Real Presence

[polonius]

Catholicism and some other Christian religions hold a belief in the real presence of Jesus in a Eucharist. Do you?

If so, why? If not why?

[Elijah John]

Catholicism and some other Christian religions hold a belief in the real presence of Jesus in a Eucharist. Do you?

If so, why? If not why?

As a Catholic it is what I was raised to believe. But upon reflection, I realize that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, not literally.

[brianbbs67]

I have not heard of this belief. Please, explain.

[marco]

Catholicism and some other Christian religions hold a belief in the real presence of Jesus in a Eucharist. Do you?

If so, why? If not why?

It is a superb idea and it demonstrates the miraculous power of faith which Jesus alluded to: people actually believe they are biting God and swallowing him. I believed so myself, utterly, completely, terrifyingly. That millions still believe is an indication of how powerful is religion, never mind faith. If you can get people to believe this, what will they NOT do to please their God? Think of Abraham.

[marco]

I have not heard of this belief. Please, explain.

My goodness. Transubstantiation has been around for centuries. Jesus said: "THIS is my body" In the Latin mass we have "Hoc est enim corpus meum," from which we got "hocus pocus."

It is understood that Jesus, in the way Jesus could, made bread into his body and wine into his blood. The effect of eating the communion host is that the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus is digested - miraculously. One might say this is ludicrous, but so too was talking to the corpse of Lazarus and having it walk.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 2 by Elijah John]

Please read and re read John 6. The passage itself shows those who heard Jesus’ words understood them as literal and when they basically told Him that’s crazy, He didn’t correct their understanding. He didn’t say, nah y’all got it wrong. I didn’t mean I was going to give my real body and blood – I’m just speaking metaphorically. No, He actually doubled down on exactly what He said the first time and this time even emphasized the literalness even more. It is impossible to read this passage and not get that. Why would they have been offended at eating His flesh and drinking His blood if it was simply metaphorical? Sorry, but that isn’t offensive. Also, the actual language Jesus spoke these words in show He used a word that translates gnaw/munch for eat. He could have used a different word that simply means eats and then perhaps that could have been seen as figurative language, but He didn’t the word He used meant gnaw. And again, the reaction of those who heard Him tells us the very audience He was speaking to understood Him as speaking literally so much so they left Him that day because they couldn’t accept it. Not unlike what many Christians other than Catholics do today. They can’t accept Jesus’ words in this passage. They need to reduce His words to a metaphor. They are doing exactly what many did that day – they are walking away from what He actually said. They didn’t trust/believe Him. They wanted their religion their way not God’s way.

(bold mine)

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?�

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?�

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?� Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 2 by Elijah John]

Please read and re read John 6. The passage itself shows those who heard Jesus’ words understood them as literal and when they basically told Him that’s crazy, He didn’t correct their understanding. He didn’t say, nah y’all got it wrong. I didn’t mean I was going to give my real body and blood – I’m just speaking metaphorically. No, He actually doubled down on exactly what He said the first time and this time even emphasized the literalness even more. It is impossible to read this passage and not get that. Why would they have been offended at eating His flesh and drinking His blood if it was simply metaphorical? Sorry, but that isn’t offensive. Also, the actual language Jesus spoke these words in show He used a word that translates gnaw/munch for eat. He could have used a different word that simply means eats and then perhaps that could have been seen as figurative language, but He didn’t the word He used meant gnaw. And again, the reaction of those who heard Him tells us the very audience He was speaking to understood Him as speaking literally so much so they left Him that day because they couldn’t accept it. Not unlike what many Christians other than Catholics do today. They can’t accept Jesus’ words in this passage. They need to reduce His words to a metaphor. They are doing exactly what many did that day – they are walking away from what He actually said. They didn’t trust/believe Him. They wanted their religion their way not God’s way.

(bold mine)

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?�

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?�

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?� Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69

So, is that what happened to his body? and why the tomb was empty? The apostles ate him? Would explain his new body looking different enough they didn't recognize him.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

No I don't believe Jesus literally turns himself into bread and gets people to literally eat him, because that's silly nonsense. And not a little gruesome.

JW

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

No I don't believe Jesus literally turns himself into bread and gets people to literally eat him, because that's silly nonsense. And not a little gruesome.

Since when did designating something as "silly nonsense" stop it from being part of one's theology? I think having exactly 144, 000 people invited to a party at the end of time is silly nonsense, as is the multiplication of a few fish by magic. The concept of
taking Christ into our hearts and souls - with the host as the external sign - is as sane and wise as any other miracle. Once we accept miracles we can no longer use common sense.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

No I don't believe Jesus literally turns himself into bread and gets people to literally eat him, because that's silly nonsense. And not a little gruesome.

Since when did designating something as "silly nonsense" stop it from being part of one's theology?.

Well if *I* deem something as silly nonsense (which I do with this particullar Catholic dogma, although if the Catholic church pronounced the sky blue, I think I'd still go out and check) *I* don't make it part of my own personal theology. I find this particular teaching laughable and childish and I choose not to believe it.I don't believe one has to bypass common sense just because one believes in God and miracles and I don't have any regard for opinions based on this premise.

But to each his own,


JW

ps: re, "hocus pocus." Very interesting, thanks for that titbit!