Things I don't get about Real Presence

[RBerman]

I believe the Gospel of Mark states that an angel rolled the stone away.

OK. I'm not even sure of the relevance of debating whether Jesus exited the tomb before or after the stone rolled away. We agree that Jesus' resurrection body seems to have been different from his regular body, which perhaps is why everyone who knew him repeatedly had trouble recognizing him.

I simply disagree. I think his words are to be taken literally--I do not see the context as an "either/or"--and he could have said that he was using symbolic language, instead he chose a rather straightforward identification of the bread and wine with his body and blood. Them there o=is St. Paul stating that those who fail to discern the body are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. In all the passages which address Holy Communion, ISTM it is a stretch to see the words as symbolic. I don't expect to convince you, this argument is about 500 years old already.

OK. Lutherans are cool by me. I agree that there's something spiritual going on in the Eucharist, hence Paul's warnings.

[Jawa Man]

As a sci-fi nerd I find this highly appealing.

I suppose for the Orthodox, it's even more exotic when you factor in the idea the Divine Liturgy is a catching up to Heaven. I supposed that's what was most influencing me when I said it might involve alternate dimensions.

Who knows, maybe lack of caloric content is an emergent property from combining glorified Flesh with bread, sort of like the wetness of water!

You never know! That's why it is best to just say it is a mystery!

Well, to be fair, I'd put this more under, "evidence for Christianity in general." One might believe memorialism is only a faint shadow of the true Eucharist and thus will have nowhere near the benefits of RP (not to mentioning possibly containing curses for the memorialist) but quantifying the differences in the benefits to the various groups of communicants would be impossible.

Our doctrine of the Eucharist does not view other Christians as partaking in varying degrees. We simply say, "The Orthodox Church definitely has the Eucharist. We have no idea what other churches have." This is because we are the only Church, as we believe, that still has the charism of apostolic succession, descended from the Upper Room at Pentecost 2000 years ago. Without this succession, there is no certainty in the reality of someone's sacraments... I think even Max would agree with this but their version of apostolic succession is different than ours.

Didn't St. Augustine say on John 6 that if you believe in Christ you've already partaken of the Flesh and Blood, or is that out of context?

I found this in his commentary on John 6:

He then that eateth not His flesh, nor drinketh His blood, hath no life in him; and he that eateth His flesh, and drinketh His blood, hath life. This epithet, eternal, which He used, answers to both. It is not so in the case of that food which we take for the purpose of sustaining this temporal life. For he who will not take it shall not live, nor yet shall he who will take it live. For very many, even who have taken it, die; it may be by old age, or by disease, or by some other casualty. But in this food and drink, that is, in the body and blood of the Lord, it is not so. For both he that doth not take it hath no life, and he that doth take it hath life, and that indeed eternal life. And thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers. Of these, the first is already effected, namely, predestination; the second and third, that is, the vocation and justification, have taken place, are taking place, and will take place; but the fourth, namely, the glorifying, is at present in hope; but a thing future in realization. The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord’s table in some places daily, in some places at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord’s table it is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker thereof.

Maybe he said what you heard as well, but in this passage it looks like he is referring to the Eucharist.

[Maxentius]

In the context of 1 Corinthians 11, failing to discern/distinguish/judge the body doesn't seem to have anything to do with a theological error. It has to do with selfishness and a lack of love toward other Christians. (And even if it did have to do with theological error, that wouldn't particularly prove that your theology is correct.)

Here is 1 Corinthians 11:27-32

1 Corinthians 11:27-32

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

© source where applicable

I have heard the objection that this means failure to discern Christ's body, the Church. However, I do not see how that can be within the context. But there is that thorny issue again--the equivalence and identity made between the bread and wine and the body and blood of Jesus. There is nothing here to indicate St. Paul is speaking figuratively. Regarding selfishness etc. Once again, it is not "either/or" but "both". Just like receiving communion in remembrance of Jesus' work on the cross does not exclude the Real Presence, so people failing to discern Jesus' body by treating his Supper as a common meal, instead of what it is--his very body and blood--does not exclude the real Presence. Indeed, it explains all the things stated by St. Paul here: The Corinthians received communion unworthily because they took what is divine and treated it as profane. That is the context.

[Kelp]

You never know! That's why it is best to just say it is a mystery!

Good point .

Our doctrine of the Eucharist does not view other Christians as partaking in varying degrees. We simply say, "The Orthodox Church definitely has the Eucharist. We have no idea what other churches have." This is because we are the only Church, as we believe, that still has the charism of apostolic succession, descended from the Upper Room at Pentecost 2000 years ago. Without this succession, there is no certainty in the reality of someone's sacraments... I think even Max would agree with this but their version of apostolic succession is different than ours.

Oh, right. I forgot.

And thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers. Of these, the first is already effected, namely, predestination; the second and third, that is, the vocation and justification, have taken place, are taking place, and will take place; but the fourth, namely, the glorifying, is at present in hope; but a thing future in realization. The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord’s table in some places daily, in some places at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord’s table it is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker thereof.

Emphasis mine.

Actually, this sounds like Obsidian's objection that communion is really about the church body.

[Kelp]

So, this looks like the main Book of Concord passage on the "Capernatic eating."

But when Dr. Luther or we employ this word spiritual in regard to this matter, we understand by it the spiritual, supernatural, heavenly mode, according to which Christ is present in the Holy Supper, working not only consolation and life in the believing, but also condemnation in the unbelieving; whereby we reject the Capernaitic thoughts of the gross [and] carnal presence which is ascribed to and forced upon our churches by the Sacramentarians against our manifold public protestations. In this sense we also say [wish the word spiritually to be understood when we say] that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are spiritually received, eaten, and drunk, although this participation occurs with the mouth, while the mode is spiritual.

For those who don't know, the Sacramentarians were a party which held that the host is just symbolic but that consuming it catches us up to Heaven wherein we spiritually partake of Christ's Body and Blood (they thought He was bodily restricted to dwelling in Heaven). The Sacramentarians accused mainstream Lutherans of cannibalism.

So, this passage argues it is not cannibalism because we eat the literal body and blood in a spiritual manner as opposed to chewing and digesting it. This is a bit hard to believe for me. Either we eat it actually or we don't. How do you spiritually consume a physical thing? How does something spiritually pass through your mouth?

This aside though, if the spiritual eating concept is really coherent, then I think I can agree it isn't cannibalism. After all, an organ transplant is not cannibalism nor is a blood transfusion (sorry, JWs ). So since we are receiving in a manner that doesn't really involve the alimentary canal, etc. it would not really be cannibalism. Or am I twisting the meaning of the word "eat?"

[RBerman]

So, this passage argues it is not cannibalism because we eat the literal body and blood in a spiritual manner as opposed to chewing and digesting it. This is a bit hard to believe for me. Either we eat it actually or we don't. How do you spiritually consume a physical thing? How does something spiritually pass through your mouth?

"Spiritually feed on Christ" is a metaphor for "Be nourished by Christ." Christ nourishes us so that we can grow spiritually, and participation in the Lord's Table is one of the means that God has provided for our spiritual nurture.

[Maxentius]

So, this passage argues it is not cannibalism because we eat the literal body and blood in a spiritual manner as opposed to chewing and digesting it. This is a bit hard to believe for me. Either we eat it actually or we don't. How do you spiritually consume a physical thing? How does something spiritually pass through your mouth?

As the that section also says, we receive in a suprtnatural mode, Christ's body and blood. The mode is supernatural because of the sacramental union of the bread and wine via the power of Christ's word. In part, this is because his flesh is super natural--it can pass through walls etc. So to receive his flesh and blood we do not need to receive them naturally.

