The Real Presence? Is It Really There?

[Guest AMDGHouston]

Ok, I am working on a project for my parish. I feel that unfortunately many Catholics have fallen off from believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I firmly believe in it and believe in my ability to defend it as well. However, for this project I am actually seeking a solid argument against the Eucharist. If anyone needs additional detail as to why I am looking for arguments against the Eucharist I will be happy to explain in e-mail. My end goal is to further belief in the Eucharist.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='AMDGHouston' date='24 February 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1267073133' post='2062737']
Ok, I am working on a project for my parish. I feel that unfortunately many Catholics have fallen off from believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I firmly believe in it and believe in my ability to defend it as well. However, for this project I am actually seeking a solid argument against the Eucharist. If anyone needs additional detail as to why I am looking for arguments against the Eucharist I will be happy to explain in e-mail. My end goal is to further belief in the Eucharist.
[/quote]
Don't ask Reyb. You'll end up wanting to rip out your own hair and use it to tie a noose to hang yourself.

In my opinion, your best bet would be to find an old text, say something written during the Protestant schism. That way you'll have right there a solid and clearly influential piece of writing, and no doubt you'll also have a direct Catholic response to it.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 February 2010 - 12:16 AM' timestamp='1267075016' post='2062758']
In my opinion, your best bet would be to find an old text, say something written during the Protestant schism. That way you'll have right there a solid and clearly influential piece of writing, and no doubt you'll also have a direct Catholic response to it.
[/quote]
Or cite Luther...even he believed in the real presence.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='24 February 2010 - 11:19 PM' timestamp='1267075196' post='2062763']
Or cite Luther...even he believed in the real presence.
[/quote]
Did he start to descend into consubstantiation as his 'reformation' gained momentum, or am I getting confused with someone else?

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 February 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1267075331' post='2062765']
Did he start to descend into consubstantiation as his 'reformation' gained momentum, or am I getting confused with someone else?
[/quote]
He probably did. He descended further and further into the guano pit of crazy as the years passed...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='24 February 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1267075571' post='2062769']
He probably did. He descended further and further into the guano pit of crazy as the years passed...
[/quote]
That's what I had thought.
I know he started off at a point that was nearly compatible with Catholicism, then got worse and worse as it started to catch on. It's really too bad that he hadn't been more prudent and waited to have some real talks with the hierarchy.

[Nihil Obstat]

I hear John Wycliffe and to a lesser extent Jan Hus had condemned views on the Eucharist. Apparently this was all addressed at the council of Constance.
If you could find documents from both sides (which- I apologize- I'm too lazy to make even a cursory search for) you'd have some pretty solid material.

[MissyP89]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 February 2010 - 12:16 AM' timestamp='1267075016' post='2062758']
Don't ask Reyb. You'll end up wanting to rip out your own hair and use it to tie a noose to hang yourself.
[/quote]

Ooh! Meanie.

[MissyP89]

double.

Edited February 25, 2010 by MissyP89

[reyb]

[quote name='AMDGHouston' date='24 February 2010 - 11:45 PM' timestamp='1267073133' post='2062737']
Ok, I am working on a project for my parish. I feel that unfortunately many Catholics have fallen off from believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I firmly believe in it and believe in my ability to defend it as well. However, for this project I am actually seeking a solid argument against the Eucharist. If anyone needs additional detail as to why I am looking for arguments against the Eucharist I will be happy to explain in e-mail. My end goal is to further belief in the Eucharist.
[/quote]

Okay. I will stand on these arguments: first, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is founded on ‘belief’ and no more than that, and second, according to the scripture, Jesus body is from heaven while this ‘sacramental bread’ is from oven.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='MissyP89' date='25 February 2010 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1267079472' post='2062793']
[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 February 2010 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1267075016' post='2062758']
Don't ask Reyb. You'll end up wanting to rip out your own hair and use it to tie a noose to hang yourself.

[/quote]


Ooh! Meanie.
[/quote]

Yeah I'll say he's mean, he's just teasing us people who don't have much hair. But if does rip his hair out let me know so I can come and get some.

[mortify]

[quote name='AMDGHouston' date='24 February 2010 - 11:45 PM' timestamp='1267073133' post='2062737']
Ok, I am working on a project for my parish. I feel that unfortunately many Catholics have fallen off from believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I firmly believe in it and believe in my ability to defend it as well. However, for this project I am actually seeking a solid argument against the Eucharist. If anyone needs additional detail as to why I am looking for arguments against the Eucharist I will be happy to explain in e-mail. My end goal is to further belief in the Eucharist.
[/quote]

The problem you are trying to address goes beyond belief in the Real Presence.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='AMDGHouston' date='24 February 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1267073133' post='2062737']
Ok, I am working on a project for my parish. I feel that unfortunately many Catholics have fallen off from believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I firmly believe in it and believe in my ability to defend it as well. However, for this project I am actually seeking a solid argument against the Eucharist. If anyone needs additional detail as to why I am looking for arguments against the Eucharist I will be happy to explain in e-mail. My end goal is to further belief in the Eucharist.
[/quote]

I don't really peddle in arguments against the Eucharist. Sorry. I would assume a materialist's approach would suffice: all senses and physicality fails us. It looks and feels and tastes like a host.

If I were planning an argument for the Real Presence, I would DEFINITELY work in some lines from Thomas Aquinas's Eucharistic Hymns ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pange_Lingua_Gloriosi_Corporis_Mysterium"]Pange Lingua Gloriosi Corporis Mysterium[/url],[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoro_te_devote"]Adoro te Devote[/url], [url="http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Hymni/LaudaSion.html"]Lauda Sion[/url], [url="http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Hymni/SacrisSol.html"]Sacris Solemniis[/url], & [url="http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Hymni/VerbumSup.html"]Verbum Supernum[/url])

[Guest AMDGHouston]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='25 February 2010 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1267121725' post='2062898']
I don't really peddle in arguments against the Eucharist. Sorry. I would assume a materialist's approach would suffice: all senses and physicality fails us. It looks and feels and tastes like a host.

Verdicus, my purpose is actually to further belief in the Eucharist. We are writing a courtroom argument, complete with expert witnesses, I.E. church Fathers, apostles, etc. I'm a seeking to develop the most solid (although, as we know, completely inadequate) debate against the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

Reyb, I appreciate your input and if you would like to contribute further I would appreciate it as you seem to have the strongest belief against the Eucharist being the Real Presence of Christ our Lord and Savior. I suspect a lot of what you would give me would be very useful. However, know that my purpose is to use that argument to further people's beliefs in it. The choice to participate in the exercise is yours.

Thanks for the start guys.

[Ed Normile]

I do not think Martin Luther discounted the true presence, he was even buried with his rosary. I seem to remember that came later, after the anglican split, out of a jealousy of being denied through scripture and tradition of the right to claim their protestant cult was a true church of Christ and could offer a valid sacrament. These theolgical arguments were always won by catholic theologians using sacred scripture, which is part reason why king james decreed the bible be edited. As for Luther he tried to recant and be taken back into the church on his deathbed and was refused. This had nothing to do with his original 95 theses, which did upset church hierarchy greatly, rather his defiance turned to what many has defined as madness. He allowed a king to marry again on a special decree he granted for political reasons so the king could create an heir thus making the king a bigamist, he also became so enraged at his excommunication he commisioned a "scatolgical" cartoonist to create very base and crude cartoons about the holy see and the pope in particular. he also came to beleive that religious women, or nuns, should be serving bishops and priests as if they were married to them. He basically sealed his own fate by his actions as we all do, its debatable as to why he was not allowed Penance and Reconcilliation, most likely as in most disputes, the views of men were put before the will of God.

ed

[Winchester]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 February 2010 - 12:16 AM' timestamp='1267075016' post='2062758']
Don't ask Reyb. You'll end up wanting to rip out your own hair and use it to tie a noose to hang yourself.

In my opinion, your best bet would be to find an old text, say something written during the Protestant schism. That way you'll have right there a solid and clearly influential piece of writing, and no doubt you'll also have a direct Catholic response to it.
[/quote]
All out of pluses.

[Mark of the Cross]

I've been reading the arguments for and against Transubstantiation and it can clearly be seen that there is no proof either way. [b]It is a matter of faith [/b]and it's a waste of time arguing with people who are often a little offensive about it! For example, one argument against has been the statement 'Do this in memory of me.' This can be easily turned around by this. If I sit down to a meal with a priest and we eat and drink and chat about nothing. It is not a communion. But if we bring out the bread and wine specifically for a purpose, [b]we remember Jesus[/b]. The priest blesses the gifts and recites the words of Jesus. We have remembered Him! And thus because we have remembered him by our faith in what he taught, he becomes himself and present within the Eucharist. It is our faith that has made this possible for us. No problems! [u]I have never had trouble with the concept of the real presence.[/u] The main reason is because I feel his presence very strongly and it is easy for me to explain it from Scripture as per my example. My main problem has been the disappearance of the bread and wine, which for some reason I was unaware of until recent years. I have been unable to find the Catholic Churches argument for this? Can anyone direct me? My problem is that in my understanding of physics, the base components of bread and flesh are the same. Eg. a proton is a proton whether it is in blood or in wine. The thing that makes one different from the other is the combination or structure of these elementary particles. And the effect it has on the senses. The Church tells us that if we examine the structure of the 'blood of christ' it will have the structure of wine. When I drink the wine it will taste horrible because the wine we use is often a poorly made one and I'm not a fan of red wine. When I have to finish the remainder after communion the only thing that makes it a pleasant task is who is there and my faith in what I'm doing. Otherwise it sometimes makes me cough and takes my breath. We have an apparent contradiction. I don't have a problem with God being able to change the laws of physics, but can he change the laws of logic.
[quote]John 6:63
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

[/quote]
This is what I have understood. Are we not talking about the [b]divine spiritual [/b]body and blood of Christ which is the real and significant body that was raised up for eternity.
Can anyone direct me or quote the Churches reasoning in regard to the view of it being his [b]physical[/b] body & blood when John 6:63 seems to indicate that the physical is not important.

