Christ's real presence in Euchrist

Virtual Seminary ^ | Unkown | A.A. Hodge

[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

[malakhi]

Do you at least understand my point?

Makes sense to me.

What an utterly bizarre thread.

[Irisshlass]

The homosexual group "act up" went into St. Peters during Mass and took the host and threw on the floor and at people, shouted blasphemies, threw condoms on people...I guess you see nothing wrong with that either...

If they came into your church and interrupted your service bascially your saying I shouldn't have a problem with it because your beliefs are different than mine..

This mentality is like what happen in Nazi Germany..

[RnMomof7]

BTW I agree with Steve on this...

[Woodkirk]

Am I not in compliance even with your ecclesiastical rules
if I keep the bread in a blessed communion container, like
the ones used by multitudes of Catholics who bring the wafer
back home with them? What makes you think that I am mistreating
the bread any more than what was done to the Miraculous
Eucharist of Lanciano?

[RnMomof7]

So YOU need to drink the blood to be "cut off" ........I thought your biblical quotes were aimed at Jesus..He needed to be cut off

Peter wanted all the gentile males circumcised and on the jewish dietary laws..he must not have got it huh?

[drstevej]

Drsj (#456):If [Woodkirk]did take the consecrated bread, I think that is an offensive thing to do and is morally wrong.

Irish: The homosexual group "act up" went into St. Peters during Mass and took the host and threw on the floor and at people, shouted blasphemies, threw condoms on people...I guess you see nothing wrong with that either...

Drsj: Can you not read? If I said Woodkirk's actions (if factual) are offensive and morally wrong. WHY in the world do you conclude I would condone the actions of Act Up? Of course I would not condone such actions.

Your anger at me is misdirected and unappreciated.

Your comment ***This mentality is like what happen in Nazi Germany..*** is way over the top, Irishlass.

[RnMomof7]

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



Do you believe we are all disciples? As a Calvinist I do not...I believe there are wheat and tares growing together..That does not exempt us from being loving..but it is an honest observation:>)

[RnMomof7]

Would you be a Catholic if tomorrow you found out it is not the real presence of Christ in the Host..but a spiritual; presence? I ask this honestly..

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

However, a priest's sins do not contaminate the body of Christ, any more than Christ was contaminated here on earth, completely and totally surrounded by sinners and sin.

First I will repeat that I believe it would be wrong for anyone to take a consecrated communion wafer as has alledgedly been done. But given your above response why would it be so important to get it back too a priest? Yes the intent of taking it was probably not for good reasons, but is Jesus himself in danger? Personally, I would think not, especially given your above comment. So why the fuss over what should be done with it now. IMO the fuss should be over the intent of this action, Jesus was always more concerned with what was in a persons heart then with outward appearances. I have to say the fuss over what should be done with the actual host leads one to believe that it , the host, in and of itself is an object requiring worship.

Becky

[RnMomof7]

I guess they must be democrats.  They don't know what IS is! ;^)

How did they eat His physical body when He was still using it?

I am the vine,

ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.Jhn 15:5

Do you worship vines?

I am the door:

by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.Jhn 10:9

Do you worship doors?

[Irisshlass]

Well on post 451 you said...Insensitive and provocative...

I took it as no big deal..

[drstevej]

Do you understand me now that you read my clarification? And do you retract the Nazi mentality comment (#451)?

[RnMomof7]

Colleen do you believe this?

    Jhn 6:44   No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Do you believe this

     Jhn 6:64   But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

     Jhn 6:65   And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Do you believe the words of Christ here where he makes clear that many will not believe because they were not chosen to be given to Jesus by the Father?

    Jhn 6:63   It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

Do you believe that a man can not get to heaven by good works?

[sitetest]

Dear drstevej,

"Honestly, I have not read enough of the thread to know exactly what he claims to have done."

Fair enough. Then let me show you what he has said:

From post 204:

Woodkirk: "Do you know where I can send the hosts that I have accumulated for scientific analysis. I have one that is stale, crumbly, and hard as a 6 year old wheat wafer. Most Catholics believe that it qualifies as a genuine miracle because IT DIDN'T TRANSUBSTANTIATE into something else after its official consecration but still has wheat in it -- stale though it is. It's a miracle --- a consecrated host that is still only bread -- it's got to be a miracle, right?

"Please don't tell me that other people have these as well. I don't want my miracle ruined."

Cap'n Crunch responds in post 205: "You have Hosts that have been consecrated by a Catholic priest?"

Woodkirk from 206: "Yes --"


Clearly, woodkirk claims to have desecrated the Blessed Sacrament, whether he or you believe the Sacrament to be what It is or not.

Soon after woodkirk revealed that he had committed this blasphemy, Polycarp pointed out that some of the other false Christians at FR were "joining in the fun".

