Do you believe in the "Real Presence" of Christ Sacra-mentally present in the Eucharist?

Question

Why or why not? If not what Scripture tells you it is only a symbol? This is something I was raised as a Baptist to believe was only a symbol but nothing I have ever read in the Bible supports that stance. Indeed everything I have seen points to the "Real Presence."

Answer 1

I don't see how you can be a Bible-believing Christian and reject Christ's teaching, reiterated over and over in John 6:

Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven.

If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

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.

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

Bible-rejecting Protestants don't believe Jesus today, just as "from this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."

A caution: Those who don't believe Jesus should NOT eat the body of Christ. Paul explains in 1 Cor 11:

Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep."

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 2

Martin Luther said about the Sacrament "it is what it is". Scripture is so clear there is no room for debate or speculation.

To deny the real presence of Christ's body and blood it to deny and mock Scripture. It also denies the greatest gift that our Lord has given us short of eternal life.

The words of our Lord in Latin are "Hoc est corpus Meum" (this is my body). The followers of Zwingli and Calvin bastardized this phrase as "Hoccus Poccus" to mock the Biblical doctrine of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Lutheran Church.

God bless you for believing what is right.

Your friend in Christ,

Mark

Answer 3

Most definitely
John 6 and 1 Cor11
teaching of the Fathers of the Church
constant teaching of the Early Church and all the Orthodox Churches, including those out of communion with Rc since AD431
Those who reject the real Presence have to do alot of fancy footwork to avoid that biblical teaching.

Why do they believe that "This is My Body" is just a figurative fable but "The Father and I are One" and "The Word was God" are not? Who gets to decide what is to be interpreted literally and what is not?

Answer 4

In my Baptist days, when -- as you know -- the "Lord's supper" symbolic remembrance was only occasionally carried out, I knew what I had read in the Bible and found the ordinance seemed to have something missing.

When I went to my first Mass, I found out what that was. It's very hard to put into words, but my soul recognized Christ in the Eucharist immediately. I needed no further "proof" from that moment on.

Answer 5

Yes. Not only because Jesus was very clear ("This is my Body...This is my Blood...") But because the Greek word translated as "remembrance" in Scripture means so much more than a mere "remembering". It's a Greek word used in philosophy, that means a calling forth through space, time and dimension to make Really and Truly Present in the here and now.

Answer 6

Debra,
You're right... scripture tells us in many places that this IS the body and the blood. Never does it say this symbolizes the body and blood. Many of his disciples actually left because of this. All of the other changes in Jewish law they were fine with, but this was the one that they could not get past.

So, in answer to your questions, yes, I do believe in the true presence in, with, and through the bread and the wine. The Eucharist is one of the places that I can find Christ fully present.

Answer 7

Catholics see the Scriptures written about the Eucharist as literal teaching by Jesus and have interpreted Jesus’ words as literal since before the NT Scriptures were written as recorded in Scripture. Catholics find no reason to interpret Jesus’ teaching to be anything but literal from a hermeneutical, historical or theological perspective.

Some Protestants, on the other hand, are very much like the proto-Protestants who were former disciples and left Jesus after His teaching in John 6, about the commandment to eat His Body and drink His Blood. They remain in the carnal sense and deny the miracle of the Eucharist. They believe that instead of being present at the one sacrifice of Christ, that what Jesus instituted is a symbolic ordinance instead.

So, what we are speaking of is two totally different practices. The first identical to what the apostles taught and put into practice which is the real presence and the second a modernist interpretation of a man Ulrich Zwingli which is a symbolic ordinance. The first is actually Christ on the Cross where the worshippers are at the foot of the cross; the second is just a remembering of what Christ did as recorded in the Bible. When a Catholic Christian remembers Christ’s sacrifice it is from being there, when a Protestant remembers Christ’s sacrifice it is recalling what is written in Scriptures about the event. Certainly, one should be able to understand the level of passion one would have after being at the foot of the cross compared to the level of one just remembering what is written in a book. So even though some do not take it lightly, even though they do not believe, it cannot be the same passion for an exercise or ordinance in supposed obedience, as the Protestant act can be described; to the Catholic practice of being present with the living corporeal Christ at the cross and eating His real body and Blood as He commanded.

It must be noted for understanding that for many of the Reformers that this approach by Zwingli was necessary to give some credibility to the new Protestant movement which denied the successive apostolic leadership of the Church established by Christ. These reformers knew full well that they had no true legitimacy and no authority from Christ. They also knew that without a legitimate episcopacy that they could not continue Holy Orders, the Sacraments nor do they have the authority to confect the Eucharist which authority can only be given by Christ through the Church. Therefore, they could not continue the Eucharist even if they desired without a valid priesthood.

So, I am not saying that I do not believe that Protestant communion service is not special or a sign of unity but it is to me a sign of unity for a false, heretical belief outside of historical, Traditional and orthodox Christianity and is a doctrine of men warned about in the Gospels.

(Mat 15:7 DRB) Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying:(Mat 15:8 DRB) This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me.(Mat 15:9 DRB) And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.

(Mar 7:5 DRB) And the Pharisees and scribes asked him: Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients, but they eat bread with common hands?

(Mar 7:6 DRB) But he answering, said to them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

(Mar 7:7 DRB) And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men.

(Mar 7:8 DRB) For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these.(Mar 7:9 DRB) And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.

(Luk 6:46 DRB) And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Answer 8

Another one calling Jesus blasphemous and stupid.
Real Presence" in the cracker? NO. That is blasphemous and stupid.

If you believe in the bible you have to believe in the Pope and the Catholic Church and tradition
Tradition was used to canonize the bible by the church Christ gave authority to the Church under the Holy spirit to canonized the bible what criteria was used tradition oral teaching passed on truth and its beliefs under the guidance of the Holy spirit. The Catholic Church canonized the bible Christ gave the authority. So how can any books be put into the bible that go against Catholic beliefs then if you believe the catholic church is false and not Christian the bible has no meaning and had no authority to put the bible together then throw out your bible.

Answer 9

yes, I do.

why?

Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, the constant unchanged teaching of the Catholic Church, recorded Eucharistic miracles through history, and my own experience.

Answer 10

Yes, even when I was a protestant. I cant understand how they think it is symbolic