Is the "Real Presence" [catholic Holy Communion" Really REAL?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You can if you look at it "Symbolically" as the bible teaches.

Roman Catholics believe they alone through their priestly succession have the absolute power to turn the sacrament into "The Actual Blood Of Jesus Christ"

Don't you find that bizarre?

I find your post very bizzare; it is not the Priest or Pastor that brings about these changes, rather it is our Lord Jesus Christ, through His very words! Your post implies that it is some sort of sorcery, when it is simply a mystery and a miracle that transcends time and where heaven and earth come together with all believers; past and present. To deny this is to exclude one's self from the eternity of God's kingdom, here and now.

 

[Truth7t7]

I find your post very bizzare; it is not the Priest or Pastor that brings about these changes, rather it is our Lord Jesus Christ, through His very words! Your post implies that it is some sort of sorcery, when it is simply a mystery and a miracle that transcends time and where heaven and earth come together with all believers; past and present. To deny this is to exclude one's self from the eternity of God's kingdom, here and now.

To deny the Roman Catholic doctrine of "Transubstatiation" will exclude myself fromGods eternal kingdom?

That's a big smile!

After the prayer is said by the priest, the bread remains bread, and the juice of the grape remains the same.

Just another false doctrine of Roman Catholocism.

Pay the church, and we will pray your deceased loved one out of purgatory.

Just another false doctrine of Roman Catholocism.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

To deny the Roman Catholic doctrine of "Transubstatiation" will exclude myself fromGods eternal kingdom?

That's a big smile!

After the prayer is said by the priest, the bread remains bread, and the juice of the grape remains the same.

Just another false doctrine of Roman Catholocism.

Pay the church, and we will pray your deceased loved one out of purgatory.

Just another false doctrine of Roman Catholocism.

Transubstantiation is an attempt by a human using pagan (Aristotelian) logic to explain a mystery in human terms. As a Lutheran, I too reject Transubstiation, but not the real presence (in the words of Luther, but also an explanation that falls short) Christ's body and blood are indeed present "in, with and under the bread and wine", but in a mysterious and miraculous way.

To deny the real presence is to fail to discern Christ's body and blood; something that we are sternly cautioned against in Scripture.

Regardless of what the Catholic Church calls it, they do not deny the very body and blood of Christ the way that most reformed protestants do. It is more of a logical fail to use reason and self interpretation to deny the real presence, than to accept it with an ill-concieved bad definition.

 

[concretecamper]

I know many protestants who would have no problem accepting transubstantiation as a truth. Where the problems lies is being "told" what to believe.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I know many protestants who would have no problem accepting transubstantiation as a truth. Where the problems lies is being "told" what to believe.

No question that the diversity within Protestantism, even in the more authoritarian fundamentalist Churches is just that; interpretive standards for Scripture Change to accommodate opinion, authority is shunned because of stinging ears, historical practices and the historic record is set aside.

I like your signature quotes, not that I fully agree, but they do make a point: History is like a map: If you don't know where you have been, you can never know where you are going.

 

[Major1]

To deny the Roman Catholic doctrine of "Transubstatiation" will exclude myself fromGods eternal kingdom?

That's a big smile!

After the prayer is said by the priest, the bread remains bread, and the juice of the grape remains the same.

Just another false doctrine of Roman Catholocism.

Pay the church, and we will pray your deceased loved one out of purgatory.

Just another false doctrine of Roman Catholocism.

To be clear and simple......the RCC practice of Transubstantiation doctrine has no foundation in the Bible.

Every time I see this subject come up I have to pause and pinch myself as to WHY anyone would think that the body and blood of Jesus somehow miraculously becomes the real thing.

The Bible doesn’t say that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ, but rather that they are symbols of His sacrifice. Just as the Old Testament Passover sacrifice eaten with unleavened bread was a symbol that looked forward to Christ’s sacrifice, the unleavened bread and wine of the New Testament observance look back to Christ’s sacrifice in memorial. It’s important to understand that the New Testament symbols are not themselves a sacrifice, as the Catholic celebration of the mass and Eucharist imagine. Rather, the bread and wine commemorate Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice.

Not only that but also in transubstantiation, the bread and wine are regarded as the “host” (with the body and blood of Christ somehow literally possessing them) being offered up anew as the “victim” in sacrifice. In this practice, Jesus is supposedly sacrificed again and again and again—every time the bread and wine are taken. This is directly contrary to Scripture.

Then 3rd....Eating Christ’s literal flesh and blood would be an abomination according to biblical passages about what can and can’t be eaten.

But those who want to do this simply ignore the Bible and do what they want to do regardless of what the Scriptures say.

Some have attempted to temper the doctrine of transubstantiation with that of consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is the idea that while Christ’s body and blood are not directly in the bread and wine, the body and blood are nonetheless literally present with the bread and wine. Yet there is simply no valid reason for either idea—and every reason to reject both. A purely figurative explanation makes the most sense biblically—with the bread and wine being memorial symbols of Christ’s flesh and blood given in sacrifice for us. His sacrifice was a one-time event. We do not reenact it but rather remember it in partaking of the symbols.

 

[Major1]

I know many protestants who would have no problem accepting transubstantiation as a truth. Where the problems lies is being "told" what to believe.

That is funny. I am a Protestant and I do not know of ONE single Protestant person, who when told what the practice of Transubstantiation actually is, will then follow through in participating.

Genesis 9:2-4, where God tells Noah........
"Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it."

Leviticus 17:14 gives the reason behind command........
“For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life.”

Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states,

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (CCC, 1376).

Because they are the presence of Christ himself, Catholics worship and adore the elements.

Nowhere in scripture do we find this teaching. We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words when talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood:

John 6:63.........
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,".

He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood.

 

[concretecamper]

To be clear and simple......the RCC practice of Transubstantiation doctrine has no foundation in the Bible.

Every time I see this subject come up I have to pause and pinch myself as to WHY anyone would think that the body and blood of Jesus somehow miraculously becomes the real thing.

The Bible doesn’t say that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ, but rather that they are symbols of His sacrifice. Just as the Old Testament Passover sacrifice eaten with unleavened bread was a symbol that looked forward to Christ’s sacrifice, the unleavened bread and wine of the New Testament observance look back to Christ’s sacrifice in memorial. It’s important to understand that the New Testament symbols are not themselves a sacrifice, as the Catholic celebration of the mass and Eucharist imagine. Rather, the bread and wine commemorate Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice.

Not only that but also in transubstantiation, the bread and wine are regarded as the “host” (with the body and blood of Christ somehow literally possessing them) being offered up anew as the “victim” in sacrifice. In this practice, Jesus is supposedly sacrificed again and again and again—every time the bread and wine are taken. This is directly contrary to Scripture.

Then 3rd....Eating Christ’s literal flesh and blood would be an abomination according to biblical passages about what can and can’t be eaten.

But those who want to do this simply ignore the Bible and do what they want to do regardless of what the Scriptures say.

Some have attempted to temper the doctrine of transubstantiation with that of consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is the idea that while Christ’s body and blood are not directly in the bread and wine, the body and blood are nonetheless literally present with the bread and wine. Yet there is simply no valid reason for either idea—and every reason to reject both. A purely figurative explanation makes the most sense biblically—with the bread and wine being memorial symbols of Christ’s flesh and blood given in sacrifice for us. His sacrifice was a one-time event. We do not reenact it but rather remember it in partaking of the symbols.

you could have just posted the link!!!
Is Transubstantiation Biblical?

 

[Major1]

I find your post very bizzare; it is not the Priest or Pastor that brings about these changes, rather it is our Lord Jesus Christ, through His very words! Your post implies that it is some sort of sorcery, when it is simply a mystery and a miracle that transcends time and where heaven and earth come together with all believers; past and present. To deny this is to exclude one's self from the eternity of God's kingdom, here and now.

I am sure that you are aware that in the year 1215A.D. the Roman Catholic Pope Innocent III decreed the doctrine of transubstantiation. This is the Roman doctrine that states the priest has the ability to perform the miracle of changing the wafer into the body of Jesus Christ for all Catholics to receive as communion. Five years later in 1220A.D. Pope Honorius sanctioned the adoration and or worship of the wafer as doctrine.

So then in essence, the Roman Catholic church is declaring that it has the power to change normal bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the Creator of all that is seen and unseen. They truly believe the host (Eucharist) is in fact the TRUE body and blood of Jesus Christ Himself, and is in fact worthy of worship and adoration. Since they think this, do you suppose this doctrine will cause them to believe they are above the Creator?

The Blasphemy of Transubstantiation

 

[Major1]

you could have just posted the link!!!
Is Transubstantiation Biblical?

No need to. You did! THANKS!

 

[concretecamper]

That is funny. I am a Protestant and I do not know of ONE single Protestant person, who when told what the practice of Transubstantiation actually is, will then follow through in participating.

Considering the websites you cut and paste from, I am not surprised.

 

[Major1]

Considering the websites you cut and paste from, I am not surprised.

But is there an error in what was stated?

 

[Albion]

So then in essence, the Roman Catholic church is declaring that it has the power to change normal bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the Creator of all that is seen and unseen. They truly believe the host (Eucharist) is in fact the TRUE body and blood of Jesus Christ Himself....

The churches that a majority of Christians belong to do teach and believe the doctrine of the Real Presence.

and is in fact worthy of worship and adoration. Since they think this, do you suppose this doctrine will cause them to believe they are above the Creator?

The Blasphemy of Transubstantiation

It's here that the non-Catholics disagree.

 

[Andy centek]

OPEN WRITING:

WHO IS SPIRITUALLY SAVED​

Reading some of the writings here in Christian about the Catholic belief, I was moved to write the following from the Gentiles apostle, Paul's writing of Romans 8.

It is not only the Catholics that try to save man with their church teachings, other denominations do the same things in different ways. So I present the writing of Paul from Romans 8. These show very clearly many of the arguments that are falsely used in the Denominations of today. I pray that if God be willing, that this will help many to rethink their walk.

What Spiritually Saves A Soul​

Rom 8:7-39 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God

For it is not subject to the law of God
Neither indeed can be

So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God
But you are not in the flesh
But in the Spirit

If so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you

Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His
And if Christ be in you the body is dead because of sin
But the Spirit is life because of righteousness

But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you.

Heirs with Christ
Therefore, brethren we are debtors
Not to the flesh to live after the flesh

For if ye live after the flesh you shall die
But if you through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body you shall live
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God


For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear
But you have received the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father

The Spirit Itself bears witness with our spirit
That we are the children of God
And if children then heirs
Heirs of God
And joint-heirs with Christ
If so be that we suffer with Him that we may be also glorified together

Future Glory

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us

For the earnest expectation of the creature waits for the manifestation of the sons of God
For the creature was made subject to vanity
Not willingly

But by reason of Him who has subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

For we know that the whole creation groans and travailes in pain together until now
And not only they
But ourselves also
Which have the first fruits of the Spirit

Even We ourselves groan within ourselves
Waiting for the adoption
Which is the redemption of our body

For we are saved by hope
But hope that is seen is not hope for what a man sees
Why does he yet hope for

But if we hope for that we see not
Then do we with patience wait for it

Likewise the Spirit also helps our infirmities
For we know not what we should pray for as we ought
But the Spirit itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered

And He that searches the hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit
Because He makes intercession for the saints according to God

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God
To them who are the called according to his purpose

For whom He did foreknow
He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son
That he might be the firstborn among many brethren

Moreover whom He did predestinate
Them He also called
And whom He called
Them He also justified
And whom He justified
Them He also glorified

God's Everlasting Love
What shall we then say to these things

If God be for us
Who can be against us

He that spared not His own Son
But delivered Him up for us all (The called ones)
How shall He not with Him also freely give us all things

Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect
It is God that justifies
Who is he that condemns

It is Christ that died
Yes rather that is risen again
Who is even at the right hand of God
Who also makes intercession for us

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ
Shall tribulation
Or distress
Or persecution
Or famine
Or nakedness
Or peril
Or sword

As it is written
For Your sake we are killed all the day long
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter
No in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us

For I am persuaded
That neither death
Nor life
Nor angels
Nor principalities
Nor powers
Nor things present
Nor things to come
Nor height
Nor depth
Nor any other creature

Shall be able to separate us from the love of God
Which is in Christ Jesus our Lord

NOTE: Is there any place in these writings that cater to man's religions?

