The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

[Zeena]

He's spoofing on President Clinton's....

"Depends on what your definition of "is" IS (when he was questioned on his adulterous thang with someone)

Cant forget that, my daughter was born that day, and oftentimes mom's save the front page of the newspaper to show what was going on the day they were born, I had to chuck that idea

It's all fine and dandy 'till someone cheats on HIM!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It's all fine and dandy 'till someone cheats on HIM!

Like 2 peas in a pod

"I did not have sex with that woman"

Hillary Clinton Lesbian Affair

 

[Philothei]

Jesus said that without eating His body and drinking His blood we are all dead, and only with eating it we have eternal life. If by eating His body and drinking His blood He referred to the bread and wine then there is a serious flaw for the thief on the cross, for example, didn't partake in the Eucharist but yet he was saved, and we have His word as proof. I suggest that Jesus meant believing or accepting His body and blood, i.e.: His sacrifice, instead of literally eating something.

Christ said that commandment while he was preaching. The incident with the thief does not "negate" the fact he commanded us to "do this" as the thief was "converted" on the cross it would be indeed silly to wait for him to get baptized or take communion before he died... The analogy is way off with the timing...Also the prophets and all people who are saved from the OT were not participants of any Eucarist as it was not established yet. The Apostles though all did "broke bread" so we have apostolic tradition that points to it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Christ said that commandment while he was preaching. The incident with the thief does not "negate" the fact he commanded us to "do this" as the thief was "converted" on the cross it would be indeed silly to wait for him to get baptized or take communion before he died... The analogy is way off with the timing...Also the prophets and all people who are saved from the OT were not participants of any Eucarist as it was not established yet. The Apostles though all did "broke bread" so we have apostolic tradition that points to it.

That is correct. They were told to eat and drink of the bread and wine until the manifestation of His glorified body and the True Bread should come.

Interesting verses here

1 corin 11:26 For as often ever ye may be eating the Bread, this, and the drink-cup ye may be drinking, the death of the Lord ye are according-messaging until which ever He may be coming
[Revelation 19:11]

Reve 19:11 And I saw the heaven having be opened and behold!
A white horse and the One sitting on it being called Faithful and True and in justice He is judging and is battling.

 

[addo]

...would be indeed silly to wait for him to get baptized or take communion before he died...

Indeed it may seem so, but Jesus said:

Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53)
​

The question is: by eating His flesh and drinking His blood, does He mean the Eucharist (or the Lord's Supper) or something else like accepting His sacrifice or believing or other another similar thing?

Roman Catholics, for example, believe Jesus in John 6 is referring to the Eucharist and Transubstantiation. But yet the thief didn't partake the Eucharist, yet Jesus says that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood we have no life in us.

If Jesus meant the Eucharist, then the thief on the cross doesn't have life within him for He didn't partake in the Eucharist. If He meant believing, for example, then the Catholic Eucharist or Transubstantiation would be wrong.

I don't have time to explain my point in clearer therms for I have to go.

Blessings and have a nice day.

 

[Standing Up]

More distortions from you. I recommend that you stop trying to describe Catholic beliefs. It's apparent that you are ignorant of Catholic teaching and that you are just slandering the Church in any way possible.


Let me correct your blatant errors with two quotes from the Catechism:

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.183 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."184


1373 "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present in many ways to his Church:195 in his word, in his Church's prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"196 in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,197 in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."198

Okay. So now RC is saying the bread and wine were always the flesh and blood of Christ. No duly-ordained priest at the altar making sacrifice is necessary.

From Arianism to Polytheism.

 

[hedrick]

Please note that a number of Protestants do believe that Christ's body and blood are present in communion. Calvin and Luther both taught it, though differently, Luther being more literal in his concept of the presence, and Calvin believing that the presence is mediated by the Holy Spirit. Of course the Anglican tradition also accepts the real presence. Although other interpretations have been proposed, I see it in 1 Cor 11:29.

My problem isn't with the real presence, but with the real absence of the bread and wine. That is, Catholic theology insists that Christ's body and blood replace the bread and wine, so that bread and wine are no longer present, until at a certain point in the digestive process where the remains turn back from Christ's body and blood into normal matter. I won't argue the Lutheran / Calvinist point here, but will simply say that I believe Christ's body and blood are present in a way that doesn't displace the bread and wine.

Ignatius certainly believes in the real presence. At least from the initial quote, I don't see that he believes in the real absence.

 

[Jeronimomoulia]

Chapter 10 Corintians

"1 I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same supernatural food 4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things are warnings for us, not to desire evil as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to dance." 8 We must not indulge in immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. 9 We must not put the Lord to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents; 10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come. 12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. 14 Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. 15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons."

