Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christ's real presence in Euchrist
Virtual Seminary ^ | Unkown | A.A. Hodge

Posted on 10/12/2002 1:43:32 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration

The Presence of Christ at the Lord's Supper Is Christ really, truly, personally present with us in the sacrament? Do we therein covenant and commune with him in person, touch to touch, immediately and really; or is this only a show, a symbol of something absent and different from what it seems?

The gross perversions of the Romanists and Ritualists, who have made it altogether a question of the local presence of Christ's flesh and blood, have occasioned much confusion of thought and many prejudices on the subject. Nevertheless, as a matter of fact, every believer knows that Christ is present in the sacrament - that he has, as a matter of fact, experienced his presence. If he is not present really and truly, then the sacrament can have no interest or real value to us. It does not do to say that this presence is only spiritual, because that phrase is ambiguous. If it means that the presence of Christ is not something objective to us, but simply a mental apprehension or idea of him subjectively present to our consciousness, then the phrase is false. Christ as an objective fact is as really present and active in the sacrament as are the bread and wine, or the minister or our fellow-communicants by our side. If it means that Christ is present only as he is represented by the Holy Ghost, it is not wholly true, because Christ is one person and the Holy Ghost another, and it is Christ who is personally present. The Holy Ghost doubtless is coactive in that presence and in all Christ's mediatorial work, but this leads into depths beyond our possible understanding. It does not do to say that the divinity of Christ is present while his humanity is absent, because it is the entire indivisible divine-human Person of Christ which is present.

When Christ promises to his disciples, "LO, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world-age," and, "Where two or three are met together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," he means, of course, that he, the Godman Mediator they loved, trusted, and obeyed, would be with them. His humanity is just as essential as his divinity, otherwise his incarnation would not have been a necessity. His sympathy, his love, his special helpful tenderness are human. He is able to be our perfect High Priest, "being touched with the feeling of our infirmities," because he "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15).

But what do we mean by "presence" ? It is a great mistake to confuse the idea of "presence" with that of nearness in space. This may be a condition of presence, or it may not, but it is never "presence" itself. If you walk abroad at noonday in the tropics, the most overwhelmingly present thing to you in the universe is the intolerable sun, although it is ninety-three millions of miles distance. If another person is only one foot distant, but separated from you by a wall which cuts off sight and sound, he is as absent as if in the center of a distant star. But if the same person, a hundred feet from you in an audience-room, sees you face to face, and hears every vibration of your voice, he is as truly present as if he touched you at every point. When Whitefield's preaching was fully heard and its power felt across the Delaware River, he was present really and truly wherever was heard and his matchless eloquence felt. "Presence," therefore, is not a question of space; it is a relation. Personal presence is such a relation of persons that they are conscious of each other as immediate objects of perception and sources of influence. We know nothing as to the ultimate nature of the union our souls and bodies, yet we are no less certain of the fact. So we need not speculate how it is that Christ, the whole God-man, body, soul, and divinity, is present in the sacrament, but we are absolutely certain of the fact. He has promised it. We have hundreds of times experienced it. We can neither see his face, nor hear his voice with our bodily senses; nevertheless, when we exercise faith, he, the whole Christ, speaks to us, and we hear him; we speak to him, and he hears us; he takes all we give him, he gives us and we receive all of himself. This is real, because he is present. And this is not confined to the sacrament. He makes manifest to our faith the reality of his presence with us, and communicates the same grace to us, on many other occasions and at other times, here and now and in this breaking of bread we have a personal appointment to meet our Lord. And he never disappoints those who thus seek him with faith and love.

` A.A. Hodge


TOPICS: Theology
KEYWORDS: calvinism; catholiclist; euchrist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 681-695 next last
To: yendu bwam
Once again, it was not the Protestants who started the discussion over Sola Scriptura, it was the Catholics. Why do you mimic that which you decry?

???

421 posted on 10/16/2002 5:11:10 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo; Polycarp
Another question of curiosity...

The Real Presence of Christ takes place at consecration. Normally food that is eaten is digested, being absorbed in part and eliminated in part. Is this the case with the Host? Said another way, is there a point, after ingestion, where the Real Presence is removed? Or is all of the Host physically absorbed into the communicant's body with none eliminated?

This is a genuine attempt to come to an understanding of the doctrine of the Real Presence (which I find very confusing) and it's implications. Certainly these questions have been asked and answered beore. I have never seen a discussion of this issue.

BTW, I have made a sincere attempt to ask this question in a manner that is not "indelicate."
422 posted on 10/16/2002 5:16:58 AM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp; Woodkirk
Posted by Polycarp to Tantumergo; *Catholic_list;
Do you know where I can send the [consecrated] hosts that I have accumulated for scientific analysis. --Woodkirk

Yes, isn't communion in the hand a wonderful invention.

Look how simple it is for the Woodkirks of the world to obtain one for themselves to do "experiments" on it.

it used to be only the occultists in Freemasonry that committed such sacrilege.

Now so-called "Christians" are joining in the fun.

The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano

How many times will a dog return to his vomit?

423 posted on 10/16/2002 5:18:01 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Woodkirk
<> The substance changes but the "accidents" remain. One doesn't put a mystery under a microscope in an attempt to materialistically prove or disprove a Divine action.

Now, it is clear you don't accept that transubstantiation occurs. Fine. However, if you are telling the truth about Consecrated Hosts, I beg you to bring them to a local Catholic Priest and give them to him. You do not want to be a wiseass in this area. Trust me.....<>

424 posted on 10/16/2002 5:21:28 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
<> I found those posts chilling. I really do not know what to say when I am faced with such a situation. May God have Mercy on his soul. He truly does not know what he is doing.<>
425 posted on 10/16/2002 5:23:29 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
<> Communion in the hand used to be the norm. One wonders how many times over the years some wiseass has undertaken such actions to "disprove" Divine action?

IT is rather akin to weighing a body after death to "prove" there is no soul because there is no difference in weight prior to death and immediately upon death.

I think it chilling because of the presence of evil that suffuses those posts. It is beyond my understanding how one claiming to be Christian can act that way.<>

426 posted on 10/16/2002 5:34:38 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
<> "The Doctrine of transubstantion was formulated...."The Doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist has been posted on these threads MANY times. Jesus Himself taught that Unless you eat His body and drink His blood you do not have life in you. That is simply rejected by the sola scriptura crowd

Transubstantiation is an attempt to describe, as well as can be known, up until now, how that mystery is accomplished. It is not the Divine action itself. It is an attempt to describe how that Divine action occurs. WE are taught that such Divine Mysteries are above us. We are also taught we CAN know SOMETHING about those mysteries. But, to dismiss those Mysteries with such materialistic certitude is to both reject the plain words of Jesus and to condemn oneself. You have no authority to reject His Chruch's authority<>

427 posted on 10/16/2002 5:42:44 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
You really believe that heaven is somewhere in time-space? Vector? Need to know how to get my speace ship there.
428 posted on 10/16/2002 5:58:25 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I implore the reader to study Wide as the Waters The Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired, by Benson Bobrick to get a complete understanding of how various verses in the King James Bible were changed or deleted from the original texts

<> It is simply a fact that they changed scripture to fir their ideology. I have many examples, but it gets tiresome pointing out the changes<>

429 posted on 10/16/2002 6:00:55 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Dear drstevej,

"We can categorically disagree with one another's understanding of the passage without judging one's seriousness or sincerity. Can we not?"

Regrettably, woodkirk has gone beyond even questioning the seriousness or sincerity of Catholics, and has committed what we view to be sacrilege. And wrigley supports him.

Why do you avoid rebuking woodkirk when clearly its intentions are to give grave offense to others by committing what we believe to be sacrilege?