I responded that perhaps some of the non-Catholics here would demonstrate their Christian faith by denouncing this desecration of what Catholics hold holy. Not because the non-Catholics all of the sudden accept Catholic Eucharistic theology, but because Christians are supposed to have charity, and charity is offended when one person intentionally desecrates what is holy to another.

And thus, I pinged you for your view. I'd mistakenly thought that you would be deeply offended by how this lump of dirt treats your Catholic friends and what they hold dear. I know that I was outraged when another former Catholic poster mocked you and your academic credentials. I know that I expressed sympathy to you, and had rebuked the poster in question more than once for his lack of charity toward others.

And he did nothing which you would regard as blasphemous.

I'm glad that you could find your way to at least affirming the obvious, which is that what the evildoer did was offensive and morally wrong.



sitetest

[RnMomof7]

The sins of these homosexual and pederastic priests are abominable, and it's absolutely true that a form of sexual evil has invaded our Church - one form of which frequently preys on innocent children. We should be abashed and ashamed that we have not strongly and honorably confronted this evil. However, a priest's sins do not contaminate the body of Christ, any more than Christ was contaminated here on earth, completely and totally surrounded by sinners and sin.

The problem is that God does not even hear the prayers of the unrepentant sinner..He shuts his ears to them..How do you think that God even hears the prayers of consecration?

Isa 1:15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

     Jer 14:12   When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and an oblation, I will not accept them: but I will consume them by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence.

Prov 15:8
8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

Mic 3:4  
Then shall they cry unto the LORD, but he will not hear them: he will even hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved themselves ill in their doings.

[drstevej]

Thanks for the summary of previous posts.

I agree completely with your assessment that this is a "desecration of what Catholics hold holy". It is a sacreligious act and reporting it on this forum is calculated to enrage Catholics rather than to make any positive contribution to the debate. It is totally uncalled for.



***And he did nothing which you would regard as blasphemous.***

I do not believe the consecrated bread is Jesus Christ. I would be equally offended if he took a cross from a church and desecrated it. From my theological perspective his actions and comments are shamefully sacreligious.

Give me your definition of blasphemy? If it means to insult a religion, it was blasphemous. If desecrating a cross is blasphemous, it was blasphemous. If you consider it blasphemous because he desecrated the physical body of Jesus Christ, I disagree that it was blasphemous.

[Wrigley]

He and his partner in blasphemny, wrigley, think that they have made a point. They have made a point, though a little different from what they thought. It is that we Catholics ought not cast our pearls before these swine.

One would think that even Protestants would understand what St. Paul said about eating and drinking damnation, and how this applies.

Oh, I do take Lord's Supper of Communion seriously. Back when I lived in the Chicago area, I had the opportunity to go to a RC Mass. I was invited to partake, which I declined. I believed then, as I do now, that the RC Mass is incorrect and has a wrong view of what Jesus said. I got some interesting looks when I explained, but because I take it seriously, I couldn't partake. Another example. I went to a church in my previous denomination that was celebrating Communion. I did not partake. Main reason was because of woman Elders, I believed that church is incorrect in having woman Elders, so I couldn't partake there.

As for my participation with woodkirk. I think his comments are near the edge of what the RC's would appreciate. But I think he raises a good point with what I know to be the incorrectness of the RC view of the Lord's Supper. Sometimes it takes that to get people to think and where conclusions can be drawn.

[sitetest]

Dear drstevej,

"It is totally uncalled for."

Thank you.

* * * * * * * *

"***And he did nothing which you would regard as blasphemous.***"

I don't think that I made myself clear. I wasn't referring to the moral leper woodkirk.

I was referring to a time when a former Catholic poster took it upon himself to ridicule you and your academic credentials. I was contrasting what the former poster said to the actions of the moral leper woodkirk. What the former poster said, though personally insulting to you and hurtful, was not blasphemous. I don't believe that you would consider it blasphemy that this former poster ridiculed your academic credentials. Or maybe you would??

;-)

I was comparing that ridicule to the actions of the moral leper woodkirk, who clearly did something that Catholics consider blasphemous.

Thus, the offense of the former poster who insulted you was not as serious to you as the moral leper woodkirk's offense is to us.

Yet, I took serious offense with the former poster.


Again, thank you.



sitetest

[american colleen]

I don't understand your point. What does this post have to do with the one you are replying to?

[sitetest]

Dear Polycarp,

"So what's the point in all of this?

Should we even engage these anti-Catholics?"

There is an interesting article in the New Oxford Review this month that touches on this subject.

Woodkirk is a blasphemer, welcoming eternal damnation into himself.

Even those who are blind to that truth ought to be able to appreciate that he has acted entirely without Christian charity, in fact, has acted in hate. With those that cannot find their way to a clear rebuke of the moral leper woodkirk, we ought not any longer engage. They are little better than the blasphemer woodkirk. We ought to shun them and refuse to interact with them.

To do otherwise is to cast our pearls before swine.


sitetest