Why dear friend do you not believe in the Real Presence

[rcwitness]

Hmmm…I have never thought much about it. I guess there are various things people can understand and take from this account in Luke 24. I guess they could have noticed that His hands had holes in them when they saw Him break bread. Or else they recognized familiarity in the way He broke the bread and gave thanks. Also, God may have allowed their eyes to have been opened at this moment.

I don’t see the language “kept” and “opened” as supporting a mere recognition of the manner He did something, or seeing the holes in His hands. Wouldn’t that have been more proper to explain? He walked and talked with them for 7 miles, and nothing resembled Jesus until His gestures of breaking bread? Also, Mark makes mention of this appearance, and states that He “appeared in another form”. And interestingly enough, is that He immediately vanishes when they recognize Him!

What was the purpose of them recognizing them at this moment when they hadn’t before? I suppose it may go along with the symbolism of Jesus being the Bread of Life. What understanding do you have?

I don’t see a support of “symbolism” but of Him actually appearing to them in the form of “breaking bread”. It seems to send a strong message that He is actually with them in this manner/form.

 

[Wesrock]

Hmmm…I have never thought much about it. I guess there are various things people can understand and take from this account in Luke 24. I guess they could have noticed that His hands had holes in them when they saw Him break bread. Or else they recognized familiarity in the way He broke the bread and gave thanks. Also, God may have allowed their eyes to have been opened at this moment. What was the purpose of them recognizing them at this moment when they hadn’t before? I suppose it may go along with the symbolism of Jesus being the Bread of Life. What understanding do you have?

If I can add my thoughts, Jesus’ disciples recognize him in the breaking of the bread. The early Christian community celebrated the breaking of the bread each Sunday and also recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread. Not just in their gathering for worship, but in the communion meal itself, that Jesus was truly present. And I would, as a Catholic, say this was part of the intent of the authors writing these scenes, to teach that Jesus was present in the communion meal, and that this was from the earliest days in the Catholic and Orthodox way of understanding communion, even if less formally developed in terms of language.

 

[PJM]

Seems, to me, the main argument is that… Jesus is in us through the Holy Spirit, so receiving Him “in flesh and blood” is not the purpose of Communion, therefore Communion must be only symbolic of remembering His Sacrifice at Calvary.

Also remember, many who acknowledge Real Presence, still do not accept Transubstantiation.

NO

The main argument is the TRUTH:

GOOGLE Eucharistic Miracles

Jn 6: 4. [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"truly"] 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.**

[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**.[WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT HAPPENS IN CATHOLIC HOLY COMMUNION]

[Douay Bible]

1st Cor. 11:23-30

[23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. [25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27]** Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.** [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you,** and many sleep.** SLEEP HERE MEANS SPIRITUAL & ETERNAL DEATH:HELL

So my fiiend, HOW can these words not be literal:shrug:

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

I thought that was the belief of many Protestants, not the Catholic belief?

YOUR right

Thanks

GBY

 

[rcwitness]

… it isn’t my argument…

 

[PJM]

It’s not a Catholic belief. Christ is present, body, blood, soul and divinity, in the Eucharist always. Transubstantiation is the change of the host & wine to the body & blood of Christ. The Catholic Church teaches the Real Presence and transubstantiation.

For those who do not believe it, why? What personal study or thinking leads you to the conclusion there is no Real Presence. I was raised protestant and never heard of the belief of the Real Presence. Prior to converting my thought on communion was it was symbolic only. That is what I had been taught and I didn’t know any better.

During RCIA the Real Presence was obstacle I had to overcome. How could that be? How does this happen? Why does the Church believe this? So I started to learn about the teaching, reading the bible, reading the CCC, talking to other Catholics and I was convinced. One of the best moments of my life was my first Holy Communion. Knowing what it meant and how real it was. Jesus Christ, through transubstantiation being truly present changed me forever. To this day I am changed every time I receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

Rather than just dismissing our belief, tell us why you don’t believe.

Well done:thumbsup:

Thanks and GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Shrug After much study and prayer, I find little reason to believe in transubstantiation. I simply the reasons used to defend it to be unconvincing. Meanwhile, I find much power and strength in the symbolic Lord’s Supper.

REALLY:shrug:

Please READ carefully and prayerfully my POST #44 and then GOOGLE “Eucharistic Miracles”

Thanks and GBY

 

[PJM]

I honestly am very confused about what the Real Presence actually is. It seems to have multiple different definitions, even by those in the same denomination

.

MY REPLY

I honestly am very confused about what the Real Presence actually is. It seems to have multiple different definitions, even by those in the same denomination.

