The real presence of the Lord, Jesus Christ, in holy communion.

[ARBITER01]

Yes, my Baptism, when I was about 1 week old. I can not remember not having faith in Jesus Christ.

I'm sure that was interesting.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'm sure that was interesting.

I was baptised between 1 and 2 years of age in California, in a Lutheran Church (The Good Shepherd Lutheran Church) by pastor Petersen. I have only a vague recollection of the event.

 

[ARBITER01]

I was baptised between 1 and 2 years of age in California, in a Lutheran Church (The Good Shepherd Lutheran Church) by pastor Petersen. I have only a vague recollection of the event.

I was water immersed in the name of Jesus about 6 months after I was born again, at the age of 27. I was also Spirit filled about a year after I was born again.

 

[Dan Perez]

I believe that all of the ancient churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some others) accept and teach the real presence of the Lord, Jesus Christ, in holy communion.

Catholics believe and teach that the elements of bread & wine are changed during the Eucharistic Prayer. The change is called transubstantiation among Catholics.

John Paul II wrote an encyclical entitled "ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA", available here Ecclesia de Eucharistia (17 April 2003) | John Paul II, in which is written:

15. The sacramental re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice, crowned by the resurrection, in the Mass involves a most special presence which – in the words of Paul VI – “is called 'real' not as a way of excluding all other types of presence as if they were 'not real', but because it is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present”.22 This sets forth once more the perennially valid teaching of the Council of Trent: “the consecration of the bread and wine effects the change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. And the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called this change transubstantiation”.23 Truly the Eucharist is a mysterium fidei, a mystery which surpasses our understanding and can only be received in faith, as is often brought out in the catechesis of the Church Fathers regarding this divine sacrament: “Do not see – Saint Cyril of Jerusalem exhorts – in the bread and wine merely natural elements, because the Lord has expressly said that they are his body and his blood: faith assures you of this, though your senses suggest otherwise”.24 ​

​

Adoro te devote, latens Deitas, we shall continue to sing with the Angelic Doctor. Before this mystery of love, human reason fully experiences its limitations. One understands how, down the centuries, this truth has stimulated theology to strive to understand it ever more deeply.​

​

These are praiseworthy efforts, which are all the more helpful and insightful to the extent that they are able to join critical thinking to the “living faith” of the Church, as grasped especially by the Magisterium's “sure charism of truth” and the “intimate sense of spiritual realities”25 which is attained above all by the saints. There remains the boundary indicated by Paul VI: “Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, must firmly maintain that in objective reality, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the consecration, so that the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus from that moment on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine”.26​

​

This thread is intended for discussion about the real presence. If you or your denomination teach a metaphorical or symbolic presence then this thread is not for you.

AND the first COMMUION will NOT be ,taken again until Christ , until that day when I drink it NEW with YOU in my FATHERS KINGDOM ,

Christ it NOT YET HERE !!

dan p

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, that's probably true. However, I'm not sure the question that the bread and the wine might get "transformed" was on the table either?? I don't suppose that anyone would've questioned that Jesus was "present" when he served up the Communion. And nobody would question whether his presence, via the Holy Spirit, is in the room whenever the Communion is served up either?

If we look at the early liturgical texts of the Church, and the writings of the Father, they make it clear that there is a belief in the Real Change. Indeed, I myself would argue that the idea of “The Real Change” is as central as “The Real Presence” to the early faith, and is what sets it apart from the more problematic 17th century developments, such as Receptionism and Memorialism. Specifically, these Eucharistic theologies run into problems with the fact that the early church used Eucharistic Prayers to consecrate the Eucharist, that featured a section called the Epiklesis, which requests that the Bread and Wine be changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord (by the Holy Spirit, but not usually addressed to the Holy Spirit) that was especially pronounced in the Eastern liturgies and the Gallican, Beneventan and Mozarabic liturgies of the West, but also does exist in the Roman Canon; conversely many Eastern liturgies only paraphrase the Words of Institution or, in the case of the Liturgy of the Apostles Addai and Mari, which does not even paraphrase them but rather makes, like the Didache, inferential and allusory references to it.

