Real Presence in the Eucharist

Literally in the same chapter, like 10 verses later:
He L I T E R A L L Y in the same chapter tells them once again about how it's a metaphor.

If Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, He would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. Nice blasphemy.

You're denying the teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church.

Are you an arian? If you deny that the flesh has anything to do with salvation, then you might as well be.

Attached: 1477142149255.jpg (1024x672, 37.5K)

How can the miracle of Lanciano be a thing if the flesh and blood of Christ isn't truly present in the Holy Sacrament?

We all have our doubts from time to time, even some of the greatest saints in history struggled with faith issues, simply because we are not perfect like God is. Probably their doubts are similar to those of the monk that was on duty when the miracle of Lanciano happened.

Attached: real-presence.png (810x450, 521.97K)

Attached: Transubstantiation 1.jpg (368x438, 53.1K)

Attached: Transubstantiation 2.jpg (368x438, 50.78K)

Attached: Transubstantiation 3.jpg (368x438, 46.91K)

Attached: Transubstantiation 4.jpg (368x438, 53.48K)

Attached: Transubstantiation 5.jpg (368x438, 50.89K)

Attached: Transubstantiation 6.jpg (368x438, 53.44K)

Jesus turned water into wine.
Jesus transfigured himself on the mountain.
Jesus said unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood, you will not have life in you.
He did not correct them when they took this literally saying "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?", and instead he reiterated the same statement.
This drastic event even caused many disciples to leave.

This is good purely biblical grounds for transubstantiation. Also it is a historical fact that the early church fathers all believed in transubstantiation.

Jesus said that the spirit gives life, the flesh (as in the world) counts for nothing, and that these words were full of the spirit. [John 6:63]
No wonder some reject it then, for they do not have the holy spirit in them!

The word flesh cannot be interpreted as literal flesh counting for nothing, for then it would be saying the Resurrection counts for nothing. Also it would be Jesus saying you have to eat my flesh, and then excusing this by saying flesh counts for nothing, which is nonsense, and wouldn't mean it is not really flesh, just that it is meaningless, which is obviously absurd. Flesh has been around since before the fall when the world was good; this cannot be a sound interpretation.

held up?

What are you asking?

The text doesn't say held up.

Are those words being quoted?

Your answer is in the latter half of John 6. It's literal. Many people ceased following Him after that teaching, which even the Apostles described as a hard teaching.

If you look at the actual teachings of Martin Luther, despite his many heresies, he still believed and taught there was a real presence. He said at one point that he'd rather drink blood with the Pope than drink mere wine with the zealots who disbelieved in the presence.

Those are just heretical concepts. It's a MYSTERY, and many heretical concepts emerge from trying to use rationality to explain mysteries.

See my comment above. This whole "transsub" and "accidents" is all just bullshit.

It's a MYSTERY. It just IS. Don't try to explain exactly HOW it happens, because you can't.

This it the a Mystery of faith why and how is no concern to us. If you truely believe the wine becomes the body and blood then you have faith if you do not or question it then your faith is empty.

Transubstansiation does not change the fact it is a mystery because we do not know how? All we know is he has turned the bread and wine into his body and blood. You are right though only the theologians should be throwing that word around because it causes a lot of misunderstanding.

Ok, that's pretty hardcore…

On a side note, what do you do if you want to believe in the real Presence of the Eucharist, do appreciate the concept and understand the reasoning that goes behind it, but autistically can't make yourself believe in it subconsciously? Do I just say I do even though I can't entirely do so mentally? Would this be something God can forgive?

I wouldn't say that what every single Christian has understood, which is the cause why Christ lost many disciples, why the mass is a sacrifice, and why christians were slandered as cannibals, is "esoteric knowledge".

Wow, that sure was hard to decipher, truly esoteric knowledge.

By the way, I recommend you check how much analysis of scripture there has been since the first christians lmao

Dude are you high or something? Do you even know what those words are? Or when someone uses a word that 4 years old don't understand you enter an autistic fit of rage about mysteries that nobody has mentioned? If you don't know what those words are, just shut your mouth.

The Miracle of Lanciano brought something to my mind that's relevant to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. How can argue back against the claim that we are cannibals by eating something we believe to be the flesh and blood of our Lord?

Reread the post. The problem isn't knowing what the words mean, the problem is forcing yourself to believe in it based on the constraints of modern lingual connotations. We know the bread and wine never physically change to blood and flesh physically in a materialistic worldly sense as we would be able to study it, so when we say it's "real" are we saying in a spiritual manner or are we suppose to believe it physically changes to flesh at some point of us digesting it?

Do you really think that what is understood as being a cannibal is participating in the eucharist? Do you really think that is the accusations that the pagans and jews made?

Your problem is the assumption that the blood and flesh of God must have the accidents that you tend to expect from flesh and blood.

The text doesn't imply or suggest held up

Wouldn't non-essential attributes still need to be answered for since these relate to sensibilities we rely on in the physical world? In that sense, wouldn't it help to preface introductions of the presence that while we know this to be the true as it was stated by Jesus, it's not fully revealed the exact nature of transformation as it doesn't relate to change of material particles?

Your post begs the question, "why is the mass a sacrifice?"
If Jesus dying on the cross was truly enough to pay the price for our sins, why do we need to keep making a sacrifice at mass?

Maybe you should read the fathers of the Church, who were, to begin with, the ones who told you about the crucifixion.

One has to find an equilibrium between answering concerns and showing that those concerns were based on wordly things.

Which writer of the gospel (the ones who told us about the crucifixion) said anything about the supposed real presence of the eucharist?