Rom_8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom_13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Andy Centek

 

[prodromos]

To be clear and simple......the RCC practice of Transubstantiation doctrine has no foundation in the Bible.

John 6 25-68

Every time I see this subject come up I have to pause and pinch myself as to WHY anyone would think that the body and blood of Jesus somehow miraculously becomes the real thing.

John 6 25-68

 

[Albion]

One problem is inherent in this discussion is that much of what has been posted could be understood as supporting Transubstantiation OR simply Real Presence, one or the other, but it makes a big difference which one the poster has in mind.

 

[Andy centek]

John 6 25-68

Hi Major 1

Well you see it's like this when the wine is changed to the blood and body of their christ.

You have heard of black magic I am sure. This is red magic

Andy Centek

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

One problem is inherent in this discussion is that much of what has been posted could be understood as supporting Transubstantiation OR simply Real Presence, one or the other, but it makes a big difference which one the poster has in mind.

It does indeed.

 

[Major1]

John 6 25-68

John 6 25-68

Interesting that you would pick those Scriptures.

1 John 5:13.............
"These things have I WRITTEN unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; THAT YE MAY KNOW THAT YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

Having said that, allow me to explain to you what Jesus meant that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood.

For contextual clarification one should read John 6:1-21.
When you have done that, I hope that you did......we see that Jesus feeds thousands of people with five loaves of bread and 2 fish.

Then in John 6:22-25, the following day all of the people who were there went looking for Jesus.

Then in verses 26-27 tells us that when they found Him, He told them that they did not look for Him because of the works that they had seen.
He told them that they came looking for Him because they wanted more food. Then He told them not to work for the meat that perishes but for the meat which would give them everlasting life. Jesus told them that He would give to them.

Now in verses 28-29 the people said......"What shall we do that we might work the works of God"?

The answer Jesus gave them is important in verse 29 as He said to them...
"This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent".

Now then in verses 30-31 we see the hardness of the peoples hearts.
They said........."What SIGN showest thou then, that we may see and believe thee? What dost thou work"?

THERE IT IS FOR ALL TO SEE!!! The day before He had done that huge miracle in front of them and they have totally ignored what they saw and instead said......."Show us something so that we will believe you".
That tells us that they DID NOT BELIEVE JESUS AT ALL!!!!

Then these same people call on their forefathers the Israelites who ate manna from God in the wilderness. God fed them for 40 years and now they want Jesus to feed them all the food they can eat.

Then in v. 31 the people mention how their fathers, the Israelites, ate manna in the desert. Remember God fed them out there for 40 years. The people now wanted Jesus to feed them all the food they wanted.

Verses 32 - 33 we see Jesus telling them that God is giving them the TRUE bread from heaven as we see Him saying....."The bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven and GIVETH LIFE unto the world. In other words He just said to them that He is the bread that gives nourishment to the world. BUT, what kind of nourishment is the question?????????

Then in verse 34-35 the people respond by saying.......
"Lord, evermore give us this bread".
Jesus then said.....
"I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE, he that COMETH TO ME shall never hunger and he that BELIEVTH ON ME shall never thirst".

We all know that no physical bread can make us full for the rest of our lives and no physical drink can quench our thirst for the rest of our lives.
Then what did he mean?


Now we come to verses 36-40 and we see that Jesus plainly tells them that even though they had seen Him they did not believe Him.
Jesus says then in verse 40.........
"And this is the will of him that sent Me, that everyone which seeth THE SON AND BELIEVETH ON HIM, may have everlasting life".

Jesus said if we come to him and BELIEVE in him we will get everlasting life just like eating physical bread gives us physical life. The people were talking about physical life, Jesus was talking about the spiritual life.

In verses 41-42 we see again that these people did not believe in Jesus and therefore did not receive His words as the truth of God. They murmured at Him because of what He had just said about the bread that came down from heaven.

They knew His family and thought that there was no way that He could have come down from heaven.

In verses 43 - 47 Jesus tells them that anyone who hears and learns from God, the Father will come to him, others won't. He told them what they needed to do and they ignored it and then got indignant about it.
Again, Jesus said to them........"Verily, Verily I say unto you, He that BELIEVES ON ME HATH EVERLASTING LIFE".