There is an analogy with Baptism, where we believe that there is a sacramental union of the water with the words of Christ which make the water a life giving, healing, forgiving water. You will notice that the same section says that though the body is "spiritual", it is the same body which rose from the dead, which I think we all agree is a human body. The body and blood are present "in their essence". I note this so we do not spiritualize away the RP.

This aside though, if the spiritual eating concept is really coherent, then I think I can agree it isn't cannibalism. After all, an organ transplant is not cannibalism nor is a blood transfusion (sorry, JWs ). So since we are receiving in a manner that doesn't really involve the alimentary canal, etc. it would not really be cannibalism. Or am I twisting the meaning of the word "eat?"

No, I don't think you are twisting the word "eat".

And thank you for a fair exposition of our doctrine--even if you don't agree with it.

[Jawa Man]

Emphasis mine.

Actually, this sounds like Obsidian's objection that communion is really about the church body.

I think it is about the Church Body and the Eucharist at the same time, where he explicitly states, "The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord’s table in some places daily, in some places at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord’s table it is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker thereof." From this follows the logical conclusion that the Eucharist and Church Body are the same thing. This is why, when I say I am in the Body of Christ, I literally mean not just in a symbolic sense, but mean my actual skin and blood is mingled with Christ's skin and blood. This is why those who are expelled from the community of believers were also expelled from the Eucharist, i.e. excommunicated.

[Obsidian]

Just like receiving communion in remembrance of Jesus' work on the cross does not exclude the Real Presence, so people failing to discern Jesus' body by treating his Supper as a common meal, instead of what it is--his very body and blood--does not exclude the real Presence.

I didn't say that it does. What you have done is make a dubious argument (that failing to "discern the body" means failure to recognize real presence). And then when I pointed out the hole in your dubious argument, your response is now that my point doesn't disprove your overall position of real presence. My point wasn't intended to disprove your overall position. It was only intended to debunk your reliance on 1 Corinthians 11.

There is nothing here to indicate St. Paul is speaking figuratively.

You are responding to my disproof of your point, and simply pointing out the obvious fact that I myself have not made a point. I never used 1 Corinthians 11 as a disproof of "real presence." I only used it against a disproof of the transubstantiation theory, which denies that the bread is bread. If you are willing to say that something can be physically bread and physical human meat at the same time, then correct, 1 Corinthians 11 doesn't necessarily contradict you.

My overall point is, there's not really anything there to indicate it's being literal, either.

The Corinthians received communion unworthily because they took what is divine and treated it as profane. That is the context.

This is an explanation which could pretty much apply equally well to the symbolism theory.

I have heard the objection that this means failure to discern Christ's body, the Church. However, I do not see how that can be within the context.

I don't know whether it's correct or not, but I think it's definitely a reasonable interpretation.

1 Corinthians 10

16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

[Maxentius]

I didn't say that it does. What you have done is make a dubious argument (that failing to "discern the body" means failure to recognize real presence). And then when I pointed out the hole in your dubious argument, your response is now that my point doesn't disprove your overall position of real presence. My point wasn't intended to disprove your overall position. It was only intended to debunk your reliance on 1 Corinthians 11.

Do you have an argument, or just a string of assertions you are correct? It seems to me you only have the latter.

You are responding to my disproof of your point, and simply pointing out the obvious fact that I myself have not made a point. I never used 1 Corinthians 11 as a disproof of "real presence." I only used it against a disproof of the transubstantiation theory, which denies that the bread is bread. If you are willing to say that something can be physically bread and physical human meat at the same time, then correct, 1 Corinthians 11 doesn't necessarily contradict you.

I was trying to point out that it supports me, and I advanced some evidence to back it up. And if it supports me, aren't we left with the fact that it contradicts you?

My overall point is, there's not really anything there to indicate it's being literal, either.

To the contrary, it should be read "literally", because the context shows it. I discused the context--i.e. I explained why I believe what I do about the passage. In reply, I receive a mere assertion by you.

This is an explanation which could pretty much apply equally well to the symbolism theory.

Another assertion without proof. Do you have an argument, or not?

[Obsidian]

To the contrary, it should be read "literally", because the context shows it. I discused the context--i.e. I explained why I believe what I do about the passage. In reply, I receive a mere assertion by you.

Okay, whatever.

[Kelp]

I think it is about the Church Body and the Eucharist at the same time, where he explicitly states, "The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord’s table in some places daily, in some places at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord’s table it is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker thereof." From this follows the logical conclusion that the Eucharist and Church Body are the same thing. This is why, when I say I am in the Body of Christ, I literally mean not just in a symbolic sense, but mean my actual skin and blood is mingled with Christ's skin and blood. This is why those who are expelled from the community of believers were also expelled from the Eucharist, i.e. excommunicated.

Ah, I never thought about that. Interesting.

[Kelp]

And thank you for a fair exposition of our doctrine--even if you don't agree with it.

No problem. I think your explanation makes sense.

[maudman]

I have a few things to say here.

Filed under "objections y'all have heard a million times" we have:

Luke 22:19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

If He's there when we do it, how is it "in remembrance?" I don't think Christ's continued presence with the church is enough of an answer because when He says he would not drink the fruit of the vine with us till His kingdom, Jesus was indicating that there is, in fact, a facet of the Eucharist which is taken "without" Him, however this might acceptably defined.

And specifically on Transubstantiation, if the Cup contains His blood, how can He call it the fruit of the vine.

And for fellow memorialists, I don't really have a problem with the "it's cannibalism" objection to Bodily Presence. To me it seems that however you parse the symbolism, we are in fact "pretending" to eat His body and drink His blood. We are in a definite sense reenacting His death for us by use of of the terms and symbols. To me this can't really be that much more offensive that saying we literally eat and drink Christ. Is pretending to be a cannibal much less "disturbing" than actually being one?

Hello Kelp,
Haven't read everything and hope this helps...
It may be that other things need to be considered in scripture to affirm what others Like RCC think or confirm about such things...

1 Corinthians 11
[16] But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the church of God. [17] Now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together not for the better, but for the worse. [18] For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it.
[19] For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you. [20] When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord's supper.
[21] For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk. [22] What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.

Corinthians were doing other traditions with the Lord supper... There were heresies among them... Celebrating other feast with the Lords supper... Some thought it was ok but it wasn't OK..

[23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. [25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore 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. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.


Paul had Received of the Lord that which he had delivered to them.. One might ask? Why would he need to receive from the Lord when anyone can make or get simple Bread and Wine?..
Paul explain that this Commemoration of the Bread and Wine in the Apostolic succession is the Body and Blood of Christ... It's real Presence... Now if we consider this account Paul is going to offer this Transformed Bread and Wine to AFFIRM the weak from among them...

This is also what happened when Judaist took and ate that same bread..

Not a ten year old Loaf preserved but that which is transformed buy those appointed to transform... In Judaist case? The Spirit Left him and He betrayed Christ and the Apostles... Why? Because he took it unworthily.. To take It Unworthily causes something to happen.. So it can't be something symbolic only, but Real.. No one understands How it happens, but the Bread and Wine are Christ's body and Christ Blood... Christ feels this somehow as the tradition affirms the RP.. Some Corinthians were actually GUILTY of his Body and Blood.. Which is the corruption of disunity caused by the Heresy...

Real Presence is Real and is a Mystery.. It drives out the Heretics or rather those who create division among the Brethren.. (The Contentious) It is a single unifying event and Christ uses it to cast out the heretics..

In verse 16 it's the man who seems contentious? See he is causing disagreement and arguments and quarrles that is tearing away at the fabric of the church... Often ending in quarrels and debate.. The RP is what drives out those who are in such a state.. Those that remain the RP has Justified and why Paul has Brought what the Lord has Given To the Church... And we will do this until Christ second return as stated in Vs. 26..

Peace and God Bless