Think carefully before answering, Steve. Whether or not you realize it, this is the Big One for Catholics.


sitetest


430 posted on 10/16/2002 6:04:26 AM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Think of "subtance" as analogous to the genetic code. When you eat chicken, you eat the chicken's code.
431 posted on 10/16/2002 6:15:39 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: Woodkirk
Whether you believe it or not, you are a blasphemer! For the sake of Christian love and decency, please return the host(s) to a priest. If you don't and continue in your hatred, you will be just as liable as if you were a murderer.(Matt 5:22)
432 posted on 10/16/2002 6:20:39 AM PDT by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
King James did not involve himself in the translation of the King James Bible. He sanctioned it and stepped aside.

But in the RCC, homosexual and pederastic priests are presiding over your Mass and laying hands on your Eucharist -- and you have the nerve to speak of sacrilege and blasphemy. Who are you kidding --- ?

433 posted on 10/16/2002 6:20:54 AM PDT by Woodkirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
***[1] I was in no way endorsing woodkirk. I think he is deliberately antagonistic and purposefully lampooning Catholicism. *** POST 409

Perhaps you missed this comment flagged to woodkirk.

I do not make it my ambition to rebuke every over-the-top post to the religion forum. At times I rebuke people on line and more often in private. On a few rare ocassions I have hit abuse for personal slander.

Do not assume silence is consent. I have not read all the posts on the thread but I have seen references to using baseball bats on people who make comments about Catholicism.

I do not know woodkirk at all. I find those freepers with whom I have built some friendship are more receptive to requests for moderation. Its like that in an environment where none of us have any real authority to censor one another.
434 posted on 10/16/2002 6:27:59 AM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Mom, get off it! You have no idea what your talkin' about. Your prejudice is clouding your intellect. The doctrine was officially defined to overcome a heretical teaching, much like the one you hold. Every doctrine in the church was defined to combat some heresy. This one is no different. The DOCTRINE of the Trinity was challenged in a big way in the fourth century and the Church was forced to define the DOGMA. Just because the dogma wasn't defined before then and only implicit in the NT writings, does that make it invalid? You can't have things both ways. Now you want to tell us what our own did and did not intend. Your a joke!
435 posted on 10/16/2002 6:31:10 AM PDT by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Once again, it was not the Protestants who started the discussion over Sola Scriptura, it was the Catholics. Why do you mimic that which you decry?

I ain't the one on the crusade. You are.

436 posted on 10/16/2002 6:32:26 AM PDT by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
I abducted nobody -- are you accusing me of kidnapping along with everything else? It is stale wheat bread. If I have it retested and it turns out to be just stale wheat bread, is there anything wrong with keeping it? Afterall how common is it to find a consecrated host that is still only wheat wafer? This has to be a miracle --- right?

What upsets you most, Tantrum, the fact that I would receive it and keep it, or if I had received it and eaten it?

437 posted on 10/16/2002 6:33:33 AM PDT by Woodkirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Woodkirk; drstevej; Polycarp; Catholicguy; Siobhan
purposefully lampooning Catholicism

You guys call desecrating a consecrated host "lampooning"? I'm slowly but surely losing any respect I may have had with some of the "so-called" Christians on this forum. Woodkirk's behavior is nowhere in the realm of Christian. Ya'll need to go back and reread the Bible and INTERNALIZE it. You are acting like a bunch of Pharisee's

438 posted on 10/16/2002 6:39:02 AM PDT by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: All; Woodkirk; drstevej; Polycarp; Catholicguy; Siobhan; Tantumergo; Antoninus; RobbyS; RnMomof7
Follow up to 438...

By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." John 13:35

I haven't seen much love on this thread or many others from the catholic-bashers! You are followers of the many who walked away from the Lord because "this is a hard saying; who can listen to it"

Time to start practicing the faith and not just paying lip service to it.
439 posted on 10/16/2002 6:49:46 AM PDT by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: ThomasMore
<> Woodkirk's behavior is unconscionable. I find it difficult to believe I lack words to express what it is I find so disturbing and evil about his actions. I am usually quite glib. This has me flummoxed. This is deeply disturbing. It is profund. Midge Decter's phrase "The banality of evil" comes to mind.<>

440 posted on 10/16/2002 6:50:25 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 681-695 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson