Why dear friend do you not believe in the Real Presence

[PJM]

I agree with most of this, but I am confused with the part I put in red. This explanation doesn’t rule out a spiritual interpretation with no substantial change. Does the substance change when descended upon? Or is this something outside of our physical realm, but detectable only on a spiritual level?

PLEASE READ My post 44, 49 & 53 and you’ll have your answer in detail

I think this type of question is about understanding what a group actually believes. There seems to be inconsistency about what the ‘Real Presence’ is. I think ‘Real Presence’ is a poor word choice because it is so loosely defined. I prefer to use the terms transubstantiation, consubstantiation or what not which have straightforward definitions. Does Catholicism still support transubstantiation?

The “Real Presence” is a Literal & theological term defining this reality

Many Catholics here seem to think that understanding ‘Real Presence’ is the pinnacle of faith and provides spiritual benefits. “The source and summit of the Christian life” is a frequently seen phrase here. Why shouldn’t one look for a full explanation?

FROM the Catholic Catechism:

CCC #1324 The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” “The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch.” [sacrifice]

What is the difference between “opposing teachings” and “various customs and practices?” I would argue that all Christians follow the leadership of Christ and obey the teaching in His Word. At my church all baptized believers are welcome to participate in communion because we don’t segregate Christianity. We see all followers of Jesus as united in Christianity. If it weren’t for a Catholic friend of mine, I would still be under the impression that Christianity was “united in leadership, with a common Teaching, while allowing for various customs and practices.” It seems that the concern that Christianity is fractured seems to be the understanding of Catholics, but it is not something I was ever aware of as I happily worshiped at many different denominations over the years with my friends who are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

What is the difference between “opposing teachings” and “various customs and practices?” I would argue that all Christians follow the leadership of Christ and obey the teaching in His Word

Pope Benedict XVI, and many other Poews as well taught:

“There CAN"T be your truth and my truth or their would be NO truth”

TRUTH CAN ONLY BE singular per defined issue. Nothing else is logically possible.

IF, if. the reality where as you suggest ;and many of is pray it will someday be]; there would be ONLY What Jesus Himself desired, founded, and protects:

One Tue God [1st Commandment]

One True set of faith beliefs [Eph 4:1-7]

And One CHURCH knowing that NO “church” can be seperated from its own faith beliefs; which is WHY there exist so many Christian churches; and only ONE “Catholic Church”

GBY

PJM

 

[PJM]

That’s a weird question.

There are lots of things that people believe in around the world. Most people don’t believe in most of them. Generally one needs a reason to believe in something, not a reason not to.

Just to be clear: I believe in the Real Presence and am awaiting word on when I can talk to a priest about being received into the Church.

My own major obstacle to conversion is not a lack of belief in the Real Presence but belief that the Real Presence exists in Protestant churches as well.

Edwin

Edwin dear friend, HURRY HOME

It’s not such a strange question based on 2 considerations:

1. the number of post in 2 days

2 the reality of differing beliefs and understandings articulated so far

My friend, I’m 72 and I have already been posting on this issue for more than an hour and I’m getting tired

PLEASE do 2 things:

1 send me a private message so I can respond to your concern in-depth

1. Please READ my POST #44, 49 & 53

God Bless you!

Patrick [PJM] here on CAF

 

[Contarini]

But isn’t this a testimony to the failure of Protestant Communion? That their Communion doesn’t hold to One Body of Teaching and acceptance of that Teaching? What good is a Communion that is divided over tenants of the faith?

I believe that God has given the Magisterium to the Church, although I think that figuring out just what the permanent teachings of the Magisterium are is much trickier and less certain than many folks here believe.

However, I find it odd to suggest that a community divided over some doctrinal points is “no good.” Unity is very, very important. But I believe Jesus is still present with Protestants in spite of their divisions, just as He is present with Catholics in spite of their many failings

Of course the sacramental presence may not be the same. I take the Orthodox approach: we know where the Church is, but not where it is not.

