The real Real Presence

[Abba]

If anyone used a consistent use of a simple word like IS they would run into trouble reading anything.

 

[Acolyte]

The question would be, "What is an unworthy manner". What were the Corinthians doing wrong?

Venial and Mortal sin maybe?

 

[Lotar]

Here's a little quote from the Large Catechism:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]12] With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? etc., I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. 13] Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. 14] But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive. [/font]

http://www.bookofconcord.org/largecatechism/7_sacrament.html

 

[Jenna]

Wouldn't it be something if we could understand fully the mysteries of God. I take Jesus at His word. He said "IS", which is saying something with the use of such a specific language. If He didn't mean it, He wouldn't have said it.

 

[Lotar]

Bill Clinton wasn't Jesus

 

[Jenna]

That was just BAD! lol

 

[TSIBHOD]

I believe that the bread and wine are spiritually Jesus' body and blood. If someone here believes that the two are physical, I wonder if they would consent to have some Communion scientifically tested? Can we do a biopsy of the bread, and a Complete Blood Count of the wine?

If something is in the physical realm, it should be able to be tested by science. I'd believe in transubstantiation if the above things were done. But if it can't stand up to physical tests, then it doesn't seem to me that it is really physical.

 

[Philip]

If something is in the physical realm, it should be able to be tested by science. I'd believe in transubstantiation if the above things were done. But if it can't stand up to physical tests, then it doesn't seem to me that it is really physical.

You need to study Aristotle before addressing what Catholics mean by "physically present". When you do, pay close attention to what Aristotle calls "accidents" and "substance". Once you have finished this, read carefully what Catholics teach concerning transubstantiation. When you have completed this study, you should be able to see why your proposal won't work.

 

[Lotar]

Also, I doubt a Christian that believes in the Real Presence would even consent to such a test. I would rather that you not believe it than commit such an act.

 

[Philip]

Agreed. Faith is the evidence of things not seen.

 

[theseed]

I'd like to hear from someone who doesnt beleive in the real presence and his thoughts on those verses

I agree that we must examine ourself, if we don't we take it arrogantly, especially if we know that we have grave sin to confess. I am always forced to repent and confess my sins before I take the Lord's Supper, however, I don't beleive that it litterally becomes the body and the blood.

I believe that Christ is always present in Spirit.

 

[TSIBHOD]

Also, I doubt a Christian that believes in the Real Presence would even consent to such a test. I would rather that you not believe it than commit such an act.

Well, that seems justifiable at first glance. God probably wouldn't allow it, would He? It doesn't seem that He would, for it would seem to disrespect Him. However, an instance springs to my mind of something arguably even more disrespectful that actually was allowed by God, namely, Thomas putting his finger in the holes of Jesus' hands, and thrusting his hand into His side. Apparently, Jesus would rather have had Thomas "commit such an act" than to not believe in Him. Thomas wanted physical evidence, that Jesus was really risen from the dead in body and not just in spirit, and Jesus allowed that.

I must say that I'm rather disappointed. I thought that believers in transubstantiation could come up with something better than some reply that I have to take things by faith. Sure, faith is needed, but why should I believe in your doctrine unless you can give me some evidence. Spiritual things have spiritual evidence, but physical things have physical evidence.

Let's suppose that I tell you that I have the real, resurrected Jesus in the shed in my back yard. He lives in there, and He tells me new revelations! You should all listen to me, because God speaks to me directly through Jesus, right there in my shed!

Sounds pretty suspect, so your first question should be, "Can I see Jesus in your shed? Let's put the matter to rest." If I then say, "Oh, no, anyone else that went in would make Jesus angry, and I can only go in once per week. No, you'll just have to have faith that He's in there." That doesn't make my claim very believable, does it?

If Jesus was really in my shed, then you should be able to look in and see Him. If I don't allow you to look, it is probably because I am acting in my best interests, knowing that you will find nothing there. In the same way, if you don't allow someone to test transubstantiation, then, to someone who doesn't believe that doctrine (like me), it just looks like you don't want it to be tested because you know the results wouldn't come out in your favor.

I have no problem believing in transubstantiation if it is true; but put it to rest. Test it, and then it is proven, one way or another, whether it is physical or not. Jesus didn't rise from the dead without showing Himself to anyone. He provided physical evidence of a physical resurrection. If transubstantiation is physical, then there should be physical evidence.

 

[Philip]

I must say that I'm rather disappointed. I thought that believers in transubstantiation could come up with something better than some reply that I have to take things by faith.

I take it you did not read up on transubstantiation as I suggested. Catholics teach that the substance of the bread and wine change to the Body and Blood of Christ. However, they maintain that the accidencts (look, taste, and all other physical characteristics) remain unchanged. That is, anything you could test would appear to be bread and wine.

Sure, faith is needed, but why should I believe in your doctrine unless you can give me some evidence. Spiritual things have spiritual evidence, but physical things have physical evidence.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. ​

The Resurrection was a physical event, was it not? Could you please offer me some physical evidence of it? According to your logic, why should anyone believe in the doctrine of the Resurrection without physical evidence. Your post even suggests that God is happy to provide such evidence.

I have no problem believing in transubstantiation if it is true; but put it to rest. Test it, and then it is proven, one way or another, whether it is physical or not.

Pray tell, how should we test it? Keep in mind what I said earlier about the Catholic teachings about substance and accidents.

 

[TSIBHOD]

I take it you did not read up on transubstantiation as I suggested. Catholics teach that the substance of the bread and wine change to the Body and Blood of Christ. However, they maintain that the accidencts (look, taste, and all other physical characteristics) remain unchanged. That is, anything you could test would appear to be bread and wine.

Hmm, I saw you suggesting that I read Aristotle, and while doing so may well be a good thing to do, it is not my opinion that anything written by Aristotle should be required reading for the understanding of any doctrine in the Bible. I'm almost certain that Jesus wasn't taking it for granted that His disciples, and all those who would take Communion in the years to come, would have read Aristotle, so I doubt His words would have meanings that would be lost on someone who hadn't read Aristotle, if you know what I mean. If you want me to further understand these seemingly complex doctrines, perhaps you could either explain it to me, or refer me to a web site that would?

However, your explanation gives me something to work with. Here's the problem that I see: what use is it for you to say that something is physical if there is no evidence of it in the physical realm? "It still tastes, feels and looks like bread, but it's really not anymore." Huh? Maybe you are using a different definition for the word "physical" than I am. The first definition for physical on m-w.com is this:

having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature

Moving on to more of what you said...

The Resurrection was a physical event, was it not? Could you please offer me some physical evidence of it? According to your logic, why should anyone believe in the doctrine of the Resurrection without physical evidence. Your post even suggests that God is happy to provide such evidence.

I can't offer you physical evidence, because I don't have the man, Jesus. But He did offer physical evidence after His resurrection. If Communion is here today, and it is physically transubstantiated, then it should show up physically. If it can't be discerned with the five senses, then it is not "physical." You make words meaningless when you give them definitions other than those for which they are meant.

Jesus is ascended to Heaven now, so no, you can't see Him physically. But if I told you that Jesus is outside waiting for me in my truck, then all you need to do is look out there and see if it is true. If I said, "Well, it doesn't show that He is in my truck. It looks, feels, smells like He isn't there, but He really is, physically." Well, if I said that, then you would probably judge that I was either lying or deluded. However, if I said that Jesus is risen physically, but that He is someplace that we can't get to, then what I am saying might be true or it might not.

Physical evidence was provided for Jesus' resurrection, and now He is gone, so we can't get that anymore. Communion is still here, so it can still be tested. And as I said, this does not seem any more out of place to me than Thomas with our Lord. Jesus gratified his request, so it cannot have been all that bad.

 

[twex]

what use is it for you to say that something is physical if there is no evidence of it in the physical realm?

The use is to make a distinction between things that are physical and those that are metaphysical. The association to the empiricism of science is a novel shift of meaning the word went through, and applying the modern understanding to the classic theology is anachronistic.

 

[Christy4Christ]

Here is a site to look over. This site also covers Eucharistic miracles. It's a pretty informative site.


http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/a.html

 

[HoT-MetaL]

I can accept it, but I dont personally believe it.

I believe we should take communion wherever. We should confess our sins one-to-another, pray, and take communion during fellowship. Whether in the home, in a field, in the church, it doesnt matter.

God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Like I said, I can accept transubstination, and so if God is omnipresent and omnipotent the place of communion doesnt matter.

The disciples didnt meet together in a church building with stained glass windows, or statues, etc etc, they met in each others houses. In Mark the disciples are walking along the road, they meet a stranger [jesus] then go back home with him. When Jesus breaks bread, in their HOUSE, they then recognise him.

God Bless, metal.

 

[ChrisB]

But doesn't belief in transubstantiation lead onto a belief in the ongoing sacrifice of Christ? A proposition which I and many/most/all Protestants would reject.

 

[Christy4Christ]

But doesn't belief in transubstantiation lead onto a belief in the ongoing sacrifice of Christ? A proposition which I and many/most/all Protestants would reject.

No, that is not what we believe. We do not sacrifice Jesus all over again. We participate in the original sacrifice.


Here is a better explanation from the FAQ section of OBOB..


Why do Catholics believe that Christ is sacrificed in each and every Mass, when Scripture plainly states that He was sacrificed on Calvary once and for all?
Most non-Catholics do not realize it, but Christ Himself offered the first Mass at the Last Supper. At the Last Supper He offered (sacrificed) Himself to His Father in an unbloody manner, that is, under the form of bread and wine, in anticipation of His bloody sacrifice on the cross to be offered on the following day, Good Friday. In the Mass, not now by anticipation, but rather in retrospect, Christ continues to make that offering of Himself to His Father--by the hands of the priest. ``And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.'' (Matt. 26:26-28). Christ ordered His Church to perpetuate that sacrificial rite for the continued sanctification of His followers, saying, ``Do this for a commemoration of me'' (Luke 22:19)--so the Catholic Church complies with His order in the Mass. In other words, every Mass is a re-enactment of Our Lord's one sacrifice of Calvary. The Mass derives all its value from the Sacrifice of the Cross; the Mass is that same sacrifice, not another. It is not essentially a sacrifice offered by men (although men also join in), but rather it is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Christ's bloody sacrifice on Calvary was accomplished ``once'' (Heb. 10:10), just as Scripture says. The Catholic Church likewise teaches that the sacrifice of the Cross was a complete and perfect sacrifice-- offered ``once.'' But the Apostle Paul--the same Apostle who wrote this text in the book of Hebrews--also bears witness that the sacrificial rite which Christ instituted at the Last Supper is to be perpetuated--and that it is not only important for man's sanctification, but is the principal factor in man's final redemption. In 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, St. Paul tells how, at the Last Supper, Our Lord said: ``This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come.'' Thus at every Mass the Christian has a new opportunity to worship God with this one perfect sacrifice and to ``absorb'' more of Christ's saving and sanctifying grace of Calvary. This grace is infinite, and the Christian should continuously grow in this grace until his death. The reason the Mass is offered again and again is not from any imperfection in Christ, but from our imperfect capacity to receive.

Finally, the holy sacrifice of the Mass fulfills the Old Testament prophecy: ``For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.'' (Mal. 1:11). The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered every day throughout the world, and in every Mass the only truly ``clean oblation'' is offered, that is, Christ Himself; thus the Mass is the perfect fulfillment of this prophecy.

 

[vanshan]

God works through structure sometimes by His will, though He, as we all agree, has no limitations. One structured custom He uses we know for sure is the Eucharist/Communion to connect us in a very real way to Christ, our Redeemer. It is a miracle and requires faith to believe in this miracle. Christ is not sacrified again each time we do it, but through it we mystically participate in the one sacrifice which occured in history.

In Orthodoxy we believe as Christ taught and as the Apostles taught that in communion we mystically share in that first Mystical Supper (i.e. Last Supper) established by Christ. The true sacrament can only be given by a valid priest or bishop who are in direct, unbroken line with Christ Himself. We believe the Roman Catholic Church broke off this line in 1054 A.D. when a schism occured separating them from the Orthodox. This may sound rigid, but communion is sacred and God established His Church to protect the sacredness and validity of communion. That's why we can't just get together and do it . . . that would just be symbolic. It's available to all who come to the Church to get it, but we must humbly seek Christ's true Church. That requires at least a short history study to see which church truly preserved the Apostolic faith.