JOHN 6 VERSES 48 THROUGH 51 -- THE BREAKDOWN

Now Jesus breaks it all the way down in these verses. These greedy people were only concerned with having their bellies full so he spoke to them on that level. He basically told them, "Your fathers ate manna and they are DEAD.
I am the living bread, eat me and YOU WILL LIVE FOREVER. My body is the bread I will give for the life of the world."

What did he mean by eat me?

Remember he told them that the work of God was to BELIEVE on Jesus.

To believe is to accept, internalize, and absorb--which is what eating is--taking in an outside substance, food inside of you.

But unlike physical bread which is eaten and cast out through the digestive system, the spiritual bread, the word of God, is eaten/internalized through belief and never cast out. It remains inside of us. In verse 58, Jesus explains that when we eat him it is ......
"NOT as your fathers did eat manna and are dead". It is not the same kind of eating. It is INTERNALIZING, ACCEPTING, BELIEVING HIM.

Believing/internalizing/eating this fact gives us eternal life. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. When we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, he helps us to overcome sin and the world. His grace helps us. After we get SAVED, even our desires change--and this does not take a long time. It is not contrived, it is natural.

What about the blood? Jesus' blood is lifesaving drink indeed because without the shedding of blood, there is no remission (forgiveness) of sins.

We need blood, the blood of Jesus alone. God the Father sent his only begotten Son to die for us and to shed his blood so that we can be saved. The blood of Jesus is the propitiation of our sins. It is the payment. Without the blood of Jesus, we would have no hope. We have sinned and we all deserve the lake of fire, but God is not willing that any should perish. When we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, the blood of Jesus washes away our sins and we are reconciled to God who becomes our Father and we have a good future in front of us. We become children of God and we read his word and obey it and God helps us through life and when it is time to die, we go to live with God forever. Hebrews 9:22 says that blood is required in order to get forgiveness/remission of sins,

Once again, if we accept Jesus, internalize him, receive him, yea eat him, we have ETERNAL LIFE. The people were talking about physical life, Jesus was talking about SPIRITUAL life. Look back at the passage--when asked what we have to do to do the works of God, Jesus said,

"He that BELIEVETH on me hath everlasting LIFE."
When we believe on Jesus Christ, he actually lives inside of us, never to be purged like physical bread.

Because I believe, Jesus lives in me. As we continue on in this passage, we will see that the Lord makes clear he is talking spiritually.

JOHN 6 VERSES 52 THROUGH 69

This caused the unbelieving Jews to say, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They are still thinking about physical life and physical bread. Jesus is talking about spiritual life and spiritual bread. He has told them over and over that the work of God is to believe on him and they repeatedly refuse to believe on him and persist in seeking physical bread.

In v. 55, Jesus said, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." Many people were offended at the thought of this. Because of their unbelief, they were still thinking in the physical realm.

What about the disciples that left him? Was it because they had to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood? No! They left because just like the others they did not believe in the Lord. Because they did not believe, they could not understand what Jesus was saying (see I Cor 2:14).

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, "Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth [gives life]; THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life." He told them plainly that he was not talking literally. He said, "...the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT." He also told them here that the physical flesh profits NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH, NIL, NADA--NOTHING! "Then what did Jesus mean in John Chapter 6?"

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The churches that a majority of Christians belong to do teach and believe the doctrine of the Real Presence.



It's here that the non-Catholics disagree.

Yes, to a point. Many Lutheran and Anglican clergy do elevate the consecrated cup and host; they also will bow or genuflect to the altar if the sacrament is present or it is not; and they will kneel at the rail to receive His body and blood. Likewise, the consecrated elements that remain are treated reverently and respectfully; either consumed by the celebrant, disposed of in consecrated ground, or reserved in a tabernacle or sacristy. In every Anglican Cathedral I have been in in Ontario, there is either a Chapel or a side altar where the Eucharist is reserved. In St. George's in Kingston, there is a Monstrance in the Lady Chapel.

It is His crucified, resurrected, and ascended body and blood of which we partake; treating it reverently and with respect is only right.