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

[sinkspur]

Shun him.

I should. OTOH, Woodkirk manifests the personality of the Unabomber, or the DC sniper.

He destroys the Sacred, in his cold heart.

We should put a clown nose on his face and "kick me" sign on his back.

Has ANYBODY on this forum, who have sparred with us, demonstrated the hatred this man has? CCWoody, RNMomo7, drestevej, the_doc, even the despicable OP didn't sink to this level of blaspheming the Body of Christ.

Let's see where this goes.

[restornu]

What is a consecrated hosts?

***

Don't bother there here! or maybe next year!

[drstevej]

Thanks for the response. Why is it that I'd rather be thought a nice heretic by those who really believe the doctrines of the Council of Trent; than be termed an errant brother by ecumenical followers of Vatican II?

I think the answer is found in your statement...

***What I object to is the need the Novus Ordo crowd has to beat its own breast and submerge all differences, even to the point of pretending doctrinal differences don't exist or, if they do, are inconsequential.***

... there is a real honesty here.

--drstevej, the nice heretic & your friend

[RnMomof7]

And yes, you're still a heretic--but a nice one. Matter of fact, the word itself is applied in a pejorative sense primarily to other nominal Catholics these days. Protestants are separated brethren now--and I have no real quarrel with this. The Reformation was long ago and passions cool. My quarrel is with those who think this means I have to be less of a Catholic in order to doctrinally and liturgically blend-in with other Christians in the West. It's the height of folly, a rejection of our own Catholic heritage and, as I see it, a rejection of the truth itself.

The curses of Trent still stand as infallible right? They have never OFFICALLY been removed ...I think no one wants to talk about them anymore:>))

[sitetest]

Dear drstevej,

One normally calls someone a heretic who is a formal heretic, which is someone who knows and held the truth of Catholic faith, and then rejected some part of that faith.

Unless you were once a Catholic, or had formally studied Catholicism sufficiently well, and from a sufficiently unbiased point of view to see the truth within it, one would not ordinarily refer to you as a heretic. Martin Luther was a heretic. Calvin was a heretic.

You are merely not in full possession of the truth.

RnMomof7 may be a heretic.

Formal heresy presupposes that one understands sufficiently the truths one rejects. I haven't seen that RnMomof7 really understood the truth of Catholicism, and thus, I would hesitate to call even her a formal heretic.

However, in her virulent hatred of things Catholic, she may eventually fall into apostasy.

We could call you a material heretic, but usually, when we refer to heretics, we don't mean material heretics.

Remember that the folks at Trent were dealing with CATHOLICS who were falling away from the True Church of Jesus Christ. They were all heretics. Real, true heretics. Formal heretics. Those that succeed in later generations are not guilty of the crime of their spiritual forefathers.

You are clearly a "separated brother". If you really want us to, we can call you a heretic, as well, though it doesn't fit quite right.


sitetest

[drstevej]

***Unless you were once a Catholic, or had formally studied Catholicism sufficiently well, and from a sufficiently unbiased point of view to see the truth within it, one would not ordinarily refer to you as a heretic.***

I am not a former Catholic, but I do have a PhD in Reformation History and Theology. I have read Catholics and Protestants extensively on the issues and reject key Catholic doctrines (e.g. the Real Presence, RC Apostolic succession, the primacy of the Pope).

I have observed a RC Eucharist up close but never received communion because I can not endorse the Real Presence doctrine. (I do remember Him often at the Lord's Table.)

Does this qualify me as being a formal heretic?

***You are clearly a "separated brother".***

What does this mean? I understand 'separated,' but with my decidedly Protestant views, how am I a 'brother' needing to be reunited? A strange term.

[sitetest]

Dear drstevej,

It's late, I'm tired, I'm unwilling to sit here and justify what I'm about to say. ;-)

But over time, I just don't have the sense that your studies gave you an unbiased look at things Catholic.

But I could be wrong, and you could be a full-fledged formal heretic.

However, the Catechism teaches me that I must give you the benefit of the doubt.

So I do.


"***You are clearly a "separated brother".***

"What does this mean? I understand 'separated,' but with my decidedly Protestant views, how am I a 'brother' needing to be reunited? A strange term."

Were you baptized? Then you are in some sense belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ, which is the Holy Catholic Church. Your membership is incomplete, flawed, broken, in need of healing, repair.

Do you need to be "reunited"? You need to be more completely united with the Catholic Church.

Certainly, Jesus Christ is calling you, as He is calling everyone who lives, to full union with the Church, which is the Catholic Church, which is His Mystical Body and His Bride. Certainly, He is calling you to deepen your apprehension by the truth, which is to say, He is calling you to Catholicism.

But it is Jesus Who accomplishes this, not any of us here.

Well, I'm off to dreamland. Have a good night.


sitetest

[drstevej]

***Well, I'm off to dreamland. Have a good night.***

Me too, I'll answer tomorrow. Informative and interesting post.

[Woodkirk]

Blah --Blah -- Blah -- if you are the most progressive, what
does that say about the rest. Your bluff was called and
you showed your true colors. I'm finished with you now,
you're dismissed === so go bark up some other tree.

[Woodkirk]

It's like those gold tablets of Joseph Smith --

[restornu]

Hey chip on your shoulder!


Well I got an answer to my question, that is alright I got it figured out! after I search on my own.

I thought I would have to wait until next year to get an answer! That why after my search I said don't bother their here, after I read several post!

[MarMema]

We still have the presanctified liturgy during Great Lent.
That probably qualifies for your quote.

