Christian: Real Presence

SOGFPP said:

The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine.

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

What do you believe, and why?

Peace in Christ,
Scott

Click to expand...

I believe in the Real Presence, but don't think it's profitable to define it in terms of transubstantiation, consubstantiation, etc etc etc. It's enough to know that Christ Himself is physically present in the elements without figuring out exactly how.

Mister Emu said:

It seems to me that in the verses discussing the last supper that Jesus is saying that the bread and wine symbolize His body and blood which would be broken and spillt for mankind.

Click to expand...

Where does he say "symbolize"? IIRC, the words are "Take, eat ; this is my body, which is given for you."

may,

Thanks for posting your opinion.....

Just some things to consider:
John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal. John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

Peace,
Scott
www.scripturecatholic.com

I noticed this is quite old but thought I would reply to your question anyhow as I notice Scott is spread pretty thin.


The Apostles, their disciples and all that are familiar with the early Church and their practices and beliefs will have to agree in the acknowledgement since then, of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or Communion. If I am informed correctly there is slight difference in understanding as to the technical application of those understanding in today’s “high” churches as to the time and definition of the actualization of the transformation, but suffice it to say that the Church from the beginning knew the real presence and honors it as such today!!!!!

[font=&quot]By the way, in my definition it was the “First Communion” not the “Last Supper”.
I would really like to know when and where the terminology “Last Supper” came.

In the Orthodox Faith, if the Eucharist is spilled or misplaced, the priest will either partake of it himself or is obligated to dispose of it in a canonical manner.
Peace In Christ
[/font]

I must add a reference to what has been said to finish what I have said:


1COR 11:27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

1COR 11:29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
11:30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.
11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged

Obvious from the above scriptures there is more involved here than just the partaking of some symbolic bread and wine for the effects are paramount even to the taking of our life (sleep)

Maybe the question should not be "symbolic vs actual" but "physical vs spiritual". I don't taste "flesh" or "blood" when I take the body and the blood, but I feel the connection. We are physical beings and many times feel we need a physical connection. But God is Spirit, he is trying to connect with us spiritually, not physically.

NetDoc said:

Maybe the question should not be "symbolic vs actual" but "physical vs spiritual".

Click to expand...

Nope..... because the experience of the Eucharist is BOTH physical and spiritual, that's the beauty of it..... an experience, a grace of God without equal on this earth.

Just as Christ came to Earth in a physical form...... Christ was not just spiritual, but a physical reality..... God, under the appearance of a physical human form..... just as the Eucharist appears to be "just bread".

Kinda neat, eh?

Scott

[font=&quot]I agree Scott, the Gnosticism that is prevalent in our society can't imagine the incarnation having as the goal to combine the Spirit of God to the natural world we live in even to the joining of our mind, soul, spirit AND BODY ! ! But, thank God it's true!!!
[/font]

Then why does it not taste like blood? Our saviour's alcohol content could not be THAT high.

NetDoc said:

Then why does it not taste like blood? Our saviour's alcohol content could not be THAT high.

Click to expand...

Don't tell me that my dear friend NetDoc does not believe God could pull that off?

Doubting God's power now, are we ....... no, I'm sure that's not what you meant to do.

The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

Oh, I believe he could pull it off... just like manna in the desert. But I am content with it being "spiritual" in nature and not a physical change.

I've been brought up to believe that communion was symbolic. Most of what I've heard was only to make fun of transubstantiation. But there has been some pretty convincing stuff presented for the subject here.

I suppose I'll have to think of it some more... maybe do some reading.
I've gotta admit, this is probably the first post at this sight that has come close to have me seriously re-think some of my positions.

NetDoc said:

Oh, I believe he could pull it off... just like manna in the desert. But I am content with it being "spiritual" in nature and not a physical change.

Click to expand...

I am glad you are content.....
‘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.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "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" (John 6:53–56).

Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?

They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

www.catholic.com

<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present&#8212;body and blood, soul and divinity&#8212;under the appearances of bread and wine.>
<What do you believe, and why?>

I believe that Christ is truely present in the Eucharist. If one considers the
history of God's dealings with his people in the OT, it is clear that God takes what is
familiar to man and transforms it. As with the covenants. God took man's way of dealing with man, 'to cut a covenant' was common parctice, and transformed it, Abrahamitic, Mosaic covenants. As with the ritual of the Passover meal, God took what was familiar, bread and wine, and transformed it to the New Covenant through
Christ. It is not necessary for my faith to understand the 'how' of it, anymore than
it is necessary for my faith to understand the 'how' of the Resurrection, or for that
matter, the 'how' of creation, it is only the WHY that is relative to my faith. I also
believe Christ is present through Scripture, and within the community of believers
gathered in worship, through him.

precept said:

Since Roman Catholics believe they do literally eat christ's flesh[ they do not drink his literal blood] only the priests do....

Click to expand...

For someone who comments and awful lot about what Catholic do and believe, you sure don't know a lot about us.
Not only the priests.... ALL Catholics may partake in the body and blood of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine in the Eucharist.

If Roman Catholics do live forever; then who are the ones now dying?

Click to expand...

This would be funny if I didn't know you were serious...... do you not believe in heaven?

Those in heaven, hell, purgatory.......... LIVE FOREVER.:bonk:

Do you not understand the difference between living forever in heaven and the physical death of our earthly body?

Nice chatting with you precept.
Scott

SOGFPP said:

For someone who comments and awful lot about what Catholic do and believe, you sure don't know a lot about us.
Not only the priests.... ALL Catholics may partake in the body and blood of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine in the Eucharist.
This would be funny if I didn't know you were serious...... do you not believe in heaven?

Those in heaven, hell, purgatory.......... LIVE FOREVER.:bonk:

Do you not understand the difference between living forever in heaven and the physical death of our earthly body?

Nice chatting with you precept.
Scott

Click to expand...

Not so fast! SOGFPP...."ALL Catholics may partake in the body and blood of Jesus Christ" . SOGFPP If I didn't know better I would even believe you think you are telling the truth. When was the last time you attended mass? Why is iis it more common for the devotees to be lining up to eat christ's flesh; while the "blood" is downed only by the priests? If as you say...."eating christ's flesh and drinking his blood" is for real then there can be no exempting the "eating his flesh" this time and not the "drinking of his blood" at the same sitting. And since the priests always do both, then why doesn't the devotees like the priests always do both, since "living forever" is completely dependent ion doing both! Or is it?

You try to make light of the "living in "purgatory", "hell" or "heaven"....but again you are not getting away that lightly. Roman Catholic doctrine distinctly teach that on the death of the Roman Catholic devotee, there is no assurance of heaven if the debt of works is "not paid in full". The Roman Catholic thus indebted must make up by putting up with the inconvenience of waiting around in the halfway stop of "unquenchable fire"[as Tetzel , the popes emissary to the German people taught] Remember he "literally lit a fire" to bring to life the experience in purgatory. It must be therefore, that if payment is not made in full; that the "eating of christ's literal flesh and the drinking of his literal blood sealed forever in "unquenchable fire" of purgatory the "eternally living hell" for the Roman Catholic devotee.

Wouldn't it have been better if the Roman Catholic devotee had lived the life of the wicked; after all he would have ended up in the same "unquenchable fire" and also living as eternally in hell as his "purgatory" "blood/flesh eating" Roman Catholic in his "halfway house of fire".

"Living forever" does come with a "price"...because the Roman Catholic that ate of christ's flesh and who may or may not have drank his blood; is still not sure of his final "forever living accomodation" Which begs the question..Which is more important? The "eating of christ's literal flesh and the drinking of his literal blood; Or "Payment in Full"!

"Payment iin full" seems to be the more important...wouldn't you say? Because if you don't have to both "eat" and "drink" of christ's "literal body" at each sitting, but must have "payment in full" to go directly to heaven, then "payment in full" of necessity must be more important to ascertain a guarantee of an "air conditioned space" of eternal living.

That you postulate as to my confusion, couldn't be more true! It is the "living forever" that has me confused. Is "living forever" due to the "eating of christ's literal flesh and drinking his literal blood? And if it is! Isn't dying the antithesis of "living forever"? It makes no sense that the Roman Catholic is assured that he will "live forever" if he eats christ's literal flesh and drinks christ's literal blood; but yet must die before enjoying the benefit of his consuming "rare" delicasies purely for the benefit of "living forever". And why must he also have to make "payment in full" Before he died.

It makes more sense to me, that "living forever" due to my eating christ's literal flesh and drinking christ's literal blood came in a package deal that would make me "live forever" and that without dying.
I am assuming that those who do not eat christ's literal flesh and drink christ's literal blood, when dead will not "live forever"..no! not even after death! Or will they!
But just let us assume that they will "live forever" in hell! Do the Roman Catholics in purgatory have any advantage in "heat intensity" having eaten christ's literal flesh and having drank his literal blood, while in their "halfway house of heat" in purgatory??

Confused? You bet I am!



precept

I find it hard to believe that you put so much stock in the Council of Trent who were hundreds of years after the alleged life and death of Jesus. How could they really know anything? They picked their own "correct" beliefs, which strikes me as a bit odd, as well as the "correct" texts. The church couldn't even agree during the middle of the First Century, let alone what some group of men "decided" to be the official belief in the Third and Fourth Centuries. The belief in real presence is a bit ridiculous, but as Ben Franklin said, "Faith is when reason closes its eye."

By the way the talk of John 6 seems naive to me. Not only is John the least reliable gospel, historically, but Jesus also uses many other terms like vine, door, light, etc., which people fully understand to be symbolic.