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

[Albion]

Yes, you are correct, "Transubstantiation" was formally defined in 13th century. One must also keep in mind that the doctrine of Trinity was not "defined" until 3-4 century.

Yes, but unlike Transubstantiation, it had been known in antiquity and had solid Scriptural backing.

 

[Truth7t7]

There are a number of quotes given throughout the thread; go back an take time to read instead of continuing to spew anti catholic hatred.

You quoted Luther the way you quote scripture--pick the bit's you like, and disregard those which burn your ears. Have you read what he had to say about the Eucharist? there is no better example than the Marburg Colloquy; read about it here: https://lutheranreformation.org/history/the-marburg-colloquy/

It is very clear where Luther stood, and we Lutherans continue to stand with regard to the very body and blood of Christ!

Early church fathers 33-300AD, Luther is 14th century, already polluted by Rome and the 13th century doctrine of "Transubstantiation"

 

[prodromos]

Early church fathers 33-300AD, Luther is 14th century, already polluted by Rome and the 13th century doctrine of "Transubstantiation"

I guess that makes your 20th century views polluted by every heresy and their dog.

 

[Mountainmike]

I'l have faith and believe the bread and juice of the vine are symbolic.

Analyse your reasoning.

You appear to discount what scripture and early fathers say is the faith handed down... that is body, blood, flesh
ONLY because you are credulous about that which appears to remain as bread and wine cannot be blood and body.
DESPITE our Lord saying just that.

Play a mind game.
If our Lord told you to walk with him on water would you overrule him saying " water cannot support my weight" ?
Is he the Lord of what is water, wine or blood?

Or would you have faith and trust him?

" if you had faith as much as a mustard seed, you could say to the mountains rise up and fall into the sea..."


Symbolic is a convenient fudge nowhere supported by scripture or first fathers writings.

Symbolic is a man made recent tradition

 

[Major1]

Thank you Maj1 for your understanding/conclusion/interpretation of this passage. However, I cannot help but notice you failed to address the premise of my post, it being:



And:



And:



Could you? Thank you




As for the accusation of "Cannibalism" being commited among beleivers the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, I can only say to you the same I said to Danthemailman back on post #316.

"you're not the first to insist that the Catholic belief (as well as some Protestants) that Jesus' Body and Blood literally becomes the Holy Eucharist is odd, and accuse Catholic Christians of committing cannibalism."


Yes, you and he share the same beliefs as some very unsavory historical charactors. (the Pagan Romans)



Actually Maj1, being accused of cannibalism for our belief in the Real Presence is not a disgracful thing, but rather, for those of us that do beleive in the Real Presence, it should be looked at as a badge of honor! Why? To be thought of and put in the same category as the same early Christians that were murdered, slaughtered, and martyred by the Pagan Romans in the days of early Christianity for their unwavering beleif in the Real Presence is indeed a badge of honor.

Thank You

MY friend, the reason some of the disciples left Jesus at this point is because THEY understood Jesus telling them about His flesh and blood as an act of Cannibalism. That is why they called it a "HARD" saying. It went against everything in the Scriptures.

But again......these comments were 1 year before the Communion Sacraments were given by Jesus the night before His death.

Could I be wrong. Of course. Could YOU be wrong?
Of course. If I am wrong then all of the staff of several Christian Protestant Seminaries are wrong also.

I do hope that you do not sit around thinking that I make stuff up that sounds good without any educational background from others who teach the very same thing.

You said..........
"Now not trying to be a wise guy or anything Maj1, but you may be willing to gamble your salvation on your fallible understanding/conclusion/interpretation of this passage (or the bible as a whole for that matter), but why should I, prodromos, or anyone else?"

My dear friend, MY salvation and YOURS is NOT based on these Scriptures in John 6. We are NOT saved by eating the flesh or drinking the blood of Christ.
IF you choose to believe that then wonderful you.

My Bible tells me that I am saved by FAITH in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ plus NOTHING!

Ephesians 2:8-9 ......
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Even our faith is a gift. Think on this. Not of works. There is no boasting by any man of what he has done or refrained from doing.

Romans 6:23 .............
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. "

Eternal life through Jesus is a gift from God.
One does not become righteous.
One does not become righteous even by the work of the Lord.
One is not saved or made righteous through partaking of the Communion sacraments.
One is DECLARED righteous by the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone which is imputed to us in an instant when we accept Jesus as the Christ by FAITH.


Romans 3:23 ........
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;".

“All” includes you and me.

Romans 3:12 ...
"There is none that doeth good, no, not one."

Romans 5:12 .......
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned".

As for AUTHORITY. I do not know why you would make that statement as the fact is, I HAVE NO AUTHORITY whatsoever. Never claimed that I did and I will never claim that I do now.

If you do not want to accept the comments I post.....
please do not do so. Reject them completly!!!!!!
I simply post what I have learned over the years from some extremely good teachers and professors and from actually reading the Bible.

Again.......YOU do not in any way have to accept what I say and you do not need to argue with me over what I say. Best thing I can say to you is this.........
"I can not agree with your comment"!

You are free to believe the Roman Catholic dogma just as I am free to reject the same thing.

Have a wonderful Lord's day tomorrow.

 

[Truth7t7]

Analyse your reasoning.

You appear to discount what scripture and early fathers say is the faith handed down... that is body, blood, flesh
ONLY because you are credulous about that which appears to remain as bread and wine cannot be blood and body.
DESPITE our Lord saying just that.

Play a mind game.
If our Lord told you to walk with him on water would you overrule him saying " water cannot support my weight" ?
Is he the Lord of what is water, wine or blood?

Or would you have faith and trust him?

" if you had faith as much as a mustard seed, you could say to the mountains rise up and fall into the sea..."


Symbolic is a convenient fudge nowhere supported by scripture or first fathers writings.

Symbolic is a man made recent tradition

Symbolic is scripture.

At no time is a cup filled with actual blood, unless it was put there before hand.

At no time did the ECF'S teach this either, post the Apostolic fathers, save time?

You can't Mike, because the Roman Catholic doctrine was created in the 13th century.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Early church fathers 33-300AD, Luther is 14th century, already polluted by Rome and the 13th century doctrine of "Transubstantiation"

The Patristic Era depends on who you ask. In the West the Patristic Era is generally confined to the end of the 1st century to Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153). In the East the Patristic Era has no end point.

Luther was born in 1483. He was born in the 15th century, and his work as a theologian was in the 16th century. The 14th century is the century which began in 1301 and ended in 1400. The 15th century lasted from 1401 till 1500. And the 16th century lasted from 1501 till 1600. Because that's how we count centuries; because the 1st century lasted from 1 till 100.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thank you and I think that is what I said as well.

Again, the time frame from chapter 6 to the Lord's Supper when the sacraments are actually spoken of is a year.

You presume; because it is not written down does not mean that it was not.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Early church fathers 33-300AD, Luther is 14th century, already polluted by Rome and the 13th century doctrine of "Transubstantiation"

If I wanted, I could take this as an insult and retaliate by saying that all of the reformed protestants of the radical reformation were polluted by the heterodox theologies of the liks of Zwingli, Karlstadt etc., but I won't (even though the more I study and learn, the more I believe that such is indeed the case).

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I guess that makes your 20th century views polluted by every heresy and their dog.

I figured that one out some time ago! LOL

 

[Major1]

You presume; because it is not written down does not mean that it was not.

I will not argue the point with you. If you reject the chronological order of the reading found in John that is fine with me my friend.

All anyone has to do is begin reading John 6 and continue on through to chapter 18 and it is abundantly clear that a lot of time took place.

 

[Matthew 24 10]

One of the underpinnings of Catholic is belief lies in Christ Real Presence in Catholic Holy Communion... not merely a sign,not a reminder, BUT Jesus Christ personally is present.

Do you or do you nor accept this position?

Why

or Why NOT?

God Blss you,
Patrick

No , Scriptures said Christ died once for sin 1 Peter 3:18 and shed blood and that was perfect sacrifice and it was enought to pay for sin , Catholics say that you have to take Holy Communion multiple times and they don't know how many for your remission of sin , also according to them Christ death was not enought so it has to be repeated but somehow priest has power to annoint with oil dying person and perform last rites sacrament for remission of sin so person can finally in peace know that they go to heaven when they are dying , it's straight up blasphemy as far as i know .

Also if some of Catholics disagree of these practices then you are not trully Catholics because you rejected what was established in Council of Trent and it is sin to not believe that and you have to tell it to your priest in confession or you are not able to take part in Holy Communion if you do not believe that it's real Christ blood and flesh presented to you here according to Catehism.

 

[Major1]

No , Scriptures said Christ died once for sin 1 Peter 3:18 and shed blood and that was perfect sacrifice and it was enought to pay for sin , Catholics say that you have to take Holy Communion multiple times and they don't know how many for your remission of sin , also according to them Christ death was not enought so it has to be repeated but somehow priest has power to annoint with oil dying person and perform last rites sacrament for remission of sin so person can finally in peace know that they go to heaven when they are dying , it's straight up blasphemy as far as i know .

Also if some of Catholics disagree of these practices then you are not trully Catholics because you rejected what was established in Council of Trent and it is sin to not believe that and you have to tell it to your priest in confession or you are not able to take part in Holy Communion if you do not believe that it's real Christ blood and flesh presented to you here according to Catehism.

Your are correct and I agree.
Now get ready for the onslaught from the Catholic posters who will come at you.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I will not argue the point with you. If you reject the chronological order of the reading found in John that is fine with me my friend.