[MarMema]

and submerge all differences, even to the point of pretending doctrinal differences don't exist

WHOO-HOO! Can I borrow this line?

[Wrigley]

LOL

[Wrigley]

rest, all you had to do was read the article.

[Wrigley]

Do you remember that discussion we had a couple months ago about if we get a second chance to accept mormonism after we die? In some ways, sitetist's answer is similiar.

[fortheDeclaration]

http://www.christiantruth.com/gospelindex.html

This is an excerpt from an article from William Webster

John Gerstner gives a clear and concise summation of the Roman Catholic view of justification in contrast to the Protestant view in these words:

Some Romanists will say that they too teach justification by grace—by Christ’s righteousness, in fact. But the righteousness of Christ which they claim justifies is not Christ’s own personal righteousness reckoned or credited or given or imputed to believers. Romanists refer to the righteousness which Christ works into the life of the believer or infuses into him in his own living and behavior. It is not Christ’s personal righteousness but the believer’s personal righteousness, which he performs by the grace of God. It is Christ’s righteousness versus the believer’s own righteousness.

It is Christ’s achievement versus the Christian’s achievement. It is an imputed righteousness not an infused righteousness. It is a gift of God versus an accomplishment of man. These two righteousnesses are as different as righteousnesses could conceivable be. It does come down to the way it has been popularly stated for the last four and a half centuries: Protestantism’s salvation by faith versus Rome’s salvation by works...The Protestant trusts Christ to save him and the Catholic trusts Christ to help him save himself.

It is faith versus works. Or, as the Spirit of God puts it in Romans 4:16 (NIV), ‘Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace, and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring.’ It is ‘by faith so that it may be by grace...’ If a Romanist wants to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone. ‘The promise comes by faith so that it may be by grace.’ You can’t be saved ‘sola gratia’ except ‘sola fide.’...We agree with Roman friends—salvation is by grace.

That is the reason it must be by faith. If it is a salvation based on works that come from grace, it is not based on grace but on the Christian’s works that come from grace. The works that come from grace must prove grace but they cannot be grace. They may come from, be derivative of, a consequence of, but they cannot be identified with it.

Faith is merely union with Christ who is our righteousness, our grace, our salvation. 1 Corinthians 1:30, ‘It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus who has become for us wisdom from God,’ that is, our righteousness, holiness, and redemption.

Christ is our righteousness. Our righteousness does not result from His righteousness, it is His righteousness (Justification by Faith Alone, Don Kistler, Ed. (Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), John Gerstner, The Nature of Justifying Faith, pp. 111–113). We need to be clear about the fact that justification is only one aspect of the overall

[drstevej]

***I just don't have the sense that your studies gave you an unbiased look at things Catholic. ***

We all have biases. My graduate training in historical theology emphasized objective analysis as did my undergaduate training in engineering. So whether I meet the RC criterion of unbiased is uncertain. Perhaps in this regard I am a "quasi-formal" heretic.

***Were you baptized? Then you are in some sense belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ, which is the Holy Catholic Church. Your membership is incomplete, flawed, broken, in need of healing, repair.***

Was baptized as an infant in the Methodist Church. I became a Christian as a senior in high school and was baptized as a believer while in college at Georgia Tech. I was baptized by Charles Stanley at First Baptist of Atlanta over 30 years ago.

I clearly consider myself a member of the church of Jesus Christ and a member of the catholic (small "c"), universal church. I have deliberately had no affilliation with the Roman Catholic Church. Nothing personal against catholics, rather a pervasive disagreement with the doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church prevents me from participation.

***Your membership is incomplete, flawed, broken, in need of healing, repair.***

My membership in the catholic church is neither incomplete, flawed, broken or needing healing or repair. My membership in the Roman Catholic Church doesn't even rise to the level of incomplete, flawed, etc. It is non-existent. I can't come home spiritually to Rome -- since it has never been my home organizationally or theologically.

***Certainly, Jesus Christ is calling you, as He is calling everyone who lives, to full union with the Church, which is the [c]atholic Church, which is His Mystical Body and His Bride.***

He has done that (note one change of capitalization) when I was a highschool senior. I am at home in Him, by His grace.

***Certainly, He is calling you to deepen your apprehension by the truth, which is to say, He is calling you to Catholicism.***

My study of His Word over the past 30 years has indeed deepened my understanding of Truth and love for it. This is the basis for my rejection of Roman Catholic doctrine. Repeatedly I am told by fellow RC freepers that I blindly follow the 16th century Reformers. Honestly, that is not the case. The Bible shapes the core of my beliefs regardless of outsider opinions.

I feel no call to Roman Catholicism. I am profoundly called to fellowship with Jesus Christ and to serve Him through the grace He provides.

-- drstevej, 'quasi- formal' heretic [?] YET fully accepted in the Beloved

[yendu bwam]

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..

Well, my mind could be changed if at the second coming of Christ, Jesus Himself further clarified the issue. Until then, I'll take him at what He said at the first coming.

[yendu bwam]

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.

Yes, Becky, you are right in that Christ was always concerned more with what was in a person's heart than with outward appearances. But that's not the issue here. Christ said: "This is my body," at the last supper. I don't think the Son of God is going to be put to any danger, as you suggest I might!!! However, to not treat the body of Christ with all veneration and respect, and to teach others to not do so, is not a good way to go. Christ admonished those who rebuked the woman who anointed him with precious oil. So, Christ says: "This is my body." Given that, Catholics only seek to treat His body with the veneration and awe and respect that should always be shown things Godly.