I believe that Jesus gave promises to St. Peter that apply to his successors in the See of Rome. I believe that Rome will never apostasize, and is capable of speaking definitively and irreformably regarding matters of faith and morals (though I’m an extreme “minimalist” in evaluating specific instances where this has supposedly happened). I believe that whenever a priest in apostolic succession celebrates the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ.

It’s the negative corollaries that I have problems with.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

But isn’t this a testimony to the failure of Protestant Communion?

Indeed. And they came from medieval RCism, so what does that tell you?

 

[Tomdstone]

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

How was that possible at the Last Supper before the Crucifixion had taken place?

 

[Wannano]

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

Well if all the words are literal and nothing is figurative then in verse 24 he is saying the chalice is the new testament in my blood. In other words the cup not the wine in it?
[/quote]

 

[Wesrock]

Well if all the words are literal and nothing is figurative then in verse 24 he is saying the chalice is the new testament in my blood. In other words the cup not the wine in it?

The chalice refers to it and its contents. That isn’t exactly metaphorical or figurative.

 

[Wannano]

The chalice refers to it and its contents. That isn’t exactly metaphorical or figurative.

Or literal:shrug:

 

[Wesrock]

Or literal:shrug:

But the chalice he was holding and its contents were the new covenant in his blood. It is literal, just not in an extreme and exclusive sense.

 

[Peter_J]

Well if all the words are literal and nothing is figurative then in verse 24 he is saying the chalice is the new testament in my blood. In other words the cup not the wine in it?

Interesting … I would have to know more about the linguistic usage. (Note: I know very little Hebrew or Greek.)

But in any case, I think that “if all the words are literal” is a pretty big If.

 

[Wannano]

But the chalice he was holding and its contents were the new covenant in his blood. It is literal, just not in an extreme and exclusive sense.

I am glad you can finally agree with me on something…like I said not exactly literal.

 

[Wannano]

Interesting … I would have to know more about the linguistic usage. (Note: I know very little Hebrew or Greek.)

But in any case, I think that “if all the words are literal” is a pretty big If.

Anything but English is Greek to me!

 

[gazelam]

My dear friend in Christ,

Many of you [but not all] do not believe Catholic Teachings on the Doctrine of the Real Presence.

I’m curious as to just WHY that is?

God Bless you,

Patrick

Because Catholics don’t follow the Bible when it comes to Communion?

John 6
53. Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

Catholic theology today is that either eating the wafer/host or drinking the wine fulfills the Communion obligation. The Bible clearly requires both eating something and drinking something.

Christ would need to have said something like “unless you eat the flesh and blood of the Son of Man or drink his flesh and his blood, you do not have life within you” to be consistent with Catholic practice and theology today.

 

[Peter_J]

Because Catholics don’t follow the Bible when it comes to Communion?

John 6
53. Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

Catholic theology today is that either eating the wafer/host or drinking the wine fulfills the Communion obligation. The Bible clearly requires both eating something and drinking something.

Christ would need to have said something like “unless you eat the flesh and blood of the Son of Man or drink his flesh and his blood, you do not have life within you” to be consistent with Catholic practice and theology today.

I take it that your starting point is the same as Wannano’s, I.e. “if all the words are literal”?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Because Catholics don’t follow the Bible when it comes to Communion?

John 6
53. Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

Catholic theology today is that either eating the wafer/host or drinking the wine fulfills the Communion obligation. The Bible clearly requires both eating something and drinking something.

Christ would need to have said something like “unless you eat the flesh and blood of the Son of Man or drink his flesh and his blood, you do not have life within you” to be consistent with Catholic practice and theology today.

This is invoking an old heresy that was denounced at the Council of Trent.

