The Real Presence of Christ In The Eucharist: Scriptural and Tradition Support

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thes. 2:15)

"And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. 2:2)

Many Catholics and non-Catholics alike think that the Roman Catholic Church invented the doctrine of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation means that the bread and wine presented on the altar at the Mass become the the Body and Blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit at the consecration.

The consecration is the time when the priest calls upon the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood. However, the Body and Blood retain the appearance of bread and wine. The Roman Catholic Church, that is, the Latin Rite Catholic Church, and other Catholic Churches in communion with Rome believe that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. The Orthodox Churches and most other Churches of the East do so as well.

Anglican [Episcopalian] and other Protestant denominations have interpreted Christ's presence at the celebration of the Lord's Supper or Eucharist to be either only spiritual, or symbolic, or non-existent.

The Early Christians actually took the Real Presence for granted. It doesn't even seem as if there was much debate. I could not find anyone who denied the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament before the year 500 A.D. Following are the results of my search.

FIRST: This is beyond sophomoric.

Indeed you are immature and silly. Do you really think i am ignorant of the conditional nature of infallibility? Of course, since you steadfastly refused to answer my questions in which the infallibility was stated to be conditional, such as what the basis is for "your assurance that Rome is the one true church, with its (conditionally ) infallible magisterium," (eph. added) then i suppose you have some excuse, as well as being a relative stranger to these religious forums it seems until recently.

And unlike your explanation that pertains only to the pope, I also know that infallible teaching is not restricted to the pope (though it requires him), but also pertains to ecclesiastical infallibility, that of (briefly) the bishops dispersed throughout the world in communion with each other and in union with the Holy See, and ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope, authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, with teachings of the former being hard to establish as infallible, while in practical application the latter has been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, along with those of the pope itself.

Thus your entire lecture on this is silly and superfluous as a way of actually answering the question , that the “Great Commission” equates to a perpetual infallible magisterium.

Since you seem to affirm this does by invoking Scripture, then it needs to be examined by Scripture, but once again, the question must be asked, what is the basis for your assurance that Rome is the one true and (conditionally!) infallible church?

If it is Scripture, then show from Scripture how the Great Commission being given to the apostles, (Mt. 18:19,20; Mk. 16:15,16 Lk. 24:47,48) and in which other disciples were present, (Lk. 24:13-53) equates to a perpetual (conditionally) infallible magisterium.

And on what basis you have assurance that Rome has that magisterium.

If your basis for assurance is not Scripture, then as we do look to Scripture as supreme, then show us where your basis for assurance is necessary for that.

SECOND: The very foundational infallibility that informs as to what books constitute the Holy Bible does not disappear into its interpretation.

Where did i say that it did? This simply avoids dealing with your premise behind the "we gave you the Bible" polemical statement, and answering the question i asked relevant to that often invoked assertion:

So once again i ask, are you arguing (by "we gave you the Bible") that those who recognize writings as being Scripture (leading to a canon) are the infallible or assuredly trustworthy interpreters of it? Affirm or deny.

THIRD: The list of authors you cite don’t even make for a footnote in major scholarship publications.

Really! And what "major scholarship publications" in this field of Bible commentary are you referring to, and what does Rome collectively have in similarly popular approved commentaries in comparison to these works and others? Do you recommend the notes in the Catholic New American Bible if they have the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat?

Here’s a definitive compendium of writings that has withstood centuries of scholarship and research and caused hundreds of Protestant theologians to convert to Catholicism.

Yet everyone is about the so-called "Real Presence," not a uniformity of Peter being the rock of Mt. 16:18, or the first of a line of (conditionally!) infallible popes, among the mutltuds of other things that lack the "unanimous consent of the fathers ? . Meanwhile if so many of them (from what relatively little we have of all CFs wrote ) could be so manifestly deluded in this matter, even if not necessarily a salvific error, then it is no surprise these overall pious men variously held to other errors (as did their Jewish counterparts). Do you want me to provide even holy Jerome's absurd exegesis in trying to support his unbalanced views on virginity versus marriage? And that of Augustine?

Oh, but don’t tell this to the low-information Al-Sharpton Christian Protestants!

EVERYtime you engage in to this absurd "sophmoric" recourse you weaken your RC nation. If you want to debate those in such churches go to Huffington Post, but here you are manifestly not debating such liberals, nor a particular church such as you are bound to defend, but faith in which Truth is determined in the light of Scriptural substantiation, which the church began under, thus a corresponding level of contention against those who deny what is most foundational and manifest. Thus my questions to you which you ignored.

Apparently all the proof in the world isn’t enough for you. You appeared to confuse the teachings of the Magisterium with Papal infallibility and now you appear worse confounded.

The central problem in your analysis is not with the Church but rather with the sources of authority as reflected in the Great Commission, and the teachings and traditions of the early Church. You find yourself unable to say which of 35,000 assortment of Protestant “teachings” we must accept, how? and why? And of course, some of them are now found to be so rotten that their former adherents, be it the large exodus of Anglicans, or Lutherans whose now accept Gay and Lesbians Bishops as authentic scriptural are now converting to Catholicism.

You refuse to acknowledge the great thinkers and theologians from Newman (Anglican) to Richard Newhaus (Lutheran) who have renounced their former scholarship and beliefs as being in error. Nor do you accept the profound exegetical treatises from St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas to Benedict XVI, referred to as a theological Einstein of our times.

Having acknowledged it were the early Church fathers whose “interpretation” based on the Petrine authority and guided by the Holy Spirit decided which books constitute the Bible (infallibility), they may now no longer continue to engage this interpretative exercise. The absurdity of your argument is plain.

Instead, what you keep doing is peddling isolated texts and passages of scripture and repeating the refuted teachings embraced by one brand of Protestantism although we aren’t sure what brand it is. In the end, by your lights, every person is free to pick and choose their “own” interpretations of Christ’s teaching (as you appear to do) to suit “their” own needs and beliefs This is precisely the rot of Protestantism that has the seeds of it own destruction implanted within it.

So like the Tammy Faye Bakers; Joel Osteens; Schullers; Swaggarts; Billy Grahams; Jeremiah Wrights, Jim Jones’; and David Koresh’s, you may as well now go get yourself an old garage, convert it into a meeting hall, have some inviting schrubbery in front, have a plaque with a cross painted on it, call it the “First Church of Christ” or whatever other name you choose, advertise for “Sunday Services,” get yourself a nice rockn’ band (this is important: clapping swaying, and feet stomping is a plus), fill the pantry with coffee and doughnuts, and there you have it. You now have your own unique new brand of Protestantism according to Daniel1212. And with that kind of a name how could you go wrong.

Just be sure you have a Bible in your hand, dress the part up as a pastor, or as TD Jakes does like a Bishop, tell the few low-information folks that at first trickle into the hall as to why Catholicism is all so wrong (heck, there’s no one to rebut you and these mush-heads will absorb anything you tell them- just ask Joel Osteen), and before long who knows who may be able to enrich yourself like the Osteens or (that’s only if you preach the prosperity gospel) and be like Jeremiah Wright depending on the demographic you wish to attract, or try writing an Oprah-like best seller like Rick Warren, and you just got yourself a nice and comfortable job. With some luck before long, you have a gig on TV like that fellow traveler, Huckerberry!

the Qur’an is not as violent (as false violent religions go) as the Hadith. Interesting because the Qur’an is akin to their literal scriptures where the Hadith is lower in authority (by mostly Sunnis) and considered more like tradition.

"Not as violent" is somewhat like comparing Germans to Japanese in WW2, while as Scripture disallows the use of the sword of men by the church to subdue its enemies, the Inquisitions with its papal sanctioned torture and murder of theological dissidents required Rome to be superior over Scripture, and even Tradition which did not sanction it either, and thus it was advantageous to keep the masses largely ignorant of what opposed her.

And unlike Scripture, which transitions from a theocracy with a physical kingdom, employing physical means of warfare (but unlike the Qur'an, this began after unmistakable supernatural proof God was commanding them), to a kingdom not of this world, (Jn. 18:36) engaging in spiritual; warfare by its means, (Eph. 6:12; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 10:3,4) in the Qur'an the call to physical Jihad comes in his later revelations from Hell.

The most controversial inconsistency within the Qur'an is btwn Muhhammad's emphasis on peace while he was in Mecca - where he was a minority - versus his emphasis war on Medina where he grew in power, and his revelations accommodated his desires, ala Joesph Smith. More here .

