The Real Presence? Is It Really There?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 February 2010 - 12:16 AM' timestamp='1267075016' post='2062758']
Don't ask Reyb. You'll end up wanting to rip out your own hair and use it to tie a noose to hang yourself.

In my opinion, your best bet would be to find an old text, say something written during the Protestant schism. That way you'll have right there a solid and clearly influential piece of writing, and no doubt you'll also have a direct Catholic response to it.
[/quote]
All out of pluses.

[Mark of the Cross]

I've been reading the arguments for and against Transubstantiation and it can clearly be seen that there is no proof either way. [b]It is a matter of faith [/b]and it's a waste of time arguing with people who are often a little offensive about it! For example, one argument against has been the statement 'Do this in memory of me.' This can be easily turned around by this. If I sit down to a meal with a priest and we eat and drink and chat about nothing. It is not a communion. But if we bring out the bread and wine specifically for a purpose, [b]we remember Jesus[/b]. The priest blesses the gifts and recites the words of Jesus. We have remembered Him! And thus because we have remembered him by our faith in what he taught, he becomes himself and present within the Eucharist. It is our faith that has made this possible for us. No problems! [u]I have never had trouble with the concept of the real presence.[/u] The main reason is because I feel his presence very strongly and it is easy for me to explain it from Scripture as per my example. My main problem has been the disappearance of the bread and wine, which for some reason I was unaware of until recent years. I have been unable to find the Catholic Churches argument for this? Can anyone direct me? My problem is that in my understanding of physics, the base components of bread and flesh are the same. Eg. a proton is a proton whether it is in blood or in wine. The thing that makes one different from the other is the combination or structure of these elementary particles. And the effect it has on the senses. The Church tells us that if we examine the structure of the 'blood of christ' it will have the structure of wine. When I drink the wine it will taste horrible because the wine we use is often a poorly made one and I'm not a fan of red wine. When I have to finish the remainder after communion the only thing that makes it a pleasant task is who is there and my faith in what I'm doing. Otherwise it sometimes makes me cough and takes my breath. We have an apparent contradiction. I don't have a problem with God being able to change the laws of physics, but can he change the laws of logic.
[quote]John 6:63
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

[/quote]
This is what I have understood. Are we not talking about the [b]divine spiritual [/b]body and blood of Christ which is the real and significant body that was raised up for eternity.
Can anyone direct me or quote the Churches reasoning in regard to the view of it being his [b]physical[/b] body & blood when John 6:63 seems to indicate that the physical is not important.

[Guest djarankin]

I once heard a good story about a few men arguing about the true presence... I have the book here - The Blessed Eucharist by Fr. Michael Muller... page 10

"A pious painter named Leonardo one day met in an inn two men, one a Lutheran the other a Calvinist. They were ridiculing the Catholic doctrine about the Blessed Sacrament. The Calvinist pretended that by these words 'This is My Body,' it was only meant that the bread [i]signifies[/i] the Body of Christ; the Lutheran, on the other hand, asserted that this was not true, but that they meant that bread and wine, in the moment of their reception, became, by the faith of the recipient, the Body and Blood of Christ. While this dispute was going on, Leonardo took a piece of paper and drew the image of Our Lord Jesus Christ, with Luther on the right hand and Calvin on the left. Under the image of Our Saviour, he wrote the words: 'This is My Body.' Under the figure of Calvin, he wrote 'This [i]signifies[/i] My Body'; and Luther: 'This becomes My Body in the moment that you eat it.' Then handing the paper to the disputants, he said "Which of these three men are right, Our Saviour, or Calvin, or Luther?' They were struck at the force of the argument, and ceased to scoff at Catholic doctrine."

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='AMDGHouston' timestamp='1267073133' post='2062737']
I feel that unfortunately many Catholics have fallen off from believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I firmly believe in it and believe in my ability to defend it as well. However, for this project I am actually seeking a solid argument against the Eucharist....My end goal is to further belief in the Eucharist.
[/quote]

