When did you first believe in the Real Presence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pup7 said:
Consubstantiation (spiritual presence of Christ in the Host) is not the Real Presence as we know it in the Catholic Church, which is the very different transubstantiation (host becomes the body and the wine becomes the blood of Christ). They aren’t the same at all.
Click to expand...
Consubstantiation is not spiritual presence that was John Calvin’s belief. Consubstantiation is the believe that the Substance of the body blood, soul and divinity of Christ is added with the Substance of Bread and Wine. Con that is “with together” Substantiation that is substance. This is what Martin Luther held. John Calvin held to a Mystical or Spiritual Presence but not an actual literal presence like Martin Luther, who is very close in his understanding of the Eucharist but not close enough obviously. They are similar Consubstantiationists who actually understand their belief would believe that Jesus Christ is literally there in the Eucharist, however so is the Bread and Wine, that is the obvious difference that and they believe that Jesus leaves after Holy Communion is over Catholics don’t. 2 main differences. However Luther believed in a literal presence so do Lutherans. It was John Calvin who did not.
 
Last edited:
Indeed I agree with you. However look at what Fr. Paul Scalia has to say in this website:

encourageandteach.wordpress.com

The Symbol of the Eucharist, the Reality of the Symbol

By: Rev. Paul Scalia We depend on symbols. An engagement ring, for example, or our nation’s flag. These are essential because they communicate what we cannot see: love, devotion, freedom, home. At …
encourageandteach.wordpress.com encourageandteach.wordpress.com

Sure it is not Official Teaching. But he is in line with that official teaching.

Now he may be using the word Symbol as being the same as Signs but. I believe that either symbol or sign can be a correct way of saying it as long as we don’t disregard the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
 
Consubstantiation is the belief that Christ COEXISTS within the Host and the wine. It is still spiritual no matter how you cut it.

Transubstantiation is the belief that the Host and the wine BECOME the body and blood of Christ.

Coexisting is in no way becoming - transforming - into the body and blood. The concepts aren’t remotely the same.

And most Protestants believe the whole thing is symbolic anyway.

Enjoy your day.
 
Last edited:
I think I always believed really but when I first became fully aware was while I was a chorister in a C of E church …I was about 9 or 10 at the time, and my friend and I were helping the vicar with something or other. Anyway, the subject under discussion was communion and my friend and the vicar told me about the symbolic meaning of the communion bread and ridiculed my belief. Anyway, that’s when I realised that I knew the truth already.
 
I was a Reformed Baptist, and felt very strongly frustrated that our approach to communion was lacking something. I was challenged by a very holy Oriental Orthodox priest to investigate the early Church’s beliefs and practices around the Eucharist, and as I read Early Church Fathers, I realized that everything I knew was upside down.

I worked out that if the Church had, from antiquity, believed that Christ was truly present in the Eucharist ( though granted the specific language was yet to be pinned down) then I was the innovator for believing something different. I had no interest whatsoever in setting up a new religion, my attraction to Christianity was a lot to do with the truth claims and the history behind it.

And then finally, I attended Adoration at a retreat centre, and it was like sitting in front of a nuclear reactor, inescapably aware of the awe inspiring power I was in the room with. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist has been the absolute heart and focus of my faith ever since. It’s taken many years to overcome other stuff to get to the place where I can say with deep, humbled thankfulness that I have physically received Christ every weekend since Easter.
 
He makes a point of saying it’s BOTH Symbol and Reality.

No Catholic preacher would ever just say “Symbol” alone because it would be really misinterpreted.
 
I went to a parochial school. We were catechized as best the sisters could do in class before our 1st Communion.

I remember my grandmother doing her best to make me realize what a special moment my 1st Communion was to be.
 
About a year ago. I always make an effort to visit the Blessed Sacrament when I go out. I usually kneel on my two knees and bow in front of the tabernacle before I sit/kneel at the pew and do like wise before leaving the church.

I never cross my legs in the church that’s because I truly believe in the Real Presence i.e Jesus, my saviour, is really in the tabernacle.

Sounds strange…but who should I believe? Yes, it is a precious gift from God.

My age is 77 years old.
 
When I was in high school, I was able to travel about on my own, and I used to visit Catholic Churches and … somehow … became aware … of the Real Presence.
 
onthewayhome said:
I never cross my legs in the church that’s because I truly believe in the Real Presence i.e Jesus, my saviour, is really in the tabernacle.
Click to expand...
This is fine, as long as you realize this is your preference. It’s not particularly unholy or disrespectful to cross one’s legs in church, especially in trousers. I always do the two knee genuflection and bow to the floor when the Host is exposed, one knee genuflection when the Host is in the tabernacle, and try to kneel for some of my prayers, but often I assume a comfortable position so I can focus on my talking to Jesus and praying to Him, especially when I am going to be there for quite a while.
 
I feel relieved that I’m not the only one who practices the genuflection and bow to the Real Presence. I thought I was silly to do that…but I have been doing that for the Real Presence, silly or not.

FYI, I’m sorry to say that as for crossing one’s legs in my country, it is impolite to do so when sitting in front of some people you do not know or to some honorable people. In court proceedings, the judge would remind the person who sits like that in front of him to sit “properly” during interrogations.

Thank you.
 
I’ve lived in the Middle East where showing the bottom of your shoe is as bad as flipping someone “the bird”. My guess is no one realized you lived in a country where that is insulting.
 
I believed in ‘real presence’ (or something similar) from the start. It seemed like a reasonable proposition — a kind of spiritual connection.
I never believed in transubstantiation, which seemed utterly ridiculous.
That’s why I could never be a true Catholic.
 
I’m still not sure of this, never have been in all my life of being a Catholic. My parents raised me to believe in it, but I’m still struggling with it. 😦
 
Go spend some time at Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Talk to Jesus and tell him everything…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top