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

[Danthemailman]

Jesus is the Bread of Life. Just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers. "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." (John 6:35) As He was accustomed, Jesus used figurative language to emphasize these great spiritual truths. Jesus explains the sense of the entire passage when He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

The literal interpretation is absurd, leading to cannibalism and the drinking of blood contrary to the commandment of God. No eating of any flesh can give spiritual life. By faith we partake of Christ, and the benefits of His bodily sacrifice on the cross and the merits of His shed blood, receiving and enjoying eternal life. Eating and drinking is not with the mouth and the digestive organs of our bodies, but the reception of God’s grace by believing in Christ, as He makes abundantly clear by repeating the same truths both in metaphoric and plain language. Compare for example the following two verses:

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life” (verse 47).

“He who eats this bread will live forever” (verse 58).

“He who believes” in Christ is equivalent to “he who eats this bread” because the result is the same, eternal life. The parallel is even more striking between verses 40 and 54:

“Everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (verse 40).

“Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (verse 54).

John 6 does not afford any support to the false Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. On the contrary, it is an emphatic statement on the primacy of faith as the means by which we receive the grace of God. Jesus is the Bread of Life; we eat of Him and are satisfied when we believe in Him.

Bread represents the "staff of life." Sustenance. That which essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life.

The source of physical life is blood -- "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary.

 

[Major1]

Christ gives us His life through His blood. It is precisely because the life is in the blood that we are to receive His life through consuming His blood.

John 6:63 is referring to the carnal understanding as I have already explained. Spiritual does not equal figurative.

It seems it is acceptable to ignore the fact that John taught his own students that it is literal.

I can not agree with your conclusions.

Verse 63 states......
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

 

[Andy centek]

If you maintain that Scripture is not for all people for all times, you are grievously deluded; however, it does explain why you don't accept God's word at face value, and why you can not accept the benefits of God's holy Eucharist.

I am so sorry; it is so freely offered and so freely given. I could never reject the promised means of grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Never.

 

[Andy centek]

MarkRohfrietsch

Mark, I did not say that scripture is not for all; I said that one need consider who it says a particular writing is addressed to. There is a BIG difference.
For example: If it is addressed to the Jews then the context is aimed at the Jews, not everyone. Paul was appointed by Jesus Christ as the apostle to the Gentiles, the other sheep which Jesus said He had to bring into the fold.
Can one learn from what was written to the Jews? Absolutely. But where the Lord Jesus Christ said He was talking to the Jews, He was.
I hope this makes it more plain to you.

Andy Centek

 

[Andy centek]

I can not agree with your conclusions.
Major1:

Verse 63 states......
"It is the spirit that quickens (makes alive); the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

Not the blood literally taken; for how could it be?
Andy Centek

 

[Andy centek]

Major1:

You stated this:

In other words, I believe that all of the Bible is literally true but not everything in the Bible is literally true.

If all in the Bible us literally true, but all things in the Bible are literally true.
Then would it be best to ignore the Bible?

Andy Centek

 

[Major1]

Not the blood literally taken; for how could it be?
Andy Centek

Agreed! However that is what the RCC teaches in the Real Presence of Jesus.

 

[tz620q]

I can not agree with your conclusions.

Verse 63 states......
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

This is interesting. Do you say the Lord's Prayer? When you state, "Give us this day our daily bread.", you are asking for this real presence in the bread, just as Christ commanded us to do. The Greek word that is poorly translated as daily is "epiousios" (see link), which would be better translated as super-essential, not as in absolutely necessary as a condition; but as the very essence of God, supernaturally present in the bread.

 

[prodromos]

I can not agree with your conclusions.

Nor I with yours.

Verse 63 states......
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

Jesus spends much of the chapter describing how important HIS FLESH is, and then you interpret this verse as Jesus contradicting Himself?

I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.

Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?

After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.​

You twist the meaning of these verses so that it is no longer a "hard saying" so that you do not "take offense" at His words.
You have also not addressed the fact that John taught his own students that Christ's meaning was literal.

 

[prodromos]

Not the blood literally taken; for how could it be?
Andy Centek

You take offense at His words, as did the disciples who left and no longer followed Jesus.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Not the blood literally taken; for how could it be?
Andy Centek

The virgin Birth; the dual divinity of Christ; one God, three Persons?

How can it be?

Nothing is impossible for God, we believe and confess the virgin birth; be believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is both true God and true man, we believe and confess that Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the same way that we accept these great mysteries, we accept the literal meaning of the Eucharist and the efficacy of it's power to both forgive us our sins, and to physically heal us; I have faith in the former, and have personally experienced an immediate improvement and over the next months a restoration to good health without the surgical intervention that my doctors were planning, following my Pastor celebrating the Eucharist with me, in my hospital bed.

Short of praying for the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, that He increase in you true knowledge of Him, so that you may delight in His Will and walk in His ways, to the glory of His Holy Name, I have done all that I can.

Sola Deo Gloria!

 

[concretecamper]

John 6:71 Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil.
6:72 Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.

Interesting, at the end of chapter 6 Jesus addresses the Apostle who did not believe yet did not leave as the Devil.

 

[prodromos]

Jesus is the Bread of Life. Just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers. "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." (John 6:35) As He was accustomed, Jesus used figurative language to emphasize these great spiritual truths. Jesus explains the sense of the entire passage when He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

The literal interpretation is absurd, leading to cannibalism and the drinking of blood contrary to the commandment of God. No eating of any flesh can give spiritual life. By faith we partake of Christ, and the benefits of His bodily sacrifice on the cross and the merits of His shed blood, receiving and enjoying eternal life. Eating and drinking is not with the mouth and the digestive organs of our bodies, but the reception of God’s grace by believing in Christ, as He makes abundantly clear by repeating the same truths both in metaphoric and plain language. Compare for example the following two verses:

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life” (verse 47).

“He who eats this bread will live forever” (verse 58).

“He who believes” in Christ is equivalent to “he who eats this bread” because the result is the same, eternal life. The parallel is even more striking between verses 40 and 54:

“Everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (verse 40).

“Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (verse 54).

John 6 does not afford any support to the false Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. On the contrary, it is an emphatic statement on the primacy of faith as the means by which we receive the grace of God. Jesus is the Bread of Life; we eat of Him and are satisfied when we believe in Him.

Bread represents the "staff of life." Sustenance. That which essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life.

The source of physical life is blood -- "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary.

If your interpretation was true, the disciples would have had no difficulty with Jesus words, nor would any of them have stopped following Jesus. Clearly your interpretation falls short.

 

[Mountainmike]

Then How do you explain that the earliest church taught by the apostles did take the literal interpretation, real flesh - and handed that on as the true faith?

Do you suppose therefore that ENTIRE church for millennia starting with those taught by the apostles were wrong and apostate, and only your interpretation of scripture is right - which started with just a handful at the reformation, indeed only a portion of post reformationists think so?

Do you really think Jesus would allow his entire church to go off the rails, for most of the period since he walked this earth ? having assured us HIS church would be one and "the gates of hell would not prevail against it". The gates of hell would clearly have prevailed if most of the church - billions of people since - had misunderstood the faith in such a material way!

Not only does the earliest church disagree but you have no compelling reason to reject the literal interpretation other than own self belief in your power to interpret scripture inerrantly!

That is a bold place to be!

It is also proof of the problem with sola scriptura... you appear to accept that the literal interpretation is possible, and therefore scripture is not formally sufficient to decide ( we say is only materially sufficient) but then you don't go the next step to ask by what authority you can know which meaning is true.

Of course you are correct in that WE ALL can make the Scriptures say what we want to believe that they say.

Just for the sake of conversation on speaking of how we interpret Scriptures, how would you do just that with the RCC interpretation of the "REAL PRESENCE" of Jesus in the Communion process as they teach and believe it is a "literal" interpretation of the Scriptures that you posted from John 6.

I am positive that you know that a "Literal" historical grammatical interpretation of the Bible does not demand the EVERYTHING be taken literally. I am in fact someone who believe in the LITERAL approach to understanding, but I also know that some things just are not literal.

In other words, I believe that all of the Bible is literally true but not everything in the Bible is literally true.
The literal sense or "sensus literals", allows for figures of speech such as ....BREAD OF LIFE which should be eaten as seen in John 6:32-33 which immediately precedes this discourse on "eating of flesh".

I went into detail for you so as to show the CONTEXT of the Scriptures you used to show that Jesus DID NOT intend for His statements to be taken is a LITERALISTIC way.

IF they are taken that way, and this is NOT an interpretation at all but is actually logical, common sense, then anyone can go to heaven by simply partaking of the Communion elements.

Now, please read it for yourself and you will see that if taken LITERALLY as the RCC demands then when Jesus said..........
"WHOSOEVER FEEDS ON MY FLESH AND DRINKS MY BLOOD HAS ETERNAL LIFE".(6:54).

Isn't that exactly what is said?? That is NOT MY interpretation but isn't it what is actually said if we accept the RCC teaching of the REAL PRESENCE of Christ in the elements of Communion?
I am curious as to How do you then interpret that???

Are YOU comfortable with the teaching that heaven is obtained by partaking of the Communion service instead of FAITH in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ and His resurrection from the dead.????

Now, it is MY understanding that eternal life is only obtained by FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ.


Bless you my friend.

 

[Fidelibus]

I can not agree with your conclusions.

With all due respect Maj1, I couldn't help but notice you didn't give your personal interpretation of this passage (Jn.6:63), only that you disagreed with it. With that in mind, would you be willing to explain to us why we should accept your understanding/conclusion/interpretation of this passage? Or.... since you are not infallible, could it be possible your understanding/conclusion/interpretation of this passage could be wrong?

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?

Since you did not give your understanding/conclusion/interpretation of John 6:63, (only that you disagreed with prodromos) and if you happen to do so, would you please include by what authority that your understanding/conclusion/interpretation is correct, and why the Catholic (and some Protestant) is incorrect?

Thank you, and have a Blessed Lenten Season

 

[Fidelibus]

The literal interpretation is absurd, leading to cannibalism and the drinking of blood contrary to the commandment of God.

You know Mailman, 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. In case you're are not aware of it, you share the same company/opinion and belief as the Pagan Romans long before Constantine was even in the picture. If you don't believe me, go to your local university book store or library and check out the history book "The Romans, from Village to Empire" (Oxford Press 2004) and go to the section on Christianity in ancient Rome. It discusses the Roman's impression of the early Christians as in this quote:

"..Their 'eating the body and drinking the blood of their savior' was called cannibalism..."

Don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want to be affiliated or share the same opinion/belief as that group.

Anyhoo, Just by this one Roman Pagan quote, (that you obviously agree with) you can see, history is what it is, even if you don't want to accept it. The early persecuted Christians believed exactly what we Catholic Christians always believe, and still believe over two thousand years later about the Holy Eucharist.

Thank you, and have a Blessed lenten Season.

 

[Mountainmike]

My suggestion is study the earliest church - those taught by apostles thought and said it was the flesh of Jesus, valid only if performed by a bishop or his appointee. ( IE succession priesthood).

So who has changed the meaning? You or the early church? Our Lord says those who eat his body and drink his blood " he will raise up at the last day" , and if you do not you " have no life in you"

You also make the assumption that you are able to say what something is from how it appears to you in your limited senses and lower dimension perception of a far more complex universe.

As scientist or philosopher you cannot!

A mind game: a red disk seen in a 2d representation e.g. On TV of a 3d world can be a sphere, a spiral or cylinder seen head on, and red is a peculiarity of
the sensor you use, to perceive a reflection in a narrow area of the electromagnetic spectrum! So Are you still then convinced you know what " it is" from how you pereceive it?

Perhaps that is the reason our Lord performed Eucharistic miracles: See sokolka, tixtla, buenos aries , lanciano and others, and forensic science confirms that The samples are I ndeed real flesh and blood , intimately mixed at the boundary with bread, and that white cells which should not exist in vitro , prove it is alive! Perhaps the world is stranger than you think. Not that any are obliged to believe in the miracles, science has failed to disprove them.

As for the rest of your comments on Catholicism, I can only urge you to study it first, criticise second, you are way off the mark. I would also urge you to study early fathers and see a liturgical, sacramental, Eucharistic church with priesthood of succession that believed indeed in the real presence. If your church is not like that, then it has drifted from the true faith,

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.

 

[Mountainmike]

One thing for you to consider , is which of those two is the core belief, and which is the derivation statement.

I think you have a cart ahead of a horse.

Scripture and early church speaks of " is the flesh of Jesus" " body and blood"

It is because it IS the body of our Lord, we derive the statement our Lord must really be present there.

Scripture does not speak first of "our Lord really present" , from which we derive therefore it must be his body and blood. It is the other way round.

So real presence is a derived truth
" Is the flesh of Jesus" " body and blood" is the origin, without which we cannot infer real presence.

The two are not alternative, and posing them as alternative is a false dichotomy,
You cannot have one without the other.


And You need to turn philosophical cart wheels to consider that something that was bread now " is the flesh of Jesus" without inferring a change of substance. .. or indeed as our orthodox friends do, prefer to leave as a mystery the nature of change.

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.

 

[Truth7t7]

One thing for you to consider , is which of those two is the core belief, and which is the derivation statement.

I think you have a cart ahead of a horse.

Scripture and early church speaks of " is the flesh of Jesus" " body and blood"

It is because it IS the body of our Lord, we derive the statement our Lord must really be present there.

Scripture does not speak first of "our Lord really present" , from which we derive therefore it must be his body and blood. It is the other way round.

So real presence is a derived truth.
" Is the flesh of Jesus" " body and blood" is the origin.

You need to turn philosophical cart wheels to consider that something that was bread now " is the flesh of Jesus" without inferring a change of substance.

Mike I have read the early church fathers, they taught of a symbolic representation of the body and blood, feel free to QUOTE and link your citations.

 

[Mountainmike]

Mike I have read the early church fathers, they taught of a symbolic representation of the body and blood, feel free to QUOTE and link your citations.

Read ignatius to smyrneans. He and polycarp Taught by John the apostle.

Justin Martyr said " is the flesh of Jesus"

The list is endless of those referring real presence.

Symbolic only interpretation is the new kid on the block... a man made tradition starting at the time of the reformation,