I love these miraculous examples.





The second one is remarkable!

...

I guess this brings up a relevant point for this forum, and one that I have always wondered about.

What is it that prevents most Protestants, specifically those who are strong adherents to Sola Scriptura, from accepting the idea of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

Scripture is famously clear on this:

John 6:41-66
At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

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 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus
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 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

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

This shocked so many that they asked Him to clarify it. Maybe He meant symbolic? But He doubles down, so much so that many abandoned Him. Moreover, we see it in 1 Cor. 10:15-18, and other places such as 1 Corinthians 11:27-29. So Scripture is on the side of the Real Presence.

We also know from the Early Church Fathers that from the beginning, the Apostles and first Christians ALWAYS believed it was the Real body and blood of Christ. So Sacred Tradition and Church History are on the side of the Real Presence.

So what's left? Science. I have examples above.

Maybe it just seems too hard to believe, too miraculous? Any more so than a Man healing the sick, banishing demons, or resurrecting? I'd say no.

So what holds some back?

A few catechism excerpts





https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

The teachings rely on allegory and similes, you know, figures of speech.

Bread from heaven is allusion to God’s delivering sustenance to his people so that they might live, in the form of manna.

Whatever one thinks about manna, I don’t think the scriptures mean to eat Jesus.

Not my work, but this is Scriptural evidence for it being much more than "figures of speech":

1 Corinthians 11:27-29:
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, 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 upon himself.


"According to St. Paul, a constitutive element involved in a Christian’s preparation to receive the Eucharist is “discerning the body.” What body is St. Paul talking about that must “discerned” you ask? It’s really not very hard to tell. He just said, in verse 27, “Whoever . . . eats . . . in an unworthy matter will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Any questions?

These very plain words were a stark reminder to the Corinthians 2,000 years ago, and should be for us as well. We must recognize not just what it is that we are receiving in the Eucharist, but who it is: Jesus Christ.

And there’s more!
St. Paul uses unequivocal language in describing the nature of the Eucharist by using the language of homicide when he describes the sin of those who do not recognize Christ’s body in this sacrament and therefore receive him unworthily. He says they are “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” According to Numbers 35:27, Deuteronomy 21:8, 22:8, Ezekiel 35:6 and elsewhere in Scripture, to be “guilty of blood” means you are guilty of shedding innocent blood in murder. This is not the language of pure symbolism. This is the language of real presence.

Think about it: If someone were to put a bullet through a picture of a real person, I am sure the person represented in the photo would not be thrilled about it, but the perpetrator would not be “guilty of blood.” But if this same perpetrator were to put a bullet through the actual person you better believe he would be “guilty of blood.” And that’s what Paul is saying in a manner of speaking: you better believe!

Thus, the language used here in 1 Corinthians 11 is very strong—some of the strongest language St. Paul could have used, in fact—to underscore the truth that when he says we must “discern the body” here in the Eucharist, he means we must “discern the body” here in the Eucharist! This is conclusive evidence of the real presence of our Lord!"

Jesus is the Lamb of God.

The Jews were saved when they sacrificed and ate the passover lamb.

Passover lamb was a type...

This is absolutely correct, and the Mass has always been seen as a sacrifice:

Pope Clement, Letters to the Corinthians circa 98 AD. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope:

"Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity."

"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices."

"What is it that prevents most Protestants, specifically those who are strong adherents to Sola Scriptura, from accepting the idea of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? "

Why do it if you dont? A snack?

My wife is Church of Christ, and they see it as a very important part of the service because "Christ commands us to do it". However, it is purely symbolic and has no significance other than Christ deems it be done. It is on the same level as praying, singing, or tithing.

It's just something that they are told must be done.

< I'm not sure if this is ok here.  If not please just delete mods.  I'm not trying to start any arguments . . . all respect is offered >

These conversations contain my fundamental problem with religious belief in general.  How do you know *what* to believe?

I grew up as a Protestant where everyone could use the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture how they saw fit a la Sola Scriptura.  Of course, everyone needed to keep an eye on context to keep things on the rails but how were you to know when a parable was a parable and not a real thing?  The Bible is incredibly opaque in places (Revelations anyone?) but there is no magic decoder ring to decide what was the actual truth and what was not.  I spent 5 years in seminary (VFCC - Assemblies of God) studying the Bible and left more confused than when I arrived.  Pretty much everything was either up for grabs or had to be accepted on faith.  Faith alone seems like a weak foundation for belief since that has lead to thousands of contradictory and incompatible belief systems.  And if truth is true - only *one* of them can actually be correct.  