Therefore the christian bread is not anything itself, as the sacrifices of heathens are not anything itself; the important is who we make the offering at. The eucharist is a religious act suitable to join christians in the memory of the Sacrifice of Christ; in fact Christ ordered to practise eucharist in his memory; in the other hand the apostle notices that who receives unworthily this bread eats his own condemnation. Anyway, if eucharist is a sacrament, it will be only a help, not a requirement of salvation; as baptism. Bible is not beyong any doubt, so: dont we need a authority to decide? But when Christ walked in earth He rejected demons, but Catholic church spreads the breaking of the second commandement, and that seems a work of devil: Christ ordered us to gaze at fruits.

 

[Tzaousios]

chestertonrules, please see my reply to you in post #42. Thanks.

 

[Dorothea]

If that's true, why isn't it or something like it, in scripture?
Did Jesus actualy perform a ritual consecration? Did He actualy say these "become", or did He just use standard metaphor (A"is" B)?
Why would one feel compelled to go beyond the plain & simple "is" into "truly" & "realy" is?
The truth of the metaphor, I completely believe.
The spiritual reality it explains I accept.
It's miraculous consequence on my eternal life, I grasp.

Fascination with the elements, I utterly reject.

It sounds like you are lacking in faith, but relying more on rationalism. Christianity is a religion reliant on faith, not rationalistic logic.

 

[Dorothea]

The "change" into body and blood takes place "mystically" it is impossible for us to do any of this you suggest. At worse it is sacreligious to even do something like this as it would be doubting Christ's Commandment to "do this" in His name. (reference to the words of institution). The mystical Super is indeed done for consuming the body and blood as we are to be partakers of his body and blood like he commanded us to do. Now if you do not like to do this or do not agree that is your perogative but please do not mock us who do so holding on to Christ's command....

Those who are needing proof (DNA or otherwise) are lacking faith, and faith in what Christ said. It's really that simple (unfortunately). The change is done by the Holy Spirit. Do we question anything else the Holy Spirit does?

 

[Dorothea]

If one can believe Christ died on the Cross for our sins and resurrected on the third day, one can have faith and believe that the bread and wine become His Body and Blood by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Gifts. It's all about faith and believing in Him and what He says and commands.

 

[MamaZ]

It sounds like you are lacking in faith, but relying more on rationalism. Christianity is a religion reliant on faith, not rationalistic logic.

Christianity is not a religion but a relationship with the one Who created us through His Son. Our Faith is built by the word of God. If what is being practiced is not found in the scripture how are we to have faith in it. For I don't see anywhere in the scripture where the bread nor the wine ever turned into the body or blood of Christ.

 

[chestertonrules]

Christianity is not a religion but a relationship with the one Who created us through His Son. Our Faith is built by the word of God. If what is being practiced is not found in the scripture how are we to have faith in it. For I don't see anywhere in the scripture where the bread nor the wine ever turned into the body or blood of Christ.

Christianity is a religion. Jesus started a Church. Jesus instituted rituals for his followers to repeat. Jesus gave us some rules to live by.


What do you think a religion is?

 

[chestertonrules]

I see a flaw. The change you mentioned is also a change in reality, in structure, in appearance. The wafer doesn't change at all. It is still a wafer, or bread, or what you use. The body you mentioned is completely changed. It's not like the previous, and it can be seen by the eye and also by science, if you will. The bread is still a bread. Basically no change happened. So I see that what you said has some flaws. The change of the body is real, it can be seen and if subject to a scientific test we can say that it is different (for example the new one won't die and will probably have other characteristics as well), but regarding the bread, it still looks like bread and if we put is subject to scientific tests it is still basically bread.

So it is not the same, and the analogy doesn't work, in my humble opinion.

When an individual becomes a new creation through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, does their appearance change?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Christianity is a religion. Jesus started a Church. Jesus instituted rituals for his followers to repeat. Jesus gave us some rules to live by.


What do you think a religion is?

As he also did to the Jews. Should they join Catholicism if they convert to Christianity? And what about Muslims who come to Jesus?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7490218/
Where is the common ground between Christianity and Islam?

 

[Eucharisted]

So, when was the first denial of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist proposed by a Christian?

Judas, in whatever year Jesus died. He pretty much represents every bad Christian ever in the Gospel.

 

[chestertonrules]

Judas, in whatever year Jesus died. He pretty much represents every bad Christian ever in the Gospel.

But was Judas a Christian?

 

[Standing Up]

When an individual becomes a new creation through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, does their appearance change?

No one who is born-again claims to be Jesus Christ though. We're not Arians you know.

 

[Rick Otto]

Christianity is a religion. Jesus started a Church. Jesus instituted rituals for his followers to repeat. Jesus gave us some rules to live by.


What do you think a religion is?

I think it is pretty much what you just said, - rules.
But the transcendant truths behind the rules are principles. And rules can be violated to stay true to principles.
That is why being religious is no guarantee of posessing any spirituality.
Religion is a form of what is beyond form - spirit. That's why it can never be perfect & will pass away when Truth comes back to reign supreme.