Why dear friend do you not believe in the Real Presence

[susanlo]

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!

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.

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.

Are you saying that Jesus was present with them as they had their meal? Or that at this point in Luke 24 he transubstantiated Himself into the bread on the table?

 

[PJM]

John the Baptism declared that God could make sons of Abraham from stones, yet if he did no one would say the stones were actually born of men. God has power to subvert the norms of physical laws.

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.

It’s a hard teaching. Catholics see Jesus’ words, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing,” in part as telling us that human reason and thinking (our flesh) will find this change incomprehensible, but that it is a gift of the spirit to believe in it. There’s another topic already on John 6, and I don’t mean to make this one that, too, but it was an opportunity to expand on our understanding of those words in context.

THANKS another insightful post

GBY

 

[PJM]

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!

THANKS, good post!

GBY

 

[PJM]

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.

thanks!

Gby

 

[PJM]

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.

NO my FRIEND, that was nether SAID nor implied.

What I SAID was, that you have them VALIDY BUT NOT Licitly due to the Schism of 1054 AD

Unless of COURSE your b branch of Orthodoxy ACCEPTS the Primacy of Rome

God Bless you. Love your post!

Patrick

 

[PJM]

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

THANKS Edwin

I don’t accept the “No good”; NOT AS GOOD is far nearer GOD"S truth:thumbsup: “good” being translated as The “Truth” … Amen

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

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

Because

For GOD time does not exist its a human invention and necessity:thumbsup:

Also GOD can do ANY “good thing” and this is the “goodest” of ALL possible “good things; GOD Himself”

GBY

GREAT question!

 

[PJM]

Or literal:shrug:

ACTUALLY it is Literal even if you and others don’t accept the Bible and GOD Himself.

FIVE different authors of the Bible testify to it

Mt 26
Mk 14
Lk 22
John 6
Paul 1st Cor 11

IMMEDIATE after the fact belief of the Early RCC

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

And even Science relunctly has to accept it

GOOGLE: “Eucharistic Miracles”

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

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

WOOPS

PLEASE READ my POST #69

GBY

 

[RebeccaJ]

Because

For GOD time does not exist [its a human invention and necessity:thumbsup:

Also GOD can do ANY “good thing” and this is the “goodest” of ALL possible “good things; GOD Himself”

GBY

GREAT question!

Actually, the moon and sun, and the orbit of the earth, are God’s creation. These are the things that mark time for us.

As for time itself, science does not have a consensus. With quantum physics, the scientific hypothesis of time aligns very nicely to Catholic theology.


[/quote]

 

[Wannano]

ACTUALLY it is Literal even if you and others don’t accept the Bible and GOD Himself.

FIVE different authors of the Bible testify to it

Mt 26
Mk 14
Lk 22
John 6
Paul 1st Cor 11

IMMEDIATE after the fact belief of the Early RCC

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

And even Science relunctly has to accept it

GOOGLE: “Eucharistic Miracles”

GBY

Patrick

 

[Wannano]

ACTUALLY it is Literal even if you and others don’t accept the Bible and GOD Himself.

Patrick

Patrick, the time has come for me to tell you in Christian love that judgements you make like the one above are unacceptable.

My understanding is that we are to be charitable on this forum and if your statement is indicative of current Catholic thought then I am misunderstanding your Pope.

 

[PJM]

quote Originally Posted by gazelam View Post
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.quote

The RCC teaches that the ENTIRE Christ; Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are present in either [BOTH] species and in ANY portion of both species

HOW can it be otherwise; as it would mean that one consume ONLY a part, only a portion of Christ:shrug:

Over the centuries the RCC has done it both ways; through the Consecrated BREAD alone and under both species [and NO] its NOT receiving Christ “twice”; and YES, it IS a Mystery:thumbsup:

GBY

Patrick

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

 

[PJM]

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.