The important thing about these Anaphora is that, in consecrating the Eucharist and in most cases, specifically requesting the Holy Spirit change the bread into the Body of our Lord, and the wine into the Blood of our Lord, in an unambigious and often extremely detailed manner (for instance, the Syriac Orthodox anaphoras all contain the Deacon intoning “How awful is this hour and how dreadful is this moment, my beloved, wherein the Holy Spirit from the topmost heights takes wing and descents and hovers and rests upon this Eucharist here present and sanctifies it. Be in calm and awe, while standing and praying. Pray that peace may be with us and for all of us tranquillity.” This is very strong and intense language, some of the strongest in any liturgy. But one will also find this in the other Eastern liturgies, and in the Gallican derived liturgies, especially the Mozarabic, which features extremely ardent language, similar to the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church. I am happy to post more examples of language from the ancient anaphorae which suggests a transformation, or Real Change, and one can even find this in the liturgy of the Non-Juring Episcopalians and their successors in the Anglican provinces such as the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church USA and other North American Anglican churches following that tradition; the Non-Jurors did this by interpolating into their Holy Communion Liturgy the Epiclesis (prayer of the invocation of the Holy Spirit).

Indeed, a Real Change is foundational even to Zwinglianism, which lacks Patristic precedence, and to another Eucharistic theology popular among the Reformed, a belief in a real spiritual presence, which I see no indication of as a Patristic belief and which is directly contradicted by some liturgies and Eucharistic hymns (hymns sung while partaking of the Eucharist, such as the Syriac Orthodox Metrical Homily “Haw Nurone” by St. Jacob of Sarugh, and the fraction prayers of the Coptic Orthodox Church, prayed by the celebrant while he divides the consecrated Body into portions for consumption by the faithful, and the Confiteor ante Communionem (prayers in which the principle celebrant, or all of the celebrating clergy, and in many cases the whole congregation confess their belief in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist), but which a couple of liberal mainline liturgiologists (literally two, who I don’t want to mention by name because their works are genuinely useful except on the early history of the liturgy, whose skills at documenting the liturgy are very good but whose speculations about what the liturgy looked like outside of the documentation are uninteresting as they are unsupported by evidence, and if I recall both strongly favored the Lima Liturgy and other attempts at an ecumenical synthesis of existing liturgical texts) like to argue was the ancient belief, on the false Pietistic notion that this is somehow necessary in order to establish an ecumenical rapprochement between otherwise conflicting mainline Protestant theologies of the Eucharist.

 

[RandyPNW]

If we look at the early liturgical texts of the Church, and the writings of the Father, they make it clear that there is a belief in the Real Change.

It would be consistent, if the language of symbolism was being affirmed, that in some way that very symbolic application is justified. For example, even if I say that the bread Jesus offered as "his flesh" was purely symbolic I would have to defend this by saying it is being "transformed" in the mind of the one who partakes of it.

In other words, I should defend Jesus' symbolic use of the language by using the same kind of symbolic language. If Jesus" bread became flesh, then I should agree that it is transformed, symbolically, from bread to flesh.

However, the issue of *substantial transformation* never really came up until those who stated the obvious that this was purely symbolic, came up in history. Before that it would've been common sense to use the language of "transformation" in a symbolic way.

It does not mean, however, that the bread is actually being transformed substantially, since common sense tells us there can be no such physical transformation. No amount of references to ancient language of this religious rite can say otherwise unless it wants to resort to extreme mysticism, which is where this eventually went.

I don't claim to know *when* the language began to be presented as a "magical transformation?" But I doubt it was early on. There was only need to establish credibility in Jesus' right to establish this sacrament, using the language of a purely symbolic transformation.

Instead of relying upon various traditional readings of this sacrament I suggest you look up where it is suggested that the bread *substantially* is changed into Jesus' flesh? You will not be able to do so easily, I think, because the evolution from a symbolic meaning to the idea of a transformative spiritual experience likely took place gradually. That is pure magic!

Stating the bread is transformed *substantially* into human flesh requires hypnotism or strains credulity. Those who wish to find sanctification in choice and in deed would not quickly want to rely on magic. They would rather make moral choices than rely upon religious appearances or perfunctory obligations.

What actually happened was that this "symbolic transformation" came to offer mystical powers to those who engaged in the rite, and so had to confer a mystical ability to transform the bread into flesh in a "non-substantial" transformation, whatever that means?

