The Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist

[thecolorsblend]

The Real Presence is one of the great mysteries of the faith. But the evangelical community, into which I was born, has instituted a heretical rebellion against this doctrine so complete that I never even heard of the Real Presence until I was in my 20's.

At that time, it seemed without question to be the most spurious and questionable of "weird teachings from Rome" that I'd ever heard. This was the first major domino to fall in my conversion to Catholicism.

The turning point came when I read...

Those who hold heretical opinions with regard to Jesus Christ... refrain from the Eucharist because they do not confess that it is the flesh of Christ.
- St. Ignatius AD 110

... and then coupled that with...

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
- St. John 6:55

At the time I found that quote from St. Ignatius, I was worshiping with the Anglicans and thoroughly enjoying it. But that single statement from St. Ignatius inspired me to check into what else the Church Fathers said that was kept from me all these years. The results were as surprising as they were Catholic.

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.
- St. Ignatius AD 110

The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.
- Justin Martyr AD 151

Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way... now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: 'My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink'
- Origen AD 248

Several of the Church Fathers were taught and trained by the apostles themselves. The doctrine of the Real Presence simply goes too far back to be anything other than apostolic in origin. These men all believed that the Eucharist to be Our Lord's body and blood.

 

[cgaviria]

I suggest you lookup "metaphor" and "figure of speech" in the dictionary. Don't you think if the bread actually became flesh in the mouth as anybody was chewing, someone would've noticed by now that they were chewing a piece of meat? Or if the wine became actual blood, someone would've tasted the metallic flavor of blood in their mouth by now? To suggest that the bread of the communion becomes a literal piece of the skin or meat of the old body of Jesus is complete and utter foolishness. Those of the true assemblies of God that partake in the communion are not cannibals, but rather, eat of the bread, which represents the old flesh of Jesus, and drink of the wine, which represents the blood that was spilled by Jesus, and by doing thus are declaring the death of Jesus that brought true atonement for sins till he comes back,

For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:26 [NIV])

 

[thecolorsblend]

I suggest you lookup "metaphor" and "figure of speech" in the dictionary. Don't you think if the bread actually became flesh in the mouth as anybody was chewing, someone would've noticed by now that they were chewing a piece of meat? Or if the wine became actual blood, someone would've tasted the metallic flavor of blood in their mouth by now? To suggest that the bread of the communion becomes a literal piece of the skin or meat of the old body of Jesus is complete and utter foolishness. Those of the true assemblies of God that partake in the communion are not cannibals, but rather, eat of the bread, which represents the old flesh of Jesus, and drink of the wine, which represents the blood that was spilled by Jesus, and by doing thus are declaring the death of Jesus that brought true atonement for sins till he comes back,

That is the mystery, isn't it? Our Lord commanded us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The Eucharist is somehow counted as those things after being consecrated even though the appearance of bread and wine both remain. The mystery of faith.

 

[cgaviria]

That is the mystery, isn't it? Our Lord commanded us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The Eucharist is somehow counted as those things after being consecrated even though the appearance of bread and wine both remain. The mystery of faith.

Did Jesus not speak in parables? So didn't it occur to you that this was indeed also a parable, a saying, a figure of speech? Even those who heard it said,

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (John 6:60 [ESV])

It was a teaching, a figure of speech, to convey a meaning, which was him offering up his flesh and blood as a sacrifice, that was then symbolically eaten in the communion of those who are believers. This really isn't too difficult to understand. Other teachings, perhaps are more difficult to understand, but this one, common now, seriously?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Did Jesus not speak in parables? So didn't it occur to you that this was indeed also a parable, a saying, a figure of speech? Even those who heard it said,


It was a teaching, a figure of speech, to convey a meaning, which was him offering up his flesh and blood as a sacrifice, that was then symbolically eaten in the communion of those who are believers. This really isn't too difficult to understand. Other teachings, perhaps are more difficult to understand, but this one, common now, seriously?

Sure He spoke in parables quite a lot. And when He did, He typically identified His lesson as a parable. If He didn't, the gospel writer identifies His lesson as a parable for us.

If what He taught was intended to be something other than literal, why didn't Our Lord stop the people who deserted Him and tell them He wasn't speaking literally as they had assumed?

 

[cgaviria]

Sure He spoke in parables quite a lot. And when He did, He typically identified His lesson as a parable. If He didn't, the gospel writer identifies His lesson as a parable for us.

If what He taught was intended to be something other than literal, why didn't Our Lord stop the people who deserted Him and tell them He wasn't speaking literally as they had assumed?

He didn't always interpret everything he spoke as a parable, and not every parable has a corresponding interpretation in the gospels. Some have the interpretations, others do not. The problem is, that people like you, will take a parable that wasn't given an interpretation in the gospel, then give it a literal meaning, like even the parable of the rich man and lazarus, and come up with doctrines such as these, that the eucharist becomes literal flesh and blood in the mouth. Its just nonsensical, as I explained.

 

[thecolorsblend]

He didn't always interpret everything he spoke as a parable, and not every parable has a corresponding interpretation in the gospels. Some have the interpretations, others do not. The problem is, that people like you, will take a parable that wasn't given an interpretation in the gospel, then give it a literal meaning, like even the parable of the rich man and lazarus, and come up with doctrines such as these, that the eucharist becomes literal flesh and blood in the mouth. Its just nonsensical, as I explained.

I didn't say "interpret". I said He frequently identified a parable as a parable. And indeed He did. But He didn't in that passage from St. John's gospel.

If Our Lord had intended His remarks to be taken something other than literally, why did He not say so? Why did St. John not say so? Why did the Church Fathers take Him literally? Why was the Real Presence the universal orthodox understanding of Christians for a millennium and a half before anybody thought to question it?

 

[cgaviria]

I didn't say "interpret". I said He frequently identified a parable as a parable. And indeed He did. But He didn't in that passage from St. John's gospel.

If Our Lord had intended His remarks to be taken something other than literally, why did He not say so? Why did St. John not say so? Why did the Church Fathers take Him literally? Why was the Real Presence the universal orthodox understanding of Christians for a millennium and a half before anybody thought to question it?

Not always did the gospel identify a parable as a parable, just as the gospels didn't always give an interpretation to a parable, whether it was identified as a parable or not. This is where wisdom, or having holy spirit comes in, as in possessing either one helps give clarity to these sayings of Jesus. There is absolutely no wisdom in the doctrine of the communion being a cannibalistic act, for what purpose? Is the consuming of the bread of the communion as a symbol of the body of Christ not sufficient? Was the old testament not also full of symbolic festivals, such as the symbol of the passover lamb, or the symbol of unleavened bread, that also symbolized true things to come? Again, you are completely misinterpreting a figure of speech, a symbol.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Not always did the gospel identify a parable as a parable, just as the gospels didn't always give an interpretation to a parable, whether it was identified as a parable or not. This is where wisdom, or having holy spirit comes in, as in possessing either one helps give clarity to these sayings of Jesus. There is absolutely no wisdom in the doctrine of the communion being a cannibalistic act, for what purpose? Is the consuming of the bread of the communion as a symbol of the body of Christ not sufficient? Was the old testament not also full of symbolic festivals, such as the symbol of the passover lamb, or the symbol of unleavened bread, that also symbolized true things to come? Again, you are completely misinterpreting a figure of speech, a symbol.

I'm not sure what you mean by "symbolic festivals" but the Israelites literally killed a lamb and then literally ate it.

Our Lord is our Passover Lamb. His fulfillment of the Passover is incomplete if we don't consume His flesh.

Our Lord is the living bread from heaven. Those are His words, not mine. Why would He call Himself "bread" if He didn't believe He was to be consumed?

Oddly enough, your comparison of the Real Presence to cannibalism (apart from being offensive) echoes one of pagan Rome's objections to Christianity. They called the Christians cannibals too. Why would they have called Christians that name?

 

[cgaviria]

I'm not sure what you mean by "symbolic festivals" but the Israelites literally killed a lamb and then literally ate it.

Our Lord is our Passover Lamb. His fulfillment of the Passover is incomplete if we don't consume His flesh.

Our Lord is the living bread from heaven. Those are His words, not mine. Why would He call Himself "bread" if He didn't believe He was to be consumed?

Oddly enough, your comparison of the Real Presence to cannibalism (apart from being offensive) echoes one of pagan Rome's objections to Christianity. They called the Christians cannibals too. Why would they have called Christians that name?

Symbolic festivals means the festivals like the passover, in which a literal lamb was killed to symbolize the true lamb to come, which was Jesus. Jesus Christ is also the fulfillment of the symbol of the living bread from the old testament, and that through the offering up of his flesh, we then have life. The communion is also a symbol embracing and announcing the death of Jesus till he comes. These are all symbols buddy.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Symbolic festivals means the festivals like the passover, in which a literal lamb was killed to symbolize the true lamb to come, which was Jesus. Jesus Christ is also the fulfillment of the symbol of the living bread from the old testament, and that through the offering up of his flesh, we then have life. The communion is also a symbol embracing and announcing the death of Jesus till he comes. These are all symbols buddy.