Well done:thumbsup:

Thanks and GBY

 

[rcwitness]

Are you saying that Jesus was present with them as they had their meal? Or that at this point in Luke 24 he transubstantiated Himself into the bread on the table?

I think both. This was definitely a unique experience. It was Jesus who presided the meal, and it was Himself being offered as the meal. The point, I believe, is that Jesus intended to convey the reality of Himself in the breaking of bread. It was at once that the disciples recognized Him and He vanished out of their sight. That is a clear message. He now comes to us, bodily, in this supper.

Mark relates that He appeared in “another form”. I have touched on this with you before, but what does Mark (or the Spirit) mean by “another form”? And remember, it was significant for them to return to the others to to relate how He was made known to them.

 

[PJM]

actually, the moon and sun, and the orbit of the earth, are god’s creation. These are the things that mark time for us.

As for time itself, science does not have a consensus. With quantum physics, the scientific hypothesis of time aligns very nicely to catholic theology.

thank you!

Gby

 

[PJM]

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.

PLEASE Read my Post #91

Also the bible is a Catholic Book, and what you reference here is “church PRACTICE”; NOT a Dogma. Church practices ARE changeable but Doctrines are NOT.

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

quote Originally Posted by PJM View Post
ACTUALLY it is Literal even if you and others don’t accept the Bible and GOD Himself.

Patrick end quote

Patrick, the time has come for me to tell you in Christian love that judgements you make like the one above are unacceptable.

My understanding is that we are to be charitable on this forum and if your statement is indicative of current Catholic thought then I am misunderstanding your Pope.

And sincere THANKS for doing so:thumbsup:

However what I shared in THEE [singular as truth can be nothing else] factual, historical, biblical and even scientific [can’t be scientifically disproven] TRUTH.

Please read the following passages being especially mindful of the singular tense words chosen by GOD [1 Tim 3:16-17]

Mt 10:1-8

Mt 16:15-20 [Verse 18 says “MY CHURCH” singular, and no church can be separated from what identifies IT [its faith beliefs].

Jn 17: 17-20

Mt 28: 18-20

My dear friend, no where in the bible, Tradition or history can it be shown, much less proven that GOD even one time approved of, accepted, tolerated, permitted or allowed or even desired competing sets of Faith beliefs.

Hence in light of this evidence my statement is true and factual; AND absolutely NOT in- tended to be uncharitable; only truthful and factual. I wish and pray it weren’t so.

.May God Bless and guide you my friend!

Patrick

 

[PJM]

quote

Originally Posted by susanlo View Post
Are you saying that Jesus was present with them as they had their meal? Or that at this point in Luke 24 he transubstantiated Himself into the bread on the table? end quote

I think both. This was definitely a unique experience. It was Jesus who presided the meal, and it was Himself being offered as the meal. The point, I believe, is that Jesus intended to convey the reality of Himself in the breaking of bread. It was at once that the disciples recognized Him and He vanished out of their sight. That is a clear message. He now comes to us, bodily, in this supper.

Mark relates that He appeared in “another form”. I have touched on this with you before, but what does Mark (or the Spirit) mean by “another form”? And remember, it was significant for them to return to the others to to relate how He was made known to them.

A question for you: Originally Posted by susanlo View Post

Are you suggesting GOD could not do this?

GBY

Patrick

 

[Blacksword]

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.

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.

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?

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

Fifth…the idea seems very illogical and improbable.

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.

And more.

.

Late to respond but I noticed no one gave this much attention but your assertion that the Real Presence developed late (the 11th Century?!) is totally false. The writings of dozens of Early Church Fathers are all universal in agreement on this issue, including St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Clement of Rome writing in the First and very early Second Centuries, as well as documents like the Didache. This same teaching is reiterated over and over right up through the end of the pre-Nicene Fathers including St. Augustine. If there is one doctrine we can be certain of in terms of authentic Tradition handed on by the Apostles to the ECF’s it is this one, hardly a late theological invention.