In my opinion, liturgical observances do not convey spirituality and righteousness to the observer. They just enable the devotee the opportunity to express their orthodoxy, so as to maintain a proper testimony to their Salvation.

 

[RandyPNW]

It would be incredible for me to believe that Jesus' Disciples believed in the Eucharist as anything other than a meal symbolizing Jesus' imminent death. They, of course, saw this after the fact.

But I do think it's possible early Christians saw the seriousness of the rite as indicating we should view the bread as somehow Jesus' flesh. This makes little sense to me personally, but I can see how those who had trouble with Jesus' statements elsewhere would be unable to see this as anything but literal. Jesus was very simple at times, and in other ways, extremely profound.

I can also see how generations of Christians may have viewed eating the bread as somehow eating Jesus' flesh, as symbolic of his life. It is sometimes thought that participating in the Eucharist is in itself a form of participating in Christ, as opposed to what we're supposed to be doing every day. We're supposed to be walking in Christ every day, partaking of his Spirit. And yet, somehow the Communion, as a ritual, is viewed as a special, elite taking in of Christ.

No matter how early Christians viewed it, it is impossible that they thought they were taking in anything other than Jesus in a spiritual way. They weren't cannibals. So the biggest issue for me is the question: does taking the Eucharist obtain for us any special grace, or is it strictly a ritual that is suppose to remember Jesus and take seriously how he is to be played out in our lives? I think the latter.

 

[Philip_B]

It would be incredible for me to believe that Jesus' Disciples believed in the Eucharist as anything other than a meal symbolizing Jesus' imminent death. They, of course, saw this after the fact.

But I do think it's possible early Christians saw the seriousness of the rite as indicating we should view the bread as somehow Jesus' flesh. This makes little sense to me personally, but I can see how those who had trouble with Jesus' statements elsewhere would be unable to see this as anything but literal. Jesus was very simple at times, and in other ways, extremely profound.

I can also see how generations of Christians may have viewed eating the bread as somehow eating Jesus' flesh, as symbolic of his life. It is sometimes thought that participating in the Eucharist is in itself a form of participating in Christ, as opposed to what we're supposed to be doing every day. We're supposed to be walking in Christ every day, partaking of his Spirit. And yet, somehow the Communion, as a ritual, is viewed as a special, elite taking in of Christ.

No matter how early Christians viewed it, it is impossible that they thought they were taking in anything other than Jesus in a spiritual way. They weren't cannibals. So the biggest issue for me is the question: does taking the Eucharist obtain for us any special grace, or is it strictly a ritual that is suppose to remember Jesus and take seriously how he is to be played out in our lives? I think the latter.

You appear to distinguish between real and spiritual, in a way that suggests that spiritual is not real, or at least not as real. The question then focuses on what we mean by real, probably echoing Pilate's Question what is truth? this in a way gets back to the words often ascribed to Elizabeth 1: His was the word that Spake it, and what his word doth make it, I do believe and take it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It would be incredible for me to believe that Jesus' Disciples believed in the Eucharist as anything other than a meal symbolizing

It is not symbolic; the holy Eucharist is the body and blood of the Lord, Jesus Christ because he says it is.

 

[RandyPNW]

You appear to distinguish between real and spiritual, in a way that suggests that spiritual is not real, or at least not as real. The question then focuses on what we mean by real, probably echoing Pilate's Question what is truth? this in a way gets back to the words often ascribed to Elizabeth 1: His was the word that Spake it, and what his word doth make it, I do believe and take it.

No, the question is not about what I think is "real." The ceremony was real. And the fact Jesus called it a "memorial" is real. The fact we do this, viewing the bread as if it is Jesus' flesh is real. Ditto the wine.

And nobody questions the presence of Jesus at this memorial rite. The question becomes, then, is this an elite spiritual experience, separate from our daily walk with Christ?

My opinion is that this rite is only special in the sense that it is a memorial, giving special consideration to Christ's work and to what it aimed to accomplish, namely imparting his presence into us. I don't wish to argue this incessantly, because that might undo the whole purpose of the Eucharist, which is to give us a unified experience of Christ.

 

[RandyPNW]

It is not symbolic; the holy Eucharist is the body and blood of the Lord, Jesus Christ because he says it is.

Jesus said he is the light of the world. He is that energy from the sun because he says it is so? It is understood as a literary figure--not literally. That would be cannibalism.

 

[jas3]

It would be consistent, if the language of symbolism was being affirmed, that in some way that very symbolic application is justified. For example, even if I say that the bread Jesus offered as "his flesh" was purely symbolic I would have to defend this by saying it is being "transformed" in the mind of the one who partakes of it.

Fair enough.

In other words, I should defend Jesus' symbolic use of the language by using the same kind of symbolic language.

This begs the question of whether Jesus was speaking figuratively.

However, the issue of *substantial transformation* never really came up until those who stated the obvious that this was purely symbolic, came up in history. Before that it would've been common sense to use the language of "transformation" in a symbolic way.

The symbolic interpretation was only introduced in some Protestant denominations, though. The Catholic Church was in schism from the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox long before then, and their theology developed independently after those schisms. I think it's extremely unlikely that those churches fell into the same "extreme mysticism" independently.

It does not mean, however, that the bread is actually being transformed substantially, since common sense tells us there can be no such physical transformation.

This line of thinking seems to leave no room for miracles. Common sense tells us that rubbing mud in a blind man's eyes will probably lead to discomfort and infection, not healing.

Instead of relying upon various traditional readings of this sacrament I suggest you look up where it is suggested that the bread *substantially* is changed into Jesus' flesh? You will not be able to do so easily, I think, because the evolution from a symbolic meaning to the idea of a transformative spiritual experience likely took place gradually. That is pure magic!

Here you continue with the assumption you have made earlier, that the symbolic interpretation is the default and that the literal interpretation requires further proof, when in reality it's the other way around. Jesus explained the meaning of His symbolic language to the Apostles, but he never gave an explanation of the Bread of Life discourse, so there is no indication that this is meant to be taken figuratively. The onus is on the figurative side to produce evidence.

No matter how early Christians viewed it, it is impossible that they thought they were taking in anything other than Jesus in a spiritual way.

This is another assumption in need of substantiation.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Jesus said he is the light of the world.

And so he is.

 

[RandyPNW]

This begs the question of whether Jesus was speaking figuratively.

Of course. However, it's true. If I was to defend the symbolic use of "this bread is my flesh," I would have to double down by saying, "this bread has truly become (for me) Christ's flesh." It is circular, but the argument really is about the unlikelihood that Jesus meant to say the bread in his hand has become his human flesh. There is obviously no substantive, material transformation from physical bread to physical human flesh. Not only so, but at that point Christ had yet to even die, and that was the stated purpose for the rite.

The symbolic interpretation was only introduced in some Protestant denominations, though.

You're assuming what you wish to prove, that a symbolic interpretation was not engaged, automatically, from the start. In fact that is my main argument, that anybody with common sense would understand that Jesus was using a figure of speech. Otherwise, he's a cannibal!

The Catholic Church was in schism from the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox long before then, and their theology developed independently after those schisms. I think it's extremely unlikely that those churches fell into the same "extreme mysticism" independently.

No, they were more intent on getting people to take Jesus seriously in the Eucharist, rather than try to explain a magical transformation, or "spiritual transformation"--whatever that is? So the idea was to get people to realize that Jesus was real rather than argue for a substantial transformation from one material substance to another.

Again, doubling down on the same or similar language of symbolism may suggest a physical transformation, except that it is all the while stated and assumed to be a "spiritual" thing, which is hardly a physical transformation.

This line of thinking seems to leave no room for miracles. Common sense tells us that rubbing mud in a blind man's eyes will probably lead to discomfort and infection, not healing.

But there was *no miracle* of physical transformation taking place in Jesus' hands!!

Here you continue with the assumption you have made earlier, that the symbolic interpretation is the default and that the literal interpretation requires further proof, when in reality it's the other way around.

Yes, my main argument is that this *has to be* a symbolic interpretation. The occasion allowed for no other interpretation--not even a "spiritual transformation" of substances! It just didn't happen. And it referred to something that hadn't happened yet. In other words, no--it isn't the "other way around!"

Jesus explained the meaning of His symbolic language to the Apostles, but he never gave an explanation of the Bread of Life discourse, so there is no indication that this is meant to be taken figuratively. The onus is on the figurative side to produce evidence.

The point is, Jesus used literary figures meant to be understood by those inclined to believe and be willing to accept the association. Parables encourage unbelief in those who want to read their own meaning into the figures. Jesus didn't care if unbelievers chose to not believe.

This is another assumption in need of substantiation.

I did my best.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Of course. However, it's true. If I was to defend the symbolic use of "this bread is my flesh," I would have to double down by saying, "this bread has truly become (for me) Christ's flesh." It is circular, but the argument really is about the unlikelihood that Jesus meant to say the bread in his hand has become his human flesh. There is obviously no substantive, material transformation from physical bread to physical human flesh. Not only so, but at that point Christ had yet to even die, and that was the stated purpose for the rite.

You're assuming what you wish to prove, that a symbolic interpretation was not engaged, automatically, from the start. In fact that is my main argument, that anybody with common sense would understand that Jesus was using a figure of speech. Otherwise, he's a cannibal!

No, they were more intent on getting people to take Jesus seriously in the Eucharist, rather than try to explain a magical transformation, or "spiritual transformation"--whatever that is? So the idea was to get people to realize that Jesus was real rather than argue for a substantial transformation from one material substance to another.

Again, doubling down on the same or similar language of symbolism may suggest a physical transformation, except that it is all the while stated and assumed to be a "spiritual" thing, which is hardly a physical transformation.

But there was *no miracle* of physical transformation taking place in Jesus' hands!!

Yes, my main argument is that this *has to be* a symbolic interpretation. The occasion allowed for no other interpretation--not even a "spiritual transformation" of substances! It just didn't happen. And it referred to something that hadn't happened yet. In other words, no--it isn't the "other way around!"

The point is, Jesus used literary figures meant to be understood by those inclined to believe and be willing to accept the association. Parables encourage unbelief in those who want to read their own meaning into the figures. Jesus didn't care if unbelievers chose to not believe.

I did my best.

"but the argument really is about the unlikelihood that Jesus meant to say the bread in his hand has become his human flesh".​

Wow, that is very presumptuous on your part.

But there was *no miracle* of physical transformation taking place in Jesus' hands!!​

That is also very presumptuous; He was so clear about what it is, but not a peep about what it is not.

And, BTW, our Lord Jesus Christ is our Lord and our God, He is not a Genie that does magic tricks, He is the Lord God of Hosts, the King of Heaven. Miracles are His stock and trade; not Magic.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What the Lord said is "this is my body"; there was no mention of body parts. The truth is that every part of the bread is the Lord's body and every part of the wine is his blood of the covenant. In short the bread and the wine are the body and blood, the soul and divinity, of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[RandyPNW]

"but the argument really is about the unlikelihood that Jesus meant to say the bread in his hand has become his human flesh".​

Wow, that is very presumptuous on your part.

But there was *no miracle* of physical transformation taking place in Jesus' hands!!​

That is also very presumptuous; He was so clear about what it is, but not a peep about what it is not.

And, BTW, our Lord Jesus Christ is our Lord and our God, He is not a Genie that does magic tricks, He is the Lord God of Hosts, the King of Heaven. Miracles are His stock and trade; not Magic.

Just giving you my honest opinion. You're welcome to believe as the Lord leads you, or as He reveals to you!

 

[RileyG]

"but the argument really is about the unlikelihood that Jesus meant to say the bread in his hand has become his human flesh".​

Wow, that is very presumptuous on your part.

But there was *no miracle* of physical transformation taking place in Jesus' hands!!​

That is also very presumptuous; He was so clear about what it is, but not a peep about what it is not.

And, BTW, our Lord Jesus Christ is our Lord and our God, He is not a Genie that does magic tricks, He is the Lord God of Hosts, the King of Heaven. Miracles are His stock and trade; not Magic.

The Holy Eucharist itself is a miracle!

 

[Philip_B]

The Holy Eucharist itself is a miracle!

The Holy Eucharist is Eschatological. In this moment time and eternity meet.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Holy Eucharist is Eschatological. In this moment time and eternity meet.

Time and eternity meet in the entire mass.