From Fr. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary:

REAL PRESENCE. The manner of Christ’s presence in the Holy Eucharist. In its definition on the subject, the Council of Trent in 1551 declared that “in the sacrament of the most holy Holy Eucharist is contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ” (Denzinger 1636, 1640). Hence Christ is present truly or actually and not only symbolically. He is present really, that is objectively in the Eucharist and not only subjectively in the mind of the believer. And he is present substantially, that is with all that makes Christ Christ and not only spiritually in imparting blessings on those who receive the sacrament. The one who is present is the whole Christ (totus Christus), with all the attributes of his divinity and all the physical parts and properties of his humanity. (Etym. Latin realis, of the thing itself; extramental + prae-esse, to be at hand, to be immediately efficacious.) End Quote

I do think that when Christians gather to worship and to participate in communion, that Christ is present among them. Matthew 18:20For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” Christ promised to come to those who believe in Him and that he would be present with them. John 14:15“If you love me, keep my commands. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you…23Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them." So I do believe that Christ is really present among Christians as they worship and participate in communion.

Here dear friend is the DIFFERENCE in most Protestant & Catholic beliefs on the RP
Protestantism [even 4 believers] have ONLY the “Spirit of God”
Catholics have BOTH the Spirit of God and Jesus in Person; Really, Truly and Substantially present. PLEASE Read my POST #44

Is Christ present inside the communion wafer in some sort of a spiritual way as well? Maybe. I don’t have any reason to know that this is true, but I suppose it isn’t impossible if Jesus chose to be present in this way that it could happen.

MANY thanks for such thoughtful questions.

John 4:23-24 tells us that GOD “is Spirit”; Jesus is God the SON, but ALSO true MAN; so Jesus/ God is both physically present as the Man-God; and Spiritually Present as GOD.

Is Christ present inside the communion wafer in some sort of physical or substantial way? I would expect that if there was a different substance before and after the consecration, that science would detect differences in the wafers. Although there have been some Eucharistic miracles where the physical appearance of the wafers changed along with dubious science surrounding them, the vast majority of the time there is no physical change and science does not detect any changes either.

The practice of one’s religion is termed “FAITH” because that is a foundational expectation by our God. MUCH of our beliefs relies on God defined as: ALL GOOD THINGS PERFECTED. Because God is and HAS to be good; God can neither deceive us or be deceived by us.

God in a word can be rightly described as “MYSTERY”, in order to demand of US, Faith.

GOOGLE “Eucharistic Miracles”

So what does actually happen at consecration? What changes actually occur? I can not understand this. How can substance and accident be defined in 21st century scientific terms? How can there be a change in substance without the substance changing? What am I missing?

What WAS mere bread and wine are miraculously TRANSFORMED into the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. While the APPEARANCE remains the same; the SUBSTANCE is NOW GOD; Jesus Christ in Person. We call what remains the “ACCIDENTS.”

GOD BLESS YOU, pray much
Patrick

 

[PJM]

Great questions. There will be someone who is able to give you the best answers, unfortunately I’m not able to do so. I “know” what is happening but still have trouble articulating what happens.

THANKS for you candor and faith sharing:thumbsup:

PLEASE READ my POST #'s $$ & 49 and you’ll better be able to explain it next time

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

rcwitness;14352645**:

This type of questioning is not coming from faith, but human curiosity

. And I’m not saying I’m above it. But it doesn’t lead to Spiritual growth and unity of Christian brotherhood. What leads to brotherhood, is obedience to His commands. He calls us to one faith, one Baptism, one mind, one judgment, one body and one loaf. If we claim to all receive a “relatively equal Communion” but have opposing Teachings, are we not deceiving ourselves? One Communion means, one united leadership, with a common Teaching, while allowing fo Christian GROWHr various customs and practices.

Perhaps, but the answer is definitely FAITH in Action

And it leads to the GREATEST POSSIBLE “Christian Growth” [or God lied?]

Jn 6:47-57
[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.

[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

PLEASE read my POST #44 & 49

GBY

 

[Polycarp1]

Thank you for that. It always gets confusing when people don’t believe something but find it to be true.

Sort of like walking down the railroad tracks, repeating to yourself “I don’t believe in trains, I don’t believe in trains,I don’t believe in trains”. Not going to make a lot of difference when the train get’s there!

 

[PJM]

People sometimes bring up another question concerning this and that is the question of cannibalism. Is it considered to be cannibalism to eat a man’s flesh and blood ?

REALLY GREAT QUESTION:thumbsup: Thanks

NO, and here’s WHY:

Catholics receive the RISEN & NOW GLORIFIED BODY, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.

The characteristics and abilities of the GLORIFIED body FAR exceed those of the Mortal body.

FOR EXAMPLE:

Jn 20:19-20
"[19] Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, **and the doors were shut, **where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. [20] And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.

Explanation from the Douay Bible
[19] The doors were shut: The same power which could bring Christ’s whole body, entire in all its dimensions, through the doors, can without the least question make the same body really present in the sacrament; though both the one and the other be above our comprehension.

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

This cannibalism thing doesn’t bother me. Yes, in a sense it is cannibolism. But it’s so far from the common conception of cannibolism at the same time. How can they be likened, really?

Can you compare a man eating parts, or even a whole, human body with every Catholic eating the fullness of one man through the Spirit descending on bread and wine to mysteriously, and unnoticeably, change those elements into the flesh and blood of that one man?