During the Meccan period when the Prophet gave no commands except for the belief in one God, the resurrection, prayer and patience, charity towards the poor, orphans, relatives, travelers and slaves. It becomes clear that the situation in the Medina at the time, the conflict with Meccans and the presence of Jews influenced the Qur’anic messages...

In Mecca he had no recognized position, while in Medina he was welcomed as a mediator between two hostile factions..grows in power and his revelations become more succinct. - http://alewandowska.wordpress.com/academic-work/ac_5/

And perhaps being a bit homesick, Mecca was anointed as the place that one should turn towards in prayer.

And while the NT abrogates the literal keeping of the typological ceremonial law (Col. 2:6,17; Heb. 9:9,10; Gal. 4:10) in working to fulfill the intent of the whole law, (Rm. 8:4) in accordance with the Qur'anic doctrine of abrogation, Muhammad's later revelation regarding jihad, as in Sura 9:5,29 abrogates prior ones such as call for tolerant co-existence.

More contrasts btwn the Bible and Qur'an here .

Unlike the Bible, the Qur;an lacks the kind of contextual depth of the Bible with its historical narratives and doctrinal teachings to provide a coherent definition of the place for religious violence, or the power to punish members "by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction," that is part of RC teaching.

And at best the Qur'anic exhortations to religious violence only refer to physical warfare against them, while at worse it sanctions physical warfare against any that can be seen as warring against Islam, even religious ideological infiltration. And likely Rome would be doing likewise as before, even if by proxy, if it had the same powers at disposal to do so. Indeed, i think it is safe to say many FR RC's here would like to see us thusly persecuted.

Apparently all the proof in the world isn’t enough for you.

Seeing as you offered zero that address the issue, then i am still waiting.

You appeared to confuse the teachings of the Magisterium with Papal infallibility

It is you who are confused, as the issue that of the premise that "Christ promised infallibility to the true Church" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm), and your basis for assurance that it is, and if Scripture, ..and how you arrive at that from the Great Commission. Neither explaining what i already know about papal infallibility or verbose posting about the CFs on the RP, nor rants about heretical Prots, addreses that issue, but avoid it.

Why will not not answer my fundamental questions. you have about a week already. How can there be exchange on what Truth is unless you make it clear what your basis for assurance really is? And if Scripture, then you can attempt to explain how ou extrapolate your conclusions out of the text, and if it is not Scripture, but the church with its premise of infallibility, then me you can try to answer my question as to where in Scripture such is absolutely necessary to establish writing's as Scripture, and for assurance of Truth.

More diversionary rants simply testifies to you not being able to answer these fundamental questions, and after your last one here will be ignored.

ou find yourself unable to say which of 35,000 assortment of Protestant “teachings” we must accept, how? and why? That is simply a lie, as bedsides the specious 35k denominations charge, i nowhere said i could not show you which truths were essential for salvation, and instead i substantiated that those most committed to Scripture being supreme as the wholly infallible Word of God are more unified in core truths and moral views than Catholics. And that what a church believes is not determined but what its say, but it does and conveys. (Ja. 2:18)

Meanwhile, you seem to be ignorant that in your own church there exists a "hierarchy of truths," (CCC 90), and in non-infallible teachings there can be a varying allowance for dissent depending on what level of the magisterium they fall under, but under your model for determining Truth you cannot even tell me how many -infallible teachings there are, or what level each teaching falls under.

They also all can be subject to some interpretation, and in which there is disagreement (such as canon 915), as you have no infallible interpreter of your infallible interpreter.

In addition, within the parameters of RC teaching, RCs have a great deal of liberty to interpret the Scriptures in order to support Rome, which is a great deal of liberty.

So like the Tammy Faye Bakers; Joel Osteens; Schullers; Swaggarts; Billy Grahams; Jeremiah Wrights, Jim Jones... The rest of your mere assertions, logical fallacies, and false premises, are simply a rant substituting for an actual argument, and as such it indicts you as having no viable one, and instead is another argument against becoming a RC.

You thus have further warranted being marginalized, along with certain other Roman ranters, which did not take you long, You can get back to me when you can answer my fundamental questions asked a week ago and today. More spitballs will be ignored.

Perhaps it all went over your head: All the accounts on scripture, tradition, and revelation. All the authorities cited by the early Church fathers on the Eucharist. All what they indeed believed to be true as did Aquinas and Augustine. All the sheer absurdity that flows from the heresy of the myriad brands of Protestantism have been conveniently ignored as not being proof enough for you. Yet this was all good enough for Henry Newman and Richard Neuhaus and countless others.

And now when the ridiculous nature of your argument is exposed as to how you may as well open up your own “Protestant” church and follow an Al Sharpton; Jeremiah Wright; David Koresh; Joel Osteen; or a Robert Schuller or Billy Graham; or simply chart your own (Daniel 1212) doctrine, you have no clue by way of a response and indeed it is unanswerable, except to brand them all as “rants.” How convenient but yet so typical of low-information Christian adherents to whatever flavoring of Protestantism they choose to believe in.

All the sheer absurdity that flows from the heresy of the myriad brands of Protestantism

"Boston pastor praised by Cardinal O’Malley puts Holy Family on par with homosexual couples"

Seems the Roman Church has loads to talk about within their walls. Seems these 35,000 ProtestANT "sects" are the least of your worries. Something Cicero said comes to mind that the RCs should consider:

"“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” ---Cicero

Matthew 7:

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

All the accounts on scripture, tradition, and revelation. All the authorities cited by the early Church fathers on the Eucharist. All what they indeed believed to be true as did Aquinas and Augustine.

So your answer is that the basis for your assurance of truth is by examination of the above? That is good to know, as for RCs their basis for assurance of Truth is the church with its (conditionally!) infallible magisterium, as fallible human reasoning cannot provide assurance and results in disagreements.

But since it seems you claim to have assurance by objectively examining the evidence, then we can discuss the merits of the evidence, without having to defend Rome.

Thus, unless you want to recant from reasoning like an evangelical, the first question has to do with the rank of evidence. Would you say Scripture must be the supreme authority since it alone is wholly inspired of God?

All the sheer absurdity that flows from...

I would agree that it is absurd to render implicit trust to men who presume infallibility, as well as to invoke uninspired men who did also. I can find them in cults.

you may as well open up your own “Protestant” church and follow an Al Sharpton;

You sure have a fondness for logical fallacies, supposing that since there are quacks who also dissent from an entity that presumes of itself more than is written, based upon the premise of historical descent and stewardship of Scripture, then all who do so must be the same.

There was another certain church who also did so, following an itinerant preacher who was rejected by a valid magisterium, but who established his claims upon persuasive Scriptural substantiation, though this resulted in divisions. It comes as no surprise that you must reject that also as being invalid, based upon your premise, and instead follow a cultic model. Which is defended as if it were a god.

I will leave you to it if you continue to evidence you so desire.

If not, and the RC literalism is true, then you MUST conclude that one must believe (in the Real Presence) and receive the Eucharist in order to have life in them, and eternal life,as perr Jn. 6:53,54. .

That is what Jesus said, in fact, he said it 12 times in the NT. However, I sit in judgement of no one who believes in the Trinity. Whenever we greet our judgement day, I suppose we’ll find out. In the meantime, I personally am in support of all my Christian brothers and sisters because Jesus also said we are not to be the judge.

Like another RC here, something seems to be effecting a double minded here. You profess to believe that Jn. 6:35,54ff is literal, which literalism has to conclude that one cannot have spirtual life within them and eternal life unless they actually consume real flesh and blood (a novel idea), but then you cannot say those who do not physically consume Christ are not born again but are lost, which is the logical conclusion.

Thus you evidently do not believe what you affirm, or perhaps suppose somehow they are being slipped a consecrated wafer in a moment when the believe it is Christ. Or something else.I actually went thru this dilemma myself after i became born again while yet a RC, and realized profound changes in heart and life, but heard and met evangelicals i knew had to be born again.

But I am asking you to be consistent. You say you sit in judgement of no one who believes in the Trinity, which indicates that you do have a conviction that salvation requires assent to certain truths, but if your interpretation of Jn. 6 is correct, then this belief would be as necessary as that of believing in the real presence.

Note however, that i do not hold that believing in the real presence is necessarily a salvific error, myself being one that once did, but it is usually concomitant with faith in an institutionalized gospel of much confidence in the power of the church and ones own merit, versus personal conversion as a contrite damned+destitute sinner resting all on Christ, and thus obeying Him.

. In the meantime, I personally am in support of all my Christian brothers and sisters because Jesus also said we are not to be the judge.

Making a judgment on who is saved or lost based upon what they believe and do is most certainly not what the Lord disallowed, as He Himself did so, as did the apostles and commanded it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.