Real Presence Apologetics

This is for everyone, Catholic and Non, that profess the Real Presence. Specifically I’d like to hear from those that hold to a somatic Real Presence; what is your number one resource that you’d recommend for an apologetic on that belief? One book, article, etc… that you feel is the core for believing the idea of the somatic real presence. (The Bible doesn’t count, in this case, I’m asking for a write up of some sort of defense on the real presence.)

I’m studying this idea and I don’t want to be overwhelmed by recommendations, so please pick the resource at the “top of the heap” in your opinion.

Can you provide a link discussing the real presence?

Just a general definition? catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

No. 1, well Christ Himself of course!

*Luke 22:14 And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. *

Justin Martyr (2nd Century):

First Apology

CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Ignatius of Antioch (2nd century)

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

Chap. VII.—reason of desiring to die.

The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be ye on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet prefer this world to Him. Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be ye persuaded, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you. For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die for the sake of Christ. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me that loves anything; but there is living water springing up in me,4 and which says to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century)

Against Heresies

Book 4, Chapter XVIII, Par. 5
5. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit.5 For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

These are from the 1st generation of Christians after the Apostles.

For a book - I’d recommend Dr. Scott Hahn’s Consuming the Word: The New Testament and the Eucharist in the Early Church.

I don’t want to derail the thread but one question: is it certain that the Mithras copied and instituted the Eucharistic meal from and after Chrisitanity?

excuse me for asking a silly question, but i have not heard the word somatic before with the Real Presence. could you explain exactly what that is?

I don’t understand the word either in context to the Real Presence. Here’s webster’s definition.

Definition of SOMATIC

1 of, relating to, or affecting the body especially as distinguished from the germplasm or the psyche
2 of or relating to the wall of the body : parietal

Even after reading Webster I don’t understand.

Oh boy. It’s hard to pick just one. :stuck_out_tongue:

I liked this one, it’s not super complicated, basically it’s this author’s own journey to discovering the doctrine. Got some good stuff in it. You might find it helpful.

http://www.amazon.com/This-My-Body-Evangelical-Discovers/dp/0931888484/ref=la_B001K7OOW2_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390169243&sr=1-6

That Scott Hahn one someone earlier in the thread mentioned is really good as well.

It would derail the thread.

Can someone please PM me about it, then?

Somatic as in the actual literal body of Christ. Somatic means “of or relating to the body.” There are those that believe in the Real Presence that don’t believe it is a bodily presence.

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper
by Brant Pitre (Author), Scott Hahn (Preface)

amazon.com/Jesus-Jewish-Roots-Eucharist-Unlocking/dp/0385531842/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390175179&sr=1-1

**The Biblical Basis for the Eucharist **by John Salza.

A very good book.

“This Is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar” by Hermann Sasse.

amazon.com/This-Is-Body-Contention-Sacrament/dp/0859100340

If anyone wants to answer this, it’s fine, I don’t mind, as I really am only asking for resources, which probably won’t take up a lot of space.

Thank you all so far!

Great book. You can also listen to a one hour talk by Pitre on youtube if you search for it.

Thanks! All I’m asking for is a “yes” or “no” answer that wont take up much space, either.

Justin Martyr says Mithraism was copied from Chrisitianity some people say Christianity was copied from Mithraism. Who copied who and can someone point me to a good source?

No “yes or no” answer from me, sorry.

Mithraism is varied between the pre-Zoroastrian era, Zoroastrian and the what is suspected to be Roman Mithraism.

What I suspect is the Roman Mithraism modified the pre-Zoroastrian practice of the sacrifice of the bull. Whereas, in Roman Mithraism a white bull is sacrifice and it becomes the moon. I suspect St Justin is criticizing the possible misconception of the Government confusing Roman Mithraism with the Christian Eucharist, more so when Christians were persecuted for being believed to be canibalistic (among other persecutions) in regards to the belief in the real body and blood of Christ. Indeed a great witness to what the Early Church actually believed.

Sorry for not having a yes or a no, and I hope this helps a bit.

I’m.more confused than ever. Seems I’ve been confused on CAF a lot lately. :o

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.