The Catholics had it easier with papal authority but even Catholics have their schisms with each faction claiming the right to interpret Scripture in their own incompatible way.

If you just go by *feels* you end up either just following the beliefs that you were raised in (99% of people) or finding some other belief that fits.  There's no way to just "go by the Bible" to build a belief system - because everything requires interpretation and *who* gets to do the interpreting?

Don't know what to make of that.

Live in Christ and get to know God. Read the Bible. Pray to, and converse with, Our Father. Strive to please Him.

This is a very common interpretation among non-Protestants.

Because it is weird.  I do not read chicken bones or tea leaves either.

I'm gonna have to take a moment and unravel this highly complex, theological argument. Your copious sources, including Scriptural evidence will take a while to internalize.

Keep in mind the sensibility of people who don’t understand the context of scripture.

I alluded to that.

Whether by Formal or Material Sufficiency these verses, either explicitly taken or within their context, both present almost irrefutable evidence for a Real Presence.

This is aside from the well documented historical evidence and that of Sacred Tradition, from the first Apostles to the present.

ETA: I think the primary argument many have has to do with the idea that if there was a Real Presence, that would constitute a re-sacrificing of Christ.
However, H46Driver did a good job of addressing that. Maybe someone could expound on this?

Guilty...I couldn't resist but meant no harm.

I was going to try and post a funny comment along with the gif but thought better of it. Sometimes my funnies are only funny to me.

Perhaps your question should be addressed to Catholics as well?

“Just one-third of U.S. Catholics (31%) say they believe that “during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.””

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/05/transubstantiation-eucharist-u-s-catholics/

I know the answer for Catholics, that's why I asked about Protestants. I posted a similar statistic just recently. In the case of Catholics, it is an issue of poor catechism, a lack of emphasis on the Mysteries in many parishes, and a lack of willingness to study their Faith.

Now, as a Protestant, could you please respond to the original question? I am sincerely curious.

And, for most Catholics, a liturgy that fails to reinforce whatever catechesis they may have had regarding the real presence.

The Real Presence of the Lord on earth is the Holy Spirit.

I'm not sure how this conflicts with the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I'm not saying I agree with you, but by your own assertion, how would this exclude the Eucharist?

The Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
Is there some other way that God manifests Himself?
I don't think so, but believe what you want.

Again, what are you trying to say?

No one is denying the truth of the Trinity. Are you saying that God is limited in His power, that He cannot make His presence exist in the Eucharist?

Is there any verse in Scripture that would forbid this or deem this impossible?

I'm not sure if this is what you are getting at.

IMHO, the makers of these videos are misguided.  There was way too much effort spent on "proof" that doesn't actually constitute proof in these videos.  I'm glad people were inspired and I don't dispute there were miracles here.  I actually think it runs counter to scripture to try and prove these miracles.  The people who are touched by the host appearing to become his flesh have faith that leads them to their conclusion.  There will never be enough proof for people that desire proof. He may have appeared in this form to speak to a single person so it doesn't matter what others may make of it.  I believe in the good of science in healing and making vaccines, etc., but to be fulfilled, we have to look for God around us and not under a microscope.

The Holy Spirit is the real Presence of God on earth, and dwells in the heart of the believer.

John 14: 16-17
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Acts Chapter 2 on the day of Pentecost the Father sent the Holy Spirit down to the believers, still happens today.

Correct. But, if God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all comprise the Trinity and are thus ONE, then wouldn't that mean that if the Real Presence of Christ is indeed in the Eucharist, as such, the Holy Spirit also?

By your own words, the Holy Spirit is sent down to believers as in when you said that it "still happens today".

John 3:6-8
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
You can hear the wind blow, but can't see the wind itself, but when it blows on you, you can feel it. Jesus was describing the Holy Spirit,

You can rationalize anything you want to believe with the "God can do anything" In order to fit your belief.
Yes, God can do anything, but does not mean that God will do it or it's God's way of doing things.

Jesus had the same problem with talking Spiritual things to people that live in the flesh.

1Cor 2:10-14
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/477-what-are-transubstantiation-and-consubstantiation

You realize that the context of John 3 has to do with the physical act of Baptism, right? It is explicitly stating such in Jesus's conversation with Nicodemus. You are taking a small portion of it, 6-8, and attempting to make it fit into your context of "People who would believe in the Real Presence don't have the Holy Spirit". Aside from the fact that the chapter has nothing to do with this, your effort at reinterpreting the verse in this manner has created a new meaning, and thus a tributary in what is a new rendering of the Gospel.

The context of 1Cor 2:10-14 would also not apply here as it is discussing people (non Christians) who are "without the spirit". As baptized Christians, Catholics do have the Holy Spirit within us, as it is the vehicle through which God gifts us His Grace and the Holy Spirit.

Cherry-picking verses, or even worse cherry-picking portions of cherry-picked verses, is a recipe for running astray and creating new doctrines. I have found this to be the case in many discussions held over the years. In fact, many theologians succumb to this.

Please don't misunderstand me; This is not a criticism of you in any way. Indeed, I believe it is a natural and inevitable outcome of the pursuance of the Sola Scriptura doctrine.

One of my favorite prayers of reparation, from Bp. Schneider:

Awesome thank you!

Please look inside the quote for my responses. I find that it is important to think about the information in a cut and paste before introducing it. Most of these assertions are illogical and invalid due to simple negligence of concepts like chronology or common sense/critical thinking. Please look inside for examples.

ETA: Thank you for the explanation. You are the first one to try and explain it to me, and I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to do so.

We should keep in mind that science cannot prove a miracle, by definition. It can only rule out known natural phenomena, or otherwise prove it is naturally unable to occur,  which leaves open the door to accepting the miracle.

Further, the consistency across the centuries of known examples, as well as other phenomena (Shroud of Turin, etc), insofar as data points unknown and unknowable at the time of their supposed fabrication (blood type, pollen origin, etc.), are too coincidental to be ignored by rationalists. At some point, math wins. And math says the statistical probability of these coinciding data points is nigh impossible to be chance. Ergo, Occam’s Razor says: they’re real.

But John 6 was symbolic or something I’ve been told.

Everytime the word baptize is used in God's Word it is not always referring to water, Look what John the Baptist said
Matt 3:11
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: One verse of a few.

John is not the Messiah so simply getting water baptised will not save you nor will you receive the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts: 19 2-6
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

These men were water baptised, but they did not receive the Holy Spirit until they believed on the name of Jesus Christ, then they received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Baptised into Christ (Born Again)
if they did not receive the Holy Spirit from getting water baptised your not going to either.
And in John chap 3, Jesus was not talking about getting wet.

Rom 6:3-4 Paul is not talking about water
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

No one has said that getting Baptized will ensure Salvation. It is a mandatory requirement for salvation, but it alone won't do it, just as "Faith alone" won't save you. I have no idea why you brought this up.

Next you added, "These men were water baptised, but they did not receive the Holy Spirit until they believed on the name of Jesus Christ, then they received the gift of the Holy Spirit.". Again, no one said otherwise. All Christian Baptisms are done in the name of "The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit" WITH water. So of course John the Baptist's baptisms were not of the same efficacy as the ones done afterwords by the Apostles or those done today.

You also said, "John is not the Messiah so simply getting water baptised will not save you nor will you receive the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit." No one asserted this, and it also implies that your baptism is not valid either since "John is not the Messiah". Are you saying only a baptism BY the Messiah is sufficient?
Still, no one said otherwise, and I'm not sure why you brought it up.

The same thing can be said for Rom 6:3-4 in that no one ever said otherwise.

I see a recurring pattern in your posts of just randomly citing verses that have little or no correlation to the discussion in order to engage to the contrary of RCC positions. I don't see how this is genuine or productive.

Because your the one who brought it up about John 3.
And the cherry picking verses accusation gets old. I can post a lot more but you don't care about what God's Word says anyway
The catholic church has to cherry pick verses in order to make your theology sound Biblical.
Have a nice day.
And I see in another thread your pope is not a real pope.

