The real presence of Jesus is felt in the Eucharist

  • Follow Your Faith

The Catholic Church celebrates the feast of Corpus Christi on Sunday. Locally, the Church of the Most Holy Trinity will celebrate with a procession, starting at the front steps of the church at 2 p.m.

This Eucharistic procession represents the full sacramental Catholic belief that Jesus' love is truly expressed at every Holy Mass, with the Holy Spirit consecrating the bread offered into Christ's body and the wine offered into Christ's blood, as Jesus first did at the Last Supper.

What is the Church's teaching about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

Jesus, when he was at the Last Supper, instituted the Eucharist, the sacrament of his real divine personal presence as the body of Christ revealed with the breaking of the bread, the bread which becomes his real being.

Likewise, when Jesus said the blessing and uttered the words over the cup of wine at that Last Supper, the wine was changed really and substantially to become his real blood.

All Catholics believe that the forms of bread and wine at the Eucharist are actually transformed and consecrated by the power of the Holy Spirit to be transubstantiated into the body and blood of our Lord Jesus.

That is why every Catholic church has a tabernacle to contain and preserve the real presence of Christ alive.

All Catholics receive with faith at each Mass the holy sacramental love of Jesus when they eat his body under the form of the bread and drink his blood under the form of wine . It is the real actual presence of our Savior's coming into our hearts and souls to share his divinity with us.

The Rev. Michael Lubinksy is the parochial vicar at the Church of the Most Holy Trinity on Telfair Street in Augusta.

Comments (37) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 06/18/09 - 09:27 am
0
0
mhtjlh, Thank you for your

mhtjlh, Thank you for your clarification. Please know that no one is questioning anyone's faith or sincerity. I guess one thing that I'm struggling to understand is this idea of how a Priest functions in the Catholic Church. In the Bible, priests were the "go-betweens". They made blood sacrifices so the people could be closer to God. We know that Jesus Himself is now the Great(est) High Priest, and has entered into the presence of God with his own blood. It is only through Him that you and I now have access to God. His work is finished. Now, according to the New Testament (e.g.., Hebrews, 2 Peter), you and I (as Christians) are priests. We are called a "holy" and "royal" priesthood. To my knowledge, and I've looked thoroughly, there is now NO MORE office of Christian priesthood mentioned in the NT. Jesus has accomplished that work for us, and we (all Christians) have the capacity to come to God directly via Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit. In the NT, there is no mystical or consecrated function of any clergy. It's just not there. Therefore, there is absolutely no scriptural support for the idea of a formal, consecrated priesthood in the church.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 06/18/09 - 09:32 am
0
0
I know the Catholic Church

I know the Catholic Church has a long and rich TRADITION of the priesthood that serve to help people experience and contact God. I don't think this is a "sin", but still, according to the Bible this function of a priest is certainly not necessary. We all are priests now. That's right out of the NT. My position is that the ONLY standard for the life, study, and actions of a Christian or a Church is the Word of God. Tradition can be fine, but traditions can often be wrong and misleading. When traditions add to or take away from what the Bible plainly teaches, then I cannot accept that tradition. Based on a study of scripture, I see the tradition of the Catholic priesthood (though noble) in conflict with the plain teaching of God's Word. Therefore, I cannot accept it. It is against what God teaches, at least in this mystical function. If people want to have FAITH in the idea of consecrated priests, well, that's their choice. But, I must place my faith in the solid teaching of the Word of God, and never in the traditions of man -- especially when those traditions do not square with (and even contradict) the clear message of God. Hope that helps.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 06/18/09 - 10:24 am
0
0
Unless I'm mistaken, nowhere

Unless I'm mistaken, nowhere in the NT are the apostles ever referred to as being "priests". This is a big assumption. I don't think it's there at all. They were evangelists that spread the word. They were also given the ability to perform miraculous signs to confirm the validity of their message. But, do we ever see them performing transubstantiation? No. I do not recall the NT ever telling us that they conducted a mass or administered communion either. To my knowledge, all these things are assumptions and traditions that have evolved around the apostles, but are not found in the NT. We do see them baptizing people (adults, not babies, by the way) so they could become Christians and therefore become part of Christ's Royal Priesthood themselves. So again, I have a very difficult time in agreeing with this concept that the apostles were mystical, consecrated "priests". Evangelists, teachers, and leaders? Yes, absolutely. But mediators of blood sacrifices? No. That was done away with on the cross -- once and for all, never necessary again. You do not meet the body of Christ just at the Eucharist; according to God's own word, you ARE the Body of Christ. God's words, not mine.

Irish
0
Points
Irish 06/18/09 - 06:37 pm
0
0
HCWK the word Catholic means

HCWK the word Catholic means universal. Therfore it means you are more than welcome to come learn our teachings. You are always welcome at our services. Drop in and we don't mind if you wear jeans......you can sit in on our RCIA program without becoming a Catholic...perhaps we can answer some of your questions, perhaps we can just enjoy your company.....eithor way ...peace be with you......

corgimom
33198
Points
corgimom 06/18/09 - 07:51 pm
0
0
OK, I'm going to clarify what

OK, I'm going to clarify what I said. I don't want anyone forcing their beliefs on me no matter what their religion is. I am not anti-Catholic, I'm not anti- any religion. If you're Catholic, that's fine. If you're not, that's fine too. I firmly believe in freedom of religion. It bothers me when people come on here and start telling people how their religion is wrong or their beliefs are wrong. It's disrespectful. That's not freedom of religion, but those same people would tell you that they believe in the Constitution. I don't tell anyone their beliefs are wrong, because I respect that they have the right to believe what they want, period. I've been to Catholic Mass many times. I respect anyone who is sincere in their beliefs, whatever they may be. If everyone believed the same way, we wouldn't have all the different religions, so I don't get involved in telling people what "true" religion is, or the "true" church, or what the Bible "really" says. I actually thought the story was pretty good. It was informative but not preachy. And I never said you were ignorant, nor do I think you are.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 06/18/09 - 08:38 pm
0
0
Corgi, I'm not trying to say

Corgi, I'm not trying to say someone's beliefs are wrong. In fact, there's no way a "belief" can be wrong. You can believe what you want. Be as sincere as you want. However, we all have to remember that Catholic doctrine once sincerely taught that the sun orbited around the earth (they had a big problem with Galileo, if you remember), and didn't want to hear otherwise. Others have sincerely used the Bible to support issues such as slavery. Again, sincere, but sincerely wrong. Sincerity is great, but only when it is based upon truth. Otherwise, terrible things can happen. So, believing something sincerely can be a very slippery slope indeed. All I'm trying to convey is that for me, the Bible is the standard. I don't give a dime about religion, but I find the Bible to be priceless. There's the truth we're all looking for (my belief). If any theological system claims to be based on the Bible, it had better be true to what is taught there. If not, then it can't be right, regardless of the sincerity of the followers. Jesus Himself said that many who sincerely believe they are his followers will be sadly mistaken one day. Obedience and truth are the keys, not necessarily sincerity.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 06/18/09 - 08:53 pm
0
0
Hate to bring up this extreme

Hate to bring up this extreme example, but it might be relevant as well. If your statement is in fact true: "I respect anyone who is sincere in their beliefs, whatever they may be.", does that mean you would also respect the religious sincerity of those who flew planes into the World Trade Center? They looked upon that act as sincere religious devotion. Most Americans sincerely believed it to be cold, calculated murder of thousands of innocent people. So, were both of these very sincere groups of people right? Must we always refuse to think that there might actually be a clear-cut case of right vs. wrong, and continue to accept anything and everything as long as people are sincere? Warm fuzzy feelings, beliefs, and peaceful sincerity may soothe the soul, but only the truth of Christ can save the soul.

Rebelbuyer
30
Points
Rebelbuyer 06/19/09 - 12:18 pm
0
0
Transubstantiation is one of
Unpublished

Transubstantiation is one of the many reasons why there are Protestants. We are to believe that a created being (man/priest) has the power to create the Creator on an altar by mumbling a few words in Latin. This whole process has to be a slap across the face of the Almighty. This process is nothing more than cannibalism with its roots in paganism, whereby the ancients thought to embue themselves with the power and characteristics of some beast, like a mighty bull, by ingesting it. At the last supper, Christ did not pull flesh from his body nor did he open any viens to pour forth blood. This was symbolic only. thank god for the Reformation.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 06/19/09 - 03:15 pm
0
0
If the Last Supper was indeed

If the Last Supper was indeed the Passover Meal, which it most likely was, it's important to remember that everything in the Passover Meal was totally symbolic. It brought back to mind the bitter struggle God's people had in leaving bondage in Egypt. Unleavened bread symbolized the haste in leaving. Bitter herbs, the bitterness of slavery. It was all symbolism, and nothing "became" the actual things they symbolized. This is the background for the institution of Lord's Supper. Symbolic in every way. Likewise, the wine is an important symbol of the blood of Christ. It brings to mind the terrible sacrifice he paid to free us from our slavery to sin. So again, these true facts would certainly not support the idea that the bread and the wine of the Eucharist actually become the real body and actual blood of Christ. Historically, practically, and most importantly, Biblically, there's just no reason for that to occur.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs