Christ Ascended Into Heaven

[ICTHUS]

If Christ is ascended into heaven, and has taken His seat at the Right Hand of the Father, then how can He be truly present on Earth in the Eucharist, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, as the Church teaches?

If one says this, one is downplaying the Biblical teaching that Christ ascended into Heaven and is seated once and for all at the Fathers right hand.

Comment on this assertion.

[Aloysius]

no offense, but that may be the weakest argument i've ever heard against the Eucharist. He said "This is my Body" He said "Do this in memory of me" He said "I will be with you always, even unto the end of time" the Bible says "Nothing is impossible with God"

God is infinite. Just because God's in Heaven, does not mean He is not also present on earth.

It doesn't downplay Biblical teaching at all. OF course we believe and accept that Christ ascended into heaven, cause the Bible says so. We also believe and accept that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Infinite Son of God, because the Bible says so.

[Aloysius]

if you're thinking of that quote by St. Augustine, didn't we already explain that 2 ya? "Consumed" means "destroyed" or "damaged".

anyway, another thought. hwere two or three are gathered, there am I among. that must be false, huh, since He's actually in heaven? no, see, Jesus is God and nothing is impossible with God. Not even changing the very essence of bread and wine to be His complete, full, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity while His Glorified Body is still in Heaven, He can still make it present on Earth.

B)

[IXpenguin21]

to assume that Christ is not present in the Eucharist because the bible tells us that He assended into heaven is to also assume that Christ never came to earth because we know that the bible tells us that John 1:2 "He was in the beginning with God." we know the eternal nature of God, and we know that nothing about His love or presence chages, ever. We obviously know that Christ came. The excerpt from John's gospel metions all persons in the trinity other than the Holy Spirit, the 'overlooked God'. "we believe that at every Catholic Mass, through the power of the Holy Spirit, that the bread and the wine are transformed into the flesh and the blood of Jesus Christ" -Msgr. Fushek V.G. (This is not from an official document, but i feel that it embodies everything every document says on the Eucharist) It is the Holy Spirit that basicaly allows itself to be present. John's gospel opens with, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." This only mentions the first two persons in the trinity, but allows for the third to be present as well. The Word is Christ, who was there in the beginning, with God, and even more mind blowing, the Word was God. The cobination of these two pure loves in one person is nothing short of a procreative, living love; The Holy Spirit. If the Word is God, then this Spirit must also be the Word and God. Now, if the Holy Spirit is responsible for allowing a priest to consicrate a host, then we know that that Holy Spirit is nothing short of God, therefore nothing short of the Word which is Christ.

In conclusion, the Trinity is amesome.

[ICTHUS]

We also believe and accept that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Infinite Son of God, because the Bible says so.

I think you are taking liberties with the wording of Scripture. I'm not saying I disbelieve this, just refrain from saying "the bible says X" when the Bible does not, in fact, say X, at least the way you are describing X.

to assume that Christ is not present in the Eucharist because the bible tells us that He assended into heaven is to also assume that Christ never came to earth because we know that the bible tells us that John 1:2 "He was in the beginning with God."

I'm not denying Christ is present in the Eucharist. I'm calling transubstantiation to bear witness to its faithfulness to Scripture and Tradition. To me, at this point in time, a Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist is making much more sense - that Christ is spiritually but not physically present in the Eucharist.

About your John 1:2 argument, it falls down because the Scripture later makes allowances for the Word becoming flesh. It does not make allowances for the Word coming back down from Heaven under the forms of bread and wine (at least not in those words)

Scripture makes no mention of Christ being physically present on Earth after the ascension, except to St. Paul. It says that Christs flesh is real food, and His blood, real drink, but this does not mean that His Presence is on earth, His whole Soul and Divinity.

[Aloysius]

2 John 7

Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh; such is the deceitful one and the antichrist.

JESUS CHRIST AS COMING IN THE FLESH. Jesus Christ comes in the flesh. do not deny it.

the spiritual presence doesn't make sense. He doesn't say this is my soul, this is my divinity. remember how you reprimanded me for adding the soul and divinity part? well, you're right. the Bible technically doesn't say anything about His soul/divinity being there. the Bible only says that His Body and Blood are there, the Church expanded it by saying He isn't only physically present, as the Bible says, but also Spiritual present, as we've been guided by the Holy Spirit to realize He is also spiritually present. your reformed doctrine doesn't make sense. using only the Bible as the infallible rule of faith, the only infallible rule we can come up with is the Christ is physically present. we can't really come up with spiritually present.

you could go into John 6:63 where He says

"The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

but He didn't say, this is spirit and life, rather He said that the words are spirit and life. this teaching sustains our life, and our spirit.

so, from the Bible, you can only say that Jesus is physically present. how is it possible? because nothing is impossible with God.

only with the Authority of the Church can you infallibly say that Jesus is spiritually present, and then you'd haveto also accept His physical presence.

B)

[phatcatholic]

Alo,

do you have a document or some testimony from the church fathers that shows the development of logic concerning Jesus's soul/divinity presence in the Eucharist. i would like to see how the church came to this understanding of the Eucharist. as i understand infallibility, it isn't inspiration per se, but instead a protection from being in error. so, popes or councils come to their conclusions the same way we all do: through profound theological study. so, there has to be some type of information out there that lead the church to come to this conclusion about the soul/divinity presence in the Eucharist, even though it is not explicit in the Bible.

thanks,

phat nick

ps: in cause ur wondering, i do believe in the body/blood/soul/divinity presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. just wanting some more info about how this doctrine was formulated.

Edited December 2, 2003 by phatcatholic

[Aloysius]

i could use some more info myself.

but it does come in real handy here to notice that it doesn't come directly from the Bible.

[ICTHUS]

Of course He came in the flesh - at the Incarnation!! I never denied this for a second. What I am calling into question is wether He comes literally in the Flesh in the Eucharist, and how this does not conflict with Scripture, which teaches that Christ ascended into Heaven and sat down at the Right Hand of God the Father. I contend that the only time He appeared in the Flesh was when He appeared to St. Paul at his conversion.

As for the rest of your argument, Aloysius, it is incoherent. I cannot make heads or tails of it. Could you clarify?

[Donna]

Hi, Icthus,

St. Paul speaks of the Real Presence here:

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice

of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the

blood of the Lord. (1 Cor. 11).

I highlighted "shall" ; he not only speaks of folk right then, but "whosover" to come.

[ICTHUS]

Hi, Icthus,

St. Paul speaks of the Real Presence here:

27  Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice

of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the

blood of the Lord. (1 Cor. 11).

I highlighted "shall" ; he not only speaks of folk right then, but "whosover" to come.

But could not their guilt be of His spiritual body, since His physical body has ascended into Heaven.

The Reformed tradition affirms that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, as well. But it does not affirm transubstantiation. Hopefully you can see the distinction in meaning that I'm attempting to make.

[hyperdulia again]

christ didn't build his church on john calvin.

Edited December 2, 2003 by hyperdulia again

[ICTHUS]

christ didn't build his church on john calvin.

Grrr. I dont need snide comments like this one. Deal with the argument, hyper. I could very well play devils advocate and argue that Christ built his Church on Peter, but that the Church lost the plot and had to be reformed. But Im not going to, because that idea is foreign to me.

But I question wether transubstantiation is a legitimate development of Scriptural and Patristic teaching, in light of the fact that Christ ascended, body, soul, and divinity into Heaven, and Scripture makes no mention of His coming back down until the second coming (save for the conversion of St. Paul, of course)

[hyperdulia again]

if the church lost anything given to her by christ then he was a liar or a lunatic.

[hyperdulia again]

i think i'm not theological enough on matters of faith for this thread...i believe all that the church teaches and don't much care for why. i'm out. peace.