56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?
John 6: 56-61
That meme is pretty much on target, from my limited experience in studying the actual teachings of the Church and its rebellious offspring. I remain mystified, however, at how so many non-Catholics, who profess faith in Christ, insist that Scripture is the only source of truth, and for the most part interpret their favored English translation in strictly literal fashion, nevertheless will go ballistic at the idea of taking literally the clear text of John 6:35 etc. I’ve gone around and around with some Protestant friends over this, and the best answer I ever get for their obstinate refusal to take Jesus at His word is that the idea of the Real Presence is “too Catholic.” Talk about begging the question…🤷🏻♂️
Protestant evangelical scholars will even admit that St. Ignatius (who sat at the feet of St. John the Apostle who wrote the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6), St. Justin Martyr, and all the other early Church Fathers taught that the Eucharist was Jesus’ Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. But then they will turn around and assert those Fathers had gotten it wrong. They are oblivious to the fact that they are siding with the heretical Gnostics of that time who likewise denied the Real Presence because they believed that Jesus was not flesh but just spirit. Their cognitive dissonance is invincible ignorance. I have argued and argued with family members and friends who are Pentecostal, Baptist, Methodist, Reformed, and Presbyterian, and no common sense can be knocked into their thick skulls. Their minds are utterly closed and they would rather deny historical fact than ever forsake their heretical man-made doctrines.
PS, the Anglicans whom I know are high Church Anglicans who believe in the Real Presence. But low Church Anglicans like JC Ryle of the 19th century are so vehemently anti-Papist that they would never admit to any truth from the Catholic Church.
A beautiful pearl for you today….
from St Maximilian Kolbe;
“Let us give ourselves to the Immaculata [Mary]. Let her prepare us, let her receive Him [Jesus] in Holy Communion. This is the manner most perfect and pleasing to the Lord Jesus and brings great fruit to us.” Because “the Immaculata knows the secret, how to unite ourselves totally with the heart of the Lord Jesus… We do not limit ourselves in love. We want to love the Lord Jesus with her heart, or rather that she would love the Lord with our heart.”
“Let her receive Him in Holy Communion,” the great Saint recommends.
Below is a poor example of a soul at the reception of Holy Communion, trying to carry out St. Kolbe’s wishes;
Take Him to yourself dear mother most holy.
Kiss his forehead for me and hold him close as you did in Bethlehem so many years ago. Love him for me since my love is so imperfect and mired in selfishness.
It’s my understanding that the only clergy with the power to celebrate the Mass and turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord are Catholics and Orthodox clergy. So it’s pointless whether they believe it or not, because they can only take a genuinely consecrated Eucharist from a Catholic Mass. That’s probably why, as Frank mentioned, they call it “too Catholic”. It is. We have the real presence. They don’t and they can not even if they wanted it.
@Ezabelle, there are Anglican jurisdictions broken away from the heresies of Canterbury whose bishops have been co-consecrated by some Eastern Orthodox episcopacy. Priests ordained under those bishops may conceivably confect the Holy Eucharist as we understand it. Their Mass generally follows the 1928 Book of Common Prayer though they disregard the Thomas Cramner 39 Articles of Religion. They are about as Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic as one can get. They recognize the Pope as Bishop of Rome and even respect him as Primus inter Pares. One jurisdiction follows the 2019 Book of Common Prayer (which was NOT formulated by either Canterbury or the heretical Episcopal Church USA). None follow the problematic 1978 Book of Common Prayer.
I know one personally who likely would have entered into formal Communion with Rome under Benedict XVI, but then Jorge the Heretic got elected and no breakaway Anglican jurisdiction will have anything to do with that Marxist Peronist Caudillo.
[…] Revival: The Real Presence – Donald R. McClarey, Esq., at The American […]
Indeed Frank and Lucius. Thoae protestants forfeit all right to ask of any Catholic doctrine “where is that in the Bible?” Because even when a Catholic doctrine is stated clearly, explicitly and at great length in the gospels in the actual words of our Saviour, they choose to reject it if they don’t like it.