[Guest djarankin]

I once heard a good story about a few men arguing about the true presence... I have the book here - The Blessed Eucharist by Fr. Michael Muller... page 10

"A pious painter named Leonardo one day met in an inn two men, one a Lutheran the other a Calvinist. They were ridiculing the Catholic doctrine about the Blessed Sacrament. The Calvinist pretended that by these words 'This is My Body,' it was only meant that the bread [i]signifies[/i] the Body of Christ; the Lutheran, on the other hand, asserted that this was not true, but that they meant that bread and wine, in the moment of their reception, became, by the faith of the recipient, the Body and Blood of Christ. While this dispute was going on, Leonardo took a piece of paper and drew the image of Our Lord Jesus Christ, with Luther on the right hand and Calvin on the left. Under the image of Our Saviour, he wrote the words: 'This is My Body.' Under the figure of Calvin, he wrote 'This [i]signifies[/i] My Body'; and Luther: 'This becomes My Body in the moment that you eat it.' Then handing the paper to the disputants, he said "Which of these three men are right, Our Saviour, or Calvin, or Luther?' They were struck at the force of the argument, and ceased to scoff at Catholic doctrine."

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='AMDGHouston' timestamp='1267073133' post='2062737']
I feel that unfortunately many Catholics have fallen off from believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I firmly believe in it and believe in my ability to defend it as well. However, for this project I am actually seeking a solid argument against the Eucharist....My end goal is to further belief in the Eucharist.
[/quote]

In my previous years associated with english evangelicals I was one of the few who believed in it. The arguments against it usually centred around the idea that Jesus was in heaven and isn't in two places at once.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1286492035' post='2178423']
I've been reading the arguments for and against Transubstantiation and it can clearly be seen that there is no proof either way. [b]It is a matter of faith [/b]and it's a waste of time arguing with people who are often a little offensive about it! For example, one argument against has been the statement 'Do this in memory of me.' This can be easily turned around by this. If I sit down to a meal with a priest and we eat and drink and chat about nothing. It is not a communion. But if we bring out the bread and wine specifically for a purpose, [b]we remember Jesus[/b]. The priest blesses the gifts and recites the words of Jesus. We have remembered Him! And thus because we have remembered him by our faith in what he taught, he becomes himself and present within the Eucharist. It is our faith that has made this possible for us. No problems! [u]I have never had trouble with the concept of the real presence.[/u] The main reason is because I feel his presence very strongly and it is easy for me to explain it from Scripture as per my example. My main problem has been the disappearance of the bread and wine, which for some reason I was unaware of until recent years. I have been unable to find the Catholic Churches argument for this? Can anyone direct me? My problem is that in my understanding of physics, the base components of bread and flesh are the same. Eg. a proton is a proton whether it is in blood or in wine. The thing that makes one different from the other is the combination or structure of these elementary particles. And the effect it has on the senses. The Church tells us that if we examine the structure of the 'blood of christ' it will have the structure of wine. When I drink the wine it will taste horrible because the wine we use is often a poorly made one and I'm not a fan of red wine. When I have to finish the remainder after communion the only thing that makes it a pleasant task is who is there and my faith in what I'm doing. Otherwise it sometimes makes me cough and takes my breath. We have an apparent contradiction. I don't have a problem with God being able to change the laws of physics, but can he change the laws of logic.

This is what I have understood. Are we not talking about the [b]divine spiritual [/b]body and blood of Christ which is the real and significant body that was raised up for eternity.
Can anyone direct me or quote the Churches reasoning in regard to the view of it being his [b]physical[/b] body & blood when John 6:63 seems to indicate that the physical is not important.
[/quote]
First, it's not entirely the case that we have no proof, as there are many Eucharistic miracles - [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano"]Lanciano[/url] being one of the most famous.

Now, as for John 6:63, if that verse is really indicating that it [b]isn't[/b] His Body and Blood, then He's contradicting what He said earlier in the chapter and is negligent in not correcting the people who walked away because they understood Him to be speaking literally. This is unlikely, since he corrects incorrect understandings of things elsewhere (like Nicodemus' faulty understanding of being reborn). Also, I know Apo pointed out to me before that whenever Jesus is speaking of His Flesh in that passage, He says "My Flesh", then in v63 switches to "[b]the [/b]flesh". So He isn't discounting that His Flesh is truly present and give life.

Sorry to keep it short, 1-handed typing.