ACTUALLY NOT

Please READ my POST 53 *

GBY

Patrick*

 

[PJM]

Unless someone reveals some error in your statement that I do not see, I would say you have an exact understanding of it.

PLEASE READ my replies #44, 49 & 53

Thanks and God Bless, because that is not the correct answer

GBY

 

[rcwitness]

ACTUALLY NOT

Please READ my POST 53 *

GBY

Patrick*I did. I agree with the Douay comment. I’ve used it in my understanding and fellowship. We eat the human body of Jesus. If that’s how people want to describe cannibalism then fine. I explained why I think it’s different.

 

[PJM]

quote Quote:
Originally Posted by rcwitness View Post
Seems, to me, the main argument is that… Jesus is in us through the Holy Spirit, so receiving Him “in flesh and blood” is not the purpose of Communion, therefore Communion must be only symbolic of remembering His Sacrifice at Calvary.

Also remember, many who acknowledge Real Presence, still do not accept Transubstantiation.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wannano View Post
Unless someone reveals some error in your statement that I do not see, I would say you have an exact understanding of it.

Hi I’m “SOMEONE” [and the OP]

PLEASE Read my post $44, 49 & 53

Thanks and GBY

Patrick

So should the Holy Communion be shared by Christians who have opposing Teachings? If two Christians are Baptized and accept the Holy Spirit, should they both be convicted of opposing Teachings?

 

[PJM]

Under certain conditions, Catholics allow Eastern and Oriental Orthodox to receive Catholic Holy Communion, even though they have different teachings on several issues such as divorce, birth control, and papal infallibility and others as well. (It should be noted that Eastern Orthodox do not approve of their faithful receiving the Sacraments from the Roman Catholic Church).

FYI:

The Orhodox Churches DO have ALL 7 od the Sacramern ts VALIDLY, through provable DIRECT Apostolic Succession.

BUT Only the Catholic Churches have them Validly AND Licity

Thanks and GBY

Patrick

 

[Wesrock]

FYI:

The Orhodox Churches DO have ALL 7 od the Sacramern ts VALIDLY, through provable DIRECT Apostolic Succession.

BUT Only the Catholic Churches have them Validly AND Licity

Thanks and GBY

Patrick

Does the RCC currently claim that Orthodox sacraments are illicit? That would be new to me. I thought it was kind of a “don’t make an issue of it” situation.

 

[PJM]

First, because in the moments described in the Christian canon in which Jesus is passing around bread and wine during the passover dinner …he doesn’t seem to be saying at all that in the future, these substances will actually turn into his own flesh and blood.
I can’t see how someone reading those scenes would take that leap

PLEASE READ MY POST #44, 49 & 53

Luke 16: 16-20 with Douay explanation

[16] For I say to you, that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. [17] And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: [18] For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. [19] And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. [20] In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

[19] Do this for a commemoration of me: This sacrifice and sacrament is to be continued in the church, to the end of the world, to shew forth the death of Christ, until he cometh. But this commemoration, or remembrance, is by no means inconsistent with the real presence of his body and blood, under these sacramental veils, which represent his death; on the contrary, it is the manner that he himself hath commanded, of commemorating and celebrating his death, by offering in sacrifice, and receiving in the sacrament, that body and blood by which we were redeemed

Second…even if he did mean this, it doesn’t seem to be doctrine until many centuries later (the 11th century?). To claim such a supernatural thing happens and to have much of a faith built upon it…but to take so long to make it doctrine, makes it seem as though the belief of this was agreed upon or evolved over a long period of time or was…developed.

“DEFINED Doctrine” does not usually take place until the belief is being challenged

THE EARLY CHURCH TERMED IT “THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD” AND AS EVIDENT BELIEVED AND PRACTICED IT FROM THE TIME OF THE THE ASCENSION.

Luke 24:35
And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of the bread.

Acts Of Apostles 2:42
And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers

Acts Of Apostles 2:46
And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart

Third, no one has ever seen** a wafter and wine turn into flesh and blood. And no one has ever been shown to have the ability to turn factory-made wafers and store-bought wine into someone’s flesh and blood. Why would someone believe it if no one has ever seen it?

NOT TRUE!

GOOGLE please “Eucharistic miracles”

Fourth…if they did, we wouldn’t know if it was *his *flesh and blood

DO the GOOGLE SEARCH PLEASE:thumbsup:.

Fifth…the idea seems very illogical and improbable.

**And GOD becoming a mortal MAN isn’t **

Sixth…we can’t even prove for sure that Jesus existed, never mind imagine his flesh and blood is in every Catholic church all over the world once a week

*Of COURSE WE * can, but don;t want to change the topic. PLEASE send me a private message with this comment.

God Bless you and THANKS

Patrick [the OP]

.

And more.

.**

 

[PJM]

Your fifth statement above pretty much sums up your whole post. You can’t humanly wrap your head around it. If science can’t prove it, it can’t be true.

Hmmmmmmm

Your NOT agreeing with her… Right:shrug: