Baptists, Does Scripture point to the Catholic Lord's Supper/Eucharist?

[ConfusedTim]

I am not sure if this has been posted before but I highly recommend all to watch the video or at least download the transcript of the video on this site. It was the best presentation of how the old testament prefigured the eucharist and shows how God has a thread linking the Passover, the Exodus (which included manna being the “bread of life”) through to the feeding of the 5000, feeding of the 4000, John 6, Last Supper, Paul, etc. Its absolutley mind blowing when you see how it all hangs together.

Go see for yourself, you will not regret it.

the4thcup.com/

 

[brb3]

Definitions

I grew up in the Baptist Church, I really want to know how those, of my religious background (Baptists,) view the Scriptures that seem to point to the Catholic interpretation of the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist.

Same for me. As Baptists we were taught it was symbolic only, not a Real Presence. But, I always believed we received God’s spiritual presence at our 4X / year Lord’s Supper.

Later, I learned from scriptures … that we receive ALL of Christ in the Eucharist. Its was those here @ CAF that pointed this out to me. Christ confirmed to me via his Grace that this was the correct understanding.

Christ doesn’t offer only ‘part’ of himself. He gave ALL on the Cross. Its ALL … or NONE. If we believe we receive, if we have doubts - we don’t.

 

[AmateurPianist]

AmateurPianist,

I always enjoy discussions with you, AP; because of your honesty, and the fact that you really weigh the issues and have the courage to reexamine long-held beliefs.

As I said before, I am asking myself, as I am asking you. So, we are considering a new perspective together. ----And, AP, your questions are insightful, and not in any sense of the word, “stupid.”

Actually this all comes from a decision I made a couple of years back to try to learn about other Christian traditions and to really try to see it from their eyes instead of evaluating them from my eyes. And I also decided that I would adjust my belief system if necessary. But God did give me the Scripture I have in my signature, so I would only adjust my belief system after a thorough examination and crosschecking of the new proposed belief system.

The questions, disconnects and other objections I bring forth are all a part of my crosschecking and obeying the Scripture in my signature.

It has been a very good and rewarding process. I have adjusted my beliefs in certain respects (adopting the traditional Methodist understanding of the Real Presence being one of them). But most of all when I look at other belief systems through their eyes, I find I can develop a tolerance and respect and lose the judgemental attitude I am prone to getting.

So now you know why I am here. This is actually a very interesting place, not only because you encounter Catholics and Orthodox but also mainline Protestants like Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists.

Same experience for me, AP. I had never considered a connection between Communion/Lord’s Supper and salvation.

And yet Christ clearly states: “. . . .unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” and “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

(had to cut rest of passage to get down to limit)

And this statement causes me to want to crosscheck this new proposed interpretation of this passage even more rigorously because it not only impacts how you view communion and how you have eternal life. So this proposed new interpretation is a very biggie.

And again I note that nowhere else in the Bible do you read of a connection between communion and eternal life to confirm this proposed new interpretation even though there are plenty of opportunities for the writers of the gospel and the apostles to do so should they choose to. There are plenty of places in the epistles where the apostles teach about how to come to eternal life in Jesus and no mention of communion.

And in my readings, I found where John Wesley (Wesley Quadrangle) said personal experience is one of the lens you should use in interpreting Scripture. And I observe that in my experience communion has nothing to do with how I came to eternal life in Christ.

Now none of this disproves anything of course (proving and disproving something is very difficult). But it is all evidence I look at in fulfilling the Scripture in my sig.

Continued having difficulty with limitation here

 

[AmateurPianist]

It is interesting to me, how we can be taught to consider certain passages of Scripture, while others are ignored. Protestants quote Scriptures that point to “remembrance,” such as Luke 22:19-20; and avoid passages that point to consuming the body and blood of Christ–in a literal sense.

(cut passage)

Then, there is the issue of interpretation. I touched on this in my OP (and on other Threads.) How do we know when a passage is literal and when it is symbolic/allegorical? I don’t understand the rules.

The very Christians, who claim the Genesis 6-day creation is literal, also claim Christ’s instructions to consume His flesh and blood are symbolic.

I was told by my Baptist Bible Class Teacher, that I may have a “faith issue,” because I do not believe in a literal 6-day creation. Yet, this same Baptist Church denies the “Real Presence” of Christ during the Lord’s Supper. This makes no sense to me.

Well one of the rules I use is to try to get the big picture. What is the overall theme and point that the author of the passage and/or the book is trying to convery.

With Genesis, it is not the science behind creation. So to insist on a 6 24 hour day creation 7000 years or so ago seems to me to be silly.

But with the book of John I have observed the following:

• Jesus in John 3 uses a physical real-life event involving drinking and water to relate to Himself. Jesus in John 6 uses a physical real-life event involving eating and drinking food to relate to Himself.
• Jesus in 3:14 uses the phrase “drinks of the water I shall give Him” and relates this to eternal life. Nobody interprets water here as physical H20 and drinking as well human drinking. So from this passage it would seem safe to interpret eating and drinking in John 6 in a similar vein.
• Jesus throughout the book of John teaches in many places concerning eternal life. The teaching in all other places is consistent with itself. It seems that if Jesus were talking about the Eucharist and relating this to eternal life, it would be a big shift from the rest of the book.
• John is the one gospel where the actual eucharist account is not included. Now each gospel writer has to make a choice of what events in the three years of Jesus’s ministry to include and what to exclude. I for one find it very odd that John would include a passage that points to the Eucharist (if it does in fact) and then omit the actual account of the Eucharist

Ironically, asking questions about the “Catholic” Eucharist on BaptistBoard.com (see OP) resulted in an immediate “trial of my salvation.” Of course, stating “I believe Catholics are Christians” didn’t help either.

So, AP, asking the “zillion questions” is so very important. That is why I started this Thread. I have heard the Catholic argument for the “Real Presence” (though I am learning new things on this Thread); and I wanted to discuss the issue with Baptist Apologists (still hoping the Baptists will join the discussion.)

You are doing a good job, in the stead of my Baptist brethren; and your participation is greatly appreciated.

Continued—Next Post

Well when I lurked in BaptistBoard for 10 minutes it seemed kind of weird to me. Nothing like the American Baptists I am familiar with.

But I am not doing that good of a job since I actually do believe in a type of real presence and I don’t have a cow over the Catholic beliefs here. I just don’t believe that John 6 supports it.

 

[AmateurPianist]

----Response to AmeteurPianist—Continued Part 2 of 2

Yes, and it is the “something more” that I am so concerned about.

The scary question for me is, "How solid is our path to salvation, if we deny the very Words of Christ, instructing us to consume His flesh and blood? If we, Protestants, have this all wrong; what does that mean for the fate of our souls.

As far as the “fate of our souls” absolutely nothing.

Even if you, I, your Baptist church, and every remaining Protestant organization is wrong in their understanding of the Eucharist, there is absolutely nowhere in Scripture that we are remotely taught that our understanding of the Eucharist has to be correct in order to have eternal life.

The only requirements I read for us concerning the Eucharist are (1) to observe it (2) not to partake of it unworthily (in a state of sin).

After I have written all these things, a new question arises: If the pastor, priest, etc. administers the Sacrament of Holy Communion, without the proper belief/understanding and/or authority; in what are we actually partaking? Another scary question for me. eek!

See the above. There is no indication in Scripture that would lead me to believe that whatever happens in communion will only happen with a specific organization or belief system.

This is comforting to me because I might be wrong in my understanding of communion. Not the first time in my life I have been wrong.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

And again I note that nowhere else in the Bible do you read of a connection between communion and eternal life to confirm this proposed new interpretation even though there are plenty of opportunities for the writers of the gospel and the apostles to do so should they choose to. There are plenty of places in the epistles where the apostles teach about how to come to eternal life in Jesus and no mention of communion.

I think this qualifies, although in a negative sense:

1 Cor 11
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Heb 10
29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

And this is more general teaching:

John 15
10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. (Jesus commanded us to partake in the Lord’s supper)

1 Cor 5
7Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

Rev 5:6
6Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders… 9And they sang a new song:
"You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and* with your blood you purchased men for God *
from every tribe and language and people and nation.

Rev 19:9
9Then the angel said to me, "Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’ " And he added, “These are the true words of God.”

 

[qui_est_ce]

I am not sure if this has been posted before but I highly recommend all to watch the video or at least download the transcript of the video on this site. It was the best presentation of how the old testament prefigured the eucharist and shows how God has a thread linking the Passover, the Exodus (which included manna being the “bread of life”) through to the feeding of the 5000, feeding of the 4000, John 6, Last Supper, Paul, etc. Its absolutley mind blowing when you see how it all hangs together.

Go see for yourself, you will not regret it.

the4thcup.com/

That is an awesome site!! Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins also have similar talks.

We must view Scripture from the Hebrew contemporaries of Jesus in order to fully appreciate it.

Scripture, especially the OT has become so much deeper for me since I began approaching it from this perspective. It really is a masterpiece.

One AHA moment for me was when we were studying John, and everybody had different ideas about the meaning “My hour has not yet come” and “It is finished.” I’m not sure about what the Church teaches about this, but the footnotes in my Catholic Bible have no comment about Jesus’ final words.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I think the problem with people thinking the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation is the mindset that only one thing is required to be saved. Yes, we are saved by God’s grace and mercy alone, BUT, we must participate in God’s saving plan.

Once we are saved, we must continue to participate. We must be Baptized, we must repent of our sins, we must obey His commandments. We must live our lives for His honor and glory.

We are not saved in a vacuum. We need to do it ALL!

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, and it is the “something more” that I am so concerned about. The scary question for me is, "How solid is our path to salvation, if we deny the very Words of Christ, instructing us to consume His flesh and blood? If we, Protestants, have this all wrong; what does that mean for the fate of our souls.

Anna, the Eucharist is the central most important belief in Catholicism. It is the “source and summit” of our faith, so we certainly believe it is very important and we are required, under penalty of serious sin, to receive communion at least once a year. We are invited to receive every day and should receive at least once a week. As to those who have never been taught about this incredible gift, our Church teaches that they cannot be responsible for something they don’t know. However, once one percieves the truth of the real presence of Christ in this sacrament, it should change their lives and they should desire the sacrament often. It is spiritual food, bread from heaven, and if we don’t receive we spiritually starve ourselves. There are other ways of being fed, but nothing compares to the intimate relationship which occurs when we consume the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord with the correct disposition. It is a participation in the heavenly banquet.

After I have written all these things, a new question arises: If the pastor, priest, etc. administers the Sacrament of Holy Communion, without the proper belief/understanding and/or authority; in what are we actually partaking? Another scary question for me. eek!

I welcome any further comments.

It is the Holy Spirit that changes the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and is not dependent upon the faith or even the holiness of the priest. As long as he does what Christ commanded us to do, repeating the words of Jesus Himself and calling down the Holy Spirit to effecuate the change, it is accomplished. As to the effect it may have on an individual, that is another story. Infinite graces are made available through this sacrament, however, we only receive according to our openness and disposition to receive. I think that is why many people seem to get nothing. They approach it as nothing. Those who approach Him as they would their beloved at a wedding, completely offering themselves to Him (He has already completely given Himself to us) will receive the fullness of His presence and experience transformation of their lives.
Anyway, it has nothing to do with the holiness of the priest as it is an action of God.

Hope this helps.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Chesterson:

I am going to do something I don’t normally do here. And that is try to look at one passage of Scripture in depth.

Not for the sake of arguing. Who knows, my current understanding of Scripture may be wrong. But at the same time, I want to very, very carefully and thoroughly crosscheck and examine any new proposed interpretation I come across as per the Scripture in my sig.

I do not have time to do it now.

I am choosing the first Scripture because that is one that I know relates to the topic of this thread.

1 Cor 11
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

 

[qui_est_ce]

{snip}
It is the Holy Spirit that changes the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and is not dependent upon the faith or even the holiness of the priest. As long as he does what Christ commanded us to do, repeating the words of Jesus Himself and calling down the Holy Spirit to effecuate the change, it is accomplished. As to the effect it may have on an individual, that is another story. Infinite graces are made available through this sacrament, however, we only receive according to our openness and disposition to receive. I think that is why many people seem to get nothing. They approach it as nothing. Those who approach Him as they would their beloved at a wedding, completely offering themselves to Him (He has already completely given Himself to us) will receive the fullness of His presence and experience transformation of their lives.
Anyway, it has nothing to do with the holiness of the priest as it is an action of God.

Hope this helps.

Very profound!

But I think Anna is referring to Authority, not the worthiness of the priest.

 

[SteveVH]

Very profound!

But I think Anna is referring to Authority, not the worthiness of the priest.

Thank you, I think I misread her statement. Authority is HUGE when we are talking about consecration. It is why, when I am told by a Protestant that the Eucharist is only a symbol, I agree with them wholeheartedly. In their church it can only be a symbol because they have no authority to consecrate. The authority is given by a bishop, a successor of the Apostles, through the sacrament of Holy Orders. I know this is a problem with the Lutherans and Anglicans who, to one degree or another, believe in the real presence.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Wonderful posts this morning. Will give each much consideration. It may take awhile to do your posts justice.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[qui_est_ce]

Thank you, I think I misread her statement. Authority is HUGE when we are talking about consecration. It is why, when I am told by a Protestant that the Eucharist is only a symbol, I agree with them wholeheartedly. In their church it can only be a symbol because they have no authority to consecrate. The authority is given by a bishop, a successor of the Apostles, through the sacrament of Holy Orders. I know this is a problem with the Lutherans and Anglicans who, to one degree or another, believe in the real presence.

It’s a problem with all protestants. They are their own authority. They figure out what to believe, based on their personal interpretation of Scripture, then go join a church that agrees with then on “essentials.”

Went to a Prayer Service for Christian unity on Sunday. The words of the Creed left out “men” in “Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven.” Not knowing we weren’t to say “men” the Catholics stuck out like a sore thumb.

The Gospel had Jesus telling Simon and James they would become fishers of PEOPLE.

The Lord’s prayer had added text, “For thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the glory…” That’s not what Jesus said when he showed us how to say the prayer. My daughter’s high school (“Catholic”) pray the “Our Mother.”

Next thing, we’ll question if Jesus was really a man!

 

[SteveVH]

It’s a problem with all protestants. They are their own authority. They figure out what to believe, based on their personal interpretation of Scripture, then go join a church that agrees with then on “essentials.”

Went to a Prayer Service for Christian unity on Sunday. The words of the Creed left out “men” in “Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven.” Not knowing we weren’t to say “men” the Catholics stuck out like a sore thumb.

The Gospel had Jesus telling Simon and James they would become fishers of PEOPLE.

The Lord’s prayer had added text, “For thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the glory…” That’s not what Jesus said when he showed us how to say the prayer. My daughter’s high school (“Catholic”) pray the “Our Mother.”

Next thing, we’ll question if Jesus was really a man!

Wow! Sounds like you need to contact your Bishop about this “Catholic” school. We have been invaded by the feminist movement and the “all-inclusive” language but I thought that was pretty much over in this day and age. Seriously, please contact your Bishop.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Wow! Sounds like you need to contact your Bishop about this “Catholic” school. We have been invaded by the feminist movement and the “all-inclusive” language but I thought that was pretty much over in this day and age. Seriously, please contact your Bishop.

It is not an Archdiocesan high school, and my daughter has graduated, so I’m letting it lie. I never actually heard them do it, but I’ve heard from my daughter. They are just on the line.
We live in St. Louis, former home to Arcbshp Burke. Archbshp Carlson has his hands full. We had WomenPriest “ordination” in 2008, we have a parish in schism with an openly gay dissident priest who lives in a downtown loft and drives a BMW.

SHEESH! I’m glad I’m Catholic. I’d hate to see how bad it would be otherwise. Actually, I already see it in the Episcopal and ECLA. They allow “committed” same sex couples to be ordained. Once you stray…

 

[AmateurPianist]

I think this qualifies, although in a negative sense:

1 Cor 11
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

First I am going to quote the entire passage:

17But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.

18For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.

19For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

20Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,

21for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.

22What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.

23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;

24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

28But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.

31But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.

32But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.

33So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.

34If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.

I am using the version that I have (arbitrarily) chosen for myself which is New American Standard. Sometimes I come across cases where differences in versions seem significant. These are a problem for me since I do not know original languages, I can not verify any claims made as to the actual reading of the Greek text.

First of all, I always ask myself what is the the purpose of the epistle. It is plain that 1 Cor. is primarily a corrective epistle where Paul corrects where the church has gone off base.

Now the first correction Paul makes is in chapter 1 and concerns divisions. He returns to the theme of division in chapter 3, and seems to be returning to it again in this passage.

The specific activity that Paul wants to correct is described in verses 20-22.

Now in reading this a few things are sort of sticking out.
(1) From verse 20 you can almost infer that at least a very important reason for coming together is “The Lord’s Supper”.
(2) From reading verses 21 and 22, it really seems that what is happening here anyway is some type of a meal. That ties into verse 33 (come together to eat). I really never noticed this before, but that is the way this sort of reads to me.

Now I do not quite yet have a handle on the specific nature of the abuse occurring, but it does seem to be some sort of class distinction (verse 22…despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing). The abuse seems also seems to involve alcohol abuse and gluttony.

At any rate, Paul’s prescription is found in verses 33 and 34…"wait for one another…if you are hungry, let him eat at home (hmm nothing about a fast before this meal).

Anyway, I just want for now to establish the setting for this passage and say how this reads to me.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Very profound!

But I think Anna is referring to Authority, not the worthiness of the priest.

Thanks, qui est ce. Gals have to stick together. So, here’s a hug. :hug3:

Thank you, I think I misread her statement. Authority is HUGE when we are talking about consecration. It is why, when I am told by a Protestant that the Eucharist is only a symbol, I agree with them wholeheartedly. In their church it can only be a symbol because they have no authority to consecrate. The authority is given by a bishop, a successor of the Apostles, through the sacrament of Holy Orders. I know this is a problem with the Lutherans and Anglicans who, to one degree or another, believe in the real presence.

SteveVH:

qui est ce is right. I was referring to authority; but glad you misunderstood, because you raised some important issues for our discussion.

I think most would agree that authority, not only in Communion; but in all things Christian—is the key disagreement between Catholics and Non-Catholic Christians.

I do understand that since you believe the Catholic Church holds authority through Apostolic Succession; you would not believe Protestants receive anything beyond symbolism and remembrance in the Lord’s Supper. Perhaps you are right. Haven’t arrived at a conclusion, yet.

Protestants such, as AmateurPianist and myself, approach the issue from an entirely different perspective–one that is outside the Catholic belief regarding authority. That does not mean that I do not carefully consider the posts of Catholic friends kind enough to contribute to this discussion–I read, appreciate, and welcome Catholic responses and resources—as I share AmateurPianist’s search for truth in the issue.

I believe there is an element of mystery in the Lord’s Supper (as many Christians do). So, I consider the possibility that one who comes to the table of Communion (with a heart prepared for the Sacrament,) may receive a “Communion with Christ” beyond their understanding.

. . . . .It is the Holy Spirit that changes the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. . . .

I do agree with you, to the extent that the Holy Spirit accomplishes the “communion with Christ” in the Lord’s Supper–through the mystery of this Holy Sacrament. I am slowly moving past a purely “remembrance” understanding of the Lord’s Supper. So, the fact that I am willing to acknowledge mystery in the Lord’s Supper is actually a big step for me.

Determining whether or not Holy Scripture supports, or points to, the change of the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is the very purpose of this Thread. However, since the question is posed to Protestants (Baptists specifically–where are the Baptists?); we have to set aside the issue of the authority of the Catholic Church (at least for a moment); and consider what the Scriptures say.

Keep in mind, I do acknowledge the role of tradition in interpretation of Scripture. However, Baptists and many Protestants do not. So, we have to start with Scripture, and hope this will eventually lead to the consideration of tradition.

It is the Holy Spirit that changes the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and is not dependent upon the faith or even the holiness of the priest.

It is the Holy Spirit that changes the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and is not dependent upon the faith or even the holiness of the priest. As long as he does what Christ commanded us to do, repeating the words of Jesus Himself and calling down the Holy Spirit to effecuate the change, it is accomplished.

Steve, in considering your comments; the logical question from a Protestant perspective, would be: if the Holy Spirit effectuates the change of the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, by repeating the words of Jesus; and this is not dependent upon the faith or even the holiness of the priest—why would it not be possible for the Holy Spirit to respond to the prayer of a Protestant Minister, who repeats the words of Christ before administering the Lord’s Supper? This question is posed through the lens of Protestantism. Again, I am simply thinking out loud: and pose the question to myself, as I pose it to you and others in the discussion.

So much to read and consider. I need another cup of coffee. lol :coffeeread:

I’ll get back to your other points, a bit later. I really appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, Steve.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

It’s a problem with all protestants. They are their own authority. They figure out what to believe, based on their personal interpretation of Scripture, then go join a church that agrees with then on “essentials.”

Went to a Prayer Service for Christian unity on Sunday. The words of the Creed left out “men” in “Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven.” Not knowing we weren’t to say “men” the Catholics stuck out like a sore thumb.

The Gospel had Jesus telling Simon and James they would become fishers of PEOPLE.

The Lord’s prayer had added text, “For thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the glory…” That’s not what Jesus said when he showed us how to say the prayer. My daughter’s high school (“Catholic”) pray the “Our Mother.”

Next thing, we’ll question if Jesus was really a man!

qui est ce,

I just responded to Steve regarding the authority issue, in regards to this Thread.

I do want to say that in all the reading and studying I’ve done over the past few years (and I have so far to go); the most shocking thing I have read is the Bible—shocking because, after reading the Bible cover to cover (still plan to read the Deuterocanonical Books); I realized many teachings of the Baptist Church are supported by a very selective use of Scriptures, group in very specific ways, to support specific beliefs.

Through all my studies I have prayed, and continue to pray for God’s truth—not “man’s truth” about Him. I pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in all things.

Though I have abandoned Sola Scriptura; the words of Scripture led me out of the Baptist Church, and to a very recent decision to formally resign from the Baptist religion. Ironically, by initially following the Baptist view of Scripture alone; my eyes have been opened to false doctrines in the Baptist Church.

So, when you say, “It’s a problem with all protestants. They are their own authority”: I will say that I do believe the Holy Spirit can intervene in one’s life and illuminate the truth of Scripture.

If this were not the case, I would still be a Baptist; I would never have questioned Baptist teachings; I would never have come to these forums; I would not be visiting an Episcopal Church (huge step); and I would not be prayerfully considering the words from my Catholic brothers and sisters.

Working out my salvation with fear and trembling,
Anna

 

[SteveVH]

Thanks, qui est ce. Gals have to stick together. So, here’s a hug. :hug3:

SteveVH:

qui est ce is right. I was referring to authority; but glad you misunderstood, because you raised some important issues for our discussion.

I think most would agree that authority, not only in Communion; but in all things Christian—is the key disagreement between Catholics and Non-Catholic Christians.

I do understand that since you believe the Catholic Church holds authority through Apostolic Succession; you would not believe Protestants receive anything beyond symbolism and remembrance in the Lord’s Supper. Perhaps you are right. Haven’t arrived at a conclusion, yet.

Protestants such, as AmateurPianist and myself, approach the issue from an entirely different perspective–one that is outside the Catholic belief regarding authority. That does not mean that I do not carefully consider the posts of Catholic friends kind enough to contribute to this discussion–I read, appreciate, and welcome Catholic responses and resources—as I share AmateurPianist’s search for truth in the issue.

I believe there is an element of mystery in the Lord’s Supper (as many Christians do). So, I consider the possibility that one who comes to the table of Communion (with a heart prepared for the Sacrament,) may receive a “Communion with Christ” beyond their understanding.

I do agree with you, to the extent that the Holy Spirit accomplishes the “communion with Christ” in the Lord’s Supper–through the mystery of this Holy Sacrament. I am slowly moving past a purely “remembrance” understanding of the Lord’s Supper. So, the fact that I am willing to acknowledge mystery in the Lord’s Supper is actually a big step for me.

Determining whether or not Holy Scripture supports, or points to, the change of the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is the very purpose of this Thread. However, since the question is posed to Protestants (Baptists specifically–where are the Baptists?); we have to set aside the issue of the authority of the Catholic Church (at least for a moment); and consider what the Scriptures say.

Keep in mind, I do acknowledge the role of tradition in interpretation of Scripture. However, Baptists and many Protestants do not. So, we have to start with Scripture, and hope this will eventually lead to the consideration of tradition.

Steve, in considering your comments; the logical question from a Protestant perspective, would be: if the Holy Spirit effectuates the change of the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, by repeating the words of Jesus; and this is not dependent upon the faith or even the holiness of the priest—why would it not be possible for the Holy Spirit to respond to the prayer of a Protestant Minister, who repeats the words of Christ before administering the Lord’s Supper? This question is posed through the lens of Protestantism. Again, I am simply thinking out loud: and pose the question to myself, as I pose it to you and others in the discussion.

So much to read and consider. I need another cup of coffee. lol :coffeeread:

I’ll get back to your other points, a bit later. I really appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, Steve.

Anna

Rather than just shooting from the hip here, I’ll try to get you something substantial, but it will require more time than I have at the moment. You ask some excellent questions. One thing I will say is that our Church believes that Protestants can enter into a spiritual communion so that it is not a fruitless effort. Anyway, I’ll get back to you.