Maybe the ones that report Christ as saying "this is my body" and "this is my soul", and how many discioples abandoned him for that

Legitimate question here: which verse ever says "this is my soul"? I've always only read "this is my body, this is my blood". If you can't even quote scripture right I'm not inclined to believe your view. But that aside, when did the scripture ever say that this was not a metaphor? Some disciples left Him because they thought He was talking about literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood, which is cannibalism. Jesus told his disciples that he was the bread of life and the true vine long before the last supper, and He was speaking metaphorically (becuase he's not literally bread and a vine). Then at the last supper He tells them "do this in remembrance of me", as eating bread and drinking wine would remind them of this.

And did He stop them and say "Don't leave, its just a metaphor"? No, he did not. He kept saying that his flesh and blood is for us to consume.
Lets take an example at the symbolism and metaphors used by Jesus in the Gospels.
He tells Nicodemus that man must be born again, Nicodemus interprets it literally, but then Jesus corrects him.
He says "I am the vine" and "I am the door", which nobody takes literally, because they are obvious metaphors, no need for correction.
Then He says He is the bread from heaven, and that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Everyone takes it literally. He doesn't correct them and point out the symbolism, he keeps saying that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. He says outright "My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed"

Then you have Paul teaching the real presence. In 1 Corinthians 10:16, he says “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”, he does not say "is it not a symbol of the blood of Christ?" "is it not a symbol of the body of Christ?"
Then he says in 1 Corinthians 11:27 “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord." then in 11:29 "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself”
Why would he say this about a metaphor? If it was just a symbol, why would we have to discern the body, and answer to the body and blood of Our Lord? How can we eat and drink judgement upon ourselves over a symbol? It doesn't make any sense at all. Your argument is more incoherent and illogical than the Real Presence. Jesus says he is the bread from heaven. He is the bread of life. He says his flesh and blood are food and drink. He does not clarify this as a metaphor. He says the bread and wine is his body and blood at the last supper. Paul continues in saying that it is truly the body and blood, and not a symbol.

In short, the disciples who abandoned Christ after he called himself the bread of life in John chapter 6, that's YOU.

Attached: 640px-Última_Cena_-_Juan_de_Juanes.jpg (639x405, 79.68K)

What are you even talking about?

Should be also prove that it wasn't a commercial for some bread and wine?

I don't see how this is related at all. There is no metaphor here. What would the metaphor supposed to mean? "this is my flesh, but flesh is a metaphor for me, and the bread itself is also the bread of life, in another metaphor".

There is not a single mention of it being a metaphor, not a single thing that points towards it. The mention of the reactions, support the basic Christian doctrine as opposed to your nonsense. That is why people didn't leave when JEsus said "I am the bread of life", and why he doesn't say those who leave that it was a metaphor. Overall, these theories you quickly come up with are amusing, but crumble in every single aspect.

I was quoting what you said here

I literally dont see a problem here. I might he a drunk gungfu guy, and therefor to be questioned in my ignorance, but it is all so obvious. Jesus is lord. The lord is found in everything except possibly sin. Of course he is to be found in bread and wine, which sustain us, he is the friggin LORD

Never change, roma, never change.

Dear GOD:

Please let me win the $8 million Powerball jackpot on Wednesday (July 3).

I will use the money to set up my own research lab and find the cures for cancer and aging.

I will release the cures into the public domain.

Everyone, no matter how rich or poor will no longer need to suffer!

Childhood cancer will also be history!

Thank you!

- CHAUL JHIN KIM

Please pray for me…

Attached: 1561963363101 - Copy.jpg (571x698, 162.63K)

Oops, meant "this is my blood".

At this point it is sad. You should probably be banned for your rejection of Christ as profiting us nothing.

I wish I could have this kind of simple faith, the faith that Christ praised as being the faith of a child. I wish I wasn’t too autistic to get around these things. Pray for me brothers

To say that what is spirit is not real is to say that the Holy Spirit is not real, and that God is just a metaphor. (You'll think I'm logically overextending or making a false equivalency. I'm not. Think through it.)
To say that it is the true body and blood by spirit is not to say that it is not the true body and blood.

You dont even have the real Eucharist

Eucharist in the Scripture - therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

Early Christians Belief in Eucharist - therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

Eucharistic Adoration - therealpresence.org/eucharst/pea/a2.html

Eucharistic Miracles - therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

Eucharist & Priesthood -
therealpresence.org/eucharst/priesthd/priesthd.htm

Mass as a True Sacrifice-
therealpresence.org/eucharst/link/e-litur.html

See Malachi 1:11 and references from Early Church Fathers using that verse.

By the way OP, Scott Hahn is a former Presbyterian Minister with a Doctorate degree. "Rome Sweet Home" is a book he wrote about his conversion to Catholicism. Peter Kreeft is another convert with a Presbyterian background your friends may be interested in. He's a Philosophy Professor @ Boston College

Mark 4:10-12
And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Peter understood it.

Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
- John 6:67-68

He knew it was talking about Jesus' words as he explained in verse 63.

Ok now we're talking about the Lord's supper. So now you've just introduced a new topic separate from our discussion. And by the way verse 16-17 in full context clearly explains how this is a communion.

Attached: BibleKJV.jpg (320x240, 27.2K)

Luke 24:13-35 King James Version (KJV)
Road to Emmaus

13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.

14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.

15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.

16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.

17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?

18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?

19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:

20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.

21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.

22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;

23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.

24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.

29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,

34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.

35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

That we shouldn't believe in the real presence because it is said that the flesh profiteth nothing. So it follows from what he says that he rejects Christ as useless because he took human nature in the flesh.

Of course, what can be expected from people who look for ways to defend the retardation that some "pastor" teaches them in America, the land of all heresies?

Ah ok, so to be clear he didn't say it?