In my previous years associated with english evangelicals I was one of the few who believed in it. The arguments against it usually centred around the idea that Jesus was in heaven and isn't in two places at once.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1286492035' post='2178423']
I've been reading the arguments for and against Transubstantiation and it can clearly be seen that there is no proof either way. [b]It is a matter of faith [/b]and it's a waste of time arguing with people who are often a little offensive about it! For example, one argument against has been the statement 'Do this in memory of me.' This can be easily turned around by this. If I sit down to a meal with a priest and we eat and drink and chat about nothing. It is not a communion. But if we bring out the bread and wine specifically for a purpose, [b]we remember Jesus[/b]. The priest blesses the gifts and recites the words of Jesus. We have remembered Him! And thus because we have remembered him by our faith in what he taught, he becomes himself and present within the Eucharist. It is our faith that has made this possible for us. No problems! [u]I have never had trouble with the concept of the real presence.[/u] The main reason is because I feel his presence very strongly and it is easy for me to explain it from Scripture as per my example. My main problem has been the disappearance of the bread and wine, which for some reason I was unaware of until recent years. I have been unable to find the Catholic Churches argument for this? Can anyone direct me? My problem is that in my understanding of physics, the base components of bread and flesh are the same. Eg. a proton is a proton whether it is in blood or in wine. The thing that makes one different from the other is the combination or structure of these elementary particles. And the effect it has on the senses. The Church tells us that if we examine the structure of the 'blood of christ' it will have the structure of wine. When I drink the wine it will taste horrible because the wine we use is often a poorly made one and I'm not a fan of red wine. When I have to finish the remainder after communion the only thing that makes it a pleasant task is who is there and my faith in what I'm doing. Otherwise it sometimes makes me cough and takes my breath. We have an apparent contradiction. I don't have a problem with God being able to change the laws of physics, but can he change the laws of logic.

This is what I have understood. Are we not talking about the [b]divine spiritual [/b]body and blood of Christ which is the real and significant body that was raised up for eternity.
Can anyone direct me or quote the Churches reasoning in regard to the view of it being his [b]physical[/b] body & blood when John 6:63 seems to indicate that the physical is not important.
[/quote]
First, it's not entirely the case that we have no proof, as there are many Eucharistic miracles - [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano"]Lanciano[/url] being one of the most famous.

Now, as for John 6:63, if that verse is really indicating that it [b]isn't[/b] His Body and Blood, then He's contradicting what He said earlier in the chapter and is negligent in not correcting the people who walked away because they understood Him to be speaking literally. This is unlikely, since he corrects incorrect understandings of things elsewhere (like Nicodemus' faulty understanding of being reborn). Also, I know Apo pointed out to me before that whenever Jesus is speaking of His Flesh in that passage, He says "My Flesh", then in v63 switches to "[b]the [/b]flesh". So He isn't discounting that His Flesh is truly present and give life.

Sorry to keep it short, 1-handed typing.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='RandomProddy' timestamp='1286526935' post='2178514']
In my previous years associated with english evangelicals I was one of the few who believed in it. The arguments against it usually centred around the idea that Jesus was in heaven and isn't in two places at once.
[/quote]
Interesting, I get that alot too... Like God can't be in 2 places, or 2039324293482304823412341209481304812341234 places at once.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1286537383' post='2178522']
First, it's not entirely the case that we have no proof, as there are many Eucharistic miracles - [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano"]Lanciano[/url] being one of the most famous.

Now, as for John 6:63, if that verse is really indicating that it [b]isn't[/b] His Body and Blood, then He's contradicting what He said earlier in the chapter and is negligent in not correcting the people who walked away because they understood Him to be speaking literally. This is unlikely, since he corrects incorrect understandings of things elsewhere (like Nicodemus' faulty understanding of being reborn). Also, I know Apo pointed out to me before that whenever Jesus is speaking of His Flesh in that passage, He says "My Flesh", then in v63 switches to "[b]the [/b]flesh". So He isn't discounting that His Flesh is truly present and give life.

Sorry to keep it short, 1-handed typing.
[/quote]
Thanks for your info. I read about Lanciano. I have no problems with miracles, I have had a few experiences that could only be described as miracles. There appears to be 3 possible bodies. At various times during the Mass I have felt a strong presence. On one occasion when I was in a state of depression, as the priest and entourage passed me at the beginning of Mass, I felt something brush my arm and I just lit up! Depression gone. The Holy spirit or Christ's spiritual self? We have a body which is terminal and suffers all manner of defects, but the body that Christ will resurrect will be free of defects and eternal. So we see that the resurrected body is not exactly the same as the mortal body. In the story of the film 'Alive' about a plane crash in the Andes mountains, people were forced to eat from the flesh of the dead. Feed your mortal body on mortal flesh for mortal survival. Jesus wants to bring us to eternal life, so what does he feed us? His resurrected immortal body will give us eternal life??? People have said to me. "Don't try and understand it, it is a mystery!" I don't accept that! Why tell somebody something that you know they will not understand? Jesus wanted us to know, so he gave us the clues. But he also knew the apostles were not able to understand because they did not have this concept of anything other than a physical body. For us it is a faith thing, non believers will not understand, but for the faithful they will understand, maybe? My question still remains, why does the bread and wine need to cease to be, when it is really unimportant whether it is present or not. What is the significance of this belief when the important part is the existence of Jesus divine self given to us for immortal life? Can we believe in Consubstantiation and still be a Catholic?

[Sarah147]

[quote name='AMDGHouston' timestamp='1267073133' post='2062737']
Ok, I am working on a project for my parish. I feel that unfortunately many Catholics have fallen off from believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I firmly believe in it and believe in my ability to defend it as well. [b]However, for this project I am actually seeking a solid argument against the Eucharist.[/b] If anyone needs additional detail as to why I am looking for arguments against the Eucharist I will be happy to explain in e-mail. [b]My end goal is to further belief in the Eucharist.
[/b][/quote]


I disagree with this approach. It's not an intellectual or reasoning matter, in coming to belief in the Real Presence. It takes the gift of Faith given by God through prayer. And it takes nurturing that Faith through continued prayer, Reverence in His Presence (silence, kneel, respect, etc.), Humility, reading the Saints, and so on.

I believe that starting to look at negatives could do harm to peoples faith by turning them in the other direction and getting them stuck on arguements.

[Sarah147]

[quote]
Archaeology cat, on 08 October 2010 - 08:29 AM, said:

First, it's not entirely the case that we have no proof, as there are many Eucharistic miracles - [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano"][color="#b4453b"]Lanciano[/color][/url] being one of the most famous.
[/quote]


[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1286572208' post='2178611']
Thanks for your info. I read about Lanciano.
[/quote]


There is also this video below. I don't think it has been approved by the Church yet.


[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs&feature=player_embedded[/media]

[url="http://www.americaneedsfatima.org/Articles/amazing-video-eucharist-is-our-lord.html"]http://www.americane...s-our-lord.html[/url]



There is also:
Blessed Imelda's First Communion Miracle
A Eucharistic miracle in Sibu, Malaysia[size="3"]
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-Miracles-Joan-Carroll-Cruz/dp/0895553031"][size="2"][/url][u][color="#810081"][url="http://www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-Miracles-Joan-Carroll-Cruz/dp/0895553031"]http://www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-Miracles-Joan-Carroll-Cruz/dp/0895553031[/color][/u][/url][/size][url="http://www.tldm.org/tldmstore/MiraclesEucharistDVD.htm"][size="2"][url="http://www.tldm.org/tldmstore/MiraclesEucharistDVD.htm"]
[size="2"][/url][url="http://www.tldm.org/tldmstore/MiraclesEucharistDVD.htm"][/size]http://www.tldm.org/tldmstore/MiraclesEucharistDVD.htm[/url][url="http://www.tldm.org/...ucharistDVD.htm"][/url][/size][/url]
[/size]

Edited October 10, 2010 by JoyfulLife

[rhetoricfemme]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1267081324' post='2062796']
Okay. I will stand on these arguments: first, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is founded on ‘belief’ and no more than that, and second, according to the scripture, Jesus body is from heaven while this ‘sacramental bread’ is from oven.
[/quote]
Okay, I even had to laugh at that.

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1267764144' post='2066911']
As for Luther he tried to recant and be taken back into the church on his deathbed and was refused.
ed
[/quote]
Really?! I'd like to learn more about that, do you have a particular source that might be helpful?

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='AMDGHouston' timestamp='1267073133' post='2062737']
Ok, I am working on a project for my parish. I feel that unfortunately many Catholics have fallen off from believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I firmly believe in it and believe in my ability to defend it as well. However, for this project I am actually seeking a solid argument against the Eucharist. If anyone needs additional detail as to why I am looking for arguments against the Eucharist I will be happy to explain in e-mail. My end goal is to further belief in the Eucharist.
[/quote]

Zwingli and Calvin are both major Protestant Reformers who did not believe in the Real Presence and took issue with Transubstantiation. Luther believed in the real presence but preferred the term "consubstantiation" and actually reviewed their arguments and argued against them. All three of their stuff would be good to review. Luther notably said " When Jesus says this is my body, 'is' means 'is.'" Henry VIII wrote [i]In Defense of the Seven Sacraments[/i], which St. Thomas Moore is rumored to have helped write, and I hear it is good. Btw Love the name.

-AMDG

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='AMDGHouston' timestamp='1267073133' post='2062737']
Ok, I am working on a project for my parish. I feel that unfortunately many Catholics have fallen off from believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I firmly believe in it and believe in my ability to defend it as well. However, for this project I am actually seeking a solid argument against the Eucharist. If anyone needs additional detail as to why I am looking for arguments against the Eucharist I will be happy to explain in e-mail. My end goal is to further belief in the Eucharist.
[/quote]


I assume the point is to consider all possible objections and then refute them (as Aquinas does in the Summa) but it's a very intellectual way of looking at something that is basically an act of faith. Let us know how well it works out.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='JoyfulLife' timestamp='1286671550' post='2178837']
There is also this video below. I don't think it has been approved by the Church yet.


[/quote]
Sorry, I really should have started a new thread rather than resurrecting this one, as people are responding to old posts such as Reyb who no longer posts here.

Thanks for the video it was very interesting, it answers my questions to some extent, as I was told in past discussions that scientific examination of the bread and wine will not reveal anything other than bread and wine. These being the 'accidents'. And that is what makes no sense to me because if scientific investigation reveals that the atoms are arranged as bread and wine then they must logically be still bread and wine to some extent. The fact that examination, in the case of the video, detected heart tissue is proof that Transubstantiation has indeed taken place. The fact that cells can come alive and beat under examination is also evidence that it is the resurrected body and blood and not just the mortal physical. Feed the mortal body mortal food. Feed the body to be resurrected the resurrected body and blood of Christ!
Not really on topic, but can science really determine that heart tissue is from a person that has been deceased by torture?
It surprised me that the dropped Host was considered unfit to eat! I observed our Priest pick up and consume a dropped Host. Some time later when I was an EM, somebody pointed out to me that the priest who was partially lame had dropped a Host. As a matter of faith I picked it up and consumed it. If we believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist we surely must place our health in his hands.

Edited October 10, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[Sarah147]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1286751437' post='2178979']
Not really on topic, but can science really determine that heart tissue is from a person that has been deceased by torture?
[/quote]

Well, in the video it says that they used a great expert in cardiology, pathology, and biochemistry, Dr. Frederick Zugibe. The only professor who has written a book on[....] (bad Spanish to English translation)...when the heart has been wounded. I think it's [i]when[/i] a person has died or [i]what from[/i]. From the photos, I'd agree that the heart must have been "very beat up" as he put it.

I'm no doctor, but I believe he'd know the difference between, say, a massive heart attack, and torture.

It's an incredible video!

[Rebecca2009]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1267764144' post='2066911']
I do not think Martin Luther discounted the true presence, he was even buried with his rosary. I seem to remember that came later, after the anglican split, out of a jealousy of being denied through scripture and tradition of the right to claim their protestant cult was a true church of Christ and could offer a valid sacrament. These theolgical arguments were always won by catholic theologians using sacred scripture, which is part reason why king james decreed the bible be edited. As for Luther he tried to recant and be taken back into the church on his deathbed and was refused. This had nothing to do with his original 95 theses, which did upset church hierarchy greatly, rather his defiance turned to what many has defined as madness. He allowed a king to marry again on a special decree he granted for political reasons so the king could create an heir thus making the king a bigamist, he also became so enraged at his excommunication he commisioned a "scatolgical" cartoonist to create very base and crude cartoons about the holy see and the pope in particular. he also came to beleive that religious women, or nuns, should be serving bishops and priests as if they were married to them. He basically sealed his own fate by his actions as we all do, its debatable as to why he was not allowed Penance and Reconcilliation, most likely as in most disputes, the views of men were put before the will of God.

ed
[/quote]


Wow...I never knew these things. Do you know any sources I can look up?

When I was on my way to the Catholic Church but didn't know it yet, I watched an old movie about Martin Luther. It was supposed to be favorable to him but all it left me with was, "that guy had some serious authority issues."