For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth that to be His own body which He presented (to them). And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Accident and substance are philosophical terms. Basic philosophy 101, we observe the accidental about things but not the substance of things. A table is made wood, has a soft surface when compared to the accidents of other things, it’s color and texture, smell of wood or varnish, are accidents. These are the attributes or the qualities of the table. These are not the substance of the table, as another substance called “table” can have different accidents. Made of metal, with three legs instead of four, etc. Then of course, not everything that has the same accidents of a particular table, has the substance of a table.

Thomas Aquinas used this Aristolean philosophy to describe transubstantiation. Trans, means changing, substantiallity reference the substance. The substance is changed not the accidents.

So with the host, its attributes of qualities are it’s color, texture, ingredients, taste, smell, etc., which are not changed, the substance, that cannot be observed is changed.

Science observes the accidents of the communion host, which do not change, and thus any observation using our senses, including instruments that extend the reach of our senses, does not observe the substance, which has changed.

In addition, transubstantiation is a miracle, and science has yet to accept the divine miracles of God let alone observe them. It’s like asking the Holy Spirit to lay down on an examination table so God can be dissected.

That’s the best I can do. There’s the philosophy forum, that would probably do a better job.

 

[drac16]

Because it’s not part of my tradition. We muslims don’t believe that God is physically present on Earth. My grandma was a devout catholic, though.

 

[gazelam]

This is invoking an old heresy that was denounced at the Council of Trent.

For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth that to be His own body which He presented (to them). And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.

How is this anything other that a doctrine fabricated out of thin air?

 

[susanlo]

Accident and substance are philosophical terms. Basic philosophy 101, we observe the accidental about things but not the substance of things. A table is made wood, has a soft surface when compared to the accidents of other things, it’s color and texture, smell of wood or varnish, are accidents. These are the attributes or the qualities of the table. These are not the substance of the table, as another substance called “table” can have different accidents. Made of metal, with three legs instead of four, etc. Then of course, not everything that has the same accidents of a particular table, has the substance of a table.

Thomas Aquinas used this Aristolean philosophy to describe transubstantiation. Trans, means changing, substantiallity reference the substance. The substance is changed not the accidents.

So with the host, its attributes of qualities are it’s color, texture, ingredients, taste, smell, etc., which are not changed, the substance, that cannot be observed is changed.

Science observes the accidents of the communion host, which do not change, and thus any observation using our senses, including instruments that extend the reach of our senses, does not observe the substance, which has changed.

In addition, transubstantiation is a miracle, and science has yet to accept the divine miracles of God let alone observe them. It’s like asking the Holy Spirit to lay down on an examination table so God can be dissected.

That’s the best I can do. There’s the philosophy forum, that would probably do a better job.

The problem is that in our current understanding, substance means the molecular make-up. If the substance changes, the molecules convert from one set of molecules to another set. If gluten and bread molecules remain, scientifically speaking, the substance has not changed. So the physical attributes and qualities (accidents) of the bread and wine are unchanged AND the chemical substance is unchanged. So what does change? How is Jesus physically present with no molecules of substance? Or am I understanding that Jesus is spiritually present in and around the consecrated bread? Is this different than Calvin’s spiritual presence understanding?

 

[susanlo]

The modern definition of substance is different than what was meant in the original Latin. Perhaps it would be closer in modern terms to speak of a “change in essence.” The point, though, is that in relation to the Eucharist, the normal cues we use to determine what something is are irrelevant. The cues that identify it as bread and wine remain, but in essence it is no longer bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ because God has made it so.

Essence:
noun

1. the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features:
2. a substance obtained from a plant, drug, or the like, by distillation, infusion, etc., and containing its characteristic properties in concentrated form.
3. an alcoholic solution of an essential oil; spirit.
4. a perfume; scent.
5. Philosophy. the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc.
6. something that exists, especially a spiritual or immaterial entity.

Is one of these Dictionary.com definitions a fitting explanation for the essence (substance) that changes with transubstantiation? Clearly 2, 3, and 4 are not accurate. But perhaps one of the other ones describe what it is that is changing in transubstantiation?