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

[Truth7t7]

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,

Valid if only prsented by a successr of the Roman Catholic priesthood? Smiles

I have no life unless I partake of this sacrament? Smiles

Miracles of the Eucharist in Buenos Aries Argentina, the popes home town, being real flesh and blood? Smiles

Like Roman Catholics lining up for a mile to kiss a water stain on concrete, because it represents the "Virgin Mary"? Smiles

Mike the Roman Catholic church has been and still is a historical evil, purgatory, indulgences, perpetual virginity of Mary, confession, penance, absolution, prayer to saints, rosary prayers, pope infallible, inquisition directed by papacy, on and on

If my church isn't like Roman Catholicism it has drifted from the faith? Real Big Smiles

 

[Truth7t7]

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,

I disagree, give your top two citations that you feel proves your claim, provide links.

 

[prodromos]

I disagree, give your top two citations that you feel proves your claim, provide links.

Simply stating that their view is symbolic is not proof that it is.

You were given citations back from post 248 and your responses can be seen following. I'll let others judge for themselves whether you've proved their understanding to be symbolic.

 

[Truth7t7]

There is a Hebrew figure of speech for eating someone's flesh. It means to destroy them. Surely you don't believe Christ is telling His followers to destroy Him. If you insist on it being figurative then you have a serious problem.

You haven't shown the above. You also have the problem that Christ always explained things to His disciples when they did not understand, yet in this case Christ does not show them to have misunderstood, even to the point of some of His disciples no longer following Him.

Salvation is contingent on a number of things in the Scriptures, belief, repentance, baptism and eating Christ's flesh and blood. The latter must also be done in a worthy manner, properly prepared, otherwise it is to your own destruction. God is obviously not bound to these, since there have been many who, like the thief on the cross, had no opportunity to be baptised and receive communion before being martyred. For most, however, these are the standard means by which we are saved.

If John 6 is not meant to be understood literally, why do Polycarp and Ignatius who were both taught by John, understand it literally?

No salvation is not based upon water baptism or the Lord's sacrament.

As Luther stated, "Faith Alone"!

And I agree with God's words and Luther.

 

[Truth7t7]

Literally a change, and literally a presence, not literally an absence of bread and wine despite everything our senses tell us.

No there is not literal blood and flesh present.

There is not one account recorded where man put wine in a cup and it turned into blood, not one.

Roman Catholicism uses this false doctrine, trying to establish they are the only authority on earth to perform this magic ritual.

 

[Truth7t7]

The early fathers taught by apostles make it clear: real presence and literal are correct. That was what was handed on.

The early fathers taught no such thing Mike, let go of the superstition.

 

[prodromos]

No salvation is not based upon water baptism or the Lotd's sacrament.

Your opinion has been duly noted.

As Luther stated, "Faith Alone"!

Even the demons believe, and tremble.

And I agree with God's words and Luther.

So you believe as he did, in the ever virginity of Mary?

 

[Truth7t7]

Simply stating that their view is symbolic is not proof that it is.

You were given citations back from post 248 and your responses can be seen following. I'll let others judge for themselves whether you've proved their understanding to be symbolic.

And you were clearly shown in post 249 it's 100% symbolic, no church father taught actual blood and flesh were in the sacrament

 

[prodromos]

And you were clearly shown in post 249 it' 100% symbolic, no church father taught actual blood and flesh were in the sacrament

You showed no such thing.

 

[Albion]

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

Transubstantiation is derived from Real Presence. But even if that were not obvious, it was an innovation when it appeared during the early Middle Ages and then was made an official doctrine in the 13th century.

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

Of course. All the churches that believe in RP but not Transubstantiation use that language but dont think, therefore, that it is to be taken literally. This concept of the communicant receiving the very presence of Christ at each Mass deals with a mystery.

And even if you thought it had to be understood the way you are saying, why add the distinctive claim of Transubstantiation, i.e. that the bread and wine cease to exist although every sense we have says that they do not? That doesn't add anything to the belief that Christ becomes truly present.

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

No, it is because of the belief that there is a presence in the elements that the idea of HOW it comes to be made present later developed.

 

[Truth7t7]

Transubstantiation is derived from Real Presence. But even if that were not obvious, it was an innovation when it appeared during the early Middle Ages and then was made an official doctrine in the 13th century.


Of course. All the churches that believe in RP but not Transubstantiation use that language but dont think, therefore, that it is to be taken literally. This concept of the communicant receiving the very presence of Christ at each Mass deals with a mystery. And even if you thought it had to be understood that way, why add the distinctive claim of Transubstantiation, i.e. that the bread and wine cease to exist although everything we otherwise know says they do not?


No, it is because of the belief that there is a presence in the elements that the idea of HOW that comes to be made present developed.

Albion you systematically did a great job of explaining this, thanks.

 

[Albion]

Thank you, my friend, but note that it does not agree with this (below) which you wrote earlier--

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.

 

[Major1]

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

I will be honored to do so and I appreciate your respectful attitude in asking.

John 6:63 says..........
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

Now for proper context I will go back to verse 58........
"This is that bread which came down from heaven, not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead, he that eatheth of "THIS" bread shall live forever."

The RCC puts the emphasis upon the word THIS.
THIS is My body. They say that Transubstantiation takes place and the bread becomes the flesh of Christ and the wine becomes His blood.

Now no matter how you slice and dice it, or how it is twisted or explained that is "CANNIBALISM".
I for one do not believe that our Lord Jesus Christ would break all the Old Testament laws which He in fact wrote, concerning blood, would now teach us in any form, shape or fashion CANNIBALISM.

I think that if you do a little investigation you will find that the Swiss Reformation scholar, Zwingli position was that the emphasis was on the bread and blood as a "Symbol", a religious ritual and that was all it was.

The bread is bread and it will always be bread.
The wine is wine and it will always be wine.
It can not be changed into a body of flesh and blood. Then IF it could and it was eaten and drank we are right back to CANNIBILISM.

There is NO miracle that takes place there! We DO NOT get the body of Christ by going through a ritual.

It is my opinion that there is a SPITITUAL blessing that comes in observing the Lord's Supper. IMO, He ministers to us spiritually though our obedience in observing His Supper/Communion.

I do not believe or accept that there is some hocus pocus ritualistic transformation that is done. It is my opinion that is what Jesus is saying to these people here in verse 58. When THEY ate the manna in the wilderness it was a temporary thing. But Jesus is talking about ETERNAL here. LIFE THAT IS ETERNAL.

John 1:4 confirms that .......
"In HIM was life and the life was the light of men".

Then in verse 63 after there was some definite reaction to what He told them, Jesus simplifies His teaching by telling them that THEY ARE NOT GOING TO EAT HIM LITERALLY because in fact, He was going to go back to heaven.

My friend, Jesus said to them....."
it is the SPIRIT that makes alive, the flesh profits nothing".

So obviousely He is not and can not be talking about His literal OHYSICAL body. We appropriate the Lord's Supper by FAITH.

Jesus said as clearly as He could say..........
"The words that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT and they are life".

Now you asked me my understanding. There YOU have it. I will not argue or banter back and forth with you about this.

If you want to choose to believe in the RCC dogma of the literal body and blood in the Communion, please feel free to do so.

 

[Major1]

Nor I with yours.

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.

Of course you are free to interpret it as you wish to.

John 6:63 .........
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

IMO, that does not require a lot of interpretation.

 

[Major1]

Nor I with yours.

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.

I am very sorry that you perceive my comments as "Twisting".

The "HARD SAYING" was the idea that they thought He was talking about CANNIALBALISM.

The one standing before them was claiming to be a person beyond their imagination. The strangeness of his reference to eating his flesh and drinking his blood is matched by the claims he is making about himself. In a sense he is saying, "You haven't seen anything yet. There will be plenty more to come that will be offensive to fallen human reason."

For the ascent of the Son of Man to where he was before begins with the cross (cf. 3:14), the ultimate source of offense. If they are offended by this talk about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, how will they be able to tolerate the cross, which lies behind Jesus' talk of giving his flesh and blood?

 

[Albion]

the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
IMO, that does not require a lot of interpretation.

Of course it does not. It is applicable to either the representational/memorialist view of the sacrament or to the traditional (Real Presence) view. Either way.

 

[prodromos]

I am very sorry that you perceive my comments as "Twisting".

The "HARD SAYING" was the idea that they thought He was talking about CANNIALBALISM.

The one standing before them was claiming to be a person beyond their imagination. The strangeness of his reference to eating his flesh and drinking his blood is matched by the claims he is making about himself. In a sense he is saying, "You haven't seen anything yet. There will be plenty more to come that will be offensive to fallen human reason."

For the ascent of the Son of Man to where he was before begins with the cross (cf. 3:14), the ultimate source of offense. If they are offended by this talk about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, how will they be able to tolerate the cross, which lies behind Jesus' talk of giving his flesh and blood?

Cannibalism by its nature takes the life of the one whose body is consumed. Christ, however, suffers no harm when He gives us His flesh and blood to consume. I'll point out again that the figurative understanding the Jews had for eating someone's flesh was to destroy the person.

You still have not addressed the fact that the Apostle John who recorded the above, clearly taught his own disciples that the Eucharist is not symbolic.

 

[Major1]

Cannibalism by its nature takes the life of the one whose body is consumed. Christ, however, suffers no harm when He gives us His flesh and blood to consume. I'll point out again that the figurative understanding the Jews had for eating someone's flesh was to destroy the person.

You still have not addressed the fact that the Apostle John who recorded the above, clearly taught his own disciples that the Eucharist is not symbolic.

You have said that before but you have as of yet to quote the chapter and verse. Chapter and verse please so that we can be talking about the same thing without any assumtions.

 

[Major1]

Of course it does not. It is applicable to either the representational/memorialist view of the sacrament or to the traditional (Real Presence) view. Either way.

It might be helpful if we all understood that these passages in John 6 where the eating of flesh and drinking of blood should not be thought of as "sacramentalism".

The Sacraments of the Communion Supper was not introduced until a year later.

Since that is obviously clear, then this whole chapter about Eating His flesh and drinking His blood is simply a figure of speech meaning that we have TO BELIEVE on Him (Vs. 35)....listening to Him (verse 45).....seeing Him (verse 40).

To EAT of this Bread is to live forever (vs 40, 47, 50, 54, 58.)

Salvation is by the sacrificial death of Messiah Jesus (1:29) and by His death life came to the world.

 

[prodromos]

You have said that before but you have as of yet to quote the chapter and verse. Chapter and verse please so that we can be talking about the same thing without any assumtions.

Psalm 27
Micah 3