All anyone has to do is begin reading John 6 and continue on through to chapter 18 and it is abundantly clear that a lot of time took place.

Even if it was never discussed again (which I doubt), God should only have to say something once. Scripture says "let he who has ears hear". When we close our ears, we close our heart and our soul to God's will.

Right now, I am heading out to our "Lutheran Mass" to celebrate the Eucharist with my pastor and congregation, and I WILL be eating and drinking the very body and blood of my LIVING Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Who, according to His command and promise will give me forgiveness of sins and healing through both Holy Absolution and His Body and Blood.

You?

 

[Truth7t7]

Even if it was never discussed again (which I doubt), God should only have to say something once. Scripture says "let he who has ears hear". When we close our ears, we close our heart and our soul to God's will.

Right now, I am heading out to our "Lutheran Mass" to celebrate the Eucharist with my pastor and congregation, and I WILL be eating and drinking the very body and blood of my LIVING Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Who, according to His command and promise will give me forgiveness of sins and healing through both Holy Absolution and His Body and Blood.

You?

Your gonna eat grain from the field and juice of the grape.

 

[Major1]

Even if it was never discussed again (which I doubt), God should only have to say something once. Scripture says "let he who has ears hear". When we close our ears, we close our heart and our soul to God's will.

Right now, I am heading out to our "Lutheran Mass" to celebrate the Eucharist with my pastor and congregation, and I WILL be eating and drinking the very body and blood of my LIVING Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Who, according to His command and promise will give me forgiveness of sins and healing through both Holy Absolution and His Body and Blood.

You?

Me?

God has forgiven me of all my sins the moment I placed my faith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus, His death and resurrection.

1 Cor. 11:24-26:.........
“and when He (Jesus) had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." in the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.”

Can the eucharist (bread and cup) forgive sins as claimed by Roman Catholics??? If Jn.6 is what YOU claim then Jesus could have just given the bread and wine and not have had to go to the cross. This ceremony is based on something Jesus did afterwards and cannot be made into what you and the Catholics base their sins to be forgiven on, the Eucharist.

Jesus saves, He saves by the gospel message; the gospel is about our sins being forgiven.

The ceremony of bread and wine is called “communion” from 1 Corinthians 10:16 in the: ........
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”


God bless you my friend!

 

[Mountainmike]

Already have posted EcF

And real body blood and flesh is undoubtedly the meaning passed by apostles to early church, still held to by the only churches of historic continuity catholic, and orthodox,

Your "symbolic" is pure invention of Middle Ages with no authority to back it, other than inadequate exegesis of scripture deriving from the falasy of sola scriptura.

And none of the context of symbolic works. Tell me...how is it possible to "profane "something that is only a symbol? How is it possible for something to be " invalid" that has no sacramental value, or is just memorial?
Why is it Jesus uses a word for eat that means " gnaw" not consume in a spiritual sense? Why does justin use the word "flesh"

Your interpretation makes no sense at all.

Above all you need to study who decided the New Testament - by what authority they did so, what they believed it meant.

And most of all...how the faith was handed on in early church. It wasn't scripture.

Symbolic is scripture.

At no time is a cup filled with actual blood, unless it was put there before hand.

At no time did the ECF'S teach this either, post the Apostolic fathers, save time?

You can't Mike, because the Roman Catholic doctrine was created in the 13th century.

 

[Truth7t7]

Already have posted EcF

And real body blood and flesh is undoubtedly the meaning passed by apostles to early church, still held to by the only churches of historic continuity catholic, and orthodox,

Your "symbolic" is pure invention of Middle Ages with no authority to back it, other than inadequate exegesis of scripture deriving from the falasy of sola scriptura.

And none of the context of symbolic works. Tell me...how is it possible to "profane "something that is only a symbol? How is it possible for something to be " invalid" that has no sacramental value, or is just memorial?
Why is it Jesus uses a word for eat that means " gnaw" not consume in a spiritual sense? Why does justin use the word "flesh"

Your interpretation makes no sense at all.

Above all you need to study who decided the New Testament - by what authority they did so, what they believed it meant.

And most of all...how the faith was handed on in early church. It wasn't scripture.

Post citations of the ECF'S, there aren't ant.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Your gonna eat grain from the field and juice of the grape.

Yup, and Christ's body and blood. Sola Deo gloria!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Even if it was never discussed again (which I doubt), God should only have to say something once. Scripture says "let he who has ears hear". When we close our ears, we close our heart and our soul to God's will.

Right now, I am heading out to our "Lutheran Mass" to celebrate the Eucharist with my pastor and congregation, and I WILL be eating and drinking the very body and blood of my LIVING Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Who, according to His command and promise will give me forgiveness of sins and healing through both Holy Absolution and His Body and Blood.

You?

This morning, prior to Mass: