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

[MarkRohfrietsch]

What do you shoot?

I use to have an old remington model 788 in 308, bought it from a gunsmith for $150, what a jewel, floated barrel, trigger work, hit 1" groups at 100 yards off the sand bags.

Dan Wesson 357, inter changeable barrels, accurate also.

Mark lV 22 match pistol, was nice.

I now have a PSE bow, nothing like a good archery take down, spot, stalk, kill, cook!

Now that is what I call "Old Fashioned shooting".

I have an Gurand 1 that I inherited from my father.
I also have a 9M and 357 hand gun.

It is really funny that if it rains or gets dirty the hand guns always have to be cleaned and reset, but you can run the M! through a swamp and it will always fire.
I do not hunt and just do target shooting now.

I could never get into the bow secene. Two of the deacons in my church do that and they are really good.

Just about anything and everything.

This is off topic to the thread, and I know that CF likes to keep things on topic; so I have started a thread here:

What do you shoot??

Please post and get the discussion going!

 

[Fidelibus]

Could I be wrong. Of course.

Appreciate your honestly Maj1.

Could YOU be wrong? Of course.

Yes I could. However,as a Catholic, I can also be assured of being able to find the truth, where the Church teaches authoritatively on a particular Scripture passage. (1 Tim. 3:15)

If I am wrong then all of the staff of several Christian Protestant Seminaries are wrong also.

Well, the only way I could answer this is to ask, are you and these Christian Protestant Seminaries in 100% agreement 100% of the time when teaching or interpreting Scripture?

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 you could be wrong.... correct?

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

Scripture say's this?

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.

Then why are there so many differnt Protestant denominations and non-Denominational sects that do not teach the very same thing? This is evident right here on this Christian Forum web-site.

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.

Jesus say's differntly, so with no disrespect, I'm not going to gamble my salvation on your interpretation that you yourself said, could be wrong. So think I'll take His (Jesus') word over yours.

Jn.6:53-Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54-Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55-For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56-Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57-Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

 

[Truth7t7]

Appreciate your honestly Maj1.




Yes I could. However,as a Catholic, I can also be assured of being able to find the truth, where the Church teaches authoritatively on a particular Scripture passage. (1 Tim. 3:15)




Well, the only way I could answer this is to ask, are you and these Christian Protestant Seminaries in 100% agreement 100% of the time when teaching or interpreting Scripture?




But you could be wrong.... correct?



Scripture say's this?



Then why are there so many differnt Protestant denominations and non-Denominational sects that do not teach the very same thing? This is evident right here on this Christian Forum web-site.



Jesus say's differntly, so with no disrespect, I'm not going to gamble my salvation on your interpretation that you yourself said, could be wrong. So think I'll take His (Jesus') word over yours.

Jn.6:53-Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54-Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55-For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56-Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57-Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

Does any other denomination have the authority outside the Roman Catholic church, to perform the sacrament "Transubstantiation" in the actual body and blood of Christ?

 

[prodromos]

Does any other denomination have the authority outside the Roman Catholic church, to perform the sacrament "Transubstantiation" in the actual body and blood of Christ?

We do real presence. We don't do "transubstantiation".

 

[Mountainmike]

We do real presence. We don't do "transubstantiation".

On the other hand you leave as mystery the nature of the change, preferring not to say what took place, or to provide any philosophical context for it.

Which is fine.

On the other hand leaving as a mystery is no longer a valid intellectual platform to then disagree with any interpretation of it. So the " do do" is a valid statement, the " don't do" is not valid , by very definition of leaving as mystery. " don't affirm" is a more valid statement from logical conclusion of the orthodox stance as I understand it.

Picking at philosophical nits perhaps, but in my view it is better that all take the least combative approach consistent with the belief set when referring to others beliefs.

It is surprising for example how much common ground there is between the salvation platform of Catholics and say calvinists if you look for it, in places just using different words to say similar things. Whilst there are substantial differences too, it is worth looking at what is shared and on what both parties can agree.

Too much literature of one denomination referring to others is a straw man. ( particularly anticatholic) It builds a false caricature, then attacks the caricature rather than takes an honest appraisal of a belief set , limiting disagreement to the minimumpossible.

 

[prodromos]

On the other hand you leave as mystery the nature of the change, preferring not to say what took place, or to provide any philosophical context for it.

Which is fine.

On the other hand leaving as a mystery is no longer a valid intellectual platform to then disagree with any interpretation of it. So the " do do" is a valid statement, the " don't do" is not valid , by very definition of leaving as mystery. " don't affirm" is a more valid statement from logical conclusion of the orthodox stance as I understand it.

Eastern Orthodoxy and the Eucharistic Transmutation

 

[Truth7t7]

We do real presence. We don't do "transubstantiation".

Who's got the real power to perform the mass and sacrament?

Roman Catholocism And the Pope?

Greek Orthodox Church?

Luthern Church?

 

[prodromos]

Who's got the real power to perform the mass and sacrament?

Roman Catholocism And the Pope?

Greek Orthodox Church?

Luthern Church?

The Holy Spirit.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Who's got the real power to perform the mass and sacrament?

Roman Catholocism And the Pope?

Greek Orthodox Church?

Luthern Church?

The Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit indeed. As I stated somewhere above, our Lutheran Confessions state what is obvious from Holy Scripture in this regard that "The Word and Sacraments remain efficacious even when administered by evil men" a paraphrase, because I don't have the Book of Concord in front of me.

The love and grace of God is boundless; the Sacraments are means of grace given to the Church (all believers), by His command and institution. If He says that Baptism, the Eucharist, and Absolution forgive sins, it is He who is doing the forgiving, not the Pastor/Priest/Bishop. Sola Deo Gloria!

 

[Mountainmike]

Eastern Orthodoxy and the Eucharistic Transmutation

Which article is full of philosophical holes and makes many assumptions which are not valid.

Like...

Is the "physical chemical substance " other than a sensual projection? Does it have a fundamental existence other than its appearance ( appearance also being the sum of all equpipment sensor measurements) ..i.e. Is the chemical definition the same as the real existence?

Even science now thankfully disagrees, as thankfully now does Hawking. The various scientific models are not unique, conflict with each other , and are not the same as the underlying " it"
- see model dependent reality.

So In saying bread. Electron. We are dealing with what we perceive, not a fundamentally reality.

Three things stand out.

1/ " not surprisingly Eastern Orthodox theologians dodge the question"

2/ " it depends which theologian you ask"

Finally

3/ the Eucharist is the same for both of us whatever words we use to describe it.

In common, we are not far apart.


We both recognise the "it " changed in essence. The thing itself is different.

That article attempts to identify two separate coexistences in orthodox theology , arguing only one has changed, the other is responsible for appearance. The heavenly vs the earthly.. The physical and metaphysical.

But in doing so you are philosophically making the same distinction as form and substance, using different words,


We do not separate, leave the defining as a single existence, which therefore has two properties, one has changed the other has not.


We argue therefore that " it " has changed whatever it looks like. And so do you, using a different form of words.


We both therefore arrive at saying " is the flesh of Jesus"
And both declare it beyond human understanding.

 

[Truth7t7]

You fail to answer why it is in such as ignatius to Smyrneans the literal interpretation of real presence in a sacramental Eucharist is what apostle John passed on to his disciples, indeed stating it needed a bishop in succession to be valid.
How can something that is only symbolic have a concept of validity?

So Is it surprising we take apostolic tradition - following early church - rather than ( e.g. Your) exegesis two thousand years later?

Clearly Jesus DID say it. And the apostles DID hand it on, as evidenced by Ignatius. So You question what he meant, not what he said.

Isn't this getting a bit childish @major? Failing to answer any of my posts, after a disagreement months ago - despite being courteous and reasonable.?

Mike you make a claim and use "Ignatius" as your foundation?

Please post your citation of Ignatius?

No early church father taught the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ were present in the sacrament, not one!

 

[prodromos]

Mike you make a claim and use "Ignatius" as your foundation?

Please post your citation of Ignatius?

You've been given the citations.

No early church father taught the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ were present in the sacrament, not one!

Isn't it odd that none of your co-religious are making the claims that you are? If it was so obvious that the early Church Fathers had a symbolic view of the Eucharist, there would have been no stopping them from making the same claims as you, yet no one ever does, because the early Church Fathers plainly held a literal view of the Eucharist. Everyone can see it but you. You are completely alone in holding this ridiculous view which does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

 

[Albion]

Just a word of caution here...
There is plenty of ground between the extremes you all have been arguing about, between Transubstantiation and mere symbolism. And that is where plenty of Christians are to be found. For example, look at what the statement below actually says.

Theodoret (393-457) says the elements remain as bread and wine.
"For even after the consecration the mystic symbols [of the eucharist] are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before." (Theodoret, Dialogues, 2)

 

[Truth7t7]

Just a word of caution here...
There is plenty of ground between the extremes you all have been arguing about, between Transubstantiation and mere symbolism. And that is where plenty of Christians are to be found. For example, look at what the statement below actually says.

Theodoret clearly states they remain bread and wine.

What are you getting at?

 

[Albion]

Theodoret clearly states they remain bread and wine.

What are you getting at?

I said it in my previous post, so I commend that to you. In short, everyone but Catholics insists that it remains bread and wine. However...

Hundreds of millions of other Christians believe that the bread and wine are not simply bread and wine symbolizing something or other but that the "elements" have been endowed, in some way or other, with the Real Presence of Christ.

I merely wanted to interject that the "either-or" kind of discussion that implies that there is only Transubstantiation or, at the other extreme, Representationalism, is quite wrong.

 

[Truth7t7]

I said it in my previous post, so I commend that to you. In short, everyone but Catholics insists that it remains bread and wine. However...

Hundreds of millions of other Christians believe that the bread and wine are not simply bread and wine symbolizing something or other but that the "elements" have been endowed, in some way or other, with the Real Presence of Christ.

I merely wanted to interject that the "either-or" kind of discussion that implies that there is only Transubstantiation or, at the other extreme, Representationalism, is quite wrong.

My study finds that Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Methodist, Lutherns, all believe the "Actual Body And Blood" are present in the sacrament.

The various denominations have changed the name of their sacrament process, however its appears to be the same concept and belief.

"Transubstantiation" "Real Presence"?

Same thing, different names.

Wikipedia: Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist


Catholics give adoration to Christ, whom they believe to be really present, in body and blood, soul and divinity, in sacramental bread whose reality has been changed into that of his body.
The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a term used in Christian theology to express the doctrine that Jesus is really or substantially present in the Eucharist, not merely symbolically or metaphorically.

There are a number of different views in the understanding of the meaning of the term "reality" in this context among contemporary Christian confessions which accept it, including the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Church of the East, Lutheranism, Anglicanism and Methodism.[1][2] These differences correspond to literal or figurative interpretations of Christ's Words of Institution, as well as questions related to the concept of realism in the context of the Platonic substance and accident. Efforts at mutual understanding of the range of beliefs by these Churches led in the 1980s to consultations on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry through the World Council of Churches.

By contrast, the doctrine is rejected by Anabaptists.

 

[Albion]

My study finds that Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Methodist, Lutherns, all believe the "Actual Body And Blood" are present in the sacrament.

It may depend on what you mean by "actual."
But two posts ago you said this:

Theodoret clearly states they remain bread and wine.

All of those (and others not named) except the Catholics and Orthodox also believe that the bread and wine remain.

The various denominations have changed the name of their sacrament process, however its appears to be the same concept and belief.

No. Almost all of them have a distinctive view that is different from the others.

"Transubstantiation" "Real Presence"?

Same thing, different names.

Absolutely not!

By contrast, the doctrine is rejected by Anabaptists.

That's true. Those Christians of the Anabaptist tradition stand apart on this issue

 

[Truth7t7]

It may depend on what you mean by "actual."
But two posts ago you said this:


All of those (and others not named) except the Catholics and Orthodox also believe that the bread and wine remain.


No. Almost all of them have a distinctive view that is different from the others.


Absolutely not!



That's true. Those Christians of the Anabaptist tradition stand apart on this issue

Got it now, Roman Catholics and Orthodox believe the bread and wine are actually gone, and replaced with flesh and blood of Jesus?

The others believe the bread and wine stay, but contains the actual presence of flesh and blood of Jesus?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That's true. Those Christians of the Anabaptist tradition stand apart on this issue

Yep.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Again the Lutheran concept is "Sacramental Union" not Transubstantiation, not even Consubstantiation (a term used by Catholics and other non Lutherans to describe -- wrongly -- Lutheran Eucharistic theology).

Even Catholics will tell you that Lutherans do not hold transubstantiation.

The more and more I hear and read from Reformed Protestants, the more I am convinced that most would be skeptical of the idea of miracles of any sort of miracle. Such is the result of the application of flawed human reason to interpret the Divine.