Given the nature of your uninformed and petulant posting, perhaps it is better that you let this topic go.

Have a good one.

So 3xpert doesn't understand the typology of the Jewish Mikveh (ritual bathing) and QuietOne doesn't understand the typology of the manna (how can the type be greater can the fulfillment?), how Jews mystically participated in the Passover/exit from Egypt even generations on, etc.

In keeping with the thread topic, I will stick with the quiet one...



Dr. Pitre shows the Jewish roots of the Eucharist and how "remembrance" would have been understood by the Apostles, as the word has a particular cultural and religious context with which we moderns are unfamiliar.

Even if one isn't Catholic, it's super fascinating from a religion and ritual archaeological perspective since it gets into OT history and practice.

Um, no. That's not how the Greek works.

For example, the Greek word pinon is (pres act ptcp nom sg masc), but by the logic displayed in the present tense argument the following verses which have the exact same conjugation make no sense with that logic applied.

Matthew 11:18-19

Notice how this is in the past, but the conjugation is present. Why? because it shows actual action at the time of the condition.

Luke 7:33-34

Same

John 4:13

Notice this is basically future conditional, but it is not necessitating that someone *is* drinking despite the same present tense conjugation, but rather shall drink (so they in fact are drinking in context of the condition, but not actually drinking "now"). Your references should have had better Greek insutrctors in seminary.

John 6:54, 56, 57 (disputed by you)

Again, this is conditional on doing it, but doesn't necessitate that the doing it is occuring right now, in line with Greek principles of grammar, which are NOT English principles of grammar.

1 Corinthians 11:29

Notice, again, conditional. It's not necessary that someone be doing something "now", but that when they do it they are doing it in the conditional (when doing it) "now" (though that now need not be "now" as we understand it in English).

I was interested in this post and don't normally come to this forum.

The elements of the Eucharist is the focus here, whether or not they  become the flesh and blood of Christ?

I do believe in His 'real presence', though not that the elements themselves become the flesh and blood of Christ.

Personally I believe the real presence is in our communion with God. A mystery revealed, Christ is 'in you'. Christ in you, the hope of Glory.

To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
Colossians 1:27

for you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
Colossians 3:3

So 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. John 6:53

This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.”
John 6:58

It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
John 6:63

Yes, Christ dwells in the hearts of those who believe, because he gave for us his body and his blood (our substitute, a willing sacrifice).

The poster above me posted from the Scripture which a snippet stood out to me, '...not discerning the body of the Lord' (1 Corinthians 11:29)

The purpose:

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
1 Corinthians 11:26

Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1 Corinthians 11:28

For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.
1 Corinthians 11:29

My focus is in communion with God. I remember what Christ gave for me in His sacrifice. He did this for all who will believe.

Thanks

Why would the two, a real presence of flesh and blood, and a spiritual communion, be mutually exclusive? Couldn't both be received at the same time?

In fact, for the Catholic Church both are present in their entirety.

Some of you guys are waaaaaay too smart for me.

I feel really dumb in here sometimes

I think in some ways my ignorance makes things easier.

At least I’ll tell myself that.

Lutheran checking in.  We believe it is the True body and the True blood of Christ present during the sacrament.  One of the greatest experiences of my life is that as a lay person and Elder in our congregation, being able to serve the Host during communion.


"Take and eat, this is the very body of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, shed for you for the remission of all of your sins."   Hard to explain how that feels saying those words to friends and family and other brothers and sisters in Christ.

Why not?
It is not, in discerning the body of Christ, there is no schism.

...the body without the spirit is dead.



Christ is returning in a real  body. The consummation.

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
1 Corinthians 12:27

That's what the poster was inferring earlier about the Spirit. This is an heart matter, the natural person cannot recieve things of God.

It's about discerning the body of Christ.

He's coming for those who will love his appearing. Maranatha.

Thanks

Perhaps I'm missing your point, but are you agreeing with me that the Eucharist can, or as Catholics believe does, have the entirety of the physical blood and body as well as His Spiritual presence contained within?

That was my point; The two are not mutually exclusive.

If I understand correctly, you are saying as Catholics believe that the elements themselves are the body and blood of Christ, I cannot agree.


Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.

John 6:56

It is late, maybe I'll follow this thread. Thanks for the discussion.