And yet they still literally ate it as they were literally commanded to do. Interesting, yes?

 

[cgaviria]

And yet they still literally ate it as they were literally commanded to do. Interesting, yes?

Yes they literally ate bread and drank wine that again, that act a symbol, but to say that is literally becomes flesh and blood, is shear nonsense.

 

[Albion]

I suggest you lookup "metaphor" and "figure of speech" in the dictionary. Don't you think if the bread actually became flesh in the mouth as anybody was chewing, someone would've noticed by now that they were chewing a piece of meat?

Friend, you simply HAVE TO find out what the teaching (by which I mean the church's explanation) actually says about such things before going after it. And I say that as one who doesn't buy into the Medieval doctrine of Transubstantiation, although I do accept that the Real Presence dates from antiquity.

 

[Goatee]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

 

[Goatee]

Yes they literally ate bread and drank wine that again, that act a symbol, but to say that is literally becomes flesh and blood, is shear nonsense.

It is the real body and blood of Jesus! It is! You have to believe to understand. It is amazing.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

 

[com7fy8]

- St. Ignatius AD 110

- Justin Martyr AD 151

- Origen AD 248

110, 151, and 248 "AD" "could" be after the apostles all had died. So, do any of these men claim to have personally talked with any of the apostles? Do you have an actual quote of any of these men's writings, saying he has personally conversed with an apostle? And if so . . . when, if he says when, please?

Several of the Church Fathers were taught and trained by the apostles themselves.

Can you name one father whom you mean by this, and give the quote of that father himself making such a claim, please? And can you actually quote any church father's statement, plainly stating that he personally talked with an apostle and saying that apostle told him what you are claiming about the Catholic Eucharist?

The doctrine of the Real Presence simply goes too far back to be anything other than apostolic in origin. These men all believed that the Eucharist to be Our Lord's body and blood.

But did any of these men you above quoted actually talk in person with an apostle? Do you have any quote of these men, which says he has personally talked with an apostle?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Yes they literally ate bread and drank wine that again, that act a symbol, but to say that is literally becomes flesh and blood, is shear nonsense.

What's symbolic about it? Our Lord is the Passover lamb. The lamb was intended to be eaten. Literally. So then on what rational basis can it be argued that everything literal up to this point somehow becomes symbolic the instant we begin discussing the Real Presence?

Keep in mind, Sacred Scripture never says this teaching is symbolic. The testimony of history manifestly shows the Early Church believed in the Real Presence. Clearly the ancient Romans understood it on some level because they accused the Church of being cannibals. It looks like the consensus is a literal understanding of the Real Presence. Simply calling these things "symbolic" does not make them so.

 

[Goatee]

There are quite a few miracles that show a Host that has bled or is bleeding etc.

 

[cgaviria]

What's symbolic about it? Our Lord is the Passover lamb. The lamb was intended to be eaten. Literally. So then on what rational basis can it be argued that everything literal up to this point somehow becomes symbolic the instant we begin discussing the Real Presence?

Keep in mind, Sacred Scripture never says this teaching is symbolic. The testimony of history manifestly shows the Early Church believed in the Real Presence. Clearly the ancient Romans understood it on some level because they accused the Church of being cannibals. It looks like the consensus is a literal understanding of the Real Presence. Simply calling these things "symbolic" does not make them so.

Do you not know what is a symbol is for? A symbol represents a literal thing. For every symbol there is a literal counterpart, hence why it is a symbol. The literal counterpart for the symbol of the bread and wine is the literal offering up of the flesh and blood of Jesus back when he was killed, in which case it atones for our sins. How are you so hard of understanding to not know this?

 

[thecolorsblend]

110, 151, and 248 "AD" "could" be after the apostles all had died. So, do any of these men claim to have personally talked with any of the apostles? Do you have an actual quote of any of these men's writings, saying he has personally conversed with an apostle? And if so . . . when, if he says when, please?

The Catholic Encyclopedia says St. Ignatius was a student of St. John. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

Further, your argument implies that the Church fell into error the instant the final apostle passed away. I know very few Protestants bold enough to make that claim.

Can you name one father whom you mean by this, and give the quote of that father himself making such a claim, please?

Polycarp and Ignatius. There may be more but those are two I can think of off the top of my head.