no proof doesn’t mean I don’t have faith.

The practice of religion is called FAITH for a precise reason.

God insist on a reliance on HIM, and not everything is to be able to be LOGICALLY discerned and provable; however eh REAL Presence is

GOOGLE Eucharistic miracles

God Bless you

PJM

 

[adamhovey1988]

Well, Jesus said “This is my Body” and “This is my blood”.
Oddly none other than popular Pentecostal preacher Benny Hinn himself seems to agree with this.
churchpop.com/2016/10/27/pentecostal-benny-hinn-says-catholics-have-more-miracles-credits-eucharist/